Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutGI Pilot Final Report - Appendix A-OAPPENDIX A CSO LONG-TERM CONTROL PLAN – CHAPTER 12 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-1 February 2011 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM 12.1 Introduction As described in Sections 8.4.7 and 11.2.7 of this report, MSD’s selected combined sewer overflow (CSO) control alternative involves cost-effective gray infrastructure for urban streams and an enhanced green infrastructure program for CSOs that are directly tributary to the Mississippi River. This section of the Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) describes the green infrastructure program for reduction of CSOs, particularly for the Mississippi River CSOs where extensive redevelopment is forecasted. Gray infrastructure controls will reduce untreated overflows to Maline Creek and the River Des Peres to an average of four events in a typical year. These controls will also significantly reduce CSO loadings to the Mississippi River. As presented in Section 8, gray infrastructure for Mississippi River CSOs requires a minimum expenditure of $1 billion and perhaps as much as $4.3 billion. Also, as discussed in Section 3, water quality standards are met in the Mississippi River under existing conditions. The selected alternative therefore primarily uses green infrastructure controls for CSOs that discharge to the Mississippi River. Successes with these efforts will also be considered for other locations within MSD’s service area. Green infrastructure refers to constructed projects that re-direct stormwater from reaching sewers by capturing and diverting it to locations where it is detained, infiltrated into the ground, evaporated, taken up by plants, or reused. The use of plant materials to facilitate uptake and improve stormwater quality makes these practices literally green; their ability to provide more sustainable wet weather flow management by reducing energy consumption and carbon footprint makes them figuratively green. MSD’s selected alternative includes $100 million in green infrastructure investments over a period of 23 years to reduce CSOs and improve water quality. This amounts to a green infrastructure investment equivalent to 5.5 percent of MSD’s CSO control investment, which is in the range of green infrastructure investment that other Midwestern utilities are making in their CSO control plans. For example, Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky has proposed green infrastructure investment valued at about 3.5 percent of their total program cost and Kansas City, Missouri has proposed green infrastructure investment worth approximately 8 percent of their planned program. The overall objective for MSD’s green infrastructure program is to identify and implement projects and programs that will significantly reduce CSOs and provide additional environmental benefit. A program goal is to reduce CSO overflow volumes to the Mississippi River by 10 percent. This goal will be updated based on the results of projects comprising the pilot phase of the program. A successful model for implementation of a green infrastructure program will incorporate some adaptive management components, whereby data will be used to evaluate performance and these data will inform future decisions about refining the green infrastructure approaches. 12.1.1 Reasons for Incorporating Green Infrastructure in MSD’s LTCP MSD will use green infrastructure as part of the LTCP as an effective component of an overall water quality improvement strategy for the following reasons: EPA promotes the use of green infrastructure in CSO LTCPs; green infrastructure practices can be economical, environmentally-friendly, and sustainable complements to traditional CSO control techniques; and the public supports a measured green infrastructure program. In addition to being a potentially significant element of MSD’s CSO control program, there are a number of additional reasons for incorporating green infrastructure into MSD’s CSO control plan, including those described below. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-2 February 2011 12.1.1.1 US EPA Endorsement of Green Infrastructure The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other organizations published a Statement of Support for Green Infrastructure in 2007 to bring together organizations that recognize the benefits of the use of green infrastructure to mitigate sewer overflows and reduce stormwater pollution (EPA et al., 2007). EPA encourages implementation of green infrastructure in CSO, SSO, and stormwater programs. EPA’s goals for green infrastructure implementation include: • Development of models to quantify stormwater storage and infiltration potential. • Monitoring to verify CSO, SSO, and stormwater discharge reductions. • Quantification of life-cycle costs. • Increased federal, state, and local funding for green infrastructure initiatives. • Elimination of barriers to the incorporation of green infrastructure in sewer programs. • Preparation of guidance documents to assist in the development of green infrastructure initiatives. • Development of green infrastructure programs to incorporate into CSO and SSO permits, management, operations, maintenance plans, and consent decrees. EPA is promoting the use of green infrastructure particularly in urban environments where the environmental damage associated with traditional development is more extensive (EPA, 2009). The incorporation of green infrastructure into MSD’s LTCP supports EPA’s endorsement of green infrastructure for wet weather planning. 12.1.1.2 Ancillary Benefits of Non-Conventional Solutions to CSO Control Green infrastructure implementation is considered a non-conventional approach to CSO control because it is a fairly recent concept in comparison to traditional gray infrastructure systems. Its implementation as part of major cities’ long-term control plans has occurred only in the past few years. Nonetheless, in addition to reducing wet weather flows, green infrastructure solutions to CSO control can have many ancillary benefits. These benefits can include supplementing redevelopment efforts, helping to alleviate CSO funding constraints, and providing aesthetic, educational, and recreational benefits to communities. As such, the inclusion of green infrastructure as an appropriate element of CSO LTCPs is becoming increasingly common. One aspect of green infrastructure that makes it appropriate for use in CSO long-term control planning is the fact that it can be readily incorporated into urban development and redevelopment. Integration of green infrastructure into these projects is often more economical than retrofitting existing properties and it can offset the increased wet weather loads that conventional development/redevelopment projects create. EPA concluded in a recent study (Field, 2009) that even as stand-alone projects, green solutions can in many cases be implemented less expensively than conventionally engineered drainage systems. Major costs of green infrastructure are acquisition of land and system installation (Field, 2009). Green solutions can provide insulation for buildings and mitigate urban heat island effects, decreasing utility costs. Conventional systems can be less expensive initially, but require more in terms of maintenance. The overall life cycle cost of green technology can therefore be much less. Finally, green infrastructure provides benefits beyond runoff reduction. Green solutions are generally viewed as more aesthetically pleasing than traditional stormwater conveyance systems. Landscape features including shrubs, grass, herbs, and wildflowers can be part of systems that manage runoff. Green infrastructure adds green space to cities, increases recreational opportunities, creates wildlife habitat, increases groundwater recharge, improves air quality, increases property values, enhances urban quality of life, and improves human health (EPA, 2009). Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-3 February 2011 12.1.1.3 Public Support for Green Infrastructure The public engagement and stakeholder involvement process undertaken by MSD as part of the LTCP development indicates that there is widespread public and stakeholder support for green infrastructure. The public engagement process included: 1) key stakeholder interviews, 2) the establishment of a Stakeholder Advisory Committee, 3) stakeholder and community presentations, and 4) public open houses. Overall, the purpose of these activities was to educate the public about existing sewer conditions and the sewer overflow issue; review options for reducing combined sewer overflows; identify the public’s preferred options; and explore opportunities for additional action by MSD and the public. Some details of the public input process related to green infrastructure are discussed below. Stakeholder Advisory Committee During their consideration of CSO control options, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee members voiced support of a general watershed approach to implement green infrastructure as part of the LTCP. They emphasized the need to complete preliminary research and appropriate a portion of the budget for testing the effectiveness of green infrastructure. The Committee also favored minimizing “greenwashing,” a term used to describe the practice of spinning products and policies as environmentally friendly when they are not, a deceptive use of green marketing. The stakeholders were also concerned about the high cost of traditional controls for CSOs discharging to the Mississippi River. The committee instead supported aggressive green infrastructure implementation for these CSOs. However, the committee recognized the need to research information and monitor effectiveness to identify the most effective practices so that money was not wasted on ineffective practices. Public Open Houses MSD has documented the results of their 13 public open house sessions designed to involve the public and gauge their opinions on MSD’s CSO mitigation efforts and LTCP contents. During this process, the public expressed their preference for “Knee-of-Curve on Urban Streams plus Enhanced Green Program on the Mississippi River” as the level of control MSD should implement as part of its LTCP. The following were prioritized as most important: 1) make waterways safer for the people who use or live by them; 2) reduce the frequency of sewer overflows; 3) keep sewer rates as affordable as possible; 4) make waterways healthier for fish/wildlife; and 5) include green infrastructure as part of the project. The public’s comments on actions they would like MSD to take can be broadly categorized into education, working with others, and funding: Education • Provide brochures and educational programs to promote rain barrels, porous pavement, and other green infrastructure practices, as bill inserts. • Educate school children, and increase public service announcements on radio and TV as well as segments on local news. • Provide consistent and continuous communication of MSD’s actions and dangers of inaction. • Document the success or failure of green infrastructure demonstration projects, and make this information available to the public. Working with Others • Work with developers to implement construction practices that decrease runoff. • Work with cities to use rain gardens for street medians. • Work with highway departments to reduce runoff. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-4 February 2011 Funding • Increase sewer bill rates modestly to fund CSO elimination measures. • Seek federal or other matching grants. • Along with green roofs and pervious pavement, issue a credit on stormwater bills for a customer’s rain gardens and rain barrels. • Provide incentives so that the public’s cost of green infrastructure implementation is low. • Charge much higher rates for large volume industrial users. • Some members of the public believe that green infrastructure measures are too costly, and that St. Louis should not try to comply with the EPA’s CSO requests. In general, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee’s and the public’s comments align well. Both emphasize a desire for more green practices, public outreach and education opportunities, and partnerships to alleviate costs. The public is in favor of green infrastructure implementation as part of the LTCP as long as the projects do not put a great deal of a financial burden on the ratepayers. The public would like to become more educated on how they can be involved in the effort to implement green infrastructure into their homes and businesses. Some parties would like green infrastructure expanded to the entire MSD service area, not just the combined sewer service area. 12.1.2 The Role of Green Infrastructure in MSD’s LTCP To reduce CSOs, MSD must establish waterway priorities and identify the option or Level of Control that best carries out these priorities (see Section 8.1). MSD, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and the public considered five Levels of Control. Two of the scenarios involve the expandability of CSO controls to include green infrastructure. The selected alternative, Scenario 3 (Knee-of-Curve on Urban Streams plus Enhanced Green Program on the Mississippi River), involves some of the funding for gray infrastructure practices being diverted to green infrastructure initiatives. This scenario was developed due to stakeholders’ concern about the high cost of traditional controls for CSOs discharging to the Mississippi River. Significant opportunities for green infrastructure implementation exist in the areas tributary to the Mississippi River, including the Bissell Point and Lemay service areas. Features include large impervious parking areas that could be converted to green parking and significant amounts of vacant or abandoned property that can be retrofitted to reduce stormwater volumes reaching the combined sewer system (CSS). 12.2 Potential Green Infrastructure Opportunities in MSD’s CSS Area MSD commissioned a preliminary study of green infrastructure in the Bissell Point service area to evaluate the potential for green infrastructure to reduce discharges from 11 target CSOs representing approximately 90% of the total average annual CSO volume from the Bissell Point CSS (LimnoTech, 2009). The study was used to identify green infrastructure techniques that may be applicable in the main Bissell Point CSO drainage areas. The study also identified retrofit opportunities and their potential to reduce CSO volumes and peak rates. There are several significant challenges in implementing these green infrastructure measures, chiefly because opportunities for green infrastructure are, for the most part, located on property that is not owned by MSD. The study found that the green infrastructure techniques that are likely to be most applicable in MSD’s CSS areas include green roofs, bioretention, green streets, green parking retrofits, rain barrels, and site- scale and neighborhood-scale stormwater retrofitting. Because of the soil types in the CSS areas, rapid infiltration techniques are not recommended and are therefore not presented as part of the LTCP. Site- scale and neighborhood-scale stormwater retrofitting are particularly attractive techniques in that they Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-5 February 2011 take advantage of redevelopment of vacant and underused properties that are owned by the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). The LRA is an agency of the City of St. Louis whose mission is to acquire properties that have undergone tax foreclosure and facilitate their transition back to productive use. Three of the eleven target CSO drainage areas studied (037 Palm, 038 Branch, and 047 Harlem) appear to have the greatest potential for green infrastructure to reduce CSO. These drainage areas contain large amounts of LRA lands, with Harlem having the most. Also, CSO drainage area 016, Old Mill Creek, located in downtown St. Louis, is able to yield a significant CSO response due to reductions in imperviousness despite the restriction on the amount of land available for stormwater retrofits. Aerial photography was used to identify the types of opportunities appropriate in each drainage area. GIS was used to quantify areas, distances, and counts of relevant features to allow estimation of green infrastructure benefits in reducing imperviousness. Details will vary block to block in each of these service areas. The 11 CSOs that were studied are estimated to discharge a total of 108 million gallons in a 4 month synoptic storm. If all of the green infrastructure retrofit measures outlined in the report were implemented, this volume could be reduced by approximately 12.5 million gallons (11.6%). In addition, supplemental hydraulic modeling of the Harlem CSO (Outfall 047) drainage area was conducted to evaluate annual CSO volume reduction. This supplemental analysis indicates that reduction of impervious areas through green infrastructure has the potential to significantly reduce CSO volume during a typical year (see Figure 12-1). The example in Figure 12-1 shows that a 20% reduction in imperviousness in the Harlem CSO drainage area could result in an annual CSO volume reduction of 225 million gallons and a peak overflow reduction of 229 million gallons per day. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that green infrastructure has the potential to substantially contribute to CSO control and to potentially reduce the size of traditional control measures. Further work is needed to validate these results, identify specific project opportunities, and develop estimates of project costs, but the preliminary results indicate that green infrastructure can significantly reduce some CSOs. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%CSO Peak Flow (MGD)CSO Volume (MG)Impervious Reduction Modeled Annual Reductions in the Harlem CSO (047) CSO Volume (MG)CSO Peak Flow (MGD) Figure 12-1 CSO Volume Reduction in the Harlem CSO Drainage Area Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-6 February 2011 12.3 The St. Louis Green Infrastructure Program MSD is planning an ambitious $100 million green infrastructure program over the next 23 years to complement gray infrastructure investment. The planned program is described in this section and consists of: • Leadership • Public education and outreach • Continuation of the rain barrel program • Completion of ongoing projects • A stormwater retrofitting program utilizing green infrastructure 12.3.1 MSD as a Green Infrastructure Leader Leadership is important to promote the acceptance and use of green infrastructure in the St. Louis community. Although the focus of green infrastructure investment as part of the LTCP will naturally be in the combined sewer service area, there is potential for evaluating green infrastructure elsewhere. It is likely that efforts could result in water quality improvements in receiving waters outside of the combined sewer service area, as well. MSD will use resources to evaluate the benefits of green infrastructure throughout its entire service area by implementing projects and programs, monitoring their outcomes, and publicizing the results. Sharing of information about these projects and programs will not only educate others about green infrastructure but will also provide information needed for wider scale implementation of these practices in the St. Louis area. 12.3.2 Public Education and Outreach MSD will involve the public in the process of implementing green infrastructure practices via education and engagement, as public support for these programs and projects has high importance. In addition, monthly stormwater fees are expected to increase from the current $0.14 per 100 square feet of impervious surface1. These fees will continue to fund much-needed wet weather controls throughout MSD’s service area. Public education will be important in explaining the rate increases and will provide a vehicle to show ratepayers how they can reduce their stormwater bill through their own green infrastructure projects. Several public outreach and education programs currently exist that can be leveraged to enhance public outreach, education, and involvement in green infrastructure, including the following: • ShowMe Rain Gardens Partners – MSD is currently partnered with the Soil & Water Conservation District of St. Louis, Missouri Botanical Garden, local governments, conservation agencies, private citizens, and corporations in the ShowMe Rain Gardens Program, a regional water quality initiative focused on promoting rain gardens as a means to water quality improvement and the mitigation of adverse stormwater impacts. MSD intends to continue this partnership and leverage it to promote green infrastructure throughout its service area. • Stream Teams – Three thousand Stream Teams have been established state-wide with an estimated 60,000 members working to improve nearly 15,000 miles of adopted local streams. Past Stream Team projects have been chosen according to each Team’s interests and local needs. Some pick up trash, plant trees, or stencil storm drains, while others monitor water quality or help educate their community. Biologists trained in stream management and water quality are available to provide guidance and answer questions. The program is sponsored by the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the Conservation Federation of Missouri. MSD coordinates 1 A recent challenge and adverse judgment over MSD’s impervious surface stormwater fees have created uncertainty over plans for future stormwater fees. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-7 February 2011 with these agencies and the Stream Teams, and will educate them about the benefits of green infrastructure and encourage the Teams to implement “grass roots” green infrastructure projects. • Clean Rivers Healthy Communities Program – MSD’s Clean Rivers Healthy Communities Program encourages the public to become part of the CSO control solution. The program is a multi- decade, multi-billion dollar initiative designed to improve the quality of the area’s rivers, streams, and creeks. The program offers an info-line at 314-768-CRHC and an informational website at www.cleanriversstl.com. The site gives residents, business owners, and municipalities, ways to implement green infrastructure techniques to become part of the Clean Rivers solution. MSD encourages the public to invite Clean Rivers representatives to present at local neighborhood or organizational meetings; attend public open houses; and participate in a Stream Team or Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events. This program will be used to provide green infrastructure education and to promote green infrastructure projects. • MSD Public Open Houses – As part of the Clean Rivers Healthy Communities Program, MSD conducted 13 open houses designed to educate the public about MSD’s CSO control efforts as well as ascertaining the public’s preferences regarding MSD’s establishment of waterway priorities and selection of wet weather overflow controls. The project team sought to maximize participation in the open houses by organizing meetings across the region – five in St. Louis City and eight in St. Louis County. Members of the public unable to attend one of the 13 open houses could participate virtually through an online forum. This successful format will be continued to provide information and to obtain public feedback on green infrastructure projects. • Landscape Guide for Stormwater Best Management Practices – MSD has developed the Landscape Guide for Stormwater Best Management Practice Design for St. Louis. This guide covers topics such as invasive species, site preparation, planting design, plant selection, installation, management and landscaping criteria, and plant selection for stormwater BMPs including wet ponds, wetlands, infiltration basins, dry swales, surface sand filters, bioretention, and organic filters. The guide will be updated to aid landscapers and developers in implementing green infrastructure practices. • St. Louis County Phase II Stormwater Management Plan – The St. Louis County Phase II Stormwater Management Plan outlines a public education program that involves the distribution of educational materials to the community, outreach activities relating to the impacts of stormwater discharges on water bodies, and steps the public can take to reduce pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff. MSD, the coordinating authority under the permit, has completed the following public outreach initiatives (MSD, 2007): – Distributing brochures on pet waste management, yard waste, impacts from businesses, and more. – Sponsoring a stormwater school article contest. – Developing a stormwater pollution prevention video. – Airing four stormwater infomercials. – Conducting seminars for small businesses. • Other Environmental Groups – In addition to the groups and programs outlined above, MSD plans to communicate with other environmental groups including, but not necessarily limited to, the River Des Peres Watershed Coalition and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. 12.3.3 Rain Barrel Program As part of the Phase II Stormwater Management Plan involving pollution prevention, MSD has offered its customers the opportunity to reduce stormwater runoff by purchasing 55-gallon rain barrels to collect and store rainwater. The pilot program offered rain barrels for $45, limiting orders to four barrels per customer. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-8 February 2011 The MSD rain barrel program drew an overwhelming response, with the District selling 1,558 barrels during the spring of 2009. This was more than five times the expected number of sales. MSD again offered rain barrels for sale to the public in 2010 with 1,210 units sold. Because of the overwhelming success of this program, and the potential for rain barrels to reduce residential runoff, MSD plans to extend the program as part of their overall wet weather control planning effort. 12.3.4 Ongoing Projects Several projects are already being conducted by MSD or with MSD’s involvement that incorporate elements of green infrastructure, including those described below. 12.3.4.1 Permeable Pavement Project The City of St. Louis Board of Public Service formed a partnership with MSD, the Missouri Department of Conservation, CH2M Hill, Southern Illinois University (SIUE), and East-West Gateway Council of Governments in mid-2007 to find ways to incorporate low impact development techniques into City of St. Louis projects. The team identified pervious paving as the first best management practice (BMP) to investigate due to the multiple benefits it provides and the ample opportunity to utilize the practice in City-owned projects (Yates, 2009). The City of St. Louis has approximately 485 miles of alleys, and is seeking to develop an alley replacement program to provide for pervious pavements to be constructed in lieu of the more conventional asphalt or concrete pavements. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of porous pavement on flow reduction and water quality improvement in combined sewers. The flows and water quality of samples taken from combined sewers at three alleys in the City of St. Louis are to be compared before and after porous pavements are implemented. The project consists of three phases: Phase I to monitor and characterize the flows and water quality under existing conditions; Phase II to design and construct the porous pavement; and Phase III to monitor and characterize the flows and water quality under improved conditions where low impact development has been implemented. The three pilot alleys were identified and equipment was installed to measure stormwater quantity and quality along with rainfall from May to July 2008. Results are currently being processed by SIUE. Phase II construction began with the permeable asphalt alley, which was completed in October 2008. Funding for the pervious concrete alley is being provided by the Ward 6 Alderwoman, Kacie Starr-Triplett. Funding is still being secured for construction of the permeable paver alley. This pilot study data will be used to support a change in City of St. Louis policy to potentially require pervious paving in its alleys citywide. The data will also be used to promote change in private developments and other City paving projects where appropriate. The results will be used by MSD to determine if permeable pavements can be used as a BMP either in junction with other BMPs or as a stand-alone BMP. 12.3.4.2 Horseshoe Project In 1952, prior to the formation of MSD, the City of St. Louis conducted a study to address flooding issues in the Harlem and Baden watersheds. The study recommended construction of a relief tunnel system that would intercept flow from the four main trunk lines and convey the intercepted flow to the Mississippi River. The City was unable to acquire sufficient funds to construct the relief tunnel. After a similar 2003 study conducted by Black & Veatch, the District requested the firm to develop a master plan to identify less expensive projects that could address local area flooding issues to be incorporated Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO LTCP Update SECTION 12. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Page 12-9 February 2011 into the overall relief plan for the Harlem and Baden watersheds. The Hebert Stormwater Detention Basin and Sewer Separation project was identified as such a project. The Hebert Stormwater Detention Basin and Sewer Separation Project (the Horseshoe Project) offers dual benefits to the community in terms of reduced volume and frequency of CSOs and local flooding. The project involves stormwater detention, which results in stormwater being released slowly into the CSS, as well as some sewer separation. The site is located south of Interstate 70 approximately eight miles northwest of downtown St. Louis, within the Harlem and Baden watersheds. The stormwater detention basin will be located in the City of St. Louis, at the confluence of the 12 foot horseshoe-shaped South Harlem Trunk Sewer (upstream drainage area 841 acres) and an 8 foot diameter tributary combined sewer (upstream drainage area 311 acres). Sewer separation will occur in the catchment area served by the 8 foot diameter tributary sewer. MSD is conducting a study to provide a preliminary design to separate stormwater runoff from the existing combined trunk sewers and detain 20 year stormwater runoff in a new proposed detention basin at the downstream end of the project area. The proposed detention basin will be approximately nine acres and have a capacity of 2,463,500 cubic feet. The basin will detain stormwater runoff from the 311 acre catchment area currently served by an existing 8 foot diameter combined sewer. The project is estimated to cost $26 million. Currently, property acquisition is underway. A church owns several of the properties needed by MSD. These properties have parking lots on them. MSD is planning to buy replacement properties, build pervious parking lots on them, and conduct a property exchange with the church. A preliminary sketch of the proposed parking lot layout has been drafted by MSD. The parking lots are estimated to be built within a year. Preliminary designs of the sewer separation and detention basin have been drafted. MSD anticipates an 18 month final design period followed by construction beginning several years from now. 12.3.5 Stormwater Retrofitting Green Infrastructure Program One of the challenges to implementing green infrastructure that has been identified is that MSD does not own the property where green infrastructure could be implemented. Also, while MSD has qualified legal authority to require detention and control release rates, local municipalities have legal authority for other land use/zoning regulations that influence the generation of stormwater. MSD has been actively working to meet these challenges, and is presently engaged with parties that would allow for a large number of site-scale and neighborhood-scale stormwater retrofitting projects under MSD’s $100 million commitment to green infrastructure. An initial 5-year pilot program commits a minimum of $3 million to perform stormwater retrofitting utilizing green infrastructure on properties currently owned by the Land Reutilization Authority. A diversity of green infrastructure practices will be used to build implementation experience and evaluate the performance of various types of practices. The pilot program will include monitoring of selected projects to evaluate performance of the green infrastructure controls. The pilot program is intended to test and resolve the numerous anticipated regulatory, logistical and financial aspects of the projects among the multiple stakeholders. The pilot program will also provide data to inform development of the full-scale implementation of the green infrastructure program. Appendix Q provides additional details of the program. APPENDIX B CSO LONG-TERM CONTROL PLAN – APPENDIX Q Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-1 Introduction MSD’s Long Term Control Plan outlines a green infrastructure program as part of the selected long-term CSO controls. The overall goals of the green infrastructure program, as stated in the LTCP, are to “identify and implement projects and programs that will significantly reduce CSOs and provide additional environmental benefit,” as well as reduce CSO overflow volumes to the Mississippi River by 10 percent. Green infrastructure projects will redirect stormwater from reaching the combined sewer system by capturing and diverting it to locations where it is detained, infiltrated into the ground, evaporated, taken up by plants and transpired, or reused. Green infrastructure was selected as an important component of the long-term control plan for addressing areas with CSOs that discharge directly to the Mississippi River for several reasons including:  MSD shares with other jurisdictions in the Mississippi River Basin the goal of enhancing water quality in the Mississippi River;  Green infrastructure can help reduce flows into the system and reduce CSO discharge volumes; and  Extensive redevelopment is anticipated in the areas tributary to these CSOs, thereby creating opportunities to remedy runoff issues. Based on the results of the pilot program, MSD will if necessary, in the pilot program final report, update the goal for the full-scale green infrastructure program for discharge volume reduction from the CSOs in the MSD service area tributary to the Mississippi River. This goal, subject to revision as the full-scale program is implemented, will be a target against which to measure the effects of MSD’s green infrastructure implementation. MSD will propose a methodology to measure progress toward this goal as part of the plan for the full-scale implementation of the $100 million green infrastructure program. Challenges One of the challenges to implementing green infrastructure that has been identified in the LTCP is that MSD does not own the property where green infrastructure could be implemented under this program. Also, while MSD has qualified legal authority to require detention and control release rates, local municipalities have legal authority for other land use/zoning regulations that influence the generation of stormwater. MSD has been actively working to meet these challenges, and is presently engaged in discussions with parties that would allow for a large number of site-scale and neighborhood-scale stormwater retrofitting projects under MSD’s $100 million commitment to green infrastructure. These types of projects were included in the LTCP and are discussed in the preliminary study of green infrastructure in the Bissell Point service area. Stormwater Retrofitting and Initial Pilot Program The scope of the ongoing discussions involves an initial 5-year $3 million pilot program. The scope of the pilot program would be to perform stormwater retrofitting utilizing green infrastructure on properties in the Bissell Point service area that are currently owned by the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). The LRA is one of the City of St. Louis’ seven economic development authorities. It receives title to all tax delinquent properties in the City of St. Louis that are not sold at Sheriffs’ sales. It also receives title to properties through donations. These properties are maintained, marketed, and ultimately sold by the Real Estate Department of the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC). SLDC is an umbrella, not- for-profit corporation organized under Chapter 355 of the Missouri State Code, with the mission of fostering economic development and growth in the City through increased job and business opportunities and expansion of the City’s tax base. Under the proposed stormwater retrofitting program, MSD would Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-2 not take ownership of any property except as noted below under the paragraph titled Neighborhood- scale development – multiple lots. MSD anticipates that the stormwater retrofitting process will take three forms: 1. Site-scale development – single lots with habitable structures: MSD will construct source control facilities to capture runoff from the lot’s impervious area. The facilities will, if possible, be oversized to capture some runoff from adjacent impervious areas such as streets and alleyways. The source control facilities may include bioretention, green streets, curb extensions, pervious paving, and other similar controls as deemed appropriate. These facilities will be constructed within easements that will be recorded with the property. The initial facilities will be constructed to require low cost maintenance by the SLDC. Once the property is purchased by the future developer/owner, the source control facilities may be enhanced or relocated on the property as long as the effectiveness of the facility (i.e., the performance of the site in terms of runoff volumes and rates) is not compromised. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the new owner, and will be based on operation and maintenance guidelines provided by MSD. 2. Site-scale development – single or multiple lots with uninhabitable structures: MSD will pay for the demolition of the structures on the lots. In return, MSD will be allowed to construct source control facilities to capture runoff from the future redeveloped impervious footprint. The facilities will, if possible, be oversized to capture some runoff from adjacent impervious areas such as streets and alleyways. The source control facilities may include bioretention, green streets, curb extensions, pervious paving, and other similar controls as deemed appropriate. These facilities will be constructed within easements on single or multiple lots that will be recorded with the property. In addition, limits will be placed on the effective impervious area of any future building construction on the properties. The initial facilities will be constructed to require low cost maintenance by the SLDC. Once the property is purchased by the future developer/owner, the source control facilities may be enhanced or relocated on the property, as long as the performance of the site (in terms of the effective impervious area and the amount of runoff from the property) is not compromised. Deed restrictions will be established to limit the effective impervious area and/or the corresponding runoff rate and volume from the property, ensuring that the completed site will meet the intended design/performance criteria. Because MSD will acquire appropriate rights to the properties that are part of this program, it will be able to enforce the proper future use of these properties. Should the future developer/owner wish to relocate, enlarge or enhance the source control facilities, that developer/owner may do so at its own expense, provided that the new or enhanced facilities meet MSD’s standards. MSD’s plan review process will provide the mechanism for performing the verification that MSD’s standards are being met. Any costs incurred by future owners/developers in modifying green infrastructure will not count toward MSD’s $100 million commitment. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the new owner, and will be based on operation and maintenance guidelines provided by MSD. 3. Neighborhood-scale development – multiple lots: MSD will purchase property sufficient to locate source controls to capture runoff from future neighborhood-scale developments, with limited possible building demolition. MSD will construct the source control facilities to capture runoff from the future redeveloped impervious footprints and the adjacent roadways and alleyways. Limits will be placed on the future impervious footprint of any future building construction. The green infrastructure facilities can be much more sophisticated since MSD will own them and be maintaining them, and they can serve as a showcase for the program. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-3 All properties identified for the pilot program, whether or not they are subject to demolition activities as part of this program, need to be evaluated for soil or other remediation to meet the green infrastructure performance goals set for that property. As noted above, in some cases buildings will be demolished in conjunction with green infrastructure implementation on a parcel. In some cases preparing sites for green infrastructure where demolitions have occurred may involve raking out of larger rock material and/or amending soils with organic matter to facilitate infiltration and plant growth. MSD and/or collaborating organizations may seek outside funding sources for demolition work (and potentially for other aspects of this green infrastructure program). Accounting for external funding contributing to green infrastructure implementation during the pilot phase and the full-scale program is discussed below. The initial pilot program is intended to test and resolve the numerous anticipated regulatory, logistical, and financial aspects of the projects among the multiple stakeholders. The SLDC, the City entity cooperating with MSD in the execution of the pilot program, has the resources needed to coordinate this effort with other activities in the area. The pilot program will give a real-life test of the delivery mechanisms needed to execute a program such as this. It is anticipated that the funding level provided under the pilot program will be able to mitigate between 200 and 400 properties1. The pilot program will be comprised of the following activities:  Collection of information on the locations, sizes, existing development (structures, impervious area), soils characteristics, general land elevations and slopes, adjacent properties, adjacent streets and alleyways, and other characteristics deemed necessary to evaluate and design stormwater retrofits. MSD will work with partners to access existing data collected/managed by other entities. Data collection efforts will be largely focused on those properties identified by the City of St. Louis with near-term potential either for structure demolition (elimination of impervious area) or being marketed for redevelopment. Focusing on properties with structures to be demolished, or where redevelopment is imminent, provides for immediate or near-term reductions in impervious area that is directly tributary to the combined sewer system. Building green infrastructure on vacant properties to support longer-term future development can also produce significant runoff volume reductions depending on the condition of the vacant property. For example amending the soil on a grassy lot can in many cases provide comparable reductions to the elimination of impervious surface. Thus MSD will not prioritize sites based solely on the expected improvements in the hydraulic model that elimination of impervious surface will achieve.  Information will be gathered and discussions will be held to work out the logistics of the process for providing stormwater retrofits on the properties. These discussions will focus on defining the activities needed to complete the stormwater retrofit planning, design, construction, maintenance, and monitoring. The goal is to make sure that all parties understand their roles in performing or supporting each activity. Potential pitfalls will be identified, and a methodology established to work through problems when they are encountered.  MSD will conduct public education/workshops and outreach in neighborhoods where projects will be undertaken during the pilot phase. MSD’s pilot program will utilize the existing public 1 The “200 to 400 properties” is therefore considered by MSD to be an estimate rather than a firm conclusion as to the extent of the pilot program. The estimated range of 200 to 400 properties is based on average LRA-owned parcel sizes and typical costs per acre for green infrastructure implementation. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-4 outreach mechanisms (including public input meetings, commission meetings, public hearings, website and printed communications) of the participating City agencies to conduct education and outreach to the extent such mechanisms ensure public understanding of project plans and effectively solicit public input. Any modifications to these public outreach practices proposed for the full-scale green infrastructure program, based on experience during the pilot phase, will be included in the pilot program final report.  Priorities will be established to define which properties will be addressed in the pilot program and future phases of the program. Priorities used to plan and implement projects in the pilot phase will be evaluated as part of the final report on the pilot program and priorities will be refined/revised, as appropriate, in the plan for the implementation for the full-scale $100 million program.  Easements will be acquired for the permanent improvements on the properties, and necessary deed restrictions will be recorded.  Projects in the pilot phase will include a diversity of green infrastructure practices, to build implementation experience and evaluate the performance of various types of practices.  Green infrastructure technologies to accomplish stormwater retrofits will be designed. This work may include property and topographical surveying, soils testing, identification and evaluation of alternatives, preliminary and final design, design approvals, and permitting as required. MSD will document the existing conditions of each site that is selected for implementation of green infrastructure practice(s). MSD will use the design criteria from its Phase II stormwater program as a starting point for the green infrastructure program. All components of the existing (Phase II stormwater) program, including design criteria, construction methods, and communication tools, will be evaluated during the pilot program for their effectiveness in executing the program. MSD will include the locations and conditions of sewer laterals as a consideration in the design of green infrastructure facilities. MSD will consider a diversity of different green infrastructure practices and apply those as applicable to each individual lot. As part of the pilot program’s design phase MSD will evaluate the feasibility of routing water from off-site impervious surfaces to the green infrastructure practices. The results of these design analyses will be used to inform the development of the plan for full-scale green infrastructure implementation. MSD will include, in the full-scale green infrastructure plan, information on proposed green infrastructure design standards, tailored to CSO control needs, and taking into account design, implementation, and monitoring of projects during the pilot program. As with other design aspects, MSD will consider new technologies and the results of green infrastructure evaluations in other similar communities in the development of its full-scale program.  Projects will be advertised, bid, and contracts for demolition and/or construction let and administered. Construction inspections, as appropriate, will ensure that projects are built to meet the design intent. MSD will record and maintain as-built information for each project so that attributes such as the area of impervious surface draining to the project and capacity of the green infrastructure practice(s) will be documented for each project.  Long-term maintenance requirements for the green infrastructure and responsibilities will be defined and provided for. MSD has experience with a program of this type through its development of the Phase II stormwater program in the area served by separate sewers. MSD will use the lessons learned from that program to help plan for and ensure implementation of green infrastructure maintenance. Maintenance plans will be developed for each property receiving green infrastructure. These plans will be made available to the public/private owner of the site and to the organization that will be responsible for maintenance (MSD staff, or the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-5 private/public owner, or a third party, as determined). Sites where green infrastructure has been implemented will be inspected periodically to assure that they are functioning as designed and are being properly maintained. A confirmation of inspection will be provided to the private/public owner along with information on any maintenance that is to be or was conducted by MSD. Any adjustments to the processes/procedures borrowed from the Phase II stormwater program that are needed to accommodate this green infrastructure program will be identified during the pilot program.  Monitoring of selected green infrastructure projects will be conducted to determine project effectiveness. This task will include definition of which projects are to be monitored, monitoring parameters, timeframes, and protocols. It is expected that, for the most part, pilot projects will fall into certain categories such as lot types (i.e., single lot with habitable structure, single or multiple lots with uninhabitable structures, or neighborhood-scale development) and/or green infrastructure installation types (i.e., pervious pavement, rain garden). MSD will develop a monitoring plan/protocol for each type of pilot project that is identified in the pilot program. MSD will not monitor every project, but rather MSD will monitor project types to support performance evaluation. The monitoring plan/protocol will include an assessment of the sample size of each pilot program type necessary to monitor to ensure representative data. MSD will submit green infrastructure monitoring plans/protocols to governmental plaintiffs, with a copy to the Coalition. Even with this categorization of project types, it is possible other types of projects may be identified or that specific circumstances of any given project may require customization of monitoring plans. Performance monitoring will be designed to evaluate the reduction of stormwater runoff volumes and/or peak flows from the project site. Therefore, in general, pilot project monitoring will include sufficient monitoring to describe the hydrologic performance of the project. This will include rainfall monitoring in conjunction with monitoring of either local (on-project) stormwater storage or runoff outflow from the project. The scale, location, and density of data collection will be dictated by the nature of each project. In some cases, monitoring will be restricted to the site. In other cases, it may be necessary (where feasible) to monitor at a block or neighborhood scale. MSD will monitor each project type during the pilot phase to evaluate performance. MSD intends to conduct a monitoring review every six months during the pilot project, to assess the need for continuation of the monitoring of each project type. Factors such as project condition, variability of precipitation events monitored to date, and data quality will be considered in assessing the need for continued monitoring to support full-scale implementation. MSD will provide annual reports to MDNR/EPA on monitoring activities and will notify MDNR/EPA if MSD preliminarily determines sufficient monitoring has been conducted at any one site/project type. Upon completion of the pilot phase, MSD will compile a pilot program final report. In that report, MSD will include a full review and evaluation of the pilot monitoring data to inform full-scale program implementation. MSD intends to use an adaptive management approach in implementing its full-scale green infrastructure program. Following completion of the green infrastructure pilot program, MSD will submit to governmental plaintiffs, for review and approval, with a copy to the Coalition, a final report on the pilot program that includes:  A detailed description of the activities and work performed as part of the pilot program, including specific information about type, number, size, and location of green infrastructure technologies included in the pilot program. MSD will provide, in the pilot program report, details on the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-6 location, design, and costs for each stormwater control implemented. Maps will be included in the report showing the locations where green infrastructure practices were implemented.  Summary information on maintenance and inspection activities carried out.  An evaluation of the effectiveness, implementability, and costs of the green infrastructure technologies included in the pilot program. This final report will include analyses of how the various types of practices implemented at various locations performed in terms of reducing flows into the sewer system.  Monitoring data from all sampling activities at all locations that were monitored under the pilot program. Monitoring data may be provided as a spreadsheet or database file in an electronic format. Monitoring data should be accompanied by geographic coordinates locating the specific green infrastructure installations.  A summary of community reaction to/support for green infrastructure.  An identification of potential community benefits associated with green infrastructure implementation in the MSD service area, based on input received during education and outreach activities, and based on analyses performed by other sewer districts/municipalities (e.g., the Philadelphia “Triple Bottom Line” analysis). The listing of potential community benefits will include, as appropriate, socio-economic benefits and neighborhood stabilization benefits. These are co-benefits that may be realized through implementation of the green infrastructure program, in addition to the CSO control benefits.  An evaluation of any barriers to green infrastructure implementation encountered by MSD during the pilot program, including as appropriate land ownership/easement issues, land use/zoning requirements, local opposition, and stormwater ordinances. The report will include recommendations, as appropriate, to deal with barriers and facilitate green infrastructure implementation through the duration of the CSO control program.  An evaluation of opportunities that presented themselves during the pilot program to coordinate the installation of green infrastructure more closely with actual redevelopment activities. This evaluation will include assessment of coordination issues, cost impacts, and any differences in benefits achieved by such coordination efforts.  Updated/refined green infrastructure design standards, taking into account design, implementation, and monitoring of projects during the pilot phase.  An analysis of if/how hydrologic models used to quantify flow volumes and runoff hydrographs, and/or the hydraulic models used to simulate system performance at the sewershed scale, need to be updated/refined and calibrated to take into account the effects of the green infrastructure program. MSD does not intend to update and calibrate its CSO model at a “lot-level” to reflect the pilot program projects.  A plan, based upon the results of the pilot program, for the full-scale implementation of the $100 million green infrastructure program, including reporting of progress in the annual progress reports discussed under Section 11.5 of the Long-Term Control Plan. MSD will revise and finalize the final report and the plan for the full-scale implementation of the green infrastructure program reflecting comments provided by governmental plaintiffs. MSD will post the final report and the plan and other pertinent green infrastructure documents on its website. MSD will include hotlinks to key sections/pages of the report (e.g., maps showing locations of green infrastructure Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-7 practices) to provide a user-friendly interface for stakeholders and the public to find information of interest to them in the report. MSD will also update, based on the results of the pilot program, its design guide titled “Landscape Guide for Stormwater Best Management Practice Design” that will aid landscapers and developers in implementing green infrastructure practices. MSD will integrate information obtained from its CSO- related green infrastructure implementation into its existing MS4 education and outreach and public participation materials. Early Action Program MSD anticipates a 5-year period for complete implementation and reporting on the pilot program. In general, work to be done to implement the full-scale green infrastructure program will be based on the green infrastructure plan. However, there may be projects that are identified by MSD and can be agreed upon as being high priority projects suitable for early implementation even before the green infrastructure plan is finalized and approved. When MSD identifies a project or a group of similar projects that it believes is appropriate for early implementation (i.e., to be initiated prior to finalization and approval of the green infrastructure plan) the District will propose this project or group of similar projects as an “early action” project(s) by submitting a written proposal to MDNR/EPA, with a copy to the Coalition. Information shall be provided in a concise format on the design parameters, costs, and schedule, as well as the reasons the project or group of similar projects is being proposed as an early action project. Within 45 days, MDNR/EPA will review and either approve, tentatively approve, tentatively disapprove, or disapprove the project(s) as an early action project(s). If MDNR/EPA do not respond within 45 days, the proposed early action project, or group of early action projects, is deemed approved. If MDNR/EPA tentatively approve or tentatively disapprove a proposed early action project(s), MDNR/EPA will provide comments, questions or other requests for information as expeditiously as possible to MSD. MSD will either respond or may decide to drop the project as an early action project. After tentative approval or disapproval, the process for exchanging information shall not exceed 90 days from the date of MSD’s original submittal unless agreed to by MSD and MDNR/EPA. A final approval or disapproval action will be taken by the end of the 90-day period. If MDNR/EPA concurs that a project(s) is appropriate as an early action project(s), costs incurred directly related to the project(s) will count toward the $100 million green infrastructure commitment. Full-Scale Green Infrastructure Program It is estimated that the LRA and its sister agencies (Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority and the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority) currently own approximately 10,000 properties within the City of St. Louis. The City encompasses a total of approximately 129,000 properties. Of that total, approximately 72,000 properties are located in the Bissell Point service area. During FY2009 alone, 384 properties were acquired by the LRA. The Bissell Point service area encompasses the vast majority (over 80 percent) of the properties owned by these agencies. Most of these properties are located in low- income neighborhoods, many in the most economically-distressed portions of the City. These properties in the Bissell Point service area are served by combined sewers with outfalls to the Mississippi River. As described above in the outline of the pilot program, MSD will work with the City of St. Louis and its agencies to determine the locations and timing of stormwater retrofitting with green infrastructure on LRA-owned properties. MSD will conduct public education/workshops and outreach in neighborhoods, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-8 and will solicit input from residents and neighborhood groups, where projects will be undertaken during the full-scale program phase. Actual redevelopment opportunities will play a significant role in this decision making process. This only makes sense, given that the true benefits of the program (defined here as reductions in the volume of runoff entering the combined sewer system during rainfall events) are only achieved when impervious areas are eliminated (as in demolition of uninhabitable structures or unused parking areas) or when runoff from existing structures or paving, or soon-to-be-existing structures or paving, is routed to green infrastructure. As explained above, building green infrastructure now, to accommodate runoff that may not exist for several years, can and should be deferred until closer to the actual redevelopment occurring. MSD anticipates that the geographic location of the properties (e.g., Aldermanic Ward) will also play a role in prioritization of the properties for stormwater retrofitting. Wherever opportunities exist, however, for MSD to make informed choices between different properties available for stormwater retrofitting with green infrastructure, MSD will prioritize these projects based on their expected CSO reductions, using the results of the impervious area vs. CSO volume sensitivity analyses previously developed in its study of green infrastructure in the Bissell Point service area (Evaluation of Potential Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Combined Sewer Overflow Control in the Bissell Point Service Area, St. Louis MO, Limno-Tech, 2009). For example, LRA properties in the Harlem and Baden subwatersheds would receive a higher ranking than those in the Mill Creek watershed because of the greater response rate of CSOs to changing imperviousness in the former two subwatersheds. Accounting for Green Infrastructure Costs During the Pilot Phase Documentation of the expenditures made by MSD in connection with the green infrastructure program during the pilot phase will be maintained and will be submitted for approval on an annual basis. The following categories of cost will be tracked and reported on, and will count toward MSD’s $3 million green infrastructure pilot phase commitment (which is included within the $100 million full-scale implementation commitment): engineering, soils assessment and/or restoration, legal costs associated with deed restrictions and/or easements, property acquisition, demolition, construction of green infrastructure, maintenance of green infrastructure during the pilot period, public participation activities, monitoring of green infrastructure practices and associated laboratory analyses, and the identification of potential community benefits. Reflecting the budgetary priority of installing green infrastructure to reduce flows into the combined system, no more than 50% of the $3 million pilot project budgetary commitment may be used for building demolitions. Any outside private funding for green infrastructure implementation, e.g., costs for green infrastructure implementation paid for by private developers, will not count toward MSD’s $3 million pilot phase commitment. Also, any funding provided by the City or the LRA, and any funding provided to the City or the LRA or any entity other than MSD, for demolition of buildings or other revitalization projects or green infrastructure implementation will not count toward MSD’s $3 million pilot phase commitment. Should MSD secure external funds to help fund green infrastructure implementation, e.g., a low interest loan or grant from the Missouri State Revolving Fund loan program, such funds applied to demolition or green infrastructure work during the pilot phase can count toward MSD’s $3 million pilot phase commitment. After the Pilot Phase Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-9 Documentation of the expenditures made by MSD in connection with the early action projects and the full-scale green infrastructure program following the pilot phase and applicable to MSD’s remaining $97 million green infrastructure commitment will be submitted for approval on an annual basis. The following categories of cost will be tracked and reported on, and will count toward the remaining $97 million commitment: engineering, soils assessment and/or restoration, legal costs associated with deed restrictions and/or easements, property acquisition, demolition, construction of green infrastructure, maintenance of green infrastructure (during the first five years of operation), public participation activities, monitoring of green infrastructure and associated laboratory analyses. In the final report following the pilot program MSD will propose a maximum dollar expenditure for building demolition as part of the full-scale program. Any outside private funding for green infrastructure implementation, e.g., costs for green infrastructure implementation paid for by private developers or any entity other than MSD, will not count toward MSD’s remaining $97 million commitment. Any funding contributed by the City or the LRA, and any funding provided to the City or the LRA, for demolition of buildings or other revitalization projects or green infrastructure implementation will not count toward MSD’s remaining $97 million commitment. Should MSD secure external funds to help fund green infrastructure implementation, e.g., a low interest loan or grant from the Missouri State Revolving Fund loan program, such funds applied to green infrastructure work can count toward MSD’s remaining $97 million commitment. Additional Partnering While the core of MSD’s green infrastructure program will be the above-described stormwater retrofitting program, conducted in partnership with the City of St. Louis, MSD will continue to seek to build partnerships with other municipalities, schools, community development organizations, and private developers. The goal is to engage these partners to identify joint opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure into ongoing programs and future redevelopment projects. Program Metrics Measuring the progress or success of a program such as the above-described stormwater retrofitting project will be challenging. The ultimate goal, from a CSO standpoint, is the reduction in CSO activations and discharge volumes. But many factors influence CSO volumes, such as year-to-year variability in rainfall quantities and patterns. These factors can easily mask the influence of green infrastructure, particularly early in the program. MSD therefore proposes to primarily measure the progress of the program in terms of area of impervious surface redirected to green infrastructure controls. In addition to quantifying the amount of impervious area draining to a green infrastructure practice MSD will take into account the capacity of the green infrastructure practice. Using precipitation data MSD can then quantify the amount of capture (in gallons) by a practice in a typical year. MSD will use monitoring data to check/calibrate calculations to quantify the amount of capture in a typical year. In addition to these primary indicators, MSD may for some practices evaluate effectiveness based on other indicators, for example infiltration rates will be a suitable metric for sites where soil enhancements or other measures are implemented to improve the permeability of moderately permeable areas. MSD will use the information on the amount of impervious area draining to a green infrastructure practice and MSD will take into account the capacity of the green infrastructure practice, along with precipitation data, to estimate the effects of green infrastructure implementation in terms of runoff volumes. MSD will conduct a modeling evaluation at the end of the pilot program to estimate reduction benefits of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Long-Term Control Plan Updated Green Infrastructure Program Q-10 pilot program as a whole, in terms of CSO activations and CSO discharge volumes. MSD will also estimate projections of the benefits for the full-scale program, based on the results of the pilot program. Based on modeling conducted as part of the Bissell Point study cited above, it has been estimated that the program will reduce overflows by 0.11 million gallons (MG) per year for every acre of LRA property that is retrofitted with green infrastructure. If fully implemented across all LRA properties in the Bissell Point service area, the result is estimated to be an annual CSO reduction of 85 MG in the typical year, by capturing runoff from impervious surfaces alone. In addition, green infrastructure projects can be designed to capture runoff from non-impervious surfaces on LRA properties, increasing the overflow reduction rate to 0.28 MG/acre, and increasing the annual CSO reduction to 222 MG in the typical year. These calculated overflow reduction benefits are generally conservative for several reasons:  The calculations are based only on LRA properties and do not include opportunities on properties held by other agencies such as the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority and the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority.  The calculations are based only on controlling runoff from LRA properties and do not account for control of runoff from other properties on the same block or from adjacent streets and alleyways. Capturing runoff from these areas will significantly increase the overflow reduction benefit.  The modeling analysis used to support the calculated benefit only takes into account the conversion of impervious surfaces to pervious surfaces, thereby slowing runoff rates and allowing some volume reduction through infiltration. In reality, green infrastructure practices such as bioretention will also provide an additional storage benefit which will further attenuate flows and allow more volume reduction through infiltration and evapotranspiration. These processes are not accounted for in the modeling used as the basis for estimating overflow reduction. Using an average LRA property size of 0.1 acre, the 200 to 400 properties to be mitigated in the pilot program will result in control of 20 to 40 acres of LRA property. At the calculated overflow reduction rate of 0.28 MG/acre of LRA property controlled, the pilot program will result in 5.6 to 11.2 MG of overflow reduction in the typical year. Relationship to August 2009 LTCP MSD originally described the green infrastructure program in Section 12.3 of its August 2009 Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan update Report. It is MSD’s intent that the updated program, as described above, replaces the portions of the green infrastructure program originally described in Sections 12.3.3, 12.3.4, 12.3.5, and 12.3.8 of the August 2009 LTCP. APPENDIX C CONSENT DECREE – APPENDIX D, PAGE 9 Case: 4:07-cv-01120-CEJ Doc. #: 159-4 Filed: 04/27/12 Page: 9 of 9 PagelD #: 1623 Appendix D CSO Control Measures, Design Criteria, Performance Criteria, and Critical Milestones CSO Control Measure Description Design Criteria Performance Criteria Critical Milestones Green Infrastructure Program — Pilot Program Green Infrastructure Program Stormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areas Stormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areas Capture runoff from existing or future impervious areas on properties and, if possible, adjacent impervious streets and alleys, in accordance with Section 12 of the Long - Tenn Control Plan. Capture runoff from existing or future impervious areas on properties and, if possible, adjacent impervious streets and alleys, in accordance with Section 12 of the Long - Term Control Plan and the plan for full-scale implementation contained in the Pilot Program Final R . ort. Apply green infrastructure on 200 to 400 abandoned properties, encompassing 20 to 40 acres, with a total expenditure of at least $3 million. MSD shall submit to EPA and the State for review and for EPA's approval, with a copy to the Coalition, the Pilot Program Final Report. Performance Criteria to be identified in Pilot Program Final Report, with a minimum expenditure of $100 million total which includes the pilot program. • Achievement of Full Operation— 12/31/2015 • Achievement of Full Operation — 06/3=034 1 CSO Control Measures will be designed to reduce the number of overflows to Maline Creek and the River Des Peres to achieve a Performance Criteria of 4 overflow events or less in the "typical year." The term "overflow event" means an overflow at one or more CSO Outfalls on a receiving stream segment, based on a 6-hour inter -event time, that does not receive the equivalent of primary clarification, solids and floatables disposal, and disinfection, if necessary to meet water quality standards. "Typical year" performance and achievement of Performance Criteria shall be assessed in accordance with the Post -Construction Monitoring Program using the annual statistics generated by the hydraulic model based on the Year 2000 hourly precipitation data from Lambert St. Louis International Airport. 9 APPENDIX D CURRENT AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MSD’s Green Infrastructure Current & Targeted Partners and Roles Partner Current & Potential Roles in Green Infrastructure Federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Encourages green infrastructure implementation through federal coordination and plan approval; Clean Water Act regulatory support; research and information exchange. State Missouri Department of Conservation Educates the public on strategies to protect and manage natural resources; provides support on education public on native plants and maintenance and the use of green infrastructure for stormwater management. St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District Provide financial incentives to landowners to implement conservation practices that help prevent soil erosion and protect water resources; and technical support with the design, implementation and maintenance of these practices. East-West Gateway Council of Governments Develops long and short-range regional transportation plans. Incorporation of green infrastructure on future projects can add to CSO volume reduction. EarthWays Center and Shaw Nature Reserve of the Missouri Botanical Garden Develops educational curriculum and facilitates workshops on rainscaping and green infrastructure practices. Great Rivers Greenway Develops programs and manages projects to connect the St. Louis region with greenways. ShowMeRainGardens.org Partners ShowMe Rain Gardens is a regional water quality initiative focused on promoting rain gardens as a means to water quality improvement and the mitigation of adverse stormwater impacts. The web site is hosted by the Soil & Water Conservation District of St. Louis with parnters, Missouri Botanical Garden, local governments, conservation agencies, private citizens, and corporations. City of St. Louis Encourages land development in the City to promote economic and population growth. City of St. Louis Streets Department Maintains City roadways and alleys. Would be involved in green infrastructure practices incorporated on City roadways and alleys. City of St. Louis Board of Public Service Responsible for the design, construction, and supervision of public works projects, including transportation and capital improvement projects on property owned and maintained by the City. City of St. Louis Office of Sustainability Plans and implements the City’s sustainability goals, which include the objective to manage stormwater with green infrastructure practices and integrating open spaces. City of St. Louis Lateral Program Coordinates repairs of damaged sewer lateral. Potential partnership for lateral repair such as in alleys. Regional City MSD’s Green Infrastructure Current & Targeted Partners and Roles Partner Current & Potential Roles in Green Infrastructure City of St. Louis Community Development Administration Works with the St. Louis Development Corporation and Land Reutilization Authority to promote neighborhood growth and stabilization through production of new and rehabilitated housing. Runs the Neighborhood Stabilization Program with “targeted neighborhoods” across north St. Louis. Neighborhood Stabilization Team As part of the Department of Public Safety, employs Neighborhood Improvement Specialists who can be key to getting information into City neighborhoods. St. Louis Board of Alderman The green infrastructure focus area includes 23 City wards. The alderman influence Capital expenditures in their wards and can be important liaisons with the community. Other Municipalities 16 other municipalities and Unincorporated St. Louis County lie partially or completely within the focus area. Opportunities for MSD to work toward reducing the of CSO volume through a mix of roof and site stormwater runoff management in these areas. A wide range of projects have the potential of incorporating green infrastructure on new development and redevelopment projects. St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) Acquires properties that have undergone tax foreclosure and facilitate their transition back to productive use. Through the LRA, the St. Louis Development Corporation, manages, maintains, markets, and sells agency- owned vacant and abandoned buildings and property. Property acquisition for lots used for demolitions is coordinated through this organization. St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) Fosters economic development and growth in the City. LRA properties are maintained, marketed, and ultimately sold by the Real Estate Department of the SLDC. Works with MSD in identifying and facilitating meeting with key stakeholders in the City. Brightside Brightside St. Louis' mission is to improve the quality of life in the community by educating, engaging and inspiring St. Louisans to make the region cleaner, greener and more environmentally sustainable. Gateway Greening Gateway Greening educates and empowers people to strengthen their communities through gardening and urban agriculture. Habitat for Humanity Constructs housing for families which may incorporate green infrastructure practices. Received reimbursement funds from MSD for 13 planter boxes constructed on new homes in north St. Louis City. City Authorities Non Profit Organizations MSD’s Green Infrastructure Current & Targeted Partners and Roles Partner Current & Potential Roles in Green Infrastructure Missouri Stream Teams Local citizens involved in a program sponsored by the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the Conservation Federation of Missouri that organizes volunteer teams and engages in a wide variety of local watershed based activities on adopted streams. Active groups include: the Deer Creek Watershed Alliance and the River Des Peres Watershed Coalition. St. Louis Earth Day Engages individuals, governments, businesses and schools in celebration and education on sustainability. Trailnet Manages the Neighborhood Greenways St. Louis project to help increase green spaces and greenways to help make the environment and make areas walking and biking friendly. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE) Implementing research on green infrastructure practices performance. Washington University Potential for future research and projects on green infrastructure practices for stormwater management in St. Louis. Saint Louis University Potential for future research and projects on green infrastructure practices for stormwater management in St. Louis. St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) Potential for future model green infrastructure practices for stormwater management at school campuses and SLPS owned buildings. Ranken Technical College Students participate in the construction of some affordable housing projects for residents which incorporate green infrastructure. Grace Hill Settlement House Identifies social and economic opportunities for St. Louis residents and expressed interest in some level of maintenance on neighborhood-scale green infrastructure projects. Neighborhood Organizations The green infrastructure target area includes 64 historic neighborhoods, many of which have active community groups. As needed, MSD will coordinate with specific neighborhood groups on a project-by-project basis. Many groups hold regular meetings which can be a good venue for community outreach. Old North St. Louis Restoration Group Promotes the revitalization of the Old North neighborhood, which is located in the MSD Focus Area. Partnership for Downtown St. Louis Manages the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District (CID) which provides new and enhanced improvements and activities, including streetscape improvements, landscaping services, and housing development. Riverview West Florissant Development Corporation Undertakes community development activities such as housing and neighborhood improvement in nine neighborhoods in north St. Louis City. Neighborhood Educational Institutions/Research APPENDIX E MSD / LAND REUTILIZATION AUTHORITY (LRA) AGREEMENT MSD COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW VOLUME REDUCTION GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (PILOT PROGRAM) AGREEMENT This agreement made and entered into this 1 (0'11- day of - '" fi 2010, by and between the Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, Missouri (hereinafter referred to as "LRA") and The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (hereinafter referred to as "MSD") (together the "PARTIES"), WHEREAS, LRA is the owner of multiple properties within the City of St. Louis, some of which are currently empty lots, and some of which contain vacant buildings; and WHEREAS, MSD has a desire to reduce combined sewer overflow (CSO) volume within the District by implementing green infrastructure (GI) and thus desires to: a.) reduce imperviousness at appropriate sites within the City of St. Louis by demolishing existing vacant buildings and construct runoff volume reducing GI best management practices ("BMPs"), or b.) construct runoff volume reducing GI BMPs at other appropriate sites within the City of St. Louis; and WHEREAS, MSD has a GI pilot program, the "CSO Volume Reduction — Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)" (hereinafter referred to as "Pilot Program") in place to pay for demolishing buildings and/or constructing GI BMPs; and WHEREAS, the Pilot Program funding was authorized by MSD Ordinance No. /3( ; and WHEREAS, LRA has a program in place to demolish vacant buildings within the City of St. Louis; and WHEREAS, LRA is authorized to enter into this Agreement by Resolution No. 10-LRA-136, and the MSD Executive Director is authorized to enter into this Agreement by MSD Ordinance No. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and obligations hereinafter stated, LRA and MSD mutually agree as follows, to wit: SECTION 1. SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT 1. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, MSD shall maintain its authority and discretion, and perform its functions and enforce its requirements in the same manner and degree as with other similar programs and projects. 1 2. LRA and MSD will agree upon mutually acceptable locations for building demolition. LRA shall manage all components of the building demolition process, per LRA procedure. 3. LRA and MSD will agree upon mutually acceptable locations for BMPs. 4. GI BMPs, such as bioretention, raingardens, pervious pavements, detention basins, microdetention basins, and other techniques, shall be designed and constructed by MSD to manage runoff either on an individual lot basis, or on a multiple lot basis. 5. GI BMPs will be designed, as possible, to account for stormwater management requirements of future development, based on current criteria and an assumed developed impervious surfaces (roof, driveway, sidewalk, patios, and similar surfaces). 6. BMPs that manage runoff on an individual lot basis: a) Ownership of the parcel shall remain with LRA until such time that LRA sells the parcel to a third party. b) BMPs shall be maintained by LRA and/or subsequent owner(s) and shall be located in BMP Reserved areas. During the period of LRA ownership, maintenance shall be to LRA customary standards. Subsequent owners shall maintain the property to MSD standards in keeping with the applicable Maintenance Agreement and Maintenance Plan. c) LRA shall execute a BMP Maintenance Agreement (a standard version is attached as Exhibit A) for each mutually agreed upon parcel. The Maintenance Agreement shall provide that in the event the installation is out of compliance for reasons beyond LRA and MSD's control, the parties agree to work together to alleviate the problem. The Maintenance Agreement shall contain an attachment that defines the BMP Reserved Area on each parcel and shall be recorded at the City of St. Louis Recorder of Deeds office. When the parcel is sold to a third party, LRA and MSD shall cooperate to arrange for the third party to adhere to MSD's standard BMP Maintenance Agreement. 7. BMPs that manage runoff on a multiple lot basis: a) Ownership of parcels where the structure has been demolished under the provisions of this Agreement shall be transferred to MSD for $1 each, subject to approval by the LRA board of commissioners. b) BMPs shall be maintained by MSD. 8. LRA agrees to work with MSD to identify currently vacant properties for the installation of BMP's in the same manner as for the properties identified in the agreement. The exact location and conditions of these vacant properties will be covered under a future agreement(s) between LRA and MSD. LRA agrees to work with the City's Board of Public Service and the Street Department to include the use of public Right of Way in this program. 2 9. Where BMPs are constructed as a part of this Agreement, development restrictions shall be imposed by LRA upon subsequent purchasers as follows: a) Development on parcels that are served by a BMP (i.e. runoff from the parcel drains to the BMP) shall have a footprint of impervious surfaces (roof, driveway, sidewalk, patios, and similar surfaces) restricted to no more than that used for design and sizing of the BMP serving those parcels unless additional BMP capacity is added. b) Other building restrictions as appropriate and as agreed to by LRA and MSD. 10. LRA and MSD agree to waive all fees associated with submission of, or the review of plans and/or permits for the building demolition, construction of BMPs, and maintenance of BMPs conducted as part of this agreement. (LRA has no authority to waive fees assessed by the City of St. Louis but will work with MSD and other city agencies to pursue waiver of fees associated with this process. MSD retains the right to suspend any portion of this program if any fees assessed by the City of St. Louis are unacceptable to MSD.) 11. LRA Responsibilities include: a) Building Demolition: i. Provide MSD with a demolition plan which includes a location map and work schedule for demolition. ii. Apply for all necessary permits, as required by state, federal and local law. iii. Manage, contract and oversee all aspects of the building demolition in accordance with LRA's building demolition programs, contracts, specifications and procedure. iv. Require the demolition contractor(s) and licensed hazardous waste company(s) to indemnify both LRA and MSD. v. Submit to MSD monthly progress updates including demolitions completed and applicable schedule changes. vi. Submit to MSD any invoices or requests for payment in accordance with SECTION II of this Agreement. b) BMP Maintenance: i. Maintain BMPs located on LRA owned parcels in accordance with LRA customary standards and the MSD Maintenance Agreement, and upon sale by LRA to a third party, cooperate to require the third party to maintain BMPs in accordance with the MSD Standard Maintenance Agreement (Exhibit A) and according to a BMP Maintenance Plan (example attached as Exhibit B) as prepared by MSD. 3 ii. Submit to MSD a yearly report regarding BMP maintenance in accordance with the Maintenance Agreement. iii. Upon sale of the parcel including BMPs, maintenance responsibilities shall be transferred to the new owner(s). c) Development Restrictions: i. LRA will cooperate with other development agencies and City departments including the Building Division in the Department of Public Safety to impose development restrictions designed to limit the impervious footprint to the appropriate square footage to match BMP capacity. 12. MSD Responsibilities include: a) Building Demolition: i. Provide financial assistance to LRA to fund building demolitions in accordance with SECTION II of this Agreement b) GI BMPs: i. Design and preparation of construction documents for all BMPs constructed as part of this agreement. ii. Apply for all necessary permits, as required by state, federal and local law. iii. Payment of the costs of construction for all BMPs constructed as part of this agreement, including all equipment, supplies, and services for the effective construction of GI BMPs. c) Maintenance: i. MSD shall at all times fully maintain the GI BMPs on parcels owned by MSD, including mowing, weeding, tree trimming and removal. SECTION II. PAYMENT 13. MSD has agreed to provide financial assistance to LRA for the purpose of funding building demolitions. a) The total amount of MSD funds expended under the terms of this agreement shall not exceed One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), unless otherwise approved by MSD. b) Prior to release of funds, LRA shall provide MSD with documentation regarding the demolition program, including: demolition plan, location map(s), schedule, preliminary cost estimate and a copy of the standard contract and specifications used by LRA when performing building demolition. 4 c) Within thirty (30) days of MSD approval of properly submitted documentation, MSD will release an initial funding amount to LRA according to the schedule and cost estimate to cover roughly 20% of the demolition costs. d) As the initial funding is nearly depleted, LRA may request additional funding from MSD of roughly 20%. e) Prior to release of additional funds, LRA shall provide MSD with documentation regarding the use of funding to date, including: detailed invoices supported with verification of payment for expenses that are directly related to the demolition program, as well as a report of MWBE participation. f) Within thirty (30) days of MSD approval of properly submitted documentation, MSD will release another funding amount to LRA. Prior to the conclusion of this Agreement, all funding provided by MSD to LRA shall be accounted for including supporting documentation as described above. h) Prior to the conclusion of the Agreement, any unused funds provided by MSD to LRA shall be returned to MSD. g) i) If either MSD or LRA object to an invoice or demand, or any portion thereof, as being unauthorized, illegal or improper, LRA or MSD shall notify each other of such objection. If the PARTIES disagree over the authority, legality or propriety of any such invoice or demand, or portion thereof, they shall meet to resolve such disagreement. SECTION III. MWBE Participation 14. MSD shall comply with all MSD Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprises ("MWBE") requirements for MSD contracted work conducted as a part of this Agreement. 15. LRA, as part of the documentation described in Paragraph 13, shall report to MSD their MWBE utilization for LRA contracted work conducted as a part of this Agreement. SECTION IV. TERMINATION 16. In the event a material breach of this Agreement remains uncured following written notice of said breach by the District, the District may immediately terminate this Agreement upon written notice specifying the effective date thereof; provided however, the District may, in its discretion and for good cause, allow LRA to cure any breach or submit an acceptable plan to cure such breach within ten (10) days of such written notice. After receipt of written notification that this Agreement has been terminated, LRA shall incur no further costs other than reasonable termination costs associated with current activities. 17. The District may also terminate this Agreement at any time upon thirty (30) days notice specifying the date thereof, if termination is determined by the District to be in the best interest of the District and the public. After receipt of written notification that this 5 Agreement has been terminated, LRA shall incur no further costs other than reasonable termination costs associated with current activities. SECTION V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 18. "LRA" and "MSD". As used in this Contract the term "LRA" means the officers, employees, legal representatives, agents, successors or assigns of the Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, and the term "MSD" means the officers, employees, legal representatives, agents, successors or assigns of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. 19. Waiver. The failure of either party to seek redress for violation of, or to insist upon the strict performance of, any covenant or condition of this Contract shall not prevent a subsequent act, which would have originally constituted a violation, from having all the force and effect of an original violation. No provision of this Contract shall be deemed to have been waived by either party, unless such waiver is in writing signed by such party. 20. Act of God. Neither MSD nor LRA shall be liable for delays or defaults in the performance of this Contract due to Acts of God or the public enemy, riots, strikes, fires, explosions, or any other causes of a similar character beyond the control and without the fault of LRA or MSD. 21. Whole Contract. The performance of this Contract shall be governed solely by the terms set forth in this Contract notwithstanding any language contained on any invoice, shipping order, bill of lading or other document furnished by LRA or MSD at any time. 22. Notice. Any notice, invoice, communication or compensation provided herein, and any service of process shall be in writing and considered completed and received twenty-four (24) hours after said Notice, invoice, communication or compensation is posted, postage prepaid, addressed to LRA at 1015 Locust St., Suite 1200,St. Louis, MO 63101, and addressed to MSD at 2350 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63103. 23. Venue. In the event that any actions or proceedings are initiated with respect to this Contract, LRA and MSD agree that the venue thereof shall be City of St. Louis, Missouri and that this Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Missouri. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Contract in duplicate the day and year first above written. THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT By: j/tetnritore-L__ / 7 ef�''r2aaI�7 TitleE,lreC4' v Llireelo( Approved as to Legal Form • r- pPJl�. I TAN U1S).\V\ I certify that this expenditure is within the appropriation to which it is to be charged and that there is an unencumbered balance in the appropriation sufficient to pay this obligation or so much of it as may be payable during the current fiscal year. LAND REUTILIZATION AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS Executive Director Attest.' J�? 7ir- lac/ ,-(f L 4' Assistant Secretary roved as to egal Form: Diftei4 4 .q4,& Assistant City Counselor DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BY: Janice M. Zimmerman Date: 7 APPENDIX F PILOT DEMOLITION LIST #Number Address Parcel ID Bldg Amount 1 1451 Monroe St 11110001100 1 $12,900 2 1455 Monroe St 11110001300 1 $5,900 3 2133 Gano Ave 33080002400 1 $4,950 4 2135 Gano Ave 33080002500 1 $4,950 5 2511 Semple Ave 45240004300 1 $5,200 6 5741 Wabada Ave 51990008300 1 $6,200 7 5637 Highland Ave 52000005700 1 $6,200 8 4058 Suburban Tracks St. 37540006800 1 $8,000 9 4204 W Cook Ave 37460002100 1 $8,500 10 5020 Wells Ave 37890002400 1 $6,700 11 1413 E Obear Ave 24710001800 1 $5,000 12 1456 E College Ave 33880001300 1 $5,000 13 857 Cowan St.33480502400 1 $5,000 14 4415 Greer Ave 36180002800 1 $5,800 15 4775 Greer Ave 44810306700 1 $5,900 16 2624 N 22nd St 10960002060 1 $38,500 17 5945 Romaine Pl 38350504300 1 $4,000 18 5983 Page Blvd 38340605300 1 $5,950 19 2508 W Palm St 23761800800 1 $5,200 20 2500 W Palm St 23761801100 1 $7,200 21 1313 Clara Ave 38160802500 1 $1,900 22 5594 Bartmer Ave.38110000300 1 $9,400 23 5819 Page Blvd 38230303100 1 $9,200 24 1704 Whittier St 36610000300 1 $4,999 25 1709 Billups Ave.36980002400 1 $4,999 26 3744 St. Louis Ave 48720000200 1 $7,000 27 3832 Labadie Ave 36270001000 1 $7,000 28 4219 W Labadie Ave 44681401100 1 $4,991 29 4224 St Louis Ave 36730001700 1 $5,000 30 1391 Hamilton Ave 38350502600 1 $5,000 31 5339 Patton Ave 45130203700 1 $5,000 32 5347 Patton Ave 45130204000 1 $5,000 33 1910 Bissell St.24440002300 1 $3,700 34 2320 Warren St 10830000200 1 $4,400 35 4417 Blair Ave 24430004100 1 $5,000 36 600 Carrie Ave 34630001200 1 $6,850 37 710 E Carrie Ave 34620000600 1 $7,000 38 4006 N 9th St. 12260000400 1 $6,800 39 2260 S Jefferson Ave 13830000700 1 $6,900 40 4158 N Newstead Ave 35730405500 1 $6,900 41 4219 Fair Ave 35660001400 1 $6,100 42 3900 W Florissant Ave 33940002500 1 $14,960 43 4317 Linton Ave 33940003700 1 $6,000 44 4328 Linton Ave 33560001100 1 $6,000 45 3172 California Av 17560000100 1 $14,500 46 5070 Alcott Ave 51380002400 1 $6,800 47 5309 Arlington Ave 53300005200 1 $5,500 48 5009 Arlington Ave 55560006600 1 $5,800 49 5020 West Florissant Ave 51420002400 1 $7,000 50 5034 Union Blvd.50870001300 1 $4,000 LRA Demolitions for Green Infrastructure Pilot Program 1 of 5 #Number Address Parcel ID Bldg Amount LRA Demolitions for Green Infrastructure Pilot Program 51 2309 Union Blvd.45150003000 1 $12,000 52 5366 Wabada Ave 45150000500 1 $5,000 53 2815 Whittier St 36730002400 1 $6,500 54 4250 W Cote Brilliante Ave 36830000700 1 $6,500 55 4260 W Cote Brilliante Ave 36830000300 1 $6,500 56 5920 Wells Ave 38360001400 1 $5,000 57 6028 Thekla Ave 53470001600 1 $8,000 58 6037 Emma Ave 53440003700 1 $8,000 59 6057 Garesche Ave 53470004000 1 $8,000 60 2722 Arlington Ave 45170604700 1 $6,000 61 2910 Abner Pl 52460003100 1 $6,000 62 3008 Bailey Av 23950000200 1 $8,000 63 5876 Cote Brilliante Ave 49910000800 1 $6,000 64 356 Christian Ave 42300000700 1 $3,200 65 5344 Zealand St 52590001000 1 $3,200 66 5824 Wabada Ave 49930002200 1 $3,200 67 5833 Lotus Ave 49930004100 1 $3,200 68 5017 Davison 52320004000 1 $4,500 69 1727 N Sarah St 36620002700 1 $6,000 70 1801 N Sarah St 36620002600 1 $5,500 71 1803 N Sarah St 36620002500 1 $6,500 72 3244 Iowa Ave 15160000100 1 $7,200 73 3450 Missouri Ave*15550000400 0 $1,528 74 4406 St Louis Ave 37080000500 1 $4,300 75 2000 E College Ave 33910000900 1 $14,495 76 3806 Labadie Ave 36270001900 1 $5,000 77 4216 N Florissant Ave 24350000300 1 $5,000 78 4318 Linton Ave 33560000700 1 $5,000 79 1120 Linton Ave 33600002100 1 $5,000 80 1925 St Louis Ave 11040001800 1 $5,000 81 2528 W Sullivan Ave 10710000800 1 $5,000 82 2535 Madison St.23270001700 1 $4,800 83 4203 W Evans Ave 37280004500 1 $12,300 84 4207 W Evans Ave 37280004600 1 $11,800 85 2909 Marcus Ave 44790003150 1 $5,000 86 4201 Labadie Ave 44670306100 1 $6,000 87 4227 W Aldine Ave 36830003400 1 $5,000 88 4310 Ashland Ave 36200003200 1 $6,000 89 4228 Warne Ave 33960001200 1 $4,800 90 4232 Warne Ave 33960001300 1 $4,800 91 4234 Warne Ave 33960001400 1 $4,800 92 4238 Warne Ave 33960001500 1 $4,800 93 4240 Warne Ave 33960001600 1 $4,800 94 2014 Gano Ave 24760001200 1 $5,900 95 4021 Glasgow Ave 19390002200 1 $5,900 96 4023 Glasgow Ave 19390002100 1 $5,900 97 4026 Glasgow Ave 23990000800 1 $5,900 98 4328 DeSoto Ave 33530000900 1 $5,900 99 3815 N 22nd St 12420001900 1 $6,000 100 3834 Labadie Ave 36270000900 1 $4,999 2 of 5 #Number Address Parcel ID Bldg Amount LRA Demolitions for Green Infrastructure Pilot Program 101 2100 Destrehan St 11600000800 1 $6,000 102 4209 Linton Ave 33950003700 1 $4,750 103 4210 College Ave 33950000400 1 $5,000 104 4245 Warne Ave 48990000900 1 $4,250 105 4527 Mary Ave 35460003800 1 $4,250 106 4544 Cottage Ave 37170002000 1 $5,960 107 4616 Maffitt Ave 37130001000 1 $7,850 108 5200 Page Blvd 29940001507 1 $11,950 109 728 Carrie Ave 34620000100 1 $3,800 110 729 Pope Av 34620001800 1 $4,000 111 6110 Prescott Av 34630002900 1 $6,500 112 6118 N Broadway 34610000300 1 $6,000 113 1407 Blackstone Ave 38181002800 1 $4,500 114 5780 McPherson Av 55200000800 1 $10,500 115 1373 Temple Pl 38170702700 1 $4,800 116 5713 St Louis Ave 52370005600 1 $12,000 117 5831 Terry Ave 60980002850 1 $8,999 118 5839 Cote Brilliante Ave 49920004400 1 $4,000 119 2305 Union Blvd.45150003100 1 $3,300 120 5631 Roosevelt Pl.52440004800 1 $3,300 121 5834 Lotus Ave 49920002200 1 $7,000 122 4717 Northland Ave 44780004300 1 $4,225 123 4722 Northland Ave 44770203400 1 $4,225 124 4729 Northland Ave 44780004700 1 $4,225 125 1718 Whittier St 36610000700 1 $5,000 126 3937 Kennerly Av 36440103700 1 $5,000 127 4542 Garfield Ave 37200001600 1 $5,600 128 2350 Michigan Av 14310000500 1 $4,000 129 3724 Penrose St 24880000807 1 $4,200 130 4221 Linton Ave 33950003200 1 $4,100 131 3776 Lee Ave 33040001200 1 $10,000 132 4133 Lea Pl 44290001200 1 $6,000 133 4135 Lea Pl 44290001100 1 $6,000 134 4153 W Lee Av 35730306900 1 $5,000 135 4201 Lee Ave 35730307100 1 $6,000 136 4218 Lee Ave 44270001400 1 $6,000 137 4251 Lee Ave 35730308320 1 $5,000 138 4255 Lee Ave 35730308700 1 $5,000 139 2568 Palm St 23761801300 1 $8,500 140 3920 Penrose St 35770000600 1 $6,800 141 4319 DeSoto Ave 33560004200 1 $6,800 142 4339 Gano 33070002300 1 $6,800 143 5210 Terry Ave 44990600400 1 $6,800 144 4201 Maffitt Ave 36730002500 1 $5,300 145 4207 Maffitt Ave 36730002600 1 $5,300 146 4604 Maffitt Ave 37130001400 1 $5,200 147 3831 Lincoln Ave 36290203110 1 $3,000 148 8205 Church Rd 54310002800 1 $10,000 149 8209 Church Rd 54310002700 1 $10,000 150 4235 W Aldine Ave 36830003700 1 $4,500 3 of 5 #Number Address Parcel ID Bldg Amount LRA Demolitions for Green Infrastructure Pilot Program 151 4256 W Aldine Ave 36820000700 1 $5,000 152 4442 Kennerly Av 37060000400 1 $4,500 153 4345 Linton Ave 33940002900 1 $5,000 154 5200 Palm St 59500001107 1 $16,000 155 5214 Kensington Av 48460001100 1 $7,000 156 5618 Vivian Pl 57810000200 1 $4,500 157 6063 Thekla Ave 53460004100 1 $4,000 158 4401 Maffitt Ave 37080000700 1 $32,500 159 3139 N Sarah St 36240003200 1 $6,000 160 3143 N Sarah St 36240003100 1 $6,000 161 4533 St Louis Ave 37110204100 1 $6,000 162 4701 Virginia Av 27770500207 1 $19,800 163 7850 N Broadway-A 42300000100 1 $38,333 164 7850 N Broadway-B 42300000100 1 $38,333 165 7850 N Broadway-C 42300000100 1 $38,334 166 1721 N Grand Blvd 18800001800 1 $5,000 167 3225 Natural Bridge 19250001900 1 $5,000 168 3229 Natural Bridge 19250002000 1 $5,000 169 3923 Kossuth Ave 35880402500 1 $5,000 170 4227 Obear 24860003100 1 $5,000 171 4229 Prairie Ave 33540003300 1 $5,000 172 3000 N Newstead Ave 36190000100 1 $3,000 173 4336 Garfield Ave 36970001100 1 $3,800 174 4338 Garfield Ave 36970001000 1 $7,000 175 4561 Cottage Av 37160005900 1 $3,500 176 4572 Kennerly Av 37160000500 1 $3,315 177 2116 Branch St.11590000400 1 $6,800 178 3953 Blair Ave 24080001800 1 $6,000 179 3961 Blair Ave 24080001600 1 $8,000 180 4010 Maffitt Ave 36510102100 1 $6,800 181 4271 Maffitt Ave 36730004800 1 $6,000 182 2629 Marcus Ave 44770203800 1 $5,000 183 2633 Marcus Ave 44770203707 1 $5,000 184 4037 Aldine Ave 36570002900 1 $10,000 185 4822 Northland Ave 44770200600 1 $5,000 186 635 E Clarence 34580000100 1 $18,500 187 714 Carrie Ave 34620000400 1 $5,300 188 6100 N Broadway 34610000100 1 $5,100 189 6117 Prescott Av 34620001907 1 $5,300 190 3019 Vine Grove Av 36190006150 1 $4,000 191 3948 St Louis Ave 36450000600 1 $4,500 192 3839 Lee Ave 35780002000 1 $5,000 193 3942 Carter Ave 33960002200 1 $5,000 194 4310 N 19th St.24430000400 1 $5,000 195 4312 N 19th St.24430000500 1 $5,000 196 4224 Prairie Ave 33060000700 1 $4,400 197 4324 DeSoto Ave 33530000800 1 $4,100 198 4338 DeSoto Ave 33530001300 1 $4,100 199 4130 W Lexington Av 44400800100 1 $5,750 200 4420 Elmbank Av 36180001800 1 $5,000 4 of 5 #Number Address Parcel ID Bldg Amount LRA Demolitions for Green Infrastructure Pilot Program 201 3714 Lee Ave 19290001400 1 $5,000 202 3828 Lee Ave 35870003100 1 $5,000 203 3832 Lee Ave 35870003000 1 $4,500 204 2830 Arlington Ave 45170507100 1 $2,500 205 2842 Arlington Ave 45170507400 1 $5,000 206 5929 Theodore Av 53480002900 1 $6,250 207 6045 Shulte Av 53420001600 1 $4,250 208 1419 DeSoto Ave 33600003500 1 $4,900 209 1447 DeSoto Ave 33600004400 1 $6,200 210 1906 Ferry St 24370500700 1 $7,900 211 4264 W Garfield Ave 36840000600 1 $8,500 212 3623 Lee Ave 24890001700 1 $4,000 213 4000 Lee Ave 35960001450 1 $5,500 214 4754 Cupples Pl 44771101700 1 $4,000 215 1405 Angelica St 24140003350 1 $5,000 216 2325 Angelica St 24200002400 1 $9,000 217 3713 Sullivan 23890002000 1 $5,000 218 3946 N 21st St.12390001100 1 $9,000 219 3950 N 21st St.12390001200 1 $9,000 220 4264 N 21st St.24360001250 1 $2,000 221 4356 Garfield Ave 36970000400 1 $6,500 222 4555 St. Ferdinand Av 37170005000 1 $6,680 Total =221 1,500,000.00$ * 3450 Missouri was contracted for demolition, some work was done in preparation, but then pulled from the contract. Therefore, this building was NOT demolished during the Pilot 5 of 5 APPENDIX G PILOT MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS 3 INCH AREA ABOVE - LEAVE BLANK (FOR RECORDERS OFFICE USE ONLY) DOCUMENT TYPE: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT: GRANTOR: Land Reutilization Authority Address: 1520 Market Street, Suite 2000 St. Louis, MO 63103 GRANTEE: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Address: 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO. 63103 PROPERTY ADDRESS: Property Address COUNTY LOCATOR #: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARCEL #: City of St. Louis Parcel Number CITY/MUNICIPALITY: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: MSD/RCP 10/01 St. Louis Legal Description CSO VOLUME REDUCTION GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH RESERVE AREA This agreement made and entered into this day of 20 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis Missouri (hereinafter "LRA"), in consideration of the MSD Combined Sewer Overflow Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) Agreement with the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (hereinafter "MSD"), dated September 16, 2010, for a property with Parcel ID , in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, at , hereinafter referred to as "Property", and other good and valuable considerations, does hereby agree and promise as follows: 1. To reserve on this Property a maximum area of square feet of contiguous area for the purpose of constructing stormwater management Best Management Practices (BMPs), as outlined below. 2. If, in the sole opinion of MSD, construction on the Property may alter the site drainage of the Property or add impervious surface area to the Property: a. The allowable total impervious area on the Property shall not exceed square feet (impervious area refers to land that cannot absorb rainwater e.g. concrete, blacktop, or the footprint of buildings). b. Roof drainage on the lot shall not be directly connected to the sewer system unless the record owner of Title to the Property receives a written variance from MSD. Direct connection refers to the roof drainage flowing to the conveyance system (i.e. streets with curbs, catch basins, storm drains, sewers, etc.) without flowing over pervious areas. c. Plans for the proposed construction shall be submitted to MSD for review, plan approval, and/or permitting, including BMP design. d. No construction shall commence until MSD has approved plans and issued permits for the proposed construction. e. Prior to plan approval the Property owner shall execute a Maintenance Agreement provided by MSD for the BMP, to insure the BMP will be kept in working order. f. MSD will NOT be responsible for maintenance of the BMP. g. All reasonable costs for construction of the BMP, as determined by MSD, will be reimbursed by MSD, unless MSD notifies the property owner in writing that it is without sufficient funds for reimbursement for construction of the BMP in accordance with this agreement. Dev Agrmt Reserve Page 1 of 4 h. Prior to reimbursement by MSD, the Property owner shall provide an itemized invoice with details of costs incurred supported by written verification of payments made. 3. This agreement shall be binding on all subsequent record holders of title. Dev Agrmt Reserve Page 2 of 4 Grantor: LAND REUTILIZATION AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS By: Laura Costello Director of Real Estate STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) ss. ST. LOUIS CITY ) On this day of , 20 before me appeared Laura Costello, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that she is the Director of Real Estate of the Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, an agency operating pursuant to the Municipal Land Reutilization Law of the State of Missouri, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said agency; and said Laura Costello acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the County and State aforesaid on the day and year first above written. Notary Public My commission expires: Dev Agrmt Reserve Page 3 of 4 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed these presents to be signed by the Director of Engineering for The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. STATE OF MISSOURI ) ss. ST. LOUIS CITY THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT By Richard Unverferth Director of Engineering On this day of , 20_ before me personally appeared Brian Hoelscher to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Director of Engineering, of THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT by authority of its Board of Trustees and said Brian Hoelscher acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this day of , 20 Notary Public My Commission expires: Dev Agrtnt Reserve Page 4 of 4 CSO VOLUME REDUCTION GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - TRIBUTARY LOT This agreement made and entered into this day of 20 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis Missouri (hereinafter "LRA"), in consideration of the MSD Combined Sewer Overflow Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) Agreement with the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (hereinafter "MSD"), dated September 16, 2010, for a property with Parcel ID , in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, at , hereinafter referred to as "Property", and other good and valuable considerations, does hereby agree and promise as follows: 1. If, in the sole opinion of MSD any construction on the Property may alter the site drainage of the Property or add impervious surface area to the Property, them a. The allowable total impervious area (impervious area refers to land that cannot absorb rainwater e.g. concrete, blacktop, or the footprint of buildings) on the Property shall not exceed square feet. b. Roof drainage on the Property shall not be directly connected to the sewer system unless the record owner of Title to said Property receives a written variance from MSD. Direct connection refers to the roof drainage flowing to the conveyance system (i.e. streets with curbs, catch basins, storm drains, sewers, etc.) without flowing over pervious areas. c. Plans for the proposed construction shall be submitted to MSD for review, plan approval, and/or permitting. d. Easements to MSD for sewers, or Maintenance Agreements with Reserved Areas for swales may be required, with location to be determined during MSD plan review. e. No construction shall commence until MSD has approved plans and issued permits for the proposed construction. 2. This agreement shall be binding on all subsequent record holders of title. Dev Agrmt Trib Lot Page 1 of 3 Grantor: LAND REUTILIZATION AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS By: Laura Costello Director of Real Estate STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) ss. ST. LOUIS CITY ) On this day of , 20 before me appeared Laura Costello, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that she is the Director of Real Estate of the Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, an agency operating pursuant to the Municipal Land Reutilization Law of the State of Missouri, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said agency; and said Laura Costello acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the County and State aforesaid on the day and year first above written. Notary Public My commission expires: Dev Agrmt Trib Lot Page 2 of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed these presents to be signed by the Director of Engineering for The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. STATE OF MISSOURI ) ss. ST. LOUIS CITY THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT By Richard Unverferth Director of Engineering On this day of , 20 before me personally appeared Brian Hoelscher to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Director of Engineering, of THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT by authority of its Board of Trustees and said Brian Hoelscher acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this day of . 20 Notary Public My Commission expires: Dev Agrmt 'crib Lot Page 3 of 3 3 INCH AREA ABOVE - LEAVE BLANK (FOR RECORDERS OFFICE USE ONLY) DOCUMENT TYPE: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT: GRANTOR: Land Reutilization Authority Address: 1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63101 GRANTEE: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Address: 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO. 63103 PROPERTY ADDRESS: Property Address COUNTY LOCATOR #: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARCEL #: City of St. Louis Parcel Number CITY/MUNICIPALITY: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: MSD/RCP 1 0/0 1 St. Louis Legal Description CSO VOLUME REDUCTION GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This agreement made and entered into this day of 20 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis Missouri (hereinafter "LRA"), in consideration of the MSD Combined Sewer Overflow Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) Agreement with the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (hereinafter "MSD"), dated September 16, 2010, for a property with Parcel ID , in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, at hereinafter referred to as "Property", and other good and valuable considerations, does hereby agree and promise as follows: 1. To allow MSD to construct, inspect and monitor stormwater management facilities, including Best Management Practices (BMP), basins, drainage facilities, appurtenances and sewer lines, in accordance with the design and plans prepared by MSD. The stormwater management facilities are to be perpetually located within the dimensioned and reserved area as shown hachured on the exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. To maintain and operate the stormwater management facilities in conformity with the MSD Stormwater Management Facilities Report. 3. To maintain all private pipes and drains in good working order and maintain all walls, dikes, vegetation, filter media, and any other requisite appurtenances and improvements for the retention and management of stormwater in good repair. 4. If in the sole opinion of MSD, any construction on the Property may alter either the BMP or alter the drainage area to the BMP, or add impervious surface area to the Property, then: a. The allowable total impervious area (impervious area refers to land that cannot absorb rainwater e.g. concrete, blacktop, or the footprint of buildings) on the Property shall not exceed square feet. b. Roof drainage on the Property shall not be directly connected to the sewer system unless the record owner of Title to said Property receives a written variance from MSD. Direct connection refers to the roof drainage flowing to the conveyance system (i.e. streets with curbs, catch basins, storm drains, sewers, etc.) without flowing over pervious areas. c. Plans for the proposed construction shall be submitted to MSD for review, plan approval, and/or permitting. Maint Agrmt Page 1 of 4 d. No construction shall commence until MSD has approved plans and issued permits for the proposed construction. 5. If, in the sole opinion of MSD, the LRA or any subsequent holder of record title to said Property shall fail to maintain the stormwater management facilities, BMP, basins, drainage facilities, appurtenances and sewer lines in accordance with this agreement, MSD shall notify the owners of said property, in writing of any deficiencies, and if said deficiencies shall be not corrected within 30 days, MSD shall be permitted to enter onto the property and make the repairs and corrections and perform such maintenance as it deems necessary and bill the owners of said property for the services performed. It is further agreed that in the event said bill or charge for the services performed is not paid within a period of thirty (30) days, MSD may pursue all available legal remedies to collect any unpaid amounts. 6. This agreement shall be binding on all subsequent record holders of title. Malt Agrmt Page 2 of 4 Grantor: LAND REUTILIZATION AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS By: Laura Costello Director of Real Estate STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) ss. ST. LOUIS CITY ) On this day of , 20 before me appeared Laura Costello, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that she is the Director of Real Estate of the Land Reutilization Authority of the City of St. Louis, an agency operating pursuant to the Municipal Land Reutilization Law of the State of Missouri, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said agency; and said Laura Costello acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the County and State aforesaid on the day and year first above written. Notary Public My commission expires: Maint Agrmt Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed these presents to be signed by the Director of Engineering for The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT By Brian Hoelscher Director of Engineering STATE OF MISSOURI ST. LOUIS CITY On this day of , 20 before me personally appeared Brian Hoelscher to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Director of Engineering, of THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT by authority of its Board of Trustees and said Brian Hoelscher acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this day of . 20 Notary Public My Commission expires: Maint Agrmt Page 4 of 4 Parcel List of All Agreements from Pilot and MSD‐Owned Neighborhood‐scale Early Action Projects PLEASE NOTE: There are some duplicate entrees due to multiple agreements on one parcel. See summary and notes at bottom. Address Street Name Parcel ID Lot Size (sq. ft.)Agreement Type Allowed Impervious Footprint (sq. ft.) Reserve Area (sq. ft.)Book Page Recorded Date 1320 Monroe St 6320000200 2,794 Development - Tributary Lot 1,397 N/A 06042012 0432 6/4/2012 1318 Monroe St 6320000300 2,813 Development - Tributary Lot 1,406 N/A 06042012 0431 6/4/2012 1312 Monroe St 6320000500 2,813 Development - Tributary Lot 1,406 N/A 06042012 0427 6/4/2012 1308 Monroe St 6320000600 2,813 Development - Tributary Lot 1,406 N/A 06042012 0426 6/4/2012 1304 Monroe St 6320000800 2,813 Development - Tributary Lot 1,406 N/A 06042012 0429 6/4/2012 1302 Monroe St 6320000900 2,813 Development - Tributary Lot 1,406 N/A 06042012 0428 6/4/2012 1311 Clinton St 6320001340 11,588 Development - Tributary Lot 5,804 N/A 06042012 0430 6/4//2012 3953 Blair Ave 24080001800 6,200 Development - Tributary Lot 3,100 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3949 Blair Ave 24080002000 5,193 Development - Tributary Lot 2,596 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3943-3945 Blair Ave 24080002100 6,356 Development - Tributary Lot 3,178 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3935 Blair Ave 24080002400 3,625 Development - Tributary Lot 1,813 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4230 Desoto Ave 33540001200 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4246 Desoto Ave 33540001600 4,800 Development - Tributary Lot 2,400 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4248 Desoto Ave 33540001700 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4250 DeSoto Ave 33540001800 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4252 DeSoto Ave 33540001900 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4241 Prairie Ave 33540002800 2,400 Development - Tributary Lot 1,200 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4239 Prairie Ave 33540002900 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4235 Prairie Ave 33540003000 3,010 Development - Tributary Lot 1,505 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4233 Prairie Ave 33540003100 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4328 Linton Ave 33560001100 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4330 Linton Ave 33560001200 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4340 Linton Ave 33560001500 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4347 DeSoto Ave 33560003200 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4341 Desoto Ave 33560003400 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4339 Desoto Ave 33560003500 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4329 Desoto Ave 33560003800 3,020 Development - Tributary Lot 1,510 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4327 Desoto Ave 33560003900 6,000 Development - Tributary Lot 3,000 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3812-3814 St Louis Ave 36280001600 7,125 Development - Tributary Lot 3,562 N/A 01142013 0249 1/14/2013 3817 Maffitt Ave 36280002400 3,563 Development - Tributary Lot 1,781 N/A 01142013 0248 1/14/2013 1812 Belle Glade Ave 36620001400 3,368 Development - Tributary Lot 1,684 N/A 01142013 0245 1/14/2013 1816 Belle Glade Ave 36620001650 3,368 Development - Tributary Lot 1,684 N/A 01142013 0244 1/14/2013 1822 Belle Glade Ave 36620001900 3,034 Development - Tributary Lot 1,517 N/A 01142013 0250 1/14/2013 1817 N Sarah St 36620002200 3,367 Development - Tributary Lot 1,684 N/A 01142013 0246 1/14/2013 1815 N Sarah St 36620002300 3,368 Development - Tributary Lot 1,684 N/A 01142013 0247 1/14/2013 4230 Lee Ave 44270000970 6,250 Development - Tributary Lot 3,125 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4226 Lee Ave 44270001100 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4224 Lee Ave 44270001200 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4220 Lee Ave 44270001300 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4218 Lee Ave 44270001400 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3744 St Louis Ave 48720000200 7,000 Development - Tributary Lot 3,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3742 St. Louis Ave 48720000300 3,500 Development - Tributary Lot 1,750 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3736 St. Louis Ave 48720000500 3,500 Development - Tributary Lot 1,750 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3714 St Louis Ave 48720001100 11,200 Development - Tributary Lot 5,600 N/A Pending Pending Pending 2721 N Spring Ave 48720001300 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 2719 N Spring Ave 48720001400 4,500 Development - Tributary Lot 2,250 N/A Pending Pending Pending 2715 N Spring Ave 48720001500 4,500 Development - Tributary Lot 2,250 N/A Pending Pending Pending 2711 N Spring Ave 48720001600 3,000 Development - Tributary Lot 1,500 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3709 Maffitt Ave 48720001900 2,142 Development - Tributary Lot 1,071 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3715 Maffitt Ave 48720002000 4,200 Development - Tributary Lot 2,100 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3717 Maffitt Ave 48720002100 3,500 Development - Tributary Lot 1,750 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3729 Maffitt Ave 48720002400 3,500 Development - Tributary Lot 1,750 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3735 Maffitt Ave 48720002700 3,500 Development - Tributary Lot 1,750 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3737 Maffitt Ave 48720002800 3,500 Development - Tributary Lot 1,750 N/A Pending Pending Pending 3741 Maffitt Ave 48720002900 3,500 Development - Tributary Lot 1,750 N/A Pending Pending Pending 2748 Prairie Ave 48720003400 2,911 Development - Tributary Lot 1,456 N/A Pending Pending Pending 4245 Warne Ave 48990000900 2,750 Development - Tributary Lot 1,375 N/A 07192013 0227 7/19/2013 4243 Warne Ave 48990001000 2,750 Development - Tributary Lot 1,375 N/A 07192013 0225 7/19/2013 4241 Warne Ave 48990001100 5,500 Development - Tributary Lot 4,125 N/A 07192013 0226 7/19/2013 5097 Geraldine Ave 50870003800 2,816 Development - Tributary Lot 1,408 N/A 11192012 0308 11/19/2012 5412 Genevieve Ave 55280000400 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A 11192012 0305 11/19/2012 5416 Genevieve Ave 55280000500 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A 11192012 0307 11/19/2012 5432 Genevieve Ave 55280001100 6,250 Development - Tributary Lot 3,125 N/A 11192012 0306 11/19/2012 5434 Genevieve Ave 55280001200 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A 11192012 0304 11/19/2012 5456 Genevieve Ave 55280002000 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A 11192012 0302 11/19/2012 5472 Genevieve Ave 55280002700 3,125 Development - Tributary Lot 1,563 N/A 11192012 0303 11/19/2012 5819 Page Blvd 38230303100 3,722 Development - Tributary Lot (Vacated)1,861 N/A 05062011 0152 5/6/2011 2528 W Sullivan Ave 10710000800 4,064 Development with Reserve Area 2,032 280 03142012 0162 3/14/2012 2320 Warren St 10830000200 2,775 Development with Reserve Area 1,388 220 04032012 0399 4/3/2012 2624 N 22nd St 10960002060 8,578 Development with Reserve Area 4,289 490 03142012 0160 3/14/2012 1925 St. Louis Ave 11040001800 7,331 Development with Reserve Area 3,666 450 03142012 0154 3/14/2012 2116-2118 Branch St 11590000400 4,956 Development with Reserve Area 2,478 310 03142012 0135 3/14/2012 2100 Destrehan St 11600000800 3,253 Development with Reserve Area 1,626 250 03142012 0165 3/14/2012 4006 N 9th St 12260000400 4,424 Development with Reserve Area 4,424 490 03142012 0232 3/14/2012 3946 N 21st St 12390001100 4,847 Development with Reserve Area 2,424 310 03142012 0227 3/14/2012 3950 N 21st St 12390001200 4,870 Development with Reserve Area 2,435 310 03142012 0074 3/14/2012 3815 N 22nd St 12420001900 6,144 Development with Reserve Area 3,072 380 03142012 0107 3/14/2012 1721-1723 N Grand Blvd 18800001800 3,017 Development with Reserve Area 3,017 380 03142012 0236 3/14/2012 3225-3227 Natural Bridge Ave 19250001900 4,623 Development with Reserve Area 4,623 490 03142012 0216 3/14/2012 3229-3231 Natural Bridge Ave 19250002000 4,623 Development with Reserve Area 4,623 490 03142012 0057 3/14/2012 3714 Lee Ave 19290001400 4,875 Development with Reserve Area 2,438 310 03142012 0124 3/14/2012 4023 Glasgow Ave 19390002100 2,200 Development with Reserve Area 1,100 220 03142012 0126 3/14/2012 4021 Glasgow Ave 19390002200 2,200 Development with Reserve Area 1,100 220 03142012 0085 3/14/2012 2535 Madison St 23270001700 3,272 Development with Reserve Area 1,636 250 03142012 0146 3/14/2012 2508 W Palm St 23761800800 9,258 Development with Reserve Area 8,458 800 10212011 0190 10/21/2011 2500 W Palm St 23761801100 3,636 Development with Reserve Area 3,256 380 10212011 0189 10/21/2011 2568 Palm St 23761801300 3,775 Development with Reserve Area 3,395 380 10212011 0191 10/21/2011 3713 Sullivan Ave 23890002000 7,700 Development with Reserve Area 3,850 450 03142012 0212 3/14/2012 4026 Glasgow Ave 23990000800 4,698 Development with Reserve Area 2,349 310 03142012 0086 3/14/2012 1405 Angelica St 24140003350 5,115 Development with Reserve Area 2,558 340 03142012 0090 3/14/2012 2325 Angelica St 24200002400 10,292 Development with Reserve Area 5,186 570 03142012 0147 3/14/2012 4216 N Florissant Ave 24350000300 3,103 Development with Reserve Area 1,551 250 03142012 0129 3/14/2012 4264 N 21st St 24360001250 3,965 Development with Reserve Area 1,983 280 03142012 0226 3/14/2012 1906 Ferry St 24370500700 5,302 Development with Reserve Area 2,651 340 03142012 0233 3/14/2012 4310 N 19th St 24430000400 3,900 Development with Reserve Area 1,950 280 03142012 0128 3/14/2012 4312 N 19th St 24430000500 3,250 Development with Reserve Area 1,625 250 03142012 0062 3/14/2012 4417 Blair Ave 24430004100 3,169 Development with Reserve Area 1,584 250 03142012 0059 3/14/2012 1910 Bissell St 24440002300 1,467 Development with Reserve Area 733 200 03142012 0081 3/14/2012 1413 Obear Ave 24710001800 2,750 Development with Reserve Area 1,375 220 03142012 0238 3/14/2012 2014 Gano Ave 24760001200 2,750 Development with Reserve Area 1,375 220 03142012 0243 3/14/2012 4227 Obear Ave 24860003100 2,684 Development with Reserve Area 1,342 220 03142012 0093 3/14/2012 3724 Penrose St 24880000807 2,535 Development with Reserve Area 1,268 220 07252011 0121 7/25/2011 3623 Lee Ave 24890001700 2,625 Development with Reserve Area 2,363 310 03142012 0192 3/14/2012 3776 Lee Ave 33040001200 3,500 Development with Reserve Area 1,750 250 03142012 0084 3/14/2012 4224 Prairie Ave 33060000700 3,763 Development with Reserve Area 1,882 280 03142012 0155 3/14/2012 4339 Gano Ave 33070002300 5,669 Development with Reserve Area 2,834 380 03142012 0214 3/14/2012 Parcels with Agreements Appendix T Page 1 Parcel List of All Agreements from Pilot and MSD‐Owned Neighborhood‐scale Early Action Projects PLEASE NOTE: There are some duplicate entrees due to multiple agreements on one parcel. See summary and notes at bottom. Address Street Name Parcel ID Lot Size (sq. ft.)Agreement Type Allowed Impervious Footprint (sq. ft.) Reserve Area (sq. ft.)Book Page Recorded Date Parcels with Agreements 2133 Gano Ave 33080002400 2,812 Development with Reserve Area 1,406 220 10212011 0192 10/21/2011 2135 Gano Ave 33080002500 2,812 Development with Reserve Area 1,406 220 10212011 0193 10/21/2011 857 Cowan St 33480502400 4,900 Development with Reserve Area 2,450 310 03142012 0088 3/14/2012 4324 DeSoto Ave 33530000800 3,015 Development with Reserve Area 1,508 220 03142012 0191 3/14/2012 4328 Desoto Ave 33530000900 6,000 Development with Reserve Area 3,000 380 03142012 0061 3/14/2012 4338 DeSoto Ave 33530001300 3,000 Development with Reserve Area 1,500 220 03142012 0213 3/14/2012 4319 Desoto Ave 33560004200 4,500 Development with Reserve Area 2,250 310 07192013 0235 7/19/2013 1120 Linton Ave 33600002100 4,688 Development with Reserve Area 2,344 310 03142012 0089 3/14/2012 1419 DeSoto Ave 33600003500 2,875 Development with Reserve Area 1,438 220 03142012 0054 3/14/2012 1447 DeSoto Ave 33600004400 5,974 Development with Reserve Area 2,987 380 03142012 0091 3/14/2012 1456 E College Ave 33880001300 4,688 Development with Reserve Area 3,516 410 03142012 0166 3/14/2012 2000 E College Ave 33910000900 4,375 Development with Reserve Area 3,281 380 03142012 0137 3/14/2012 3902 W Florissant Ave 33940002500 8,014 Development with Reserve Area 4,007 610 03142012 0149 3/14/2012 4345 Linton Ave 33940002900 3,000 Development with Reserve Area 1,500 220 03142012 0207 3/14/2012 4317 Linton Ave 33940003700 3,000 Development with Reserve Area 1,500 220 03142012 0063 3/14/2012 4210 College Ave 33950000400 4,730 Development with Reserve Area 2,365 310 03142012 0064 3/14/2012 4221 Linton Ave 33950003200 3,000 Development with Reserve Area 1,500 220 03142012 0150 3/14/2012 4209 Linton Ave 33950003700 3,000 Development with Reserve Area 1,500 220 03142012 0069 3/14/2012 4228 Warne Ave 33960001200 2,796 Development with Reserve Area 1,398 220 03142012 0111 3/14/2012 4232 Warne Ave 33960001300 2,814 Development with Reserve Area 1,407 220 03142012 0231 3/14/2012 4234 Warne Ave 33960001400 2,819 Development with Reserve Area 1,409 220 03142012 0110 3/14/2012 4238 Warne Ave 33960001500 2,827 Development with Reserve Area 1,414 220 03142012 0250 3/14/2012 4240 Warne Ave 33960001600 2,844 Development with Reserve Area 1,422 220 03142012 0196 3/14/2012 3942 Carter Ave 33960002200 2,627 Development with Reserve Area 1,971 280 03142012 0072 3/14/2012 635 E Clarence Ave 34580000100 164,483 Development with Reserve Area 148,035 9,620 03142012 0254 3/14/2012 6100 N Broadway 34610000100 15,276 Development with Reserve Area 13,749 1,190 03142012 0241 3/14/2012 6118 N Broadway 34610000300 6,279 Development with Reserve Area 5,651 570 03142012 0136 3/14/2012 728 Carrie Ave 34620000100 3,629 Development with Reserve Area 3,266 380 03142012 0068 3/14/2012 714 Carrie Ave 34620000400 7,260 Development with Reserve Area 6,534 650 03142012 0071 3/14/2012 710 E Carrie Ave 34620000600 3,625 Development with Reserve Area 3,263 380 03142012 0253 3/14/2012 729 Pope Ave 34620001800 7,258 Development with Reserve Area 6,533 650 03142012 0087 3/14/2012 6117 Prescott Ave 34620001907 7,250 Development with Reserve Area 6,525 650 03142012 0138 3/14/2012 600 Carrie Ave 34630001200 16,675 Development with Reserve Area 15,008 1,250 03142012 0255 3/14/2012 6110 Prescott Ave 34630002900 2,775 Development with Reserve Area 2,048 280 03142012 0139 3/14/2012 4527 Mary Ave 35460003800 3,125 Development with Reserve Area 3,125 380 03142012 0055 3/14/2012 4219 Fair Ave 35660001400 2,750 Development with Reserve Area 1,375 220 03142012 0073 3/14/2012 4153 Lee Ave 35730306900 2,527 Development with Reserve Area 1,264 220 03142012 0142 3/14/2012 4201 Lee Ave 35730307100 3,030 Development with Reserve Area 1,515 220 03142012 0066 3/14/2012 4251 Lee Ave 35730308320 2,525 Development with Reserve Area 1,262 220 03142012 0140 3/14/2012 4255 Lee Ave 35730308700 2,528 Development with Reserve Area 1,264 220 03142012 0249 3/14/2012 4158 N Newstead Ave 35730405500 3,125 Development with Reserve Area 1,563 250 03142012 0067 3/14/2012 3920 Penrose St 35770000600 3,800 Development with Reserve Area 1,900 280 03142012 0151 3/14/2012 3839 Lee Ave 35780002000 5,429 Development with Reserve Area 2,715 340 03142012 0112 3/14/2012 3832 Lee Ave 35870003000 2,584 Development with Reserve Area 2,292 310 03142012 0096 3/14/2012 3828 Lee Ave 35870003100 4,583 Development with Reserve Area 2,292 310 03142012 0259 3/14/2012 3923 Kossuth Ave 35880402500 4,079 Development with Reserve Area 2,040 280 10212011 0194 10/21/2011 4000 Lee Ave 35960001450 8,038 Development with Reserve Area 6,029 610 03142012 0076 3/14/2012 4420 Elmbank Ave 36180001800 3,716 Development with Reserve Area 1,858 280 03142012 0114 3/14/2012 4415 Greer Ave 36180002800 3,208 Development with Reserve Area 1,604 250 03142012 0215 3/14/2012 3000 N Newstead Ave 36190000100 1,596 Development with Reserve Area 1,197 114 03142012 0200 3/14/2012 3019 Vine Grove Ave 36190006150 8,532 Development with Reserve Area 4,266 490 03142012 0203 3/14/2012 4310 Ashland Ave 36200003200 3,125 Development with Reserve Area 1,562 250 03142012 0157 3/14/2012 3143 N Sarah St 36240003100 4,331 Development with Reserve Area 2,166 310 03142012 0217 3/14/2012 3139 N Sarah St 36240003200 4,331 Development with Reserve Area 2,166 310 03142012 0205 3/14/2012 3834 Labadie Ave 36270000900 3,562 Development with Reserve Area 1,781 250 03142012 0078 3/14/2012 3832 Labadie Ave 36270001000 4,275 Development with Reserve Area 2,138 310 03142012 0113 3/14/2012 3806 Labadie Ave 36270001900 4,418 Development with Reserve Area 2,209 310 03142012 0105 3/14/2012 3831 Lincoln Ave 36290203110 5,525 Development with Reserve Area 2,763 340 03142012 0258 3/14/2012 3937 Kennerly Ave 36440103700 2,500 Development with Reserve Area 1,250 220 03142012 0095 3/14/2012 3948 St Louis Ave 36450000600 8,550 Development with Reserve Area 4,275 490 03142012 0075 3/14/2012 4010 Maffitt Ave 36510102100 2,688 Development with Reserve Area 1,344 220 03142012 0083 3/14/2012 4037-4049 Aldine Ave 36570002900 16,075 Development with Reserve Area 8,038 800 03142012 0127 3/14/2012 1704 Whittier St 36610000300 2,618 Development with Reserve Area 1,309 220 03142012 0052 3/14/2012 1718 Whittier St 36610000700 2,618 Development with Reserve Area 1,309 220 03142012 0234 3/14/2012 1727 N Sarah St 36620002700 3,368 Development with Reserve Area 1,684 250 03142012 0082 3/14/2012 4226 St Louis Ave 36730001700 5,338 Development with Reserve Area 2,669 340 03142012 0092 3/14/2012 2815 Whittier St 36730002400 2,597 Development with Reserve Area 1,299 220 03142012 0210 3/14/2012 4201-4205 Maffitt Ave 36730002500 5,486 Development with Reserve Area 4,114 450 03142012 0257 3/14/2012 4207 Maffitt Ave 36730002600 3,813 Development with Reserve Area 1,906 280 03142012 0130 3/14/2012 4271 Maffitt Ave 36730004800 3,813 Development with Reserve Area 1,906 280 03142013 0106 3/14/2012 4256 W Aldine Ave 36820000700 6,870 Development with Reserve Area 3,435 410 03142012 0197 3/14/2012 4260 W Cote Brilliante Ave 36830000300 3,300 Development with Reserve Area 1,650 250 03142012 0225 3/14/2012 4250 W Cote Brilliante Ave 36830000700 4,620 Development with Reserve Area 2,310 310 03142012 0141 3/14/2012 4227 W Aldine Ave 36830003400 3,300 Development with Reserve Area 1,650 250 03142012 0094 3/14/2012 4235 W Aldine Ave 36830003700 3,366 Development with Reserve Area 1,683 250 03142012 0109 3/14/2012 4264 W Garfield Ave 36840000600 3,000 Development with Reserve Area 1,500 220 03142012 0108 3/14/2012 4356 Garfield Ave 36970000400 3,263 Development with Reserve Area 1,632 250 03142012 0058 3/14/2012 4338 Garfield Ave 36970001000 3,741 Development with Reserve Area 1,871 280 03142012 0211 3/14/2012 4336 Garfield Ave 36970001100 2,784 Development with Reserve Area 1,392 220 03142012 0060 3/14/2012 1709 Billups Ave.36980002400 3,299 Development with Reserve Area 1,650 250 03142012 0053 3/14/2012 4442 Kennerly Ave 37060000400 3,341 Development with Reserve Area 1,671 250 03142012 0056 3/14/2012 4406 St Louis Ave 37080000500 4,000 Development with Reserve Area 3,000 380 03142012 0208 3/14/2012 4401 Maffitt Ave 37080000700 17,255 Development with Reserve Area 12,942 1,130 03142012 0193 3/14/2012 4533 St Louis Ave 37110204100 3,750 Development with Reserve Area 1,875 280 03142012 0202 3/14/2012 4616 Maffitt Ave 37130001000 7,250 Development with Reserve Area 1,118 410 03142012 0237 3/14/2012 4604 Maffitt Ave 37130001400 3,625 Development with Reserve Area 1,813 250 03142012 0209 3/14/2012 4572 Kennerly Ave 37160000500 3,450 Development with Reserve Area 1,725 250 03142012 0219 3/14/2012 4561 Cottage Ave 37160005900 3,878 Development with Reserve Area 1,939 280 03142012 0218 3/14/2012 4544 Cottage Ave 37170002000 3,269 Development with Reserve Area 1,634 250 3142012 0198 3/14/2012 4555 St Ferdinand Ave 37170005000 6,540 Development with Reserve Area 3,270 410 03142012 0199 3/14/2012 4542 Garfield Ave 37200001600 4,568 Development with Reserve Area 2,284 310 03142012 0201 3/14/2012 4203 W Evans Ave 37280004500 4,130 Development with Reserve Area 2,065 280 03142012 0065 3/14/2012 4207 W Evans Ave 37280004600 4,125 Development with Reserve Area 2,062 280 03142012 0131 3/14/2012 4204-4206 W Cook Ave 37460002100 4,550 Development with Reserve Area 2,275 310 03142012 0070 3/14/2012 4059 R Enright Ave 37540006800 4,465 Development with Reserve Area 2,232 310 03142012 0239 3/14/2012 7850 N Broadway 42300000100 86,249 Development with Reserve Area 77,624 5,250 03142012 0079 3/14/2012 356 Christian Ave 42300000700 3,450 Development with Reserve Area 3,105 380 03142012 0256 3/14/2012 4135 Lea Pl 44290001100 2,708 Development with Reserve Area 1,354 220 03142012 0133 3/14/2012 4133 Lea Pl 44290001200 2,708 Development with Reserve Area 1,354 220 03142012 0132 3/14/2012 4130 W Lexington Ave 44400800100 7,172 Development with Reserve Area 3,586 410 03142012 0125 3/14/2012 4201 Labadie Ave 44670306100 4,768 Development with Reserve Area 3,576 410 03142012 0240 3/14/2012 4219 W Labadie Ave 44681401100 4,125 Development with Reserve Area 2,062 280 03142012 0148 3/14/2012 4822 Northland Ave 44770200600 3,289 Development with Reserve Area 1,645 250 03142012 0159 3/14/2012 4722 Northland Ave 44770203400 4,062 Development with Reserve Area 2,031 280 03142012 0143 3/14/2012 2633 Marcus Ave 44770203707 2,500 Development with Reserve Area 1,875 250 04032012 0398 4/3/2012 2629 Marcus Ave 44770203800 3,813 Development with Reserve Area 2,860 340 03142012 0153 3/14/2012 Appendix T Page 2 Parcel List of All Agreements from Pilot and MSD‐Owned Neighborhood‐scale Early Action Projects PLEASE NOTE: There are some duplicate entrees due to multiple agreements on one parcel. See summary and notes at bottom. Address Street Name Parcel ID Lot Size (sq. ft.)Agreement Type Allowed Impervious Footprint (sq. ft.) Reserve Area (sq. ft.)Book Page Recorded Date Parcels with Agreements 4754 Cupples Pl 44771101700 4,600 Development with Reserve Area 2,300 310 03142012 0144 3/14/2012 4717 Northland Ave 44780004300 3,325 Development with Reserve Area 1,663 250 10212011 0195 10/21/2011 4729 Northland Ave 44780004700 3,327 Development with Reserve Area 1,664 250 10212011 0196 10/21/2011 2909 Marcus Ave 44790003150 3,461 Development with Reserve Area 1,731 250 03142012 0194 3/14/2012 4775 Greer Ave 44810306700 6,720 Development with Reserve Area 3,360 410 03142012 0161 3/14/2012 5210 Terry Ave 44990600400 4,703 Development with Reserve Area 2,352 310 03142012 0097 3/14/2012 2830 Arlington Ave 45170507100 10,596 Development with Reserve Area 5,298 570 03142012 0220 3/14/2012 2842 Arlington Ave 45170507400 5,427 Development with Reserve Area 2,719 340 03142012 0204 3/14/2012 2722 Arlington Ave 45170604700 6,930 Development with Reserve Area 3,465 410 03142012 0206 3/14/2012 2511 Semple Ave 45240004300 4,313 Development with Reserve Area 2,156 310 03142012 0156 3/14/2012 5034 Union Blvd 50870001300 3,200 Development with Reserve Area 2,880 340 03142012 0252 3/14/2012 5070 Alcott Ave 51380002400 3,125 Development with Reserve Area 1,563 250 03142012 0152 3/14/2012 5020 W Florissant Ave 51420002400 6,000 Development with Reserve Area 6,000 610 03142012 0251 3/14/2012 5017 Davison Ave 52320004000 3,038 Development with Reserve Area 1,519 220 03142012 0145 3/14/2012 5713 St Louis Ave 52370005600 4,308 Development with Reserve Area 2,154 310 03142012 0247 3/14/2012 5631 Roosevelt Pl 52440004800 2,915 Development with Reserve Area 1,458 220 03142012 0248 3/14/2012 2910 Abner Pl 52460003100 1,988 Development with Reserve Area 994 200 03142012 0195 3/14/2012 5344 Zealand St 52590001000 3,450 Development with Reserve Area 1,725 250 03142012 0229 3/14/2012 5309 Arlington Ave 53300005200 3,750 Development with Reserve Area 1,875 280 03142012 0098 3/14/2012 6045 Shulte Ave 53420001600 3,521 Development with Reserve Area 1,766 250 03142012 0245 3/14/2012 6037 Emma Ave 53440003700 3,125 Development with Reserve Area 1,563 250 03142012 0164 3/14/2012 6063 Thekla Ave 53460004100 3,750 Development with Reserve Area 1,875 280 03142012 0242 3/14/2012 6028 Thekla Ave 53470001600 3,125 Development with Reserve Area 1,563 250 03142012 0230 3/14/2012 6057 Garesche Ave 53470004000 3,125 Development with Reserve Area 1,563 250 03142012 0244 3/14/2012 5929 Theodore Ave 53480002900 3,125 Development with Reserve Area 1,563 250 03142012 0246 3/14/2012 8209 Church Rd 54310002700 7,000 Development with Reserve Area 2,450 310 04032012 0400 4/3/2012 8205 Church Rd 54310002800 7,000 Development with Reserve Area 3,500 410 03142012 0080 3/14/2012 5009 Arlington Ave 55560006600 3,750 Development with Reserve Area 1,875 280 03142012 0158 3/14/2012 5618 Vivian Pl 57810000200 3,328 Development with Reserve Area 2,995 380 03142012 0228 3/14/2012 5200 Palm St 59500001107 6,875 Development with Reserve Area 5,157 530 04032012 0401 4/3/2012 5831 Terry Ave 60980002850 5,153 Development with Reserve Area 2,577 340 03142012 0163 3/14/2012 3961 Blair Ave 24080001600 3,800 Development with Reserve Area (Replaced)2,850 N/A 07192013 0232 7/19/2013 3953 Blair Ave 24080001800 6,200 Development with Reserve Area (Replaced)3,100 N/A 07192013 0231 7/19/2013 4229 Prairie Ave 33540003300 3,000 Development with Reserve Area (Replaced)1,500 N/A 07192013 0234 7/19/2013 4318 Linton Ave 33560000700 3,000 Development with Reserve Area (Replaced)1,500 N/A 07192013 0229 7/19/2013 4328 Linton Ave 33560001100 3,000 Development with Reserve Area (Replaced)1,500 N/A 07192013 0228 7/19/2013 4218 Lee Ave 44270001400 3,125 Development with Reserve Area (Replaced)1,563 N/A 07192013 0230 7/19/2013 3744 St Louis Ave 48720000200 7,000 Development with Reserve Area (Replaced)3,500 N/A 07192013 0233 7/19/2013 2944 Sheridan Ave 10040000121 4,951 Maintenance 2,476 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2942 Sheridan Ave 10040000131 4,992 Maintenance 2,496 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2945 Thomas St 10040003321 3,556 Maintenance 1,778 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2951 Thomas St 10040003341 3,734 Maintenance 1,867 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2953 Thomas St 10040003351 3,557 Maintenance 1,779 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2957 Thomas St 10040003361 4,988 Maintenance 2,494 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2956 Thomas St 10050000211 4,679 Maintenance 2,340 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2954 Thomas St 10050000221 4,679 Maintenance 2,340 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2946 Thomas St 10050000241 3,555 Maintenance 1,778 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2944 Thomas St 10050000251 3,555 Maintenance 1,778 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2942 Thomas St 10050000261 3,555 Maintenance 1,778 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 2940 Thomas St 10050000271 3,555 Maintenance 1,778 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 1341 N Garrison Ave 10300002211 4,451 Maintenance 3,339 85 04012011 0232 4/1/2011 1451 Monroe St 11110001100 2,813 Maintenance 1,406 360 05202011 0179 5/20/2011 1455 Monroe St 11110001300 2,813 Maintenance 1,406 300 05202011 0178 5/20/2011 835 Harlan Ave 63480002900 5,243 Maintenance 3,932 94 02062012 0491 2/6/2012 SUMMARY ‐ AGREEMENT TYPES Development with Reserve Area 176 Development ‐ Tributary Lot 66 Maintenance 16 Development with Reserve Area (REPLACED)7 See Note 1 Development ‐ Tributary Lot (Vacated)1 See Note 2 Note 1:Previously recorded agreement replaced due to Early Action Neighborhood‐scale project. Now owned by MSD or Tributary Lot. Note 2:Previously recorded agreement vacated ‐ parcel is not in the GIPLT Focus Area Appendix T Page 3 APPENDIX H GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE UNIVERSE OF TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING TOOL TECHNICAL MEMO (USER INSTRUCTIONS) AND SPREADSHEET 1 of 3 MEMO TO: Sue McCrary, MSD FROM : Jay Hoskins, MSD RE: Green Infrastructure Screening Tool Technical Memo: User Instructions DATE: 12/21/11 The green infrastructure screening tool (“GIST”) is a MS Excel spreadsheet database of information on many types of green infrastructure. GIST was developed to ensure that a “universe” of technologies could be considered in developing alternatives for controlling runoff, as well as help designers pare this list to the ones that best fit a particular site. This memo is intended to help MSD staff properly use GIST. A GIST spreadsheet can be completed for each site to pare down the list of technologies for that site to the most applicable ones. Using the MS Excel autofilter feature, paring occurs when the site evaluator picks, from the autofilter pull down menus, the parameters that describe their site or runoff control objective. The list of technologies was derived from staff experience, stormwater design manuals, Center for Watershed Protection guidance, and other literature. Technologies were then categorized into five general response actions: impervious area reduction, collection and discharge (to sewer), collection and infiltration, collection and reuse, and cityshed (i.e., watershed) restoration. (“No action” is also a general response action that could be considered, but none of the technologies were categorized as “no action”.) The appropriateness of the technology for the site is evaluated by three primary criteria: effectiveness, technical implementability, and retrofit cost.1 Effectiveness Effectiveness is evaluated based on 4 factors.  Short-Term (Pre-development or Construction) Effectiveness: this factor refers to the ability of the technology to reduce runoff upon completion of technology deployment. Technologies that are rated high, medium, or low based on their ability to reduce the volume or rate of runoff into the sewer system immediately upon construction, and their resiliency to watershed (surface) stability. (For example, technologies most susceptible to clogging by construction sediment were rated low.)  Volume in Sewer: this factor evaluates the ability of the technology to reduce the volume of runoff discharged into sewers. Technologies rated “low” typically have annual runoff removal rates <5-10 percent; “medium” technologies 1Technologies are assumed to be deployed as “stand-alone” projects, therefore retrofit costs were used. This is notable because capital costs for retrofit projects are typically 1.5-4x that of development projects. See Center for Watershed Protection Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, August 2007. 2 of 3 typically have <50 percent annual runoff removal; and “high” technologies typically have >50 percent annual runoff. Removal rates reflect a generally accepted range of possible technology performance.  Discharge Rate into Sewer: this factor evaluates the technology’s ability to reduce the rate of runoff into sewers. Technologies that are rated as high volume reduction or can be used in an extended detention capacity are categorized as “high”. Technologies rated “low” have limited or no effect on reducing the rate of discharge into sewers.  Limited by HSG D Soils?: BMPs whose effectiveness is dependent upon infiltration into soil are limited when site soils are rated hydrologic soil group (HSG) D. If the effectiveness of the technology is dependent upon infiltration, then this question is answered “yes”. Technical Implementability Effectiveness is evaluated based on 11 factors.  Min Drainage (Ac): BMPs that can be effectively implemented, independent of the minimum drainage area to them, are listed as “NA”. Some BMPs require a minimum drainage area to maintain permanent pools (e.g., wet ponds and wetlands), and these BMPs are the ones that typically have a minimum drainage area requirement. Minimum drainage area provided are from the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual (2000), and should be checked with water balance calculations as warranted.  Max Drainage (Ac): BMPs that can be effectively implemented, independent of the maximum drainage area to them, are listed as “NA”. BMPs with maximum drainage areas are typically “micro-scale” practices or filter practices.  Optimal Watershed Location: BMPs that can be effectively implemented, independent of their location in the Bissell Point watershed, are listed as “ALL”. Practices with a detention or extended detention component are best placed in the upper portion of the watershed to prevent unintended problems due to the timing of lower basin water release.  Max Slope for BMP Site (%): BMPs that can be effectively implemented, independent of slope or grade of their location are listed as “NA”. Practices whose capture efficiency or storage efficiency are affected by slope are provided a value. Technologies should be screened “out” when the slope of their potential location is greater than the value listed.  Single Family Residential Use?: Technologies that are appropriate for single residential lot use are listed as “Yes”. Technologies located underground and that require special expertise to maintain are listed as “No”.  Public Transportation Impact: Technologies that would significantly impact street maintenance are listed as “high” (e.g., porous pavement). Technologies that located adjacent to streets are listed as “medium”, and those whose location is independent of streets are listed as “low”.  Design Specialist: Technologies requiring expertise beyond those typically provided by a civil engineer and/or landscape architect are listed as “Yes”. 3 of 3  Proven Performance: Technologies are rated high, medium, and low based on the relative degree of research and understanding on each technology. The basis of this rating is staff experience and familiarity with the technology.  Constructability: Technologies are rated high, medium, and low based on the familiarity of local contractors with the technology, the number of successful installations with MSD, and experience.  Operational Reliability: Technologies are rate high, medium, and low based on the ability of the technology to reliably provide effective performance. The rating is based on several factors, including constructability and maintenance effort. Technologies whose reliability is uncertain were listed as “unknown”.  Monitoring Effort: Technologies were rated high, medium, and low based on the relative level of effort needed to monitor, as well as the expertise required to operate, the BMP to ensure effective performance. Retrofit Cost The cost of applying the technology in a “retrofit” manner (i.e., to existing development, outside of new or redevelopment projects) is evaluated based on 2 factors.  Construction Cost: Costs, where available, are presented as feasibility level estimates (+50 to -30% of actual). Costs are presented as dollars-per-volume stored. (For example, if a BMP has a 4000 cubic-foot (cf) storage capacity, and unit cost of $4/cf, then the estimated construction cost would be $16,000.) Cost basis is reported costs for development projects within MSD and the Center for Watershed Protection Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practice Manual.  Operation Cost: Technologies were rated high, medium, low, or unknown based on the relative level of maintenance costs between technologies. For example, technologies whose typical maintenance is semi-annual (or less frequent) landscaping and trash collection were rated low. Those with similar types of activities, but more frequent maintenance, were rated medium. Technologies that potentially require operational expertise, special maintenance equipment, confined space entry, and other specialized work processes were rated high. Where the application is untried in MSD, the technology is rated unknown. Universe of Green Infrastructure Volume Reduction TechnologiesConstructabilityNo ActionNoneNANAYesNoLowLowLowLowBuilding AbandonmentNA NAALL NAYes Low NoHighHigh High LowParking Lot Pavement AbandonmentNA NAALL NAYes Low NoHighHigh High LowStreet/Sidewalk/Alley Pavement AbandonmentNA NAALL NAYes High NoHighHigh High LowIntensive Green RoofNA NAALL NANoLow Yes Medium Low Medium MediumExtensive Green RoofNA NAALL NANoLow Yes Medium Low Medium MediumPorous Pavement Parking LotsNA 3ALL 1NoLow NoMedium Medium High MediumPorous Pavement StreetsNA 3ALL 1Yes High NoMedium Medium Medium MediumPorous Pavement Parking LanesNA 3ALL 1Yes High NoMedium Medium Medium MediumPorous Pavement SidewalksNA 3ALL 1Yes High NoMedium Medium Medium MediumPorous Pavement AlleysNA 3ALL 1Yes High NoMedium Medium High MediumPorous Pavement DrivewaysNA 3ALL 1Yes Low NoMedium Medium Unknown MediumNarrow StreetsNA NAALL NAYes High NoHighHigh High LowNarrow SidewalksNA NAALL NAYes High NoHighHigh High LowReinforced TurfNANAALLNAYesLowNoMediumMediumLowMediumCollection/Discharge Rain GardensNA 0.05 (per downspout) ALL 1Yes Low NoMedium High Unknown HighParking Lot BioretentionNA 5ALL 5NoLow NoHighHigh High MediumStreet BioretentionNA 0.5ALL 5Yes Medium NoHighMedium Unknown MediumStreet Planter BoxesNA 0.5ALL 5Yes Medium NoHighMedium Unknown MediumStreet BioswalesNA 5ALL 4Yes Medium NoHighMedium Unknown MediumStreet Dry SwalesNA 5ALL 4Yes Medium NoHighMedium Unknown MediumStreet Grass ChannelsNA NAALL 4Yes Medium NoHighMedium Unknown MediumRooftop Disconnection (splash to grade)NA 0.01 (per downspout) ALL NAYes Low NoHighHigh High LowRooftop Disconnection to Amended SoilsNA 0.05 (per downspout) ALL 1Yes Low NoMedium High Unknown MediumRooftop Disconnection to Planter BoxesNA 0.5ALL NAYes Low NoMedium High High MediumRooftop Disconnection to BioretentionNA 5ALL 5Yes Low NoHighHigh High MediumRooftop Disconnection to Rain GardensNA 0.05 (per downspout) ALL 1Yes Low NoMedium High Unknown HighRooftop Disconnection to Porous PaversNA 3ALL 1Yes Low NoHighMedium High MediumParking Lot Sheet Flow to Conserved Open SpaceNA 2ALL 5Yes Low NoLowHigh Unknown LowStreet/Sidewalk Sheet Flow to Conserved Open Space NA 2ALL 5Yes Medium NoLowHigh Unknown LowExtended Detention Dry Ponds (Traditional)5NAUpper 1/3 15Yes Low NoHighHigh High LowExtended Underground Dry Detention (Traditional)5NAUpper 1/3 NANoLow NoHighHigh High HighExtended Detention Ponds (Automated Control Structure) NA NAALL 15NoLow NoHighHigh Unknown HighExtended Underground Dry Detention (Automated)NA NAALL NANoLow NoHighHigh Unknown HighExtended Detention Wet Ponds10 NAUpper 1/3 15Yes Low NoHighHigh High MediumExtended Detention Wetland25 NAUpper 1/3 15Yes Low NoHighLow Unknown MediumWetland25 NAALL 15Yes Low Yes HighLow Unknown MediumSurface Sand FilterNA 10Upper 1/3 10Yes Low NoHighHigh High MediumUnderground Sand FilterNA 5Upper 1/3 NANoLow NoMedium High Medium HighOrganic FilterNA 5ALL 5Yes Low NoHighMedium Medium MediumLevel Spreader with Vegetated Filter StripNA 2Upper 1/3 10Yes Low NoMedium Low Unknown LowManufactured Underground Filter DevicesNA 5Upper 1/3 NANoLow NoHighHigh High HighManufactured Underground Hydrodynamic Separators NA 5ALL NANoLow NoHighHigh High HighSubmerged Gravel Wetland1NAUpper 1/3 2NoLow NoMedium Low Unknown MediumBlue RoofNANAALLNANoLowYesHighLowUnknownHighCollection/Infiltration Infiltration BasinsNA 10 ALL 15Yes Low NoHighMedium Medium LowInfiltration TrenchesNA 5ALL 15Yes Low NoHighMedium Medium MediumInfiltration BermsNA 0.2ALL 15Yes Low NoMedium Low Unknown MediumLandscape InfiltrationNA 0ALL 1Yes Low NoMedium Low Unknown MediumDry WellNA0.01ALLNAYesLowYesMediumLowUnknownHighCollection/Reuse Rooftop Disconnection to 55-gal Rain BarrelNA 0.01ALL NAYes Low NoLowHigh Low HighRooftop Disconnection to Cisterns: Irrigation ReuseNA NAALL NAYes Low NoHighMedium Unknown HighRooftop Disconnection to Cisterns: Gray-water Reuse NA NAALL NANoLow Yes HighLow Unknown HighWet Ponds with Irrigation 10NAALL15YesLowNoHighHighUnknownMediumCityshed Restoration Stream Daylighting25 NA ALL NAYes High Yes HighLow High LowPrairie Restoration25 NAALL NAYes Low Yes Medium Medium Medium LowForest Restoration25NAALLNAYesLowNoHighHighHighLowProven PerformanceGeneral Response Actions TechnologyTechnical ImplementabilityMin Drainage Max Drainage (Ac)Optimal Watershed Max Slope for BMP Site (%)Single Family Residential Public TransportatiDesign Specialist?Operation Reliability Monitoring EffortImpervious Area Reduction1 of 2 Universe of Green Infrastructure Volume Reduction TechnologiesEffectivenessConstruction OperationNo ActionNoneLowLowLowNoNoneNoneBuilding AbandonmentHigh High High NoUnknown LowParking Lot Pavement AbandonmentHighHighHighNoUnknown LowStreet/Sidewalk/Alley Pavement AbandonmentHighHighHighNoUnknown LowIntensive Green RoofLowHighHighNo$360/cf HighExtensive Green RoofLowMediumHighNo$225/cf HighPorous Pavement Parking LotsLowMediumHighNo$10/cf MediumPorous Pavement StreetsLowMediumHighNoUnknown UnknownPorous Pavement Parking LanesLowMediumHighNoUnknown UnknownPorous Pavement SidewalksLowMediumHighNo$12.50/cf UnknownPorous Pavement AlleysLowMediumHighNo$4/cf MediumPorous Pavement DrivewaysLowMediumHighNo$12.50/cf UnknownNarrow StreetsMediumMediumMediumNoUnknown LowNarrow SidewalksMediumMediumMediumNoUnknown LowReinforced TurfMediumMediumHighNoUnknownLowCollection/Discharge Rain GardensLow High High Yes$4/cf MediumParking Lot BioretentionLowMediumHighNo$11/cf MediumStreet BioretentionLowMediumHighNo$30/cf UnknownStreet Planter BoxesLowMediumHighNo$28/cf UnknownStreet BioswalesLowMediumHighNo$30/cf UnknownStreet Dry SwalesLowMediumHighNo$11/cf UnknownStreet Grass ChannelsLowLowMediumNo$12.50/cf UnknownRooftop Disconnection (splash to grade)MediumMediumMediumNo$2/cf LowRooftop Disconnection to Amended SoilsLowHighHighNo$3/cf LowRooftop Disconnection to Planter BoxesMediumMediumHighNo$27/cf LowRooftop Disconnection to BioretentionLowMediumHighNo$30/cf LowRooftop Disconnection to Rain GardensLowHighHighYes$4/cf LowRooftop Disconnection to Porous PaversLowMediumHighNo$12/cf LowParking Lot Sheet Flow to Conserved Open SpaceLowMediumMediumNo$6/cf LowStreet/Sidewalk Sheet Flow to Conserved Open Space LowMediumMediumNo$6/cf LowExtended Detention Dry Ponds (Traditional)MediumLowHighNo$1/cf MediumExtended Underground Dry Detention (Traditional)MediumLowHighNo$4/cf HighExtended Detention Ponds (Automated Control Structure) MediumLowHighNoUnknown HighExtended Underground Dry Detention (Automated)MediumLowHighNoUnknown HighExtended Detention Wet PondsLowLowHighNo$5/cf MediumExtended Detention WetlandLowLowHighNo$5/cf MediumWetlandLowLowLowNo$5/cf MediumSurface Sand FilterLowLowHighNo$28/cf MediumUnderground Sand FilterLowLowHighNo$65/cf HighOrganic FilterLowMediumHighNo$11/cf MediumLevel Spreader with Vegetated Filter StripLowMediumMediumNo$6/cf MediumManufactured Underground Filter DevicesLowLowHighNo$14/cf HighManufactured Underground Hydrodynamic Separators LowLowLowNo$30,000/ac HighSubmerged Gravel WetlandLowLowMediumNo$30/cf MediumBlue RoofHighLowHighNoUnknownHighCollection/Infiltration Infiltration BasinsLow High High Yes$15/cf MediumInfiltration TrenchesLowHighHighYes$15/cf MediumInfiltration BermsLowHighHighYes$30/cf MediumLandscape InfiltrationLowMediumMediumYes$30/cf MediumDry WellLowHighHighYes$12/cfLowCollection/Reuse Rooftop Disconnection to 55-gal Rain BarrelLowMediumYesNo$25/cf LowRooftop Disconnection to Cisterns: Irrigation ReuseHighHighYesNo$15/cf HighRooftop Disconnection to Cisterns: Gray-water Reuse HighHighYesNoUnknown HighWet Ponds with Irrigation HighHighYesNoUnknownHighCityshed Restoration Stream DaylightingHigh High YesNoUnknown LowPrairie RestorationHighHighYesNoUnknown LowForest RestorationHighHighYesNoUnknownLowLimited by HSG D Soils?Impervious Area ReductionGeneral Response Actions TechnologyRetrofit CostShort-Term (Pre-Development or Construction)Reduces Volume in Sewer (P<1.14")Reduces Discharge Rate Into Sewer (P<1.14")2 of 2 APPENDIX I PILOT SITE SELECTION PROCESS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Sue McCrary Mark Koester March 26, 2012 CSO Volume Reduction — Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Site Selection Process The process for selecting sites for the CSO Volume Reduction — Green Infrastructure Pilot Program was assigned to the Engineering/Program Planning stormwater team. The target area for CSO volume reduction was the northern part of the City of St. Louis that is tributary to the Bissell Point Treatment Plant and also north of Interstate 64. Phase 1 Screening As stated in Appendix Q of the Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan, the green infrastructure facilities are to be located on Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) properties. The LRA properties could be vacant, or contain a habitable structure, or contain a structure that MSD paid the City to demolish. A screening process was used to provide an initial overview for rating all of the blocks in the target area and determining the most appealing blocks for green infrastructure facilities. The MSD GIS database was utilized in the Phase 1 screening. It was determined that the major factors affecting green infrastructure feasibility that could be screened quickly were open area, impervious area, and habitable buildings. Data fields deemed to be the most important for the Phase 1 screening were MSD grid number, city watershed, number of LRA owned properties, number of MSD funded demolitions, if there was more than 0.25 acre of contiguous open space on LRA owned properties, and whether there were any habitable structures on LRA property for each block. Using these fields along with a field for notes, a Microsoft Access database was created with a form to collect the data for all of the blocks in the target area. Arc GIS and Microsoft Excel were then used to sum the number of LRA owned parcels, MSD funded demolitions, and parcels on each block. An Excel file was exported from GIS that contained all of the blocks within the target area with the respective LRA owned parcels, MSD funded demolitions, and parcels for each block. This information, along with viewing aerial photography in GIS, was used to populate the Access database. The following Phase 1 rating system was developed: Total Number of LRA Owned Lots in Block times 0.1 points Number of lots approved for demolition times 2 points Empty and/or approved demolition of lots>1/4 ac of contiguous area times 1 point If the notes field said "Entire block is vacant", 4 points If all of the LRA owned lots were vacant, 1 point 1 This rating system was used to prioritize the blocks for field investigation. A partial copy of the database is provided at the end of this document. Use of the "Universe of Technologies" The "Universe of Technologies" is a spreadsheet created by MSD staff that is composed of the feasible BMP alternatives for the CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure Pilot Program. The planning team's goal during the site selection process was to visit blocks with and without MSD funded demolitions and find LRA owned parcels where all of the different "Universe of Technologies" could be applied. A copy of the "Universe of Technologies" spreadsheet is shown at the end of this document. Process for Investigating Demolitions A list of the buildings contracted to be demolished with MSD funds was obtained from LRA. Planning staff then printed a GIS map showing the entire block, including the LRA owned parcels and the parcels with demolitions being funded by MSD. During the field visit, the planning staff looked at all the lots owned by LRA and determined if one of the "Universe of Technologies" could be constructed on the property. Since MSD paid for the demolitions on some lots, blocks containing those lots were investigated first. If the block did not appear to be a good candidate for a BMP and was in the target area, then the lot was marked for a development agreement with reserve area. The reserve area was determined by calculating the water quality volume for a future bioretention cell based on the proposed land use. If the block was outside the target area, then the lot was marked to be swapped for vacant LRA properties where MSD could construct BMPs. Review Process for Viable Sites During the field visit, planning staff visited city blocks with and without MSD funded demolitions. They looked for parcels owned by LRA where BMP's from the "Universe of Technologies" could be used. Once an ideal parcel was found, the planning staff prepared a project folder with an exhibit illustrating the project scope, field notes, hydraulic calculations, and a conceptual cost estimate. The project folder was then given to the Principal Engineer for review and approval. Once approved, the Principal Engineer forwarded the project folder to the CSO Green Infrastructure Project Manager for review and approval. Once the CSO Green Infrastructure Project Manager approved the project, a meeting with LRA was held to discuss the project and verify that the City did not have other plans for the parcel. The projects were then added to the project database. Potential sites were investigated to see if there were any streets, alleys, or properties with impervious area draining to the MSD funded demolitions or other LRA owned properties. Factors such as the slope of the site, how high they were above the street, development 2 around the area, parking lots that drained to the site, and nearby location of churches and schools were considered. A copy of a sample block data sheet is shown at the end of this document. After a site was considered viable in the field, the "Universe of Technologies" was used to determine the most applicable BMP for the location. The BMPs were designed based on the drainage area and the higher of the planned and current impervious area for the water quality volume storm. The design of the BMP also considered how the water was getting into the BMP and whether an overflow was needed. After sizing the BMPs, the downstream system was evaluated to determine if detention would be required and if there was enough room for detention. After sizing the BMP and detention, costs were obtained by multiplying the BMP's capacity by an average construction cost per cubic foot from the "Universe of Technologies." An itemized cost estimate was included for additional needed items and for detention if required. Development of Cost Estimates As with all MSD conceptual studies, a design and construction cost estimate was developed at a conceptual level for each proposed BMP. The "Universe of Technologies" was used to obtain the associated retrofit cost per unit of provided stormwater storage volume. A spreadsheet was used to calculate the water quality volume for bioretention cell type BMPs. The required storage volume, which is 75% of the water quality volume, and provided storage volume are also calculated in the spreadsheet. A unit cost of $20/cubic feet (cf) of storage for bioretention cells was obtained from the BMP "universe." It was debated that the unit price was high compared to GI projects being constructed in the District, and a reevaluation of the unit price was recommended. (The volume stored, for the purpose of developing cost estimates, is the volume provided by the storage above the soil bed (ponding) and in the biomedia soil bed (porosity, 35% voids assumed).) Using a proposed block scale project as an example (1323 Clinton St. in CB 632), a detailed cost estimate was created using the District's pay item unit costs where available and contractor furnished estimates for pay items without defined unit costs. Utility relocation, protection and restoration of site, and a 35% contingency were added according to the District's procedure for preparing preliminary study cost estimates. This exercise resulted in a unit cost of $14/cf stored and was used instead of $20/cf stored for pricing bioretention cells, the most common type of GI used in the pilot program. An additional 25% contingency was added to the bioretention cell cost after mulitplying the storage volume by the unit cost of $14/cf. For other types of BMPs, the "universe" unit costs were assumed. One exception was a calculated unit cost of $7/cf for detention basins. It was later decided to itemize the individual pay items in the basin construction which gave a lower and believed to be a more accurate cost estimate. 3 Development of Conceptual Project Database During the first part of the site selection process, Excel worksheets were used to keep track of the projects, but it became apparent that a database would be required to keep the projects in a central location and to ease tracking and record keeping. After discussions by team members, it was decided that an Oracle database was the best kind of database for this program. An Oracle database provided the power needed to generate the required tables, forms, and reports along with the ability to directly communicate instantaneously with GIS. This made it easier to track the projects on the MSD mapping system. The database was designed so that when a project went to design it could be linked to MSD's Oracle E-Business Suite where projects are tracked from beginning to end. The database was designed with a web application for easy input of data and higher control settings for the data. This application tracked who put in the information along with the date and time. Development of the database took about two months to complete. Upon completion, the data for all of the blocks that were visited and all of the projects that were proposed was input. Different reports were created to show all the projects, the tracking of the projects, and a summary of all of the projects and agreements. Project Priority Matrix The viable projects obtained from the site selection process were put into a project matrix and classified by the following categories: type (site or neighborhood scale); location factors (watershed, CSO #, ward #, in ROW or on lot, etc.); drainage from (street, yard, rooftop, etc.); impervious area reduction (pavement abandonment, porous pavement, etc.); collection/filter/discharge (planter box, amended soil, bioretention, extended detention, etc.); infiltration (rain gardens, berms, etc.); reuse (rain barrel, cistern, etc.); restoration (prairie, forest, etc.); inlet method (curb bump -out, gutter sump, warped pavement, curb inlet, etc.); pre-treatment (basin, forebay, etc.); overflow (structure, bypass, or spillway); flood detention (100-year, stacked, separate, none, etc.). The projects were then ranked according to the classifications with priority given to those with unique characteristics. A 1 ranking is high, a 9 ranking is low, and some have contingent ratings. The highest ranking went to amended soil packages and site scale projects. The project rationale (why it's different) was also stated in the matrix. This process produced the projects that proceeded to final design. A copy of the matrix is shown at the end of this document. Issues Encountered and How They Were Addressed Issues were encountered during the site selection process. Depending on the severity of the issue, some sites were eliminated from further consideration. The most common issue was topographical, vacant sites with no offsite drainage coming onto them; these MSD funded demolition sites were marked for a development agreement with reserve area. In order to gain additional runoff from the street to a neighborhood scale project, curb bump -out, gutter sump, or curb inlets were employed to collect the stormwater where possible. A related issue here was the lack of District -developed construction 4 details. Preliminary details were developed as needed. Alley drainage collection was an issue. The pavement was proposed to be warped as long as ponding and potential icing were not issues. Trench drains were proposed where water could pond and freeze on alley pavement. Provisions for stormwater overflow were other common issues. BMPs with overflow structures require a connection to a nearby sewer. This as well as existing sewer capacity were common issues causing the project to be dropped or adding cost for the upsizing of existing sewer pipe. There was the issue of potential sewage backing up into the detention basin from overcharged sewers; back flow preventers were proposed when connecting to trunk sewers. Some locations that warranted detention were too small to incorporate detention. Maintenance of the BMPs is an ongoing issue. Coordination with the City Street Department is required for BMPs located in street right-of-way for both details and maintenance. Site scale projects require recorded maintenance agreements with the property owners. An issue with cost estimating occurred during final design of the Clinton Bioretention (CB 632). The final design cost estimate was nearly double the conceptual cost estimate. Possible reasons for the increase in cost may include a higher class of excavation due to buried foundations and rubble, extra cost for sidewalk installation, and aesthetic enhancements to the BMP. As more projects are designed and bid data is acquired, the conceptual cost estimate procedure should be updated. Other Green Infrastructure Opportunities MSD also coordinated with the Community Development Agency (CDA), Ranken Technical Institute, and Habitat for Humanity about creating projects on lots with habitable structures. After talks with the CDA, they provided a list of habitable structures that could incorporate planter boxes. Ranken Technical Institute was building houses on LRA lots and could incorporate rainwater harvesting systems if reimbursed by MSD. However, a conceptual design and cost estimate determined that construction of the rainwater harvesting system was cost -prohibitive. Habitat for Humanity had many construction projects occurring on LRA properties and agreed to install a variety of BMP technologies if reimbursed by MSD. Summary A total of 222 MSD funded building demolitions were investigated. The building demolitions were located on 220 parcels, and 192 city blocks were investigated. Identified projects included 2 amended soil packages including 13 parcels, 3 site -scale projects including 16 parcels, 10 neighborhood -scale projects including 12 parcels and 130 tributary lots, and 3 neighborhood -scale contingency projects including 5 parcels and 57 tributary lots. In addition, Development Agreement with Reserve Area documents were recorded on 175 parcels. A summary table of the identified projects is shown at the end of this document. 5 Many contributions were made by MSD staff during the site selection process. A list of the contributors and their roles is as follows: Susan McCrary - Project Manager Gary Moore - Program Manager Jay Hoskins - Universe of Technologies Mark Koester - Site Selection Kelly Dennis - Site Selection Steve Adams — Site Selection Troy Turner - Site Selection and Data Management Alex Marth - Data Management Madhukar Mohan — Data Management 6 f Pie* ,Watimegned 14414 FiNtAkomimc4Votai Wtimpliaff Powlible Number of Available Lob Number of lots approve d for demohti 41# and/or approved demolition of lots >1/4 ac of contiguous 4? , FALSE 4991 Blackstone Clarendon 17G1 Theodosla & Hamilton 47 1 TRUE 6.7 1 No 643 Benton- Chambers 19D1 Tyler & Hadinr 14 0 TRUE FALSE Entire block is vacant. 6.4 1 Yes 4992 Blackstone Clarendon 17G1 Lotus & Hamilton 24 2 TRUE FALSE 6.4 1 No 3746 Mill Creek 18F4 Whittler & Cook 40 1 TRUE FALSE 6 1 No 2376EW Rocky 18E2 Hebert & Parnell 19 2 TRUE FALSE 5.9 1 No 4993 Blackstone Clarendon 17G1 Lotus & Hamilton 19 2 TRUE FALSE 5.9 1 No 640 Benton- Chambers 19D1 Clinton & Hadley 8 0 TRUE FALSE Entire block Is vacant. 5.8 1 Yes 3394 Prairie 17E1 College & Carter 17 2 FALSE FALSE 5.7 1 No 3587 Ferry 17E4 Prairie & Lee 37 1 TRUE FALSE 5.7 1 No 2359 Rocky 18E4 Montgomery & Glasgow 14 2 TRUE FALSE 5.4 1 No - 3835N Hodiamont 17H2 Romaine & Hamilton 14 2 TRUE FALSE 5.4 1 No 3720 Mill Creek 18F1 Cote Brilliante & Cora 33 1 TRUE FALSE Also in Euclid Watershed. 5.3 1 No 3308 Prairie 17E2 Gano & Emily 13 2 TRUE FALSE 5.3 1 No _ 3661 Mill Creek 18F2 Aldine & Whittier 13 2 TRUE FALSE 5.3 1 No 1082 Rocky 18E3 Benton & 25th 2 0 TRUE FALSE Entire block is vacant. 5.2 1 Yes _ 937 Mill Creek 19E3 Delmar & N 22nd 1 0 TRUE , FALSE Entire block is vacant. 5.1 1 Yes 1846 Rocky 19E1 Cass & Glasgow 1 0 FALSE FALSE Entire block is vacant. 5.1 1 Yes 2443 Feny 17E2 Feny & Blair 31 1 TRUE FALSE 5.1 1 No 3717 Harlem 17F4 Cottage & Cora _ 30 1 TRUE FALSE 5 1 No 4564 Mill Creek 19F2 C D Banks & N Sarah 50 0 TRUE FALSE 5 1 No 4513B Blackstone Clarendon 17G1 Patton & Union 9 2 FALSE_ FALSE 4.9 1 No CSO VOLUME REDUCTION GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM BLOCK DATA SHEET (11048) Block # Watershed: Service Area: MSD Grid # CSO # Ward # 3461 Harlem Creek Bissell Point 16E1 BP-047 2 Current Control: Number of Properties: Number of Reserve Areas: Number of Agreements: Total BMP Capacity (cf): Estimated Cost: Project Priority: 2767 1 0 1 $3,000 Prepared By: Troy Turner Date: 3/23/2011 Future Control per Agreement: # of Reserve Areas Added: Added BMP Capacity (cf): Estimated Cost: Detention Requirements: Additional Detention Est. Detention Volume (cf): Detention Design Storm: 1 No 0 0 I I r% r 11J'JGL 11Ga Al IG' J Bay r 11J)GYL Parcel # 34610000300 33080002500 33080002500 33080002500 33080002500 33080002500 Address 6118 N Broadway 2135 Gano Ave 2135 Gano Ave 2135 Gano Ave 2135 Gano Ave 2135 Gano Ave Lot size (sf) 6394 2768 2768 2768 2768 2768 Strategic Land Use 0 Neighborhood Development Area Neighborhood Development Area Neighborhood Development Area Neighborhood Development Area Neighborhood Development Area Project Type 0 Lot -Scale Reserve Area with Soil Lot -Scale Reserve Area with Soil Lot -Scale Reserve Area with Soil Lot -Scale Reserve Area with Soil Lot -Scale Reserve Area with Soil BMP Type 0 Soil Amendment Soil Amendment Soil Amendment Soil Amendment Soil Amendment Impervious Footprint Allowed (sf) 0 1406 1406 1406 1406 1406 Reserve Area (sf) 0 220 220 220 220 220 Agreement Type 0 Development with Reserve Area Development with Reserve Area Development with Reserve Area Development with Reserve Area Development with Reserve Area MSD Funded Demolition 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Removed Impervious Area (sf) 0 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 Remarks/Issues to Consider: PROJECT NAME: MSD CSO Green Infrastructure Projects Prioritization System Benefit Points Allocation Schedule DATE: SOLUTION BENEFIT CATEGORY 1.0 REGIONAL No. Units Points per Unit 1.1. Impervious Area Removal (Building) PESF000 1 1.2. Impervious Area Removal (Pavement) PERSF000 1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL / WATER QUALITY 2.1. Addresses pollutants: No. Units Points per Unit Bioswales PER 100 SF 0.5 Bioretention PER 100 SF 0.5 Rain Garden PER 100 SF 0.5 Planter Boxes PER 100 SF 0.5 Amended Soils PER 100 SF 0.1 Porous Pavement/Pavers PER 100 SF 0.5 Rooftop Disconnect (splash to grade) EA 0.5 3.0 MISC. 3.1. Ease of Implementation (No. of Properties Affected) 0-2 (6 pts) a ch a c m 0VD a o Points for BMP Reserve Areas TOTAL BENEFIT POINTS Note: A regional solution combines several smaller projects into a watershed or subwatershed solution. TOTAL COST IN THOUSANDS= BENEFIT/ COST RATIO= TOTAL POINTS/ TOTAL COST IN THOUSANDS= Place "X" in one box below: n MSD Project Project by Others 2/2/11 1 of 1 Level 1 Block Study Demolition Locations Possible Habitable Structures F Level Investigation of Block Drop — Description of Reason 1 SLDC Staff Approval? CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Project Identification Workflow Opportunities exist? es Assess priority points Yes Move Forward? N Drop — Description of Reason Neighborhood -Seale Conceptual Study and Data Sheet Lot -scale BMP Conceptual Study and Data Sheet Reserve Area with Amended Soil Conceptual Study and Data Sheet Reserve Area without Amended Soil Conceptual Study and Data Sheet Identify project (add to Oracle) and determine schedule Planning Review Assign to Designer Yes No Neighborhood -Scale Design Lot -scale BMP Design Reserve Area with Amended Soil Design Reserve Area without Amended Soil • Final Cale check • Sign and record Development Agreement w/ Reserve Area BlockCapacity (c.f.)Neighborhood Scale ProjectSite Scale ProjectCity WatershedCSO#Ward #Re-development potential (1 - least, 5 - eminent)VisibilityLocated on LotLocated in ROW# of lots MSD to own# of Demo Sites included (either GI or Drainage Area)Tributary lots mostly vacantTributary lots mostly occupiedClose to School or other Educational Outlet (how far?)Close to Church or other community center (how far?)YardStreetAlleyParking LotRooftopDirectly connected Rooftop (before project)Parking Lot Pavement AbandonmentPorous Pavement AlleyPlanter Box (above grade)Planter Box (at grade)Bioretention with Internal Water Storage (IWS)Bioretention without IWSWeep Wall Bioretention/RaingardenAmended SoilRooftop Disconnection (splash to grade)Rain GardensCurb bump-outGutter sumpCurb InletTrench DrainWarped pavementPre-treatment BasinPre-treatment flagstone forebayNo pre-treatmentStructureBypassSpillway20-year100-yearStacked with BioretentionSeparate from BioretentionNo DetentionProject RankRationale (why it's different)6402582 X Chambers South Benton 26,61 5 50 0 XX X X X X117871 Only pervious alley being used as N/S, high redevelopment potential6322750 X Chambers South Benton 26,61 5 5 X X X 1 0 XX X X X XXXX X X X X111571 High redevelopment potential, mid-sized bior with detention, bumpout, potential "adopter"36286192 X Rocky Branch38,39 3 1 X X 1 0 XX X X XXXXXX117782 Large bioretention, potential downspout disconnection pilot (most of D.A. built-out)36621951 X Western Mill15,16 4 2 X 2 3 XXXXXXXXX X X X117783 Only N/S in Western Mill, 3 demo sites, parking lot drainage, pretreatment basin50871058 X Harlem Creek47 1 3 X X 1 0 X 100 X X XXXXX118024 Only Harlem & Ward 1, church next door, small55281584 X Baden47,49 27 1 X X 2 0 XX X XXXXX X118025 Only Baden, separate 100-yr detention from bioretention48991027 X Rocky Branch38,39 21 3 X X 0 1 XX X X XXXXX118046 Only N/S bioretention totally contained in ROW - establish maintenance relationships33562057 X Prairie46 3 2 X 2 3 XX X X XXX X X X X118127 Only N/S in Prairie, 3 demo sites, pretreatment basin24082031 X Ferry43 3 2 X X 1 2 XX X X XXXXX118038 Only N/S in Ferry, 2 demo sites, medium bioretention1171914 X Rocky Branch38,39 3 1 X X 1 0 XX XX X XXX118039 Small bioretention, different overflow, no underdrain33542537 X Ferry43 3 1 X 2 1 XX X X XXXXX11812C1 1 demo, many projects in ward 344271836 X Rocky Branch38,39 21 2 X X 2 1 XX X X X XXXX X X11813C2 1 demo, needs infrastructure upgrade48724560 X Rocky Branch38,39 3 2 X X 1 1 XX X X X XXX XXX11814C3 1 demo, have large similar project in Rocky, might have to replace pipeAmended Soil Package 1X Rocky Branch & Ferry 38,39,43 3,21 3 X X 0 7XXXX Amended Soil Package 1 High Testing amended soil techniquesAmended Soil Package 2X Rocky Branch & Prarie 38,39,46 3,4 3 X X 0 6XXXX Amended Soil Package 2 High Testing amended soil techniques1111155 X Chambers South Benton 26,61 5 1 X 0 2 XXXXXXP-0029210-00High Site scale, working with homeowner, homeowner to build6348 (835 Harlan) 76 X Maline 50 2 5 X X 0 0 X X XP-0029340-00High Site scale with house rehab1004,1005,1030(H4H) 1287 X Rocky Branch 38,39 3,19 5 X X 0 0 X X XP-0028660-01High Habitat built planter boxes, LRA owned when program startedPilot ProjectContingencyDrop APPENDIX J GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED DURING PILOT Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 1 J-1 SITE-SCALE FACILITIES As described in the report, “Site-scale” facilities are green infrastructure (GI) facilities that are designed to capture runoff from a single parcel, typically from the roof or other impervious area on the property. Just like all privately owned stormwater management facilities in the Separate Sewer Area regulated by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program by MSD, these facilities are constructed within a “reserve area” that is recorded with the property, as part of a Maintenance Agreement, assigning maintenance responsibility to the current owner of the property. 1. Amended Soil Projects As part of MSD’s effort to consider a diversity of green infrastructure practices in reducing stormwater volume, one GI technique explored was amending the existing soil. The goal of soil amendments is to increase infiltration, thereby reducing runoff. This practice was implemented on five locations of LRA owned properties where MSD funded demolitions. In order to gain information regarding different amended soil techniques, two techniques were used. One technique is to clear the surface, core aerate the existing soil, top dress with fertilizers according to soils analysis, then install sod. The other technique is to clear the surface, rototill to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, add 2 inches of compost and rototill again, then install sod. Existing soil samples were taken from each of the sites which were sent to a University of Missouri Extension soil testing lab for analysis. Each sample was analyzed for pH, Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Organic Matter and acidity, and the report included recommended application rates for Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potash and Lime, as applicable for growing common lawn grasses. For all the compost amended sites, the specified compost would cover any necessary fertilization, so only the “aerate and top dress” sites received additional fertilizers. During the site selection process, 13 parcels were identified for soil amendments. All of the parcels are in rows of two or more, resulting in 5 amended soil sites. These five sites were combined so as to allow for two bid packages named “Amended Soil Package #1” and “Amended Soil Package #2”. A. Amended Soil Package #1 Site Location The project is located on two separate city blocks – the 4200 block of Warne Avenue and the 4100 block of Lea Place - in the Fairground and O’Fallon neighborhoods, respectively. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 2 Existing Site Condition City Blocks 3396 and 4429 are developed city blocks in north St. Louis. The properties used for the soil amendments are all LRA-demolished properties (4228, 4232, 4234, 4238, and 4240 Warne Avenue and 4133 and 4135 Lea Place). There is a combination of vacant lots and residential buildings on both of these blocks. For the most part, the front half of the lot drains towards the street and the back half drains towards the alley. Green Infrastructure Facilities This project consisted of 2,500 square feet of compost amendment along the front of the lots from 4228 to 4240 Warne Avenue and 500 square feet of compost amendment along the front of 4135 Lea Place. Work also included 2,500 square feet of aerate and top dress along the back of the lots from 4228 to 4240 Warne Avenue and 500 square feet of aerate and top dress along the front of 4133 Lea Place. The compost amended and aerated areas were then sodded. The location of this project is shown in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 below. The compost amendment is defined as incorporating compost within the root zone. Aerate and top dress is defined as aerating the top of the soil and adding the required nutrients to improve soil quality, plant viability and soil hydraulic conductivity. The construction of the Warne Avenue site began on September 22, 2011 and was completed on October 3, 2011. The construction of the Lea Place site began on September 29, 2011 and completed on October 3, 2011. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 3 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 4 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 5 Pre-Development - Front area of 4228 – 4240 Warne Ave. Pre-Development - Rear area of 4228 – 4240 Warne Avenue Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 6 Construction – Excavation - urban rubble Construction - Top Dress – Front area Warne Avenue Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 7 Post Construction – Front area Warne Avenue Post Construction – Rear area Warne Avenue Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 8 Pre-Development Lea Place Construction – Excavation - urban rubble – Lea Place Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 9 Construction – Lea Place Construction – Compost Amendment – Lea Place Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 10 Construction – Placement of Sod on compost amendment – Lea Place Post-Construction Lea Place Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 11 B. Amended Soil Package #2 Site Location The project is located on three separate city blocks – the 3800 block of Labadie Avenue, the 3100 block of N. Sarah Street, and the 4000 block of Glasgow Avenue - in the JeffVanderLou Lou, the Greater Ville, and the Fairground neighborhoods, respectively. Existing Site Condition City Blocks 3627 (Labadie Avenue), 3624 (N. Sarah Street), and 1939 (Glasgow Avenue) are developed city blocks in the combined sewer area of the Bissell Point watershed in north St. Louis. The properties utilized for the soil amendments are all LRA-demolished properties (3832 and 3834 Labadie Avenue, 3139 and 3143 N. Sarah Street, and 4021 and 4023 Glasgow Avenue). There is a combination of vacant lots, residential and light commercial buildings on all of these blocks. For the most part, the front half of the lot drains towards the street and the back half drains towards the alley. Green Infrastructure Facilities This project consisted of:  3832 & 3834 Labadie Avenue - 1,130 square feet of compost amendment along the front of the lots and 1,150 square feet of aerate and top dress along the back of the lots  3139 & 3143 N. Sarah Street – 1,500 square feet of compost amendment along the front of the lots  4021 & 4023 Glasgow Avenue – 1,040 square feet of compost amendment along the front of the lots\ All of the amended and aerated areas were sodded. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 12 The compost amendment is defined as incorporating compost within the root zone. Aerate and top dress is defined as aerating the top of the soil and adding the required nutrients to improve soil quality, plant viability and soil hydraulic conductivity. The location of this project is shown in Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 below. The construction of the Labadie Avenue and Glasgow Avenue sites began on May 11, 2012 and May 2, 2012 for the N. Sarah Street site. Construction of all sites was completed on June 1, 2012. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 13 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 14 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 15 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 16 Pre-Construction 3832 & 3834 Labadie Avenue Pre-Construction 3139 & 3143 N. Sarah Street Pre-Construction 4021 & 4023 Glasgow Avenue Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 17 Construction - 3832 & 3834 Labadie Avenue Construction - 3139 & 3143 N. Sarah Street Construction - 4021 & 4023 Glasgow Avenue Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 18 Post Construction - 3832 & 3834 Labadie Avenue (June 2015) Post Construction - 3139 & 3143 N. Sarah Street (June 2015) Post Construction - 4021 & 4023 Glasgow Avenue (June 2015) Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 19 2. Habitat for Humanity Planter Boxes in JeffVanderLou (MSD Project No. P-28660.01) Habitat for Humanity St. Louis (HFHSL) is a not-for-profit ecumenical housing organization that helps provide housing for families who are determined to proactively better their lives by investing time and effort into actually building a home, owning a home, and becoming a contributing member of the community. Since the early 1990s, HFHSL has constructed approximately 250 houses in the Pilot Study area. Of these 250, about 170 were constructed with the roof drains daylighting to the surface, or with a bioretention swale, a rain garden, rain barrels, or a microdetention basin, thus eliminating a direct connection to the combined sewer system. LRA has donated numerous parcels to HFHSL for the construction of new homes. Green infrastructure BMPs such as bioretention swales, rain barrels, or planter boxes have been incorporated into these properties throughout the northern area of the City of St. Louis. MSD reimbursed HFHSL for the construction of 13 planter boxes installed in the 2900 blocks of Thomas Street and Sheridan Avenue in the JeffVanderLou neighborhood. The design plans were reviewed and approved under Plan Development Review No. P-28660-01. The planter boxes were constructed in the Fall of 2011. The planter boxes are located on the following properties:  2940, 2942, 2944, 2945, 2946, 2951, 2953, 2954, 2956, and 2957 Thomas Street  2942 and 2944 Sheridan Avenue  1341 North Garrison Avenue Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 20 Each of these properties directed 1,273 square feet of roof area to their respective planter box for a total of 0.38 acres. Another 150 square feet of roof area per property was directed to a rain barrel for rainwater harvesting. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 21 Typical Planter Box installation in the JeffVanderLou neighborhood The as-built dimensions from field measurements taken in November 2012 are as follows: Address Ponding Depth Planter Box Dimensions 2956 Thomas St. 2.2 148" x 64" 2954 Thomas St. 6.1 148" x 64" 2946 Thomas St. 5.4 148" x 64" 2944 Thomas St. 4.3 148" x 64" 2942 Thomas St. 2.5 148" x 64" 2940 Thomas St. 1.8 148" x 64" 2945 Thomas St. 3.0 148" x 64" 2951 Thomas St. 1.7 148" x 64" 2953 Thomas St. 1.2 148" x 64" 2957 Thomas St. 5.4 148" x 64" 2944 Sheridan Ave. 1.9 148" x 64" 2942 Sheridan Ave. 2.6 148" x 64" 1341 N. Garrison Ave. 3.2 148" x 64" Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 22 3. Harlan Av. Lot-scale Rain Garden in Baden (MSD Project No. P-29340-00) The Riverview West Florissant Development Corporation (RWFDC) is a 501(c) 3 agency that undertakes community development activities such as housing, neighborhood improvement and economic development in nine neighborhoods located in north St. Louis City. Site Location The project is located at 835 Harlan Avenue on City Block 6348, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Harlan Avenue and Jordan Street in the Baden neighborhood in the City of St. Louis. Existing Site Information In 2011 MSD partnered with RWFDC’s architect/engineer that involved the rehabilitation of a single-family, one-story brick residence and surrounding grading on a LRA-owned property. Green Infrastructure Facility The design plans incorporate a rain garden (bioretention/planter box) into the rehabilitation and renovation plans of this reconstructed house. The design plans were reviewed and approved by MSD under Plan Development Review No. P-29340-00. Approximately 1,700 square feet of the property’s impervious area (driveway, sidewalk and portions of the roof) and some pervious areas are directed to the rain garden. MSD placed a maximum impervious area Deed Restriction Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 23 and a BMP Reserve Area for this rain garden. Planting of the rain garden was completed in the Spring of 2012. Design Methodology The rain garden was designed as a bioretention cell in general accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Rules and Regulations and Engineering Design Requirements for Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Drainage Facilities (MSD’s Rules and Regulations) for managing the Water Quality Volume (WQv). However, the facility is intended to operate as small scale rain garden or micro-bioretention facility as outlined in the 2006 Chapter 5 revisions to the Manual. Pipes and inlets were designed in accordance with the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Rules and Regulations and Engineering Design Requirements for Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Drainage Facilities (MSD’s Rules and Regulations). Maintenance RWFDC signed a maintenance agreement with MSD to maintain and operate the rain garden with the understanding that this agreement would be transferred to the future homeowner. Information was supplied to RWFDC outlining the maintenance procedures and schedule. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 24 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 25 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 26 Pre-construction Post-Construction Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 27 4. Monroe St. Lot-scale Rain Gardens in Old North (MSD Project No. P-29210-00) Site Location The project is located at 1451 and 1455 Monroe Street on City Block (CB) 1111, near the northeast corner of the intersection of North Florissant Avenue and Monroe Street in the Old North St. Louis neighborhood in the City of St. Louis. Existing Site Information The existing site at 1451 and 1455 Monroe Street previously consisted of two condemned residential buildings. As part of the Pilot, LRA demolished the buildings in 2011. Also in 2011, MSD recorded a Development Agreement with Future Reserve Area against the property to be used for a future GI facility on each lot. The homeowner at 1453 Monroe Street purchased the two lots from the LRA with the intent to use them as a side yards and green space. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 28 Proposed Development Using MSD funding, the owner of 1453 Monroe Street constructed two rain gardens at 1451 and 1455 Monroe Street. The owner directed the downspouts from the house and carriage house at 1453 Monroe Street to the proposed rain gardens using berms and swales. Due to the Development Agreements on the parcels, the rain gardens are sized to treat the greater of the actual percent impervious or 50%. The design plans were reviewed and approved by MSD under Plan Development Review No. P-29210-00. Design Methodology The rain gardens were designed as bioretention cells in general accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and MSD’s Rules and Regulations for managing the Water Quality Volume (WQv), but are intended to operate as small scale rain gardens or micro-bioretention facilities as outlined in the 2006 Chapter 5 revisions to the Manual. Since the existing site soils are of low permeability, the proposed rain gardens are being “supplemented” with a seepage path placed below the overflow weir to prevent excessive ponding. Maintenance The property owners signed a “Maintenance Agreement” which was recorded and states that the owner agrees to maintain the rain gardens located on the property. The agreement states that a MSD inspector will periodically inspect the bioretention area to verify maintenance is being performed. The homeowner was provided with maintenance instructions and guidelines. This information packet includes a checklist outlining the procedures and schedule of items to check for in the spring, summer, fall, and winter. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 29 As-built grading for Monroe Rain Gardens Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 30 Cross Section of Monroe Rain Gardens Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 31 Pre-Construction Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 32 Post-construction Post-Construction Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 33 J-2 NEIGHBORHOOD-SCALE FACILITIES As described in the report, “Neighborhood-scale” facilities are green infrastructure (GI) facilities designed to capture runoff from multiple lots as well as adjacent roadways and alleys. MSD acquired the properties through the agreements with LRA and owns and maintains these facilities. The facilities are designed for a future redeveloped condition in the drainage, or tributary area. 5. Clinton St. Rain Garden in Old North (MSD Project No. 11157) Site Location The project is located on City Block 632 at the northeastern corner of 14th Street and Clinton Avenue in the Old North St. Louis neighborhood of the City of St. Louis. Existing Site Information City Block 632 is a previously developed city block in north St. Louis. Most of the buildings have been demolished and the basements filled in with demolition rubble. The vegetation is primarily grass and there are a few trees on the block. There were no trees on the parcels prior to construction of the facility. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 34 When the project was first identified, there were three houses under construction by Habitat for Humanity on the southeast corner of the block. The block slopes gradually toward the southwest corner, where the facility is located. The fronts of the lots along Monroe Avenue drain to Monroe. However, it was assumed that any new home construction would primarily route flow toward the alley, therefore the lots were included in the drainage area. The facility drains to an existing 24”x36” egg shaped sewer in the alley that flows to the west. During the conceptual study for this project, capacity issues in the combined sewer system downstream of the site were noted. Therefore, the facility includes detention for the 20-year, 24- hour storm to release flow at the pre-developed condition. Pre-Developed Condition The pre-developed condition assumed for the detention calculations is a grass condition with no impervious areas. According to the NRCS (National Resources Conservation Service) Soil Survey, the soils are hydrologic soil group D. Therefore, the pre-developed curve number is 80 (grass in good condition). The total 20-year, 20-minute flow, based on the Rational Method and MSD’s runoff factors is 2.88 cfs. Developed Condition CB 632 is categorized on the City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Map as a Neighborhood Preservation Area. As such, it is expected to be re-developed as residential with an impervious surface amounting to 50% of the lots. The developed condition composite percent impervious was determined as follows:  50% impervious for the vacant parcels  The higher of the existing imperviousness or 50% for the non-vacant parcels and for the new house construction by Habitat for Humanity  100 % impervious for areas in the right-of-way  100% impervious for the parcels containing the facility because the facility surface will have ponded water during a rain event. The result is a total imperviousness for the drainage area to the facility of 68%. For detention calculations, a curve number of 98 was used for impervious surfaces and 80 for pervious. As a result, a composite curve number of 92 was used for the developed condition. The total 20-year, 20-minute flow, based on the Rational Method and MSD’s runoff factors, is 5.27 cfs. Therefore the differential runoff due to development is 2.39 cfs. Stormwater Management Facilities The facility includes a 2,140 square foot bioretention filter at the bottom of a shallow detention basin. Flow enters the facility from 14th Street and Clinton Street through shallow inlets with trench drains, which flow into a forebay. Flow from the alley is be diverted into another forebay. The forebays end with a “boulder berm” which allows stormwater to flow between the boulders. This captures trash, large debris and much of the sediment in the forebay for ease of cleaning and prolonging the life of the bioretention filter. A rock lined swale takes the flow from the forebays to the bottom of the basin. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 35 The first foot of stormwater ponding in the basin filters through the bioretention filter to an internal water storage (IWS) layer and a perforated underdrain. The IWS is constructed by using an upturned elbow in the underdrain, requiring the subsurface ponding to get to a certain elevation prior to flowing out to the combined sewer system. Water ponding higher than one foot enters the detention control structure. The total depth of the basin is four feet, with three feet available for detention. The basin is planted with native plants acclimated for the wet and dry conditions encountered in these type of facilities. Due to potential surcharging of the combined sewer, a backflow preventer will be installed in the outflow pipe from the detention overflow structure. Overflows in excess of the capacity of the basin will flow out of the basin on the southern end and onto Clinton Avenue, where it can access the combined sewer system or continue down Clinton Avenue on the same overland flow path followed prior to construction. Design Methodology The bioretention cell is designed in general accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Rules and Regulations and Engineering Design Requirements for Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Drainage Facilities (MSD’s Rules and Regulations), dated February, 2006. Pipes, inlets and the detention basin were designed in accordance with the MSD’s Rules and Regulations. The one exception is the detention basin is designed for the 20-year, 24-hour event whereas in some situations, MSD’s Rules and Regulations require detention for the 100-year, 24- hour event. The detention is designed for a developed release rate no higher than the pre- development rate, assuming pre-development is a grass condition. The requirement for one foot of freeboard with the low-flow orifice blocked and water ponded to the sill of the overflow structure was checked for the 20-year, 24-hour design event. See Appendix K for more detail on the design methodology. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 36 Design Summary Project #11157 Title: Clinton #1323 Bioretention Cell GIPLT Drainage area routed to basin 74848 ft2 = 1.72 acres Impervious area routed to basin (fully developed)51196 ft2 = 1.18 acres Bioretention and Internal Water Storage (IWS) Bioretention Capacity 4155 ft3 Bioretention Area 2140 ft2 Ponding Depth 1 ft IWS capacity (not included in bioretention capacity)1712 ft3 Infiltration rate into soil below IWS 15 in/day 0.625 in/hr Differential Runoff from site (20-yr, 20-min; Rational Method) Pre-developed (back to grass)2.88 cfs Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 5.27 cfs Differential 2.39 cfs Detention Peak Flow Release Rate 1yr, 24hr 2yr, 24hr 15yr, 24hr 20yr, 24hr 100yr, 24hr Pre-developed (back to grass)1.71 2.61 5.95 6.47 9.67 Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 4.77 6.26 11.19 11.92 16.3 Developed with detention 1.01 1.39 4.06 5.44 12.18 Basin volume/depth/ponding elevation Designed condition volume (cf)4,713 6,206 10,890 11,302 12,822 Designed condition ponding elevation (ft)465.57 465.87 466.66 466.71 466.93 Designed condition ponding depth (ft)1.57 1.87 2.66 2.71 2.93 Designed condition freeboard (ft)2.43 2.13 1.34 1.29 1.07 Blocked condition ponding elevation (ft)466.95 467.06 Blocked condition ponding depth (ft)2.95 3.06 Blocked condition freeboard (ft)1.05 0.94 Return Interval NOTE: Project involves bioretention cell stacked with detention basin. Bioretention capacity is based on the lower 1' of the basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). The detention volume calculated by Hydraflow includes the lower 1'. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 37 Pre-development: Northeast corner of Clinton Avenue and 14th Street Construction - Urban rubble found during excavation Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 38 Construction – near completion Post-construction - 2 years Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 39 6. N. Vandeventer Ave. Rain Garden in JeffVanderLou (MSD Project No. 11778) Please note that this facility and the N. Sarah facility discussed next are both part of the same bid package (MSD Project No. 11778) Site Location City Block 3628 is located near the northeastern corner of Maffitt Avenue and North Vandeventer Avenue in the JeffVanderLou neighborhood of the City of St. Louis. Existing Site Information City Block 3628 is a developed city block in north St. Louis. The majority of the lots are occupied with buildings. The block slopes gradually toward the alley where the facility intercepts the runoff. The fronts of the lots along Saint Louis Avenue and Maffitt Avenue flow to the street. This site previously drained to an existing 60-inch diameter combined sewer located in North Vandeventer Avenue. Developed Condition City Block 3628 is categorized on the City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Map as a Neighborhood Preservation Area. As such, it is assumed to be redeveloped as residential with an impervious surface amounting to 50% of the lot. The developed condition is determined by using 50% for the vacant parcels, and the higher of the existing imperviousness or 50% for the non-vacant parcels. Areas in the alley are considered to be 100% impervious. The parcel with the bioretention cell is considered to be 0% impervious. The developed percent impervious at City Block 3628 is approximately 51%. Green Infrastructure Facility The facility at North Vandeventer Avenue includes a 2,570 square foot bioretention filter. Flow from the alley is directed into a Turfstone forebay that ends with a “boulder berm”. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 40 stormwater flows through and over the boulders to a rock lined swale. The boulders capture trash, large debris, and much of the sediment in the forebay for ease of cleaning and prolonging the life of the bioretention filter. The rock lined swale takes the flow to the bottom of the basin. Water that ponds to a depth of 1.3 feet in the basin will filter through the bioretention filter to an internal water storage (IWS) layer and a perforated underdrain. The IWS is constructed by using an upturned elbow in the underdrain, requiring the subsurface ponding to get to a certain elevation prior to flowing out to the combined sewer system. Water ponding higher than 1.3 feet will flow into the overflow structure. The total depth of the basin is 2 feet. The design storm for sewers in the combined sewer is the 20-year, 20-minute storm as required by MSD’s Rules and Regulations. Because the hydraulic grade line for this storm in the existing 60-inch brick combined sewer nearly 3 feet below the underdrain outfall, a backflow preventer was not installed at this facility. Overflows in excess of the capacity of the basin will flow onto North Vandeventer Avenue from the western end of the basin. The flow will be intercepted by an existing double curb inlet or continue down North Vandeventer Avenue along the previous overland flow path. The basin is planted with native vegetation appropriate for the wet and dry conditions experienced by the facility. Design Methodology The bioretention cell is designed in general accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and MSD’s Rules and Regulations for managing the Water Quality Volume (WQv). Pipes and inlets were designed in accordance MSD’s Rules and Regulations. See Appendix K for more detail on the design methodology. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 41 Design Summary Project #11778 Site: N. Vandeventer #2812 (City Block #3628) Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662 ) CSO VR GIPLT Drainage Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed)151517 ft2 = 3.48 acres Impervious Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed)76986 ft2 = 1.77 acres Percent Impervious (Fully Developed)51 % Bioretention Filter Summary Filter Bed Area Required 1380 ft2 Filter Bed Area Provided 2570 ft2 Total Storage Volume Required 5480 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 5482 ft3 Ponding Depth 1.3 ft Pretreatment Summary Pretreatment Area Required 478.5 ft2 Pretreatment Area Provided 615.4 ft2 Pretreatment Volume Required 641.5 ft3 Pretreatment Volume Provided 785.9 ft3 Percent of Water Quality Volume Provided 10.8 % Underdrain Summary Underdrain Capacity Required 0.71 cfs Underdrain Capacity Provided 1.57 cfs NOTE: This project involves the construction of a bioretention cell. The Bioretention capacity is based on water ponding 1.3' in the basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 42 Pre-Construction Construction Excavation (note urban rubble) Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 43 Construction – Forebay Post-Construction (after planting) Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 44 7. N. Sarah St. Rain Garden in The Ville (MSD Project No. 11778) Please note that this facility and the N. Vandeventer facility discussed previously are both part of the same bid package (MSD Project No. 11778) Site Location The project is located on City Block 3662 is near the northwestern corner of North Sarah Street and North Cote Brilliante Avenue in The Ville neighborhood of the City of St. Louis. Existing Site Information City Block 3662 is a partially developed city block in north St. Louis. The majority of the lots are occupied with buildings. The block slopes gradually toward the alley where the proposed facility will intercept the runoff. The fronts of the lots along Belle Glade Avenue and North Sarah Street drain to the street. There is no documented flooding or building backup complaints immediately downstream of the project location. The GI facility drains to an existing 24-inch by 36-inch egg-shaped brick sewer located in the alley. Developed Condition City Block 3662 is categorized on the City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Map as a Neighborhood Development Area. As such, it is assumed to be redeveloped as residential with an impervious surface amounting to 50% of the lot. The developed condition is determined by using 50% for the vacant parcels, and the higher of the existing imperviousness or 50% for the non-vacant parcels. Areas in the alley are considered to be 100% impervious. The parcel with the bioretention cell is considered to be 0% impervious. The developed percent impervious draining to the facility is approximately 55%. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 45 Green Infrastructure Facility The facility at North Sarah Avenue includes a 1,236 square foot bioretention filter. Flow from a trench drain in the alley enters a flagstone forebay that ends with a “river cobble spillway”. The stormwater flows through and over the river cobble spillway to a rock lined swale. The spillway captures trash, large debris, and much of the sediment in the forebay for ease of cleaning and prolonging the life of the bioretention filter. The rock lined swale takes the flow to the bottom of the basin. Water that ponds to a depth of 1.25 feet in the basin filters through the bioretention filter to an internal water storage (IWS) layer and a perforated underdrain. Water that rises higher than 1.25 feet flows out of the trench drain and continues down the alley along the previous overland flow path. This allows for the facility to not include a separate overflow structure. The total depth of the basin is 1.5 feet. There is an existing 18 inch combined sewer that flows to the south under the alley between Belle Glade Avenue and North Sarah Street. The underdrain will drain to this combined sewer system. The hydraulic grade line of the 20-year storm in the existing 18-inch combined sewer is just over 4 feet below the underdrain outfall; therefore a backflow preventer was not required. Design Methodology The bioretention cell is designed in general accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and MSD’s Rules and Regulations for managing the Water Quality Volume (WQv). Pipes and inlets were designed in accordance MSD’s Rules and Regulations. See Appendix K for more detail on the design methodology. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 46 Design Summary Project #11778 Site: N. Sarah #1801 (City Block #36662) Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662 ) CSO VR GIPLT Drainage Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed)62012 ft2 = 1.42 acres Impervious Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed)33875 ft2 = 0.78 acres Percent Impervious (Fully Developed)55 % Bioretention Filter Summary Filter Bed Required 640 ft2 Filter Bed Provided 1236 ft2 Total Storage Volume Required 2400 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 3090 ft3 Ponding Depth 1.25 ft Pretreatment Summary Pretreatment Area Required 155.0 ft2 Pretreatment Area Provided 366.8 ft2 Pretreatment Volume Required 207.5 ft3 Pretreatment Volume Provided 244.1 ft3 Percent of Water Quality Volume Provided 10.4 % Underdrain Summary Underdrain Capacity Required 0.34 cfs Underdrain Capacity Provided 1.74 cfs NOTE: This project involves the construction of a bioretention cell. The Bioretention capacity is based on water ponding 1.25' in the basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 47 Pre-Development – looking from Sarah Street Construction – after rain event Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 48 Post-Construction Post Construction Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 49 8. Geraldine Ave. Rain Garden in Mark Twain (MSD Project No. 11802) Please note that this facility and the Beacon Avenue facility discussed next are both part of the same bid package (MSD Project No. 11802) Site Location The facility at 5099 Geraldine Avenue is located on City Block 5087 at the northwest corner of Geraldine Avenue and Thekla Avenue in the Mark Twain neighborhood of the City of St. Louis. Existing Site Information City Block 5087 is a previously developed city block in north St. Louis. Most of the buildings on the block are occupied, but some have been demolished and the basements filled in with demolition rubble. The vegetation is primarily grass with several trees. The front yards of the houses along Geraldine Avenue and Union Boulevard both drain towards the street. The backyards on both sides of the alley drain towards the alley. The alley generally flows towards the center of the block near 5069 Geraldine Avenue. Most of the parking lot at the southwest corner of Union Boulevard and Thekla Avenue drains towards Thekla Avenue which drains south towards Geraldine Avenue where the water was previously collected by curb inlets along Thekla Avenue. This area drains to a 36” by 54” egg-shaped brick sewer along Thekla Avenue. Developed Condition City Block 5087 is categorized on the City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Map as a Neighborhood Preservation Area. As such, it is expected to be re-developed as residential with an impervious surface amounting to 50% of the lot. The developed condition was determined by using 50% for the vacant parcels, and the higher of the existing imperviousness or 50% for the non-vacant parcels. Areas in the right-of-way were considered to be 100% impervious. For the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 50 5099 Geraldine Avenue site, most of the facility was considered pervious since it will not hold water for an extended period of time; therefore the lot was considered to be open space with 10% impervious. The total developed imperviousness for the facility at 5099 Geraldine is 75%. Green Infrastructure Facility The facility at 5099 Geraldine Avenue includes a bioretention filter. Flow from Thekla Avenue enters a curb ‘bump-out” used as a forebay. The forebay will capture debris and sediment. This will ease cleaning of the facility and prolong the life of the bioretention filter. The forebay is drained by a new shallow inlet. A trench drain carries the runoff from the inlet to the bioretention basin. The first eighteen inches of ponding depth in the basin drains through the bioretention filter to an internal water storage (IWS) layer and a perforated underdrain. The total depth of the basin is two feet. Water that rises higher than eighteen inches enters an overflow inlet. The basin is planted with native vegetation appropriate for both wet and dry conditions. Flows in excess of the capacity of the basin overflow on the southern end, where it can continue down the same overland path it previously followed along Geraldine Avenue. The facility overflow structure is connected to an inlet structure. This structure is connected to a 12-inch sewer line that connects to a 36”x54” egg-shaped brick sewer. Design Methodology The bioretention cell is designed in general accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and MSD’s Rules and Regulations for managing the Water Quality Volume (WQv). Pipes and inlets were designed in accordance MSD’s Rules and Regulations. See Appendix K for more detail on the design methodology. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 51 Design Summary Project #11802 Title: Geraldine #5099 & Beacon #5479 Bioretention (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: Geraldine 5099 Drainage area routed to basin 74848 ft2 = 0.42 acres Impervious area routed to basin (fully developed)51196 ft2 = 0.32 acres Bioretention and Internal Water Storage (IWS) Bioretention Capacity 1205 ft3 Bioretention Area 335 ft2 Ponding Depth 1.5 ft IWS capacity (not included in bioretention capacity)268 ft3 Infiltration rate into soil below IWS 1.1 in/day 0.0458333 in/hr Differential Runoff from site (20-yr, 20-min; Rational Method) Pre-developed (back to grass)0.71 cfs Developed without controls (fully redeveloped)1.4 cfs Differential 0.69 cfs NOTE: Project involves Pretreatment Forebay, Bioretention, and Detention basin in series. Bioretention capacity is based on the lower 1.5' of the Bioretention Basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). The detention volume calculated by Pondpack with 3 interconnected basins Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 52 Pre-development – looking from Geraldine Construction of bump-out and bioretention system Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 53 Post Construction Post-Construction: One year Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 54 9. Beacon Ave. Rain Garden in Walnut Park East (MSD Project No. 11802) Please note that this facility and the Geraldine Avenue facility just discussed are both part of the same bid package (MSD Project No. 11802) Site Location The project site at 5479 Beacon Avenue is located on City Block 5528 at the northwest corner of Beacon Avenue and Harney Avenue in the Walnut Park East neighborhood of the City of St. Louis. Existing Site Information City Block 5528 is a previously developed city block in north St. Louis. Most of the buildings on the block are occupied, but a few of the buildings have been demolished and the basements filled in with demolition rubble. The vegetation is primarily grass with some trees. There were a few trees on the parcels used for the facility. The lots along Beacon Avenue drain entirely towards the street. The front yards of the lots along Genevieve Avenue drain towards the street and the backyards drain towards the alley. The alley slopes to the east where the water was previously collected by a curb inlet which drains to Harney Avenue where there is a 36” by 54” egg-shaped brick sewer. During the conceptual study for this project, capacity issues in the combined sewer system downstream of the site were noted. Therefore, the facility includes detention for the 20-year, 24- hour storm to release flow at the pre-developed condition. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 55 Pre-Developed Condition The pre-developed condition for the detention calculations at 5479 Beacon Avenue is a grass condition with no impervious areas. The soils according to the NRCS Soil Survey are considered hydrologic soils group C. Therefore, the pre-developed curve number is 79 assuming Open Space, Lawns, and Parks in Fair Condition. Developed Condition CB 5528 is categorized on the City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Map as a Neighborhood Preservation Area. As such, it is expected to be re-developed as residential with an impervious surface amounting to 50% of the lot. The developed condition was determined by using 50% for the vacant parcels, and the higher of the existing imperviousness or 50% for the non-vacant parcels. Areas in the right-of-way were considered to be 100% impervious. For the 5479 Beacon Avenue site, the facility surface will have ponding water during a rain event, so this portion of the site was considered to be impervious. This gave an overall imperviousness for the lot of approximately 50%. The total developed imperviousness for the facility at 5479 Beacon Avenue is 57%. A composite curve number of 91 was used for the post-development condition detention calculations for 5479 Beacon Avenue. This assumed a curve number of 98 for impervious surfaces and 79 for pervious surfaces. Proposed Stormwater Management Facilities The proposed facility at 5479 Beacon Avenue includes a bioretention filter and a detention cell. Flow from the alley enters a forebay through a trench drain. The forebay is 2 foot deep. The bottom foot drains through a rock check dam, and the top foot flows over a rock lined weir. The forebay captures debris and sediment. This will ease cleaning of the facility and prolong the life of the bioretention filter. The first one and a half feet of depth of the bioretention cell drains through the bioretention filter to an internal water storage (IWS) layer and a perforated underdrain. Water that rises higher than a foot and a half enters the detention cell by flowing over a rock lined weir. The discharge of the detention cell is controlled by the detention control structure. The total depth of the detention cell is three and a half feet deep. Both the bioretention and detention cells are planted with appropriate native vegetation that can tolerate both the wet and dry conditions. Flows in excess of the capacity of the facilities continue down the same overland flow path it previously followed along the alley. Due to potential surcharging of the combined sewer, a backflow preventer was installed in the outflow pipe from the detention overflow structure. Design Methodology The bioretention cell is designed in general accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and MSD’s Rules and Regulations. Pipes, inlets and the detention basin were designed in accordance with the MSD’s Rules and Regulations. The one exception is the detention basin is designed for the 20-year, 24-hour event whereas in some situations, MSD’s Rules and Regulations require detention for the 100-year, 24-hour event. The detention is designed for a developed release rate no higher than the pre-development rate, assuming pre-development is a grass condition. The requirement for one foot of freeboard with Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 56 the low-flow orifice blocked and water ponded to the sill of the overflow structure was checked for the 20-year, 24-hour design event. See Appendix K for more detail on the design methodology. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 57 Design Summary Project #11802 Title: Geraldine #5099 & Beacon #5479 Bioretention (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: Beacon #5479 Drainage area routed to basin 74848 ft2 = 1.79 acres Impervious area routed to basin (fully developed)51196 ft2 = 1.02 acres Bioretention and Internal Water Storage (IWS) Bioretention Capacity 3461 ft3 Bioretention Area 1248 ft2 Ponding Depth 1.5 ft IWS capacity (not included in bioretention capacity)998.4 ft3 Infiltration rate into soil below IWS 1.7 in/day 0.0708333 in/hr Differential Runoff from site (20-yr, 20-min; Rational Method) Pre-developed (back to grass)3.01 cfs Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 5.05 cfs Differential 2.04 cfs Detention Peak Flow Release Rate 1yr, 24hr 2yr, 24hr 15yr, 24hr 20yr, 24hr Pre-developed (back to grass)1.76 2.72 6.08 6.83 Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 4.77 4.95 8.98 9.83 Developed with detention 3.69 2.68 5.82 6.13 Basin volume/depth/ponding elevation Designed condition volume (cf)6,970 10,513 22,215 24,731 Designed condition ponding elevation (ft)467.17 468.22 469.07 469.18 Designed condition ponding depth (ft)1.67 2.72 3.57 3.68 Designed condition freeboard (ft)2.33 1.28 0.43 0.32 Blocked condition ponding elevation (ft) Blocked Conditions not used for this basin because Blocked condition ponding depth (ft)drainage will bypass trench drain in basin full conditions Blocked condition freeboard (ft) Return Interval NOTE: Project involves Pretreatment Forebay, Bioretention, and Detention basin in series. Bioretention capacity is based on the lower 1.5' of the Bioretention Basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). The detention volume calculated by Pondpack with 3 interconnected basins Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 58 Pre-Development – looking from Beacon Avenue towards Harney Avenue Construction Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 59 Post-Construction – Just after planting Post-Construction - 2 years Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 60 10. Warne Ave. Rain Garden in O’Fallon (MSD Project No. 11804) Site Location The project site near 4241 Warne Ave. on City Block 4899 is located at the northeastern corner of Green Lea Place and Warne Avenue in the O’Fallon neighborhood of the City of St. Louis. Existing Site Condition City Block 4899 is a developed city block in north St. Louis. There is a combination of vacant lots and residential buildings. A portion of the block slopes gradually toward the alley, but the majority slopes toward the facility along Green Lea Place. The street and sidewalk along Warne Avenue flows to the corner of Warne and Green Lea where the proposed facility intercepts the runoff. Developed Condition City Block 4899 is categorized on the City of St. Louis Strategic Land Use Map as a Neighborhood Preservation Area. As such, it is assumed to be redeveloped as residential with an impervious surface amounting to 50% of the lot. The developed condition is determined by using 50% for the vacant parcels, and the higher of the existing imperviousness or 50% for the non-vacant parcels. To be conservative, it was assumed that all of the redevelopment impervious cover would occur in the front of the lots, which will flow into the facility. Areas in the street Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 61 are considered to be 100% impervious. The proposed percent impervious for the drainage area is approximately 68%. Green Infrastructure Facility The facility at Warne Avenue includes an 800 square foot bioretention filter located in the right- of-way of Green Lea Place. Flow from Warne Avenue is directed into a flagstone forebay that ends with a “boulder berm”. The stormwater flows through and over the boulders to the bioretention cell. The boulders capture trash, large debris, and much of the sediment in the forebay for ease of cleaning and prolonging the life of the bioretention filter. Water that ponds to a depth of 10 inches in the basin filters through the bioretention filter to an internal water storage (IWS) layer and a perforated underdrain. Water that rises higher than that spills over the bioretention cell and flows onto Green Lea Place. The total depth of the basin is 12 inches. Overflows in excess of the capacity of the basin flows onto the alley along the previous overland flow path and into a curb inlet that is connected to a 12-inch diameter combined sewer in the alley. Design Methodology The bioretention cell is designed in general accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and MSD’s Rules and Regulations for managing the Water Quality Volume (WQv). Pipes and inlets were designed in accordance MSD’s Rules and Regulations. See Appendix K for more detail on the design methodology. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 62 Design Summary Project #11804 Site: Warne Avenue #4241 (City Block #4899) Title: Warne #4241 Bioretention (CB 4899 ) CSO VR GIPLT Drainage Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed)29460 ft2 = 0.68 acres Impervious Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed)20023 ft2 = 0.46 acres Percent Impervious (Fully Developed)68 % Bioretention Filter Summary Filter Bed Required 410 ft2 Filter Bed Provided 800 ft2 Total Storage Volume Required 1390 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 1593 ft3 Ponding Depth 0.83 ft Pretreatment Summary Pretreatment Area Required 103 ft2 Pretreatment Area Provided 261 ft2 Pretreatment Volume Required 141 ft3 Pretreatment Volume Provided 157 ft3 Percent of Water Quality Volume Provided 10.1 % Underdrain Summary Underdrain Capacity Required 0.22 cfs Underdrain Capacity Provided 1.95 cfs NOTE: This project involves the construction of a bioretention cell. The Bioretention capacity is based on water ponding 10" in the basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 63 Pre-Development – Looking along Green Lea Place Construction Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 64 Construction – immediately after planting Post-Construction Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program Page 65 North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 1 3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS PLAN Table of Contents 3.1 Contact Information of Party Responsible for Maintenance ............................................. 2 3.2 General ............................................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Inspection and Routine Maintenance Schedule ................................................................. 3 3.4 Maintenance ....................................................................................................................... 3 3.5 Materials for Routine Maintenance ................................................................................... 4 3.6 Sediment Removal and Disposal ....................................................................................... 6 3.7 Record Keeping and Reporting .......................................................................................... 8 Attachments 3A. – Planting Plans, Plant Photos, and Cultural Requirements 3B. – Inspection Checklist North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 2 3.1 Contact Information of Party Responsible for Maintenance Operation and maintenance of this facility is the responsibility of the Operations department of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. The Operations department should be contacted if any construction in the area draining to the facility could cause sediment or other pollutants to flow into the facility. Name: Anthony Merz Address: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Sulphur Yard 1900 Sulphur Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 Phone: (314) 768-6297 Construction Guarantee Period The construction contractor for this facility is under a 1-year guarantee for workmanship and quality of materials commencing on the date of acceptance of the work. If defects in workmanship or quality of materials are identified during the guarantee period, please contact the District Inspector overseeing the contract. DO NOT REMOVE THE DEFECTIVE MATERIAL OR WORK. The construction contractor is not responsible for maintenance. The District Inspector overseeing the contract is: Name: Mark Dietiker Address: 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Phone: (314) 768-6380 Fax: (314) 768-6341 3.2 General As explained in the Executive Summary, the facility at this site includes a bioretention filter, sometimes referred to as a “rain garden”, for the purpose of reducing the volume and peak discharge of stormwater runoff that flows into the combined sewer system during a rain event, thereby reducing the volume of combined sewer overflows (CSO). As part of the CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure Pilot Program, this facility is constructed, owned, and maintained by MSD for the purpose of informing the full CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program as outlined in the “Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan,” dated February 2011. This maintenance plan explains the basic tasks that are needed to ensure the facility works properly and fulfills these purposes. The Operations department should evaluate this maintenance plan for effectiveness and revise as necessary. The Operations department will keep a record of the inspection logs detailing the results of the inspection and any maintenance or corrective action required. An annual inspection report will be submitted to the Engineering department by March 31st, for the first five years of operation, to document inspection and maintenance activity for the previous calendar year. Recordkeeping, reporting information, and an inspection checklist are provided at the end of this section. North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 3 3.3 Inspection and Routine Maintenance Schedule 1) During the first growing season, inspect plants bi-monthly. These inspections will also help to determine the frequency of trash and debris removal. 2) General facility inspections should take place at least once every 3 months during the spring, summer, and early fall and every 2 months from November through March to determine how leaf litter will impact the flow capacity of the structures. 3) After the first year of operation routine inspections should take place every 3 months. 4) At least 1 of the quarterly inspections should be after a storm exceeding 1 inch of rainfall in a 24 hour period, ideally approximately 24 to 48 hours after the storm to determine if the facility is draining as desired. 5) See Attachment 3B for a sample Inspection Checklist 3.4 Maintenance This facility will require routine inspection and preventative maintenance to keep it in good working order. Minimum maintenance includes routine removal of sediment, debris, oil and foreign material from the pretreatment forebays, the bioretention basin, the overflow structure, and the downstream sewer. Routine maintenance of the vegetation is required to maintain vigorous growth, so the operation and capacity of the stormwater facility continues to function properly and maintain acceptable appearance. Bioretention Basin and Appurtenances 1) Inspect each manhole and inlet structure and remove any sediment, trash or debris build-up. 2) Inspect the forebay areas for sediment, trash and debris. Remove trash and debris. Remove sediment when it reaches a maximum of 3 inches. 3) Inspect the bioretention basin for sediment, trash, and debris. Remove trash and debris. Remove sediment when it reaches a maximum depth of 1 inches or if water ponds on the surface for more than 48 hours. 4) Verify the bioretention basin dewaters between storms. The bioretention area is intended to pond stormwater up to 48 hours. If standing water remains for longer, the top of the bioretention filter has likely clogged. Clogging can often be repaired by raking the surface, soil aeration (poking holes in the top layer of soil), or replacing the top 2-3 inches of planting soil and mulch, taking care to preserve the plantings as much as possible. 5) Remove the cap for the underdrain cleanouts. Clear any obstructions or blockages. This facility has internal water storage in the bottom 1.5 feet of the filter. Check the depth of standing water in the cleanout, if it is higher than 1.5 feet, the underdrain may be clogged. Flush the drain if sediment is visible. 6) Clean or remove debris from obstructing the openings within the overflow structure. 7) Inspect the banks and perimeter of the bioretention basin for any erosion. Eroded areas and gullies should be repaired promptly to avoid clogging the filter with sediment. 8) Trash, debris, and sediment collected in the bioretention area can normally be disposed with other household waste. Material suspected to be polluted by oil, old paint chips (lead), or other chemicals that could potentially be hazardous should be properly tested and disposed in accordance with state and federal hazardous waste regulations. See section 3.6 for more details. North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 4 Plants 1) During the Construction Guarantee Period: If a plant(s) is performing poorly during the Construction Guarantee Period referred to above, and the performance is clearly due to poor workmanship or quality of materials, DO NOT REMOVE THE PLANT(s) and inform the District Inspector listed above. 2) The plant species in the bioretention area were specially selected. See Attachment 3A for the planting plans and for photos and cultural requirements of plants. 3) In general, maintain plantings by pruning, cultivating, watering, weeding, mulching, restoring planting saucers, adjusting and repairing tree-stabilization devices, resetting to proper grades or vertical position, and performing other operations as required to establish healthy, viable plantings. 4) Fill in as necessary soil subsidence that may occur because of settling or other processes. Replace mulch materials damaged or lost in areas of subsidence. 5) Replace any dead or dying vegetation according to the original planting plans. Remove dead vegetation from the site and dispose of properly. 6) The tree lawn should be kept mowed and in good condition. Clippings should be mulched or removed. 7) The plants will need periodic watering until they are established (typically 1 to 3 years). Once established, they should not require watering, however watering during drought periods will help plant survivability and appearance. 8) Fertilization should be kept to the minimum necessary to help plant survivability until they are established. Only fertilize as determined by soil testing by an independent or university laboratory recognized by the State Department of Agriculture. Once established, plants should not require fertilization. 9) Use of herbicides should be kept to the minimum required. Spot use of post-emergent herbicides is allowed. Blanket post-emergent herbicide application is not recommended. Pre-emergent herbicides could help with weed control during the first growing season, but will hinder reseeding of desirable plants and is not recommended thereafter. 10) Woody plants may be pruned as needed to provide a desirable “shape”. 11) Between November and March, non-woody plants (perennials) should be cut near the ground surface and the material removed from the site and properly disposed. It is encouraged to leave the seed heads through the winter for bird watching and seasonal interest. 12) The area must be inspected for unwanted underbrush and tree growth at least once a year. Any problems should be addressed. Mulch 1) A 2-inch thick layer of mineral mulch should be in the bottom of the basin. 2) A 2 inch thick layer of organic mulch should be on the sides and area surrounding the bioretention basin. 3) Mulch materials should meet the original specifications. 4) Areas devoid of mulch should be re-mulched on an annual basis. 3.5 Materials for Routine Maintenance In the event that any of the filter media or other surface materials needs to be replaced, the following are the requirements for material replacement: North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 5 For more intensive repair or replacement, please refer to the original plans and specifications, which can be obtained through MSD’s central files. Bioretention Soil Mix The bioretention soil mix shall be a sandy loam or loamy sand, contain a minimum of 35 to 60 percent sand by volume, and have a saturated hydraulic conductivity of at least 4 feet per day (2 inches per hour). The clay content shall be less than 10 percent by volume. The soil shall be free of clumps, stones, stumps, roots, or other woody materials over 1 inch in diameter. Brush or seeds from noxious weeds, such as Johnson grass, mugwort, nutsedge and Canadian thistle shall not be present in the soils. The specific characteristics of the bioretention soil media shall conform to the following: Parameter Value pH range 5.2 to 8.00 Organic matter 1.5 to 5.0% Magnesium 35 pounds per acre, minimum Phosphorus (P 2 O 5 ) 75 pounds per acre, minimum Potassium (K 2 O) 85 pounds per acre, minimum Soluble salts ≤ 500 ppm Mulches 1) Organic Mulch: Free from deleterious materials and suitable as a top dressing of trees and shrubs, consisting of one of the following: a) Type: Shredded hardwood Ground or shredded bark. b) Size Range: 3 inches maximum, 1/2 inch minimum. c) Color: Natural. 2) Mineral Mulch a) Mineral mulch shall be washed, natural uncrushed river gravel and meet ASTM C-33 No. 8 or No. 89 specification. b) Color: Uniform tan beige color range to match existing. Sand and Stone 1) Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement and Flagstone Forebay Base Course Aggregate. a) Gravel shall be clean crushed gravel and meet ASTM C-33 No. 57 specification. 2) Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement and Flagstone Forebay Setting Bed Course Aggregate. North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 6 a) Gravel shall be washed granite or limestone angular chips 1/8 inch to 1/4 inch in diameter or materials complying with ASTM #8 or #9 crushed stone. 3) Flagstones. a) Unless otherwise indicated in the Project Plans, flagstones shall have minimum dimensions of 12 inch by 12 inch by 1.5 inch thick and have a near flat surface. b) The contractor is encouraged to use limestone foundations excavated on site as flagstone, provided the material meets these specifications. 4) River Cobbles. a) Cobbles shall be washed, natural uncrushed river cobbles and meet the following gradation: Size % Passing 12” 100% 6” 50% 3” 20% 1” 0% b) Color: Variety of natural colors to match existing. Interlocking Turfstone Pavers. 1) Manufacturer: Unilock, or approved equal. 2) Size: 16 inch by 24 inch by 3.125 inch thick. 3) Color: Natural. 3.6 Sediment Removal and Disposal The stormwater facility should be cleaned by the construction contractor prior to final acceptance of the project. For subsequent cleanings, all silt and debris should be removed from the forebay before reaching the bioretention basin (i.e. NOT flushed into the bioretention basin). All sediment removed from the site shall be disposed according to current erosion and sediment control regulations. When cleaning the stormwater facility, standing “clear, unpolluted water” can be decanted and discharged to the combined sewer system. Water that has become turbid during cleaning should be either pumped and hauled to an acceptable wastewater disposal facility or treated by filtration, such as pumped through a bag filter, and discharged to the combined sewer system. A special discharge permit from MSD is not required for discharging to the combined sewer system if the total volume is less than 10,000 gallons. The flow rate pumped into the combined sewer system shall not exceed 50 gpm. Discuss discharges to the combined sewer system with the Bissell Point wastewater treatment plant. The following definitions shall be used as a reference: Clear water: Water that has settled its solids for 24 hours and can be pumped out of the BMP without re-suspending the solids. Unpolluted water: Defined by MSD Ordinance 12559 as meaning “any water that may be discharged under NPDES regulations into waters of the State without having to be authorized by North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 7 a NPDES permit and which will not cause any violations of State or Federal water quality standards.” Hazardous Waste The following general guidance is based on the federal regulations, 40 CFR 262.11- Hazardous Waste Determination. (Note- Regulations are subject to change in the future and this is offered only as general information available at this time.) The generator of the waste should determine if the waste is a special waste using the following method: 1) Determine if the waste is excluded from being a hazardous waste per 10 CSR 25-4.261(2)(A) and 40 CFR 261.4; then 2) Determine if the waste is listed as a hazardous waste per 10 CSR 25-4.261(2)(D) and 40 CFR 261 subpart D; then 3) Determine if the waste is a characteristic hazardous waste (i.e. ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic). Consider the materials used or the processes used to generate the waste based on this knowledge, determine the appropriate testing and analysis in accordance with 10 CSR 25-4.261(2)(C) and 40 CFR 261 subpart C. Testing for hazardous waste characteristics requires sampling at the point of generation. If the analyses detect any property characteristic of hazardous waste, you must manage the waste as a hazardous waste. It is very important to understand that hazardous waste remains a hazardous waste when diluted or stabilized, unless it is specifically excluded from the definition of hazardous waste after the process (40 CFR 261.3). You may not dilute hazardous waste solely for the purpose of rendering it non-hazardous, unless dilution is warranted in an emergency response situation or where the dilution is part of a hazardous waste treatment process regulated or exempted under 10 CSR 25-7 or 10 CSR 25-9. You may not dispose of regulated hazardous wastes in any sanitary, demolition, utility waste landfill in Missouri. The following table lists typical properties of characteristic hazardous waste. This is not a complete listing, but only a guideline to determine if a waste may be a characteristic hazardous waste. Ignitability: Catches fire easily through friction, absorption or moisture or spontaneous chemical changes. Corrosivity: pH<2.0 pr pH>12.5 Reactivity: Wastes that are normally unstable, react violently with water, can explode or release poisonous gases. Toxicity: TCLP, EPA Method 1311, any contaminates listed in Table 1 or 40 CFR 261.24 equal or greater than the listed concentration. Once the waste is determined to be non-hazardous and contain no free liquids, you must request approval from the owner/operator to dispose of the special waste at the landfill by filling out and signing the generator’s portion of the Special Waste Disposal Request Form. You must also North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 8 identify health hazards associated with the material, as well as any special shipping, handling or safety requirements. For example, note whether the material should be transported in covered containers or whether it is a respiratory hazard. The Material Safety Data Sheet, if one exists for the material, lists some of this information. The completed Special Waste Disposal Request Form, along with appropriate test results and other pertinent information are then sent to the receiving landfill for the landfill owner or operator’s review and signature prior to acceptance and disposal of the waste. Until a landfill accepts the waste for disposal, it is the owners’ responsibility to manage the waste in an environmentally sound manner. Free liquids must have pollutant components removed to or below regulatory thresholds before the free liquid may be discharged to the environment, or pretreatment or treatment facility, as and where allowable by the local authority or jurisdiction. Do not discharge the liquids or liquid slurry, captured by the cleaning and maintenance process, into any storm or sanitary structures. 3.7 Record Keeping and Reporting The Operations department should evaluate this maintenance plan for effectiveness and revise as necessary. See Attachment 3B for a sample Inspection Checklist. The Operations department will keep a record of the inspection logs detailing the results of the inspection, and any maintenance or corrective action required. An annual inspection report, including any changes to the maintenance plan, will be submitted to the Engineering department yearly by March 31st to document inspection and maintenance activity for the previous calendar year. Annual reports are required for the first five years after the facility is put into service. An inspector from the Division of Environmental Compliance will also periodically inspect the facility. The “Annual Green Infrastructure Maintenance Report” should provide documentation that maintenance was performed in accordance with this Stormwater Management Facilities Report. The report typically consists of a completed inspection checklists and/or maintenance log, narrative description of corrective action measures taken, photographs, a summary of internal costs and external costs, revisions to the maintenance plan and any other documentation appropriate for demonstrating compliance with the Stormwater Facilities Maintenance and Operations Plan. The annual report should be sent to: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Name: Susan McCrary Address: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Phone: (314) 768-6306 APPENDIX K PILOT NEIGHBORHOOD-SCALE BIORETENTION DESIGN CALCULATIONS 1.8 Design Summary Project #11157 Title: Clinton #1323 Bioretention Cell GIPLT NOTE: Project involves bioretention cell stacked with detention basin. Bioretention capacity is based on the lower 1' of the basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). The detention volume calculated by Hydraflow includes the lower 1'. Drainage area routed to basin 74848 ft2 = Impervious area routed to basin (fully developed) 51196 ft2 = Impervious 68% Bioretention and Internal Water Storage (IWS) Bioretention Capacity 4155 ft3 Bioretention Area 2140 ft2 Ponding Depth 1 ft IWS capacity (not included in bioretention capacity) 1712 ft3 Infiltration rate into soil below IWS 15 in/day Differential Runoff from site (20-yr, 20-min; Rational Method) Pre -developed (back to grass) 2.88 cfs Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 5.27 cfs Differential 2.39 cfs 1.72 acres 1.18 acres 0.625 in/hr Detention Return Interval Peak Flow Release Rate lyr, 24hr 2yr, 24hr 15yr, 24hr Pre -developed (back to grass) 1.71 2.61 5.95 Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 4.77 6.26 11.19 Developed with detention 1.01 1.39 4.06 Basin volume/depth/ponding elevation Designed condition volume (cf) Designed condition ponding elevation (ft) Designed condition ponding depth (ft) Designed condition freeboard (ft) Blocked condition ponding elevation (ft) Blocked condition ponding depth (ft) Blocked condition freeboard (ft) 20yr, 24hr 6.47 11.92 5.44 100yr, 24hr 9.67 16.3 12.18 4,713 6,206 10,890 11,302 12,822 465.57 465.87 466.66 466.71 466.93 1.57 1.87 2.66 2.71 2.93 2.43 2.13 1.34 1.29 1.07 466.95 467.06 2.95 3.06 1.05 0.94 Bioretention Sizing Calculations Project #11157 Title: Clinton #1323 Bioretention Cell GIPLT By: SMM Chkd By: SPA Date: 11/30/2011 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 76185 ft2 = 51490 ft2 = 68% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.658 0.109 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 4764.2 ft3 Bioretention Area Calculation df = filter bed depth k = coefficient of permeability of filter media dp = Ponding depth hf = average height of water above filter bed tf = design filter bed drain time 1.75 acres 1.18 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 1269.753 ft3 4764.2 ft3 Af = (WQ„) (df) / [(k) (hf+df) (tf)] 2.5 2 1 ft Note: Specify BSM with k = 2 x k ft/day used for design ft 0.5 ft 2 days Filter Bed Area Required (Af) 992.6 ft2 Use 1000 ft2 Storage Requirement Calculations Required storage = 75% WQv 3573.2 ft3 Use 3580 ft3 Bioretention Cell Provided Ab = Pond Bottom Area 2140.6 ft2 Is Ab > Af? At = Pond Top Area Pond Volume BSM Void Volume (assumes 30% effective porosity) YES 2957.6 ft2 2549.1 ft3 1605.5 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 4155 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? YES (Roundup to nearest 10 ft2) (Roundup to nearest 10 ft3) Pretreatment Sizing Calculations Project #11157 Title: Clinton #1323 Bioretention Cell GIPLT By: SMM Chkd By: SPA Date: 11/30/2011 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 ft2 = 22614 16989 75% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.726 0.036 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 1560.0 ft3 Pretreatment Calculation Required pretreatment VOLUME = 0.1"/impervious acre 141.6 ft3 Required sediment basin AREA (depends on I) Also requires L:W of sediment basin 2:1 or greater Asf = sedimentation basin surface area full Asp = sedimentation basin surface area partial 0.52 acres 0.39 acres 0.0166667 ft/acre = 376.9 ft3 1560.0 ft3 Asf = (0.066)(WQ„) for I <_ 75% Asp = (0.0081)(WQv) for I > 75% N/A 126.4 ft2 ft2 Required pretreatment AREA 126.4 ft2 Forebay Design Estimate Actual dp = Ponding depth z = side slope (z:1) WI) = Width of Pond Bottom Ratio of pond Lb:Wb Lb = Length of Pond Bottom 1 3 9.0 2 ft ft ft 1 ft 18.0 Ab = Pond Bottom Area 162.0 ft2 225.6 ft2 Is Ab > Required pretreatement AREA Wt = Width of Pond Top Lt = Length of Pond Top At = Pond Top Area YES 15.0 ft 24.0 ft 360.0 ft2 YES 334.3 ft2 Pond Volume 261.0 ft3 280.0 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? Pretreatment VOLUME as % of WQv (10% min recommended) YES 17% YES 18% Underdrain Sizing Calculations Project #11157 Title: Clinton #1323 Bioretention Cell GIPLT By: SMM Chkd By: SPA Date: 12/23/2011 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: Underdrain Holes (40' length, 2 rows of holes at 6" OC, 3/8" holes) = 160 3/8" holes Did not apply clogging factor, but okay up to 50% clogged Flow through Filter Darcy's Equation: Q = K*A*( H/L ) Q = Flow (Rate of Draw) through Bioretentioin Soil (cfs) K = Hydraulic Conductivity of soil AS SPECIFIED (2 x k for used for design) A = Surface Area of Bio-Retention Area (SF) H = Height of Water above Drainage Pipe (Underdrain) L = Thickness of Soil Bed (Usually 4' ) Assume ( H/L ) - 1 Inputs k = coefficient of permeability of filter media Ab = Pond Bottom Area Flow through filter Factor of Safety (2 to 10 recommended) 2140.6 4 ft/day ft2 0.10 cfs 6 Q for underdrain design 0.59 cfs Solid pipe from underdrain Diameter Slope Roughness (n) Pipe Capacity (Mannings) Is Pipe Capacity > Q for design? 6 in 0.020 ft/ft 0.011 YES 0.94 cfs As specified (2 x k for design) Notes: If IWS, use 0% slope for perforated pipe If no IWS, 0.5% slope of perforated pipe recommended, but check capacity Orifice Flow Calculations Underdrain Holes (40' length, 2 rows, 3/8" holes, 6" OC) Orifice size (in) 0.375 Orifice size (ft) 0.03125 Orifice area (ft2) 0.000767 Water depth (ft) 4 h (ft) 3.984375 Cd 0.61 Q (cfs)=CdAo(2gh)^0.5 0.007494 # of holes = Length (ft) x 2 rows x 2 holes/ft 160 Capacity 1.20 cfs Check opening to CO1 from IWS Orifice size (in) Orifice size (ft) Orifice area (ft2) Water depth (ft) h (ft) Cd YES 6 0.5 0.196349 4 3.75 0.61 Q (cfs)=CdA0(2gh)^0.5 1.86 cfs YES Pretreatment Sizing Calculations Project #11157 Title: Clinton #1323 Bioretention Cell GIPLT By: SMM Chkd By: SPA Date: 11/30/2011 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 Larger size controls.) WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 41020 ft2 = 23010 ft2 = 56% 1.14 0.2 inches in/acre = 0.555 0.050 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 2162.2 ft3 Pretreatment Calculation Required pretreatment VOLUME = 0.1" per impervious acre 191.8 ft3 Required sediment basin AREA (depends on I) Also requires L:W of sediment basin 2:1 or greater Asf = sedimentation basin surface area full Asp = sedimentation basin surface area partial 0.94 acres 0.53 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 683.667 ft3 2162.2 ft3 Asf = (0.066)(WQ„) for I <_ 75% Asp = (0.0081)(WQ„) for I > 75% 142.7 ft2 N/A ft2 Required pretreatment AREA 142.7 ft2 Forebay Design Estimate Actual dp = Ponding depth z = side slope (z:1) Wb = Width of Pond Bottom Ratio of pond Lb:Wb Lb = Length of Pond Bottom 1 3 9.0 2 ft ft ft 1 ft 18.0 Ab = Pond Bottom Area 162.0 ft2 162.0 ft2 Is Ab > Required pretreatement AREA Wt = Width of Pond Top Lt = Length of Pond Top At = Pond Top Area YES 15.0 ft 24.0 ft 360.0 ft2 YES 323 ft2 Pond Volume 261.0 ft3 242.5 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? Pretreatment VOLUME as % of WQv (10% min recommended) YES 12% YES 11% W 7j mei If It, A X C0IdB ¢n9 w v A7 ' , 1901--095C — — — — — — —.— — — — - •— — — — — — — Si• — — — — — — Sty — — - — — — — i — T 457,68 " ORM ply At EL FILLED W/TRASH FI, (SW} 45B.n1 BMP MANAGE AREA MAP A} 41 Ex COMB MH 19D1-386C I T 473.2E I FL 458.94 I FL 458.40 n1 El 6 SCALE: 1 "-20' O.-ICR 2YYee0e Atp FelerbeSSR Ales 10 yF 20 min Nee Pawl P.l Ai g. A2 4405 090 a% all 93 7200 DOS of: 4Ae D13 A4 11213 ate On 4.e2 0.43 AS fib ,Cv i1'130 lad Ole 1101 tie OM 0% ors 4.66 1.1 iJ6e a41 0.43 aai t.1e1. 0.1110614re461104601044406 441e lateme Yen Ales Nee Poems 20 204in Al DUNN 0421 helettkete SI% P.L 011 A2 f1i M 1465 3200 11213 410 106 gas WO% ebk Aft 170 3.70 370 OAS a30 0.02 AS i123a 0.20 260 6760 AS Al 16240 ins e2E pee Sari +doff 240 370 010 0100 TWO. Were.d -&Idea neeterNal 127 2.30 DMONIMmt l etOf3F1ieIeboR iCOMNray t 1104 11 1NO6ReeXIYed 1NSPor41tlod Per Mit T.ype11af3TWo (CD1 (0u.FL1 A141.7 1.72 �321i1323 ClelatAta eiaelNban - - 3,5E0 4.155 NOTES: 1) ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR DISTURBANCE IS SUBJECT TO MSD REGULATIONS AND REOUIRFMENTS. THE. AREA OF DISTURBANCE AND DIFFERENTIAL FLOW GENERATED FROM THE WORK SHOWS 5HAL1 BE INCLUDEO IN EVALUATION OF MID REOUIREMENTS FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT - 2.) FIJTURE ROOF DOWNSPOUTS SHALL NOT BE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE SEWER. $TORMWATFR MAIOA�T -_ WATER OUALI-_ WATER QUALITY NOT; LAND AREA DISTURBED s 0.33 ACRES ANT FURTHER DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE THESE IMPROVEMENTS A5 YA1.l.. THE PRar.z'OIAL MOSE SIGNATURE AJO PERSONAL MAL APPEAR IEIEOI. ASSURES RESPONSIBILITY ONLY FAR MAT APPEARS CM 1HIS PAGE. AND 045C3.A0L5 (PURSUANT TO SECTWII 327.411 R91O) ANT RESPOMBLITY FOR ALL 011Np1 PLANS. SPEUFRC411p45 ESTI1A101 REPORTS. OR O1HLT 1301.6E1175 04 IMSTRLANNT$ NOT SEALED 0Y PEE INDEMFAIEP PR0M4ROMAL ROAMS TO OR 41pmED TO RE USED FOR ANY PART OR PARTS Or NC PROJECT 10 NNW 145 PAGE REFER" REV. IDATE DESCRIPTION 9Y METROPOLITAN fnlel„'4a11rvI ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT `'�OFTIg�OG,+ CLINTON ST. #1323 BIORETENTION M `(C0632) — CSO VR GIPLT ` ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI ONey� S.M.M. iTSAR-if�ffil"-l9IC 0RS' E. SEG. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Dram PE. No. 1004000825 3O1e' 2.-1.-01532- - M.T.B. Dct, MARCH. 2012 Sheet No 9 01� Poth: N.\Projects\11000-Series\11100-11199\11157 Clinton St 1323 Bioretenli0n (C13632)_GIPLT\dwg\ Plotted on: 3/05/13 0 07:10:01AM by SEGRAF FOR l IVORMA ( BASE MAP: 19—D-1 11157-ICI-DA9) 1.7 Design Summary Project #11778 Site: N. Vandeventer #2812 (City Block #3628) Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT NOTE: This project involves the construction of a bioretention cell. The Bioretention capacity is based on water ponding 1.3' in the basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). Drainage Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed) Impervious Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed) Percent Impervious (Fully Developed) Bioretention Filter Summary Filter Bed Area Required Filter Bed Area Provided Total Storage Volume Required Total Storage Volume Provided Ponding Depth Pretreatment Summary Pretreatment Area Required Pretreatment Area Provided Pretreatment Volume Required Pretreatment Volume Provided Percent of Water Quality Volume Provided Underdrain Summary Underdrain Capacity Required Underdrain Capacity Provided 151517 ft2 = 76986 ft2 = 51 % 1380 ft2 2570 ft2 5480 ft3 5482 ft3 1.3 ft 478.5 ft2 615.4 ft2 641.5 ft3 785.9 ft3 10.8 0.71 cfs 1.57 cfs 3.48 acres 1.77 acres Bioretention Sizing Calculations Project #11778 By: SPA Chkd By: SMM Site: N. Vandeventer #2812 (City Block #3628) Date: 6/11/2012 Date: 6/28/2012 Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662 ) CSO VR GIPLT Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 151517 ft2 = 76986 ft2 = 51% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.507 0.168 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 7302.0 ft3 Bioretention Area Calculation df = filter bed depth k = coefficient of permeability of filter media dp = Ponding depth hf = average height of water above filter bed tf = design filter bed drain time 3.48 acres 1.77 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 2525.283 ft3 7302.0 ft3 Af = (WQv) (df) / [(k) (hf+df) (tf)] 2 2 1.3 ft Note: Specify BSM with k = 2 x k ft/day used for design ft 0.65 ft 2 days Filter Bed Area Required (Af) 1377.7 ft2 Use 1380 ft2 Storage Requirement Calculations Required storage = 75% WQv 5476.5 ft3 Use 5480 ft3 Bioretention Cell Provided Ab = Pond Bottom Area Is Ab > Af? At = Pond Top Area Pond Volume BSM Void Volume (assumes 30% effective porosity) 2570 ft2 YES 3492 ft2 3940 ft3 1542 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 5482 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? YES (Roundup to nearest 10 ft2) (Roundup to nearest 10 ft3) Pretreatment Sizing Calculations Project #11778 By: SPA Site: N. Vandeventer #2812 (City Block #3628) Date: 6/8/2012 Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 140596 ft2 = 76986 ft2 = 55% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.543 0.166 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 7250.1 ft3 Pretreatment Calculation Required pretreatment VOLUME = 0.1" per impervious acre 641.5 ft3 Required sediment basin AREA (depends on I) Also requires L:W of sediment basin 2:1 or greater Asf = sedimentation basin surface area full Asp = sedimentation basin surface area partial Chkd By: SMM Date: 6/28/2012 3.23 acres 1.77 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 2343.27 ft3 7250.1 ft3 Asf = (0.066)(WQ,) for I <_ 75% Asp = (0.0081)(WQ„) for I > 75% 478.5 N/A ft2 ft2 Required pretreatment AREA 478.5 ft2 Forebay Design Actual dp = Ponding depth 1 ft Ab = Pond Bottom Area 615.4 ft2 Is Ab > Required pretreatement AREA At = Pond Top Area YES 956.4 ft2 Pond Volume 785.9 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? Pretreatment VOLUME as % of WQv (10% min recommended) YES 10.8% Underdrain Sizing Calculations Project #11778 By: SPA Chkd By: SMM Site: N. Vandeventer #2812 (City Block #3628) Date: 6/8/2012 Date: 6/28/2012 Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662 ) CSO VR GIPLT Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: Flow through Filter Darcy's Equation: Q=K*A*(H/L ) Q = Flow (Rate of Draw) through Bioretentioin Soil (cfs) K = Hydraulic Conductivity of soil AS SPECIFIED (2 x k for used for design) A = Surface Area of Bio-Retention Area (SF) H = Height of Water above Drainage Pipe (Underdrain) L = Thickness of Soil Bed (Usually 4' ) Assume ( H/L ) — 1 Inputs k = coefficient of permeability of filter media 4 ft/day As specified (2 x k for design) Ab = Pond Bottom Area 2570 ft2 Flow through filter 0.12 cfs Factor of Safety (2 to 10 recommended) 6 Q for underdrain design 0.71 cfs Notes: If IWS, use 0% slope for perforated pipe If no IWS, 0.5% slope of perforated pipe recommended, but check capacity Orifice Flow Calculations Underdrain Holes (55' length, 2-3/8" holes, 6" OC) Orifice size (in) 0.375 Orifice size (ft) 0.03125 Orifice area (ft2) 0.000767 Water depth (ft) 4 h (ft) 3.98 Cd 0.61 Q (cfs)=CdA0(2gh)^0.5 0.007494 # of holes = Length (ft) x 4 holes/ft 220 (Capacity Check opening to CO1 from IWS Orifice size (in) Orifice size (ft) Orifice area (ft2) Water depth (ft) h (ft) Cd 1.65 cfs YES 6 0.5 0.196349 2.92 2.67 0.61 Q (cfs)=CdAa(2gh)^0.5 1.57 cfs YES 485.00 - 481.00 = 4.00 485.00-482.33+0.25=2.92 FP Ex INL T 485 EA INL t BE1- T 4:: • c x DU 485 VP adJTLAO PLACE { * CIS NMI -LaMVOT rr Condition Drain. *..Information TaW Ana Tog& Ana IepaNaa Pan5N (5P) IAMa4) A W i5P) Irepq>rmu Al 10821 72e 0 0% A2 SBB56 1.35 12311 54% Al eeB4 0.20 8684 10016 AS 62683 1.21 2 50% A6 e286 0.14 0 016 AB 13122 0.70 4326 34% Taw 16T017 amrire 47% Proposed condtion DPaY1pa Aran inform *ion Y4NI Ana 70161 mei Mpsn4s; P4+Ce4 (SRL (Acne) Arr)S7) Immo: a Al 10921 0.25 0 0% A2 5965E 1.37 32341 54% A3 46e4 020 8604 100% A9 02063 1.21 26105 5016 AS 8289 0.14 3135 5016 82 13122 0.30 6561 60% ierel I 151517 348 74fe( 51% I .4 89.0 ; { ST. LOUIS (80'W.) AVE. — A4 ( 54 A2 1 MAFFITT (60'W.) AVE. 3832 EX MANH0) 18E1-309C 1 490.06 3831 BAIP/STORAIWATER CREW SWAMPY TABLE Area Arras 0mu481on 6MP Blvarnler Goat WOW RadveRm Type 11103 Types, WOr Reg1Ad (Cu F).) WOW Prodded (Cu. Fi,) AM -AB 3.48 2812 N. VMtlelarder Am. Br1lmeralm - - 5480 5482 11NFTYPF_LEGEND: DRAINAGE. AREA BOUNDARY aaraa4rraaralMawraa DRAINAGE AREA SUB -BOUNDARY a! as EMI ME. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECUROED i (UMI1 50R IMPERNOUS) BMP DRAINAGE AREA MAP 3828 3829 3826 3824 3827 3825 3820 3819 3816 A5 A6 3812 3806 38€7 3815 3811 2811 2809 3800 1 3809 3805 NOTES: 1.) ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR DISTURBANCE IS SUB.FCT TO MSD RELYIIATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS- THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE AND DIFFERENTIAL FLOW GENERATED FROM THE WORK SHOWN SHALL BE INCLUDED IN EVALUATION OF M5D REODIREMENTS FOR ANY FCIURE DEVELOPMENT, 2.) FUTURE ROOF DOWNSPOUTS SHALL N01 BE' DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE SEWER. STORMWATFR MANAGFi E T - wA_TFR DUALITY NOTE: LAND AREA DISTURBED = D,19 ACRES ANY FURTNER DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE THESE IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL 11ff PROFE59OTAL MOST 9124911R0 4110 PERSONA' SEN- APPEAR HEREON. ASSUMES FIESPOISa 1TY ORLY FOR MAT APPEARS ON MIS PAGE, AND 0I50.11M5 IPUR51.1467 10 SECTION 327411 R9r0) ANY R1:SP905I6uTr FOR u1 0111414 PLANS. SPECPICAIWNS, ESTWAT[5. REPORTS. 0R OTHER DOCUMENTS OR H51RUMCN15 1401 SLUM 9Y 1HE LACERR1O1E0 PR5E59OlAL RELATING 10 0R W1ERDE0 TO BE USED FOi ANY PART 0R PARTS CR 1HE PROJECT TO 1191101 1115 PAGE REFTRS. 3801 PRAIRIE (55'W.) AVE. SCALE: 1'=30A REV DATE, DESCRIPTION BY METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT Enginee' Seal SNPHILLIP ADAi1S.715Tr PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER P.E. N . C*019521 Duly N. VANDEVENTER #2812 & N. SARAH #1801 BIORETENTION (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT 11778-015.1 ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI Dea.sced 0.a.n aaci‘m S.P.A. M.c.K. M.T.B. pot. SEPT., 2012 Sheol No 12 .1 13 V Path: N:\Projects\11000-Series\11700-11799\11778 North Vendeventer #2812 a North Sarah p1801 BI00ETENT1ON (CO 3628 h 3662) CSO VR OIPLT\A Plotted on: 9/21/12 0 09.19:25AM by RG%181E1 FOR INFORMATION ONLY BASE MAP: 18-E-1 11778 C1-P1 1.7 Design Summary Project #11778 Site: N. Sarah #1801 (City Block #36662) Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT NOTE: This project involves the construction of a bioretention cell. The Bioretention capacity is based on water ponding 1.25' in the basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). Drainage Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed) Impervious Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developec Percent Impervious (Fully Developed) Bioretention Filter Summary Filter Bed Required Filter Bed Provided Total Storage Volume Required Total Storage Volume Provided Ponding Depth Pretreatment Summary Pretreatment Area Required Pretreatment Area Provided Pretreatment Volume Required Pretreatment Volume Provided Percent of Water Quality Volume Provided Underdrain Summary Underdrain Capacity Required Underdrain Capacity Provided 62012 ft2 = 33875 ft2 = 55 % 640 ft2 1236 ft2 2400 ft3 3090 ft3 1.25 ft 155.0 ft2 366.8 ft2 207.5 ft3 244.1 ft3 10.4 % 0.34 cfs 1.74 cfs 1.42 acres 0.78 acres Bioretention Sizing Calculations Project #11778 By: SPA Chkd By: SMM Site: N. Sarah #1801 (City Block #3662) Date: 6/11/2012 Date: 6/28/2012 Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 ft2 = 62012 33875 55% 1.14 0.2 ft2 = inches in/acre = 0.542 0.073 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 3190.9 ft3 Bioretention Area Calculation df = filter bed depth k = coefficient of permeability of filter media dp = Ponding depth hi = average height of water above filter bed tf = design filter bed drain time 1.42 acres 0.78 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 1033.533 ft3 3190.9 ft3 Af = (WQv) (df) / [(k) (hf+df) (tf)] 2.5 2 1.25 ft Note: Specify BSM with k = 2 x k ft/day used for design ft 0.625 ft 2 days Filter Bed Area Required (Af) 638.2 ft2 Use 640 ft2 Storage Requirement Calculations Required storage = 75% WQv 2393.2 ft3 Use 2400 ft3 Bioretention Cell Provided Ab = Pond Bottom Area 1236 ft2 Is Ab > Af? At = Pond Top Area Pond Volume BSM Void Volume (assumes 30% effective porosity) YES 2224 ft2 2163 ft3 927 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 3090 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? YES (Roundup to nearest 10 ft2) (Roundup to nearest 10 ft3) Pretreatment Sizing Calculations Project #11778 By: SPA Site: N. Sarah #1801 (City Block #3662) Date: 6/11/2012 Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662 ) CSO VR GIPLT Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 46297 ft2 = 24896 ft2 = 54% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.534 0.054 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 2348.5 ft3 Pretreatment Calculation Required pretreatment VOLUME = 0.1" per impervious acre 207.5 ft3 Required sediment basin AREA (depends on I) Also requires L:W of sediment basin 2:1 or greater Asf = sedimentation basin surface area full Asp = sedimentation basin surface area partial Chkd By: SMM Date: 6/28/2012 1.06 acres 0.57 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 771.617 ft3 2348.5 ft3 Asf (0.066)(WQ„) for I <_ 75% Asp (0.0081)(WQ„) for I > 75% 155.0 N/A ft2 ft2 Required pretreatment AREA 155.0 ft2 Forebay Design Actual dp = Ponding depth 0.55 ft Ab = Pond Bottom Area 366.8 ft2 is Ab > Required pretreatement AREA At = Pond Top Area YES 520.7 ft2 Pond Volume 244.1 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? Pretreatment VOLUME as % of WQv (10% min recommended) YES 10.4% Underdrain Sizing Calculations Project #11778 By: SPA Chkd By: SMM Site: N. Sarah #1801 (City Block #3662) Date: 6/11/2012 Date: 6/28/2012 Title: N. Vandeventer #2812 & N. Sarah #1801 Bioretention (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: Flow through Filter Darcy's Equation: Q = K*A*( H/L ) Q = Flow (Rate of Draw) through Bioretentioin Soil (cfs) K = Hydraulic Conductivity of soil AS SPECIFIED (2 x k for used for design) A = Surface Area of Bio-Retention Area (SF) H = Height of Water above Drainage Pipe (Underdrain) L = Thickness of Soil Bed (Usually 4' ) Assume ( H/L ) - 1 Inputs k = coefficient of permeability of filter media Ab = Pond Bottom Area Flow through filter Factor of Safety (2 to 10 recommended) 4 ft/day 1236.0 ft2 0.06 cfs 6 Q for underdrain design 0.34 cfs Solid pipe from underdrain Diameter Slope Roughness (n) 6 in 0.020 ft/ft 0.013 Pipe Capacity (Mannings) 0.80 cfs Is Pipe Capacity > Q for design? YES As specified (2 x k for design) Notes: If IWS, use 0% slope for perforated pipe If no IWS, 0.5% slope of perforated pipe recommended, but check capacity Orifice Flow Calculations Underdrain Holes (58' length, 2-3/8" holes, 6" OC) Orifice size (in) Orifice size (ft) Orifice area (ft2) Water depth (ft) h (ft) Cd Q (cfs)=CdA0(2gh)^0.5 # of holes = Length x 4 holes/ft 0.375 0.03125 0.000767 4 3.98 0.61 0.007494 232 Capacity 1.74 cfs Check opening to CO1 from IWS Orifice size (in) Orifice size (ft) Orifice area (ft2) Water depth (ft) h (ft) Cd YES 6 0.5 0.196349 2.92 2.67 0.61 Q (cfs)=CdA0(2gh)"0.5 1.57 cfs YES 501.50-497.50=4.00 501.50-498.83-0.25=2.92 16F3Ey A ROLL /—ate[--�n� — —w T SD42? FFv"77 I GARFIELD (601W.) AVE EL 49402 (E) FL 493.12 • A9 A8 5 A7 • A6 za- 6 OF) o FO E( MANI1 1f 10E3-I14C 1 502.87 •___ F 49112 .1, 5De 1 1 • `tea! . fxr:d'1� MUM i��►111 71,E7l7L�S,Yy � .rt ICE` j41 7C't 5 49 A4 A3 LP 't 1 \ 0 I 1 c eLY 0 ,J 0 BMP DRAINAGE AREA MAP ca0l 0 11 SCALE: i-20' r1 Ex IN1 E1 tS+s,� 18F3-249C .7L6r 1 496.50 BOTTOM 49533 4 o-. COTE SRIWANTE (60°W.) AVE. LINETYPE LE(ENrk' DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY DRAINAGE AREA SUB -BOUNDARY MN 11 r• DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED ■ • (LIMIT 5011 IMPERVIOUS) Existing Coad1lon Orsini* Area Mbimtllon Tate Aer Mod Ales (Ades Ynper Ana A48i) Neoax os Irspen+o A7 0.16- 0 0% A2 5976 021 5679 t0001 A3 6966 0.14 0 0% M 6656 021 _ YB0 409. A5 3495 0.01 3W5 t00h. AB 55* 037 560f 35% A7 2002 0AT 0 00 95 5906 014 1549 25% Al 2916 0.07 D 0% ?159M 62012 042 75164 17% Proposed Condition Dra1aje Aloe Mformehon Tawx,,s Tani Aol impr4an Ramat 51ee) (A0.15 ma 109) 49 00I At 0 Al 6679 0.21 5974 1669. A3 5606 0.14 2993 50% M 6509 021 4478 50% A5 3495 005 3495 160% A4 15965 0.37 7993 50% A7 Ala i]A7 1497 60% A6 6066 0.14 2993 60% A9 29E5 0.07 1455 6trA 6.011 42012 1.42 61e7e 655. B51P73'R]RMWA1ER CREW!' SUMMARY TABLE Ales Aces Description BMP Moron.* .rhea+ WOIrRetlNCtloN Type (Id 3 Types") WOoRepliM (Cu. Ft) WOoPveeIdsi MCv. R.) A106 1.42 1501 a 9933 N. Slab BL SMegdion - - 2400 MAO NOTES' 1.) ANT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR DISTURBANCE 15 SUBJECT TO MSO REGULATIONS AND REOUIRE.MEMIS. THE AREA DF DISTURBANCE, AND DIFFERENTIAL FLOW GENERATED FROM 7i{E WORK SHOWN SHALL BE INCLUDED IN EVALUATION OF MSD REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. 2.) FUTURE_ ROOF DOWNSPOUTS SHAi1 NOT 6E D1R1C1k.Y CONNECTED TO THE S£WER- STORMWB1ER MANAGEMENT — WATER OUALITV NOTE' LAND AREA DISTURBED = 017 ACRES ANY F0R1HE1t DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE THESE 1MPROVEM[NIS A5 WELL. 111E PRfftssUiu 'yeast SIGNATURE AND PERSONAL SEAL APPEAR 15REON. MOWS FRS'ORSI0LITY CNA T FOR WHAT APPEARS GI THIS PAGE. ARO DISCLAIMS (PURSUANT 10 SEC710N 527.411 RSYO) ANT RESPONSO 1TT FOR ALL DINAR PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS. ESIYAIE& PE➢OR=S. At OTHER 000 dENT5 OR IRSTRUWEN15 NOT SEALED eT THE UIDERS1aILD PROFESSIONAL RELATWO TO OR INILICED TO BE USER FOR ANT PART C R PMTS A THE PROECT TO eL601 MIS PAGE RETTRS. REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT Path: N:\Pen)ects\11000-S.ris\11700-11799\11778 North Vandeventer 42812 & North Sarah 11801 B109ETEN110N (CB 3628 & 3662) G50 VR GIPLT\d Plotted on: 9/21/12 n as: 20:09AM by RGINIBB FOR INFORMATION ONLY Engineer;,,,5ec! 51EVLN PHII.1-IP ADAMS-P. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER P.E.ve- N4/!L 2 8019521 Da N. VANDEVENTER #2812 dt N. SARAH #1801 B1ORETEN11ON (CB 3628 de 3662) CSO VR GIPLT 11778-015.1 ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI Deslpned 4.r.n. Drown M-C.0, n a,eoLep M.T.R. Dole SEPT., 2012 Awl No __IL_.1_. 1._ BASE MAP: 18—E-1 11778 CI-P1 1.8 Design Summary Project #11802 Title: Geraldine #5099 & Beacon #5479 Bioretention (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: Geraldine 5099 NOTE: Project involves Pretreatment Forebay, Bioretention, and Detention basin in series. Bioretention capacity is based on the lower 1.5' of the Bioretention Basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). The detention volume calculated by Pondpack with 3 interconnected basins Drainage area routed to basin Impervious area routed to basin (fully developed) Bioretention and Internal Water Storage (IWS) Bioretention Capacity Bioretention Area Ponding Depth IWS capacity (not included in bioretention capacity) Infiltration rate into soil below IWS 74848 ft2 = 51196 ft2= 1205 ft3 335 ft2 1.5 ft 268 ft3 1.1 in/day Differential Runoff from site (20-yr, 20-min; Rational Method) Pre -developed (back to grass) 0.71 cfs Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 1.4 cfs Differential 0.69 cfs 0.42 acres 0.32 acres 0.0458333 in/hr Bioretention Sizing Calculations Project #11802 Title: GERALDINE # 5099 & BEACON # 5479 BIORETENTION (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: CB 5087 #5099 Geraldine Ave By: MRK Chkd By: SPA Date: 3/26/2012 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 ft2 = ft2 = 18342 13722 75% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.723 0.029 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 1260.4 ft3 Bioretention Area Calculation df = filter bed depth k = coefficient of permeability of filter media dp = Ponding depth hf = average height of water above filter bed tf = design filter bed drain time 0.42 acres 0.32 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 305.700 ft3 1260.4 ft3 Af = (WQ„) (df) / [(k) (hf+df) (tf)] 2.5 2 1.5 ft ft/day Note: Specify BSM with k = 2 x ft 0.75 ft 2 days Filter Bed Area Required (Af) 242.4 ft2 Use 250 ft2 Storage Requirement Calculations Required storage = 75% WQv 945.3 ft3 Use 950 ft3 Bioretention Cell Provided Ab = Pond Bottom Area 335.0 ft2 Is Ab > Af? At = Pond Top Area Pond Volume BSM Void Volume (assumes 30% effective porosity) YES 937.0 ft2 954.0 ft3 251.3 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 1205 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? YES (Roundup to nearest 10 ft2) (Roundup to nearest 10 ft3) Pretreatment Sizing Calculations Project #11802 Title: GERALDINE # 5099 & BEACON # 5479 BIORETENTION (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: CB 5087 #5099 Geraldine Ave By: MRK Chkd By: SPA Date: 3/26/2012 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 11359 ft2 = 10526 ft2 = 93% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.884 0.022 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 953.9 ft3 Pretreatment Calculation Required pretreatment VOLUME = 0.1" per imperviou: 87.7 ft3 Required sediment basin AREA (depends on I) Also requires L:W of sediment basin 2:1 or greater Asf = sedimentation basin surface area full Asp = sedimentation basin surface area partial 0.26 acres 0.24 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 189.317 ft3 953.9 ft3 Asf = (0.066)(WQ) for 15 75% Asp = (0.0081)(WQ) for I > 75% N/A 77.3 ft2 ft2 Required pretreatment AREA 77.3 ft2 Forebay Design Estimate Actual dp = Ponding depth z = side slope (z:1) Wb = Width of Pond Bottom Ratio of pond Lb:Wb Lb = Length of Pond Bottom 0.5 ft 0 7.0 ft 4 28.0 ft 0.5 ft At, = Pond Bottom Area 196.0 ft2 215.0 ft2 Is Ab > Required pretreatement AREA Wt = Width of Pond Top Lt = Length of Pond Top At = Pond Top Area YES 7.0 ft 28.0 ft 196.0 ft2 YES 238 ft2 Pond Volume 98.0 ft3 113.3 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? Pretreatment VOLUME as % of WQv (10% min recommended) YES 10% YES 12% Underdrain Sizing Calculations Project #11802 Title: GERALDINE # 5099 & BEACON # 5479 BIORETENTION (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: CB 5087 #5099 Geraldine Ave By: MRK Chkd By: SPA Date: 3/26/2012 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: Flow through Filter Darcy's Equation: Q=K*A*(H/L ) Q = Flow (Rate of Draw) through Bioretentioin Soil (cfs) K = Hydraulic Conductivity of soil AS SPECIFIED (2 x k for used for design) A = Surface Area of Bio-Retention Area (SF) H = Height of Water above Drainage Pipe (Underdrain) L = Thickness of Soil Bed (Usually 4' ) Assume ( H/L ) - 1 Inputs k = coefficient of permeability of filter media 4 ft/day As specified (2 x k for design) Ab = Pond Bottom Area 335.0 ft2 Flow through filter 0.02 cfs Factor of Safety (2 to 10 recommended) 6 Q for underdrain design 0.09 cfs Solid pipe from underdrain Diameter Slope Roughness (n) 6 in 0.020 ft/ft 0.011 Pipe Capacity (Mannings) 0.94 cfs Is Pipe Capacity > Q for design? YES Notes: If IWS, use 0% slope for perforated pipe If no IWS, 0.5% slope of perforated pipe recommended, but check capacity Orifice Flow Calculations Underdrain Holes (38' length, 2-3/8" holes, 6" OC) Orifice size (in) 0.375 Orifice size (ft) 0.03125 Orifice area (ft2) 0.000767 Water depth (ft) 4 h (ft) 3.984375 Cd Q (cfs)=CdAa(2gh)^0.5 # of holes = Length x 2 'Capacity 0.61 0.007494 76 0.57 cfs Check opening to CO1 from IWS Orifice size (in) Orifice size (ft) Orifice area (ft2) Water depth (ft) h (ft) Cd YES 6 0.5 0.196349 4 3.75 0.61 Q (cfs)=CdA,(2gh)"0.5 1.86 cfs YES 1 a EX COMB I r1. 15F4_.261C 1 V T 504.25 14 FL {N 4 40O FL (SW 44495. '�seN_ FL 481.;5G1i / 19 }l„ HARNEY HFIE-d175 CA 608.4 • G IF --- Al CON50ATPL_i OF L OF.536_CITY BOCKAT60 7 e}F T EX COMB 1 LE1 EX COMB !NL T 15F4'-27 e 15F4-271C T 501.01 T FL5639.Ot`t 4 / ... F1Lf493.54 I y4 °f 4I `. EX COMB �INLC�•1'1y. .''Fl . `.15F4-272C• P5.01.00 -- 1RAPPFq r—(T94-.. ..-TRAPPFn� 31�f4� T 50 fy 432, 70 ee+ t HARNEY HPJ -ri5 BLOC.( 6 CB. 8087 COMB MH 15P4- 265C T 500.33 L (E) 482 9 'L (SW), 48..=. L (Nj 48 ' L `3E) !tie L-r80.ee Y BLOCK C.B. 609E Led a A71 Al A2 11} Coedi800 Oninane Aros Inkenut8en Mee A. (SF) 9'L.'ea) 11200 038 7022 0.46 Ponaunt Impsu9ee 0% 20 yr 2D min P-/ 10 1.0 CI ids) 0.M 0.27 Telal 0.11 Al A2 Propopd 09M1100 Malone Mao IefpPRatlae4 Ares ISP) 11959 7022 Alp (Area.) 028 010 Peromt ImpeMoua 93% P. 201720 min L (c9) 103 219 0.05 0.4s Total. 1.39 Ptvpou.d-B[IaORT B2Weualal O98 SCALE: 1"=20' AR. Nam PkecMbn SIPJBTORAIWATgi BUR CASPIT MAMMY SURNMetermli TAILE MlgeRe(LAMTYl MENRaqulred WD,PNAided Type (143 typo.'') (Cu. Ft.l (Cu Ft) AIA2 0.42 5099 frrMale MB Boa4eol - - 950 1,200 . I INIFJYPFJ FGEND- 004)54GE AREA BOUNDARY ORAINAGE AREA 5U8-BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED (LIMIT 50s IMPERVIOUS) ewe Me. .ene NOTE - I.) ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND/OF DISTURBANCE IS SUBaF.CT TO LISP REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS- MF AREA Or DESTURBANI£ AND DIFFERENTIAL FLOW GENERATED FROM THE MORN Se1000 SNMJ- BE INCLUDED IN EVALUATION OF 4190 REO0REL1ENTS FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT- 2) FUTURE ROOF 0014NSPOU IS SMALL NOT RE DIK{CITY CONNECTED TO SEWER. CTSWM0A0FR N14160filE4l- _VTeTER_OV41TY NOTE: LAND AREA 05RA1RE0 - O90 ACRES ANY FURTHER DEBREFMEL;T SHALL IN0UDE TICSE DePROVEOE]ITS AS NELL THE PROFESSIONAL WOW 9 2ATURE AND PERSONAL SEAL 0001AR HEREON. ASA0E3 RCSPON9&1TY ONLY FOR IMAT APPEARS QI 1195 PAGE, AND 05CLA91S (PURSUANT TO Si0Im8 127.411 MD) ANY RE0PONS1&u5Y ON ALL 01NER PLANS. $PEE0TCA9a15, E5OMATES REPORTS. DR OTHER DOCL3@ITS OR 915111L40.NT5 NOT SEALED BY THE UNDEPe2d[D PROE7ONAL RELATING TO OR DOMED TO BE USED FOR ANY PART 0i PARTS V' THE POO.ECS SO e11101 MI5 PAGE Fangs REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY BMP DRAINAGE AREA MAP PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Path: PI: \Projects\11000-Series\11800-11899\11802 Geraldine 5099 Beacon 5479\dw9\ Rotted on: 9/28/12 0 07:19:09AM by RGPABB FOR INFORMATION ONLY PD.E. oleq/r r. N0. a2007034893 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT GERALDINE S5099 & BEACON #5479 BIORETENTION (CB 5087 1�48D28)71 .1 SO VR GIPLT ST. LOUIS CITY, ISfISSOURI [waned M.R.K. S.E-G. Checked S.M.M BASE MAP: 15—F--1 !k 4 091e SEPT., 2012 Sheet No 1' el !4 11002 [C1--L014 1.8 Design Summary Project #11802 Title: Geraldine #5099 & Beacon #5479 Bioretention (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: Beacon #5479 NOTE: Project involves Pretreatment Forebay, Bioretention, and Detention basin in series. Bioretention capacity is based on the lower 1.5' of the Bioretention Basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). The detention volume calculated by Pondpack with 3 interconnected basins Drainage area routed to basin Impervious area routed to basin (fully developed) 74848 ft2 = 51196 ft2 = Bioretention and Internal Water Storage (IWS) Bioretention Capacity 3461 ft3 Bioretention Area 1248 ft2 Ponding Depth 1.5 ft IWS capacity (not included in bioretention capacity) 998.4 ft3 Infiltration rate into soil below IWS 1.7 in/day Differential Runoff from site (20-yr, 20-min; Rational Method) Pre -developed (back to grass) 3.01 cfs Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 5.05 cfs Differential 2.04 cfs 1.79 acres 1.02 acres 0.0708333 in/hr Detention Return Interval Peak Flow Release Rate 1yr, 24hr 2yr, 24hr 15yr, 24hr Pre -developed (back to grass) 1.76 2.72 6.08 Developed without controls (fully redeveloped) 4.77 4.95 8.98 Developed with detention 3.69 2.68 5.82 Basin volume/depth/ponding elevation Designed condition volume (cf) Designed condition ponding elevation (ft) Designed condition ponding depth (ft) Designed condition freeboard (ft) Blocked condition ponding elevation (ft) Blocked condition ponding depth (ft) Blocked condition freeboard (ft) 20yr, 24hr 6.83 9.83 6.13 6,970 10,513 22,215 24,731 467.17 468.22 469.07 469.18 1.67 2.72 3.57 3.68 2.33 1.28 0.43 0.32 Blocked Conditions not used for this basin because drainage will bypass trench drain in basin full conditions Bioretention Sizing Calculations Project #11802 Title: GERALDINE # 5099 & BEACON # 5479 BIORETENTION (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: CB 5528 #5479 Beacon Avenue By: MRK Chkd By: SPA Date. 3/26/2012 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 ft2 = ft2 = 78112 44253 57% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.560 0.095 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 4154.7 ft3 Bioretention Area Calculation df = filter bed depth k = coefficient of permeability of filter media dp = Ponding depth hf = average height of water above filter bed tf = design filter bed drain time 1.79 acres 1.02 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 1301.867 ft3 4154.7 ft3 Af = (WQv) (df) / [(k) (hf+df) (tf)] 2.5 2 1.5 ft ft/day Note: Specify BSM with k = 2 x ft 0.75 ft 2 days Filter Bed Area Required (Af) Use 799.0 ft2 800 ft2 Storage Requirement Calculations Required storage = 75% WQv Use 3116.0 ft3 3120 ft3 Bioretention Cell Provided Ab = Pond Bottom Area 1248.0 ft2 Is Ab > Af? At = Pond Top Area Pond Volume BSM Void Volume (assumes 30% effective porosity) 2118.0 ft2 2524.5 ft3 936.0 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 3461 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? (Roundup to nearest 10 ft2) (Roundup to nearest 10 ft3) Pretreatment Sizing Calculations Project #11802 Title: GERALDINE # 5099 & BEACON # 5479 BIORETENTION (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: CB 5528 #5479 Beacon Avenue By: MRK Chkd By: SPA Date: 3/26/2012 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 78112 ft2 = 1.79 acres 44253 ft2 = 1.02 acres 57% 1.14 inches 02 in/acre = 0.017 ft/acre = 1301.867 ft3 0.560 0.095 acre-ft 4154.7 ft3 WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 4154.7 ft3 Pretreatment Calculation Required pretreatment VOLUME = 0.1" per impervi 368.8 ft3 Required sediment basin AREA (depends on I) Asf = (0.066)(WQ„) for I <_ 75% ASP = (0.0081)(WQv) for I > 75% Also requires L:W of sediment basin 2:1 or greater Asf = sedimentation basin surface area full 274.2 ft2 Asp = sedimentation basin surface area partial N/A ft2 Required pretreatment AREA 274.2 ft2 Forebay Design Estimate Actual dp = Ponding depth z = side slope (z:1) Wb = Width of Pond Bottom Ratio of pond Lb:Wb Lb = Length of Pond Bottom 1 3 10.0 3 ft ft ft 1 ft 30.0 Ab = Pond Bottom Area 300.0 fe 343.0 ft2 Is Ab > Required pretreatement AREA Wt = Width of Pond Top Lt = Length of Pond Top At = Pond Top Area YES 16.0 ft 36.0 ft 576.0 ft2 YES 658 ft2 Pond Volume 438.0 ft3 500.5 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? Pretreatment VOLUME as % of WQv (10% min recommended YES 11% YES 12% Underdrain Sizing Calculations Project #11802 Title: GERALDINE # 5099 & BEACON # 5479 BIORETENTION (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT Site: CB 5528 #5479 Beacon Avenue By: MRK Chkd By: SPA Date: 3/26/2012 Date: 3/30/2012 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: Flow through Filter Darcy's Equation: Q = K*A'( H/L ) Q = Flow (Rate of Draw) through Bioretentioin Soil (cfs) K = Hydraulic Conductivity of soil AS SPECIFIED (2 x k for used for design) A = Surface Area of Bio-Retention Area (SF) H = Height of Water above Drainage Pipe (Underdrain) L = Thickness of Soil Bed (Usually 4' ) Assume ( H/L ) - 1 Inputs k = coefficient of permeability of filter media 4 ft/day As specified (2 x k for design) Ab = Pond Bottom Area 1248.0 ft2 Flow through filter 0.06 cfs Factor of Safety (2 to 10 recommended) 6 Q for underdrain design 0.35 cfs Solid pipe from underdrain Diameter Slope Roughness (n) 6 in 0.020 ft/ft 0.011 Pipe Capacity (Mannings) 0.94 cfs Is Pipe Capacity > Q for design? YES Notes: If IWS, use 0% slope for perforated pipe If no IWS, 0.5% slope of perforated pipe recommended, but check capacity Orifice Flow Calculations Underdrain Holes (36' length, 2-3/8" holes, 6" OC) Orifice size (in) 0.375 Orifice size (ft) 0.03125 Orifice area (ft2) 0.000767 Water depth (ft) 4 h (ft) 3.984375 Cd Q (cfs)=CdA0(2gh)^0.5 # of holes = Length x 2 0.61 0.007494 72 Capacity 0.54 cfs Check opening to CO1 from IWS Orifice size (in) Orifice size (ft) Orifice area (ft2) Water depth (ft) h (ft) Cd YES 6 0.5 0.196349 4 3.75 0.61 Q (cfs)=CdA, (2gh)^0.5 1.86 cfs YES A SHEET FLOW AtoB L100' S-7.5% Path: N:\Projects\11000-Series\11800--11899\11602 Geraldine 5099 Beacon 5479\dwg\ Plotted on: 9/28/12 0 07:17:1 JAM by RGY6BB 1 1 TED FLOW C to D a E% COMB MN 15,1-343C 7 474.64 EL 464.80 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW B to C L-18' S-7.5% UNPAVED SCALE: 1-=40' At A2 4D.1nagAm. Are. l�76 adomistion 1.54 11236 0.20 Parc5A 0% 0% 20 r 20 min P.L 1.88 1.86 Deal• CI 4ob) 260 0.44 5.03 At A2 Prca.rd Cesdit as DaFnp. Area i termatlax Area (5F7 66870 11238 Ana (Acme) 1.64 (3.2E Pereere Ilinpereeue 58% 20 yr 20 min P.L 2.64 0 04e) 288 4.37 270 Tatty Praaama - 5OW% 015amatl.• • ea7 8.04 BYP16T0[W WATER LF®ET 51YYARY TABLE Are. Acre. Oaacnp1ef AMP 81carmehir Gawk YASvRelelCaD WOvRegpad WEHIHord.d �aa(1m3Tyaa� (Cu FE) (Ca. Ft.) A1-A2 1.70 Si74, 6170Ra 5475 Beacon An. BVomlb 00 - 3,120 3,461 BIM DRAINAGE AREA MAP FOR INFORMATION ONLY LINE7YPE LEGENQ: DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY DRAINAGE AREA 5UB-BOUN0ARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED (LIMIT 50% IMPERVIOUS) NOTE: 1,) ANY FUTURE DEVELOPNUFI AND/OR OLSTURILWCE Is SUBJECT TO •r56 REOULADONS AND REOUIRFNENTS. THE AREA OF DISIL1RaANCE AND DIFFERENTIAL r305 GENERATED CRC+ THE VOW SHONA. SHALL At INCLUDED N EVALUATION Of WO REWIREMENTS FOR ANT FUTURE DLYELOPMENT. 2) FUTURE ROOF OOWMSPOUIS SHALL NO1 DE !DIRECTLY CONNECTED 70 SLUFF_ 1 _ A NJLY NO'E- IAND AREA DISTNEDED a 1116 ACRES ANY PURTIIDR DEYELOPIENI 91A.LL INCLti0E THESE IMPROVEMENTS AS OCLt THE PROFESSIONAL M OSE SIGNATURE AND PERSONAL SEAL APPEAR dEREOM. ASSUMES MP [WSW Y ONLY FOR %HAI APPEARS ON THIS PACT, AND DISCLAIMS (PURSUANT TO SECTION 327.411 R1F0) ANY RESPON516EJTY OR ALL OTHER PLANS. 00EO0CA110N5, ESTIMATES, REPORTS, OR OTHER 0OLUMENTS OR W51FNAa1r15 RUT SEALED AY THE LR67ER5101E0 PROM:Ma4n1 RELA¶NC TO 01 MENDED ID Si IJ2ED FOR ANY PART OR ARTS CC THE PROJECT 70 11M01 THIS PAVE REFERS. • Rev. DATE DESCRIPTION BY MATTE! •- PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER 4. 9'. No 007p 34893 enter 9fsr/12.. METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT GERALDINE 099 & BEACON #5479 RORETEN110N (CB 5087 & 5528) CSO VR GIPLT 11802- 15.1 ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI 5.R.6. S-E-G. W4 S6P7., 2012 Siam No of 14 0A.e.e S.M.M BASE MAP: 15—F-1 $ 4 71802 [C1-1.014 1.7 Design Summary Project #11804 Site: Warne Avenue #4241 (City Block #4899) Title: Warne #4241 Bioretention (CB 4899 ) CSO VR GIPLT NOTE: This project involves the construction of a bioretention cell. The Bioretention capacity is based on water ponding 10" in the basin plus storage in the bioretention soil mix (BSM). Drainage Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed) Impervious Area Routed to Basin (Fully Developed) Percent Impervious (Fully Developed) Bioretention Filter Summary Filter Bed Required Filter Bed Provided Total Storage Volume Required Total Storage Volume Provided Ponding Depth Pretreatment Summary Pretreatment Area Required Pretreatment Area Provided Pretreatment Volume Required Pretreatment Volume Provided Percent of Water Quality Volume Provided Underdrain Summary Underdrain Capacity Required Underdrain Capacity Provided 29460 ft2 = 20023 ft2 = 68 410 ft2 800 ft2 1390 ft3 1593 ft3 0.83 ft 103 ft2 261 ft2 141 ft3 157 ft3 10.1 0.22 cfs 1.95 cfs 0.68 acres 0.46 acres Bioretention Sizing Calculations Project #11804 Title: Warne #4241 Bioretention Cell GIPLT By: DHG Chkd By: SMM Date: 1/23/2013 Date: 2/20/2013 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)1/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)j/12 ft2 = 29460 20023 68% 1.14 0.2 inches in/acre = 0.662 0.043 acre-ft WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 1851.9 ft3 Bioretention Area Calculation df = filter bed depth k = coefficient of permeability of filter media dp = Ponding depth hf = average height of water above filter bed tf = design filter bed drain time 0.68 acres 0.46 acres 0.017 ft/acre = 490.998 ft3 1851.9 ft3 Af = (WQv) (df) / [(k) (hf+df) (tf)] 3 2 0.83 ft Note: Specify BSM with k = 2 x k ft/day used for design ft 0.415 ft 2 days Filter Bed Area Required (Af) 406.7 ft2 Use 410 ft2 Storage Requirement Calculations Required storage = 75% WQv 1388.9 ft3 Use 1390 ft3 Bioretention Cell Provided Ab = Pond Bottom Area 800.0 ft2 Is Ab > Af? At = Pond Top Area Pond Volume BSM Void Volume (assumes 30% effective porosity) YES 1303.0 ft2 872.7 ft3 720.0 ft3 Total Storage Volume Provided 1593 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? YES (Roundup to nearest 10 ft2) (Roundup to nearest 10 ft3) Pretreatment Sizing Calculations Project #11804 Title: Warne #4241 Bioretention Cell GIPLT By: DHG Chkd By: SMM Date: 1/23/2013 Date: 2/20/2013 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: All vacant parcels assumed 50% impervious, non -vacant parcels > 50%, so use existing for those (Size BMP(s) for re -developed condition and interim condition. Larger size controls.) WQv Calculation Drainage Area Impervious Area % Imp (I) Rainfall (P) Min WQv Runoff Coeff (Rv) = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) Water Quality Volume (WQv) = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)]/12 23062 ft2 = 0.53 acres 16927 ft2 = 0.39 acres 73% 1.14 inches 0.2 in/acre = 0.0166667 ft/acre = 384.3633 ft3 0.711 0.036 acre-ft 1556.8 ft3 WQv for Design (Compare to Min WQv) 1556.8 ft3 Pretreatment Calculation Required pretreatment VOLUME = 0.1"/impervious acre 141.1 ft3 Required sediment basin AREA (depends on I) Is this the average area, top area or bottom area? Also requires L:W of sediment basin 2:1 or greater Ast = sedimentation basin surface area full Asp = sedimentation basin surface area partial Ast = (0.066)(WQ„) for I <_ 75% Asp = (0.0081)(WQ„) for I > 75% 102.7 N/A ft2 ft2 Required pretreatment AREA 102.7 ft2 Forebay Design Estimate Actual dp = Ponding depth z = side slope (z:1) Wb = Width of Pond Bottom Ratio of pond Lb:Wb Lb = Length of Pond Bottom 1 3 9.0 3 ft ft ft 0.5 ft 27.0 Ab = Pond Bottom Area 243.0 ft2 261.0 ft2 Is Ab > Required pretreatement AREA W, = Width of Pond Top Lt = Length of Pond Top At = Pond Top Area YES 15.0 ft 33.0 ft 495.0 ft2 YES 366 ft2 Pond Volume 369.0 ft3 156.8 ft3 Is Volume Provided > Required storage? Pretreatment VOLUME as % of WQv (10% min recommended) YES 24% YES 10.1 Underdrain Sizing Calculations Project #11804 Title: Warne #4241 ROW Bioretention GIPLT By: DHG Chkd By: SMM Date: 1/23/2013 Date: 2/20/2013 Directions: Highlighted green cells require input, see references tab for design requirements Assumptions: Flow through Filter Darcy's Equation: Q=K*A*(H/L ) Q = Flow (Rate of Draw) through Bioretentioin Soil (cfs) K = Hydraulic Conductivity of soil AS SPECIFIED (2 x k for used for design) A = Surface Area of Bio-Retention Area (SF) H = Height of Water above Drainage Pipe (Underdrain) L = Thickness of Soil Bed (Usually 4' ) Assume ( H/L ) - 1 Inputs k = coefficient of permeability of filter media Ab = Pond Bottom Area Flow through filter Factor of Safety (2 to 10 recommended) 800.0 4 ft/day ft2 0.04 cfs 6 Q for underdrain design 0.22 cfs Solid pipe from underdrain Diameter Slope Roughness (n) (Pipe Capacity (Mannings) Is Pipe Capacity > Q for design? YES 6 in 0.010 ft/ft 0.011 0.66 cfs Notes: If IWS, use 0% slope for perforated pipe If no IWS, 0.5% slope of perforated pipe recommended, but check capacity Orifice Flow Calculations Underdrain Holes (63' length, 2-3/8" holes, 6" OC) Orifice size (in) Orifice size (ft) Orifice area (ft2) Water depth (ft) h (ft) Cd Q (cfs)=CdAo(2gh)^0.5 # of holes = Length (ft) x 4 holes/ft 0.375 0.03125 0.000767 4.25 36"+6"+6"+3" 4.234375 0.61 0.007726 252 Capacity 1.95 cfs Check opening to CO1 from IWS Orifice size (in) Orifice size (ft) Orifice area (ft2) Water depth (ft) h (ft) Cd YES 6 0.5 0.196349 3.25 36"+3" 3 0.61 Q (cfs)=CdAo(2gh)"0.5 1.66 cfs YES As specified (2 x k for design) EX COMB MH I 17E1- 2000 T 509.48 FL 0.00 () SCALE; 1" = 20' j0 INFTYPE I FGFNO: DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY DRAINAGE AREA SUB -BOUNDARY .•••• - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED • (LIMIT 509. IMPERVIOUS) E ting Candelas Drainage Aran killeramt ion Al A2 A3 Area (SF} 12,731 4,0513 1,730 Area 0.29 0.09 0.04 Percent Impervious 70% 92% 48% 20 yr, 20 Pen b (de) PI 3.10 9.54 2.85 0.91 0. 0.1 *4 1700 0.04 0% 1.88 0.07 AS 1,890 0.04 0% 1.68 0.07 A5 A7 1,155 2,983 A8 l 3.435 7461 0.03 0.07 0.08 0% 0% 51% 59.448 aM 43% 1.98 1.8B 2.71 0.04 0.11 0.21 1.84 el Condition 0ra61a9e Mae OLfanna9nrl Area 12,731 A2 4,056 A3 1,730 A4 1,700 *5 1,600 A8 1,155 A7 2.963 A8 3.498 (sP) Area (Acres) 0.28 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.08 Percent Impervious 87% 92% 80% 81% 81% 50% 73% 27% Taal 79410 sae M% 20yr. 20 MnI 0 (de) Pt 3.03 3.54 3.30 3.82 3.32 2.39 3.18 222 0.89 0.33 0.13 0.13 0.13 0,07 0.21 0.18 im impelled hepe3 Eliding rrb engsa. A76 iTII-0-4tiSi V- Waytew 1l.ean Type .. A. Awe. artpeon Os BM P SbmiwaaCe. r e,n WQ• R.quU.d Ft) war P.wId.0 feu. Ft.) (11ar 7 Type!"(0u. A1-42. 066 Adyment to 4241 warn. A Bioral.nticn - - 1693 1427 NOTES: !_) ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR DISTURBANCE 15 SUBJECT TO MSD REGULATIONS AND REOUIREMENTS. THE AREA 0E DISTURBANCE AND DIFFERENTIAL EL OW GENERATED FROM THE WORK SH06N SHALL BE INCLUDED iN EVALUATION OF M5D REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, 2,) FUTURE ROOF DOWNSPOUTS SHALL NOT BE OIREC RY CONNECTED 10 THE SEWER. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - WATER QUALITY NOTE: LAND AREA DISTURBED - 0,09 ACRES A ANY46FURTLtI1ER DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE THESE IMPROVEMENTS 5 THE PROTES5ONAL AM05E 9GNAIURA5 E AR0 PERSONAL SEAL APPEAR HEREON. 9J4' 4E5 15ON981LI1Y PALLY FOR 'SPAT APPEARS OP 1RI5 PAGE. AND MSCLAIl15 (PURSUANT 10 SECTION 327.411 RSM0) ANY RESTOISIBUTY TOR PL ALL 0TNER ANS, SPELTF0CA110N5. E51a.A1E5. REPORTS. 0R LONER DOCU LPI0 DR 41STRUMENTS ROT SEALED BY THE UN0ERSC ED PROFE55106AL RELATING TO 0R e11892ED 1D BE USED TOP AMY PART OR PARTS 0( THE PR0{CT TD 114.1104 THIS PAGE REFERS. RCP. DATE DESCRIPTION BY Path: N:\Protects\11000-Series\11 BOO S-11899\11604 Warne & Linton\dwg\ Plotted n: 4/09/13 9 02:03:22PM by RC(BB FOR INFORMATION ONLY Engineer Sral BUETNTE17."F1 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER P-E- No- E-27545 Dote 41,1 %13 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT WARNE 14241 BIORETEN11ON (CB 4899) CSO VR GIPLT 11804-015.1 ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI „ Dy„� O.H.G. croon J.M.G. 05.aed M.T.B. D.,. APRIL. 2013 NP Sheol _ 6 or 6 BASE MAP: 17-E-1 11804-1G1-P1) References: From MSD Rules and Regulations (Feb, 2006) WQv is the storage needed to capture and treat the runoff from 90% of the recorded daily rainfall events. In numerical terms, it is equivalent to 1.14 inches of rainfall multiplied by the volumetric runoff coefficient (Rv) and site area. The WQv is directly related to the amount of impervious cover created at a site. A minimum WQv of 0.2 inches per acre shall be met at all sites where WQv is required. The following equations are used to determine WQv: WQv = [(P)(Rv)(A)/12] Where: WQv = water quality volume (in ft3) P = 1.14 inches of rainfall Rv = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) I = percent impervious cover (in percent) A =area in acres From Maryland Manual (2000): Bioretention systems (F-6) shall consist of the following treatment components: A 21/2 to 4 foot deep planting soil bed, a surface mulch layer, and a 12" deep surface ponding area. NOTE: MSD is now allowing 18 inches. The required filter bed area (Af) is computed using the following equation Af = (WQv) (df) / [ (k) (hf + df) (tf)] W here: Af = Surface area of filter bed (ft2) WQv = water quality volume (ft3) df = filter bed depth (ft) k = coefficient of permeability of filter media (ft/day) = 0.5 ft/day NOTE: MSD is now allowing 2 ft/day hf = average height of water above filter bed (ft) tf = design filter bed drain time (days) = 2 days for bioretention Adequate pretreatment for bioretention systems (F-6) is provided when all of the following are provided: (a) 20' grass filter strip below a level spreader or optional sand filter layer, (b) gravel diaphragm and (c) a mulch layer. Otherwise forebay may be required. From NC State Urban Waterways publication "Designing Bioretention with an Internal Water Storage (IWS) Layer http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/IW S.BRC.2009.pdf Good overview of bioretention design considerations The top of the elbow should be at least 12 inches below the surface of the bowl (Note, this is if your underlying soils are highly permable, for tighter soils, use 18" to 24") NOTE: Per Jay Hoskins at MSD, generally want to keep the storage layer below the Bioretention Soil Media (BSM), which would be 30" from surface Effective porosity of bioretention cell takes into account the field capacity (water that remains attached to the soil particles between events) Sand 30% Gravel 25% APPENDIX L SAMPLE NEIGHBORHOOD-SCALE BIORETENTION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS PLAN Table of Contents 3.1 Contact Information of Party Responsible for Maintenance 2 3.2 General 2 3.3 Inspection and Routine Maintenance Schedule 3 3.4 Maintenance 3 3.5 Materials for Routine Maintenance 4 3.6 Sediment Removal and Disposal 6 3.7 Record Keeping and Reporting 8 Attachments 3A. — Planting Plans, Plant Photos, and Cultural Requirements 3B. — Inspection Checldist North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 1 3.1 Contact Information of Party Responsible for Maintenance Operation and maintenance of this facility is the responsibility of the Operations department of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. The Operations department should be contacted if any construction in the area draining to the facility could cause sediment or other pollutants to flow into the facility. Name: Anthony Merz Address: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Sulphur Yard 1900 Sulphur Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 Phone: (314) 768-6297 Construction Guarantee Period The construction contractor for this facility is under a 1-year guarantee tor workmanship and quality of materials commencing on the date of acceptance of the work. If defects in workmanship or quality of materials are identified during the guarantee period, please contact the District Inspector overseeing the contract. DO NOT REMOVE THE DEFECTIVE MATERIAL OR WORK. The construction contractor is not responsible for maintenance. The District Inspector overseeing the contract is: Name: Mark Dietiker Address: 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Phone: (314) 768-6380 Fax: (314) 768-6341 3.2 General As explained in the Executive Summary, the facility at this site includes a bioretention filter, sometimes referred to as a "rain garden", for the purpose of reducing the volume and peak discharge of stormwater runoff that flows into the combined sewer system during a rain event, thereby reducing the volume of combined sewer overflows (CSO). As part of the CSO Volume Reduction — Green Infrastructure Pilot Program, this facility is constructed, owned, and maintained by MSD for the purpose of informing the full CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Program as outlined in the "Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan," dated February 2011. This maintenance plan explains the basic tasks that are needed to ensure the facility works properly and fulfills these purposes. The Operations department should evaluate this maintenance plan for effectiveness and revise as necessary. The Operations department will keep a record of the inspection logs detailing the results of the inspection and any maintenance or corrective action required. An annual inspection report will be submitted to the Engineering department by March 31st, for the first five years of operation, to document inspection and maintenance activity for the previous calendar year. Recordkeeping, reporting information, and an inspection checklist are provided at the end of this section. North Vandeventer 112812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 2 3.3 Inspection and Routine Maintenance Schedule 1) During the first growing season, inspect plants bi-monthly. These inspections will also help to determine the frequency of trash and debris removal. 2) General facility inspections should take place at least once every 3 months during the spring, summer, and early fall and every 2 months from November through March to determine how leaf litter will impact the flow capacity of the structures. 3) After the first year of operation routine inspections should take place every 3 months. 4) At least 1 of the quarterly inspections should be after a storm exceeding 1 inch of rainfall in a 24 hour period, ideally approximately 24 to 48 hours after the storm to determine if the facility is draining as desired. 5) See Attachment 3B for a sample Inspection Checklist 3.4 Maintenance This facility will require routine inspection and preventative maintenance to keep it in good working order. Minimum maintenance includes routine removal of sediment, debris, oil and foreign material from the pretreatment forebays, the bioretention basin, the overflow structure, and the downstream sewer. Routine maintenance of the vegetation is required to maintain vigorous growth, so the operation and capacity of the stormwater facility continues to function properly and maintain acceptable appearance. Bioretention Basin and Appurtenances 1) Inspect each manhole and inlet structure and remove any sediment, trash or debris build-up. 2) Inspect the forebay areas for sediment, trash and debris. Remove trash and debris. Remove sediment when it reaches a maximum of 3 inches. 3) Inspect the bioretention basin for sediment, trash, and debris. Remove trash and debris. Remove sediment when it reaches a maximum depth of 1 inches or if water ponds on the surface for more than 48 hours. 4) Verify the bioretention basin dewaters between storms. The bioretention area is intended to pond stormwater up to 48 hours. If standing water remains for longer, the top of the bioretention filter has likely clogged. Clogging can often be repaired by raking the surface, soil aeration (poking holes in the top layer of soil), or replacing the top 2-3 inches of planting soil and mulch, taking care to preserve the plantings as much as possible. 5) Remove the cap for the underdrain cleanouts. Clear any obstructions or blockages. This facility has internal water storage in the bottom 1.5 feet of the filter. Check the depth of standing water in the cleanout, if it is higher than 1.5 feet, the underdrain may be clogged. Flush the drain if sediment is visible. 6) Clean or remove debris from obstructing the openings within the overflow structure. 7) Inspect the banks and perimeter of the bioretention basin for any erosion. Eroded areas and gullies should be repaired promptly to avoid clogging the filter with sediment. 8) Trash, debris, and sediment collected in the bioretention area can normally be disposed with other household waste. Material suspected to be polluted by oil, old paint chips (lead), or other chemicals that could potentially be hazardous should be properly tested and disposed in accordance with state and federal hazardous waste regulations. See section 3.6 for more details. North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 3 Plants 1) During the Construction Guarantee Period: If a plant(s) is performing poorly during the Construction Guarantee Period referred to above, and the performance is clearly due to poor workmanship or quality of materials, DO NOT REMOVE THE PLANT(s) and inform the District Inspector listed above. 2) The plant species in the bioretention area were specially selected. See Attachment 3A for the planting plans and for photos and cultural requirements of plants. 3) In general, maintain plantings by pruning, cultivating, watering, weeding, mulching, restoring planting saucers, adjusting and repairing tree -stabilization devices, resetting to proper grades or vertical position, and performing other operations as required to establish healthy, viable plantings. 4) Fill in as necessary soil subsidence that may occur because of settling or other processes. Replace mulch materials damaged or lost in areas of subsidence. 5) Replace any dead or dying vegetation according to the original planting plans. Remove dead vegetation from the site and dispose of properly. 6) The tree lawn should be kept mowed and in good condition. Clippings should be mulched or removed. 7) The plants will need periodic watering until they are established (typically 1 to 3 years). Once established, they should not require watering, however watering during drought periods will help plant survivability and appearance. 8) Fertilization should be kept to the minimum necessary to help plant survivability until they are established. Only fertilize as determined by soil testing by an independent or university laboratory recognized by the State Department of Agriculture. Once established, plants should not require fertilization. 9) Use of herbicides should be kept to the minimum required. Spot use of post -emergent herbicides is allowed. Blanket post -emergent herbicide application is not recommended. Pre -emergent herbicides could help with weed control during the first growing season, but will hinder reseeding of desirable plants and is not recommended thereafter. 10) Woody plants may be pruned as needed to provide a desirable "shape". 11) Between November and March, non -woody plants (perennials) should be cut near the ground surface and the material removed from the site and properly disposed. It is encouraged to leave the seed heads through the winter for bird watching and seasonal interest. 12) The area must be inspected for unwanted underbrush and tree growth at least once a year. Any problems should be addressed. Mulch 1) A 2-inch thick layer of mineral mulch should be in the bottom of the basin. 2) A 2 inch thick layer of organic mulch should be on the sides and area surrounding the bioretention basin. 3) Mulch materials should meet the original specifications. 4) Areas devoid of mulch should be re -mulched on an annual basis. 3.5 Materials for Routine Maintenance In the event that any of the filter media or other surface materials needs to be replaced, the following are the requirements for material replacement: North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 4 For more intensive repair or replacement, please refer to the original plans and specifications, which can be obtained through MSD's central files. Bioretention Soil Mix The bioretention soil mix shall be a sandy loam or loamy sand, contain a minimum of 35 to 60 percent sand by volume, and have a saturated hydraulic conductivity of at least 4 feet per day (2 inches per hour). The clay content shall be less than 10 percent by volume. The soil shall be free of clumps, stones, stumps, roots, or other woody materials over 1 inch in diameter. Brush or seeds from noxious weeds, such as Johnson grass, mugwort, nutsedge and Canadian thistle shall not be present in the soils. The specific characteristics of the bioretention soil media shall conform to the following: Parameter Value pH range 5.2 to 8.00 Organic matter 1.5 to 5.0% Magnesium 35 pounds per acre, minimum Phosphorus (P205) 75 pounds per acre, minimum Potassium (K20) 85 pounds per acre, minimum Soluble salts s 500 ppm Mulches 1) Organic Mulch: Free from deleterious materials and suitable as a top dressing of trees and shrubs, consisting of one of the following: a) Type: Shredded hardwood Ground or shredded bark. b) Size Range: 3 inches maximum, 1/2 inch minimum. c) Color: Natural. 2) Mineral Mulch a) Mineral mulch shall be washed, natural uncrushed river gravel and meet ASTM C-33 No. 8 or No. 89 specification. b) Color: Uniform tan beige color range to match existing. Sand and Stone 1) Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement and Flagstone Forebay Base Course Aggregate. a) Gravel shall be clean crushed gravel and meet ASTM C-33 No. 57 specification. 2) Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement and Flagstone Forebay Setting Bed Course Aggregate. North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 5 a) Gravel shall be washed granite or limestone angular chips 1/8 inch to 1/4 inch in diameter or materials complying with ASTM #8 or #9 crushed stone. 3) Flagstones. a) Unless otherwise indicated in the Project Plans, flagstones shall have minimum dimensions of 12 inch by 12 inch by 1.5 inch thick and have a near flat surface. b) The contractor is encouraged to use limestone foundations excavated on site as flagstone, provided the material meets these specifications. 4) River Cobbles. a) Cobbles shall be washed, natural uncrushed river cobbles and meet the following grada Size % Passing 12" 100% 6" 50% 3" 20% 1" 0% b) Color: Variety of natural colors to match existing. Interlocking Turfstone Pavers. 1) Manufacturer: Unilock, or approved equal. 2) Size: 16 inch by 24 inch by 3.125 inch thick. 3) Color: Natural. 3.6 Sediment Removal and Disposal The stormwater facility should be cleaned by the construction contractor prior to final acceptance of the project. For subsequent cleanings, all silt and debris should be removed from the forebay before reaching the bioretention basin (i.e. NOT flushed into the bioretention basin). All sediment removed from the site shall be disposed according to current erosion and sediment control regulations. When cleaning the stormwater facility, standing "clear, unpolluted water" can be decanted and discharged to the combined sewer system. Water that has become turbid during cleaning should be either pumped and hauled to an acceptable wastewater disposal facility or treated by filtration, such as pumped through a bag filter, and discharged to the combined sewer system. A special discharge permit from MSD is not required for discharging to the combined sewer system if the total volume is less than 10,000 gallons. The flow rate pumped into the combined sewer system shall not exceed 50 gpm. Discuss discharges to the combined sewer system with the Bissell Point wastewater treatment plant. The following definitions shall be used as a reference: Clear water: Water that has settled its solids for 24 hours and can be pumped out of the BMP without re -suspending the solids. Unpolluted water: Defined by MSD Ordinance 12559 as meaning "any water that may be discharged under NPDES regulations into waters of the State without having to be authorized by North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 6 a NPDES permit and which will not cause any violations of State or Federal water quality standards." Hazardous Waste The following general guidance is based on the federal regulations, 40 CFR 262.11- Hazardous Waste Determination. (Note- Regulations are subject to change in the future and this is offered only as general information available at this time.) The generator of the waste should determine if the waste is a special waste using the following method: 1) Determine if the waste is excluded from being a hazardous waste per 10 CSR 25-4.261(2)(A) and 40 CFR 261.4; then 2) Determine if the waste is listed as a hazardous waste per 10 CSR 25-4.261(2)(D) and 40 CFR 261 subpart D; then 3) Determine if the waste is a characteristic hazardous waste (i.e. ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic). Consider the materials used or the processes used to generate the waste based on this knowledge, determine the appropriate testing and analysis in accordance with 10 CSR 25-4.261(2)(C) and 40 CFR 261 subpart C. Testing for hazardous waste characteristics requires sampling at the point of generation. If the analyses detect any property characteristic of hazardous waste, you must manage the waste as a hazardous waste. It is very important to understand that hazardous waste remains a hazardous waste when diluted or stabilized, unless it is specifically excluded from the definition of hazardous waste after the process (40 CFR 261.3). You may not dilute hazardous waste solely for the purpose of rendering it non -hazardous, unless dilution is warranted in an emergency response situation or where the dilution is part of a hazardous waste treatment process regulated or exempted under 10 CSR 25-7 or 10 CSR 25-9. You may not dispose of regulated hazardous wastes in any sanitary, demolition, utility waste landfill in Missouri. The following table lists typical properties of characteristic hazardous waste. This is not a complete listing, but only a guideline to determine if a waste may be a characteristic hazardous waste. Ignitability: Catches fire easily through friction, absorption or moisture or spontaneous chemical changes. Corrosivity: pH<2.0 pr pH>12.5 Reactivity: Wastes that are normally unstable, react violently with water, can explode or release poisonous gases. Toxicity: TCLP, EPA Method 1311, any contaminates listed in Table 1 or 40 CFR 261.24 equal or greater than the listed concentration. Once the waste is determined to be non -hazardous and contain no free liquids, you must request approval from the owner/operator to dispose of the special waste at the landfill by filling out and signing the generator's portion of the Special Waste Disposal Request Form. You must also North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 7 identify health hazards associated with the material, as well as any special shipping, handling or safety requirements. For example, note whether the material should be transported in covered containers or whether it is a respiratory hazard. The Material Safety Data Sheet, if one exists for the material, lists some of this information. The completed Special Waste Disposal Request Form, along with appropriate test results and other pertinent information are then sent to the receiving landfill for the Landfill owner or operator's review and signature prior to acceptance and disposal of the waste. Until a landfill accepts the waste for disposal, it is the owners' responsibility to manage the waste in an environmentally sound manner. Free liquids must have pollutant components removed to or below regulatory thresholds before the free liquid may be discharged to the environment, or pretreatment or treatment facility, as and where allowable by the local authority or jurisdiction. Do not discharge the liquids or liquid slurry, captured by the cleaning and maintenance process, into any storm or sanitary structures. 3.7 Record Keeping and Reporting The Operations department should evaluate this maintenance plan for effectiveness and revise as necessary. See Attachment 3B for a sample Inspection Checklist. The Operations department will keep a record of the inspection logs detailing the results of the inspection, and any maintenance or corrective action required. An annual inspection report, including any changes to the maintenance plan, will be submitted to the Engineering department yearly by March 31s1 to document inspection and maintenance activity for the previous calendar year. Annual reports are required for the first five years after the facility is put into service. An inspector from the Division of Environmental Compliance will also periodically inspect the facility. The "Annual Green Infrastructure Maintenance Report" should provide documentation that maintenance was performed in accordance with this Stormwater Management Facilities Report. The report typically consists of a completed inspection checklists and/or maintenance log, narrative description of corrective action measures taken, photographs, a summary of internal costs and external costs, revisions to the maintenance plan and any other documentation appropriate for demonstrating compliance with the Stormwater Facilities Maintenance and Operations Plan. The annual report should be sent to: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Name: Susan McCrary Address: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Phone: (314) 768-6306 North Vandeventer #2812 Bioretention Maintenance Plan 8 3A. Planting Plans, Plant Photos, and Cultural Requirements TREE PLANTING PLAN — N. VANDEVENTER VANDEVENTER PLANTING SCHEDULE KEY 9.LY. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME GPI E_ SPACING COMMENTS CANOPY TREES A2 3 Taxodium 'Shawnee Brave' Shawnee Brave Bald Cypress 2" Cal As Shown 1 Per Details, B&B FLOWERING TREES C3 3 Cornus florid° Flowering Dogwood 2" Cal As Shown Per Betoiis, B&B C4 2 Chfonanthus virginicus Fringe Tree 2" Cal As Shown Per Details, B&B, Single —stem SCALE: 1 "=10' LEGEND if PLANTING NOTES: CANOPY TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES SHRUBS GROUNDCOVER / PERENNIALS BOULDERS RIVER COBBLES TURFSTONE 1. THE DISTRICT SHALL APPROVE ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE PLANT MATERIAL 15 PROPERLY LABELED, IS OF PROPER SIZE, HAS A WELL DEVELOPED BRANCH AND ROOT PATTERN, AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. COMPLY NTH THE FOLLOWING: A. DO NOT PRUNE PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO DELIVERY WITHOUT SPECIFIC APPROVAL BY THE DISTRICT. B. PLANTS ARE SUBJECT TO DISTRICT INSPECTION FOR SIZE, VARIETY, CONDITION, LATENT DEFECTS, AND INJURY AT THE PLACE OF GROWTH AND AT THE PROJECT SITE AT ANY TIME BEFORE AND DURING PROGRESS OF WORK. C. WHEN REQUESTED BY THE DISTRICT, SHOW SAMPLES TO PROVE THAT NO ROOT BOUND CONDITIONS EXIST. D. REMOVE REJECTED PLANTS FROM THE SITE IMMEDIATELY AND REPLACE WITH ACCEPTABLE AND DISTRICT APPROVED MATERIALS. E. REPLACEMENT PLANTS SHALL BE THE SAME TYPE AND SITE A5 ORIGINALLY PLANTED. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE TAGS, LABELS, NURSERY STAKES, SIRE BASKETS OR CAGES, AND TIES FROM ALL PLANTS. 4, IF PLANTING PITS ARE EXCAVATED USING A POWER AUGER, BREAK VERTICAL SIDES KITH A BALLING BAR OR SPADE TO INTERRUPT CONTINUOUS CURVE INFLUENCE ON ROOT DEVELOPMENT. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL KILL AND REMOVE ALL EXISTING WEEDS FROM SITE, 6. SOIL PREPARATION AND BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THESE PLANS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS ARE FOR BID PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL SOIL ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL SUPERSEDE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL AMENDED SOIL MIX PER SPECIFICATIONS. SCARIFY SUBSOIL, INSTALL AND INCORPORATE AMENDED TOPSOIL AS PER SPECIFICATIONS, IN ALL PLANTING AND LAWN AREAS. 8, CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL EXCESS SOIL, CONTAMINATED SOILS, ROCKS, CLODS, AND DEBRIS AS IT ACCUMULATES ON A DAILY BASIS. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE AROUND ALL PLANTS TO FINISH GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 10. ALL TRANSITIONS BETWEEN PLANTING BEDS AND LAWNS ARE TO BE SPADE CUT EDGE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE PROFESSIONAL %HOSE SIGNATURE AND PERSONAL SEAL APPEAR HEREON, ASSUMES RESPONSIBIUTY ONLY FOR WORT APPEARS ON T19S PAGE, AND DISCLAIMS (PURSUANT T° SECTION 327.411 RSIAO) ANY REsnasseNTr FOR ALL OTHER PLANS, SPE0FICATONS, ESTIMATES. RWORTS, OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS NOT SEALED BY THE UNDERSIGNED PROFESSIONAL RELATING 1O OR INTENDED TO BE USED FOR ANY PART DR PARTS OF THE PROJECT TO WHICH THIS PACE REFERS. SWT DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 7722 BIG BEND BLVD. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI EMAIL: WWW.SWDESCN.COM — FAX. {314) 644-6378 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT Landscape Architect Seal lea Spa,d, RLA Llcenced Landscape Architect RLA No. 162 N. VANDEVENTER #2812 & N. SARAH #1801 BIORETENTION (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT 11778-015.1 ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI Designed Dram HO PSD Checked HS Dole SEPT., 2012 SAeeh No 4 01.E Path: C: \Users\feliped\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_4008\ Platted on: 9/18/12 6 08:17:21AM by feliped i 47—I6 / .�\ 6—VD 6—VD ///, 'ai -?.`S `403H4CTi -►L/ '4R�Wc // tar UNDERSTORY PLANTING PLAN — N. VANDEVENTER VANDEVENTER PLANTING SCHEDULE KEY Ql, SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING COMMENTS SHRUBS PO 6 Physacorpus opulif0lius 'Diablo' Ninebcrk #5 4' Q.C. Per Details, Cont. VD 15 Viburnum dentatum 'Blue Muffin' Arrowwood Viburnum #5 4' O.C. Per Details, Cont. PERENNIALS PV 145 Panicum virqatum Switch Gross #2 24" O.C. Per Details, Cont. JE 381 Juncus effusus Common Rush SP4 18" 0.C. Per Details, Cont. SA 272 Scirpus altrovirens Great Green Bullrush SP4 18" 0.C. Per Details, Cant. IS 212 Iris siberica 'Caesar's Brother' Siberian Iris SP4 18" 0.C. Per Details, Cont. ' CP 109 Carex praegracilis Tollway Sedge SP4 18" 0.C. Per Details. Coot CO 122 Chelone oblique Rose Turtlehead SP4 24" 0.C. Per Details, Cont. SCALE: 1 "=10' / /4 `t 1it4 ,C 9t0,4 LEGEND ORGANIC MULCH MINERAL MULCH THE PRCFE550NAL WHOSE SIGNATURE AND PERSONAL SEAL APPEAR HEREON, ASSIMES RESPON5BIUTY ONLY FOR WHAT APPEARS ON THIS PAGE, AND DISCLAIMS (PURSUANT TO SECTOR 327.411 R9A0) ANT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALJ. OTHER PLANS, SPECIfCATONS, ESTIMATES, REPORTS. OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS NOT SEALED BY 716 UNDERSIGNED PROFESSIONAL RELATING TO OR INTERRED TO BE USED FOR ANY PART ON PARTS OF DIE PROJECT TO WHICH THIS PACE REFERS. SWT DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 7722 BIG BEND BLVD. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI EMAIL: WWW.SWTCESIGN.COIA — FAX: 1314) 644-6376 LEGEND 0 (39 CANOPY TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES SHRUBS GROUNDCOVER / PERENNIALS SOD (FESCUE) BOULDERS RIVER COBBLES TURFSTONE AREAS TO BE MULCHED PLAN — N. VANDEVENTER REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT Landscape Architect Seal led Spaid, KLA Licenced Landscape Architect RLA No. 162 N. VANDEVENTER #2812 & N. SARAH #1801 BIORETEN11ON (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT 11778-015.1 ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI Deemed FIB Drawn FSD Checked HB D,to SEPT., 2012 Sheet No 5 of—gL Poth: C:\)sere\feiiped\oppdota\locoi\temp\AcPublish_4006\ Plotted or: 9/18/12 0 08:17:39AM by feliped SPACING "D" ROW "A" NUMBER OF PLANTS/SO. FT. 18" SET AT ORIGINAL PLANTING DEPTH 4" MIN. IN PLANTING SOIL MIX SEE PLAN FOR SPACING POTTED GROUNOCOVER OR PERENNIAL PLANT NOTES I. REMOVE SPENT FLOWERS PRIOR TO PLANTING. 2. LOOSEN ROOT MASS AT BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL AND CUT VERTICAL SOTS ON SIDES OF BALL IF POT BOUND (CIRCLING ROOTS). 3. TOP OF ROOTBALL STRIPPED OF X" SURFACE GROWING MEDIA AND COVERED WATT Yi LANDSCAPE BED MIX PLIJS SURFACE MULCH. 4. GROUND COVER SPACING SHALL BE AS NOTED IN PLANTING SCHEDULE. PLANT CENTER PLANT ROW PLANT SPACING 2" DEEP MULCH KEEP MUCH AWAY FROM CROWN OF PLANT GROUNDCOVER/PERENNIAL PLANTING (n.t.o.) PLANTING SOIL MIX OR BIORETENTION SOIL MIX SUBGRADE 24" 2X ROOT BALL CIA. SEE SPEC SPACING "D" 242" 30" ROW "A" 20.8" 26.0" NUMBER OF PLANTS/50. FT. .250 .150 36" 3D.D" .110 4' 3.46' .060 2" DEEP MULCH PLANTING SOIL MIX SHRUB BALL EXISTING SOIL MINIMUM SEE PLAN FOR SPACING PLANT ROW PLANT CENTER SHRUB SPACING ALL EQUAL OR AS SHOWN ON PLANTING PLAN SEE SPEC FCR HEIGHT NOTES: 1. SHRUB SPACING SHALL BE AS NOTED IN PLANTING SCHEDULE. 2. IF SHRUBS ARE B&B, ROPES AT TOP OF BALL SHALL DE CUT. REMOVE TOP OF BURLAP. NON -BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE TOTALLY REMOVED. 3. LOOSEN ROOT MASS AT BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL AND CUT VERTICAL SLITS ON SIDES OF BALL IF POT BOUND (CIRCLING ROOTS). 4. TOP OF ROOTBALL STRIPPED OF Y4" SURFACE GROWING MEDIA AND COVERED WITH .V LANDSCAPE BED MIX PLUS SURFACE MULCH. SHRUB PLANTING (n.Ln.) PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED EXISTING GRADE EXISTING SOIL 1:1 SLOPE ON SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE SUMP & FILL PIPE AS REQUIRED NOTES: 1. THIS DETAIL APPUES TO Ail TREE TYPES, CANOPY. FLOWERING, ANO EVERGREEN TREES. 2. DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO -DOMINANT LEADERS, AND BROKEN 0R DEAD BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR THINGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED; HOWEVER, D0 NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. 3. IF PLANT IS SHIPPED WITH A WIRE BASKET AROUND THE ROOT BALL, CUT THE WIRE BASKET IN FOUR PLACES AND FOLD DOWN ' IN. INTO PLANING HOLE. 4. WRAP TREE TRUNKS ONLY UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT. 5. MARK THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TREE IN THE NURSERY, AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHEN EVER POSSIBLE. 6. SET TOP OF ROOT SALL FLUSH TO GRADE OR 1-2 INCHES HIGHER. 7. TOP OF ROOTBALL STRIPPED OF 1" SURFACE GROWING MEDIA AND COVERED WITH Y4" LANDSCAPE BED MIX PLUS SURFACE MULCH. 8. LOOSEN ROOT MASS AT BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL AND CUT VERTICAL SLITS ON SIDES OF BALL IF POT BOUND {CIRCLING ROOTS). 9. 2 INCH MULCH. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. MULCH RING 6 FOOT DIAMETER MINIMUM, 8 FOOT DIAMETER PREFERRED. 10. STAKE TREES ONLY UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT. SEE STAKING DETAIL. 11. PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL 12. TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE 50 THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. 13. EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT THE TRUNK FLARE IS VISIBLE AT THE TOP Of THE ROOT BALL TREES WHERE THE TRUNK FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE STALL BE REACTED. DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL WITH SOIL 14. 4 INCHES HIGH EARTH SAUCER BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BALL. 15. REMOVE ALL TWINE, ROPE AND HIRE, AND BURLAP FROM TOP HALF OF ROOT BALL TREE PLANING DETAIL 1/2 DAMETER RUBBER HOSE PLASTIC FLAGGING OR OTHER VISUAL MARKER ON EACH WIRE. GALVANIZED WIRE OR CABLE TWIST WIRE TO TIGHTEN. TURNBUCKLES FOR TREES OVER 6" CALIPER. 30" LONG WOOD STAKE BREATHABLE FABRIC TREE WRAP APPUED FROM TRUNK FLARE TO FIRST BRANCH. WRAP PAPER FROM THE BOTTOM UP WITH SUFFICIENT OVERLAP TO COVER ALL BARK BIO-DEGRADABLE PLASTIC TAPE OPTIONAL METAL DRIVE ANCHORS, INSTALLED PER NOTES I' T -^� I- MANUFACTURERS DIRECTIONS 1. WIRE 0R CABLE SIZES SHALL BE 12 GAUGE. 2 TIGHTEN WRE 0R CABLE ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SLIPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. PLASTIC HOSE SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE 1.5" GROWTH AND BUFFER ALL BRANDIES FROM THE WIRE. 3. TUCK ANY LOOSE ENDS OF THE WIRE OR CABLE INTO THE WIRE WRAP SO THAT NO SHARP WIRE ENDS ARE EXPOSED. 4. INSTALL THREE GUY WIRES PER TREE, SPACED EVENLY AROUND THE TRUNK. 5. ALL STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN OUTSIDE THE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL. 5. ASSURE THAT THE BEARING SURFACE OF THE PROTECTIVE COVERING OF THE WIRE OR CABLE AGAINST THE TREE TRUNK IS A MINIMUM OF }" IN HEIGHT, 50 IT DOES NOT GIRDLE THE BARK OF THE TRUNK. 7. REMOVE ALL STAKING AS SOON AS THE TREE HAS GROWN SUFFICIENT ROOTS 70 OVERCOME THE PROBLEM THAT REQUIRED THE TREE TO BE STAKED. & TREES NORMALLY DO NOT NEED TO BE STAKED 012 WRAPPED, AS THEY CAN BE HARMFUL TO THE TREE. STAKING AND WRAPPING SHOULD BE DONE ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT IF IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE TREE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT ITSELF OR IF IT WILL SUFFER FROM EXPOSURE 9. TREE WRAP SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN DIRECTED BY THE DISTRICT, BUT NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER PLANTING. ROOT BALL TREE PIT STAKE TREE STAKING (".UST COMPLETE PLANTING SCHEDULE FOR VANDEVENTER AND SARAH ISEY Q22L SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE _ CANOPY TREES A1,2 I 6 Taxodium 'Shawnee Brave' Shawnee Brave Bald Cypress 2" Cal FLOWERING TREES Cl 3 Gercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 2" Cal C2 5 Amelanchier canadensis Serviceberry 6' Ht. C3 3 Carnus florid° Flowering Dogwood 2" Col C4 2 Chionanthus virginicus Fringe Tree 2" Cal SHRUBS IR 7 Ilex verticillata 'Red Sprite' Winterberry #5 IJ 1 Ilex verticillata 'Jim Dandy Winterberry #5 RA 19 Rhus aromatica 'Gro-low' Sumac #5 HL 11 Hibiscus laslocarpos Rose mallow #5 PO 6 Physocarpus opulifolius 'Diablo' Ninebark #5 VD 15 Viburnum dentatum 'Blue Muffin' Arrowwood Viburnum #5 PERENNIALS Al 55 Ameonia illustris Shining Bluestars SP4 CG 107 Carex glauca 'Blue Zinger' Blue Sedge SP4 CP 215 Carex proegracilis Tollway Sedge SP4 IS 352 Iris siberico 'Caesars Brother'' Siberian Iris SP4 LS 138 Lobelia slphllltica Great Blue Lobelia SP4 SS 66 Schizachyrium scoparium Little Blue Stem SP4 ZA 189 Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders SP4 PV 145 Panicum virgatum Switch Gross #2 JE 381 Juncus effusus Common Rush SP4 SA 272 Scirpus altrovirens Great Green Bullrush SP4 CO 122 Chalons oblique Rose Turtlehead SP4 TIE PROF®ONAL MH05E 9GNANRE AND PERSONAL SEAL APPEAR HEREON, ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY ONLY FOR MAT APPEARS ON THIS PAGE, AND DISCLNMS (PURSUANT TO SECTION 327.411 RS1/0) ANY SP0I UTY PLANS. ALL OTHER PLs, SPECIFICATIONS, ERTMATE$ REPORTS, OR DRIER DOCUMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS NOT SEALED BY THE UNDERSIGNED PROFESSIONAL RELADNO TU OR IN1ENOm 10 BE USED PM ANY PART OR PARTS OF 11-1E PROJECT TO MICH THIS PAGE REFERS. REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT SWT DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 7722 BIG BEND BLVD. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI EMAIL' 4W*W.SWHOESGN.CXM - FAX: (314) 649-6370 Landscape Architect Seal Ted Spald, RLA Ucenced Landscape Architect RLA No. 162 N. VANDEVENTER #2812 & N. SARAH #1801 BIORETENTION (CB 3628 & 3662) CSO VR GIPLT 11778-015.1 ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI De"TP,ed HB FSD Drown neared HB Date SEPT., 2012 Sheet No -IL -of 13 Path: C: \Users\feliped\appdoto\lace)\temp\AcPUbtii,-4008\ Platted on: 9/18/12 0 08:18:17AM by feliped Scientific Name Carex praegracilis Common Name Tollway Sedge Plant Family Cyperaceae Plant Genus Carex Height 2-3 feet Summer leaf Brown, Green Spread 2-3 feet Fall leaf No color change Exposure Full sun Bloom Color Green, white Moisture Medium to wet Bloom Time May Soil & Climate clay; loam; sand; acidic; Fruit NA Thrives in moist soils, but established plants also do well in average garden soils and will tolerate some drought. Growth rate moderate Hardness Range 4-8 Attributes and Features Easily grown in average, moist to wet soils in full sun to part shade. It will also grow in somewhat dry soils. It is very tolerant of salty/alkaline conditions. Plants spread by rhizomes, and may self -seed in optimum growing conditions. Scientific Name Plant Family Plant Genus Chelone lyonii 'Hot Lips' Common Name Scrophulariaceae Figwort Hot Lips Turtlehead Summer Leaf Fall Leaf Bloom Color Bloom Time Fruit Green Green to yellow Pink Late summer N/A Height 2' — 3' Spread to 12" Exposure Sun to part sun Moisture Moist to wet Soil & Climate Best grown in rich, humusy soils in part shade; appreciates composted leaf mulch; can be pinched back to minimize size. Growth Rate Hardiness Range Medium Zone4-7 Attributes and Features Native to the US Used next to stream edges Attracts butterflies Deer resistant Scientific Name Iris sibirica 'Gull's Wing' Common Name Siberian Iris Plant Family iridaceae Plant Genus Iris Summer Leaf Fall Leaf Bloom Color Bloom Time Fruit Silver -green Silver -green White May to June Black Height 2.5' — 3' Spread 2' — 2.5' Exposure Full sun to part shade Moisture Medium to wet Soil & Climate Easily grown in average soils; tolerates a wide range of soils; best grown in moist, fertile, slightly acidic soil including boggy conditions. Growth Rate Hardiness Range Medium Zones 3 — 8 Attributes and Features Attracts butterflies Good cut flower Mixes well with other perennials and provides color contrast Effective when planted on slope or hillside along stream or pond Scientific Name Plant Family Plant Genus Juncus effusus Common Name Juncaceae Juncus Common Rush Summer Leaf Fall Leaf Bloom Color Bloom Time Fruit Green Tan Yellowish green June to August Brown Height 2' — 4' Spread 2' — 4' Exposure Full sun Moisture Wet Soil & Climate Prefers saturated soils and up to 4" of standing water. Growth Rate Hardiness Range Medium Zones 4 — 9 Attributes and Features Native to North America Water garden plant Will naturalize Found along stream margins, sloughs, ponds, and roadside ditches May help control soil erosion on moist banks Scientific Name Panicum virgatum'Heavy Metal' Common Name Heavy Metal Switchgrass Plant Family Poaceae Plant Genus Grass 1 Height 4' — 5' Summer Leaf Metalic blue Spread 1' — 2' Fall Leaf Brown Exposure Full sun to part shade Bloom Color Pink tinged Moisture Medium to wet Bloom Time July to February Soil & Climate Fruit Brown Easily grown in average, well -drained soils; tolerates a wide range of soils including dry; tends to flop in rich soils. Growth Rate Hardiness Range Medium Zone5-9 Attributes and Features Native to North America Will naturalize Attracts birds Good cut and dried flower Provides winter interest Used as an accent, group or mass, perennial borders, wild gardens, prairies, meadows or naturalized areas, water and bog gardens Effective as a screen Scientific Name Plant Family Plant Genus Physocarpus opulifollus 'Diablo' Common Name Diablo Common Ninebark, Eastern Ninebark Rosaceae Rosa Summer leaf Fall leaf Bloom Color Bloom Time Fruit Reddish purple Yellowish to bronze White or pinkish May — June Reddish Height 4 — 8 feet Spread 4 — 8 feet Exposure Full sun to partial shade Moisture Dry to medium Soil & Climate Very tough plant Drought tolerant. Easily grown in average, well -drained soils. Growth rate Hardiness Range Medium to fast 3-7 Attributes and Features Used in massing, borders, screens Older stems exfoliate exposing a rich brown inner bark North American Native Adapts to difficult situations Prune after blooming Scientific Name Plant Family Plant Genus Scirpus atrovirens Common Name Cyperaceae Sedge Dark Green Bulrush Summer Leaf Fall Leaf Bloom Color Bloom Time Fruit Green Tan inconspicuous Summer Brown Height 2.5' — 4' Spread 2' — 3' Exposure Full sun to part shade Moisture Moist to wet Soil & Climate Tolerant of many soils including clay, gravel, sand, and abundant organic matter. Growth Rate Hardiness Range Medium Zone3-9 Attributes and Features Native to North America Found in wet prairies, sloughs, floodplain forests, marshes, sedge meadows, seeps, and on the edge of ponds and rivers. Seeds attract birds Scientific Name Plant Family Plant Genus Viburnum dentatum Chicago Lustre® Common Name Arrowwood Viburnum Capriforiaceae Viburnum Summer leaf Fall leaf Bloom Color Bloom Time Fruit Glossy dark green Reddish purple White to creamy May to early June Blue or bluish black Height to 10' Spread to 10' Exposure Full sun to partial shade Moisture Moist to dry Soil & Climate Adapts to most soils as long as they are well - drained Growth rate Hardness Range Medium Zone (2)3 — 8 Attributes and Features No good fall color in 7b and 8 In the south `Emerald Luster' is superior Native to North America 3B. Inspection Checklist N. VANDEVENTER #2812 BIORETENTION (CB 3628) CSO VR GIPLT Project No. 11778 Inspection Checklist Project/Location: 2812 N. Vandeventer Ave., St. Louis, MO 63107 Maintenance Responsibility / Point of Contact: Name: Anthony Merz Address: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Sulphur Yard 1900 Sulphur Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 Phone: 314-768-6297 The MSD Operations department should evaluate the maintenance plan for effectiveness and revise as necessary. Inspection records should be kept by the MSD Operations department and an inspection report shall be submitted to the MSD Engineering department annually by March 31st to document inspection and maintenance activity for the previous calendar year. Annual reports are required for the first five years after the facility is put into service. Date/Time: Days Since Previous Rainfall and Rainfall Amount: Inspector: 1. Debris Cleanout Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Forebays are clear of debris Basin is clear of debris Inlet and outlet structures clear of debris Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 2. Sediment Accumulation Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Inlet and outlet structures, and cleanouts are clear of sediment Sediment accumulation in forebay should not exceed 3" Recorded approximate depth of sediment in forebay here: inch Sediment accumulation on the bioretention filter should not exceed 1" and drawdown time should not exceed 48 hrs Record approximate depth of sediment on bioretention filter here: inch Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 3. Water Retention Basin dewaters between storms Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Check underdrain cleanouts for water level. 2 foot of standing water is possible under normal function, but deeper may indicate the underdrain outlet is clogged. Record depth of water here: inch Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 4. Structural Components Grates and covers are seated properly and in good condition No evidence of structural deterioration, spalling or cracking of structural parts Backflow preventer is free of debris and in good condition Actions to be taken/additional comments: Satisfactory Unsatisfactory To be completed by date: 5. Overall Function of Facility Satisfactory Unsatisfactory No evidence of flow bypassing facility No noticeable odors outside facility Complaints from residents/businesses (odors, insects, other) Evidence of mosquito habitats Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 6. Vegetation and Mulch Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Contributing drainage area stabilized and no evidence of construction activity Tree lawn area mowed and clippings adequately mulched or removed No evidence of erosion within the facility Facility trees and shrubs are healthy and are pruned as necessary Facility plantings are healthy Perennials have been trimmed and trimmings removed (between November and March) Facility is free of weeds and undesirable vegetation Mineral mulch at the bottom of basin is near 2 inch depth and no bare areas Organic mulch on the sides of the basin is near 2 inch depth and no bare areas Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: Additional Notes: APPENDIX M MONTHLY INSPECTION CHECKLIST, POST- CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMP ANNUAL MAINTENANCE REPORT, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY MAINTENANCE INSPECTION CHECKLIST Project Name: Site: Project No.: Inspection Checklist Project/Locations: Maintenance Responsibility / Point of Contact: Name: Address: Phone: The MSD Operations department should evaluate the maintenance plan for effectiveness and revise as necessary. Inspection records should be kept by the MSD Operations department and an inspection reports shall be submitted to the MSD Engineering department annually by March 31st to document inspection and maintenance activity for the previous calendar year. Annual reports are required for the first five years after the facility is put into service. Date/Time:___________________________________________________________________ Days Since Previous Rainfall and Rainfall Amount:_________________________________ Inspector:____________________________________________________________________ 1. Debris Cleanout Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Forebays are clear of debris Basin is clear of debris Inlet and outlet structures clear of debris Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 2. Sediment Accumulation Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Inlet and outlet structures, and cleanouts are clear of sediment Sediment accumulation in forebay should not exceed 3” Recorded approximate depth of sediment in forebay here: _________inch Sediment accumulation on the bioretention filter should not exceed 1” and drawdown time should not exceed 48 hrs Record approximate depth of sediment on bioretention filter here: _________inch Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 3. Water Retention Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Basin dewaters between storms Check underdrain cleanouts for water level. 2 foot of standing water is possible under normal function, but deeper may indicate the underdrain outlet is clogged. Record depth of water here: __________inch Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 4. Structural Components Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Grates and covers are seated properly and in good condition No evidence of structural deterioration, spalling or cracking of structural parts Backflow preventer is free of debris and in good condition Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 5. Overall Function of Facility Satisfactory Unsatisfactory No evidence of flow bypassing facility No noticeable odors outside facility Complaints from residents/businesses (odors, insects, other) Evidence of mosquito habitats Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: 6. Vegetation and Mulch Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Contributing drainage area stabilized and no evidence of construction activity Tree lawn area mowed and clippings adequately mulched or removed No evidence of erosion within the facility Facility trees and shrubs are healthy and are pruned as necessary Facility plantings are healthy Perennials have been trimmed and trimmings removed (between November and March) Facility is free of weeds and undesirable vegetation Mineral mulch at the bottom of basin is near 2 inch depth and no bare areas Organic mulch on the sides of the basin is near 2 inch depth and no bare areas Actions to be taken/additional comments: To be completed by date: Additional Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ POST CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMP ANNUAL MAINTENANCE REPORT Post -Construction Inspection and Maintenance Report Form Per MSD Rules and Regulations and Engineering Design Requirements for Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Drainage Facilities (Section 4.080.08) a Maintenance Agreement is executed by BMP owners prior to plan approval and an annual maintenance report is required to be submitted to MSD. This completed form and attachments should be submitted annually, no later thaq !parch 31" of the year following the reporting year, to: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District - Division of Environmental Compliance, c/o Phase 11 Stormwater Management Program, 10 E. Grand Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63147. For consistency and for your convenience, MSD is providing this Annual BMP Maintenance Report Form for optional use by BMP owners. This report form and the inspection checklists are not mandatory for use and are being provided as templates to ensure compliance with minimal maintenance requirements. Use of this form and/or the referenced inspection checklists developed by MSD will not exempt BMP owners from the design and maintenance requirements specified in the Stomiwater Management Facilities Report. A. GENERAL INFORMATION. Please fill out only one report form per site. (Fill out UInformation) DgIL 03/31/2014 : 2013 * MSD P-Job #: P 11922_ partial year- contract commenced 07/01 /2013) - - Project Name (Le. Subdivision Name, Store Name): MSD- Project CLEAR City of St Louis, Bissell Point, "Beacon Avenue Raingarden in Walnut Park East" Property Owner Name: Metropolitan Sewer District of St Louis Is this a new owner? (YES) (NO) NO - MSD trustees approved purchase Oct 11, 2012 Property Owner E-mail Address: (for Project Clear—MSD) smccrary@msdstLcom Maintenance Contact Person/Inspector Name: For Native Landscape Solutions, Inc. Thomas Ball Maintenance Contact/Inspector E-mail address: Thomas.ball@sbcglobal.net Physical Address/Location of BMP: (one lot, consolidating 3 addresses) 5475 Beacon, 5479 & 5479R Beacon St Louis MO, 63120 Property Owner Mailing Address: 2350 Market Street, St Louis MO 83103 Property Owner Telephone Number. (314) 768-6200 Maintenance Contact/inspector Telephone Number office: 314-544-4436 cell: (314) 581-0888 BMP Annual MaIntenance Report Form. Rev 2012 Page 1 MSDPJob#:P21922 B. INSPECTION CHECKLIST & BMP SUMMARY TABLE. Please attach a copy of the most recent inspection form/checklist. If the system is a proprietary system, the manufacturer's inspection checklist should be obtained from the manufacturer for use. Fill-in the actual number of BMP devices on the table below. Attach color photos as appropriate, to show condition of each BMP. Inspection checklists can be found online at www.stlmsd.com/encineerinQ/planreview/bmotoolbox/maintenance. These inspection checklists are provided for convenience to ensure compliance with minimal maintenance requirements. Use of these inspection checklists does not exempt BMP owners from design and maintenance requirements specified in the SWMFR. BMP Device Type Number per Site 13MP Device Type Number per Site Bioretentlon 3 Filter Porous Pavement infiltration Basin/Trench Detention/Retention Basin or Pond Other (Specify) Open Channel (Swales) Other (Specify) C. MAJOR MAINTENANCE & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SUMMARY. Please complete the table below summarizing major maintenance activities conducted and any corrective actions taken. uase liompiesea Deficiency Observed Needing Correction Corrective Action/Maintenance Activity Completed 07/15, 07/23, 07/31, 08/05, Debris & trash removal. Removed debris & trash. Forebays blown free of 08/20, 08/29, 09/03, 09/13, sediment. 09/20, 10/07, 10/2I, 10/28. Cleaned & removed illegal dumping on several occasions. Most trash is windblown or spillover from alley dumpsters located nearby. 07/15, 07/31, 08/20, 09/03, Remove leaf/ branch debris Removed fallen branches & woody debris. 09/20, 10/28. Invasive Korean bush honeysuckle & euonymous fortunata brush -hogged, treated w/ glyphosate & removed. Some euonymous remains at peripheral NW border with neighbor & at edges of plant beds. Will continue to control_ 07/15, 07/23, 07/31, 08/05, Weed planted areas & beds. Removed weeds by hand , 08/20, 08/29, 09/03, 09/13, sprayed nutsedge with selective herbicide (lx- 07/23). 09/20, 10/07, 10/21. Spot -sprayed Roundup toBermuda grass, euonymous, bindweed & Johnson grass (7/15, 7/31, 8/29 10/07 Groom perennials, grasses & shnabs. Selectively trimmed some plants. Some plant material was allowed to stand dormant for the winter to be removed early spring. 07/31, 08/05, 08/20, 08/29, Drought browning of fescue sod, planted Water irrigated fescue sod, Cyprus trees & plant 09/03, 09/13, 09/20, 10/07, trees (bald Cyprus) & drought stress saggingbeds- multiple hoses & tripod irrigators from single 10/21. of plants in plantbeds. irrigation bib. Duration was about 15 minutes per zone with 4 zones on this lot or 1 hour onsite. Mulched trees (1x, 9/20). 07/23, 08/05, 08/20, 09/03, 09/13, 10/07, 10/21, 10/28. Fescue sod needed mowing & trimming. Mowed flats with large deck walk -behind mower. Trimmed berms & edged edges with grass -whip style weedeater. Blew detritus to NW corner to cover euonymous fortunate (winter creeper). AlI leaf & grass mulch removed 3/18/14. MSD P-Job #: P 11922 D. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS. Please attach photographs showing current condition of BMPs on site. One panoramic view of the site and one close-up photo of each area are sufficient. OMP Annual Maintenance Report Form. Rev 2012 Page 2 Photos taken 3/17/14. Returned with leaf truck for removal of leaf piles in basins 8 WAIF P pile at HN1 lia Baer an 3/12. Removed tree brxich II1e aI dump pile 3l791. Seasonal, dormant plant detritus was left to stand over winter as this maintains the idea of a native garden and intentional planting. This biomass will be removed on our next visit. Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Inspection Checklist EiliORETENTKIN SMALL RAIN Gpv NT PLANTER ElitTA.ES P Number: Location: Address: Inspection Date: Responsible for Maintenance: Contact: lime: IPhone Number: New/Change Monza.-- trTreliyA,..:4.rdrfig,,,_ Inspector(s): GPS Coordinates: Last ram n event date: Last rainfall amount: Interviewed: Yes No E-mail: Malting Address: Inlets provide stable conveyance into facility _ Evidence of erosion at/around inlet Pini iropoctoil LI MEM 0 1 2 3 N/A 7 LI: 0 1 2 3 N/A Condition of 1. of structural com orients 1— 7 AffliflitkiC 0 1 2 3 N/A -LI-& L =4:7 I - scirbrise414 1. Maintenance access to pretreatment facility 0 2. Excessive trash/debris/sediment, a. Ponding .-7-.. c. Water stains or fies**114riiiiiit 1 2 3 N/A 1 2 3 NIA 4. Evidence of clogging 0 1 2 3 N/A . I , _77 _• I WA. 6. Evidence of erosion 0 1 2 3 N!A .Nt• remmts. Maintenance access to facility 0 • 2 3 NIA I Dewateringyalve (if equipped) 0 t 2 3 N/A .441001.104g19PF*01***7...7.1.1_. b. Working Yes II No L 471 0****Aimeadowooptio, - " • .'"'" Evidence of erosion 0 1 2 3 N/A k :77._ 04.04*-410*Wileigtilitt#04,001 7 - .-"7 2 7. Evidence of standing water (clogging) 0 1 2 3 N/A -I_ Parit#0.. ., . . . . .._. b. Noticeable odors .. ... . . . d. Presence of algae or floating aquatic vegetation a- -- khtdOrds3.16 44.4t0M(W-4541*Pecq .: -I _LI' " ..,.: : • . -:' 1 .-. 7., ' 2 a: Broken '''''' .'''' ''''' ' --"."-- 77.7 -, ..s • -. - ,,,.. -. . . 1 71,_... ....._,....•• ....- ., J r vsKvii.utwthe Wowing citUstba mom'. -61:01,11-741d,Iniha Ellutrt - Licirj. cono II n .14 .:u rie n31,1 v c ilia El pot 4.16.11thi rbellotrdialz.nr. To1361:roirdice1... Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Inspection Checklist Bta€ 'ENTTON SERui 1w GAHD I PLANTER BQXES • — - ......=.1- Ferri Vegetation i thalkakeagaiMiiterieakeeriWiTheejartiVA1 p 1 2 .. WA Presence of Invasive species/seeds 0 1 2 3 NIA Mulch layer (or pea gravel) 0 1 2 3 NIA • I. Outlets provide stable conveyance out of facility 0 1 2 3 N/A 1 2 3 NIA 3. Evidence of erosion atlaround inlet Complaints from local residents 0 1 2 3 N/A - -7 Encroachment on facility or easement by buildings or other 0 1 2 3 NIA .i PROWS. Daredrens 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. P - ctoou coPisikirriob. WuII,nt rilr nl , rill tlr:hoh mrruirorl 1 , M ' r rarT1 i itIn.n k pe1tri ILlsl Oi bbI4l it [Milt! rhul wort Iwad 1re Li4 a0dre)nuJ hi the I,uw r l•t alFiJLinAirumnnsalntaoanr•.1rl►rarernlircd y� _ Fr1Pii Ti tidllfori d:l_Ir.ThInvli..r- S:I,r,rnnah!. Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Inspection Checklist 131019'ETEIdTION RAIN G.ARCIEN P Number: Address: Inspection Date: lime: Responsible for Maintenance: Contact: IPhone Number: n NewlChange Inspector(s): Last ram event date: Last rainfall amount: Interviewed: Yes No E-mail: Mailing Address: rTh1 ;.!c{ d�IIW .4. --- Act_ - LL 1. Inlets provide stable conve ance into facility. 3. Evidence of erosion at/around inlet 0 3 N/A 3 N/A [Ka Wqrahra *Main 1. _ _ Condition of structural components 0 1 2 3 N/A 'Ng! Maintenance access to pretreatment facility Excessive trash/debris/sediment _y. _ c. Water stains .._.l 4. Evidence of clogging -;.2 .0 1 16. Evidence of erosion 0 1 _' OillN. . IIIM TT . 1 2 3 NIA 1 2 3 N/A $ N/A _nk /A Not toipednd Maintenance access to facility_ 0 f , ' 2 ti NIA Dewatenng valve(if equipped) 0 i __ �2y •_ NIA b. Workmg Yes No 5. Evidence of erosion 0 1 2 3 N/A 7. Evidence of standing water (clogging) 9 1 2 3 NIA t b. Noticeable odors~ �� d. Presence of algae or floating aquatic vegetation ' • Mekterlinien SF ' 1. 4' - 3 - •T f�ek a. Broken _ 4,4600_ -iumr tl _ 54.0 film Wail malr.viirma, no ar.hnn rasp Aron t .1dUdbfpre 1:CAraTirin A hbulpr iulnm c!1Mi Hutrn,r rimed to WF adrare=_acted the, riLuln .. .. i= tragr4tkd LOi14111ur1., ItI3t ,4)e ciai.nnrIan[n m'nl iopol nhaiod. • S!1JUUs 1d.lrtli. ru no:211,rre rx.w1 IIL Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Inspection Checklist ISOM Vegetation Presence of invasive species/seeds u ---' Mulch layer (or pea gravel) 0 1 3 N/A 2 3 N/A ..5cAzi:P@aianaulOalo trEa ll _AV Outlets Provide stable conveyance out of facility ar Evidence of erosion at/around inlet Ilrrpeada a I. wetlhasetliea l - 0 1 2 3 ....N/A 0 1 2 3 N/A 91111011. :VMSMMU. .'. KM WWI INgt 1 W! Complaints from local residents 0 1 2 3 NIA Encroachment on facility or easement by buildings or other 0 1 2 3 N/A 2. 3. 4. 5. B- 7. 8. e. 10. r • 1 �.v . JnrJ'=Jn V nI11n n1111AlrlNf, 11..1 nr, Is0!i • . 1EIrnd • 1 atm {..'r„aino.r. ?, :ARIA .1Si01 _ Iats ial ih 1 ... • . ' r d in die rutiv i.• APPENDIX N PILOT PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES Year 2011GI Pilot ProgramEvent or forum for Presenation DateArea Name of Presenter(s) AffiliationBy/WithPartnersPublic Education/WorkshopsPublic InputCommissionPublic HearingsInternet # PeopleAudience TypeTopicHandoutsProjectNumberProject NamePresentation to Aldermen, S8/5/2010 North St. LouisBrian Hoelscher/Otis WilliamsMSD/LRA Yes X 28Aldermen (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 15,16,18,19,20,21,22,24,26,27)Green Infrastructure Pilot Program - overviewCopy of Presentation 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Housing Development Wor 1/5/2011 North St. LouisJeff Theerman/Otis WilliamsMSD/LRA Yes X 20Housing Development Working GroupGreen Infrastructure Pilot Program - overviewCopy of Presentation 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Engineering Education, SIUSpring 2011 SIUEJay Hoskins/Ryan FriesMSD/SIUE Yes X 22 senior design studentsSenior Design Project - Planter box design 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Engineering Education, SIUSpring 2011 SIUEJay Hoskins/Brent VaughnMSD/SIUE Yes X 11 undergraduate research studentCompare in-situ infiltration testing with USDA program 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Coordination with Habitat fo5/11/2011 North St. LouisJay Hoskins, Susan McCraryMSD No X 4Habitat for Humanity managementDiscuss planter box reimbursement and Neighborhood-Scale projects adjacent to H4H developmentP-0028660-01; 11157; 11787C.B. 1003, 1004, 1005, 1030 (Habitat for Humanity Redevelopment - mult addresses); Clinton #1323 Bioretention; Clinton Pervious AlleyEngineering Education, SIUFall 2011 SIUES. McCrary, M. Buechter/Ryan FriesMSD Yes X 22 senior design studentsSenior Design Project - Bioretention design 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Meeting with Grace Hill, MS6/16/2011 Wards 2 & 3Lance LeComb, Susan McCraryMSD No X 19Grace HillRain Garden/Green Infrastructure Pilot Programs Bissell Incinerator Stack Meeting 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Five Cities Conference, Ind7/21/2011 Multiple cities/sSusan McCrary, Brian HoelscherMSD No X 50Utility professionalsGreen Infrastructure Pilot Program - overview 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Meeting with Old North Res8/4/2011 Ward 5, Old NoSusan McCrary/Laura CostelloMSD/LRA Yes X 4Old North St. Louis Restoration Group managementDiscussed projects on blocks 632 and 640 and "adopt a raingarden" conceptConceptual Plans 11157; 11787Clinton #1323 Bioretention; Clinton Pervious AlleyHousing Development Wor 9/1/2011 North St. LouisJeff Theerman, Susan McCrary/Otis WilliamsMSD/LRA Yes X 23Housing Development Working GroupGreen Infrastructure Pilot Program updateCopy of Presentation 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)CONSENT DECREEG I PILOT PROGRAMEDUCATION AND OUTREACH Meeting with Dan Schuler a9/8/2011 Ward 5, Old NoSusan McCrary, Steve AdamsMSD No X 2Property Owner & NeighborsDesign/size/layout, coordination for planting plan and construction (by owner) Project Plans P-0029210-0040' E OF NE CORNER OF N. FLORISSANT & MONROE (1451 & 1455 MONROE)Meeting with Grace Hill, MS9/9/2011 Wards 2 & 3Lance LeComb, Roland BeihlMSD No X 20Grace HillRain Garden/Green Infrastructure Pilot Programs Bissell Incinerator Stack Meeting 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Meeting with Aldermen Wa 10/26/2011 Wards 3 & 4Susan McCrary, Lance LeComb/Otis WilliamsMSD/LRA Yes X 11Aldermen (3, 4)/Planning and Urban Design AgencyGI Pilot update plus Neighborhood-scale projects in their respective wardsCopy of Presentation & Conceptual Plans11778; 11803; 11804N. VANDEVENTER & N. SARAH BIORETENTION; WARNE & LINTON BIORETENTION; BLAIR & 19TH ST. BIORETENTIONEngineering Education, SLU11/3/2011 St. Louis UniveSusan McCraryMSD No X 22Civil Engineering Students/Faculty Urban Hydrology and GI Pilot 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Mayor's Sustainability Sum 12/7/2011 CitywideCatherine WernerMayors OffiYes X70City agencies, EW Gateway, GRG, MoBOT, othersTechnical Worksession for Sustainability Plan Development hosted by Catherine Werner: Susan McCrary, John Grimm, Lance LeComb participated 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Interviews, Various Locatio 12/9/2011 CitywidePatricia Bailey (Coro Fellow placed with Lance LeComb)MSD No X 17Various MSD, City, Agency and OrganizationsPatricia conducted interviews for her "Case Study Report: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program" dated 12-9-2011, to gather ideas for the program. The list of interviewees is in her report. 11048CSO Volume Reduction - Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Year 2012GI Pilot ProgramEvent or forum for Presenation DateArea Name of Presenter(s) AffiliationBy/WithPartnersPE?WSPublic InputCommisPublic HearingsInternet # PeopleAudience TypeTopicProjectNumberProject NameHandoutsMeeting1/11/2012 Ward 5 S McCrary, S Chappuis, M MSD NoX4 Habitat for Humanity Clinton Bioretention and Alley Project Coord.11157, 11787Clinton Bioret & Clinton AlleyPreliminary PlansMSD Blog Post1/31/2012 Multiple S McCrary, D JohnsonMSD NoX unk Internet usersMSD’s CSO Volume Reduction Green Multiple N/AOverview of GIPPMeeting2/2/2012 Ward 4 S McCrary, B NevoisMSD No X X5 Fresh Start Principal Green, H Crumpton, A PruittGreen Infrastructure Program and Pilot OverviewMultiple N/AMap of demolition, project location, presentationMeeting3/6/2012 Ward 5 S McCrary, H Beckham, O WilliamsMSD, SWT, LRAYesX6 Alderwoman 5 Overview of GIPP & description of projects11157, 11787Clinton Bior & Clinton AlleyPlans, graphics & coceptual plans GIPP in Wards 1 and 27 3/29/2012 Ward 1&27 S McCrary, H Beckham, O WilliamsMSD, SWT, LRAYes X 9 Aldermen 1 & 27 Overview of GIPP & description of projects11802 Geraldine & BeaconPlans, description of bi retSt. Louis Earth Day Symposium4/5/2012 St. Louis RegionSue McCrary MSD No X 18 Stormwater ProfessionalsGreen Infrastructure Pilot ProjectMultiple N/A N/AEngineers Club GI Lecture 4/20/2012 St. Louis RegionM. Buechter MSD No X 100 Stormwater ProfessionalsGreen Infrastructure Pilot ProjectMultiple N/A N/AParticipation in the City of SL Mayor's Sustainability Summit II5/8/2012 Multiple S McCrary, J GrimmMSD No X unk City & Regional agencies/planners/ consultantsTech work session to formulate City's Sust PlanN/AShaw Professional Landscape Series6/19/2012 Multiple S McCrary MSD No X 50 Landscape and Stormwater ProfGreen Infrastructure Pilot ProjectMultiple N/A N/AGreen Bus. Expo 9/12/2012 Varies & Ward 6D Johnson, S McCrayMSD No X unk RCGA & others Map of GI Demo & Projects Multiple N/A SW Pollution in Bus.Sheet Metal Workers Hall Site Visit 9/25/2012 Multiple Jay Hoskings, Susan McCrayMSD No X 35 Environmental Study Students - Wash UGreen Infrastructure examples and GIPPN/A N/A Boards with typical sectionsDiscussion at Market 11/15/2012 Multiple S McCrary, L LeCombMSD No X X 10 Retired comm planners & activistsMSD CD & GIPP Multiple N/AMSD Update Newsletter November Multiple S McCrary, W Comello-KummMSD No X 900 - 950MSD employees Info from const of neighborhood scale GIP11157 Clinton #1323 BioretInfo from const of neighborhood scale GIPYear2013GI Pilot ProgramEvent or forum for Presenation DateArea Name of Presenter(s) AffiliationBy/WithPartnersPublic Ed/WorkshopsPublic InputCommissionPublic HearingsInternet # PeopleAudience TypeTopicProjectNumberProject NameHandoutsNational Green Centre Trade Show1/7/13 S McCrary, J HoskingsMSD No X 21 Nurery & Landscape Assn.overview of GIPP /Early Action/GI in new devn/a n/a n/aShaw Professional Landscape Series1/22/13 N/A S.McCrary MSD Yes X 120 Landscape/engineering professionalsMSD Green Infrastructure Pilot ProjectMultiple N/AMeeting 4/19/13 Ward 3 S.McCrary, Lauraa CostelloMSD/SLDCYes Alderman GI Pilot Projects in 3rd Ward 11803, 11812, 11814Blair & 19th, Linton & Prairie, N. SpringUSEPA Urban Water Project Workshop4/27/13 Wards 3, 5, 19 M. Norton, S. McCrary, D. AndersonMSD Yes X 5 RG & PB owners What are RG & Pb? Why use them? Function and MaintenanceP-0028660-01JeffVanderLou RG and PB brochuresUSEPA Urban Water Project Workshop4/30/13 Wards 3, 5, 19 M. Norton, S. McCrary, D. AndersonMSD Yes X 7 RG & PB owners What are RG & Pb? Why use them? Function and MaintenanceP-0028660-01JeffVanderLou RG and PB brochuresUpdate Newsletter 5/1/13 N/A M. Norton MSD X MSD Employees Habitat for Humanity outreachP-0028660-01JeffVanderLou Info about outreach with H4HUSEPA Urban Water Project Plant Giveaway5/18/13 Ward 3 & 19 D. Anderson, C. GoetzMSD No X 9 RG & PB owners Plant giveaway for rg. P-0028660-01JeffVanderLouEWRI Congress 2013, Cincinati5/23/13 S McCrary, J ZhouX 12 Water resource professionalDiverse Measures of GI for CSO reduction in St. Louis Town Hall Meeting 5/28/13 Hyde Park S. McCrary MSDX22 Alderman & Ward ResidentsMSDs GI "Rainscaping" Program11778, 11803, 11812, 1181411778-N. Vandeventer under constr.5 additional Ward 3 locations proposed as Early Action projectsRain Garden Press Event 7/25/13 Ward 5 B. Hoelscher, L. LeComb, S. McCraryMSDX38 Press, public officials, stakeholders, neighborhoodsOld North Raingarden & Project Clear11157 Clinton Bioretentionn/aOld North Neighborhood Meeting then tour of rain garden7/27/13 Ward 5 S. McCrary MSD X 20 Old North Neighborhood residentsOld North Raingarden 11157 Clinton BioretentionComment cardUpdate Newsletter 9/1/13 N/AM. Norton MSDXMSD Employees Habitat for Humanity Block PartyP-0028660-01JeffVanderLou Info about block party with H4HThe Ville Neighborhood Meeting9/5/13 Ward 4 S McCrary, S. AdamsMSD X 100 Residents of The Ville in 4th WardRainscaping/RG in The Ville and JeffVanderLou area11778 N. Vandeventer and N. SarahPC comment card and PC magnetsRain Garden Block Party 9/14/13 Wards 3, 5, 19S McCrary, M. Norton, D. AndersonMSD X 180 RG & PB owners and their neighborsRG & PB-What is it? Why have them? How they work?P-0028660-01JeffVanderLou pw, yw RG posters, pb, rg, pc magnetsWalnut Park East Neighborhood Meeting9/21/13 Ward 27 S McCrary, M KoestererMSD X 75 Residents of Walnut Park East in the 27th WardRainscaping/Rain gardens in Walnut Park East and Mark Twain11802 Geraldine and BeaconComment card and PC magnets5th Ward Meeting 10/1/13 Ward 5 S. McCrary MSD X 30 Residents of 5th Ward Rainscaping/Rain garden in Old North11157 Clinton BioretentionComment card and PC magnets5 Cities Plus Conference 11/13/13 N/A S. McCrary MSD X 100 Employees & consultants from Midwest sewer districtsGI Program Community PartnershipsMultiple N/A 10 min presentation plus participated in GI PanelSt. Louis Earth Day Symposium3/19/13 N/A Roland Biehl MSD X ? Professionals - environmentalStormwater management including GI Pilot ProgramMultiple N/AYear 2014GI Pilot ProgramEvent or forum for Presenation DateArea Name of Presenter(s) AffiliationBy/WithPartnersPublic Ed/WorkshopsPublic InputCommissionPublic HearingsInternet # PeopleAudience TypeTopicProjectNumberProject NameHandoutsShaw Professional Landscape Series3/4/14 N/A S.McCrary MSD Yes X 120 Landscape/engineering professionalsMSD Project Clear Rainscaping Program11048, 11146GI Pilot Program and Early ActionInternal Presentation 3/25/14 S. McCrary MSD X 24 MSD Engineering staff MSDs GI Infrastructure Pilot Lessons11048 GI Pilot ProgramStakeholder's Engagement Committee5/22/14 N/A S. McCrary MSD X 30 MSD Project Clear's Stakeholder's Engagement CommitteeUpdate on GI Pilot Program and Rainscaping Programs11048, 11146, 12447GI Pilot Program and Early Action and Small GrantsEWRI Congress 2014, Portland, OR Poster Presentation6/2/14 N/A S. McCrary, S. Morgan (SIUE), J. Zhou, H. Pavitt, A. CairoMSD/SIUE Yes Water resource professionalPoster: Inspiring Homeowners to Maintain Rain GardensP-0028660-01JeffVanderLouEWRI Congress 2014, Portland, OR Presentation6/3/14 N/A S. McCrary, M. BuechterMSD No Water resource professionalSt. Louis MSD's Green Infrastructure Pilot ProgramMultiple N/A EWRI Congress 2014, Portland, OR Presentation6/3/14 N/A A Akhavan SIUE Yes Water resource professionalImpact of Site-scale GI on Volume Reduction in Combined SewersP-0028660-01JeffVanderLouTour6/19/14 Wards 1, 3, 4, 5, 21, 27S. McCrary, Matt Koesterer, Steve Adams, Dan GarciaMSD No X10 MSD Engineering staff MSD Neighborhood-scale GI Site Tour11157, 11778, 11802, 11804Clinton, N. Vandeventer, N. Sarah, Warne, Geraldine, Beacon5 Cities Plus Conference 8/19/14 N/AS. McCrary, Matt KoestererMSD No X100 Employees & consultants from Midwest sewer districtsSt. Louis MSD's GI Pilot Program – Neighborhood Scale Rain GardensMultiple N/A15 min presentation plus participated in GI PanelO'Fallon Community Development Organization meeting11/8/14 Ward 21 S. McCrary MSD NoXYear 2015GI Pilot ProgramEvent or forum for Presenation DateArea Name of Presenter(s) AffiliationBy/WithPartnersPublic Ed/WorkshopsPublic InputCommissionPublic HearingsInternet # PeopleAudience TypeTopicProjectNumberProject NameHandoutsSurveys and interviews 1/28/15 Multiple Leore Ben-Chorin, Tom McClure, Sara Rahim, Michael Tolan (Coro Fellows placed with Lance LeComb)MSD No 14 Small grant recipients (5); early action grant recipient (1); MSD staff & institutional partners (6), neighborhood-scale contractors (2)Seeking feedback from completed rainscaping projectsMultiple GI Pilot, Rainscaping Small Grants, Early Action GrantsDRAFT report preparedSt. Louis Wild Ones 2/4/15 Multiple S. McCrary MSD No XGardening enthusiasts Rainscaping Program Multiple GI Pilot, Rainscaping Small Grants, Early Action GrantsMSD Blog Post2/10/15 Multiple S McCrary MSD NoX unk MSD staffAll About MSD Rainscaping Programs: Pilot, Early Action and Small GrantsMultiple GI Pilot ProgramSt. Louis University Environmental Science Seminar Series - guest speaker3/18/15 Multiple S. McCrary MSD No X20 Environmental science studentsMSD's Rainscaping Program Multiple GI Pilot, Rainscaping Small Grants, Early Action GrantsGreen InfrastructureTour 4/24/15 Multiple David Wilson (EWG), Susan McCrary, Steve AdamsEast-West Gateway/MSDYes X47 EWGateway Water Resources Committee, agencies and organizations, EPA, Mo CoalitionRainscaping Projects in the City of St. LouisMultiple GI Pilot, Rainscaping Small Grants, Early Action GrantsRainscaping Booklet - "Rainscaping A guide to local projects in St. Louis"Cortex Press Event 4/24/15Brian Hoelscher, ??? CortexMSD/CortexYesEWGateway Water Resources Committee, agencies and organizations, EPA, Mo Coalition, PressRainscaping project at Cortex campus - Early Action GrantEarly Action Grants 5 Cities Plus Conference 8/5/15 N/AS McCrary MSD No X100 Employees & consultants from Midwest sewer districtsMonitoring of Green Infrastructure for CSO Volume ReductionMultiple N/A15 min presentation plus participated in GI PanelSt. Louis Earth Day Symposium6/3/15 St. Louis RegionS. McCrary, Matt KoestererMSD Yes X50 Professionals - environmentalMSD Project Clear’s Rainscaping Program - Neighborhood Scale Rain GardensMultiple N/A Rainscaping Survey Estimated time: 8-10 minutes. MSD Project Clear is MSD's initiative to improve water quality by investing billions over a generation in planning, design, and constructing community Rainscaping, system improvements, and an ambitious program of repair & maintenance. This survey seeks your feedback on Rainscaping, sometimes referred to as Green Infrastructure, accomplished by MSD Project Clear. For the purposes of this survey, we will use "Rainscaping" to describe this type of work. Thank you for your help! 1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please provide only one answer per statement. Mark only one oval per row. I am familiar with the term "Rainscaping." There are Rainscaping projects in my neighborhood I support the Rainscaping projects in my neighborhood If it were installed, Rainscaping would benefit my neighborhood. Rainscaping benefits my neighborhood. Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree don't know o CJ C) n C ) C) () C) o o () o 0 o c) 2. Are you familiar with any of the following Rainscaping project types? * Please check each project type that you are familiar with. If you are unfamiliar, leave the box unchecked. Check all that apply. j I Bioswales n Planter Boxes ❑ Permeable Pavements (i.e., porous asphalt, permeable pavers) Street Trees and Curb Plantings Il Green Roofs El Rain Gardens E Rain Barrels I I Wetlands Other: 3. Are any of the following Rainscaping project types In your neighborhood? Please check each project type that have been installed in your community. Check all that apply. L C C L None of these Bioswales Rain Gardens Planter Boxes Wetlands Permeable Pavements Street Trees and Curb Plantings II Green Roofs Rain Barrels C Other: 4. Would you support the installation of any of the following Rainscaping projects in your neighborhood? * Please check each project type you would support in your community. Check all that apply. C Permeable Pavements C Wetlands E Rain Barrels L Street Trees and Curb Plantings n Rain Gardens n Planter Boxes Bioswales n Green Roofs n None of these Ell Other: 5. What additional benefits do you believe Rainscaping can provide to your neighborhood? Please check each benefit you believe Rainscaping provides. Check all that apply. L Reduce energy costs C Improve air quality and health C Increase property values L Provide incentives for development in the neighborhood Improve recreation Reduce wastewater treatment costs L Beautify the neighborhood E Provide space for urban agriculture and community gardens Increase the life span of infrastructure L None of these Other: 6. What obstacles are there to installing Rainscaping in your neighborhood? Please check all that apply. Check all that apply. n I Challenges in design and construction ❑ Lack of incentives n Does not beautify the neighborhood Ti Lack of awareness/information ❑ There are no obstacles to installing Rainscaping n Cost of maintenance Cost of construction Other: 7. What is your Zip Code? 8. Would you like to learn more about Rainscaping projects in your community? Mark only one oval. Yes Skip to question 9. CD No Stop filling out this form. To learn more about Rainscaping, please provide your contact information. 9. Name Please provide your name 10. Email Please provide your email address 11. Address Please provide your address Powered by m Gomel& Forms APPENDIX O RAIN GARDEN AND PLANTER BOX MAINTENANCE BROCHURES Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Web Site: www.stlmsd.com 24-Hour Hotline 314.768.6260 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Rain Gardens Post-Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) Ownership and Maintenance Get to Know Native Plants BUTONBUSH CEPHAFANRHUS OCCIDENAFIS 3-6’ JULY-AUGUST CARDINAL FLOWER LOBELIA CORDINALIS 2-4’ JUNE-SEPTEMBER CULVER’S ROOT VERONICASTRUM VIRGINICUM 3-5’ JUNE-AUGUST GIANT BUR-REED SPARGANIUM EURYCARPUM 1-3’ MAY-JUNE Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Division of Environmental Compliance 10 East Grand Avenue St. Louis, MO 63147-2913 Phone: 314.768.6260 www.stlmsd.comYour MSD @Your MSD GREAT BLUE LOBELIA LOBELIA SIPHILITICA 2-4’ AUGUST-SEPTEMBER MOUNTAIN MINT PYCNANTHEMIM VIRGINIANUM 2-4’ JULY-SEPTEMBER NEW ENGLAND ASTER ASTER NOVAE-ANGLIAE 1-5’ AUGUST-OCTOBER PALM SEDGE MUSKINGUMENSIS 1-3’ AUGUST-OCTOBER PRAIRIE BLAZING STAR LIATRIS PYCNOSTACHYA 2-4’ JULY-SEPTEMBER RIVER OATS CHASMANTHIUM LORIFOLIUM 2-3’ FALL COLOR SNEEZEWEED HELENIUM AUTUMNALE 2-6’ AUGUST-OCTOBER STIFF GOLDENROD SOLIDAGO RIGIDA 2-4’ JULY-OCTOBER ARROWHEAD SAGIREARIA GRAMINEA 1-2’ JUNE-SEPTEMBER Get to Know Common Weeds CASTOR-BEAN COMMON RAGWEED CURLY DOCK POKEWEED WINTER CREEPER EUONYMUS YELLOW NUT SEDGE Get to Know Native Plants Resources Show Me Rain Gardens www.showmeraingardens.com Missouri Botanical Garden www.mobot.org MSD BMP Toolbox www.stlmsd.com/engineering/planreview/bmptoolbox What is a Rain Garden? Every time it rains, stormwater flows down roofs, driveways and other impervious surfaces, sometimes flooding basements or collecting in low spots. Other runoff continues on toward the street, picking up soil, pesticides and other contaminants before it enters storm drains that transport it to streams and lakes, often without treatment. A rain garden is a planted area where rainwater collects. Think of a rain garden as a sponge -- an environmentally friendly sponge -- that is designed to soak up much of this runoff before it can do damage. A rain garden starts with a bowl-shaped bed of loose soil. The garden is planted with deep-rooted trees, bushes, flowers and other plants that help absorb the rainwater, which filters through layers of soil before entering the groundwater system or to the stormwater system through the underdrain. In this way, your rain garden is your personal contribution to cleaner water! Benefits of a Rain Garden Reduce stormwater runoff which helps: Reduce erosion Reduce flooding Lower volume of water entering the storm system Filter harmful pollutants Landscaping your property: Becomes a beautiful addition Improves property value Provide food and habitat for wildlife Increase biodiversity Quick Fact! After a rain, it is normal to see shallow ponded water in the rain garden, but only for a day or two. Mosquitoes need 7 to 10 days to lay and hatch eggs. Mosquitoes are more likely to lay eggs in bird baths and clogged gutters. Also, rain gardens attract frogs, dragonflies and birds that eat mosquitoes! Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Web Site: www.stlmsd.com 24-Hour Hotline 314.768.6260 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Rain Garden Inspection and Maintenance Schedule FEBRUARY TO MARCH Remove trash and debris Prune bushes and trim other plants to near the surface Remove old compaction mulch and replace with new APRIL TO MAY Replace or remove any diseased, undesirable, or dead plants Separate or move plants if you like Pull weeds JUNE TO AUGUST Water plants during extremely dry periods SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER Remove trash and debris Replace or remove any disease, undesirable, or dead plants Pull weeds but leave grasses and flowers over winter Check for adequate mulch cover Repair any eroded areas within the garden or surrounding area NOTE: AFTER IT RAINS Check for muddy water or eroding soils draining into the garden Check for standing water (longer than three days) Maintenance Cost of Typical Rain Garden Maintenance costs will vary as a result of several factors, including drainage area, size of BMP, and type of plantings. Preventative maintenance is key to minimizing major costs associated with repairs. A general rule of thumb to estimate maintenance costs is 3%-6% of the installation costs. Maintenance may be higher the first few years, while plants are being established. Tips for a Successful Rain Garden Trimming and Pruning: Stems from grasses and flowers can be left through the fall and winter to add visual interest and to provide food and cover for birds. Trim plants near the surface during appropriate months with a string trimmer or pruner and remove dead vegetation to encourage new growth. Shrubs may be pruned to give them the “shape” you like. Fertilizing: Appropriate fertilizer during the first year may help establish healthy plants. Fertilizer beyond this is not necessary because it stimulates weed growth and reduces water quality benefits. Mulching: A two to three-inch application of mulch after initial planting is beneficial. Replacement of old mulch in the spring helps with the garden appearance and drainage. Use standard single or double shredded hardwood mulch that is “well aged” (at least a year since it was shredded) and free of soil, weed seeds, herbicides, etc. Pine bark and “chipped” mulch is NOT recommended as it tends to float and wash out easily. Trash: Trash and other debris like leaves and grass clippings should be removed as needed. Please do not pile or spread leaves or grass clippings in your rain garden. Edges: A border defines the edge of the garden just as a frame defines a painting. A strip of mowed turf, stones, or a walking path can set the area apart and can improve rain garden appearance. All landscape requires maintenance; a rain garden is no different. Following these maintenance tips will help ensure the rain garden functions well and remains an asset to your home. Water Ponding: After a rain shower, it is normal to see shallow ponding in the rain garden for a day or two. Please do not fill in the ponding area. If water is still observed after three days, then it may be necessary to rake or poke shallow holes in the soil. If water is still observed, replace the top layer of soil and mulch. Sediment: Muddy water flowing into the rain garden, such as from an eroding area in the yard, could lead to clogging. Repair the eroded areas quickly and remove the sediment that “settles out” on top of the mulch. Weeding: Weed growth during the plant establishment period is typical and weed removal helps eliminate competition with desirable plants. Weeds can be addressed with spot use of herbicide or by pulling. Blanket use of herbicide is never recommended. Diligent weeding during the first two years produces desirable plants that, by year three, are mature enough to compete and crowd out most weeds. Watering: The plants in your rain garden should not require watering once mature plants are established. However, watering helps plant appearance during drought periods. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Web Site: www.stlmsd.com 24-Hour Hotline 314.768.6260 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Planter Boxes Post-Construction Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Ownership and Maintenance Performance : To ensure proper performance, visually inspect that stormwater is infiltrating properly into the planter box soil and that there is discharge from the underdrain during large wet weather events. Water ponding in a planter box for more than 24 hours may indicate a problem. Native plantings: Because they are more tolerant of the local climate, soil, and water conditions, na- tive plants are recommended for rain gardens. Na- tive plants are preferable to ease maintenance of the planter box. Ponding Water: Following a rain event, it is normal to see shallow puddles in the a planter for a day or two. Resist the urge to fill in these shallow areas. If water is still present after three days, it may be necessary to rake or poke shallow holes in the soil. If water still remains, corrective measures may include inspection for soil compaction and underdrain clogging, replacement of the top layer of soil and mulch, backflusing of the underdrain or replacement of the underdrain and soil. Weeding: When the plants in your planter box are establishing themselves, weed growth is common. Weeding, either by pulling or spot use of herbicides, helps to eliminate weed growth and preserve your plantings. Blanket use of herbicide is NOT recommended. Diligent weeding during the first years typically results in plantings that, by year three, are mature enough to crowd out most weeds. Watering: Mature plants, especially if native plants used, should not require additional watering, ex- cept during periods of drought. Watering is more important during the early stages when plants are still establishing themselves. Trimming & Pruning: Beginning in late winter or early spring, trim plants near the surface with a string trimmer or pruner, and remove dead veg- etation to encourage new growth. Shrubs may be pruned to give them the shape you prefer. Fertilizing: You may wish to fertilize your planter box during the first year to help establish healthy plants. Beyond the first year, fertilizing is unneces- sary because it stimulates weed growth and may reduce water quality benefits. Mulching: A layer of two to three inches of mulch to the surface of your planter box should be in- stalled. Replacing old mulch each spring improves its appearance and drainage. Mulch should be free of soil, weed seeds and herbicide. Pine bark and “chipped” mulch are not recommended for use dur- ing maintenance. Trash: Leaves, lawn clippings, and other trash should be removed as needed. Leaves or grass clippings should NOT be spread in a planter box. Maintenance & Inspection Tips for Planter Box Owners Get to Know Some of the Common Weeds that Should be Removed CASTOR-BEAN COMMON RAGWEED CURLY DOCK JOE-PYE WEED POKEWEED WINTER CREEPER EUONYMUS YELLOW NUTSEDGE Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Division of Environmental Compliance 10 East Grand Avenue St. Louis, MO 63147-2913 Phone: 314.768.6260 www.stlmsd.comYour MSD @Your MSD Resources Show Me Rain Gardens www.showmeraingardens.com Missouri Botanical Garden www.mobot.org MSD BMP Toolbox www.stlmsd.com/engineering/planreview/bmptoolbox Planter Box Routine Maintenance Schedule The following outlines typical routine maintenance activities and items to look for when inspecting your planter box: FEBRUARY AND MARCH Remove trash and debris. Prune bushes and trim other plants to near the surface. Remove old, compacted mulch and replace with new mulch. APRIL AND MAY Replace or remove diseased, undesirable or dead plants. Separate or move plants, if desired. Pull weeds. JUNE THROUGH AUGUST Water plants during extremely dry periods. SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER Remove trash and debris. Replace or remove any diseased, undesirable or dead plants. Pull weeds, but leave grasses and flower in place over the winter. Check for adequate mulch cover. Repair any eroded areas within the planter box. ANYTIME Check for standing water that remains after three days. While not routine, replacement of soil and underdrain may be required during the lifetime of the planter box. Ensure downspout and overflow clear of debris What is a planter box? Every time it rains, stormwater that flows down roofs contributes to higher runoff volume and may transport pollutants to streams and lakes. A planter box is a planted area where rainwater collects. Think of a planter box as a sponge -- an environmentally friendly sponge -- that is designed to soak up much of this runoff before it can do damage. Planter boxes are elevated structures containing plants, shrubs, or trees that are used when roof downspouts can be disconnected from the sewer system and re-directed. Planter boxes offer “green space” that provide a soil/plant mixture suitable for stormwater capture and treatment. Rainfall is retained and stored in the soil within the planter boxes and the vegetation intercepts rainfall. Reduction of pollutants as the stormwater ponds and infiltrates through the planter box soil. Pollutants are absorbed by the soil particles.. Planter boxes can be constructed of various materials including, stone, concrete, brick, synthetic lumber or wood, planter boxes come in all shapes and sizes. Pollutants that are absorbed and degraded through the plants and soil in the planter box include: bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, oil, grease and other pollutants. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Web Site: www.stlmsd.com 24-Hour Hotline 314.768.6260 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Benefits Of A Planter Box Improves water quality. The plantings, soil, and gravel in the planter box helps to filter contaminants from stormwater run-off, improving the quality of the water that recharges local groundwater and waterways. Planter boxes are often used in urban environments as stormwater best manage- ment practices to improve water quality. Lowers the volume of water entering public sewer systems. By diverting this water, planter boxes decrease the flow to our wastewater treatment plants during storms, when flow typically peaks. Reduces sewer overflows and flooding. Planter boxes help reduce runoff, which in turn helps to minimize com- bined sewer overflows, localized flooding and erosion. Maintenance Costs The cost for maintaining a planter box is similar to the cost for maintaining a rain garden, which is approximately $4 to $8 per square yd. Additional maintenance costs may be associated with the structural maintenance of the physical planter box. A general rule of thumb to estimate annual maintenance costs is to use 3-6% of the construction costs of the post construction stormwater BMP. Ensuring routine preventa- tive maintenance is completed on a routine basis, will help deter higher costs associated with non-routine restorative maintenance. Native Plants Recommended For Planter Boxes ARROWHEAD SAGIREARIA GRAMINEA 1-2’ JUNE-SEPTEMBER BUTONBUSH CEPHAFANRHUS OCCIDENAFIS 3-6’ JULY-AUGUST CARDINAL FLOWER LOBELIA CORDINALIS 2-4’ JUNE-SEPTEMBER CULVER’S ROOT VERONICASTRUM VIRGINICUM 3-5’ JUNE-AUGUST GIANT BUR-REEDSPARGANIUM EURYCARPUM1-3’ MAY-JUNE GREAT BLUELOBELIA LOBELIA SIPHILITICA 2-4’ AUGUST-SEPTEMBER MOUNTAIN MINT PYCNANTHEMIM VIRGINIANUM 2-4’ JULY-SEPTEMBER NEW ENGLAND ASTER ASTER NOVAE-ANGLIAE 1-5’ AUGUST-OCTOBER PALM SEDGE MUSKINGUMENSIS 1-3’ AUGUST-OCTOBER PRAIRIE BLAZING STARLIATRIS PYCNOSTACHYA2-4’ JULY-SEPTEMBER RIVER OATS CHASMANTHIUM LORIFOLIUM 2-3’ FALL COLOR SNEEZEWEED HELENIUM AUTUMNALE 2-6’ AUGUST-OCTOBER STIFF GOLDENROD SOLIDAGO RIGIDA 2-4’ JULY-OCTOBER