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