HomeMy Public PortalAboutGI Pilot Final Report - Appendix W-ZAPPENDIX W PILOT MONITORING SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEWS
Review of 2013 Green Infrastructure Monitoring Data for MSD GI Pilot ProgramJanuary 23, 2014
2013 Data Review –GI pilotsData Overview by Site•Amended Soil Sites–Labadie–Warne•Bioretention Sites–Vandeventer–Geraldine•Monroe Rain Garden Site
2013 Data Review –GI pilotsAmended Soil Sites
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne Amended Soil Sites (Labadie)
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne Amended Soil Sites (Labadie)
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne Amended Soil Sites (Warne)
Observation:•The main issue is that the screened interval of piezometers is much deeper than shallow soil amendment depth. 2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne Amended Soil Sites
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne Amended Soil SitesRecommendation:•Pull level sensors, cease monitoring –given the depth difference between the surface amendment and the piezometers, it’s unlikely these instruments will yield useful data.•It is also likely that the shallow soil amendments are not significantly affecting infiltration.
2013 Data Review –GI pilotsBioretention Sites
2013 Data Review: VandeventerBioretention00.511.522.533.544.55‐20‐15‐10‐505106/15/2013 0:00 7/5/2013 0:00 7/25/2013 0:00 8/14/2013 0:00 9/3/2013 0:00 9/23/2013 0:00 10/13/2013 0:00 11/2/2013 0:00 11/22/2013 0:00 12/12/2013 0:00Runoff (cfs)15‐minute Rainfall, Clean Out Level, Flume Level (inches)Flume Level (in)Clean Out Level (in)Rainfall (in)Runoff (cfs)
2013 Data Review: VandeventerBioretention – rainfall events 10/31 – 11/200.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9100.0020.0040.0060.0080.010.0120.0140.01610/30/2013 0:00 10/30/2013 12:00 10/31/2013 0:00 10/31/2013 12:00 11/1/2013 0:00 11/1/2013 12:00 11/2/2013 0:00Runoff (cfs)Flume Flow Norm. (cfs)Flume Flow Norm. (cfs)Runoff (cfs)
2013 Data Review: VandeventerBioretentionObservations:•For 10/31 – 11/2 event, it looked like there was an outflow response, but volumes don’t match.•So this would mean that 4,714 c.f. was infiltrated, but testing shows very low infiltration rate.•Also, we don’t see an appropriate response in the underdrain.ComponentVolumeTotal rainfall9,800 c.f.Total runoff (model) 4,729 c.f.Total outflow15 c.f.
2013 Data Review: VandeventerBioretention – November dataInsert plot for11/19 – 12/2•In the November data, we see an apparent response in the outflow to two rainfall/runoff events. •The shape seems right for outflow from the underdrain, but we don’t see an appropriate response in the underdrain.
2013 Data Review: VandeventerBioretentionObservations:•For 11/21 – 11/23 event, it looked like there was an outflow response.•So this would mean that 1,270 c.f. was infiltrated.•Possible, but again, we don’t see an appropriate response in the underdrain.ComponentVolumeTotal rainfall2,754 c.f.Total runoff (model) 1,484 c.f.Total outflow195 c.f.
2013 Data Review: Geraldine BioretentionInsert plot for full time seriesPeak in outflow without commensurate rainfall.Negative values
2013 Data Review: Geraldine BioretentionInsert plot for11/8 – 12/2
2013 Data Review: VandeventerBioretentionObservations:•Underdrain level sensors does not seem to be responding the way we’d expect.•No way of checking ponding in basins.•No way to verify runoff predictions or outflow data.•Data collected to date do not support calculation of performance metrics as planned in GI Monitoring Protocol.
2013 Data Review: VandeventerBioretentionRecommendations:•Add level sensors to measure level in basins, not just underdrains (could use level sensors from Warne & Labadie).•Test level sensors in underdrain by filling at cleanout (garden hose?).•Test basins overall by filling with fire hose.•Start periodic visual observation during rainfall events.
2013 Data Review –GI pilotsMonroe Rain Garden Site
2013 Data Review: Monroe Rain Garden00.010.020.030.040.050.060.07‐505101520253035406/15/2013 0:00 7/5/2013 0:00 7/25/2013 0:00 8/14/2013 0:00 9/3/2013 0:00 9/23/2013 0:00 10/13/2013 0:00 11/2/2013 0:00 11/22/2013 0:00 12/12/2013 0:00Runoff (cfs)15‐minute Rainfall and Flume Level (inches)Flume Level (in)Rainfall (in)Runoff (cfs)
2013 Data Review: Monroe Rain Garden00.010.020.030.040.050.060.07‐1‐0.500.511.5210/30/2013 0:00 10/30/2013 12:00 10/31/2013 0:00 10/31/2013 12:00 11/1/2013 0:00 11/1/2013 12:00 11/2/2013 0:00 11/2/2013 12:00 11/3/2013 0:00 11/3/2013 12:00 11/4/2013 0:00Runoff (cfs)15‐minute Rainfall, Clean Out Level, Flume Level (inches)Flume Level (in)Clean Out Level (in)Rainfall (in)Runoff (cfs)There seems to be a response in the flume to the rainfall……but the level does not return to zero until 11/5.
2013 Data Review: Monroe Rain GardenObservations:•There appears to be some kind of post‐event drift or interference. Could be debris?Recommendations:•Add measuring tape to flume to allow visual measurement of water depth.•Test rain gardens by filling with hose and collecting measurements, observations.•Conduct site visits during rain events to assess flow condition, clogging, etc.
2013 Data Review –GI pilotsDiscussion, next steps...
2014 Mid-Year Review of
Monitoring Data
for MSD’s LTCP Green
Infrastructure Pilot Program
August 21, 2014
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
•Data review by site
–Bioretention sites (Vandeventer, Geraldine)
–Monroe rain garden site
–Amended soil sites (Labadie, Warne)
–Humphrey porous alley
•Brief data summary, discuss issues,
observations, conclusions, recommendations
•Summary findings, observations,
recommendations
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
Bioretention Sites
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data Summary:
•Continuous radar rainfall at both sites
•Underdrain level and outflow monitored
continuously: 1/1/14 through 6/30/14
•Basin level sensors added, data collection
from 4/1/14 through 6/30/14
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data Summary:
•Data show good capture
•But, there are some issues with the data
Bioretention Site # Rainfall/ Runoff
Events
(Jan. 1 – Jun. 30)
Total
Runoff
(ft3)
Total
Outflow
(ft3)
Overall
Capture
Vandeventer 65 103,240 585 99%
Geraldine 70 22,136 1,463 93%
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data Issues:
•Outflow data requires manual adjustment to
avoid losing information due to sub-zero drift
•Data “noise” during some periods
•Outflow response without rain
•Percent capture is extremely high (is it
believable?)
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issue: data drift
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Vandeventer)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
11/1 11/16 12/1 12/16 12/31 1/15 1/30 2/14 3/1 3/16 3/31 4/15 4/30 5/15 5/30 6/14 6/29
Outflow - INCHES Runoff - CFS
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Vandeventer)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
11/1 11/16 12/1 12/16 12/31 1/15 1/30 2/14 3/1 3/16 3/31 4/15 4/30 5/15 5/30 6/14 6/29
Outflow - INCHES Adjusted Outflow Runoff - CFS
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Vandeventer)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
5/20 5/23 5/26 5/29 6/1 6/4 6/7 6/10 6/13 6/16 6/19 6/22 6/25 Predicted Runoff (cfs)Depth of Outflow in Flume (inches)RAW Outflow Data Adjusted Outflow Data HEC-HMS Predicted Runoff
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issue: data “noise”
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issues - noise:
•Need to “shift” Geraldine data as with
Vandeventer, but there are also some data
periods that don’t make sense - erratic level
readings
•Some judgment needed in “correcting these”,
must be done manually
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Geraldine)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
11/13 11/28 12/13 12/28 1/12 1/27 2/11 2/26 3/13 3/28 4/12 4/27 5/12 5/27 6/11 6/26
OUTFLOW - Inches Adjusted Outflow - inches Runoff - CFS
Data also requires “shifting”,
but there are several periods
of unreliable data.
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issues – outflow without rain:
•Occurred at Geraldine on 6/27
•Level sensor in basin and outflow flume
showed an “event”
•Rain occurred about 20 hours prior, then again
4-6 hours later
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issue: outflow w/out rain, Geraldine, 6/27
Rain before and
after outflow
Outflow
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issue: extremely high capture
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data Summary:
•Data show good capture
•Too good to be true?
•Examined individual events…
Bioretention Site # Rainfall/ Runoff
Events
(Jan. 1 – Jun. 30)
Total
Runoff
(ft3)
Total
Outflow
(ft3)
Overall
Capture
Vandeventer 65 103,240 585 99%
Geraldine 70 22,136 1,463 93%
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Vandeventer)
Summary (January – June 2014):
•24 rainfall events resulting in runoff > 0.1 in
•Model-predicted runoff volumes = 1,118 c.f. to
9,936 c.f.
•Is the project controlling runoff?
–May 31 (largest) runoff event (from model) = 9,936 c.f.
–Outflow volume (from data) = 115 c.f (99% capture)
–What happened to the other 9,821 c.f.?
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Vandeventer)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
5/31/2014 6:005/31/2014 9:005/31/2014 12:005/31/2014 15:005/31/2014 18:005/31/2014 21:006/1/2014 0:00Rainfall/Level (inches)Runoff/Discharge (cfs)Runoff (cfs)Discharge (cfs)Precip (in)
Clean Out Level (in)Basin Level (in)Clean Out Spillway Threshold (in)
Basin Spillway Threshold (in)
Event ID: 2014-51
Start Date/Time: 5/31/2014 13:00
Total Duration (hrs): 3
Rainfall Depth (in): 1.174
Total Rainfall Volume (ft3): 11080.2
Peak Rainfall Rate (in/hr): 1.852
Time since last event (days): 57.51
Runoff Duration (hrs): 3.5
Runoff Depth (in): 1.053
Total Runoff Volume (ft3): 9936.0
Peak Runoff Rate (in/hr): 1.168
Total Discharge Volume (ft3): 115.1
Peak Discharge Rate (in/hr): 0.023
Event Discharge Volume (ft3): 90.9
AfterEvent Dischrg Vol. (ft3): 24.2
Evt+AftEvt Dischrg Vol. (ft3): 115.1
Total Volume Stored (ft3): 70.1
Abs. Volume Reduction (gal): 73465.1
Relative Total V Reduction (%): 98.8
Abs. Volume Reduction [Event
Discharge] (gal): 73645.9
Relative Total V Reduction [Event
Discharge] (%): 99.1
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Vandeventer)
May 31 Event:
•Data show cleanout elevation rises to overflow
(slightly and briefly), consistent with low outflow
•But no rise is storage level in basin
–Did all water infiltrate as soon as it entered basin?
–Rate = 9,821 c.f. in 3 hours or about 5’ distributed over
floor of basin
–Infiltration rate would have to be about 50 cm/hr
which is higher than measured at Vandeventer, but on
par with measurements at Geraldine
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issue - high percent capture:
•Could be real, but it would mean high
infiltration rates
•Cleanout sensors show very slow drainage,
which argues against the high infiltration rate.
–Drainage outside of underdrain could be occurring
through unknown preferential pathways
–Filter material around underdrain could be
clogged
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issue - high percent capture:
•Underdrain data show slow drainage (Vandeventer, 5/31)
~4 days
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Geraldine)
Summary (January – June 2014):
•32 rainfall events resulting in runoff > 0.1 in
•Model-predicted runoff volumes = 123 c.f. to
2,198 c.f.
•Is the project controlling runoff?
–April 3/4 (largest) runoff event (from model) =
2,198 c.f.
–Outflow volume (from data) = 19 c.f
–What happened to the other 2,179 c.f.?
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
4/2/2014 18:004/2/2014 21:004/3/2014 0:004/3/2014 3:004/3/2014 6:004/3/2014 9:004/3/2014 12:004/3/2014 15:004/3/2014 18:004/3/2014 21:004/4/2014 0:004/4/2014 3:004/4/2014 6:004/4/2014 9:00Rainfall/Level (inches)Runoff/Discharge (cfs)Runoff (cfs)Discharge (cfs)Precip (in)
Clean Out Level (in)Basin Level (in)Clean Out Spillway Threshold (in)
Basin Spillway Threshold (in)
Event ID: 2014-32
Start Date/Time: 4/3/2014 02:45
Total Duration (hrs): 21.75
Rainfall Depth (in): 1.911
Total Rainfall Volume (ft3): 2358.6
Peak Rainfall Rate (in/hr): 1.920
Time since last event (days): 0.44
Runoff Duration (hrs): 22.25
Runoff Depth (in): 1.781
Total Runoff Volume (ft3): 2198.3
Peak Runoff Rate (in/hr): 1.425
Total Discharge Volume (ft3): 18.8
Peak Discharge Rate (in/hr): 0.001
Event Discharge Volume (ft3): 17.6
AfterEvent Dischrg Vol. (ft3): 1.1
Evt+AftEvt Dischrg Vol. (ft3): 18.8
Total Volume Stored (ft3): 237.9
Abs. Volume Reduction (gal): 16304.0
Relative Total V Reduction (%): 99.1
Abs. Volume Reduction [Event
Discharge] (gal): 16312.3
Relative Total V Reduction [Event
Discharge] (%): 99.2
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Geraldine)
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites (Geraldine)
April 3/4 Event:
•Data show neither cleanout nor basin stages
reach overflow
•But no rise is storage level in basin
–Infiltration rate would only have to be about 6
cm/hr which is plausible
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Data issue - high percent capture:
•Underdrain data show slow drainage (Geraldine, 4/3)
~6 days
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Summary of data issue (extremely high capture):
•High capture rates could be possible, but
infiltration rates would have to be high (test at
Vandeventer show the opposite)
•Drainage from underdrains is slow, possibly
indicating low infiltration rates
–Could indicate clogging of underdrain filter mat’l.
–Model overprediction of runoff could also contribute
•Current data do not allow resolution of the issue
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Bioretention
Sites
Recommendations:
•Conduct hydrant tests
•Conduct field observation during rainfall
events, document conditions
•Would help resolve the question of high
capture and could give greater certainty to
performance conclusions
•Without this, reporting on data will need
caveats
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
Monroe Rain Garden Site
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Monroe Rain
Garden
Data Summary:
•Continuous radar rainfall
•Outflow monitored continuously: 1/1/14
through 6/30/14
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Monroe Rain
Garden Site
Data Summary:
•Data show good capture
•But, there are some issues with the data
•Overall capture will be less if exclude events
that likely discharged but unable to adjust
outflow data properly
Site # Rainfall/ Runoff
Events
(Jan. 1 – Jun. 30)
Total
Runoff
(ft3)
Total
Outflow
(ft3)
Overall
Capture
Monroe 65 2,600 447 83%
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Monroe Rain
Garden Site
Data Issues:
•Outflow data requires manual adjustment to
avoid losing information due to sub-zero drift
•Data “noise” during some periods
•Data “pulsing” during some periods
•Outflow response larger than runoff
•Outflow response without rain
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Monroe Rain
Garden Site
Data Issues:
•Outflow magnitude > Runoff magnitude
Outflow response
larger than runoff
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Monroe Rain
Garden Site
Equipment
malfunctioning
during coldest
temperatures?
Daily pulsing
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Monroe Rain
Garden Site
Observations:
•One event had higher discharge volume (223
c.f.) than predicted runoff volume (115 c.f.)
•If remove the above event, overall capture
changes from 83% to 91%
•More uncertainty during snow events and
snowmelt events (February 2014)
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Monroe Rain
Garden Site
Recommendations:
•Conduct controlled tests
•Conduct field observation during rainfall
events, document conditions
•Would help resolve the question of high
capture and could give greater certainty to
performance conclusions
•Without this, reporting on data will need
caveats
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
Amended Soil Sites
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Labadie and
Warne Amended Soil Sites
Data Summary:
•Continuous radar rainfall at both sites
•Continuous water table level at both sites for
aerated soil areas and compost-amended soil
areas
2014 Mid-Year Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites (Labadie)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
494.1
494.3
494.5
494.7
494.9
495.1
495.3
495.5
01-Jan-14 21-Jan-14 10-Feb-14 02-Mar-14 22-Mar-14 11-Apr-14 01-May-14 21-May-14 10-Jun-14 30-Jun-14 15-minute Rainfall (in)Elevation (ft)Labadie Amended Soils
Front Back Rainfall (in.)
Water table response
observed during April
2014 Mid-Year Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites (Labadie)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
494.1
494.3
494.5
494.7
494.9
495.1
495.3
495.5
01-Apr-14 06-Apr-14 11-Apr-14 16-Apr-14 21-Apr-14 26-Apr-14 01-May-14 15-minute Rainfall (in)Elevation (ft)Labadie Amended Soils
Front Back Rainfall (in.)
Water table response evident
in both compost-amended soil
and aerated soil
Slight water table response
evident in compost-amended
soil but not in aerated soil
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites (Labadie)
Event Date 24-hour Rainfall
(in)
Ave. Intensity
During Active
Rainfall (in/hr)
Water Table
Response
Observed?
4/2/14 1.26 0.23 None
4/3/14 1.57 0.11 Compost & aerated
4/13/14 0.94 0.59 Compost only
4/24/14 0.78 0.15 None
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites (Labadie)
Observations - Labadie:
•Response observed in both compost-amended
soil and aerated soil during one (1) rain event
at Labadie
•Two other rain events caused water table
response in compost-amended soils, but not
aerated soils
2014 Mid-Year Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites (Warne)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
512.4
512.5
512.6
512.7
512.8
512.9
513.0
513.1
1/1/2014 1/21/2014 2/10/2014 3/2/2014 3/22/2014 4/11/2014 5/1/2014 5/21/2014 6/10/2014 6/30/2014 15-minute Rainfall (in)Elevation (ft)Warne Amended Soils
Front Back Rainfall (in.)
Water table response
observed during April
2014 Mid-Year Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites (Warne)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
512.4
512.5
512.6
512.7
512.8
512.9
513.0
513.1
4/1/2014 4/6/2014 4/11/2014 4/16/2014 4/21/2014 4/26/2014 5/1/2014 15-minute Rainfall (in)Elevation (ft)Warne Amended Soils
Front Back Rainfall (in.)
Water table response evident
in compost-amended soil, but
not in aerated soil
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites (Warne)
Event Date 24-hour Rainfall
(in)
Ave. Intensity
During Active
Rainfall (in/hr)
Water Table
Response
Observed?
4/3/14 1.84 0.12 Compost only
4/7/14 0.38 0.09 None
4/13/14 0.8 0.25 Compost only
4/24/14 0.77 0.13 Compost only
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites (Warne)
Observations - Warne:
•Response observed only in compost-amended
soil during three (3) rain events at Warne
•No response in aerated soils
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites
Conclusions:
•Water table response appears to be
attributable to overall rainfall volume, not
intensity.
•Compost amendment appears to provide
greater infiltration benefit than aeration.
•Response varies between sites: the April 24
event was nearly identical at both sites, but
only Warne showed a response.
2013 Data Review: Labadie and Warne
Amended Soil Sites
Recommendations:
•Continue monitoring
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
Humphrey Porous Alley
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Humphrey
Porous Alley
Data Summary:
•Continuous radar rainfall
•Outflow monitored 1/1/14 through 6/30/14,
but several large gaps (of 25, 8, 6, 10, 8 days)
Site # Rainfall/ Runoff
Events
(Jan. 1 – Jun. 30)
Total
Runoff
(ft3)
Total
Outflow
(ft3)
Overall
Capture
Humphrey
Porous Alley
72 153,477 5,798 96%
Humphrey
Porous Alley
(gaps excluded)
30 88,255 5,798 93%
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Humphrey
Porous Alley
Data Issues:
• Sensor drift (upward) on outflow
•Pronounced during May-June time frame
•Requires manual “shifting” of the data
•All events from 1/1/14 through 3/26 and from
4/5 through 5/29 must be removed from data
analysis due to data gaps or data flat-lined at 0
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Humphrey
Porous Alley
Not a data gap,
but only 0
recorded
Sensor Drift
Data Gap
Data Gaps
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Humphrey
Porous Alley
Observations:
•Once manually modified, outflow data show
reasonable responses to rainfall and runoff
amounts
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review: Humphrey
Porous Alley
Conclusions/Recommendations:
•Peak flow reductions range from 72%-100%
for the 30 events with “good” outflow data
•Volume reductions range from 84%-100%
•Continue monitoring
•Address upward drift if possible through more
frequent site visits
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
Summary of Mid-Year Conclusions and
Recommendations
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
Summary Conclusions:
•Overall, data collection is greatly improved over
2013
•Project performance (runoff capture) appears to
be very good
•Issues still exist (drift, noise, gaps, inexplicable
results, surprisingly high capture)
•Data processing must be done manually,
requiring more effort than originally expected;
automated data handling not feasible
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
Summary Recommendations:
•Conduct hydrant testing as prev. discussed
–Needed to resolve apparent data discrepancies and
strengthen conclusions down the road
•Conduct visual monitoring of projects during
rainfall events
–Will also help us interpret data, make stronger
conclusions
•Perform more frequent instrument maintenance
–Will help avoid long periods of drift, data gaps
2014 Mid-Year GI Data Review
Discussion, next steps...
Semi-Annual Program Review
and
Mid-Course Data Evaluation
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
February 27, 2015
GI Pilot Program Review
•Semi-Annual Program Review
–Data review by site
•Bioretention sites (Vandeventer, Geraldine)
•Monroe rain garden site
•Humphrey porous alley
–Data summary, issues, observations, conclusions,
recommendations
•Mid-Course Data Evaluation
–Methods
–Results
•Summary, Recommendations, Issues and Next steps
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Semi-Annual Program Review
GI Pilot Program Review
Bioretention Sites
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
Data Summary:
•Continuous radar rainfall at both sites
•Underdrain level and outflow monitored
continuously: August 2013 through present
–Several data gaps, especially early in datasets
•Basin level monitored continuously: April 2014
through present
•2 hydrant tests at Vandeventer (10/6/14, 10/8/14)
•1 hydrant test at Geraldine (10/7/14)
Rainfall Depth Event Frequency
Distribution
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10Event Frequency (%)Rainfall Depth (in)
Geraldine Vandeventer Monroe Humphrey TypYear2000
Rainfall Average Rate Event
Frequency Distribution
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10Event Frequency (%)Average Rainfall Rate (in/hr)
Geraldine Vandeventer Monroe Humphrey TypYear2000
GI Pilot Data Review: Rainfall Analysis
Summary/Conclusions
•Maximum single event 1.9-2.0 inches
•Finer resolution of radar rainfall results in
several events between 0.001-0.01 inches
•Otherwise, the events monitored are very
similar to the typical year for depth and
average intensity
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
Hydrant Tests
•Purpose: to resolve apparent data
discrepancies reported during Mid-Year review
•Simple setup: pump a known quantity of water
and observe what happens
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
Hydrant Tests
•Results: Vandeventer (10/6/14 and 10/8/14)
•Inflow = 3455 ft3 (2.5 hr.) and 3955 ft3 (4 hr.)
•Outflow = 907 ft3 and 1150 ft3
•Capture = 74% and 71%
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
Hydrant Tests
•Results: Geraldine (10/7/14)
•Inflow = 1350 ft3 over 2 hours
•Outflow = 0 ft3
•Capture = 100%
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
Hydrant Tests
•Outcomes:
–Better understanding of data and how to correct
–Further investigation of Geraldine (10/24/14)
•Where’s the water going?
–Revise Vandeventer HEC-HMS model
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
Data Correction
–Addressed “data issues” during Mid-Year review
•Noise, sub-zero drift, and outflow without rain
–More knowledge on how to correct, informed by
hydrant test results
–Received maintenance work logs for Geraldine
and Vandeventer
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
(Geraldine)
Maintenance
/ Flushing
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
(Vandeventer)
Data Gap
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
Data Summary:
•Data show good capture
– Excluded 29 events for Vandeventer
– Excluded 10 events for Geraldine
•Similar to Mid-Year results, but more faith
Bioretention Site # Rainfall/ Runoff
Events
(Aug ‘13-Dec ‘14)
Total
Runoff
(ft3)
Total
Outflow
(ft3)
Overall
Capture
Vandeventer 131 109,884 3,067 97.2%
Geraldine 137 46,526 2,377 94.9%
GI Pilot Data Review: Bioretention Sites
Recommendations:
•Continue monitoring Vandeventer and
Geraldine
GI Pilot Program Review
Monroe Rain Garden Site
GI Pilot Data Review: Monroe Rain Garden
Data Summary:
•Continuous radar rainfall
•Outflow monitored continuously: 7/24/13
through 12/31/14
•1 hydrant test (10/17/14)
–Inflow 5-6 gpm for > 2 hours
–Rapid infiltration, no outflow, 100% capture
GI Pilot Data Review: Monroe Rain Garden
GI Pilot Data Review: Monroe Rain Garden
Site
Data Summary:
•Data show good capture
•Data corrections are difficult for this site
Site # Rainfall/ Runoff
Events
(11/1/13-12/31/14)
Total
Runoff
(ft3)
Total
Outflow
(ft3)
Overall
Capture
Monroe 128 5,690 275 95%
GI Pilot Program Review
Humphrey Porous Alley
GI Pilot Data Review: Humphrey Porous Alley
Data Summary:
•Continuous radar rainfall
•Outflow monitored continuously: 8/20/13
through 12/31/14
•Damaged weir Aug 2014 – Dec 2014
GI Pilot Data Review: Humphrey Porous Alley
Data Gap
Data Gap
Not a data gap,
but only 0
recorded
GI Pilot Data Review: Humphrey Porous Alley
Data Summary:
•Data show good capture
Site # Rainfall/ Runoff
Events
(10/31/13-12/31/14)
Total
Runoff
(ft3)
Total
Outflow
(ft3)
Overall
Capture
Humphrey 80 227,708 100,662 51.0%
Humphrey
(excluded after
8/17/14)
52 134,738 7,864 94.2%
GI Pilot Data Review: Humphrey Porous Alley
Observations:
•Outflow data show reasonable responses to
rainfall and runoff amounts
GI Pilot Data Review: Humphrey Porous Alley
Conclusions/Recommendations:
•Peak flow reductions range from 72%-100%
•Volume reductions range from 84%-100%
•Continue monitoring
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Mid-Course Data Evaluation
Mid-Course Data Evaluation
Big picture – what are we trying to do?
•Monitoring Protocol says we’ll use a statistical
approach to scaling pilot results to full-scale
–Runoff reduction as dependent variable
–Rainfall parameters as independent variables
(necessary to allow scaling to typical year)
•Need to test this approach (and not at the end
of the pilot program)
Mid-Course Data Evaluation
Key questions:
•Will we have enough data to develop volume
reduction predictions for green infrastructure?
•Can we identify key rainfall variables and do
they make sense?
•What should we do differently for 2015?
•Do we need a major course-correction?
GI Pilot Program Review
Preliminary Multiple Linear Regressions
Preliminary Multiple Linear Regressions
•Preliminary regressions intended to:
–Evaluate to what extent we have usable data for statistical
analysis
–Assess the likelihood of generating regressions that can
be used for predicting volume reductions
–Assess which precipitation variables best predict volume
reduction and evaluate whether those variables make
sense
–Begin to develop strategies for refined analysis following
the completion of data collection
Preliminary Multiple Linear Regressions
•For Humphrey, Geraldine, and Vandeventer sites:
–Percent of volume captured was used as the response variable
–Rainfall characteristics were used as predictor variables
•Total rainfall depth
•Peak rainfall intensity
•Average rainfall intensity
•Total storm duration
•Days since previous rainfall event
–Best subsets method of variable selection was used
–No data transformation on response variable for Humphrey
–Arcsin transformation of response variable for Geraldine and Vandeventer
•Improved normality of residuals
•Common transformation method for percentages
Interpreting MLR Results
•R-squared: measure of goodness of fit of the model
–R-squared = Explained variation / Total variation
•Adjusted R-squared: R-squared value with a penalty for inclusion of additional
predictors
–Useful for selecting preferred regression with variable model sizes
•p-Value: tests the hypothesis that a predictor variable has no effect
–Lower p-Value corresponds to greater confidence that the effect is real
–p-Values less than 0.05 or 0.10 are generally considered statistically significant
•Regression coefficients: mean change in the response variable per unit of
change in the predictor variable
–Less intuitive to interpret if the response or predictor variables have been transformed
•Mallows Cp: can be used in selection of preferred regression
–Lower Mallows Cp is preferred and should approach the number of variables
" D a t a l i m i t e d t o e v e n t s w h e r e m e t e r w a s k n o w n t o b e o p e r a t i n g c o r r e c t l y
( 3 / 2 8 - 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 )
" V e r y s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t o t a l r a i n f a l l d e p t h
" O n e e v e n t c o m b i n e d w i t h e a r l i e r e v e n t
8 2
8 4
8 6
8 8
9 0
9 2
9 4
9 6
9 8
1 0 0
0 . 0 0 0 . 5 0 1 . 0 0 1 . 5 0 2 . 0 0 P e r c e n t V o l u m e R e d u c t i o n ( % ) R a i n f a l l D e p t h ( i n )
G I P i l o t M i d - C o u r s e E v a l u a t i o n : H u m p h r e y
" B e s t s u b s e t s
V a r i a b l e s
R -
s q u a r e d
A d j u s t e d
R - s q u a r e d
M a l l o w s
C p D u r a t i o n
R a i n f a l l
D e p t h ( i n )
A v e r a g e
I n t e n s i t y
( i n / h r )
P e a k
i n t e n s i t y
( i n / h r )
D a y s s i n c e
l a s t e v e n t
1 9 0 . 5 9 0 . 1 9 . 8 X
1 8 0 . 3 7 9 . 6 4 5 . 7 X
2 9 2 . 3 9 1 . 6 5 . 4 X X
2 9 1 . 9 9 1 . 2 6 . 8 X X
3 9 3 9 2 . 1 4 . 8 X X X
3 9 2 . 8 9 1 . 9 5 . 6 X X X
4 9 3 . 4 9 2 . 2 5 . 6 X X X X
4 9 3 9 1 . 8 6 . 7 X X X X
5 9 3 . 8 9 2 . 4 6 X X X X X
G I P i l o t M i d - C o u r s e E v a l u a t i o n : H u m p h r e y
" B e s t r e g r e s s i o n :
V o l u m e R e d u c t i o n ( % ) =
9 9 . 8 3 . 1 0 R a i n f a l l D e p t h ( i n )
1 . 3 2 P e a k R a i n f a l l R a t e ( i n / h r )
+ 0 . 2 8 6 D a y s S i n c e L a s t E v e n t
" p - V a l u e o f R a i n f a l l D e p t h = > < 0 . 0 0 1
" p - V a l u e o f P e a k R a i n f a l l R a t e = > 0 . 0 1 6
" p - V a l u e o f D a y s S i n c e L a s t E v e n t = > 0 . 1 2 5
R - S q u a r e d = 9 3 % , A d j u s t e d R - S q u a r e d = 9 2 . 1 %
" V e r y h i g h p e r c e n t a g e o f v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d b y r a i n f a l l d e p t h
" E v e n w i t h e q u i p m e n t p r o b l e m s a t H u m p h r e y , w e h a d a n i c e r a n g e o f
e v e n t s w i t h m e a s u r e d d i s c h a r g e t o p e r f o r m t h e r e g r e s s i o n
G I P i l o t M i d - C o u r s e E v a l u a t i o n : H u m p h r e y
" G e r a l d i n e e v e n t s g r o u p e d b a s e d o n i n t e r - e v e n t p e r i o d o f o n e d a y
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 V o l u m e R e d u c t i o n ( % ) R a i n f a l l D e p t h ( i n )
O n e d a y i n t e r - e v e n t p e r i o d S i x h o u r i n t e r - e v e n t p e r i o d
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
0 . 0 0 . 5 1 . 0 1 . 5 2 . 0 2 . 5 V o l u m e R e d u c t i o n ( % ) R a i n f a l l D e p t h ( i n )
G I P i l o t M i d - C o u r s e E v a l u a t i o n : G e r a l d i n e
" G e r a l d i n e a c h i e v e d 1 0 0 % c a p t u r e f o r m o s t o f t h e s t o r m e v e n t s
" A p p e a r s t o b e t h r e s h o l d a t 1 . 5 i n c h e s o f t o t a l r a i n f a l l o r a b o u t 1 i n c h / h o u r o f p e a k r a i n f a l l
b e f o r e d i s c h a r g e o c c u r s
" M o r e d a t a f r o m l a r g e s t o r m e v e n t s w i l l l i k e l y i m p r o v e t h e r e g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
0 . 0 1 . 0 2 . 0 3 . 0 4 . 0 V o l u m e R e d u c t i o n ( % ) R a i n f a l l D e p t h ( i n )
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
0 . 0 1 . 0 2 . 0 3 . 0 V o l u m e R e d u c t i o n ( % ) P e a k R a i n f a l l I n t e n s i t y ( i n / h r )
G I P i l o t M i d - C o u r s e E v a l u a t i o n : G e r a l d i n e
" B e s t r e g r e s s i o n :
A r c s i n ( V R ) = 1 . 5 6 - 0 . 1 3 6 P e a k R a i n f a l l R a t e ( i n / h r )
- 0 . 0 3 8 9 R a i n f a l l D e p t h ( i n )
" p - V a l u e o f P e a k R a i n f a l l R a t e = > < 0 . 0 0 1
" p - V a l u e o f R a i n f a l l D e p t h = > 0 . 1 9 6
R - S q u a r e d = 4 0 . 9 % , A d j u s t e d R - S q u a r e d = 3 9 . 6 %
U s e f u l e x a m p l e o f a r e g r e s s i o n w h e r e t h e a d d i t i o n o f a
p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e i m p r o v e s t h e a d j u s t e d R - s q u a r e d , b u t
d o e s n o t h a v e a p - V a l u e b e l o w t h e t y p i c a l t h r e s h o l d s f o r
s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e
G I P i l o t M i d - C o u r s e E v a l u a t i o n : G e r a l d i n e
" V a n d e v e n t e r e v e n t s g r o u p e d b a s e d o n i n t e r - e v e n t p e r i o d o f o n e d a y
" V a n d e v e n t e r a c h i e v e d 1 0 0 % c a p t u r e f o r m o s t o f t h e s t o r m e v e n t s
" S e v e r a l e v e n t s f i l t e r e d b a s e d o n d i s c h a r g e d a t a g a p s o r u n c e r t a i n t y i n f l o w m e t e r r e s p o n s e
" L i k e G e r a l d i n e , a p p e a r s t o b e t h r e s h o l d a t ~ 1 . 5 i n c h e s o f t o t a l r a i n f a l l b e f o r e d i s c h a r g e o c c u r s
" M o r e d a t a f r o m l a r g e , h i g h i n t e n s i t y s t o r m e v e n t s w i l l l i k e l y i m p r o v e t h e r e g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s
8 6
8 8
9 0
9 2
9 4
9 6
9 8
1 0 0
0 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 V o l u m e R e d u c t i o n ( % ) R a i n f a l l D e p t h ( i n )
8 6
8 8
9 0
9 2
9 4
9 6
9 8
1 0 0
0 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 V o l u m e R e d u c t i o n ( % ) P e a k i n t e n s i t y ( i n / h r )
G I P i l o t M i d - C o u r s e E v a l u a t i o n : V a n d e v e n t e r
" B e s t r e g r e s s i o n :
" A r c s i n ( V R ) = 1 . 5 5 - 0 . 0 4 9 0 R a i n f a l l D e p t h ( i n )
- 0 . 0 6 5 6 P e a k R a i n f a l l R a t e ( i n / h r )
" p - V a l u e o f R a i n f a l l D e p t h = > 0 . 0 0 7
" p - V a l u e o f P e a k R a i n f a l l R a t e = > 0 . 0 0 3
R - S q u a r e d = 5 3 . 6 % , A d j u s t e d R - S q u a r e d = 5 2 . 3 %
G I P i l o t M i d - C o u r s e E v a l u a t i o n : V a n d e v e n t e r
Summary
•Preliminary analysis suggests that we will have sufficient data to develop volume
reduction predictions
–R-squared values not consistently high, but predictor variables make sense
–Primary predictor variables have high statistical significance (p<0.05)
•Total rainfall depth and peak intensity both appear to be important variables for
predicting volume reduction
•Additional data collection will likely improve regressions – particularly additional
large events at Geraldine and Vandeventer, where we have relatively few events
with measured discharge
•Additional regression approaches will be explored following the addition of spring
storm events
–Grouping data from all sites into single analysis, while accounting for different runoff areas
and storage volumes
–Alternate regression types to account for rainfall/discharge thresholds
•Non-linear regression
•Multi-level regressions
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Summary, Recommendations, Issues
and Next Steps
Summary:
•Overall, data collection has improved since project
start; we have confidence in the data
•Project performance (runoff capture) appears to be
very good
•Issues still exist (drift, noise, gaps) requiring manual
data processing
•Additional statistical analyses will be performed after
spring data collection
GI Pilot Program Review
Issues:
•Potential for over-predicting volume reductions
system-wide because of very high capture at test
sites
•High capture rate may not pass red-face test with
regulatory agencies
GI Pilot Program Review
Recommendations:
•Continue monitoring Vandeventer, Geraldine and
Humphrey without procedural modifications
•Consider monitoring another site (if available?)
•Continue visual monitoring of projects during rainfall
events
•Continue to perform regular instrument
maintenance
–Will help avoid long periods of drift, data gap
GI Pilot Program Review
Next steps:
•Continue monitoring
•Evaluate aggregated data from multiple sites using MLR
–(as opposed to evaluating each site independently)
•Evaluate data using unit variables
•Test other regression types
–Non-linear
–Multi-level
•Re -evaluate data post-spring
•Test extrapolation to full-scale & typical year
GI Pilot Program Review
APPENDIX X PILOT ANNUAL REPORTS
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
ANNUAL REPORT
Reporting Period – January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Consent Decree Due Date – October 31, 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 1
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4
2.0 GIS LAYERS OF MSD’S SEWER SYSTEM .................................................. 6
3.0 CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL INVENTORY ............................................ 7
4.0 CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL ELIMINATION SCHEDULE PRIOR TO
MASTER PLAN .................................................................................................... 8
5.0 ELIMINATION PROJECTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES ........................ 9
5.1 Appendix B Constructed SSO Eliminations ............................................ 9
5.2 Appendix C SSO Control Master Plan Schedule .................................... 9
6.0 CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ..................... 10
6.1 Progress Toward Achievement of Performance Criteria ................... 10
6.2 Projections for Work to be Performed .................................................... 11
7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PROGRAM ................................. 13
8.0 ENHANCED INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SOURCE ELIMINATION ... 14
9.0 CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ...... 16
9.1 Gravity Sewer Line Inspection .................................................................. 16
9.2 Gravity Sewer Line Cleaning...................................................................... 17
9.3 Manhole Inspection ...................................................................................... 18
9.4 Manhole Frame Adjustment ....................................................................... 18
9.5 Manhole Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement ............................... 18
9.6 Sewer Pipe Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement .......................... 19
9.7 Sewer Pipe Acute Defect Repair ............................................................... 19
9.8 Pump Station Inspection ............................................................................. 20
9.9 Force Main Inspection ................................................................................. 21
9.10 Force Main Repair and Replacement ....................................................... 21
10.0 FATS, OIL AND GREASE PROGRAM ......................................................... 22
11.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ................................... 24
12.0 UNPERMITTED CSO DISCHARGE REPORTS .......................................... 25
13.0 NINE MINIMUM CONTROL ANNUAL REPORT ......................................... 26
14.0 CITYSHED MITIGATION PROGRAM ............................................................ 27
15.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 28
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2011
1
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: On Reserve for Future Annual Reports – Intentionally Blank for CY11
APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL INVENTORY
Table B-1 – Definition of Constructed SSO Outfall Inventory Fields
Table B-2 – Constructed SSO Outfall Inventory
APPENDIX C: CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL ELIMINATION SCHEDULE
Table C-1 – Constructed SSO Eliminations Prior to the Master Plan
APPENDIX D: ELIMINATION PROJECTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
Table D-1 – Status of Elimination Projects and Remedial Measures
APPENDIX E: CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Table E-1 – Status of CSO Control Measures Performance Criteria
Table E-2 – Status of Green Infrastructure Program Costs
APPENDIX F: On Reserve for Future Annual Reports – Intentionally Blank for CY11
APPENDIX G: ENHANCED INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SOURCE ELIMINATION
Figure G-1 – Outlier Constructed SSO and Low Income Watersheds
Figure G-1a – Outlier Constructed SSO and Low Income Projects Locations
Table G-2 – Methods Used for Reducing Inflow and Infiltration
Table G-3 – Enhanced I/I Elimination Report
Table G-3a – Enhanced I/I Elimination Report Detail
APPENDIX H: CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Table H-1 – <=12” Non-Plastic CCTV Inspection Report
Table H-2 – Annual CCTV Inspection Report
Table H-3 – Annual Cleaning Report <=21” Non-Plastic Sewers
Table H-4 – Annual Cleaning Report <=21” Plastic Sewers
Table H-5 – Annual Cleaning Report for >21” Sewers
Table H-6 – Annual Manhole Inspection Report
Table H-7 – Annual Manhole Frame Adjustment Report
Table H-8 – Annual Manhole Permanent Repair, Rehabilitate, and/or
Replacement Report
Table H-9 – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Report
Table H-9a – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Report Detail
Figure H-9 – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Project Locations
Table H-10 – Annual Repair Report Sewer Pipe with Acute Defects
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2011
2
Table H-11 – Annual Pump Station Inspection Report
Table H-12 – Annual Force Main Visual Inspection Report
Table H-13 – Annual Force Main Non-Destructive Testing Inspection Report
Table H-14 – Annual Force Main Repair and Replacement Report
APPENDIX I: SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT PROGRAM
Table I-1 – Status of SEP Implementation
APPENDIX J: UNPERMITTED CSO DISCHARGE REPORTS
Copies of Unpermitted CSO Discharge Reports
APPENDIX K: NINE MINIMUM CONTROL ANNUAL REPORT
Copy of Nine Minimum Control Annual Report
APPENDIX L: CITYSHED MITIGATION PROGRAM
Table L-1 – Status of Cityshed Mitigation Projects
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2011
3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym / Definition
Abbreviation
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CIPP Cured-In-Place Pipe
CMOM Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CY11 Calendar Year 2011
CY12 Calendar Year 2012
District Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FOG Fats, Oils and Grease
FSE Food Service Establishment
I/I Inflow and Infiltration
LTCP Long-Term Control Plan
Master Plan Sanitary Sewer Overflow Control Master Plan
MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MSD Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
NOV Notice of Violation
ORS Overflow Regulation System
PCMP Post-Construction Monitoring Program
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
WQMP Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictAnnual Report - Calendar Year 2011CSO Control MeasureDescriptionPerformance CriteriaCY 2011 Progress Toward Achievement of Performance CriteriaCY 2012 Projection of work toward achievement of Performance CriteriaCritical Milestones2011 Milestone StatusTable E-1: Status of CSO Control Measures Performance Criteria(01/01/2011 - 12/31/2011)Green Infrastructure Program – Pilot ProgramStormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areasApply 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.- Demolition of 222 structures on 220 parcels, encompassing 27.8 acres. - 166 Green Infrastructure facilities Development Agreements prepared- Initiated design of 5 site scale projects involving 29 parcels- initiated design of 6 neighborhood scale projects involving control of 119 parcels- Completed construction of 2 site-scale projects- Expenditures up to CY11 are approximately $2.0 million with detail provided in Table E-2 "Status of Green Infrastructure Costs" pursuant to the CSO LTCP categories- Preparation and submittal of Green infrastructure monitoring plan- Initiate design of 3 neighborhood scale projects involving control of 15 parcels- Complete design of 3 site-scale projects- Compete construction of 3 site-scale projects- Complete design of 6 neighborhood scale projects- Complete construction of 1 neighborhood scale project- Present early action Green Infrastructure project(s) pursuant to Appendix Q of the approved CSO LTCP▪ Achievement of Full Operation – 12/31/2015In ProgressGreen Infrastructure ProgramStormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areasPerformance Criteria to be identified in Pilot Program Final Report, with a minimum expenditure of $100 million total which includes the pilot program.NoneNone▪ Achievement of Full Operation – 06/30/2034N/A2011 Annual E1 perf crtlPage 5 of 5
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictAnnual Report - Calendar Year 2011Calendar Year EngineeringSoils Assessment and/or RestorationLegal Costs Associated with Deed Restrictions and/or Easements Property Aquistion DemolitionConstruction of Green InfrastructureMaintnenance of Green InfrastructurePublic Participation ActivitiesMonitoring of Green Infrastructure Practices and Associated Laboratory AnalysisIdentification of Community Benefits Total2010 (Pilot) $ 5,424.23 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,505,424.23 2011 (Pilot) $ 414,998.82 $ 8,468.00 $ 9,804.32 $ - $ - $ 49,287.10 $ - $ 1,903.30 $ - $ - $ 484,461.54 2012 (Pilot)2013 (Pilot)2014 (Pilot)2015 (Pilot)201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033TOTALS $ 420,423.05 $ 8,468.00 $ 9,804.32 $ - $ 1,500,000.00 $ 49,287.10 $ - $ 1,903.30 $ - $ - $ 1,989,885.77 Cost CategoriesTable E-2: Status of Green Infrastructure Program CostsStatus as of 12/31/20112011 Annual E2 GI pilot costsPage 1 of 1
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
ANNUAL REPORT
Reporting Period – January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012
Consent Decree Due Date – October 31, 2013
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 1
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4
2.0 GIS LAYERS OF MSD’S SEWER SYSTEM .................................................. 6
3.0 CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL INVENTORY ............................................ 7
4.0 CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL ELIMINATION SCHEDULE PRIOR TO
MASTER PLAN .................................................................................................... 8
5.0 ELIMINATION PROJECTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES ........................ 9
5.1 Appendix B Constructed SSO Eliminations ............................................ 9
5.2 Appendix C SSO Control Master Plan Schedule .................................... 9
6.0 CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ..................... 11
6.1 Progress Toward Achievement of Performance Criteria ................... 11
6.2 Projections for Work to be Performed .................................................... 13
7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PROGRAM ................................. 14
8.0 ENHANCED INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SOURCE ELIMINATION ... 15
9.0 CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ...... 17
9.1 Gravity Sewer Line Inspection .................................................................. 18
9.2 Gravity Sewer Line Cleaning...................................................................... 19
9.3 Manhole Inspection ...................................................................................... 20
9.4 Manhole Frame Adjustment ....................................................................... 20
9.5 Manhole Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement ............................... 21
9.6 Sewer Pipe Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement .......................... 21
9.7 Sewer Pipe Acute Defect Repair ............................................................... 22
9.8 Pump Station Inspection ............................................................................. 22
9.9 Force Main Inspection ................................................................................. 23
9.10 Force Main Repair and Replacement ....................................................... 23
10.0 FATS, OIL AND GREASE PROGRAM ......................................................... 24
10.1 Summary of FOG Inspections ................................................................... 24
10.2 Summary of FOG Enforcement ................................................................. 25
11.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ................................... 26
12.0 UNPERMITTED CSO DISCHARGE REPORTS .......................................... 28
13.0 NINE MINIMUM CONTROL ANNUAL REPORT ......................................... 29
14.0 CITYSHED MITIGATION PROGRAM ............................................................ 30
15.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 31
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2012
1
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: GIS LAYERS OF MSD’S SEWER SYSTEM
APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL INVENTORY
Table B-1 – Definition of Constructed SSO Outfall Inventory Fields
Table B-2 – Constructed SSO Outfall Inventory
APPENDIX C: CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL ELIMINATION SCHEDULE
Table C-1 – Constructed SSO Eliminations Prior to the Master Plan
APPENDIX D: ELIMINATION PROJECTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
Table D-1 – Status of Elimination Projects and Remedial Measures
APPENDIX E: CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Table E-1 – Status of CSO Control Measures Performance Criteria
Table E-2 – Status of Green Infrastructure Program Costs
APPENDIX F: On Reserve for Future Annual Reports – Intentionally Blank for CY12
APPENDIX G: ENHANCED INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SOURCE ELIMINATION
Figure G-1 – Outlier Constructed SSO and Low Income Watersheds
Figure G-1a – Outlier Constructed SSO and Low Income Projects Locations
Table G-2 – Methods Used for Reducing Inflow and Infiltration
Table G-3 – Enhanced I/I Elimination Report
Table G-3a – Enhanced I/I Elimination Report Detail
APPENDIX H: CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Table H-1 – <=12” Non-Plastic CCTV Inspection Report
Table H-2 – Annual CCTV Inspection Report
Table H-3 – Annual Cleaning Report <=21” Non-Plastic Sewers
Table H-4 – Annual Cleaning Report <=21” Plastic Sewers
Table H-5 – Annual Cleaning Report for >21” Sewers
Table H-6 – Annual Manhole Inspection Report
Table H-7 – Annual Manhole Frame Adjustment Report
Table H-8 – Annual Manhole Permanent Repair, Rehabilitate, and/or
Replacement Report
Table H-9 – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Report
Table H-9a – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Report Detail
Figure H-9b – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Project Locations
Table H-10 – Annual Repair Report Sewer Pipe with Acute Defects
Table H-11 – Annual Pump Station Inspection Report
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2012
2
Table H-12 – Annual Force Main Visual Inspection Report
Table H-13 – Annual Force Main Non-Destructive Testing Inspection Report
Table H-14 – Annual Force Main Repair and Replacement Report
APPENDIX I: SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT PROGRAM
Table I-1 – Status of SEP Implementation
APPENDIX J: UNPERMITTED CSO DISCHARGE REPORTS
Copies of Unpermitted CSO Discharge Reports
APPENDIX K: NINE MINIMUM CONTROL ANNUAL REPORT
Copy of Nine Minimum Control Annual Report
APPENDIX L: CITYSHED MITIGATION PROGRAM
Table L-1 – Status of Cityshed Mitigation Projects
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2012
3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym / Definition
Abbreviation
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CIPP Cured-In-Place Pipe
CMOM Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CY11 Calendar Year 2011
CY12 Calendar Year 2012
CY13 Calendar Year 2013
District Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FOG Fats, Oils and Grease
FSE Food Service Establishment
I/I Inflow and Infiltration
LTCP Long-Term Control Plan
Master Plan Sanitary Sewer Overflow Control Master Plan
MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MSD Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
NOV Notice of Violation
ORS Overflow Regulation System
PCMP Post-Construction Monitoring Program
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
WQMP Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2012
APPENDIX E: CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
STATUS OF CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
STATUS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM COSTS
Attached
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictAnnual Report - Calendar Year 2012CSO Control Measure DescriptionPerformance CriteriaCY 2012 Progress Toward Achievement of Performance CriteriaCY 2013 Projection of work toward achievement of Performance CriteriaCritical Milestones2013 Milestone StatusTable E-1: Status of CSO Control Measures Performance Criteria(01/01/2012 - 12/31/2012)Green Infrastructure Program – Pilot ProgramStormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areasApply 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.•Demolition: 3 structures on 3 parcels encompassing 0.08 acres; Total complete 219 structures on 221 parcels encompassing 27.7 acres.• GI Facility Development Agreements: 166 recorded; Total to date of 175 recorded encompassing 23.5 acres• Site-scale projects: Completed design of 3 projects; constructed 2 projects (8 facilities); Total constructed to date - 4 projects (28 facilities) controlling 1.4 acres on 28 parcels.• Neighborhood-scale facilities: Initiated design of 4; completed design of 5; constructed 1 controlling 1.72 acres, involving 14 parcels.• Monitoring: GI Pilot Monitoring Protocol submitted November 1, 2012.• Maintenance: Bid and awarded contract for 1 neighborhood-scale facility.• Annual inspections: Performed 13 annual inspections.• Expenditures: approximately $0.7 million; total to date $2.7 million. Detail provided in Table E-2 "Status of Green Infrastructure Costs" pursuant to the CSO LTCP categories.• GI Facility Development Agreements: 8 recorded• Site-scale projects: Complete construction of 1• Neighborhood-scale projects: Complete construction of 5 • Monitoring: Begin monitoring plan implementation• Maintenance: Bid and award contract for 5 neighborhood-scale facilities• Annual inspections: Perform 16• Public education/workshops: Conduct 3 workshops on raingarden and planter box maintenance; Install 5 educational signs; Conduct at least 3 neighborhood outreach events near neighborhood-scale facilities▪ Achievement of Full Operation – 12/31/2015In ProgressGreen Infrastructure ProgramStormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areasPerformance Criteria to be identified in Pilot Program Final Report, with a minimum expenditure of $100 million total which includes the pilot program.• Requested proposals from municipalities, local government agencies, schools, community development organizations, and private developers for early action green infrastructure projects pursuant to Appendix Q of the approved CSO LTCP.• Received 10 proposals from various entities and evaluated them using a priority ranking system developed for this process.• Shortlisted 7 proposals and prepared package for submittal to the US EPA in January 2013.• Submit 7 early action green infrastructure projects to the EPA for review in January 2013.• Upon EPA approval, coordinate with project partners for MSD plan review and approval• Request proposals for second round of early action projects• Evaluate proposals and prepare package for submittal to the EPA in January 2014▪ Achievement of Full Operation – 06/30/2034N/A2012 Annual E1 perf crtlPage 5 of 5
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictAnnual Report - Calendar Year 2012Calendar Year EngineeringSoils Assessment and/or RestorationLegal Costs Associated with Deed Restrictions and/or Easements Property Aquistion DemolitionConstruction of Green InfrastructureMaintnenance of Green InfrastructurePublic Participation ActivitiesMonitoring of Green Infrastructure Practices and Associated Laboratory AnalysisIdentification of Community Benefits Total2010 (Pilot) $ 5,424.23 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,505,424.23 2011 (Pilot) $ 414,998.82 $ 8,468.00 $ 9,804.32 $ - $ - $ 49,287.10 $ - $ 1,903.30 $ - $ - $ 484,461.54 2012 (Pilot) $ 430,994.26 $ 32.00 $ 8,029.55 $ 2,616.00 $ - $ 238,260.78 $ - $ 12,767.38 $ 5,395.90 $ - $ 698,095.87 2013 (Pilot)2014 (Pilot)2015 (Pilot)201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033TOTALS $ 851,417.31 $ 8,500.00 $ 17,833.87 $ 2,616.00 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 287,547.88 $ - $ 14,670.68 $ 5,395.90 $ - $ 2,687,981.64 Cost CategoriesTable E-2 - Status of Green Infrastructure Program CostsStatus as of 12/31/20122012 Annual E2 GI pilot costs1 of 1
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
ANNUAL REPORT
Reporting Period – January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013
Consent Decree Due Date – October 31, 2014
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 1
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5
2.0 GIS LAYERS OF MSD’S SEWER SYSTEM .................................................. 6
3.0 CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL INVENTORY ............................................ 7
4.0 CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL ELIMINATION SCHEDULE PRIOR TO
MASTER PLAN .................................................................................................... 8
5.0 ELIMINATION PROJECTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES ........................ 9
5.1 Appendix B Constructed SSO Eliminations ............................................ 9
5.2 Appendix C SSO Control Master Plan Schedule .................................... 9
6.0 CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ..................... 11
6.1 Progress Toward Achievement of Performance Criteria ................... 11
6.2 Projections for Work to be Performed .................................................... 12
7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PROGRAM ................................. 14
7.1 Receiving Water Quality .............................................................................. 14
7.2 Detailed Monitoring Plans for CSO Control Measures ....................... 18
7.3 Updates to the Collection System Hydraulic Model ............................ 19
7.4 Public Information Sharing Program ....................................................... 19
8.0 ENHANCED INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SOURCE ELIMINATION ... 21
9.0 CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ...... 23
9.1 Gravity Sewer Line Inspection .................................................................. 24
9.2 Gravity Sewer Line Cleaning...................................................................... 24
9.3 Manhole Inspection ...................................................................................... 25
9.4 Manhole Frame Adjustment ....................................................................... 26
9.5 Manhole Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement ............................... 26
9.6 Sewer Pipe Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement .......................... 27
9.7 Sewer Pipe Acute Defect Repair ............................................................... 27
9.8 Pump Station Inspection ............................................................................. 28
9.9 Force Main Inspection ................................................................................. 28
9.10 Force Main Repair and Replacement ....................................................... 30
10.0 FATS, OIL AND GREASE PROGRAM ......................................................... 31
10.1 Summary of FOG Inspections ................................................................... 31
10.2 Summary of FOG Enforcement ................................................................. 32
11.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ................................... 33
12.0 UNPERMITTED CSO DISCHARGE REPORTS .......................................... 35
13.0 NINE MINIMUM CONTROL ANNUAL REPORT ......................................... 36
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2013
14.0 CITYSHED MITIGATION PROGRAM ............................................................ 37
15.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 38
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2013
1
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: GIS LAYERS OF MSD’S SEWER SYSTEM
APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL INVENTORY
Table B-1 – Definition of Constructed SSO Outfall Inventory Fields
Table B-2 – Constructed SSO Outfall Inventory
APPENDIX C: CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL ELIMINATION SCHEDULE
Table C-1 – Constructed SSO Outfall Elimination Schedule Prior to Master Plan
APPENDIX D: ELIMINATION PROJECTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
Table D-1 – Status of Elimination Projects and Remedial Measures
Table D-2 – Projects to Eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows
Table D-3 – Background Information for All Master Plan Projects
APPENDIX E: CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Table E-1 – Status of CSO Control Measures Performance Criteria
Table E-2 – Status of Green Infrastructure Program Costs
APPENDIX F: POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PROGRAM
Table F-1 – Mississippi River Water Quality Monitoring
Table F-2 – Urban Small Stream Water Quality Monitoring
Table F-3 – Field Observations During Water Quality Monitoring
APPENDIX G: ENHANCED INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SOURCE ELIMINATION
Figure G-1 – Outlier Constructed SSO and Low Income Watersheds
Figure G-1a – Outlier Constructed SSO and Low Income Projects Locations
Table G-2 – Methods Used for Reducing Inflow and Infiltration
Table G-3 – Enhanced I/I Elimination Report
Table G-3a – Enhanced I/I Elimination Report Detail
APPENDIX H: CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Table H-1 – <=12” Non-Plastic CCTV Inspection Report
Table H-2 – Annual CCTV Inspection Report
Table H-3 – Annual Cleaning Report <=21” Non-Plastic Sewers
Table H-4 – Annual Cleaning Report <=21” Plastic Sewers
Table H-5 – Annual Cleaning Report for >21” Sewers
Table H-6 – Annual Manhole Inspection Report
Table H-7 – Annual Manhole Frame Adjustment Report
Table H-8 – Annual Manhole Permanent Repair, Rehabilitate, and/or
Replacement Report
Table H-9 – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Report
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2013
2
Table H-9a – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Report Detail
Figure H-9b – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Project Locations
Table H-10 – Annual Repair Report Sewer Pipe with Acute Defects
Table H-11 – Annual Pump Station Inspection Report
Table H-12 – Annual Force Main Visual Inspection Report
Table H-13 – Annual Force Main Non-Destructive Testing Inspection Report
Table H-14 – Annual Force Main Repair and Replacement Report
APPENDIX I: SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT PROGRAM
Table I-1 – Status of SEP Implementation
APPENDIX J: UNPERMITTED CSO DISCHARGE REPORTS
Copies of Unpermitted CSO Discharge Reports
APPENDIX K: NINE MINIMUM CONTROL ANNUAL REPORT
Copy of Nine Minimum Control Annual Report
APPENDIX L: CITYSHED MITIGATION PROGRAM
Table L-1 – Status of Cityshed Mitigation Program
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2013
3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym / Definition
Abbreviation
AQL Protection for Warm Water Aquatic Life
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CIPP Cured-In-Place Pipe
CMOM Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CY11 Calendar Year 2011
CY12 Calendar Year 2012
CY13 Calendar Year 2013
CY14 Calendar Year 2014
District Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
DWS Drinking Water Supply
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FOG Fats, Oils and Grease
FSE Food Service Establishment
I/I Inflow and Infiltration
IND Industrial Water Supply
IRR Irrigation
LTCP Long-Term Control Plan
LWW Livestock and Wildlife Watering
Master Plan Sanitary Sewer Overflow Control Master Plan
MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MSD Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
NOV Notice of Violation
ORS Overflow Regulation System
PCMP Post-Construction Monitoring Program
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCR Secondary Contact Recreation
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2013
4
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
WBCR-A Whole Body Contact Recreation-A
WBCR-B Whole Body Contact Recreation-B
WQMP Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2013
APPENDIX E: CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
STATUS OF CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
STATUS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM COSTS
Attached
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictAnnual Report - Calendar Year 2013CSO Control Measure DescriptionPerformance CriteriaCY 2013 Progress Toward Achievement of Performance CriteriaCY 2014 Projection of work toward achievement of Performance CriteriaCritical Milestones2013 Milestone StatusTable E-1: Status of CSO Control Measures Performance Criteria(01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013)Green Infrastructure Program – Pilot ProgramStormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areasApply 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.• GI facility development agmnts: 8 recorded; total 183.• Site-scale projects: Constructed 1 facility; Total - 29 facilities controlling 1.43 acres on 29 parcels• Neighborhood-scale facilities: Constructed 5 facilities; Total constructed for Pilot - 6 facilities controlling 9.51 acres (102 parcels)• Monitoring: Began monitoring plan implementation; Monitored 7 sites - 2 bioretention, 1 raingarden, 1 permeable alley, 2 amended soil, and and 1 connected downspouts vs individual raingardens.• Maintenance: Bid and awarded contract for 5 neighborhood-scale facilities• Annual inspections: Performed 20 annual inspections• Public education: Conducted 3 raingarden/planter box maintainence workshops; Installed 1 education sign; Conducted at 5 neighborhood-scale outreach events• Expenditures: approx. $0.8 million; total to date $3.5 million. Detail provided in Table E-2 "Status of Green Infrastructure Costs" pursuant to the CSO LTCP categories• Monitoring: Continue monitoring plan implementation; Monitor 7 sites - 2 bioretention sites, 1 raingarden, 1 permeable alley, 2 amended soil, and and 1 block of connected downspouts vs individual raingardens• Maintenance: Continue routine maintenance of 6 neighborhood-scale facilities• Annual inspections: Perform 21 annual inspections• Public education/workshops: Install 5 educational signs; Conduct 1 neighborhood outreach event near neighborhood-scale facility• Partnership agreement with Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville to identify potential community benefits ▪ Achievement of Full Operation – 12/31/2015In ProgressGreen Infrastructure ProgramStormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areasPerformance Criteria to be identified in Pilot Program Final Report, with a minimum expenditure of $100 million total which includes the pilot program.• Submitted six bioretention projects and a Rainscaping Small Grant Program to MDNR/EPA as early action projects and received approval.• Requested proposals from municipalities, local government agencies, schools, community development organizations, and private developers for early action green infrastructure projects pursuant to Appendix Q of the approved CSO LTCP.• Received 15 proposals from various entities and evaluated them using a priority ranking system developed for this process.• Shortlisted 12 proposals and prepared package for submittal to the MDNR/EPA in January 2014.• Prepare construction plans for the six bioretention basins and develop Rainscaping Small Grants Program.• Submit 12 early action green infrastructure projects to the MDNR/EPA for review in January 2014.• Upon MDNR/EPA approval, coordinate with project partners for MSD plan review and approval• Request proposals for third round of early action projects• Evaluate proposals and prepare package for submittal to the MDNR/EPA in January 2015▪ Achievement of Full Operation – 06/30/2034N/A2013 Annual E1 perf crtlPage 5 of 5
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictAnnual Report - Calendar Year 2013Calendar Year EngineeringSoils Assessment and/or RestorationLegal Costs Associated with Deed Restrictions and/or Easements Property Aquistion DemolitionConstruction of Green InfrastructureMaintnenance of Green InfrastructurePublic Participation ActivitiesMonitoring of Green Infrastructure Practices and Associated Laboratory AnalysisIdentification of Community Benefits Total2010 (Pilot) $ 5,424.23 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,505,424.23 2011 (Pilot) $ 414,998.82 $ 8,468.00 $ 9,804.32 $ - $ - $ 49,287.10 $ - $ 1,903.30 $ - $ - $ 484,461.54 2012 (Pilot) $ 430,994.26 $ 32.00 $ 8,029.55 $ 2,616.00 $ - $ 238,260.78 $ - $ 12,767.38 $ 5,395.90 $ - $ 698,095.87 2013 (Pilot) $ 105,038.38 $ - $ 897.47 $ - $ - $ 578,206.49 $ 6,922.93 $ 26,849.39 $ 105,861.82 $ - $ 823,776.48 2013 (EA) $ 55,216.00 $ 55,216.00 2014 (Pilot)2014 (EA)2015 (Pilot)2015 (EA)201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033TOTALS $ 956,455.69 $ 8,500.00 $ 18,731.34 $ 2,616.00 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 920,970.37 $ 6,922.93 $ 41,520.07 $ 111,257.72 $ - $ 3,566,974.12 Cost CategoriesTable E-2 - Status of Green Infrastructure Program CostsStatus as of 12/31/20132013 Annual E2 GI pilot costs1 of 1
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
ANNUAL REPORT
Reporting Period – January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014
Consent Decree Due Date – October 31, 2015
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 1
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5
2.0 GIS LAYERS OF MSD’S SEWER SYSTEM .................................................. 6
3.0 CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL INVENTORY ............................................ 7
4.0 CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL ELIMINATION SCHEDULE PRIOR TO
MASTER PLAN .................................................................................................... 9
5.0 ELIMINATION PROJECTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES ...................... 10
5.1 Appendix B Constructed SSO Eliminations .......................................... 10
5.2 Appendix C SSO Control Master Plan Schedule .................................. 11
6.0 CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ..................... 13
6.1 Progress Toward Achievement of Performance Criteria ................... 13
6.2 Projections for Work to be Performed .................................................... 14
7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PROGRAM ................................. 16
7.1 Receiving Water Quality .............................................................................. 16
7.2 Detailed Monitoring Plans for CSO Control Measures ....................... 20
7.3 Updates to the Collection System Hydraulic Model ............................ 21
7.4 Public Information Sharing Program ....................................................... 21
8.0 ENHANCED INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SOURCE ELIMINATION ... 24
9.0 CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ...... 25
9.1 Gravity Sewer Line Inspection .................................................................. 25
9.2 Gravity Sewer Line Cleaning...................................................................... 26
9.3 Manhole Inspection ...................................................................................... 27
9.4 Manhole Frame Adjustment ....................................................................... 28
9.5 Manhole Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement ............................... 28
9.6 Sewer Pipe Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement .......................... 29
9.7 Sewer Pipe Acute Defect Repair ............................................................... 29
9.8 Pump Station Inspection ............................................................................. 29
9.9 Force Main Inspection ................................................................................. 30
9.10 Force Main Repair and Replacement ....................................................... 32
10.0 FATS, OIL AND GREASE PROGRAM ......................................................... 33
10.1 Summary of FOG Inspections ................................................................... 33
10.2 Summary of FOG Enforcement ................................................................. 34
11.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ................................... 35
12.0 UNPERMITTED CSO DISCHARGE REPORTS .......................................... 37
13.0 NINE MINIMUM CONTROLS ANNUAL REPORT....................................... 38
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2014
14.0 CITYSHED MITIGATION PROGRAM ............................................................ 39
15.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 40
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2014
1
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: GIS LAYERS OF MSD’S SEWER SYSTEM
APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTED SSO OUTFALL INVENTORY
Table B-1 – Definition of Constructed SSO Outfall Inventory Fields
Table B-2 – Constructed SSO Outfall Inventory
APPENDIX C: Used in Previous Annual Reports – Intentionally Blank for CY14
APPENDIX D: ELIMINATION PROJECTS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
Table D-1 – Status of Elimination Projects and Remedial Measures
Table D-2 – Projects to Eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows
Table D-3 – Background Information for All Master Plan Projects
APPENDIX E: CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Table E-1 – Status of CSO Control Measures Performance Criteria
Table E-2 – Status of Green Infrastructure Program Costs
APPENDIX F: POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PROGRAM
Table F-1 – Mississippi River Water Quality Monitoring
Table F-2 – Urban Small Stream Water Quality Monitoring
Table F-3 – Field Observations During Water Quality Monitoring
APPENDIX G: Used in Previous Annual Reports – Intentionally Blank for CY14
APPENDIX H: CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Table H-1 – <=12” Non-Plastic CCTV Inspection Report
Table H-2 – Annual CCTV Inspection Report
Table H-3 – Annual Cleaning Report <=21” Non-Plastic Sewers
Table H-4 – Annual Cleaning Report <=21” Plastic Sewers
Table H-5 – Annual Cleaning Report for >21” Sewers
Table H-6 – Annual Manhole Inspection Report
Table H-7 – Annual Manhole Frame Adjustment Report
Table H-8 – Annual Manhole Permanent Repair, Rehabilitate, and/or
Replacement Report
Table H-9 – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Report
Table H-9a – Annual Sewer Pipe Permanently Repaired, Rehabilitated,
and/or Replaced Report Detail
Table H-10 – Annual Repair Report Sewer Pipe with Acute Defects
Table H-11 – Annual Pump Station Inspection Report
Table H-12 – Annual Force Main Visual Inspection Report
Table H-13 – Annual Force Main Non-Destructive Testing Inspection Report
Table H-14 – Annual Force Main Repair and Replacement Report
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2014
2
APPENDIX I: SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT PROGRAM
Table I-1 – Status of SEP Implementation
APPENDIX J: UNPERMITTED CSO DISCHARGE REPORTS
Copies of Unpermitted CSO Discharge Reports
APPENDIX K: NINE MINIMUM CONTROLS ANNUAL REPORT
Copy of Nine Minimum Controls Annual Report
APPENDIX L: CITYSHED MITIGATION PROGRAM
Table L-1 – Status of Cityshed Mitigation Program
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2014
3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym / Definition
Abbreviation
AQL Protection for Warm Water Aquatic Life
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CIPP Cured-In-Place Pipe
CMOM Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance
CMP Cityshed Mitigation Program
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CY11 Calendar Year 2011
CY12 Calendar Year 2012
CY13 Calendar Year 2013
CY14 Calendar Year 2014
CY15 Calendar Year 2015
District Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
DWS Drinking Water Supply
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FOG Fats, Oils and Grease
FSE Food Service Establishment
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
I/I Inflow and Infiltration
IND Industrial Water Supply
IRR Irrigation
LTCP Long-Term Control Plan
LWW Livestock and Wildlife Watering
Master Plan Sanitary Sewer Overflow Control Master Plan
MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MSD Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
NOV Notice of Violation
ORS Overflow Regulation System
PCMP Post-Construction Monitoring Program
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2014
4
PVC Polyvinylchloride
SCR Secondary Contact Recreation
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
WBCR-A Whole Body Contact Recreation-A
WBCR-B Whole Body Contact Recreation-B
WQMP Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Annual Report – Calendar Year 2014
APPENDIX E: CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
STATUS OF CSO CONTROL MEASURES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
STATUS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM COSTS
Attached
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictAnnual Report - Calendar Year 2014CSO Control Measure DescriptionPerformance CriteriaCY 2014 Progress Toward Achievement of Performance CriteriaCY 2015 Projection of work toward achievement of Performance CriteriaCritical Milestones2014 Milestone StatusTable E-1: Status of CSO Control Measures Performance Criteria(01/01/2014 - 12/31/2014)Green Infrastructure Program – Pilot ProgramStormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areasApply 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.• Expenditures: $169,899 in CY14; Total to date $3.6 million. Details provided in Table E-2 "Status of Green Infrastructure Costs".• Monitoring: Continued monitoring plan implementation; Monitor 7 sites - 2 bioretention sites, 1 raingarden, 1 permeable alley, 2 amended soil, and and 1 block of connected downspouts vs individual raingardens • Maintenance: Continued routine maintenance of 6 neighborhood-scale facilities • Annual inspections: Performed 22 annual inspections • Public education/workshops:Installed 5 educational signs; conducted 1 neighborhood outreach event near neighborhood-scale facility • Community Benefits: Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville prepared report to identify potential community benefits • Monitoring: Complete monitoring plan implementation on 7 sites - 2 bioretention sites, 1 raingarden, 1 permeable alley, 2 amended soil, and and 1 block of connected downspouts vs individual raingardens; Complete monitoring data analysis and evaluations for use in prediction CSO volume reduction from Pilot to full GI program.• Maintenance: Continue routine maintenance of 6 neighborhood-scale facilities. • Annual inspections: Continue annual inspections on 22 GI Pilot facilities.• Community Benefits: Complete survey regarding perceived benefits and community reaction to Green Infrastructure.• Determine plan for full implementation of Green Infrastructure Program.• Prepare and submit Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Report by December 31, 2015 to the EPA and State for review and for EPA's approval.▪ Achievement of Full Operation – 12/31/2015In ProgressGreen Infrastructure ProgramStormwater retrofitting of abandoned properties in Bissell Point and Lemay service areasPerformance Criteria to be identified in Pilot Program Final Report, with a minimum expenditure of $100 million total which includes the pilot program.• Prepared construction plans for the six (6) bioretention basins approved as early action in 2013; developed Rainscaping Small Grants Program approved in 2013 and conducted model round (8 grants for total of $19,302.47).• Submit 12 early action green infrastructure projects to the MDNR/EPA for review in January 2014. • Upon MDNR/EPA approval, coordinate with project partners for MSD plan review and approval • Request proposals for third round of early action projects • Evaluate proposals and prepare package for submittal to the MDNR/EPA in January 2015* Construct 6 neighborhood-scale bioretention basins approved as early action in 2013; * Conduct full round of the Rainscaping Small Grants Program approved in 2013 including workshops and a goal of at least 45 grants for a total of $135,000; * Submit 9 early action green infrastructure projects to the MDNR/EPA for review in January 2015; * Request proposals for fourth round of early action projects; * Evaluate proposals and prepare package for submittal to the MDNR/EPA in January 2016.▪ Achievement of Full Operation – 06/30/2034N/A2014 Annual E1 perf crtlPage 6 of 6
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictAnnual Report - Calendar Year 2014Calendar Year EngineeringSoils Assessment and/or RestorationLegal Costs Associated with Deed Restrictions and/or EasementsProperty Acquisition DemolitionConstruction of Green InfrastructureMaintenance of Green InfrastructurePublic Participation ActivitiesMonitoring of Green Infrastructure Practices and Associated Laboratory AnalysisIdentification of Community Benefits Total2010 (Pilot) $ 5,424.23 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,505,424.23 2011 (Pilot) $ 414,998.82 $ 8,468.00 $ 9,804.32 $ - $ - $ 49,287.10 $ - $ 1,903.30 $ - $ - $ 484,461.54 2012 (Pilot) $ 430,994.26 $ 32.00 $ 8,029.55 $ 2,616.00 $ - $ 238,260.78 $ - $ 12,767.38 $ 5,395.90 $ - $ 698,095.87 2013 (Pilot) $ 105,038.38 $ - $ 897.47 $ - $ - $ 578,206.49 $ 6,922.93 $ 26,849.39 $ 105,861.82 $ - $ 823,776.48 2013 (EA) $ 55,216.00 $ 55,216.00 2014 (Pilot) $ 22,884.86 $ 82.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 16,920.08 $ 27,284.35 $ 9,058.17 $ 83,017.30 $ 10,652.46 $ 169,899.22 2014 (EA) $ 243,806.65 $ - $ - $ 2,700.00 $ - $ 607,622.45 $ - $ 33,918.35 $ - $ - $ 888,047.45 2015 (Pilot)2015 (EA)201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033TOTALS $ 1,223,147.20 $ 8,582.00 $ 18,731.34 $ 5,316.00 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 1,545,512.90 $ 34,207.28 $ 84,496.59 $ 194,275.02 $ 10,652.46 $ 4,624,920.79 Pilot Program Total 3,681,657.34$ Pilot Program Maximum 3,000,000.00$ Pilot Program Overage 681,657.34$ ADJUSTED GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM COSTS 3,943,263.45$ Cost CategoriesTable E-2 - Status of Green Infrastructure Program CostsStatus as of 12/31/20142014 Annual E2 GI pilot costs1 of 1
APPENDIX Y PILOT EXPENDITURE REPORT
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictCSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)Appendix Q Allowable ExpendituresPilot Program Total Project No. 10230 Project No. 11048 Project No. 11157 Project No. 11778 Project No. 11787Code Cost CategoryMonitoring ConsultantAdmin, Funding Bucket, Site-scale ProjectsClinton St. Rain Garden in Old NorthN. Sarah St. Rain Garden in The Ville & N. Vandeventer Ave. Rain Garden in JeffVanderLouClinton St. Alley in Old North (dropped)EN Engineering990,484.55$ -$ 421,810.86$ 117,495.36$ 136,227.44$ 54,191.75$ SO Soils Assessment and/or Restoration382.00$ -$ 382.00$ -$ -$ -$ LE Legal Costs associated with deed restrictions and/or easements18,494.47$ -$ 18,494.47$ -$ -$ -$ PR Property Acquisition2,616.00$ -$ -$ 558.00$ 1,000.00$ -$ DE Demolition1,500,000.00$ -$ 1,500,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ CO Construction of Green infrastructure887,379.89$ -$ 94,667.96$ 206,845.20$ 258,117.47$ -$ MAMaintenance of Green Infrastructure56,445.84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ PU Public Participation Activities55,863.03$ -$ 55,863.03$ -$ -$ -$ MO Monitoring of Green Infrastructure practices and associated laboratory analysis319,879.92$ 162,816.75$ 157,063.17$ -$ -$ -$ ID Identification of community benefits10,652.46$ -$ 10,652.46$ -$ -$ -$ Total Allowable Expenditures3,842,198.16$ 162,816.75$ 2,258,933.95$ 324,898.56$ 395,344.91$ 54,191.75$ Other CostsIN Interest Earned or Expensed3,086.57$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ RAAnnual Report Preparation9,597.42$ -$ 9,597.42$ -$ -$ -$ RE Final Report Preparation505,059.83$ -$ 505,059.83$ -$ -$ -$ AD Program Planning and Administration203,183.74$ -$ 203,183.74$ -$ -$ -$ Total with Other Costs4,563,125.72$ 162,816.75$ 2,976,774.94$ 324,898.56$ 395,344.91$ 54,191.75$ (Continued from above)Appendix Q Allowable ExpendituresProject No. 11802Project No. 11803 Project No. 11804 Project No. 11992 OperationsOperationsCode Cost CategoryGeraldine Ave. Rain Garden in Mark Twain & Beacon Ave. Rain Garden in Walnut Park EastBlair Ave. Rain Garden in Hyde Park & 19th St. Rain Garden in Hyde Park - Initial Design Only (completed as Early Action)Warne Ave. Rain Garden in O’FallonContracted Maintenance Neighborhood-scale FacilitiesContracted Maintenance Neighborhood-scale Facilities (New Contract not PN 11992)MSD Maintenance Neighborhood-scale FacilitiesEN Engineering109,533.42$ 59,195.62$ 92,030.10$ -$ -$ -$ SO Soils Assessment and/or Restoration-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ LE Legal Costs associated with deed restrictions and/or easements-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ PR Property Acquisition1,058.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DE Demolition-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CO Construction of Green infrastructure251,440.55$ -$ 76,308.71$ -$ -$ -$ MAMaintenance of Green Infrastructure-$ -$ -$ 28,138.60$ 3,312.25$ 24,994.99$ PU Public Participation Activities-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ MO Monitoring of Green Infrastructure practices and associated laboratory analysis-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ID Identification of community benefits-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Allowable Expenditures362,031.97$ 59,195.62$ 168,338.81$ 28,138.60$ 3,312.25$ 24,994.99$ Other CostsIN Interest Earned or Expensed-$ 3,086.57$ -$ -$ -$ -$ RAAnnual Report Preparation-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ RE Final Report Preparation-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ AD Program Planning and Administration-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total with Other Costs362,031.97$ 62,282.19$ 168,338.81$ 28,138.60$ 3,312.25$ 24,994.99$ GI Pilot Expenditures COMPLETE 2010 to 2015‐10‐31Page 1 of 1
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
Project 10230 (Jacobs Contract)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
MO 10230 16.3 Monitoring Service Total Green Infrastructure 162,816.75$
Total 162,816.75$
Project 11048 (Admin, Funding Bucket, Non-cap Projects)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
EN 11048 11.1 GSA - Design, Green Infra Total Evaluation Services ‐$
SO 11048 11.1 GSA - Geotech Services Other Total Evaluation Services 382.00$
ID 11048 11.1 Socio-Economic Study Svc Total Evaluation Services 10,652.46$
PU 11048 11.4 Public Relations Services Total Public Relations Ser 3,942.00$
MO 11048 11.5 Work Order, IR Sanitary Total Miscellaneous Servic 18,750.00$
EN 11048 11.6 Contingency Total General Services - D 9,258.16$
EN 11048 11.6 GSA - Design, Green Infra Total General Services - D 50,569.53$
RE 11048 11.7 GSA - Geotech. Investigation Total Final Report Service 15,875.25$
MO 11048 11.8 Design Services Total Planning Services 9,198.60$
LE 11048 13.1 Other, Gov. Fees and Permits Total Property Rights Acqu 8,920.00$
DE 11048 015.1.1 Const., Other Costs Total City of St. Louis De 1,500,000.00$
CO 11048 015.2.1 Construction Total Site Scale (Non-Capi 76,246.96$
MO 11048 16.2 Construction Total Monitoring Equipment 1,500.65$
MO 11048 16.2 Monitoring Service Total Monitoring Equipment 48,471.58$
IN 11048 99 Interest Earned Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
IN 11048 99 Interest Expense Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
AD 11048 100.1 Adjustment Total Planning and Adminis ‐$
AD 11048 100.1 Fringe Total Planning and Adminis 65,361.66$
EN 11048 100.1 Labor, CADD-Details Total Planning and Adminis 537.28$
CO 11048 100.1 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Planning and Adminis 56.98$
EN 11048 100.1 Labor, Design Total Planning and Adminis 732.76$
AD 11048 100.1 Labor, General Total Planning and Adminis 17,252.55$
AD 11048 100.1 Labor, Planning Total Planning and Adminis 709.62$
AD 11048 100.1 Labor, Planning Pre-Design Total Planning and Adminis 70.93$
AD 11048 100.1 Labor, Planning Prel Study Total Planning and Adminis 76,593.84$
RE 11048 100.1 Labor, Program Management Total Planning and Adminis 102,675.88$
RE 11048 100.1 Overhead Total Planning and Adminis 235,831.91$
EN 11048 100.2 Adjustment Total Site Selection ‐$
EN 11048 100.2 Fringe Total Site Selection 23,689.48$
EN 11048 100.2 Labor, General Total Site Selection 3,374.37$
EN 11048 100.2 Labor, Planning Prel Study Total Site Selection 100,736.50$
EN 11048 100.2 Overhead Total Site Selection 159,032.74$
AD 11048 101 Fringe Total Preliminary Study 3,660.96$
AD 11048 101 Labor, Development Review Total Preliminary Study 452.44$
AD 11048 101 Labor, General Total Preliminary Study 2,606.41$
AD 11048 101 Labor, Planning Prel Study Total Preliminary Study 4,321.67$
AD 11048 101 Labor, Planning Prel. Study Total Preliminary Study 8,316.26$
AD 11048 101 Overhead Total Preliminary Study 23,837.40$
EN 11048 106.1 Fringe Total Amended Soil 1,312.34$
EN 11048 106.1 Labor, Design Total Amended Soil 5,115.23$
EN 11048 106.1 Labor, General Total Amended Soil 116.93$
EN 11048 106.1 Labor, Geotech Investigation Total Amended Soil 554.14$
EN 11048 106.1 Overhead Total Amended Soil 8,858.23$
EN 11048 106.2 Fringe Total Planter Box 975.72$
EN 11048 106.2 Labor, Design Total Planter Box 3,259.59$
EN 11048 106.2 Labor, Survey Design Total Planter Box 308.11$
EN 11048 106.2 Overhead Total Planter Box 4,704.26$
EN 11048 106.3 Fringe Total Bioretention 2,410.01$
EN 11048 106.3 Labor, CADD-Details Total Bioretention 377.28$
EN 11048 106.3 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Bioretention 554.82$
EN 11048 106.3 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Bioretention 1,006.07$
EN 11048 106.3 Labor, CADD-Topo and Cover Total Bioretention 1,095.76$
Page 1 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
EN 11048 106.3 Labor, Design Total Bioretention 5,810.43$
EN 11048 106.3 Labor, Survey Design Total Bioretention 644.70$
EN 11048 106.3 Labor, Survey Office Total Bioretention 804.93$
EN 11048 106.3 Labor, Survey Stakeout Total Bioretention 332.06$
EN 11048 106.3 Overhead Total Bioretention 16,267.43$
EN 11048 106.4 Fringe Total Porous Pavement 566.89$
EN 11048 106.4 Labor, Design Total Porous Pavement 409.79$
EN 11048 106.4 Labor, Design EDC Total Porous Pavement 217.90$
EN 11048 106.4 Labor, Work Order Inspector Total Porous Pavement 254.49$
EN 11048 106.4 Overhead Total Porous Pavement 649.73$
PU 11048 106.5 Fringe Total Public Participation 9,799.74$
PU 11048 106.5 Labor, CADD-Details Total Public Participation 595.81$
PU 11048 106.5 Labor, Program Management Total Public Participation 591.93$
PU 11048 106.5 Labor, Public Relation Total Public Participation 22,380.29$
PU 11048 106.5 Overhead Total Public Participation 18,553.26$
EN 11048 107 Fringe Total Design (Consultant G 2,303.22$
EN 11048 107 Labor, Design Project Mgmt Total Design (Consultant G 6,435.86$
EN 11048 107 Overhead Total Design (Consultant G 6,502.05$
LE 11048 108.2 Fringe Total Property Rights Acqu 808.62$
LE 11048 108.2 Labor, Property Rights Total Property Rights Acqu 3,111.22$
LE 11048 108.2 Labor, Survey Office Total Property Rights Acqu 381.78$
LE 11048 108.2 Overhead Total Property Rights Acqu 5,272.85$
EN 11048 110.1.1 Fringe Total Office Staff Labor C 415.24$
EN 11048 110.1.1 Labor, CADD-As Builts Total Office Staff Labor C 616.72$
EN 11048 110.1.1 Labor, Design EDC Total Office Staff Labor C 367.24$
EN 11048 110.1.1 Overhead Total Office Staff Labor C 632.87$
CO 11048 110.1.2 Fringe Total Field Inspection St 509.25$
CO 11048 110.1.2 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Field Inspection St 2,245.37$
CO 11048 110.1.2 Overhead Total Field Inspection St 3,437.44$
CO 11048 110.1.3 Fringe Total Survey Labor Cost Es 710.02$
CO 11048 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Office Total Survey Labor Cost Es 977.36$
CO 11048 110.1.3 Labor, Survey/As-Built Total Survey Labor Cost Es 803.49$
CO 11048 110.1.3 Overhead Total Survey Labor Cost Es 1,334.10$
CO 11048 110.2.2 Fringe Total Field Inspection St 686.47$
CO 11048 110.2.2 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Field Inspection St 3,026.80$
CO 11048 110.2.2 Overhead Total Field Inspection St 4,633.72$
RA 11048 119.1.2 Fringe Total Annual Monitoring Re 67.29$
RA 11048 119.1.2 Labor, General Total Annual Monitoring Re 104.72$
RA 11048 119.1.2 Overhead Total Annual Monitoring Re 77.13$
RA 11048 119.1.3 Fringe Total Annual Progress Repo 814.97$
RA 11048 119.1.3 Labor, General Total Annual Progress Repo 2,150.11$
RA 11048 119.1.3 Overhead Total Annual Progress Repo 1,803.06$
RA 11048 119.1.4 Fringe Total Annual Expense Repor 935.89$
RA 11048 119.1.4 Labor, General Total Annual Expense Repor 2,217.77$
RA 11048 119.1.4 Overhead Total Annual Expense Repor 1,426.48$
RE 11048 119.2.1 Fringe Total GI Full Program Plan 1,229.14$
RE 11048 119.2.1 Labor, General Total GI Full Program Plan 1,809.16$
RE 11048 119.2.1 Overhead Total GI Full Program Plan 1,399.75$
RE 11048 119.2.2 Fringe Total Report Writing 36,894.45$
RE 11048 119.2.2 Labor, General Total Report Writing 55,964.55$
RE 11048 119.2.2 Labor, Planning Prel Study Total Report Writing 1,047.20$
RE 11048 119.2.2 Overhead Total Report Writing 42,883.83$
RE 11048 119.2.3 Fringe Total Report Review 2,528.36$
RE 11048 119.2.3 Labor, General Total Report Review 3,721.46$
RE 11048 119.2.3 Overhead Total Report Review 2,879.30$
RE 11048 119.2.4 Fringe Total Report Graphics 65.30$
RE 11048 119.2.4 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Report Graphics 154.75$
Page 2 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
RE 11048 119.2.4 Overhead Total Report Graphics 99.54$
MO 11048 120.1 Fringe Total Monitoring, Field Vi 1,899.20$
MO 11048 120.1 Labor, General Total Monitoring, Field Vi 2,814.10$
MO 11048 120.1 Labor, Survey Office Total Monitoring, Field Vi 111.17$
MO 11048 120.1 Labor, Survey Other Total Monitoring, Field Vi 199.69$
MO 11048 120.1 Labor, Survey/As-Built Total Monitoring, Field Vi 47.88$
MO 11048 120.1 Labor, Work Order Inspector Total Monitoring, Field Vi 104.62$
MO 11048 120.1 Overhead Total Monitoring, Field Vi 2,326.34$
MO 11048 120.2 Fringe Total Monitoring, Engineer 17,355.15$
MO 11048 120.2 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Monitoring, Engineer 907.02$
MO 11048 120.2 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Monitoring, Engineer 30.49$
MO 11048 120.2 Labor, General Total Monitoring, Engineer 30,003.92$
MO 11048 120.2 Labor, Program Management Total Monitoring, Engineer 898.13$
MO 11048 120.2 Labor, Work Order Inspector Total Monitoring, Engineer 209.25$
MO 11048 120.2 Overhead Total Monitoring, Engineer 22,235.38$
Total 2,976,774.94$
Page 3 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
Project 11157 (Clinton St. Rain Garden in Old North)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
EN 11157 11.6 GSA - Design, Green Infra Total General Services - D 20,480.00$
PR 11157 13.2 Property Rights, Purchase Total Land Purchase 558.00$
CO 11157 015.1.1 Const., Pre-Con Video Total Construction 505.00$
CO 11157 015.1.1 Const., Utility Relocation Total Construction 3,172.46$
CO 11157 015.1.1 Construction Total Construction 181,196.00$
IN 11157 99 Interest Earned Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
IN 11157 99 Interest Expense Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
EN 11157 106.1 Fringe Total Project Initiation 152.06$
EN 11157 106.1 Labor, Design Total Project Initiation 670.44$
EN 11157 106.1 Overhead Total Project Initiation 1,026.38$
EN 11157 106.2 Fringe Total Preliminary Survey 365.29$
EN 11157 106.2 Labor, Survey Design Total Preliminary Survey 963.75$
EN 11157 106.2 Labor, Survey Office Total Preliminary Survey 646.86$
EN 11157 106.2 Overhead Total Preliminary Survey 2,465.68$
EN 11157 106.3 Fringe Total Preliminary Plan 845.88$
EN 11157 106.3 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Preliminary Plan 562.21$
EN 11157 106.3 Labor, CADD-Topo and Cover Total Preliminary Plan 579.64$
EN 11157 106.3 Labor, Design Total Preliminary Plan 2,587.73$
EN 11157 106.3 Overhead Total Preliminary Plan 5,709.62$
EN 11157 106.4 Fringe Total Design Completion 4,310.84$
EN 11157 106.4 Labor, CADD-DA Map Total Design Completion 169.00$
EN 11157 106.4 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Design Completion 2,522.00$
EN 11157 106.4 Labor, Design Total Design Completion 15,588.16$
EN 11157 106.4 Labor, General Total Design Completion 728.00$
EN 11157 106.4 Overhead Total Design Completion 29,098.08$
EN 11157 107 Fringe Total Design (Consultant G 308.57$
EN 11157 107 Labor, Design Project Mgmt Total Design (Consultant G 1,360.65$
EN 11157 107 Overhead Total Design (Consultant G 2,083.03$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Fringe Total Office Staff Labor 4,185.71$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, CADD-As Builts Total Office Staff Labor 1,353.20$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, CADD-DA Map Total Office Staff Labor 26.00$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, Const Close-Out Total Office Staff Labor 159.03$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, Const Rest Period Total Office Staff Labor 87.54$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, Const Shop Drawings Total Office Staff Labor 1,028.59$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, Const, Pre-Const Total Office Staff Labor 72.95$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, Constructability Review Total Office Staff Labor 368.83$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, Construction Total Office Staff Labor 743.02$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Office Staff Labor 1,386.05$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Labor, Design EDC Total Office Staff Labor 5,756.71$
EN 11157 110.1.1 Overhead Total Office Staff Labor 9,103.86$
CO 11157 110.1.2 Fringe Total Field Inspection St 3,496.13$
CO 11157 110.1.2 Labor, Const Close-Out Total Field Inspection St 113.94$
CO 11157 110.1.2 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Field Inspection St 8,276.16$
CO 11157 110.1.2 Overhead Total Field Inspection St 5,598.76$
CO 11157 110.1.3 Fringe Total Survey Labor 669.89$
CO 11157 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Office Total Survey Labor 475.95$
CO 11157 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Repeat Stakeout Total Survey Labor 239.37$
CO 11157 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Stakeout Total Survey Labor 832.84$
CO 11157 110.1.3 Labor, Survey/As-Built Total Survey Labor 378.47$
CO 11157 110.1.3 Overhead Total Survey Labor 1,890.23$
Total 324,898.56$
Page 4 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
Project 11778 (N. Sarah St. Rain Garden in The Ville & N. Vandeventer Ave. Rain Garden in JeffVanderLou)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
EN 11778 11.6 GSA - Design, Green Infra Total General Services - D 33,682.48$
EN 11778 11.7 GSA - Geotech. Investigation Total General Services - G 7,229.21$
PR 11778 13.2 Property Rights, Purchase Total Land Purchase 1,000.00$
CO 11778 015.1.1 Const., Pre-Con Video Total Construction 655.00$
CO 11778 015.1.1 Const., Utility Relocation Total Construction 300.00$
CO 11778 015.1.1 Construction Total Construction 236,833.00$
IN 11778 99 Interest Earned Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
IN 11778 99 Interest Expense Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
EN 11778 106.1 Fringe Total Project Initiation 165.39$
EN 11778 106.1 Labor, Design Total Project Initiation 729.27$
EN 11778 106.1 Overhead Total Project Initiation 1,116.44$
EN 11778 106.2 Fringe Total Preliminary Survey 880.26$
EN 11778 106.2 Labor, Survey Design Total Preliminary Survey 2,107.05$
EN 11778 106.2 Labor, Survey Office Total Preliminary Survey 1,506.60$
EN 11778 106.2 Labor, Survey Other Total Preliminary Survey 143.80$
EN 11778 106.2 Overhead Total Preliminary Survey 5,624.62$
EN 11778 106.3 Fringe Total Preliminary Plan 2,242.26$
EN 11778 106.3 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Preliminary Plan 1,498.71$
EN 11778 106.3 Labor, CADD-Topo and Cover Total Preliminary Plan 3,069.51$
EN 11778 106.3 Labor, Design Total Preliminary Plan 5,318.25$
EN 11778 106.3 Overhead Total Preliminary Plan 15,135.19$
EN 11778 106.4 Fringe Total Design Completion 7,287.43$
EN 11778 106.4 Labor, CADD-Alignment Changes Total Design Completion 1,354.61$
EN 11778 106.4 Labor, CADD-Easements Total Design Completion 207.13$
EN 11778 106.4 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Design Completion 5,209.65$
EN 11778 106.4 Labor, Design Total Design Completion 13,551.75$
EN 11778 106.4 Overhead Total Design Completion 18,933.33$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Fringe Total Office Staff Labor 1,886.96$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, CADD-As Builts Total Office Staff Labor 754.44$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, Const Close-Out Total Office Staff Labor 90.24$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, Const Rest Period Total Office Staff Labor 556.48$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, Const Shop Drawings Total Office Staff Labor 824.25$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, Const, Pre-Const Total Office Staff Labor 30.08$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, Constructability Review Total Office Staff Labor 101.75$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, Construction Total Office Staff Labor 192.94$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Office Staff Labor 616.64$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Labor, Design EDC Total Office Staff Labor 1,304.66$
EN 11778 110.1.1 Overhead Total Office Staff Labor 2,876.06$
CO 11778 110.1.2 Fringe Total Field Inspection St 2,899.23$
CO 11778 110.1.2 Labor, Const Close-Out Total Field Inspection St 76.85$
CO 11778 110.1.2 Labor, Const Rest Period Total Field Inspection St 1,045.16$
CO 11778 110.1.2 Labor, Const Warranty Total Field Inspection St 153.70$
CO 11778 110.1.2 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Field Inspection St 5,594.51$
CO 11778 110.1.2 Overhead Total Field Inspection St 4,418.92$
CO 11778 110.1.3 Fringe Total Survey Labor 1,254.86$
CO 11778 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Office Total Survey Labor 311.31$
CO 11778 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Stakeout Total Survey Labor 1,799.44$
CO 11778 110.1.3 Labor, Survey/As-Built Total Survey Labor 862.86$
CO 11778 110.1.3 Overhead Total Survey Labor 1,912.63$
Total 395,344.91$
Page 5 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
Project 11787 (Clinton St. Alley in Old North)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
EN 11787 11.6 GSA - Design, Green Infra Total General Services - D 9,621.86$
IN 11787 99 Interest Earned Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
IN 11787 99 Interest Expense Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
EN 11787 106.1 Fringe Total Project Initiation 129.52$
EN 11787 106.1 Labor, Design Total Project Initiation 571.08$
EN 11787 106.1 Overhead Total Project Initiation 874.26$
EN 11787 106.2 Fringe Total Preliminary Survey 295.37$
EN 11787 106.2 Labor, Survey Design Total Preliminary Survey 582.69$
EN 11787 106.2 Labor, Survey Office Total Preliminary Survey 719.66$
EN 11787 106.2 Overhead Total Preliminary Survey 1,993.77$
EN 11787 106.3 Fringe Total Preliminary Plan 1,836.13$
EN 11787 106.3 Labor, CADD-Alignment Changes Total Preliminary Plan 483.09$
EN 11787 106.3 Labor, CADD-DA Map Total Preliminary Plan 305.97$
EN 11787 106.3 Labor, CADD-Details Total Preliminary Plan 849.10$
EN 11787 106.3 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Preliminary Plan 386.48$
EN 11787 106.3 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Preliminary Plan 338.16$
EN 11787 106.3 Labor, CADD-Topo and Cover Total Preliminary Plan 1,191.61$
EN 11787 106.3 Labor, Design Total Preliminary Plan 4,541.42$
EN 11787 106.3 Overhead Total Preliminary Plan 12,393.92$
EN 11787 106.4 Fringe Total Design Completion 1,671.72$
EN 11787 106.4 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Design Completion 429.00$
EN 11787 106.4 Labor, Design Total Design Completion 6,029.80$
EN 11787 106.4 Overhead Total Design Completion 8,947.14$
Total 54,191.75$
Page 6 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
Project 11802 (Geraldine Ave. Rain Garden in Mark Twain & Beacon Ave. Rain Garden in Walnut Park East)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
EN 11802 11.6 GSA - Design, Green Infra Total General Services - D 31,191.08$
PR 11802 13.2 Property Rights, Purchase Total Land Purchase 1,058.00$
CO 11802 015.1.1 Const., Pre-Con Video Total Construction 655.00$
CO 11802 015.1.1 Construction Total Construction 219,914.98$
IN 11802 99 Interest Earned Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
IN 11802 99 Interest Expense Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
EN 11802 106.2 Fringe Total Preliminary Survey 693.04$
EN 11802 106.2 Labor, Survey Design Total Preliminary Survey 1,549.02$
EN 11802 106.2 Labor, Survey Office Total Preliminary Survey 1,506.69$
EN 11802 106.2 Overhead Total Preliminary Survey 4,677.98$
EN 11802 106.3 Fringe Total Preliminary Plan 1,750.40$
EN 11802 106.3 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Preliminary Plan 442.00$
EN 11802 106.3 Labor, CADD-Topo and Cover Total Preliminary Plan 1,144.00$
EN 11802 106.3 Labor, Design Total Preliminary Plan 4,895.89$
EN 11802 106.3 Overhead Total Preliminary Plan 8,648.38$
EN 11802 106.4 Fringe Total Design Completion 6,207.01$
EN 11802 106.4 Labor, CADD-Cross Sections Total Design Completion 637.00$
EN 11802 106.4 Labor, CADD-Easements Total Design Completion 80.39$
EN 11802 106.4 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Design Completion 3,238.59$
EN 11802 106.4 Labor, Design Total Design Completion 13,443.62$
EN 11802 106.4 Overhead Total Design Completion 16,355.90$
EN 11802 108.1 Fringe Total Easement Document Re 48.40$
EN 11802 108.1 Labor, Survey Office Total Easement Document Re 114.70$
EN 11802 108.1 Overhead Total Easement Document Re 73.77$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Fringe Total Office Staff Labor 2,622.78$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, CADD-As Builts Total Office Staff Labor 1,594.36$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, Const Close-Out Total Office Staff Labor 155.11$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, Const Rest Period Total Office Staff Labor 315.84$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, Const Shop Drawings Total Office Staff Labor 1,058.29$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, Const, Pre-Const Total Office Staff Labor 45.12$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, Constructability Review Total Office Staff Labor 152.62$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Office Staff Labor 481.28$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, Design Total Office Staff Labor 53.24$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Labor, Design EDC Total Office Staff Labor 2,359.29$
EN 11802 110.1.1 Overhead Total Office Staff Labor 3,997.63$
CO 11802 110.1.2 Fringe Total Field Inspection St 5,294.14$
CO 11802 110.1.2 Labor, Const Rest Period Total Field Inspection St 1,290.96$
CO 11802 110.1.2 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Field Inspection St 11,254.43$
CO 11802 110.1.2 Overhead Total Field Inspection St 8,069.21$
CO 11802 110.1.3 Fringe Total Survey Labor 1,013.88$
CO 11802 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Office Total Survey Labor 92.63$
CO 11802 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Stakeout Total Survey Labor 1,271.77$
CO 11802 110.1.3 Labor, Survey/As-Built Total Survey Labor 1,038.20$
CO 11802 110.1.3 Overhead Total Survey Labor 1,545.35$
Total 362,031.97$
Page 7 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
Project 11803 (Blair Ave. Rain Garden in Hyde Park & 19th St. Rain Garden in Hyde Park - Initial Design Only, Final Design as Early Action)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
EN 11803 11.6 GSA - Design, Green Infra Total General Services - D 21,750.62$
IN 11803 99 Interest Earned Total Capitalized Interest (96.83)$
IN 11803 99 Interest Expense Total Capitalized Interest 3,183.40$
EN 11803 106.1 Fringe Total Project Initiation 8.99$
EN 11803 106.1 Labor, Design Total Project Initiation 39.62$
EN 11803 106.1 Overhead Total Project Initiation 60.65$
EN 11803 106.2 Fringe Total Preliminary Survey 688.83$
EN 11803 106.2 Labor, Survey Design Total Preliminary Survey 1,989.85$
EN 11803 106.2 Labor, Survey Office Total Preliminary Survey 1,047.28$
EN 11803 106.2 Overhead Total Preliminary Survey 4,649.54$
EN 11803 106.3 Fringe Total Preliminary Plan 1,904.56$
EN 11803 106.3 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Preliminary Plan 1,375.97$
EN 11803 106.3 Labor, CADD-Topo and Cover Total Preliminary Plan 1,287.19$
EN 11803 106.3 Labor, Design Total Preliminary Plan 3,385.64$
EN 11803 106.3 Overhead Total Preliminary Plan 6,837.52$
EN 11803 106.4 Fringe Total Design Completion 2,895.37$
EN 11803 106.4 Labor, CADD-Cross Sections Total Design Completion 731.72$
EN 11803 106.4 Labor, CADD-DA Map Total Design Completion 564.03$
EN 11803 106.4 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Design Completion 228.66$
EN 11803 106.4 Labor, Design Total Design Completion 5,336.59$
EN 11803 106.4 Overhead Total Design Completion 4,412.99$
Total 62,282.19$
Page 8 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
Project 11804 (Warne Ave. Rain Garden in O’Fallon)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
EN 11804 11.6 GSA - Design, Green Infra Total General Services - D 20,455.52$
CO 11804 015.1.1 Const., Pre-Con Video Total Construction 505.00$
CO 11804 015.1.1 Construction Total Construction 64,782.00$
IN 11804 99 Interest Earned Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
IN 11804 99 Interest Expense Total Capitalized Interest ‐$
EN 11804 106.1 Fringe Total Project Initiation 58.13$
EN 11804 106.1 Labor, Design Total Project Initiation 256.28$
EN 11804 106.1 Overhead Total Project Initiation 392.34$
EN 11804 106.2 Fringe Total Preliminary Survey 580.06$
EN 11804 106.2 Labor, Survey Design Total Preliminary Survey 1,464.79$
EN 11804 106.2 Labor, Survey Office Total Preliminary Survey 1,092.79$
EN 11804 106.2 Overhead Total Preliminary Survey 3,915.39$
EN 11804 106.3 Fringe Total Preliminary Plan 2,390.44$
EN 11804 106.3 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Preliminary Plan 266.74$
EN 11804 106.3 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Preliminary Plan 369.71$
EN 11804 106.3 Labor, CADD-Topo and Cover Total Preliminary Plan 2,857.56$
EN 11804 106.3 Labor, Design Total Preliminary Plan 4,321.50$
EN 11804 106.3 Overhead Total Preliminary Plan 9,154.91$
EN 11804 106.4 Fringe Total Design Completion 6,265.09$
EN 11804 106.4 Labor, CADD-Cross Sections Total Design Completion 463.29$
EN 11804 106.4 Labor, CADD-Details Total Design Completion 140.39$
EN 11804 106.4 Labor, CADD-Prel Plans/Profile Total Design Completion 454.08$
EN 11804 106.4 Labor, CADD-Revisions Total Design Completion 977.85$
EN 11804 106.4 Labor, CADD-Topo and Cover Total Design Completion 126.35$
EN 11804 106.4 Labor, Design Total Design Completion 12,684.22$
EN 11804 106.4 Overhead Total Design Completion 9,549.05$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Fringe Total Office Staff Labor 2,818.56$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Labor, CADD-As Builts Total Office Staff Labor 2,173.47$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Labor, Const Close-Out Total Office Staff Labor 201.38$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Labor, Const Shop Drawings Total Office Staff Labor 467.10$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Labor, Const, Pre-Const Total Office Staff Labor 45.12$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Labor, Construction Total Office Staff Labor 96.48$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Office Staff Labor 437.08$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Labor, Design EDC Total Office Staff Labor 3,258.46$
EN 11804 110.1.1 Overhead Total Office Staff Labor 4,295.97$
CO 11804 110.1.2 Fringe Total Field Inspection St 1,612.28$
CO 11804 110.1.2 Labor, Construction Inspection Total Field Inspection St 3,820.53$
CO 11804 110.1.2 Overhead Total Field Inspection St 2,457.36$
CO 11804 110.1.3 Fringe Total Survey Labor 639.89$
CO 11804 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Office Total Survey Labor 234.06$
CO 11804 110.1.3 Labor, Survey Stakeout Total Survey Labor 678.99$
CO 11804 110.1.3 Labor, Survey/As-Built Total Survey Labor 603.29$
CO 11804 110.1.3 Overhead Total Survey Labor 975.31$
Total 168,338.81$
Page 9 of 10
CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Expenditures (5/7/2010 - 10/31/2015)
Project 11922 (Contracted Maintenance)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
MA 11922 16.2 GI Maintenance Total Vendor Services 24,268.60$
MA 11922 16.2 GI Maintenance INVOICED WRONG Vendor Services 3,870.00$
Total 28,138.60$
Operations Contracted Maintenance (New contract not paid through PN 11922)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Task Name Project Burdened Cost
MA Operations Contracted GI Maintenance Total as reported by Jim Derby Vendor Services 3,312.25$
Total 3,312.25$
Project MAXIMO (OPERATIONS)
CODE Task/Expnd Type Project Burdened Cost
MA MSD Operations Labor as reported by Jim Derby 16,107.19$
MA MSD Operations Material Costs as reported by Jim Derby 846.97$
MA MSD Operations Vehicle and Tool Cost as reported by Jim Derby 5,535.24$
MA MSD Water Cost as reported by Jim Derby 2,505.59$
Total 24,994.99$
Grand Total 4,563,125.72$
Page 10 of 10
APPENDIX Z PILOT MONITORING ANALYSIS
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Summary for Final Report
Prepared for:
Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District
Final
December 15, 2015
Page | 2
Blank Page
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Background .................................................................1
2 Standard Pilot Project Monitoring Activities .............. 3
2.1 Geraldine Bioretention Project .......................................... 3
2.2 Vandeventer Bioretention Project ..................................... 6
2.3 Monroe Street Rain Garden Project .................................. 8
2.4 Warne Avenue Soil Amendment Site ................................. 9
2.5 Labadie Avenue Soil Amendment Site .............................. 9
2.6 Humphrey Permeable Alley ............................................... 9
2.7 HEC-HMS Model Development and Refinement ............ 11
2.8 Rainfall Data Used for Pilot Project Evaluation ............... 11
3 Other Monitoring Activities ....................................... 15
3.1 Infiltration Testing ............................................................ 15
3.2 Habitat for Humanity/JeffVanDerLou Project ............... 16
3.3 Hydrant Testing ................................................................ 17
4 Statistical Analysis of Pilot Monitoring Data .............19
4.1 Data Handling ................................................................... 19
4.2 Regression ......................................................................... 19
4.3 Application to Typical Year .............................................. 23
5 Summary .................................................................. 24
6 References ................................................................ 26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Locations of Monitored GI Pilot Projects. ...................... 6
Figure 2. Example of Flume Data from the Geraldine
Bioretention Project Illustrating the Raw and Manually
Corrected Data......................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Example of Flume Data from the Vandeventer
Bioretention Project Illustrating the Raw and Manually
Corrected Data......................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Example of Flume Data from the Monroe Rain Garden
Project Showing Typical Raw Data. ....................................... 8
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | iv
Figure 5. Example of Weir Level Data from the Humphrey
Permeable Alley Project Illustrating the Raw and Manually
Corrected Data....................................................................... 10
Figure 6. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Radar Rainfall
Event Depth Used for Pilot Project Evaluation vs. CSO
Program Typical Year (events <0.01 in. omitted). .............. 12
Figure 7. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Radar Rainfall
Event Average Intensity Used for Pilot Project Evaluation
vs. CSO Program Typical Year (events <0.01 in/hr omitted).
................................................................................................ 12
Figure 8. Volume Retention vs Rainfall Depth and Peak Rainfall
Rate for Bioretention Sites and Porous Alley. .................... 20
Figure 9. Scatterplot of Rainfall Depth vs. Volume Reduction
with Segmented Regression Line for the Bioretention Sites.
................................................................................................ 21
Figure 10. Scatterplot of Rainfall Depth vs. Volume Reduction
with Regression Line for the Humphrey Porous Alley Site.22
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Geraldine
Bioretention Pilot Project. ...................................................... 3
Table 2. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Vandeventer
Bioretention Pilot Project. ...................................................... 7
Table 3. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Monroe Street
Rain Garden Pilot Project. ...................................................... 8
Table 4. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Warne Avenue
Soil Amendment Pilot Project. ............................................... 9
Table 5. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Labadie Avenue
Soil Amendment Pilot Project. ............................................... 9
Table 6. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Humphrey
Permeable Alley Pilot Project. .............................................. 10
Table 7. Summary of Infiltration Tests and Results, 2013-2015
(Cook, 2015). ......................................................................... 16
Table 8. Summary of October 2014 Hydrant Test Results at MSD
Green Infrastructure Projects. .............................................. 17
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 1
1
Background
In accordance with LimnoTech’s scope of work, this memo presents a summary of MSD’s green
infrastructure monitoring program, for use by MSD in their final report to the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency. This memo covers the following topics:
• Standard Pilot Project Monitoring
• Other Monitoring Activities
• Statistical Analysis of Pilot Monitoring Data
• Summary
Each of these items is discussed in a separate section below.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 2
Blank Page
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 3
2
Standard Pilot Project Monitoring Activities
MSD conducted monitoring at six pilot project sites from 2013 to 2015, including the following sites:
• Geraldine Bioretention Project
• Vandeventer Bioretention Project
• Monroe Street Rain Garden Project
• Warne Avenue Soil Amendment Site
• Labadie Avenue Soil Amendment Site
• Humphrey Permeable Alley
A summary of the standard monitoring conducted on these is provided below. The locations of these
projects are shown in Figure 1.
2.1 Geraldine Bioretention Project
Project monitoring included continuous monitoring of stage (level) in underdrain cleanout and outflow
from project. The periods of monitoring activity are summarized in the table below.
Table 1. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Geraldine Bioretention Pilot Project.
Monitoring
Component
Equipment Period of Monitoring Activity
Outflow Flume ultrasonic flow meter 8/16/13-8/28/13; 11/13/13-12/31/13,
1/9/14-3/27/14; 4/1/14-12/30/14;
1/1/15-10/31/15
Underdrain stage Clean out level logger 7/31/13-11/5/13; 11/8/13-3/18/14;
3/20/14-3/26/14; 4/1/14-10/30/14;
11/1/14-12/30/14; 1/1/15-10/31/15
Basin stage Surface level logger 3/17/14-3/18/14; 3/20/14-3/26/14;
4/1/14-10/30/14; 11/1/14-12/30/14;
1/1/15-10/31/15
Due to problems with monitoring equipment, data collected from the Geraldine bioretention project in
August through early November 2013 did not support calculation of performance metrics as planned in
the Green Infrastructure Monitoring Protocol. MSD made efforts to troubleshoot and enhance data
collection efforts after that time and the quantity of useable data increased significantly in 2014 and 2015.
Manual correction of the raw flume outflow dataset was necessary throughout the monitoring period
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 4
because of equipment drift, noise in the dataset, and outflow responses from artificial flooding of the
project during routine maintenance. Figure 2 shows an example of the flume data collected from the
Geraldine bioretention project in November and December 2014 and illustrates the raw versus manually
corrected data.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 5
Figure 1. Locations of Monitored GI Pilot Projects.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 6
Figure 2. Example of Flume Data from the Geraldine Bioretention Project Illustrating the Raw and
Manually Corrected Data.
A total of 194 events were identified for the Geraldine bioretention project from 11/15/2013 to
10/31/2015. Total precipitation for these events was 82.7 inches, the predicted runoff volume was 89,744
ft3, and the estimated discharge volume was 3,047 ft3 for an overall volume retention of 96.6%.
2.2 Vandeventer Bioretention Project
Monitoring of the Vandeventer bioretention project included continuous monitoring of stage (level) in
underdrain cleanout and outflow from project. The monitoring activity from 2013 to 2015 is summarized
in the table below.
Maintenance
/ Flushing
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 7
Table 2. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Vandeventer Bioretention Pilot Project.
Monitoring
Component
Equipment Period of Monitoring Activity
Outflow Flume ultrasonic flow meter 8/22/13-1/1/14; 1/9/14-2/17/14;
2/25/14-3/26/14; 4/1/14-11/5/14;
11/19/14-12/30/14; 1/1/15-1/13/15;
3/27/15-5/30/15; 6/17/15-8/22/15;
9/15/15-10/31/15
Underdrain stage Clean out level logger 8/5/13-8/30/13; 11/8/13-11/18/13;
11/20/13-3/18/14; 3/20/14-3/26/14;
4/1/14-10/30/14; 11/1/14-10/31/15
Basin stage Surface level logger 4/1/14-10/30/14; 11/1/14-10/31/15
Due to problems with monitoring equipment, data collected from the Vandeventer bioretention project in
most of September 2013 and October 2013 did not support calculation of performance metrics as planned
in the Green Infrastructure Monitoring Protocol. MSD made efforts to troubleshoot and enhance data
collection efforts after that time and the quantity of useable data increased significantly in 2014 and 2015.
Manual correction of the raw flume outflow dataset was necessary throughout the monitoring period
because of equipment drift and noise in the dataset. Figure 3 shows an example of the flume data collected
from the Vandeventer bioretention project in November and December 2014 and illustrates the raw
versus manually corrected data.
Figure 3. Example of Flume Data from the Vandeventer Bioretention Project Illustrating the Raw and
Manually Corrected Data.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 8
A total of 166 events were identified for the Vandeventer bioretention project from 8/30/2013 to
10/31/2015. Total precipitation for these events was 68.8 inches, the predicted runoff volume was 176,431
ft3, and the estimated discharge volume was 6,797 ft3 for an overall volume retention of 96.1%.
2.3 Monroe Street Rain Garden Project
Project monitoring for the Monroe Street rain garden project included continuous monitoring of stage
(level) in the outflow flume from project. Period of monitoring activity is summarized in the table below.
Table 3. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Monroe Street Rain Garden Pilot Project.
Monitoring
Component
Equipment Period of Monitoring Activity
Outflow Flume level logger 7/24/13-7/29/13; 8/23/13-10/9/13;
10/31/13-11/5/13; 11/8/13-3/18/14;
3/21/14-3/26/14; 4/1/14-10/30/14;
11/1/14-12/30/14; 1/1/15-3/5/15;
7/2/15-10/31/15
Due to problems with monitoring equipment, data collected from the Monroe rain garden project in
August through early November 2013 did not support calculation of performance metrics as planned in
the Green Infrastructure Monitoring Protocol. MSD made efforts to troubleshoot and enhance data
collection efforts after that time and only a few periods of unusable data were identified for 2014 and
2015. Manual correction of the raw flume outflow dataset for this project was difficult, as it was often
impossible to distinguish responses during storm events from noise in the dataset. Figure 4 shows an
example of the flume data collected from the Monroe rain garden project in October 2014 and illustrates
the difficulty of interpreting the raw data from this project.
Figure 4. Example of Flume Data from the Monroe Rain Garden Project Showing Typical Raw Data.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 9
A total of 128 events were identified for the Monroe rain garden project from 11/16/2013 to 10/31/2015.
Total precipitation for these events was 53.7 inches, the predicted runoff volume was 7,927 ft3, and the
estimated discharge volume was 325 ft3 for an overall volume retention of 95.9%.
2.4 Warne Avenue Soil Amendment Site
Project monitoring included continuous monitoring of groundwater stage (level) in two shallow
piezometers at the project site; one piezometer is located in a portion of the site with compost-amended
soil (front), and one is located in in a portion of the site with aerated soil (back). Period of monitoring
activity is summarized in the table below.
Table 4. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Warne Avenue Soil Amendment Pilot Project.
Monitoring
Component
Equipment Period of Monitoring Activity
Groundwater level Level logger (front) 7/24/13-11/5/13; 11/8/13-10/30/14;
11/1/14-12/30/14; 1/1/15-10/31/15
Groundwater level Level logger (back) 7/28/13-11/5/13; 11/14/13-10/30/14;
11/1/14-12/30/14; 1/1/15-10/31/15
Responses in groundwater level were observed for 17 storm events for the front Warne site (compost-
amended) and two events for the back Warne site (aerated).
2.5 Labadie Avenue Soil Amendment Site
As with the Warne soil amendment site, project monitoring at Labadie included continuous monitoring of
groundwater stage (level) in two shallow piezometers at the project site; one piezometer is located in a
portion of the site with aerated soil (front), and one is located in a portion of the site with compost-
amended soil (back). Period of monitoring activity is summarized in the table below.
Table 5. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Labadie Avenue Soil Amendment Pilot Project.
Monitoring
Component
Equipment Period of Monitoring Activity
Groundwater level Level logger (front) 7/23/13-11/5/13; 11/8/13-10/30/14;
11/1/14-12/30/14; 1/1/15-3/29/15;
5/2/15-10/31/15
Groundwater level Level logger (back) 7/23/13-11/6/13; 11/8/13-10/30/14;
11/1/14-12/30/14; 1/1/15-10/31/15
Responses in groundwater level were observed for five storm events for the front Labadie site (aerated)
and four events for the back Labadie site (compost-amended).
2.6 Humphrey Permeable Alley
Project monitoring for the Humphrey permeable alley project included continuous monitoring of stage
behind a Thel-Mar weir using a bubbler device to allow calculation of outflow from project. The period of
monitoring activity is summarized in the table below.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 10
Table 6. Summary of Monitoring Activity for the Humphrey Permeable Alley Pilot Project.
Monitoring
Component
Equipment Period of Monitoring Activity
Outflow Bubbler w/ Thel-Mar weir 8/20/13-8/21/13; 9/5/13-9/17/13;
10/18/13-12/3/13; 1/8/14-1/30/14;
2/24/14-4/7/14; 4/15/14-4/19/14;
5/5/14-5/6/14; 5/14/14-7/18/14;
7/23/14-10/21/14; 11/19/14-12/30/14;
1/1/15-2/20/15; 3/27/15-4/3/15;
5/7/15-5/19/15; 6/2/15-6/30/15;
9/9/15-10/31/15
The data collected from the Humphrey green alley project in 2013-2015 appear to be of good quality and
useable to support calculation of performance metrics as planned in the Green Infrastructure Monitoring
Protocol. However, data gaps for several extended periods and damage to the Thel-Mar weir prevented
performance metrics from being calculated for approximately two-thirds of the events over the full
8/30/2013 through 10/31/2015 monitoring period. Although data were being collected through the end of
2014, with the exception of a data gap due to battery failure from 10/21/2014 to 11/19/2014, an animal
apparently damaged the Thel-Mar weir resulting in unusable data from approximately 8/18/2014 through
12/30/2014. A replacement weir was installed on 1/2/2015. Manual correction of the raw weir outflow
dataset was necessary because of equipment drift and noise in the dataset (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Example of Weir Level Data from the Humphrey Permeable Alley Project Illustrating the
Raw and Manually Corrected Data.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 11
Even though the weir was replaced on 1/2/15, the new data being collected did not support computation
of additional performance metrics for the following reasons:
1. a data gap occurred for several weeks in early 2015 (Feb-late Mar)
2. discharge through the weir exceeded runoff volume for three events (Jan-early Feb) for which
discharge could be computed, indicating additional unresolved issues with the replacement weir
Although MSD efforts to troubleshoot and enhance data collection efforts in early April 2015 resulted in
additional useable data for 2015, equipment issues continued at the site including data gaps for several
weeks in May 2015 and all of Jul-Aug 2015.
A total of 75 events were identified for the Humphrey green alley project from 10/31/2013 to 10/31/2015.
Total precipitation for these events was 36.2 inches, the predicted runoff volume was 333,945 ft3, and the
estimated discharge volume was 44,790 ft3 for an overall volume retention of 86.6%.
2.7 HEC-HMS Model Development and Refinement
At the outset of the pilot program, it was determined that monitoring of runoff flowing into the pilot
projects would be impractical, so MSD developed hydrologic models of the drainage areas contributing
stormwater runoff to the Geraldine and Vandeventer bioretention areas, the Monroe rain garden and the
Humphrey permeable alley. MSD developed these models using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ HEC-
HMS model platform to simulate runoff to the projects. Refinement of the Vandeventer HEC-HMS model
was conducted in early 2015 and applied to the 2013-2014 runoff predictions after an investigation of
monitoring data for storage and outflow, coupled with the results from the hydrant testing (see Section
3.4), revealed the likely over prediction of runoff volumes by the original model.
2.8 Rainfall Data Used for Pilot Project Evaluation
Radar rainfall data were used as inputs to the hydrologic models developed for pilot project evaluation.
These rainfall data were compared to the hydrologic models referenced above, in order to generate
estimated runoff to the projects. The rainfall data collected during course of the pilot program were
compared to the “typical year” rainfall used for MSD’s CSO LTCP, to verify that the events monitored
during the pilot program are representative of the typical year. Distinct events were defined by a 6-hour
dry period between radar rainfall values. It should be noted that rainfall events totaling less than 0.01
inches total depth were excluded from the analysis of pilot project performance because they are so small
as to be unlikely to produce runoff. Exclusion of these events from the cumulative rainfall is important so
they do not contribute to the overall rainfall total for the monitoring period when calculating percent
capture. These excluded events included:
• 49 events for the Geraldine bioretention site totaling 0.182 inches
• 34 events for the Vandeventer bioretention site totaling 0.110 inches
• 40 events for the Monroe rain garden site totaling 0.165 inches
• 19 events for the Humphrey permeable alley site totaling 0.065 inches
Cumulative frequency distribution plots of rainfall event depth and average intensity are presented in
Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 12
Figure 6. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Radar Rainfall Event Depth Used for Pilot Project
Evaluation vs. CSO Program Typical Year (events <0.01 in. omitted).
Figure 7. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Radar Rainfall Event Average Intensity Used for Pilot
Project Evaluation vs. CSO Program Typical Year (events <0.01 in/hr omitted).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10Event Frequency (%)Rainfall Depth (in)
Geraldine Vandeventer Monroe Humphrey TypYear2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10Event Frequency (%)Average Rainfall Rate (in/hr)
Geraldine Vandeventer Monroe Humphrey TypYear2000
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 13
Based on the rainfall comparisons shown in Figures 5 and 6, it appears that the rainfall data used for
evaluation of the green infrastructure pilot projects compares well with the typical year rainfall used for
the MSD CSO program.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 14
Blank Page
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 15
3
Other Monitoring Activities
In addition to the routine monitoring activities described above, MSD has conducted several other
monitoring activities in support of the green infrastructure pilot program, as described below.
3.1 Infiltration Testing
Annual infiltration testing was conducted by Reitz & Jens Consulting Engineers, under contract to MSD,
at five pilot project sites from 2013 to 2015 using a double-ring infiltrometer (ASTM 3385). The number
of tests performed at each pilot project site and the testing results reported in the testing engineer’s
reports (Cook, 2013, 2014, 2015) are summarized in Table 7.
The intent of this testing was to measure the original infiltration capacity of the pilot projects and then to
provide data to assess changes in infiltration capacity. The infiltration testing results for the 2013 – 2015
period did not yield clear patterns, as indicated in Table 7. The following observations can be made from
the results of this testing program:
• Infiltration test results in the Geraldine bioretention basin were surprisingly high (hundreds of
cm/hr) in 2014 and 2015, and were much higher than the test results in 2013. Overall the measured
infiltration rates from Geraldine were, in some cases, more than a thousand times higher than the
measured infiltration rates for the Vandeventer bioretention basin. A possible explanation of this may
be that extensive secondary porosity exists beneath the Geraldine basin, possibly created by rubble
fill, which promotes significantly higher infiltration.
• Infiltration test results in the Vandeventer bioretention basin were also significantly higher in 2014
and 2015 than the original results measured in 2013. One possible explanation of this increase in
measured infiltration rate over time may be that ongoing infiltration may be clearing the secondary
porosity beneath the basins, although there is no way to verify this.
• Infiltration testing on the soil amendment sites did not indicate any significant difference in
infiltration rates between amended and unamended parts of the sites. At the Labadie site, measured
infiltration rates were higher in the unamended areas than in the amended areas.
• Infiltration testing in the porous alley yielded inconsistent results from year to year. Some of this
variability may be due to different locations being testing and some may be due to wheel-rut
compaction and choking of the spaces between pavers by particulates and weeds. In 2014 and 2015,
the testing engineer’s report indicated that they intentionally avoided these areas, but some impacts
may not have been visually apparent.
Overall, annual infiltration testing results do not provide any conclusive findings.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 16
Table 7. Summary of Infiltration Tests and Results, 2013-2015 1 (Cook, 2015).
Humphrey
Permeable Alley
Location Inner Ring Infiltration (cm/hr) Outer Ring Infiltration (cm/hr)
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
A 5.4 23.0 70.8 9.6 25.9 27.0
B no test 4.3 105.6 no test 20.3 33.6
Geraldine
Bioretention
Location Inner Ring Infiltration (cm/hr) Outer Ring Infiltration (cm/hr)
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
A 43.64 746 210.69 28.77 * *
B no test 556 199.98 no test * *
C no test 907 572.75 no test * *
Vandeventer
Bioretention
Location Inner Ring Infiltration (cm/hr) Outer Ring Infiltration (cm/hr)
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
A no test 0.72 1.5 no test 0.17 2.19
B 0.04 0.78 0.23 0.02 1.45 0.05
C no test 16.45 38.24 no test 11.20 38.07
Labadie Soil
Amendment
Location Inner Ring Infiltration (cm/hr) Outer Ring Infiltration (cm/hr)
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
A 0.07 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.06 0.04
B - - - 0.02 - -
C 2.11 0.70 1.54 1.71 0.16 0.46
D 0.82 - - - - -
E 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.44 0.10 0.02
F 0.04 - - - - -
Warne Soil
Amendment
Location Inner Ring Infiltration (cm/hr) Outer Ring Infiltration (cm/hr)
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
A 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.01 2.91
B 0.04 - - 0.16 - -
C 0.05 0.79 0.20 0.01 0.03 0.23
D 1.56 - - 0.11 - -
E - 0.05 0.29 - 0.06 0.92
F 0.43 - - 0.23 - -
3.2 Habitat for Humanity/JeffVanDerLou Project
During the green infrastructure pilot program, MSD supported monitoring of an ongoing project to
evaluate block-scale implementation of residential green infrastructure practices (rain gardens and rain
barrels) in the JeffVanderLou (JVL) neighborhood of St. Louis. The site consists of a block of 24 houses
and 12 vacant lots. Eighteen of the houses were built by Habitat for Humanity and each Habitat for
Humanity house was built with either a rain garden or a planter box to capture rooftop runoff. MSD refers
to this project as the JVL project. For purposes of comparison, MSD also monitored a control block
located in the Thurman neighborhood, which has 34 houses and is approximately three miles from the
test site.
1 Values are shown here as reported in the testing engineers report using the same significant figures.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 17
Data from the JVL project has been collected and evaluated by the Department of Civil Engineering at
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE), under the direction of Dr. Jianpeng Zhou. The findings
of the SIUE study have been published in the Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water
Resources Congress in 2014 and 2015 (Bloorchian, et al., 2014 and Bloorchian, et al., 2015). The SIUE
researchers found that, at the block scale, the green infrastructure techniques resulted in 55% to 65%
capture of stormwater.
3.3 Hydrant Testing
With input and assistance from LimnoTech, MSD conducted simulated runoff events, or hydrant tests, at
the Monroe rain garden project at the Geraldine and Vandeventer bioretention projects in October 2014.
The purpose of these experiments was to resolve apparent data discrepancies and high volume retention
reported during the 2014 mid-year review. The experimental procedures were to introduce a known
quantity of water at a fixed inflow rate into the projects and make both quantitative and qualitative
observations about how the system responded. This setup allowed for reducing a number of unknowns,
such as runoff volume, that are present during natural storm events. Results from the hydrant tests are
summarized in the table below.
Table 8. Summary of October 2014 Hydrant Test Results at MSD Green Infrastructure Projects.
Project Date Duration Inflow Outflow Volume Retention
Vandeventer 10/6/14 2.5 hours 3455 ft3 907 ft3 74%
Vandeventer 10/8/14 4.0 hours 3955 ft3 1150 ft3 71%
Geraldine 10/7/14 2.0 hours 1350 ft3 0 ft3 100%
Monroe 10/17/14 2.0 hours 5-6 gpm 0 ft3 100%
The following conclusions were arrived to as a result of the hydrant testing:
• The volume retentions computed for the Vandeventer bioretention project (74% and 71%) were lower
than any volume retention computed for a single event over the entire 2013-2014. This finding was
indicative that the runoff volumes predicted by the HEC-HMS model were likely over predicted. The
Vandeventer HEC-HMS model was revised as a result of findings from the hydrant testing (described
above).
• The 100% volume retention observed during the Geraldine bioretention project testing was indicative
that the high volume retention (95%) computed for all monitored events is valid, and that rapid
exfiltration and/or preferential flow pathways to secondary subsurface storage are responsible for the
losses.
• A closed-circuit television (CCTV) test was conducted on 10/24/2014 by MSD to investigate whether
inflow introduced from a hydrant to the Geraldine bioretention project was entering the combined
sewer without passing through the monitoring flume. The test revealed no observable change in the
sewer flow in several nearby combined sewers.
• The 100% volume retention observed during the Monroe rain garden project testing was indicative
that the high volume retention (95%) computed for all monitored events is valid, and that rapid
exfiltration and/or preferential flow pathways to secondary subsurface storage are responsible for the
losses.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 18
Blank Page
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 19
4
Statistical Analysis of Pilot Monitoring Data
Consistent with the approach described in the 2012 CSO Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Pilot
Program Monitoring Protocol document, a statistical regression was used to relate precipitation
characteristics to a volume retention percentage (VR%). The event-based VR% values were then applied to
the typical year precipitation events to estimate an annual VR%.
4.1 Data Handling
The flow meter data, precipitation variables, and runoff model results were assembled for each of the pilot
study sites. Only periods with no known equipment problems and in which the flow meters recorded
interpretable results were used in the regressions. The following data periods were used for the evaluation
of regression approaches and for the original regressions:
• Vandeventer – August 30, 2013 – March 29, 2015 (115 events with reliable measurements)
• Geraldine – November 15, 2013- March 29, 2015 (150 events)
• Humphrey – March 28, 2014 – August 5, 2014 (31 events)
As described in Section 4.2, additional data through October 31, 2015 were later added to these datasets.
Data from the two bioretention sites were combined to develop a single regression. A separate regression
was developed for the Humphrey porous alley site. One outlier event was removed from the Vandeventer
dataset – a single event with a much lower volume retention (12%) than any other event, despite being a
mid-range storm event.
The following precipitation variables were included in the dataset as possible predictor variables:
• Total rainfall (inches)
• Peak rainfall intensity (inches/hour)
• Average rainfall intensity (inches/hour)
• Event duration (hours)
• Days since last event
Volume retention percent was the response variable.
4.2 Regression
Preliminary multiple linear regressions were performed with various response data transformations.
Arcsin, logit, and probit transformations were tested. Each of the data transformations led to comparable
results, with either Peak Rainfall Intensity or Total Rainfall as the best predictor variables.
However, visual analysis of data indicated segmented regression approach may better describe the results
than a traditional linear regression. As shown in Figure 8, there appeared to be a threshold in both VR%
vs total rainfall and VR% vs peak rainfall intensity, particularly for bioretention sites.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 20
Figure 8. Volume Retention vs Rainfall Depth and Peak Rainfall Rate for Bioretention Sites and
Porous Alley.
To perform the segmented regressions, the R package ‘segmented’ was used. Each precipitation variable
was tested individually as a segmented variable. Total rainfall and peak intensity both had good
relationships with VR%. Days since last event had strong relationship through 8 hours and then a
negligible relationship. Therefore, events were regrouped under an 8-hour inter-event period, which had
previously been grouped based on a 6-hour inter-event period.
After regrouping the events with an 8-hour interval, the best regression for the bioretention sites was a
single variable segmented regression of VR% vs total rainfall, with nearly 100% volume reduction until
1.56 inches and a decrease in VR% beyond that threshold. The R-squared for this model is 0.72. Residuals
are not normally distributed, but are unbiased with respect to both the response variable and predictors.
The residuals are not normally distributed because of the large number of near-zero residuals where
nearly 100% volume retention was both measured and predicted.
The segmented regression equation for the bioretention sites is:
VR%= 99.86-0.844*RD [for events less than or equal to 1.556 inches]
VR%=99.86-0.844*1.556-10.0346*(RD-1.556) [for events greater than 1.556 inches]
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 21
where VR% is volume retention percent and RD is total rainfall depth. Figure 9 shows the events and the
segmented regression line.
Figure 9. Scatterplot of Rainfall Depth vs. Volume Reduction with Segmented Regression Line for the
Bioretention Sites.
A segmented regression for porous alley site was also tested. The R-squared improved slightly using
segmented approach, but the change in slope was based on only two points so the original MLR result was
used. The R-squared of the linear model with an untransformed response variable is 0.88. The regression
equation is:
VR%= 100.4-6.822*RD
where VR% is volume retention percent and RD is total rainfall depth.
Adding additional variables did not improve the model and none of the additional variables had p-values
indicating their effect was significant. Figure 10 shows the regression line.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 22
Figure 10. Scatterplot of Rainfall Depth vs. Volume Reduction with Regression Line for the
Humphrey Porous Alley Site.
These analyses were updated following the collection of additional flow monitoring data through October
31, 2015. The regressions did not change substantially following the incorporation of additional data. Four
outliers were removed from the bioretention dataset –two Vandeventer events where outflow occurred at
much lower storm events than typical and two Geraldine events where little outflow occurred despite high
precipitation. Two outliers were removed from the updated Humphrey porous alley dataset.
The following data periods were used for the updated regressions:
• Vandeventer – August 30, 2013 – October 31, 2015 (175 events with reliable measurements)
• Geraldine – November 15, 2013 - October 31, 2015 (224 events)
• Humphrey – March 28, 2014 – August 5, 2014 and May 16, 2015 – October 31, 2015 (60 events)
Figure 11 shows the updated regressions for the bioretention and porous alley sites.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 23
Figure 11. Updated Regressions including flow data through October 31, 2015.
The updated segmented regression equation for the bioretention sites is:
VR%= 99.95-0.984*RD [for events less than or equal to 1.76 inches]
VR%=99.95-0.984*1.76-10.71*(RD-1.76) [for events greater than 1.76 inches]
The R-squared for the updated segmented model is 0.68.
The updated linear regression equation for the porous pavement is:
VR%= 99.814-7.047*RD
The R-squared for the updated linear model is 0.69.
4.3 Application to Typical Year
Using regression results, a VR% was estimated for each precipitation event of typical year. Then a rainfall-
weighted VR% was calculated for the entire year to generate an annual volume reduction percentage.
The rainfall-weighted annual VR% calculated using the approach described above are:
• 96% volume retention estimated for bioretention sites (no change with updated segmented
regression)
• 92% rainfall retention estimated for porous alley (91% using updated linear regression)
These volume reduction percentages are significantly higher than typically reported literature values.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.05060708090100Bioretention Sites
Rainfall Depth (in)Volume Reduction (%)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.55060708090100Porous Alley
Rainfall Depth (in)
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 24
5
Summary
MSD conducted monitoring at six pilot project sites from 2013 to 2015, including the following sites:
• Geraldine Bioretention Project
• Vandeventer Bioretention Project
• Monroe Street Rain Garden Project
• Warne Avenue Soil Amendment Site
• Labadie Avenue Soil Amendment Site
• Humphrey Permeable Alley
Evaluation of monitoring data from the bioretention sites indicates that the two projects performed very
well and produced very high rates of runoff capture. The combined annual rate of runoff capture for the
two sites combined was 96%, which is higher than typically reported in the literature. A segmented
regression equation was developed from the data for the bioretention sites:
• VR%= 99.86-0.844*RD [for events less than or equal to 1.556 inches]
• VR%=99.86-0.844*1.556-10.0346*(RD-1.556) [for events greater than 1.556 inches]
These equations can be used to predict performance for bioretention projects, provided they are designed
using the same specifications and standards and built using similar materials and methods, with similar
site conditions. The latter is important because of the potential for buried rubble beneath the projects
from previous demolition activity, which could explain the high infiltration rates observed, especially at
the Geraldine site.
Results from the Monroe Street rain garden site were inconclusive. Insufficient project outflow were
collected from the site to allow meaningful evaluation. Similarly, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn
from the Warne or Labadie soil amendment sites.
Data from the Humphrey permeable alley project indicates that this type of green infrastructure
installation can be very effective in reducing runoff. The calculated rate of runoff reduction for the 2013-
2015 monitoring period was 92%. A regression equation was developed from the data for the permeable
alley site:
• VR%= 100.4-6.822*RD
As with the regression equations developed for the bioretention sites, this equation can be used to predict
performance for permeable pavement projects, provided they are designed using the same specifications
and standards and built using similar materials and methods, with similar site conditions.
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 25
Blank Page
MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Monitoring Summary for Final Report December 15, 2015
Page | 26
6 References
Bloorchian, A.A., J. Zhou, S. McCrary, R. Boly, S. Morgan. “Impact of Site-Scale Green Infrastructure on
Volume Reduction in Combined Sewers.” Presented at the World Environmental and Water
Resources Congress: Water Without Borders. ASCE. Portland, Oregon. June 1-5, 2014.
Bloorchian, A.A., J. Zhou. “Alternative Treatment of Flow Monitoring Data to Evaluate the Impact of
Green Infrastructure on Stormwater Volume Reduction in Combined Sewers.” Presented at the World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Floods, Droughts and Ecosystems. ASCE. Austin,
Texas, May 17-21, 2015.
Cook, C., (Reitz and Jens, Inc.). “Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District; GSA - Green Infrastructure Pilot
Program (11048); Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Results.” Letter report transmitted to Mr. Marc
Eshelman, M3 Engineering Group, PC. November 19, 2013.
Cook, C., (Reitz and Jens, Inc.). “Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District; GSA - Green Infrastructure Pilot
Program (11048); Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Results 2014.” Letter report transmitted to Mr.
Marc Eshelman, M3 Engineering Group, PC. November 5, 2014.
Cook, C., (Reitz and Jens, Inc.). “Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District; GSA - Green Infrastructure Pilot
Program (11048); Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Results 2015.” Letter report transmitted to Ms.
Susan McCrary, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. May 22, 2015.