20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4: Ohio River Flood Protection

In Association with: NAC | K.S. Ware & Associates | RKX | Powers Engineering

June 2017 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan

Volume 4: Ohio River Flood Protection

In Association with: NAC | K.S. Ware & Associates | RKX | Powers Engineering

June 2017

CH2M One Riverfront Plaza 401 West Main Street Suite 800 Louisville, KY 40202 O +1 502-584-6052 www.ch2m.com

Angela L. Akridge, PE, Chief Engineer Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District 700 West Liberty Street Louisville, KY 40203

June 30, 2017

Subject: 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan—Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan

Dear Ms. Akridge, The attached 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan, also referred to as the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan, represents MSD’s most ambitious planning effort in a decade. The 2-year effort reviewed the challenges our community faces now and in the future, identified practical solutions, and developed a roadmap to protect the health, economic vitality, and environment of our city. The recommendations in this Facility Plan are the result of careful evaluation by the Facility Plan Team, which includes some of the most experienced engineers in Louisville Metro. We believe that the recommendations presented in this Facility Plan are essential to maintaining reliable facilities that will allow MSD to fulfill its responsibility for safe, clean waterways and help preserve and promote our competitiveness as a city. One driver that led to Facility Plan development was a recognition that—for the past 10 years—MSD has focused much of its resources and investments on tackling the federally mandated undertaking to reduce sewer overflows. Major investments in other infrastructure rehabilitation, renewal, and replacement were limited by the community’s desire to keep rates at or below industry averages, even as capital and operating spending ramped up to meet Consent Decree requirements. In the face of limited resources, MSD staff still continued its excellent record of regulatory compliance in areas not related to sewer overflow control by focusing on the day-to-day operation and maintenance of wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection facilities. The result of deferred investment on infrastructure renewal and replacement is that Louisville’s aging system of pipes, pumps, treatment plants, and flood control systems is now in urgent need of rehabilitation if it is to continue reliably protecting public health and safety. The Facility Plan recommends taking immediate action to begin implementing critical improvements to the wastewater, stormwater management, and flood protection systems. Acting in accordance with the recommended schedule of improvements will require a significant investment from the community. Starting on these critical projects while still only halfway through the Consent Decree response will require a step-change increase in wastewater and drainage rates. If the community is unwilling to accept the rate increases necessary to fund the project schedules recommended, then many important projects will need to be deferred until the major Consent Decree spending is complete. The data indicate that not implementing necessary investments in a timely manner is almost certain to result in more infrastructure failures, an increase in the overall Facility Plan implementation cost, and an ever more rapidly increasing likelihood of a failure that could have serious consequences for the residents and business that make Louisville Metro their home. Angela L. Akridge, PE, Chief Engineer Page 2 June 30, 2017

Following the release of the December 2016 draft of the Facility Plan, MSD undertook a wide-reaching public outreach initiative, aimed at bringing many perspectives to the table for constructive dialogue about the needs and timing of implementing the Facility Plan recommendations. Community input confirms that Louisville supports restoring its vital wastewater, flood protection, and stormwater management facilities. Following are responses from those who engaged in the community conversation: • Ninety percent of respondents understand and agree with the need for investing in the community’s wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection systems to reduce risks to public health and safety rather than continuing to defer critical repairs and reinvestment. • Eighty-nine percent of respondents believe beginning to address the public health and safety risks as quickly as possible is important. • Seventy-one percent of respondents support increasing residential rates of up to $10 per month (with a proportional increase in industrial and commercial rates) to immediately begin funding critical wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection needs that address public health and safety risks. • Seventy-eight percent of respondents support expanding MSD’s existing Rate Relief Program to assist customers who meet federal criteria established for other utility rate assistance programs. Working with MSD on this important planning assignment that addresses critical infrastructure issues impacting the future quality of life in our community has been an honor and privilege for the entire Facility Plan Team. The undersigned leaders of the Facility Plan Team, as representatives of our respective firms, proudly submit this final Facility Plan for your consideration.

Respectfully Submitted,

Gary J. Swanson, PE Paul G. Maron, PE CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. Strand Associates, Inc. Project Manager Deputy Project Manager

Matthew Newman, PE Michael C. Harris, PE HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc. Task Lead—Stormwater and Drainage Task Lead—Property

Mark A. Sneve, PE, BCEE Charles R. Anderson, PE Strand Associates, Inc. Strand Associates, Inc. Task Lead—Wastewater Collection and Treatment Task Lead—Ohio River Flood Protection System

Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan June 30, 2017

MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS

Name Firm Project Role Gary Swanson, PE CH2M Project Manager, all volumes Paul Maron, PE Strand Associates Deputy Project Manager, all volumes Daniel Thewes, PE CH2M Assistant Project Manager, all volumes Mark Sneve, PE Strand Associates Principal Author, Volume 2 Matt Newman, PE HDR Principal Author, Volume 3 Chuck Anderson, PE Strand Associates Principal Author, Volume 4 Mike Harris, PE Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc. Principal Author, Volume 5 Janet Kelly Urban Studies Institute Contributing Author, Volume 1 David Green CH2M Contributing Author, Volume 1 Michael Matichich CH2M Contributing Author, Volume 1 Keith Bishton CH2M Contributing Author, Volume 1 Kyle Guthrie, PE HDR Contributing Author, Volume 2 Mark Lacy Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc. Contributing Author, Volume 2 Rachel Sills HDR Contributing Author, Volume 2 Laura Ratajczak Strand Associates Contributing Author, Volume 2 Craig Miller Powers Engineering Contributing Author, Volume 2 John Lyons, PE Strand Associates Contributing Author, Volume 3 Stephanie Glossner, PE Strand Associates Contributing Author, Volume 3 Steve Cummings, PE Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc. Contributing Author, Volume 3 Steve McKinley, PE HDR Contributing Author, Volume 3 Norman Barker, PE HDR Contributing Author, Volume 3 Ryan Tinsley, PE Strand Associates Contributing Author, Volume 4 Gary Boblitt, PE HDR Contributing Author, Volume 4 Heidi Wilbarger, PE K.S. Ware & Associates Contributing Author, Volume 4 Abbe Michalski, PE Strand Associates Contributing Author, Volume 4 Shelly Wakefield Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc. Contributing Author, Volume 5 Thomas Cucura Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc. Contributing Author, Volume 5 Crystal Kent Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc. Contributing Author, Volume 5 Jennifer Moore CH2M Lead Editor, all volumes Tawana Bain NAC Document production, all volumes Christy Fowler NAC Document production, all volumes Rosanne Kruzich RKX Data management, all volumes Julia Muller RKX Data management, all volumes

Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

20‐YEAR COMPREHENSIVE FACILITY PLAN – PLAN OVERVIEW

PURPOSE

In January 2014, the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) Board adopted a new Strategic Business Plan that defined a change agenda for MSD. The intent of the Strategic Business Plan is to dramatically improve customer care and service; make appropriate investments in technology, infrastructure, and employees; and improve the quality of life in Louisville and Jefferson County, while maintaining the financial viability of the utility. A key part of MSD’s plan to implement the Strategic Business Plan is to develop this 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan—Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan (Facility Plan). The purpose of this Facility Plan is to accomplish the following:  Consolidate MSD’s planning and prioritization for facility rehabilitation, renewal, replacement, upgrade, and expansion across all its service areas.  Recommend and prioritize projects and programs to achieve the following objectives: — Protect the public health and safety of the community. — Protect our aquatic and terrestrial environment. — Meet customer expectations for a consistent level of service. — Comply with all federal and state laws, regulations, orders, and standards. This Plan Overview presents a high‐level summary of the Facility Plan and discusses the compelling need for implementing the recommendations presented herein.

BACKGROUND

From 1985 to 2003, MSD spent close to $1 billion on improvements to the wastewater collection and treatment system to address high‐priority public health and safety issues. During this same period, a $134 million program for managing intermittent wet‐weather sewer overflows was also underway to study the system behavior and subsequently design and construct several important sewer overflow abatement facilities. However, the investment made to tackle sewer overflows was not deemed sufficient to meet water quality goals within timeframes established by federal and state regulators, and in 2003, MSD received a request for information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. This request for information was the first step in a process that eventually led to a notice of alleged Clean Water Act violations from EPA and the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KDEP); this notice resulted in a negotiated settlement between these parties most commonly referred to as the Consent Decree.1 One requirement of the

1 The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Plaintiff, and the United States of American, Plaintiff‐Intervener, v. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, Defendant, in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division. Amended Consent Decree, Case 3‐08‐cv‐00608‐CRS. Filed April 15, 2009. Available at http://www.msdprojectwin.org/Portals/0/Library/ Consent%20Decree/Agreement/ Commonwealth%20of%20KY%20vs%20MSD%20%20Amended%20Consent%20Decree.pdf.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 1 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Consent Decree was for MSD to develop overflow abatement plans to address combined sewer overflows (CSOs), separate sewer overflows (SSOs), and unauthorized discharges. In response to this requirement, MSD consolidated the required overflow abatement plans into the Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan (IOAP), a long‐term plan to control CSOs and eliminate SSOs and other unauthorized discharges in MSD’s sewer system. Submitted December 2008 and approved by regulatory agencies in August, 2009, the IOAP identified $850 million in capital improvements, associated incremental operating costs, and a high‐level financial plan that included cash‐flow projections, projected borrowing schedules, and projected rate increases through the year 2024. With the filing of the enforcement action, sewer overflows became the top priority, and MSD shifted resources and investments agency‐wide to tackle this massive federally mandated undertaking. Spending in areas other than sewer overflow control was focused on the day‐to‐day operation and upkeep of wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection facilities. Major investments in infrastructure rehabilitation, renewal, and replacement were limited by a desire to keep rates at or below industry averages, even as capital and operating spending ramped up to meet the Consent Decree requirements. This shift was especially significant given that portions of the stormwater and flood protection system were already in decline due to exceeding their expected design life prior to MSD assuming responsibility for these facilities in 1987; and the initial funding source that had been established to address this deferred renewal and replacement was insufficient to address all the improvement needs identified. The result of this deferred investment over the past 10 to 15 years is that Louisville’s aging system of pipes, pumps, treatment plants, and flood gates are now in urgent need of rehabilitation so they can continue to reliably protect public health and community safety. While iconic landmarks and prominent structures garner more attention, Louisville is also home to a less visible system of facilities that serve a higher calling behind the scenes every day—facilities that keep Ohio River floodwaters at bay, prevent harmful bacteria from entering homes and local waterways through sewer overflows, and reduce the likelihood of disease outbreaks such as Zika virus spawned by poor drainage. When pipes fail and structures in the system collapse into sinkholes, and when inland flooding blocks roadways, access to emergency services and critical care is denied. A properly functioning sanitary sewer, stormwater, and drainage system is needed to support the community’s economic engine, protect jobs, and sustain the local tax base. Neglecting this essential system is no longer an option—serious failures are occurring at an increasingly rapid pace. The ability to successfully apply temporary repairs rather than permanent fixes diminishes significantly with each passing day. Rainfall totals that once could be managed by the system now overwhelm it. This risk is heightened by the increased frequency of extreme storm events. The back‐to‐ back storm events experienced in 2015 flooded homes, leaving families without shelter. Cars were washed away, streets were impassable, schools and businesses shut down, and public safety was threatened in proportions not seen in decades. Citizens demanded that measures be taken to prevent similar occurrences from happening again. Despite the public call to action, MSD recognized that there would likely be concern about the costs to complete the Consent Decree IOAP projects and meet the public expectation of improved levels of service provided by the wastewater and stormwater services. To help identify appropriate levels of investment and priorities, MSD developed this 20‐year Comprehensive Facility Plan that consolidates

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 2 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

MSD’s planning for facility rehabilitation, renewal, replacement, upgrade, and expansion across all its service areas. Projects listed in the Facility Plan were determined by the Facility Plan Team to address critical needs requiring correction over the next 20 years to protect the community health and safety, provide environmental protection, meet customer expectations for level of service, and move closer to the goal of our local waterways achieving federal and state water quality standards. This Facility Plan will also consider the long‐term operating needs to accommodate operation and maintenance (O&M) of new facilities coming on line under the IOAP and other critical infrastructure investments. Maintaining consistency in levels of service and protecting ratepayers across the entire Louisville community are also key objectives of this Facility Plan. The aim is to provide protection from drainage problems to a consistent 10‐percent probability storm (also commonly referred to as a 10‐year storm). Currently, the most recently constructed areas in the community are designed to protect against drainage problems due to the 10‐percent probability storm as defined by MSD’s current Design Manual (a 4.5‐inch rainstorm occurring in 24 hours; MSD, 2015). Many older neighborhoods in the service area, constructed before MSD assumed responsibility for stormwater management, begin to experience localized drainage problems in a 3‐inch rainstorm occurring in 24 hours. The implication is that MSD’s current level of protection is not consistent across the service area. Based on the analyses of this 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan, meeting the critical needs of the community is estimated to cost $4.3 billion over the next two decades. The reality is that the original Consent Decree resulted in large part from a similar pattern of deferred rehabilitation and reinvestment in critical wastewater infrastructure. The Facility Plan Team believes the community should not risk burdening our children and grandchildren with future federal mandates because of an unwillingness to dedicate adequate resources to the challenges of today. MSD strongly believes that the Louisville community deserves to be informed on matters of public health and safety, and likewise, should have a voice in the conversation about the timing of necessary infrastructure investments. MSD committed to facilitating discussions with customers, business leaders, elected officials, and others. With this overall goal, after the draft report was submitted in December 2016, MSD undertook the wide‐reaching “Community Conversation” initiative described in Volume 1 Section 2, aimed at bringing many perspectives to a constructive dialogue. This dialogue did not center around if the risks to the public health and safety of families and business owners will be addressed, but rather how soon should the work begin. Community input confirms that Louisville supports restoring its vital wastewater, flood protection, and stormwater management facilities. Responses from those who engaged in the community conversation are as follows:  Ninety percent of the respondents understand and agree with the need for investing in the community’s wastewater, stormwater and flood protection systems to reduce risks to public health and safety rather than continuing to defer critical repairs and reinvestment.  Eight‐nine percent of the respondents believe it is important to begin addressing the public health and safety risks as quickly as possible.  Seventy‐one percent of the respondents support an increase in residential rates of up to $10 per month (with a proportional increase in industrial and commercial rates), to immediately begin to

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 3 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

fund critical wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection needs to address public health and safety risks.  Seventy eight percent of the respondents support expanding MSD’s Rate Relief Program, to assist customers who meet federal criteria established for other utility rate assistance programs. This input echoes the priorities identified by local citizens at the 100 Resilient Cities Workshop hosted by Louisville Metro in early 2017, including the risks of severe or catastrophic weather, infrastructure vulnerability, and aging infrastructure.

SCOPE OF PLAN

As noted previously, the following are the purposes of this Facility Plan:  Consolidate MSD’s planning and prioritization for facility rehabilitation, renewal, replacement, upgrade, and expansion across all its service areas.  Recommend and prioritize projects and programs to achieve the following objectives: — Protect the public health and safety of the community. — Protect our aquatic and terrestrial environment. — Meet customer expectations for a consistent level of service. — Comply with all federal and state laws, regulations, orders and standards. This Facility Plan has identified overall financial needs for future facility rehabilitation, renewal, replacement, upgrade, and expansion. The projects are those recommended by the Facility Plan Team as needed to achieve MSD’s mission, vision, and goals. All projects have been assigned recommended schedule dates and durations based on the Facility Plan Team’s assessment of their relative priority and needs. The project schedules will be further refined by MSD staff as part of the annual budgeting process. In addition, this Facility Plan, like all long‐term plans, should be revisited on a recommended 5‐year cycle to make adjustments as changing conditions develop. For projects directly affected by precipitation events, the Facility Plan includes projected rainfall intensity, duration, and frequency (IDF) curves for year 2035. These projections consider both statistical trends going back 60 years, along with state‐of‐the art global circulation models that project future precipitation conditions. These models reflect the observed increased frequency of extreme storm events that we have experienced, presumably related to the impacts of global climate change. This Facility Plan recommends that MSD’s current design criteria for facilities (based on published storm recurrence intervals) will apply to new facilities planned as appropriate, with revised precipitation projections applied to the recurrence intervals in the criteria. For example, stormwater culverts under secondary roadways will continue to be designed to the 10‐percent probability storm (commonly known as the 10‐year storm), but the 24‐hour rainfall value used in the calculations reflects precipitation projections for the end of the 20‐year planning period (2035). The Facility Plan recommends that MSD’s design standards be modified to incorporate the projected 2035 precipitation projections in the requirements for new construction. For example, the 10‐percent probability storm projected for 2035 is

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 4 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

5.2 inches of rain occurring in 24 hours, as compared with the current MSD Design Manual value (2015) of 4.5 inches of rain occurring in 24 hours. This Facility Plan considers the operating costs, including staff increases, to accommodate O&M of new facilities coming online under the IOAP and this Facility Plan. In addition, shortfalls in current O&M budgets and staffing levels for facility maintenance have been evaluated, and a program to adjust both budgets and staffing over time has been recommended. The recommended budgets and staffing levels are intended to allow predictive and preventive maintenance to occur in accordance with current industry best practices for asset management. A key part of the Facility Plan is a recommended 20‐year capital improvement program (CIP). Projects in the recommended 20‐year CIP were determined by the Facility Plan Team to address critical needs requiring correction over the next 20 years. Another key objective of the Facility Plan is consistent service for ratepayers across the entire Louisville community. The aim is to provide wastewater, drainage, and flood protection services to a 10‐percent probability storm (10‐year storm) for all customers within the MSD service area by the end of the 20‐year planning period.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

The Facility Plan Team identified projects through a number of pathways. MSD’s current CIP contains more than 100 projects related to wastewater systems. If these projects were already in design or construction, then these existing projects were included in the recommended 20‐year CIP without change. If the projects were not in design or construction, then project needs were identified, project justification reviewed, and costs verified. These projects were then subject to prioritization along with all the other projects. The IOAP has a number of very large projects still to construct. These projects are required to be completed on the schedule presented in the approved IOAP. No changes were made to the IOAP projects or their schedules. MSD has a number of existing planning studies related to wastewater that have not been fully implemented, primarily because of funding limitations. The Facility Plan Team evaluated existing studies and found a number of worthwhile projects that have not been included in the CIP yet. These projects were evaluated and are included in the project mix for prioritization. Finally, the Facility Plan Team looked for gaps in previous planning. This included reviewing population projections, assessing regulatory changes that might occur during the 20‐year planning period, and conducting a facility condition assessment that included staff interviews, visual inspections, and in some cases diagnostic measurements. The projects resulting from regulatory changes will be mandatory to complete in the timeframe dictated by the adoption of new regulations. The anticipated timeframes for new regulations and new regulatory enforcement priorities have been identified by the Facility Plan Team, understanding that regulatory issues are not totally predictable and not within MSD’s complete control. The facility condition assessment identified a number of projects that were critically needed to correct the past under‐investment in asset renewal and replacement. A review of maintenance trends confirmed that the number of infrastructure failures (for example, sewer collapse, pump station capacity shortfalls) is directly related to the asset’s age. This implies a system‐wide deficiency in

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 5 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

effective preventive maintenance, which impacts both the reliability and the overall cost of ownership of those assets.

PROJECT EVALUATION AND PRIORITIZATION

Project evaluation and prioritization requires a rigorous and transparent approach. The approach used to develop the IOAP was very successful in this regard and, to the extent possible, was replicated in developing this Facility Plan. Given the variety of ways that projects were identified and developed, capital and operating cost‐ estimating used a variety of sources. The IOAP Cost Tool was used to develop project costs where applicable (new projects with standard components like sewers and pump stations). Where the standard cost tool could not be applied, the team used industry‐standard cost references such as RS Means. When similar MSD projects were available, the estimating was conducted using unit prices from those projects. Prioritizing projects followed the values‐based benefit/cost evaluation used successfully in the development of the IOAP. The Wet Weather Team (WWT) Stakeholder Group was rechartered to continue to assist with IOAP implementation and also to serve a role in helping guide Facility Plan development. Many original members chose to continue serving on this team. Recognizing the broader scope of the Facility Plan, a number of new members representing different interest groups and demographics were added to the WWT Stakeholder Group. A values‐based benefit/cost evaluation assisted with developing scoring scales to grade projects on their effectiveness at protecting the community in the following values:  Environmental Protection  Public Health Protection  Regulatory Compliance  Sustainability  Property Protection  Economic Vitality The values‐based benefit scores were coupled with life‐cycle cost information to develop a benefit/cost score used for the first round of project prioritization. This approach was then supplemented with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the project in mitigating risk. Risk mitigation effectiveness was valuated based on the change in either the probability of an event happening or the consequence of that event occurring. As Figure 1 indicates, the combination of a high probability and a serious consequence result in a risk that is considered to be “critical.” The anticipated change in risk resulting from implementing a project resulted in a risk reduction factor that was used in conjunction with the benefit/cost score to prioritize projects.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 6 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Figure 1. Risk Evaluation Matrix

RECOMMENDED 20‐YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 1 summarizes the recommended 20‐year CIP, broken down by service area and major program. Note that the values in the table have been escalated at 3 percent per year compounded to the projected mid‐point of construction.

Table 1. Recommended 20‐Year Capital Improvement Plan Summary Capital Cost (in escalated dollars, millions) Total FY17 Service Area and Program FY17 through FY22 through FY27 through FY32 through through FY21 FY26 FY31 FY36 FY36 Wastewater $848.0 $392.3 $353.7 $262.6 $1,856.5 Consent Decree (IOAP) $564.6 $26.5 $0.4 $.0 $591.5 NMC $116.2 $33.2 $35.1 $40.0 $224.5 CMOM $144.2 $275.7 $184.4 $201.1 $805.4 Development $23.0 $56.9 $133.8 $21.5 $235.2 Stormwater $348.8 $623.7 $636.2 $734.7 $2,343.4 Drainage $189.8 $403.0 $394.0 $529.7 $1,516.5 Floodplain Management $19.8 $25.4 $29.4 $34.1 $108.6 Ohio River Flood Protection $128.1 $175.6 $191.2 $145.9 $640.9 Stormwater Quality (MS4) $11.2 $19.8 $21.5 $25.0 $77.5 Support Systems $43.5 $28.7 $24.9 $27.4 $124.5 Capital Equipment $11.3 $14.7 $16.7 $19.0 $61.8 Facilities $27.7 $8.3 $3.2 $2.7 $41.9 IT $3.1 $3.8 $3.1 $3.6 $13.6 LOJIC $1.4 $1.9 $1.8 $2.1 $7.3 Total Escalated Costs $1,240.4 $1,044.7 $1,014.7 $1,024.7 $4,324.5 FY fiscal year IOAP Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan IT information technology LOJIC Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 7 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Table 2 summarizes the first 5 years of the recommended 20‐year CIP, broken down by year, service area and major program. Note that the values in the table have been escalated at 3 percent per year compounded to the projected midpoint of construction. MSD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 approved CIP did not fully fund the Facility Plan recommendations for that fiscal year due to revenue limitations caused by a cap on the rate increases that the MSD Board can approve without receiving approval from Louisville Metro Council. MSD staff prioritized CIP spending based on the funding available, resulting from the FY2017 CIP budget that was approved by the MSD Board. The net effect is that the projects not funded in accordance with the Facility Plan recommendations will need to be reconsidered at a later date, and when sufficient funding becomes available.

Table 2. Recommended 5‐Year CIP Summary Capital Cost (in escalated dollars, millions) Total FY2017 Service Area and Program FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 through FY2021 Wastewater $150.8 $188.1 $210.0 $161.1 $138.0 $848.0 Consent Decree (IOAP) $109.9 $139.5 $154.4 $89.7 $71.1 $564.6 NMC $19.7 $21.3 $25.9 $26.7 $22.6 $116.2 CMOM $18.6 $25.1 $24.1 $35.7 $40.7 $144.2 Development $2.6 $2.2 $5.6 $9.0 $3.6 $23.0 Stormwater $19.1 $40.8 $63.7 $93.0 $132.3 $348.8 Drainage $4.2 $16.2 $31.8 $59.7 $77.9 $189.8 Floodplain Management $1.6 $4.6 $4.4 $4.5 $4.6 $19.8 Ohio River Flood Protection $11.4 $18.3 $25.6 $26.8 $46.0 $128.1 Stormwater Quality (MS4) $1.9 $1.7 $1.9 $1.9 $3.7 $11.2 Support Systems $12.5 $5.5 $7.0 $7.4 $11.2 $43.5 Capital Equipment $.6 $1.4 $1.9 $2.4 $5.0 $11.3 Facilities $10.2 $3.1 $4.7 $4.2 $5.7 $27.7 IT $1.6 $.7 $.3 $.3 $.3 $3.1 LOJIC $.1 $.4 $.1 $.5 $.3 $1.4 Total Escalated Costs $182.4 $234.5 $280.7 $261.4 $281.5 $1,240.4

SIGNIFICANT SERVICE AREA PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS

The following sections will address each of the MSD service areas, along with support services, describing specific assumptions that drove project development.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 8 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

For the past 10 years much of MSD’s focus has been ensuring compliance with the Consent Decree requirements. Due to limited resources and a desire to maintain sewer and drainage rates at or below the national average, developing and implementing the IOAP has taken the focus off infrastructure renewal and repair for facilities not related to sewer overflow control. In addition, the weak economy from 2008 to 2012 also reduced the pressure to provide new wastewater service to developing areas. While IOAP implementation is only half finished, the consequences of deferred rehabilitation and reinvestment are beginning to show in increased numbers of sewer collapses, including multiple problems with the Broadway Interceptor and its connecting lines. With the local economy strengthening, MSD is seeing much more interest from the development community to provide sewer service to growth areas across the county. This Facility Plan addresses all these issues, as described in the following sections.

CONSENT DECREE AND INTEGRATED OVERFLOW ABATEMENT PLAN

The IOAP is a major part of MSD’s Consent Decree compliance program. The IOAP is a long‐term plan to control CSOs and eliminate SSOs and other unauthorized discharges from MSD’s sewerage system. The IOAP is expected to improve water quality in both Beargrass Creek and the Ohio River through and downstream of Jefferson County. The expected water quality benefits of the IOAP include reductions in the peak levels of bacteria in the Ohio River and Beargrass Creek and in the amount of time that average bacteria levels exceed water quality standards. In addition, the IOAP program will enhance public health and safety by reducing the potential for the public to come in contact with untreated SSOs, in the basements of their homes or in the streets and ground surfaces where SSOs currently discharge.

Long‐Term Control Plan Benefits

The suite of projects selected for the Final CSO Long‐Term Control Plan (LTCP) part of the IOAP will result in approximately 98 percent capture and treatment of wet‐weather combined sewage during an average year. This benefit represents an 89 percent reduction in CSO volume compared with conditions in 2008. As a point of reference, the presumptive approach for compliance with water quality standards in EPA’s CSO Control Policy (EPA, 1994) is based on a minimum of 85 percent capture and treatment of wet‐weather combined sewage.

Sanitary Sewer Discharge Plan Benefits

The suite of projects selected for the Final Sanitary Sewer Discharge Plan (SSDP) part of the IOAP will eliminate capacity‐related SSOs up to the site‐specific level of protection. The SSO projects are anticipated to eliminate an average of 145 SSO events per year (290 million gallons [MG] of overflow volume), based on 2005 to 2007 data normalized for rainfall. In terms of water quality, SSO projects will eliminate 100 tons of 5‐day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and approximately 200 tons of total suspended solids (TSS) annually.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 9 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Sustainable Performance

MSD’s IOAP is based on a “demonstration approach” to achieving compliance with the Consent Decree and the Clean Water Act requirements. While MSD is required to certify compliance with the CSO management requirements after completing the full suite of CSO projects in 2020, MSD’s CSO management performance will continue to be monitored through the Morris Forman Water Quality Treatment Center (WQTC) Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permit with performance standards consistent with the commitments of the IOAP. Similarly, the SSO elimination projects are required to be completed by the end of 2024. MSD’s certification that the performance objectives have been met will mean that MSD’s obligations under the Consent Decree have been discharged, but the requirements for continued operation of collection and treatment facilities in the system to avoid further SSOs will continue through the KPDES permits. The Consent Decree requirements do not go away with the completion of the IOAP projects—the enforcement mechanism for sewer overflow and control changes from the Consent Decree to the respective KPDES permits.

Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan Impacts on the Recommended Capital Improvement Program

Over the first 5 to 9 years of the planning period, the wastewater service area CIP is dominated by completing the remaining major IOAP projects. The major CSO storage basins are all scheduled to be completed by the end of FY2021, with the remainder of the SSO elimination projects scheduled to be completed by the end of FY2025. Completing the entire suite of CSO and SSO projects in accordance with the IOAP schedule is required by the Consent Decree. Any failure to complete a project on schedule could be considered a violation of the Consent Decree, with consequences including stipulated penalties that could total more than $1 million for a 1‐year delay in completion. The next section of the Plan Overview addresses the balance of the CIP. These projects address needs in wastewater, stormwater, flood protection and asset management infrastructure that have been deferred for the past 10 to 15 years as MSD’s limited resources were focused on meeting Consent Decree requirements.

NINE MINIMUM CONTROLS

The EPA Nine Minimum Controls (NMC) were initially developed as part of the Clean Water Act CSO Policy to address combined sewer system (CSS) best management practices (BMPs) that do not require significant construction. In a continued focus on protection of public health and safety, the BMPs required by the NMCs will be integrated into MSD’s KPDES permits to ensure protection of public health, safety, and the environment. Maximizing storage in the conveyance system, maintaining WQTC capacity, and ensuring effective public notification of sewer overflows are examples of the BMPs that will remain in place in perpetuity as conditions of the Morris Forman WQTC KPDES permit. The recommended 20‐year CIP includes funding for the formal NMC program that is reported quarterly as part of the Consent Decree requirements. Capital projects that help to sustain the intent of the NMC requirements are included in the preliminary CIP through the end of the planning period.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 10 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

The most significant long‐term NMC activities are the real‐time control (RTC) system in the CSS and the Morris Forman WQTC improvements, which are also a major component of the IOAP. The 20‐year CIP recommendation provides annual funding for ongoing RTC rehabilitation and renewal to ensure proper RTC system operation system. By using the storage capacity of MSD’s large‐diameter CSS, MSD can cost‐ effectively mitigate sewer overflows during smaller storms of concern in CSO control. The cost of providing storage in the pipes is typically a small fraction of the cost to provide that same storage in a stand‐alone tank. The long‐term operation of an effective RTC system is one of the cornerstones of the IOAP, which is necessary for long‐term sustained compliance with the Clean Water Act CSO Policy, CSO Long‐Term Control Plan, and NMC requirements. Sustaining reliable treatment capability and capacity at the Morris Forman WQTC is critical to ensure proper wastewater treatment for Ohio River water quality protection. This treatment is a significant endeavor that has been underfunded since the most recent overall plant rehabilitation was completed in the early 2000s. A detailed facility condition assessment has been prepared for the Morris Forman WQTC liquid process treatment facilities. Periodic equipment replacements and major plant renovations are scheduled in 5‐year intervals for financial planning. Overall, the proposed 20‐year CIP recommendations include almost $200 million in rehabilitation and renewal projects over the planning period. To protect public health, these rehabilitation and renewal projects are essential to maintaining reliable operation of the largest WQTC in MSD’s system. Unfortunately, the 2015 failure of the Morris Forman WQTC high‐voltage electrical distribution center provided a catastrophic view of the consequences of deferring facility renewal and replacement. As power was lost to the main electrical system for the WQTC, inadequate backup power resulted in flooding and extensive damage to the facility. Wastewater was discharged that had not been treated to the State of Kentucky’s KPDES discharge standards, creating a potential public health risk to the community. Ironically, the capital project to provide backup power supply for the WQTC had been deferred and, therefore, was not in place to avoid the costly damage to the facility. This Facility Plan assumes there will be no major changes in the Morris Forman WQTC discharge requirements during the planning period, and therefore, the existing plant will continue to operate as‐is for the duration of the planning period, except for initial construction of facilities required for nutrient removal late in the planning period, described herein. For many years, MSD has produced a high‐quality soil conditioner called Louisville Green from the biosolids generated by the WQTC. The condition of the Louisville Green production equipment (primarily the biosolids dryers and pellet processing equipment) is rapidly degrading due to the severe duty conditions experienced in processing the highly abrasive dried biosolids product. MSD has, in the past, been able to sell all Louisville Green it could produce, thereby offsetting system operating costs. The current degraded condition of the equipment requires MSD to landfill dewatered biosolids when the drying system capacity is overwhelmed. MSD, under a separate initiative, is investigating short‐term biosolids management solutions that may include increasing the amount of dewatered biosolids disposed of by landfill (by negotiating better prices in return for the commitment of guaranteed minimum amounts of dewatered biosolids being sent to the landfill), turning over management of the dewatered biosolids to a third‐party vendor and/or replacing the drying system with an alternate technology approach. Recognizing that implementing a new biosolids management approach may take several years to implement, the recommended 20‐year CIP includes short‐term fixes for the dryer

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 11 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

system, as well as expansion of the dewatered cake‐handling system to allow increased landfilling as continued operation of the dryers becomes impractical. Other approaches to biosolids handling are currently under consideration, because a short‐term solution may include designing and constructing a biosolids handling system by a third‐party vendor, similar to how the high‐purity oxygen generation system is currently being procured. If this procurement model is followed, then MSD will not directly incur capital cost, and the project will have more impact on the annual operating budget than the CIP. A 50‐year look at continued operations of the Morris Forman WQTC at the current site has concluded that there will not be any major changes in discharge standards, including adding nutrient removal or considering microconstituents such as residual antibiotics, hormones, or other pharmaceuticals and residual personal care products, within the current 20‐year planning horizon. If major discharge standards changes occur, then they will likely require changes to both the liquid treatment and biosolids‐handling approaches. Given the severe constraints of the existing site, locating new facilities on property not part of the current Morris Forman WQTC site will be necessary. The long‐term plan has been developed, and a phasing roadmap for systematic facilities expansion is included. Some level of nutrient removal may be required toward the end of the 20‐year planning period. The proposed 20‐year CIP recommendation includes funds for purchasing land and starting facility construction to address nutrient removal during years 15 to 20 of the planning period. Treatment for microconstituents is not envisioned in the recommended 20‐year CIP, but it will represent a significant capital expense when required by new regulations. If and when the discharge requirements change to include advanced nutrient removal and increased removal of BOD5 and TSS from wet‐weather flow, then the costs to expand and upgrade the Morris Forman WQTC could exceed $1.2 billion (2016 dollars).

CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE

The next largest program within the wastewater service area is the Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) program. EPA Region 4 developed the initial program that became CMOM, and MSD’s Consent Decree specifically requires developing and implementing a CMOM program. The intent of the CMOM program is to ensure that BMPs are implemented across all aspects of the utility, thereby increasing the ability of the utility to meet its obligations under the Clean Water Act. CMOM activities represent BMPs for wastewater utilities and will be sustained for the entire 20‐year planning period. Major components of the CMOM program include projects for major renewal and replacement projects at the Hite Creek, Floyds Fork, Cedar Creek, and Derek R. Guthrie WQTCs. These renewal and replacement projects are scheduled at 5‐year intervals for each center to ensure that MSD can maintain efficient and effective wastewater treatment, a critical aspect of public health protection. The budget established for each center is the result of an asset inventory and facility condition assessment of each WQTC. The actual scope of each project will be established during detailed design. The CMOM program provides proactive asset management of pipes and pump stations that make up most of MSD’s collection system. Clearwater intrusion of surface water and groundwater during rain events overloads the conveyance and treatment systems. This clearwater intrusion, referred to as infiltration and inflow (I/I), is a main cause of sewer overflows. Budgets are recommended to provide inventory of critical parts for pump stations, rehabilitate and replace sewers that are leaking or in

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 12 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

danger of structural failure, and provide stand‐by generators in more locations to improve reliability during power outages. Studies suggest that approximately 50 percent of the I/I entering MSD’s sewer system during a rain event may be coming from private property sources outside of MSD’s direct control. To achieve and sustain the required overflow abatement levels, a substantial portion of this I/I must be removed from the system. A project with “seed money” to initiate a private property I/I reduction program is also recommended in the CMOM budget. The private property I/I program is expected to become self‐sustaining through new fees after initial start‐up. A significant addition to the CMOM program is the recommended expansion of the sewer rehabilitation and replacement activities to encompass major interceptors. In the past, MSD deferred major rehabilitation of these major interceptors due to the cost and difficulty in completing construction on these pipes. An increasing frequency of major interceptor failures indicates a critical need to proactively inspect and rehabilitate or replace these high‐risk very old assets. When a major interceptor fails, a ripple effect is created across a much broader area due to road closures, traffic impacts, and other factors that directly impact the community. Since major interceptor rehabilitation projects have not been specifically identified at this time, an allowance has been recommended to begin the process of inspection, project development and early‐action remediation of high‐risk defects over the next five years. By the end of five years, the recommended allowance is increased to $10 million per year, totally focused on major interceptor rehabilitation and replacement. At this sustained funding level, MSD will be able to renew these critical assets on a prioritized basis. Preemptive rehabilitation is much less expensive than making emergency repairs, such as those MSD had to complete in response to a collapsed section of the Broadway Interceptor in 2015. This one repair interrupted businesses, severely impacted traffic flow on a main arterial roadway, and impeded access to a nearby hospital.

DEVELOPMENT

To assist in providing the proper level of sewer service for growing areas, the recommended 20‐year CIP budget also includes treatment capacity expansions for the Hite Creek, Floyds Fork, and Cedar Creek WQTCs. The timing of these expansion projects has been based on population projections for each service area. Ensuring that capacity is available in advance of development supports growth and development for the community by avoiding moratoriums due to the rated capacity of the WQTCs being exceeded. This expansion is in accordance with KDEP regulations. The Derek R. Guthrie and Morris Forman WQTCs are not anticipated to need a growth‐related capacity expansion within the 20‐year planning period, however, they will require investment to continue operating properly. In addition to WQTC capacity, the recommended 20‐year CIP also addresses conveyance system capacity needs. Projects are recommended to address areas anticipated to have significant growth in the Floyds Fork WQTC and Cedar Creek WQTC service areas due in part to the development of the Parklands of Floyds Fork. Growth is also provided for in the Hite Creek WQTC and Derek R. Guthrie WQTC service areas. The Morris Forman WQTC service area is essentially built out, meaning growth will result from customers coming online through infill of existing developed areas. In addition to expansion of the sewer system, capacity issues with pump stations have also been identified and addressed. Several pump stations have been identified that do not have adequate capacity to meet projected peak flows due to future growth. To avoid creating new SSOs, these pump stations must be expanded in advance of

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 13 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

the upstream collection system expansions that will bring them additional flow. The intent is to provide the needed reliable capacity in both the gravity and pumped portions of the collection system so that new connection moratoriums can be avoided.

REGULATIONS

The recommended CIP budget also includes future projects in anticipation of regulatory changes. Increased levels of treatment for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) could be imposed before the end of the planning period, which would seriously impact MSD’s WQTCs. Projects to begin addressing nutrient removal requirements at all WQTCs are included in the latter years of the planning period. The timing of nutrient removal regulations will govern when these projects are actually implemented. Microconstituent removal has also been identified as a potential future regulatory requirement. While the imposition of standards requiring microconstituents removal is not anticipated with the 20‐year planning window, preliminary concepts have been developed and placeholder budgets recommended to address this potential future need. These placeholder budgets are not in the recommended 20‐year CIP. The timing of microconstituent removal regulations will govern when these projects are actually implemented.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Stormwater management is a vital component of MSD’s system, because it directly impacts the health and safety of all Louisville and Jefferson County residents. The recommended 20‐year CIP includes a number of programs related to drainage and internal floodplain management. In 1987, MSD took over stormwater management and Ohio River flood protection through a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Louisville (pre‐merger with Jefferson County), and most of the small cities within Jefferson County. In 1988, MSD completed a Stormwater Drainage Master Plan (URS Corporation et al., 1988) that addressed the backlog of known drainage and flooding problems and planned for improvements in overall drainage and flood protection for the service area. MSD began implementing the recommendations of the Stormwater Drainage Master Plan on a prioritized basis, within the budget limitations imposed by the insufficient revenue generated through drainage fees. The flood of 1997 diverted the focus of stormwater management to deal with specific vulnerabilities exposed by that severe flooding event.

PROJECT DRAINAGE RESPONSE INITIATIVE

Drainage problems create health and safety impacts for citizens directly at their homes, schools, businesses, and transportation routes. Beginning in 2003, MSD initiated an aggressive program to address a wide variety of drainage issues that were pointed out by customers. This Drainage Response Initiative program, dubbed Project DRI, assigned experienced project managers, contractors, and inspectors to address drainage problems on a "grade‐to‐drain" basis. Efforts under this program address problems ranging from structural flooding to alleviating minor standing water problems. Since 2003, most funds available through drainage fees have been allocated to Project DRI, with more than $125 million in capital drainage improvements completed through this program. While MSD originally

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 14 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

thought that Project DRI would be phased out as the backlog of customer drainage issues were resolved, customer drainage requests continue to be among the most common communication received by MSD’s Customer Relations Department. These requests are likely due to drainage impacts of land use changes, the increase in the amount of impervious surfaces across Jefferson County, the increased frequency of extreme storm events, and the degradation of drainage facilities due to aging. MSD’s experience has proven that having the ability to respond quickly to individual property owner’s drainage concerns is a vital part of providing quality service and building customer satisfaction. Project DRI has proven to be a very valuable program for MSD’s customers, and the recommended 20‐year CIP includes an annual allocation of $2.8 million to $5 million per year to sustain it.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN

Given the public concern over the effects of the increased frequency of extreme storm events, the localized drainage solutions offered by Project DRI need to be supplemented with a program to address issues of stormwater management and flood protection on a countywide or watershed basis. To increase the public health and safety protection and provide a consistent level of protection for the entire service area, a significant increase in spending for drainage and flood protection is required. Subsequent to the 1988 Stormwater Drainage Master Plan, the primary countywide stormwater planning completed by MSD has related to internal (that is, not related to the Ohio River) floodplain management. MSD and the Kentucky Division of Water have completed studies in most watersheds to update the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Areas and Local Regulatory Floodplains. These studies rely on rainfall IDF information that reflect historical observations. The Facility Plan Team has projected IDF information out to 2035 for long‐range planning. Because the conditions projected for 2035 are not based on observed data, the updated floodplain information should not be used for regulatory purposes, but it can be used to inform potential property owners of the risks associated with potential future extreme storm events. While MSD requires plans for new development to document no adverse impacts on downstream flooding, the cumulative effects of land use changes within the existing developed areas prior to MSD assuming responsibility for stormwater management may not have been subject to the same level of scrutiny. While the hydrologic and hydraulic models used for drainage planning have been updated to reflect recent land use changes, most have not been analyzed comprehensively for drainage issues outside of the Special Flood Hazard Areas or Local Floodplains to allow potential downstream impacts of new projects to be identified. An update to the comprehensive countywide stormwater master plan is recommended to be initiated as one of the first recommendations from the stormwater portion of this Facility Plan. While current development standards require mitigating drainage impacts of land use changes, analysis of historical trends shows a significant reduction in natural green space and an increase in impervious surfaces within Jefferson County. In addition to addressing the potential impact of the increased frequency of extreme storms, the master plan should also consider a strategy to restore some of these surfaces to natural pervious conditions, which can have a significant impact on the amount of infrastructure that will be needed to address future needs. This plan should address floodplain management definition and

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 15 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

non‐floodplain related drainage problems in an integrated approach to deal with this highly visible MSD service.

EARLY ACTION PROJECTS

While the comprehensive stormwater master plan is being updated, MSD’s customers expect immediate action to begin addressing stormwater issues. MSD and the Facility Plan Team have identified several areas across Jefferson County with a history of drainage problems primarily related to localized drainage, not directly related to floodplain management issues.

PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Allowances have been established in the recommended 20‐year CIP to provide for implementing the proposed stormwater master plan. The recommended budgeted amounts were identified through extrapolation of the Early Action Plan projects described previously to the entire county. The intent is to provide the entire county with updated and expanded stormwater management facilities to consistently meet the level of protection of a 10‐year storm, using stormwater IDF targets projected for the end of the planning period. Based on an extrapolation of project costs developed for the Early Action Plan projects, the funding required for these projects is anticipated to exceed $600 million over the 20‐year planning period. The Facility Plan Team deemed it critical to establish reasonable placeholder numbers in the long‐range financial plan to be developed as part of this Facility Plan.

VIADUCT FLOODING

MSD is responsible for managing drainage from 32 viaducts that are subject to flooding during storm events. Some viaducts become completely impassable in relatively minor storms. Viaduct flooding disrupts transportation routes and creates potentially hazardous conditions when flooded roads are not barricaded in a timely manner or when drivers ignore the barricades and drive under the viaducts anyway. The Facility Plan Team has identified conceptual drainage solutions for each viaduct for which MSD is responsible. The projects were prioritized based on the team’s understanding of traffic load and perceived risk to public health and safety. Note that viaducts are a shared responsibility with Louisville Metro Public Works and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Before initiating a costly viaduct drainage solution, all parties should engage in determining the best approach to improving public safety at the viaduct locations.

STORMWATER QUALITY MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM

The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program is a drainage‐related program to improve the quality of surface waters through controls on stormwater runoff quality in Jefferson County and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by reducing the introduction of harmful materials into the MS4s that discharge into community streams. The MS4 Program permit outlines the regulatory requirements for discharging municipal stormwater into local water bodies. Major categories for program compliance include, but are not limited to, the following:

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 16 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

 Public education and outreach  Management of industrial facilities  Stormwater pollution prevention plan creation and oversight  Administration of construction site management (erosion prevention and sediment control)  Post‐construction controls (green infrastructure)  Maintenance and analysis of water quality monitoring equipment and data The current 5‐year MS4 Program permit cycle began on August 1, 2011, and it establishes the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) effort for MS4 programs to maintain MSD compliance with the Clean Water Act. MSD uses green infrastructure techniques—such as infiltration, rain gardens, and basin retrofits—to offset the need and costs on conventional facilities such as storage basins. Green infrastructure has proven to effectively reduce volume in the CSS, and for water quality improvements for treatment of runoff in MS4 areas. Requirements for new construction include these types of practices to control the 80th percentile event (0.6 inch of rain) in Louisville Metro. MSD funding is available for construction cost offsets in the CSS area and potential stormwater fee credits in the MS4 areas. Funding commitments for this program were defined in the IOAP and have been retained in the Facility Plan recommended CIP. The Facility Plan identified several large stormwater retention basins with the potential for conversion of all or part of the basin to provide infiltration of stormwater. These projects are identified to be completed within the first 5 years of the CIP, providing very cost‐effective green infrastructure solutions on a large scale.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT—FLOOD RESPONSE FUND

As of December 2016, MSD has purchased approximately 200 homes through federal grant programs since the 1997 flood and is currently working on 13 open grant projects to purchase additional homes located in flood prone areas. MSD also has 9 grant applications under review by FEMA. These grant applications include an additional 56 flood‐prone properties that could be mitigated through acquisition. Following a number of spring flooding events in 2015, the Mayor formed a multiagency Flood Mitigation Workgroup to address impacted residents who were unable, for a variety of reasons, to get back in their homes after the floodwaters receded. The Flood Mitigation Workgroup recommended several mitigation approaches, including establishment of a “quick‐buy” program to allow property owners to sell flood‐impacted property in a much shorter time than would typically be possible. The MSD Board approved allocation of $1.5 million from the FY2016 budget to fund this program. The Flood Mitigation Workgroup recommended an annual fund be established to provide timely relief to property owners impacted by future extreme storm events. The resulting Flood Response Fund proved to be a vital part of the community’s recovery after the 2015 floods. The recommended 20‐year CIP includes an annual allocation of $4 million per year to the Flood Response Fund for various flood mitigation and response activities, including continuing the quick‐buy program where appropriate, implementing small‐scale flood protection projects, and applying for, administering, and providing local‐share funding for FEMA and other flood relief grant programs.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 17 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

In 1987, as part of the Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Louisville related to drainage and flood protection services, MSD assumed responsibility for the Ohio River Flood Protection System (ORFPS). The ORFPS is critical to protecting Louisville and Jefferson County from the type of devastating flooding experienced in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina and all along the Mississippi River when similar flood levee and pump station systems failed during the extreme high‐water conditions experienced in the past decade. Louisville’s ORFPS was evaluated in a Levee Safety Evaluation (LSE) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 2015 and found to be compliant with the level of protection required by FEMA. The level of Ohio River flood protection required by FEMA incorporates a “coincident frequency analysis” that statistically determines the probability of a rain event happening at the same time as high Ohio River levels. The coincident frequency analysis found the MSD ORFPS is adequately sized to handle a 1‐percent probability (100‐year storm) event. MSD’s local drainage design criteria calls for conveyance (pumps and pipes) to be sized for at least the 10‐percent event. While meeting the FEMA 1‐percent criteria in a coincident frequency analysis, several flood pumping stations would require significant expansion to achieve a capacity equivalent to a 10‐percent probability event, should MSD decide to apply drainage criteria to the flood pumping stations. The LSE contained a wealth of information about minor deficiencies that need to be corrected. These items have been included in the recommended 20‐year CIP.

Flood Pumping Stations

Much of the ORFPS was constructed in the 1950s. Design criteria that could be located from records of this era usually indicated the flood pumping stations were intended to pump the 10‐percent probability storm (10‐year storm), as defined by 1950 land use patterns and pre‐1950 rainfall statistics. Some design documents recommended the capacity requirements be updated at 10‐year intervals to account for land use changes, among other things. To our knowledge, prior to the LSE evaluation (USACE, 2015), the capacity of these flood pumping stations has never been reassessed through comprehensive hydraulic and hydrologic modeling. As previously described, capacity assessment completed as part of the LSE study identified several flood pumping stations that do not meet the 10‐percent probability storm, although their capacity is adequate to provide protection for a 1‐percent probability event under a coincident frequency analysis. In addition to capacity concerns, many flood pumping stations have original 1950’s vintage electrical and mechanical equipment. For the most part, the stations are manually operated using control systems that cannot be repaired with off‐the‐shelf components. To assure the reliability and adequacy of the flood pumping station system, all pump stations were subject to a facility condition assessment (in addition to the USACE LSE evaluation) and hydraulic and hydrologic modeling using storm IDFs projected for 2035. The recommended 20‐year CIP includes rehabilitating and/or expanding 15 of the 16 flood pumping stations in MSD’s system. Given the size of these facilities, the costs are substantial, but the risks being addressed are vital to Louisville’s protection against catastrophic flooding.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 18 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Levee and Floodwall System

MSD maintains a proactive maintenance program to assure the integrity of the levee and floodwall system. In addition, the USACE biannually inspects the levee and floodwall, resulting in a report on any deficiencies noted. The recommended 20‐year CIP includes continuing a proactive preventive maintenance program, in addition to the corrective actions recommended by the LSE study. These efforts are critical to protect the Louisville community from flooding.

SUPPORT SYSTEMS

MSD owns a large inventory of rolling stock, information technology (IT) systems, and above‐ground facilities that support MSD’s operation of wastewater, stormwater drainage, and ORFPS services.

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

MSD owns more than 600 vehicles and portable equipment, ranging from passenger vehicles and pick‐ up trucks to large excavators and sewer‐cleaning trucks. MSD has started leasing the commonly available passenger cars and pick‐up trucks, which moves these costs from capital to operating budgets. The specialty equipment used in MSD’s O&M activities are not available for lease, and MSD must continue to own them to be certain they are available any time they are required. This equipment is critical to MSD’s ability to complete the preventive and corrective maintenance activities required to provide sustainable and reliable wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection services. For example, a comprehensive sewer inspection activity requires a sewer flush truck to clean the sewer, a vactor truck to capture the material flushed from the line to prevent it from moving downstream to cause problems elsewhere, and a closed‐circuit television truck to closely inspect the condition of the pipe. After the condition is established, either heavy construction equipment like excavators and loaders or specialty equipment to install cured‐in‐place sewer lining is used to correct deficiencies. The specialized equipment is very expensive to purchase and maintain, given the severe service conditions that this equipment is operated under. The recommended 20‐year CIP includes an annual allowance for equipment repair and replacement.

FACILITIES

The Facility Plan Team completed a facility condition assessment of more than 200 buildings and recommended corrective actions where deficiencies were noted. The main areas of deficiency were in roofs; MSD has above‐ground buildings with roofs all over Jefferson County, ranging from the massive roof system at the Central Maintenance Facility to the little roof over a 10‐foot‐by‐10‐foot pump station building. Roofs appear to be one area that MSD allows to “run to failure.” Roofs are seldom replaced until a leak is detected inside the building. The Facility Plan recommends an extensive program of roof replacement in the first 5 years, using standardized roofing systems for different applications. After that, regular inspection and replacement before failure occurs is recommended to provide the minimum cost of ownership for the buildings protected by these roofs.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 19 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

The facility condition assessments also identified a number of deficiencies in areas related to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), building egress, signage and ancillary equipment, and indications of conditions that could eventually cause structural issues and even structural failure. The recommended 20‐year CIP includes projects to address the specific recommendations identified by the Facility Plan Team, with future budgets recommended to complete periodic facility condition assessments following deficiency correction.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS AND LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY INFORMATION CONSORTIUM SUPPORT

MSD maintains an extensive inventory of IT hardware and software that is essential to overall agency operations; this includes the MSD intranet system that is the backbone of MSD electronic communication and digital data generation, communication and storage, and regulatory compliance reporting. This hardware and software system is also responsible for supplying the internet connection to MSD’s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system that controls more than 300 pump stations and control gates and serves as the platform for implementing the RTC system. This RTC system is used to optimize use of MSD’s conveyance facilities to cost‐effectively maximize the use of existing facilities to reduce sewer overflows. Without adequate and updated IT systems, public health and safety could be at risk. This inventory is subject to periodic upgrade and replacement like all MSD’s other assets. In addition, MSD hosts the Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium (LOJIC) systems, which similarly require periodic upgrades and replacements to hardware and software. The recommended 20‐year CIP includes annual allowances to account for these anticipated future costs.

FINANCE

To implement a $4.3 billion capital program and the associated costs to operate new facilities, MSD must have the funding to pay for it. Unlike the IOAP, which is required by the Consent Decree to be completed, most stormwater management and flood protection capacity projects developed in this Facility Plan are not specifically required by regulation. Providing for infrastructure renewal and replacement, and improving the consistent level of service in stormwater management and flood protection are local decisions driven by MSD’s mission to provide safe, clean waterways for the community. MSD will implement this Facility Plan to the extent funding is provided through the rate‐ setting process. If sufficient funding is not provided to complete the recommended projects in the 20‐year planning period, then projects will be deferred to the future, when funding comes available.

REVENUE REQUIREMENTS AND RATES

The MSD Board approves rates, rentals, and charges on an annual basis. The MSD Board has the authority to raise rates up to 6.9 percent per year without Metro Council approval. Rate increases higher than 6.9 percent require Metro Council approval. The CIP recommended by the Facility Plan totals approximately $4.3 billion over 20 years. The recommended CIP for FY2017 through FY2021 exceeds $1 billion. The revenue generated by current rates, increased at 6.9 percent per year or less, will not generate enough revenue to support $1 billion in capital spending over the next 5 years. If current rates are increased by no more than 6.9 percent per year for the next 5 years ($3.60 per month for a typical

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 20 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

customer in FY2018), then approximately $480 million in capital projects will need to be deferred. While 6.9 percent per year rate increases do provide enough revenue to implement the entire Facility Plan CIP over the 20‐year planning period, the recommended schedule cannot be achieved, and completing critical public safety projects could be deferred by 3 to 5 years. Completing the projects in the recommended CIP on the schedule recommended in the Facility Plan will require a 20‐percent to 25‐percent rate increase in FY2018 ($10.50 to $13.12 per month for a typical customer in FY2018), followed by rate increases up to 6.9 percent for the remaining years of the planning period. If a smaller rate increase is approved for FY2018, then the project schedule will need to be adjusted and recommended projects deferred to a later date based on MSD’s resulting financial capabilities and project priorities identified by MSD staff. Projects directly related to the Consent Decree or other regulatory requirements, or those that address areas of high risk, will receive the highest immediate priority. Projects that do not address regulatory requirements or mitigation of high‐risk issues will be deferred until the major IOAP projects have been completed and funds are available. The project prioritization system used to determine the recommended Facility Plan schedule is available for MSD staff to determine priorities based on information available at the time the budget revisions are made. Table 3 presents the recommended project deferrals that could be anticipated for two alternative rate increase scenarios, based on the Facility Plan prioritization approach and information available at the time the Facility Plan was drafted. The alternative funding scenarios presented represent only two of the many rate approaches possible. Table 3 illustrates that if the funding scenario does not accommodate the recommended Facility Plan projects, the CIP implementation will be focused initially on completing the IOAP and other regulatory commitments. Even projects that deal with high‐risk issues may be deferred due to funding shortfalls. Table 3 also illustrates the impact of deferred funding on the overall cost of Facility Plan implementation. Under the most limited funding scenario presented (no rate increase over 6.9% per year) $480 million in capital projects must be deferred by 3 to 5 years. This has a ripple effect on the remainder of the 20‐ year cash flow, effectively pushing $480 million in projects to the end of the planning period. While Table 3 presents the Facility Plan recommendations for deferral, actual project deferrals will be established during the annual CIP budgeting process. Table 3 – FY2018 – FY2020 CIP Project Deferrals Under Alternative FY2018 Rate Increases Reduced CIP Reduced CIP Baseline CIP Budget Project Name Budget Budget ~$4/mo in ~$10/mo in FY18 FY18 Wastewater Projects

CMOM Cedar Creek WQTC Asset Management $900,000 $900,000 $500,000 Rehabilitation and Replace Cedar Creek WQTC Forcemain Extension $177,000 $177,000 $0 Cedar Creek WQTC Sand Filter Replacement $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $2,000,000

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 21 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Reduced CIP Reduced CIP Baseline CIP Budget Project Name Budget Budget ~$4/mo in ~$10/mo in FY18 FY18 Cedar Creek WQTC Service Area Inventory for $300,000 $300,000 $0 Critical Pump Station Collection System Spare Pump Inventory $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,300,000 Derek R. Guthrie WQTC Service Area Inventory for $300,000 $300,000 $0 Critical Pump Station Floyds Fork WQTC Service Area Inventory for Critical $300,000 $300,000 $0 Pump Station FY18 PMP $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,250,000 FY18‐FY22 Operations Renewal and Replacement $18,300,000 $18,300,000 $15,300,000 FY19 CMOM PM Assist $225,000 $187,500 $187,500 FY19 PMP $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 Hite Creek WQTC Solids Expansion $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $1,500,000 Hite Creek WQTC Expansion $19,553,703 $17,553,703 $3,623,703 Land Acquisition $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $1,300,000 Lea Ann Way Pump Station Elimination $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 Lea Ann Way West Rehab Quad 1 $400,000 $400,000 $500,000 Major Interceptor Rehabilitation $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $3,000,000 Morris Forman Collection System Baffles $624,000 $400,000 $0 Morris Forman WQTC Service Area Inventory for $900,000 $900,000 $0 Critical Pump Stations Morris Forman WQTC Service Area MH and ARV $136,000 $136,000 $0 Floodproofing for 100 Morris Forman WQTC Service Area Pump Station $328,000 $248,000 $0 Floodproof for 100‐Year Storm Nightingale Rehab $4,200,000 $4,200,000 $1,500,000 Slip Line JTWQTC $1,398,000 $1,398,000 $0 Development Floyds Fork Zone B Sewers $7,900,000 $7,900,000 $0 Floyds Fork Zone C Sewers $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 KTC Greenwood Road Assessment $525,000 $0 $0 NMC Morris Forman Central Business District CSO $1,248,000 $1,248,000 $0 Cameras Morris Forman WQTC Draft Rehab and TWAS Piping $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 Replacement Morris Forman WQTC Digester Lids and Mixers $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $0

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 22 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Reduced CIP Reduced CIP Baseline CIP Budget Project Name Budget Budget ~$4/mo in ~$10/mo in FY18 FY18 Morris Forman WQTC Equipment Renewal and $25,500,000 $15,000,000 $900,000 Replacement in Year 5 Morris Forman WQTC Sec Clarifiers and RAS/WAS $6,500,000 $5,500,000 $0 Pumping Morris Forman WQTC Sedimentation Basin $12,500,000 $8,500,000 $500,000 Rehabilitation Stormwater Projects

Drainage Auburndale Early Action Project $12,600,000 $4,200,000 $0 City of Hurstbourne Early Action Project $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 Master Plan Implementation $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Newburg Early Action Project $10,250,000 $3,000,000 $0 Pope Lick Early Action Project $6,100,000 $1,220,000 $0 Prospect Early Action Project $6,000,000 $1,500,000 $0 Seatonville Early Action Project $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $0 Stormwater Master Plan $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 Ten Broeck Early Action Project $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Valley Creek Early Action Project $5,540,000 $3,000,000 $0

Via11 E Brandeis Ave and Brook Viaduct Flood Relief $28,043,000 $2,000,000 $0

Via16 3rd and Eastern Pky Viaduct Flood Relief $5,808,000 $0 $0 Whispering Hills Early Action Project $2,560,000 $2,560,000 $0 Floodplain Management Flood Response‐Buyouts Mitigation and Grants $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 Ohio River Flood Protection 10th Street Flood Pumping Station Reliability / $1,035,000 $0 $0 Generator 17th Street Flood Pumping Station Capacity / $2,525,000 $2,525,000 $0 Reliability / Generator 34th Street Flood Pumping Station to Los 5 ‐ $2,000,000 $0 $0 Improvements / Generator 5th Street Flood Pumping Station to Los 5 ‐ $820,000 $0 $0 Improvements / Generator Allocation ‐ Annual Flood Pumping Stations $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 Equipment Renewal and Replacement

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 23 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Reduced CIP Reduced CIP Baseline CIP Budget Project Name Budget Budget ~$4/mo in ~$10/mo in FY18 FY18 Floodwall and Levee Risk Assessment $750,000 $0 $0 Floodwall/Levee Repair and Toe Drains $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $1,500,000 Levee and Floodwall Repair and Renewal Light $1,875,000 $1,500,000 $750,000 Paddys Run Flood Pumping Station Reliability / $31,575,000 $8,000,000 $0 Redundant Service Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station Operational $4,360,000 $2,180,000 $0 Improvements Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station –Capacity $11,648,000 $4,648,000 $0 Improvements Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station ‐ Reliability $3,334,000 $3,334,000 $0 Improvements (Evaluation Repairs)

Support Systems Projects

Capital Equipment FY18 Vehicles & Equipment $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $2,000,000 FY19 Vehicles & Equipment $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $1,500,000 FY20 Vehicles & Equipment $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $2,500,000 Systems Automation $1,200,000 $750,000 $750,000 Facilities Admiral Pump Station Foundation Repairs $246,936 $246,936 $246,936 Louisville Green Major Maintenance $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 Morris Forman WQTC Elevator Repairs $400,000 $400,000 $0 Miscellaneous Facility Repairs $127,566 $127,566 $127,566 Roof Replacements $3,230,458 $3,204,950 $3,200,000

RATE RELIEF

While increased spending on infrastructure is needed, the affordability of utility services is a serious concern for those in our community, especially those who are living at or near poverty levels. To avoid imposing additional stressors on the low‐income population of our community, MSD is investigating the concept of meaningful rate relief for those in need. To provide the benefits of a significant wastewater rate reduction for low‐income customers, a small incremental increase in costs (approximately $1.30 per month) would apply for a typical customer in 2018. These costs are passed on to customers who are better able to absorb it in their household budgets. To implement this, MSD has partnered with the Metro Department of Community Services (Community Services). Community Services currently administers the Low‐Income Home Energy Assistance Program

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 24 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

(LiHEAP). Community Services has agreed in principle to administer a rate relief program for MSD, based on the qualification standards used in the LiHEAP program. Subject to MSD Board approval, MSD is considering a rate relief subsidy proportional to annual rate increases, for customers who qualify. The current Low‐Income Senior Citizens Discount Program is expected to be phased out, but seniors would be “grandfathered” into the new rate relief program regardless of LiHEAP qualification standards.

SUMMARY

The 20‐year Comprehensive Facility Plan represents MSD’s most ambitious planning effort in a decade. Working with the Wet Weather Team Stakeholder Group and MSD staff, the Facility Plan Team reviewed the challenges our community faces now and in the future and has developed a roadmap to protect the area’s health, economic vitality, and environment. The recommendations in this plan are the result of well‐vetted analyses from some of the most experienced engineers in Louisville Metro. The recommendations are essential to maintaining reliable and properly sized facilities that will allow MSD to fulfill its responsibility for safe, clean waterways and to help preserve and promote our competitiveness as a city. Wastewater collection and treatment is MSD’s largest service offering and was the original reason MSD was formed by state statute in 1946. Fully implementing the Facility Plan recommendations will accomplish the following wastewater service objectives:  Fulfill the obligation of the Consent Decree, including completing all the projects contained in the IOAP on schedule  Provide facilities that comply with the other environmental regulations MSD is governed by and provide a plan to remain in compliance with future regulations currently under development  Renew and replace aging wastewater infrastructure to provide reliable service and the lowest overall cost using a best‐practice asset management approach  Position MSD to support the community’s ability to grow responsibly as economic development opportunities become available MSD assumed responsibility for stormwater management, including both drainage and interior floodplain management for most of Jefferson County in 1987. The drainage system at that time had a backlog of thousands of drainage complaints that MSD was expected to correct. While MSD has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in drainage infrastructure since 1987, drainage problems still are found across the entire county. In addition, the increased frequency of extreme storms that have been observed in Louisville Metro have raised customer concerns about the adequacy of our drainage and interior floodplain management systems. While current development standards require mitigation of the drainage impacts of land use changes, analysis of historical trends shows a significant reduction in natural green space and an increase in impervious services that do not allow stormwater to seep into the ground. Runoff from impervious surfaces also causes increased runoff volume and greatly increased runoff peak flows. Together, these factors exacerbate the observed deficiencies in the stormwater system that MSD now has responsibility for, impacting neighborhood drainage in addition to interior

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 25 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

floodplain inundation. Implementing the Facility Plan recommendations will accomplish the following stormwater management objectives:  Improve the level of protection against public health and property risks caused by inadequate stormwater drainage systems  Continue support for the Project DRI neighborhood drainage solutions  Expand the efforts of the MS4 program to reduce stormwater contamination of our waterways, primarily through BMPs and continued proactive support of green infrastructure solutions to both quantity and quality concerns  Recognize and respond to the impact of changing weather patterns including the increased frequency of extreme storms The ORFPS was developed in response to the flood of 1937. The system of levees, floodwalls, and flood pumping stations have protected Louisville since it became operational in the 1950s. While the system has an outstanding record of reliability, much of the system is more than 60 years old and includes antiquated equipment that cannot be repaired with standard parts available today. In addition, the same changing precipitation and land use patterns that affect drainage and inland floodplain management also impact the flood pumping stations and related appurtenances. Implementing the Facility Plan recommendations will accomplish the following ORFPS objectives:  Maintain protection from Ohio River floods entering Louisville by proactive preventive and predictive maintenance activities related to the levee, floodwall, and all gates and other penetration closures that keep floodwaters at bay  Modernize the flood pumping stations with current mechanical and electrical equipment that can provide continued reliability and a predictable cost because parts will be more readily available at a more reasonable cost  Expand the capacity of those flood pumping stations to enhance community protection in response to changing precipitation and land use patterns Implementing the recommendations for all three service areas in accordance with the schedule presented will require a significant investment from the community, which may mean a step‐change increase in wastewater and drainage rates. If the community is unwilling to accept the rate increases necessary to fund the recommended project schedules presented, then many important projects will not be able to be implemented in the near term. The data indicate that not implementing necessary investments is almost certain to result in more infrastructure failures, an increase in the overall cost of implementing the Facility Plan, and an ever more rapidly increasing likelihood of a failure that could have serious consequences for the residents and businesses that make Louisville Metro their home.

REFERENCES

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2009. Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan. Volume 2, Chapter 5: History and Philosophy of Green Program. Available at http://msdprojectwin.org/About‐Us/Integrated‐Overflow‐Abatement‐Plan‐IOAP.aspx.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 26 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Plan Overview June 30, 2017

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2014. MSD Strategic Business Plan 2014‐18. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/pdfs/MSD‐SBP‐2014‐18.pdf.

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2015. Design Manual. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/insidemsd/pdfs/MSD_Design_Manual_2009%20‐%20REVISED%2010‐ 22‐2015.pdf. Published August 2, 2010. Last revised October 22, 2015.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015. Levee System Evaluation—National Flood Insurance Program. Final Report, January 2015. Prepared for the Louisville‐Metro Levee System, Louisville, Kentucky. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. CSO Control Policy. 59 Federal Register 18688. Available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/docs.cfm?document_type_id=1&view= Policy%20and%20Guidance%20Documents&program_id=5&sort=name. April 19. URS Corporation, GRW Engineers, Inc. Daughtery and Trautwein, Inc. Skees Engineering, Inc. W.W. White and Associates, Inc. Presnell Associates, Inc. University of Louisville, Ed Caicedo, Inc. and PROTEC, Inc. (URS Corporation et al.) 1988. Stormwater Drainage Master Plan. Prepared for Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District.

20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan | Plan Overview 27 of 27 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 ES.2 CURRENT LEVEL OF PROTECTION ...... 3 ES.3 GAP ANALYSIS ...... 4 ES.4 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS ...... 6

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 1 1.2 FLOOD CONTROL ACT ...... 1 1.3 HISTORY OF THE OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM ...... 1 1.3.1 Pre‐1937 Flooding ...... 2 1.3.2 The Great Flood of 1937 ...... 2 1.3.3 Post‐World War II ...... 3 1.3.4 1950s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response ...... 3 1.3.5 1970s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response ...... 3 1.3.6 Nonfederal Levees ...... 4 1.4 AGREEMENTS ...... 4 1.4.1 Regulations for Operations and Maintenance ...... 4 1.4.2 Local Sponsor Agreements ...... 4 1.4.3 Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Lease, Sublease, and Maintenance Agreements ...... 5 1.4.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Protection Operations and Maintenance Manuals .. 5 1.5 REPORTS, STUDIES, AND PLANS ...... 6 1.5.1 Strategic Business Plan ...... 6 1.5.2 Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan ...... 7 1.5.3 Capital Improvement Plan ...... 7 1.6 CURRENT REGULATORY DRIVERS ...... 8 1.6.1 Federal Emergency Management Agency ...... 8 1.6.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...... 10 1.6.3 Other Regulations ...... 10 1.7 FUTURE REGULATORY DRIVERS ...... 11 1.7.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...... 11 1.7.2 Federal Directives on Climate Changes ...... 12 1.7.3 Risk Assessment ...... 12

CHAPTER 2: LEVEL OF FLOOD PROTECTION 2.1 CURRENT OPERATIONS ...... 1 2.1.1 Present Pumping Capabilities ...... 1

Volume 4, Table of Contents Page 1 of 5 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

2.1.2 Past Flooding Experiences ...... 2 2.1.3 Impact of Recent Precipitation Events ...... 4 2.2 CURRENT LEVEL OF FLOOD PROTECTION ...... 5 2.2.1 Level of Development Assumed ...... 5 2.2.2 Rainfall Atlas Assumptions ...... 6 2.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Design Assumptions ...... 6 2.2.4 Flood Pump Operational Data ...... 6 2.3 STORM ATLAS AND EXTREME STORM FREQUENCY IMPACTS ON CURRENT EVENT CRITERIA ...... 8 2.3.1 Rainfall Atlas Updates ...... 8 2.3.2 Extreme Storm Frequency Changes ...... 9 2.3.3 Level of Development Considerations ...... 10 2.3.4 Federal Directives on Climate Changes ...... 10 2.3.5 Impacts to Level of Protection ...... 10 2.4 LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR EVALUATION AND MODELING ...... 11 2.4.1 Selecting Level of Protection Design Criteria ...... 11 2.4.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling ...... 12

CHAPTER 3: FLOOD PUMPING STATIONS 3.1 REPORTS, STUDIES, AND PLANS ...... 1 3.1.1 Original Drawings and Specifications ...... 1 3.1.2 1989 Evaluation of Mechanical, Electrical, and Structural Components ...... 1 3.1.3 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations ...... 2 3.1.4 2014 Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Flood Pumping Station Generator Analysis ...... 2 3.1.5 2014 Flood Protection System Emergency Preparedness Plan ...... 2 3.1.6 2015 Levee System Evaluation ...... 3 3.1.7 Other Information ...... 3 3.2 CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ...... 3 3.2.1 Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station ...... 4 3.2.2 Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station ...... 5 3.2.3 Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station ...... 7 3.2.4 4th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 7 3.2.5 5th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 8 3.2.6 10th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 10 3.2.7 17th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 11 3.2.8 27th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 12 3.2.9 34th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 13 3.2.10 Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station ...... 14 3.2.11 Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station ...... 16 3.2.12 Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station ...... 17 3.2.13 Upper Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station ...... 18 3.2.14 Riverport Flood Pumping Station ...... 19 3.2.15 Lower Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station...... 20

Volume 4, Table of Contents Page 2 of 5 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.2.16 Pond Creek Flood Pumping Station ...... 21 3.3 SECONDARY POWER ...... 22 3.3.1 Existing Electrical Plan Review ...... 22 3.3.2 2014 Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Flood Pumping Station Generator Analysis Report ...... 23 3.3.3 Redundant Electrical Utility Service ...... 30 3.3.4 Peak Shaving ...... 31 3.3.5 Summary of Conditions ...... 31 3.4 GAP ANALYSIS ...... 32 3.4.1 Regulatory Forecast ...... 32 3.4.2 Planned Projects Not Requiring Change ...... 32 3.4.3 Planned Projects Requiring Change ...... 33 3.4.4 New Projects ...... 34 3.5 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION ...... 35 3.5.1 Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station ...... 36 3.5.2 Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station ...... 46 3.5.3 Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station ...... 48 3.5.4 4th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 50 3.5.5 5th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 53 3.5.6 10th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 55 3.5.7 17th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 57 3.5.8 27th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 60 3.5.9 34th Street Flood Pumping Station ...... 62 3.5.10 Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station ...... 65 3.5.11 Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station ...... 67 3.5.12 Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station ...... 69 3.5.13 Upper Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station ...... 72 3.5.14 Riverport Flood Pumping Station ...... 74 3.5.15 Lower Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station...... 75 3.5.16 Pond Creek Flood Pumping Station ...... 77 3.6 SCORING, PRIORITIZATION, AND SCHEDULING ...... 78 3.6.1 Level of Protection Selection ...... 78 3.6.2 Risk‐Based Cost‐Benefit Prioritization ...... 79 3.6.3 Technical Workshop ...... 81

CHAPTER 4: FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES 4.1 REPORTS, STUDIES, AND PLANS ...... 1 4.1.1 Original Drawings and Specifications ...... 1 4.1.2 Planning Documents ...... 1 4.1.3 Other Reports, Studies, and Plans ...... 2 4.2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ...... 5 4.2.1 Levees and Crossings ...... 5 4.2.2 Floodwalls ...... 5

Volume 4, Table of Contents Page 3 of 5 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

4.2.3 Floodgates ...... 5 4.2.4 Closures ...... 6 4.2.5 Interconnections with Existing Structures ...... 6 4.3 CURRENT REGULATORY DRIVERS ...... 6 4.3.1 Current Design Criteria ...... 6 4.3.2 Hydraulic Steel Structures ...... 7 4.4 GAP ANALYSIS ...... 8 4.4.1 Regulatory Forecast ...... 8 4.4.2 Planned Projects Not Requiring Change ...... 8 4.4.3 Planned Projects Requiring Change ...... 9 4.4.4 New Projects ...... 9 4.5 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION ...... 11 4.5.1 One‐Time or Nonannual Projects ...... 12 4.5.2 Annual Repair and Replacement Allocations ...... 12

CHAPTER 5: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN 5.1 CURRENT SITUATION ...... 1 5.2 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS ...... 1

REFERENCES

SUPPORTING INFORMATION Appendixes (provided on CD) Appendix 4A Analysis of Flood Pumping Stations by Heritage Engineering Appendix 4B Schedule of Projects and Allocations Attachment Project Fact Sheets

LIST OF TABLES Table ES‐1. Population, Buildings, and Acreage Protected by the Ohio River Flood Protection System Table ES‐2. Current Modeled Pumping Rates and Level of Protection Table ES‐3. Pumping Rates to Meet LOP 5 Table ES‐4. Final Recommended 20‐Year Capital Improvement Plan for ORFPS Table 4.2‐1. Datum and Gauge Relationships Table 4.2‐2. Flood Pumping Stations Table 4.2‐3. Peak Historical Floods (1956 to Present) Table 4.2‐4. Flood Pumping Stations Table 4.2‐5. Comparison of Jefferson County, Kentucky Intensity, Duration, and Frequency Amounts (inches) for a 24‐hour Storm Duration by Rainfall Atlas Table 4.2‐6. Comparison of Jefferson County, Kentucky Intensity, Duration, and Frequency Amounts (inches) for 24‐hour Storm Duration by Rainfall Atlas

Volume 4, Table of Contents Page 4 of 5 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.2‐7. Current Modeled Pumping Rates and Level of Protection Table 4.2‐8. Proposed Pumping Rates for LOPs 3, 4, and 5 Table 4.3‐1. Site Information ...... 24 Table 4.3‐2. Diesel Fuel Cost Analysis ...... 26 Table 4.3‐3. Utility Cost Analysis ...... 28 Table 4.3‐4. Planned Projects Not Requiring Change ...... 32 Table 4.3‐5. Planned Projects Requiring Change ...... 33 Table 4.3‐6. New Projects ...... 34 Table 4.3‐7. Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 36 Table 4.3‐8. Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 38 Table 4.3‐9. Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 39 Table 4.3‐10. Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 40 Table 4.3‐11. Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 41 Table 4.3‐12. Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 43 Table 4.3‐13. 4th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 43 Table 4.3‐14. 4th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 45 Table 4.3‐15. 5th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 46 Table 4.3‐16. 5th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 47 Table 4.3‐17. 10th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 48 Table 4.3‐18. 10th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 49 Table 4.3‐19. 17th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 50 Table 4.3‐20. 17th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 52 Table 4.3‐21. 27th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 55 Table 4.3‐22. 34th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 56 Table 4.3‐23. 34th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 57 Table 4.3‐24. Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 59 Table 4.3‐25. Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 59 Table 4.3‐26. Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 61 Table 4.3‐27. Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Planned Projects ...... 62 Table 4.3‐28. Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 64 Table 4.3‐29. Upper Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 66 Table 4.3‐30. Riverport Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 67 Table 4.3‐31. Lower Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 69 Table 4.3‐32. Pond Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning‐Level Costs—Alternative Projects ...... 70 Table 4.3‐33. Preliminary Project Prioritization by Prioritization Score ...... 72 Table 4.4‐1. Planned Projects Not Requiring Change Table 4.4‐2. One‐Time or Nonannual Projects Table 4.4‐3. Annual Repair and Replacement Allocations

Volume 4, Table of Contents Page 5 of 5 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

VOLUME 4—OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APCD Air Pollution Control District CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Plan City City of Louisville County Jefferson County CSO combined sewer overflow CSS combined sewer system DWO dry weather overflow EC Engineer Circular EM Engineer Manual EO Executive Order EPP Emergency Preparedness Plan ER Engineer Regulation ETL Engineer Technical Letter Facility Plan 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan—Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan FCA Flood Control Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FPS flood pumping station FY fiscal year gpm gallons per minute GRW GRW Engineers, Inc. H&H hydrologic and hydraulic HEC Hydraulic Engineering Center HEC‐HMS Hydraulic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modeling System

Volume 4, Acronyms and Abbreviations Page 1 of 3 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Heritage Heritage Engineering HI Hydraulic Institute HP horsepower HSS hydraulic steel structure HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ICM Integrated Catchment Model IFP infrastructure and flood protection IDF intensity, duration, and frequency IOAP Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan KPDES Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt‐hours LCD Louisville City Datum LG lower gauge LG&E Louisville Gas and Electric LOJIC Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium Louisville Metro Louisville‐Jefferson County Metro Government LSE Levee System Evaluation, National Flood Insurance Program MCC motor control center Metro Louisville Metropolitan MGD million gallons per day MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSD Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District N/A not applicable NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NFPA National Fire Protection Association NGVD13 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1913

Volume 4, Acronyms and Abbreviations Page 2 of 3 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS National Weather Service O&M operations and maintenance ORD Ohio River Datum ORFPS Ohio River Flood Protection System ORI Ohio River Interceptor PL Public Law PVA Property Valuation Administration RIP Rehabilitation Inspection Program SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition Sta. station Stantec Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. TP Technical Paper UG upper gauge USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture V volt VFD variable‐frequency drive WQTC water quality treatment center WSEL water service elevation

Volume 4, Acronyms and Abbreviations Page 3 of 3 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

VOLUME 4—OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 BACKGROUND

The Ohio River Flood Protection System (ORFPS) can be separated into two asset groups. The first group comprises the 29.5 miles of floodwalls and levees that protect the Louisville Metropolitan (Metro) area from flooding on the Ohio River. The second group comprises the 16 flood pumping stations (FPSs) that lift drainage from the ORFPS interior over the floodwalls and levees when the Ohio River is at the flood stage. The ORFPS provides protection to Jefferson County against flood levels greater than the Great Flood of 1937, which is the flood of record for the Metro area. On January 27, 1937, the Ohio River crested at 52.15 feet in the Metro area. The overall monthly precipitation was four times its normal amount, leaving 70 percent of the city under water. The ORFPS was designed to protect the Metro area from a crest that is 3 feet higher than the 1937 flood. Several FPSs have watersheds and sewersheds that extend across the Metro area and into eastern Jefferson County. These contributing areas include lands located both above and below the top elevation of the floodwalls and levees. Areas located below this elevation are protected by the ORFPS. Additionally, many of the FPSs work in conjunction, and thus, their contributing and protection areas occasionally overlap. Table ES‐1 provides the approximate number of people, buildings, and acreage protected by the ORFPS.

Table ES‐1. Population, Buildings, and Acreage Protected by the Ohio River Flood Protection System

Population Buildings Acreage Contributing ORFPS Asset Name Protected Protected Protected Acreage

Floodwall and Levee 228,660 136,830 50,102 N/A

Beargrass Creek FPS 17,660 6,640 2,370 38,682 a

Robert J. Starkey FPS 17,660 6,640 2,370 38,682a

Bingham Way FPS 30 50 31 31

4th Street FPS 1,640 440 350 350

5th Street FPS 1,710 180 171 171

10th Street FPS 3,280 290 258 258

17th Street FPS 1,010 510 142 142

27th Street FPS 10,510 5,610 910 910

Volume 4, Executive Summary Page 1 of 8 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table ES‐1. Population, Buildings, and Acreage Protected by the Ohio River Flood Protection System

Population Buildings Acreage Contributing ORFPS Asset Name Protected Protected Protected Acreage

34th Street FPS 12,580 6,660 1,205 1,205

Shawnee Park FPS 30,650 15,960 3,008 3,008

Western Parkway FPS 93,540 41,770 11,144 60,176

Paddy’s Run FPS 36,540 23,500 5,699 41,317

Upper Mill Creek FPS 39,600 27,380 8,682 11,958

Riverport FPS 30 250 789 789

Lower Mill Creek FPS 70,480 51,320 17,432 21,902

Pond Creek FPS 33,950 22,600 15,473 57,150

N/A not applicable a The Beargrass Creek and Robert J. Starkey FPSs have overlapping contributing areas. The Beargrass Creek FPS serves the area’s watershed, and the Robert J. Starkey FPS serves the area’s sewershed.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed the Levee System Evaluation, National Flood Insurance Program (LSE) in 2015. The LSE examined the operations, maintenance, and condition of the entire ORFPS. The LSE concluded that the ORFPS met all applicable standards and reasonably reduced the risk that the ORFPS would be overwhelmed to less than 1 percent chance in any given year. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers noted the floodwall and levee components are in an acceptable condition and should not need expansion in the foreseeable future. However, continued maintenance at appropriate levels is necessary to keep the floodwall and levee system operable to meet the community’s needs. While maintaining the level of protection of their original design, the FPSs are now challenged by flows above and beyond those anticipated in the 1940s and 1950s, when most stations were designed. The increase in flows is because the contributing areas are more built up than in the 1940s and 1950s (that is, increased impervious area converting more rainfall into runoff) and the increased frequency of extreme storm events. The LSE was not intended to evaluate the FPSs regarding their level of protection. Additionally, 10 of the 16 FPSs have now been in service for 60 years or more, many of them still relying on a majority of the original equipment. The equipment is repaired as necessary, but because many manufacturers are no longer in business or no longer make replacement parts, it is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to repair and/or replace worn parts. This results in a need to consider enhancing the reliability and/or capacity of the FPSs to meet the needs of the Metro area in the future. More information on the history of the flood protection system can be found in Chapter 1.

Volume 4, Executive Summary Page 2 of 8 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

ES.2 CURRENT LEVEL OF PROTECTION

Most FPSs were designed in the 1940s and 1950s, using an economic‐risk‐to‐cost‐benefit analysis. Calculations were made based on storm intensity, duration, and frequency definitions that have since undergone significant updates as more data and better technology have become available. Extreme storms that historically had longer recurrence intervals are now occurring more frequently as evidenced by current data with higher levels of accuracy. Data indicate that this trend will continue into the future. Infrastructure sized to meet a certain level of protection based on earlier storm definitions would not be able to perform as expected when updated storm information is applied. For example, infrastructure sized to manage a 1‐percent annual chance of exceedance, 24‐hour storm (commonly referred to as a 100‐year storm) as defined 40 years ago would only be able to manage a 2‐ to 4‐percent annual chance of exceedance, 24‐hour storm as defined by the most recent information. This means the statistical chance of a flood event exceeding the FPS capacity has risen because of the increased frequency of extreme storms. This effect is exacerbated by the increase in impervious area, resulting in a higher volume of stormwater being delivered to the FPSs in a shorter amount of time. Modeling was completed to determine the maximum storm size FPSs could currently manage as shown in Table ES‐2. To our knowledge, prior to the LSE, the capacity of these FPSs has never been reassessed through comprehensive hydraulic and hydrologic modeling. Storm definitions were based on MSD’s current design manual, which references Technical Paper No. 40 (TP 40, published in 1979) for 24‐hour storm durations. Dual pumping rates are provided for the Beargrass Creek FPS, the Upper Mill Creek FPS, and the Pond Creek FPS. The first rate reflects the pumping capacity at originally designed pumping elevations. The second rate identifies the pumping capacity at a water surface elevation approximately 1 to 2 feet below the critical elevation where flooding and damage would increase significantly because of excessive flooding. Current level of protection shows the percent chance in any given year that a storm event capable of producing flows higher than the current capacity of the FPS. In other words, the annual chance that some degree of flooding could be expected if flows could not be rerouted to other stations or otherwise managed. Please note that this percent chance does not take into account the statistical likelihood that such a storm event would happen while the Ohio River is in a flood stage. The current level of protection is detailed further in Chapter 2. Table ES‐2. Current Modeled Pumping Rates and Level of Protection Current Modeled Current Level of Protection FPS Name Pumping Rate (MGD) (TP‐40 Rainfall Data) Beargrass Creek 3,555/4,155 10‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Robert J. Starkey 108 1‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Bingham Way 64 20‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

4th Street 137 4‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

5th Street 52 10‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

10th Street 88 10‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Volume 4, Executive Summary Page 3 of 8 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table ES‐2. Current Modeled Pumping Rates and Level of Protection Current Modeled Current Level of Protection FPS Name Pumping Rate (MGD) (TP‐40 Rainfall Data) 17th Street 51 Less Than 50‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

27th Street 239 50‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

34th Street 90 4‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Shawnee Park 770 20‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Western Parkway 1,150 Less Than 50‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Paddy’s Run 925 50‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Upper Mill Creek 750/910 4‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Riverport 140 1‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Lower Mill Creek 320 10‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Pond Creek 2,650/3,375 1‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

MGD million gallons per day

ES.3 GAP ANALYSIS

The current level of protection of the FPSs was compared with five potential levels of protection that MSD may be expected to meet in the future; the floodwalls and levees were not included in this analysis as they are assumed to already exceed any reasonable future level of protection. The five levels of protection that were evaluated included the following:  LOP 1—No Action (baseline)  LOP 2—Maintaining Existing Capacities with Enhanced Reliability Improvements  LOP 3—Maximizing Capacities within Existing Structures with Expanded Pools (where feasible, allowing backwater to pool further upstream in the interceptors and creeks and/or by expanding the volume held within the ponding areas)  LOP 4—Capacity to Meet the 10‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance, 24‐Hour Storm (as defined by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] Atlas 14)  LOP 5—Capacity to Meet the 10‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance, 24‐Hour Storm with Increased Frequency of Extreme Storms (NOAA Atlas 14 projected to 2035) LOP 5 is recommended as the future level of protection for the FPSs for a variety of reasons. LOP 5 provides the highest level of protection considered to meet the more frequent extreme storms expected in 2035, which is around the same time that the recommended capital improvements would be completed.

Volume 4, Executive Summary Page 4 of 8 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Should MSD decide to apply drainage criteria to the FPSs, the ORFPS improvements must be sized appropriately and coordinated with those recommended for the interior drainage systems. Improvements to the stormwater system are intended to manage the same 10‐percent annual chance of exceedance, 24‐hour storm to the ORFPS. The specific mix of conveyance and storage used to manage stormwater will impact the required pumping capacities. If more storage is used, then FPS capacities may require smaller increases. Additional modeling was completed to determine the necessary capacity for each station to meet LOP 5. Table ES‐3 summarizes the results as well as the level of protection each station currently meets.

Table ES‐3. Pumping Rates Needed to Meet LOP 5 Current Modeled Pumping Rate Level of Protection LOP 5 FPS Name (MGD) Currently Provided a (MGD) Beargrass Creek 3,555/4,155 LOP 4 4,700

Robert J. Starkey 108 LOP 5 108

Bingham Way 64 LOP 3 90

4th Street 137 LOP 2 195

5th Street 52 LOP 5 52

10th Street 88 LOP 5 88

17th Street 51 LOP 2 122

27th Street 239 LOP 2 320

34th Street 90 LOP 5 90

Shawnee Park 770 LOP 3 1,250

Western Parkway 1,150 LOP 3 1,600

Paddy’s Run 925 LOP 3 1,900

Upper Mill Creek 750/910 LOP 4 1,370

Riverport 140 LOP 5 140

Lower Mill Creek 320 LOP 5 320

Pond Creek 2,650/3,375 LOP 5 3,375

a LOP 2: Maintaining Existing Capacities with Enhanced Reliability Improvements; LOP 3: Maximizing Capacities within Existing Structures with Expanded Pools; LOP 4: Capacity to Meet the 10‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance, 24‐Hour Storm (NOAA Atlas 14); and LOP 5: Capacity to Meet the 10‐Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance, 24‐Hour Storm with Increased Frequency of Extreme Storms (NOAA Atlas 14 projected to 2035)

Volume 4, Executive Summary Page 5 of 8 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Projects were developed to increase the pumping capacities at nine of the FPSs. Additionally, all FPSs were evaluated for other needs to improve reliability and operations. More information on this analysis can be found in Chapter 3, Sections 1 through 4; Chapter 4, Sections 1 through 4; and Chapter 5, Section 1.

ES.4 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS

Projects were developed to address the needs of each of the 16 FPSs. Alternatives were developed for these projects in consultation with MSD. An efficient approach and schedule to implement the improvements, based on risk reduction and community benefits, were established. In review of the floodwalls and levees, several projects were previously identified and incorporated into the recommended Capital Improvement Plan. Annual budget allocations were also calculated to address ongoing and future capital needs. Table ES‐4 summarizes the projects in the recommended 20‐Year Capital Improvement Plan for the ORFPS. This table includes both existing projects as of May 1, 2016 and those recommended by the 20‐ Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Team. Detailed discussions for each of these recommended projects are included in Chapter 3, Sections 5 and 6; Chapter 4, Section 5; and Chapter 5, Section 2. Fact sheets for these projects are included in Attachment 4B.

Volume 4, Executive Summary Page 6 of 8 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table ES‐4. Final Recommended 20‐Year Capital Improvement Plan for ORFPS (2016 Dollars)

Project 20‐Year Budget ID Project FY17 to FY21 FY22 to FY26 FY27 to FY31 FY32 to FY36 Start FY Total Number Allocation – Annual Closure Repair and Replacement 2017 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $5,000,000 F16020 Allocation – Annual FPSs Equipment Renewal and Replacement 2017 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $19,000,000 X_0321 Allocation – Annual Floodwall and Levee Heavy Maintenance 2017 $3,750,000 $5,250,000 $5,250,000 $5,250,000 $19,500,000 F16022 Allocation – Annual Floodwall and Levee Light Maintenance 2017 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $10,000,000 X_0038 Allocation – Annual Gate Repair and Replacement 2017 $933,378 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,933,378 F16021 Canal Street Floodwall 2017 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 X_0081 Concrete Panel Repairs 2017 $235,000 $0 $0 $0 $235,000 X_0079 Gate 102 Replacement 2017 $320,000 $0 $0 $0 $320,000 F15010 Gate 81 Replacement 2017 $335,000 $0 $0 $0 $335,000 F15009 Gate Study and Repair or Replacement 2017 $1,640,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,640,000 X_0317 Hydraulic Steel Structures 2017 $245,000 $0 $0 $0 $245,000 X_0080 Truss Anchorage Load Test 2017 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 X_0078 34th Street FPS – Reliability/Generator 2018 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 X_0084 Emergency Preparedness Plan Updates 2018 $30,000 $60,000 $30,000 $30,000 $150,000 X_0323 Paddy’s Run FPS – Capacity (New Station) 2018 $42,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $42,100,000 F14172 Risk Assessment 2018 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 X_0082 Robert J. Starkey FPS – Operational Improvements 2018 $4,360,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,360,000 X_0089 Shawnee Park FPS – Reliability (MCC Replacement) 2018 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 X_0320 Western Parkway FPS – Capacity 2019 $17,470,000 $0 $0 $0 $17,470,000 X_0092

Volume 4, Executive Summary Page 7 of 8 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table ES‐4. Final Recommended 20‐Year Capital Improvement Plan for ORFPS (2016 Dollars)

Project 20‐Year Budget ID Project FY17 to FY21 FY22 to FY26 FY27 to FY31 FY32 to FY36 Start FY Total Number Western Parkway FPS – Reliability (Evaluation Repairs) 2019 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 X_0322 10th Street FPS – Reliability/Generator 2020 $2,070,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,070,000 X_0085 17th Street FPS –Capacity/Reliability/Generator 2020 $5,050,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,050,000 X_0086 5th Street FPS – Reliability/Generator 2020 $1,640,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,640,000 X_0083 Beargrass Creek FPS – Capacity/Reliability 2021 $16,147,000 $80,733,000 $0 $0 $96,880,000 X_0041 Paddy’s Run FPS – Reliability/Redundant Service 2022 $0 $23,610,000 $0 $0 $23,610,000 X_0318 Pond Creek FPS – Reliability (Pump Replacements) 2024 $0 $17,100,000 $0 $0 $17,100,000 X_0095 27th Street FPS – Capacity/Reliability/Generator 2027 $0 $0 $12,020,000 $0 $12,020,000 X_0090 4th Street FPS – Capacity/Redundant Service 2027 $0 $0 $12,920,000 $0 $12,920,000 X_0088 Lower Mill Creek FPS – Reliability/Generator 2027 $0 $0 $13,450,000 $0 $13,450,000 X_0093 Upper Mill Creek FPS – Capacity/Reliability/Redundant Service 2027 $0 $0 $49,040,000 $0 $49,040,000 X_0094 Shawnee Park FPS – Capacity/Reliability/Redundant Service 2029 $0 $0 $25,638,000 $17,092,000 $42,730,000 X_0044 Bingham Way FPS – Capacity/Reliability/Generator 2032 $0 $0 $0 $6,590,000 $6,590,000 X_0087 Pond Creek FPS – Reliability/Redundant Servicea 2034 $0 $0 $0 $39,186,000 $39,186,000 X_0319 Riverport FPS – Reliability/Generator 2032 $0 $0 $0 $6,110,000 $6,110,000 X_0091 a $26,124,000 (2016 dollars) in costs planned for after FY36 to complete project FPS flood pumping station FY fiscal year MCC motor control center

Volume 4, Executive Summary Page 8 of 8 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

VOLUME 4—OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The Louisville Metropolitan (Metro) area, located along the Ohio River, is subject to flooding. Flooding problems can originate from the Ohio River as it rises above its normal pool depth, as well as its contributing creeks, storm sewers, and major drainage systems located throughout the Metro area. This volume of the 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan—Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan (Facility Plan) discusses the Ohio River Flood Protection System (ORFPS), how it originated, and its present condition. It does not deal with internal drainage issues, but rather discusses how the ORFPS deals with flooding on the Ohio River. For information on internal drainage or interior stream flash flooding, refer to Volume 3.

1.2 FLOOD CONTROL ACT

There are multiple laws known as the Flood Control Act (FCA). Typically, they are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and are enacted following flood events. Several major floods occurred between 1849 and 1936 that moved Congress to pass legislation. The first significant federal flood control laws were the Swamp Land Acts of 1849 and 1850. A flood on the Mississippi River in 1874 led to the creation of the Mississippi River Commission in 1879. Booming steamboat traffic on the Missouri River and a flood in 1881 led to the creation of the Missouri River Commission in 1884; however, the River and Harbor Act of 1902 abolished it. Floods on the Mississippi, Ohio, and other rivers in the Northeast led to the FCA of 1917, which was the first act aimed exclusively at controlling floods. The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 led to substantial flood control funding; and a series of floods in 1935 and 1936 across the nation were critical in the passage of the FCA of 1936. The FCA has been amended and/or changed numerous times over the years, most recently in 1970. The primary purpose of the FCA is to provide for construction, repair, and preservation of public works projects associated with flood control. Review of current and projected FCA requirements did not identify any rules or requirements that would affect the ORFPS.

1.3 HISTORY OF THE OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

The ORFPS is the Metro area’s response to almost a century of flooding on the Ohio River. The ORFPS is located in Jefferson County, Kentucky, on the left descending (southerly) bank of the Ohio River, 602 to 616 miles below Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Section 4 of the FCA of June 28, 1938 and later the FCA of August 1968, authorized construction of the ORFPS. Concrete floodwalls and earthen levees form the major components of the ORFPS that keep the river out of the Metro area.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 1 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Special closures are used at street openings when the Ohio River rises above the flood stage. Gates are used at storm, sanitary, and combined sewers and creeks to prevent backup from the river. Since the Metro area is isolated from the river during flood stage, flood pumping stations (FPSs) are provided to lift the interior drainage over the floodwalls and levees into the Ohio River. The ORFPS provides protection to Jefferson County against floods greater than the Great Flood of 1937, which is the flood of record for the Metro area. The ORFPS was designed to protect the Metro area from a crest that is 3 feet higher than the 1937 flood. This includes an “evacuation” crest that accounts for wave actions of 1 foot.

1.3.1 Pre-1937 Flooding

The Great Flood of 1937 exceeded all previous recorded floods of the last 175 years when the Ohio River crested at 52.15 feet. The only floods of great note before 1937 are as follows: • The Flood of 1883 occurred on February 16, when the Ohio River crested at 39.50 feet. During this flood, a levee located north of Main Street and east of First Street broke and flooded the area with 10 to 30 feet of water within 30 minutes. One-fifth of the city was under water with roughly 7,500 people forced out of their homes and around 30 lives lost. • The Flood of 1884 also occurred on February 16. The Ohio River crested at 41.70 feet. Along with melting snow, Jefferson County had above-average rainfall. The Ohio River was rising at 1 inch per hour until it crested. This was the largest Ohio River flood on record at the time. • The Flood of 1907 occurred on January 22, when the Ohio River crested at 36.40 feet. Thousands of people were homeless because of the flood, and many factories in Louisville, Jeffersonville, and New Albany were closed, leaving people without work. • The Flood of 1913 occurred from March 23 to March 26. On March 25, 1.05 inches of rain fell in 28 minutes, the storm’s highest rainfall rate. Extensive rains caused every major river and stream in Kentucky to flood. The Ohio River crested at 39.40 feet. • The Flood of 1933 occurred on March 23, when the Ohio River crested at 34.10 feet. The flood was a result of heavy rainfall on already saturated ground. At this flood level, there is little to no difference between the upper gauge (UG) and lower gauge (LG) (see Volume 4, Chapter 2 for a discussion on datum and gauges).

1.3.2 The Great Flood of 1937

The Great Flood of 1937 took place between late January and early February and affected cities along the Ohio River from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cairo, Illinois. On January 27, the Ohio River crested at 52.15 feet on the UG in the Metro area. There were only 8 days in January when rain gauges in Louisville recorded no rain, resulting in an overall monthly precipitation four times its normal amount. This flood was considered to be well over a 1-percent annual chance of exceedance event (commonly referred to as a 100-year storm) with 70 percent of the city under water. After the Great Flood of 1937, a need for a major flood protection system in the Metro area became clear. Planning began not long afterwards, but World War II postponed all projects.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 2 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

1.3.3 Post-World War II

Because of the scale of the Great Flood of 1937, USACE began constructing 70 storage reservoirs along the length of the Ohio River to reduce flood heights. The second-highest flood in Louisville’s history was recorded in 1945, when the Ohio River crested at 42.10 feet. The rainfall that fell over a 3-week period before the flood was approximately 400 percent over the normal rainfall amount. USACE began designing the ORFPS in 1948, under the authorization of the FCA. Later that year, Jefferson County experienced yet another flooding event when the river crested at 36.00 feet. The ORFPS was constructed in two distinct sections over the course of 40 years, as explained herein.

1.3.4 1950s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response

In 1957, the first section of the ORFPS was completed; this section is commonly referred to as the Louisville Reach or City Levee, and it was constructed from Beargrass Creek to just south of Rubbertown. At its completion, it spanned about 17 miles and consisted of 21,518 feet of concrete floodwalls, 67,321 feet of earthen levees, 13 FPSs, and 36 ramps. The FPSs constructed as part of this response included Beargrass Creek, Buchanan Street (now Robert J. Starkey), 4th Street, 5th Street, 10th Street, 17th Street, 27th Street, 34th Street, Shawnee Park, Western Parkway (also referred to as the State Fairgrounds), Paddy’s Run, Lee’s Lane, and Mill Creek. According to reports, the ORFPS also included 45 removable closures, 19 sandbag closures, 11 service openings, and one service door. Additionally, the Morris Forman Water Quality Treatment Center (WQTC) is a major component of the ORFPS. The WQTC has an effluent pump station that lifts combined treated sewage and storm runoff over the levee during high river stages. This facility also had a stormwater pump station, which handled untreated runoff that drains to the WQTC property. This pump station had not been used in at least 10 years and was recently demolished.

1.3.5 1970s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response

On March 12, 1964, the Ohio River crested at 41.20 feet. This storm was considered a 1-percent annual chance of exceedance event. Most flooding occurred in southwestern Jefferson County, below the ORFPS. In response to this event, the next major extension of the ORFPS, under the authorization of the FCA of August 1968, began in the late 1960s and was completed in the late 1980s. This section was constructed to protect southwestern Jefferson County from Rubbertown to Pond Creek. The project consisted of 2,905 feet of concrete floodwalls, 63,891 feet of earthen levees, four additional FPSs (Upper Mill Creek, Riverport, Lower Mill Creek, and Pond Creek), removal of two existing FPSs (Lee’s Lane and Mill Creek), gravity drainage structures, eight movable closures, and 10 ramps. The total constructed length of floodwall and levees that make up the ORFPS is 29.5 miles, protecting approximately 110 square miles of Jefferson County from flooding on the Ohio River.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 3 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

1.3.6 Nonfederal Levees

In addition to the Louisville Reach and the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach, MSD constructed the Riverfront Flood Protection System to protect a small portion of the downtown area—extending north of Main Street between Floyd Street and Third Street. This system is sometimes referred to as the Witherspoon Flood Protection System or the Second Street Flood Protection System. This system is not included in USACE inspections or certifications; therefore, MSD relies on regular assessments to evaluate performance and condition. The most recent assessment was completed in 2016 and recommend several improvements to the system (Tetra Tech, 2016).

1.4 AGREEMENTS

1.4.1 Regulations for Operations and Maintenance

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as declared in Chapter II, Title 33, Section 208.10 (USACE, 2011), prescribes the regulations covering operations and maintenance (O&M) of flood protection structures and facilities. In general, Section 208.10 provides that structures and facilities constructed by the United States for local flood protection will be continuously maintained in such a manner and operated at such times, and for such periods as may be necessary, to obtain maximum benefits. Section 208.10 also sets the guidelines for the maintenance and operation of said facilities, including: levees, floodwalls, drainage structures, closure structures, pumping plants, channels and floodways, and miscellaneous other facilities.

1.4.2 Local Sponsor Agreements

Once these facilities are constructed, local sponsor agreements are used by USACE to transfer O&M of flood protection facilities to local units of government. The City of Louisville (City) passed two resolutions, dated February 26, 1941, and August 24, 1953, in response to the FCA and its amendments. These resolutions adopted the plans to construct the original sections (that is, Louisville Reach) of the ORFPS and outlined how the City would furnish, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction. With the exception of the Beargrass Creek FPS, the Louisville Reach was transferred to the local sponsor, the City, for O&M purposes in two parts between January 1953 and July 1954. The Beargrass Creek FPS was transferred to the City in February 1957. On August 17, 1971, the Jefferson County Fiscal Court passed a resolution authorizing the construction of the Southwestern Jefferson County Local Flood Protection project (that is, Southwestern Jefferson County Reach, also referred to as the Southwest Extension). Similarly, the resolution further outlined how Jefferson County (the County) would furnish the needed lands, easements, and rights-of-way and handle the relocations of structures, personal property, utilities, and other infrastructure. The Southwestern Jefferson County Reach was transferred to the Jefferson County Fiscal Court for O&M between November 1975 and November 1992.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 4 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

1.4.3 Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Lease, Sublease, and Maintenance Agreements

The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) was formed in 1946 to provide wastewater services for Jefferson County. In December 1986, MSD assumed responsibility for O&M of the ORFPS via a 50-year renewable lease/sublease and maintenance agreements with the City of Louisville and Jefferson County. MSD added the duties of a stormwater utility to its previous responsibilities as a wastewater utility, including monthly inspections of the 29.5 miles of floodwalls and levees along the Ohio River. As part of the O&M procedure, MSD’s employees perform the following tasks: • Maintain the concrete floodwall • Maintain and mow the earthen levees • Maintain, inspect, test, and operate the 15 FPSs that existed at that time • Install and take apart the street closures • Service the gates and openings along the floodwall • Perform flood fighting activities when the Ohio River is at flood stage MSD’s lease/sublease and maintenance agreements do not contain any information on proposed capital improvement projects as related to the ORFPS. However, the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City, Jefferson County, and MSD (MSD and Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government [Louisville Metro], 1986) implies that MSD must construct and maintain the ORFPS in preparation for flood events on the Ohio River. Note that the Witherspoon Flood Protection System, including the Bingham Way FPS, is not included under this agreement.

1.4.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Protection Operations and Maintenance Manuals

MSD is responsible for operating and maintaining the ORFPS on behalf of the City of Louisville and Jefferson County (now Louisville Metro). The flood protection system now includes 16 FPSs (the Bingham Way FPS was added in 1996 and is not part of the federal system, nor is the Witherspoon Flood Protection System), 150 gate closures (flap gates, sluice gates, and gate valves), and a floodwall and levee system that spans from downtown Louisville along the Ohio River to the Bullitt County line. Proper O&M requires that the local sponsor and its designated agents have a thorough understanding of the ORFPS infrastructure, the preventative maintenance required during normal river stages, and the operational procedures during flood emergencies. Ten of the 16 FPSs have now been in service for 60 years or more. MSD employees run the pumps for short periods of time every month to make sure they are still functioning. These FPSs still rely on most of the original equipment. MSD repairs the equipment, as needed, but because many manufacturers are no longer in business or no longer continue to make replacement parts, repairing and/or replacing worn-out parts is becoming increasingly difficult.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 5 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

The original O&M manual was prepared by the USACE in 1954 for use by the City, the local sponsor responsible for the O&M of the ORFPS at that time. The original O&M manual consisted of the following volumes (which have been updated several times since they were first prepared): • O&M Manual No. 1, Flood Pump Stations • O&M Manual No. 2, Levees and Floodwalls • O&M Manual No. 3, Beargrass Creek Flood Pump Station An additional O&M manual was developed in 1987 and 1988 (USACE, 1987a, 1987b, and 1988), when the Southwest Extension was completed, to cover the additional flood protection facilities. This O&M manual included a preventive maintenance program to proactively prevent breakdowns and failures of the FPS equipment. This program improved the integrity of FPS operations. An annual service contract is awarded to provide high voltage electrical maintenance on a biannual basis. Also, MSD staff visits each station monthly to run the pumps, motors, and gates to confirm all equipment is functioning. Two to four times a year, the gates are operated through 100 percent of their cycle (that is, full open to full close and back to full open). These exercises are used to identify gates that cannot be completely sealed and need rehabilitation or replacement. In 2011, MSD initiated an effort to update and consolidate the former O&M manuals and produce documents that could be easily updated and modified in the future. The result of this effort was two updated ORFPS O&M manuals issued in January 2013. Volume 1 addresses the 16 FPSs within the ORFPS (USACE, 2013a), while Volume 2 addresses the entire levee and floodwall system including all closures and flood control gates not associated with the FPSs (USACE, 2013b). These manuals assemble all the details essential for the satisfactory O&M of the ORFPS so that a maximum level of flood protection may be available during its lifetime. The manuals do not contain any information on proposed capital improvement projects as related to the ORFPS.

1.5 REPORTS, STUDIES, AND PLANS

Numerous reports, studies, and plans were reviewed to obtain a better understanding of the ORFPS’s current condition and to identify previously planned projects to be included in this Facility Plan. This section addresses the documents that apply to the ORFPS as a whole. Chapters 3 and 4 of Volume 4 discuss reports, studies, and plans that apply directly to the FPSs and floodwalls and levees.

1.5.1 Strategic Business Plan

The Strategic Business Plan was issued in 2014 and is intended to run through 2018 (MSD, 2014). The plan is intended to be a transition from the single focus of MSD on the Amended Consent Decree (ACD) to a broader focus on all aspects of MSD’s vision of “Achieving Clean, Safe Waterways for a Healthy and Vibrant Community.” MSD’s mission to achieve this vision is “Providing Exceptional Wastewater, Drainage, and Flood Protection Services for Our Community.” The Strategic Business Plan is a driver for this Facility Plan.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 6 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

1.5.2 Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan

The ACD1 is the agreement between MSD and the federal court system that stipulated the actions and projects that MSD will undertake within a given time period to resolve or mitigate combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows, along with other performance and record-keeping issues primarily at the WQTCs. The Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan (IOAP) was developed in response to the ACD to define both capital and operating program modifications to address the decree requirements. The IOAP identified three problems with the FPSs: two types of dry weather overflows (DWOs) and a direct discharge to the Ohio River. These issues were related to the original FPSs’ design and operational protocols. The first type of DWO occurred in FPSs that conveyed both dry weather (sanitary flow) and wet weather flows within the combined sewer system (CSS). When the river rose to the elevation of the CSO dam associated with the FPS, the station would enter plant idle mode and sanitary pumping at the station would be suspended, resulting in an overflow during dry weather conditions. During wet weather, a normal CSO resulted. This situation lasted until either the station entered flood mode and the floodgates were closed, or the river level fell below the CSO dam and normal operation resumed. These items were addressed with changes to the operating procedures. The second type of DWO occurred when the station would enter flood mode and a precipitation event followed. This situation would result in combined sewage being trapped between the CSO dam and the flood control gate. When the Ohio River flood receded and the gates were opened, this trapped combined sewage would be released directly to the river resulting in a DWO. These DWOs were addressed with capital projects and changes to the operating procedures. Direct discharges occurred at isolated stations where the sanitary facilities were connected directly to the overflow line to the river. These situations are being corrected at the applicable stations through recently completed and ongoing capital projects and improved O&M practices by MSD. Any changes (planning, construction, and/or operations) require approval and careful coordination with USACE. The IOAP does not address ORFPS reliability or capacity. IOAP projects are not intended to meet level of control requirements for overflow abatement when the ORFPS is in flood mode and do not increase flood risks.

1.5.3 Capital Improvement Plan

The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is an annual document prepared by MSD (MSD, 2016). It identifies those projects MSD desires to construct within the next 5 years. Projects related to the IOAP are prioritized within the CIP; non-IOAP projects are not prioritized and, for the most part, are reactive to problems that have occurred and need to be addressed. Projects scheduled to occur in the CIP’s first year are approved to move forward. The remaining 4 years of projects and their budgets are listed in the

1 The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Plaintiff, and the United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervener, v. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, Defendant, in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division. Amended Consent Decree, Case 3-08-cv-00608-CRS. Filed April 15, 2009. Available at http://www.msdprojectwin.org/Portals/0/Library/ Consent%20Decree/Agreement/Commonwealth%20of%20KY%20vs%20MSD%20%20Amended%20Consent%20Decree.pdf.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 7 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

CIP for planning purposes. The projects in the current CIP were incorporated into the Facility Plan, and non-IOAP projects were given priority to enhance their eventual construction.

1.6 CURRENT REGULATORY DRIVERS

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order (EO) No. 11988, Floodplain Management, that established the current floodplain risk management standards. Significant legislation affecting both flood risk management and flood insurance policy has been implemented during the past few years. Recent legislation includes the following: • Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2012) • Homeowner’s Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (FEMA, 2014a) • The modification of EO 11988 by President Barack Obama on January 30, 2015, via EO No. 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input The new EO 13690 amends EO 11988 and, among other things, provides three approaches that federal agencies can now use to establish the flood elevation and hazard area for consideration in their decision making, which are as follows: • Using a climate-informed science approach • Adding 2 to 3 feet of elevation to the 100-year floodplain (critical facilities) • Using the 500-year floodplain The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act and the Homeowner’s Flood Insurance Affordability Act both deal more with policies, premiums, and grandfathering of the same. These should not have any impact on the floodwalls, levees, and/or FPSs.

1.6.1 Federal Emergency Management Agency

For a levee to be accredited by FEMA and shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as providing protection from the base flood, a levee must first be certified by a licensed Professional Engineer or a federal agency that designs levees. Levees are accredited when levee owners, communities, or other interested parties provide appropriate data and documentation demonstrating compliance with 44 CFR 65.10 in the areas presented herein.

General Criteria

FEMA will recognize only those levees that meet, and continue to meet, minimum standards consistent with the level of protection sought through comprehensive floodplain management criteria found in 44 CFR 60.3.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 8 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Design Criteria

A licensed Professional Engineer or federal entity, such as USACE, that designed and constructed the system, must certify data and documentation demonstrating the structural design criteria are met. The submitted documentation must include certified “as-built” plans. Additionally, recent photographs of the levee, including embankments and closures, while not required, are helpful to FEMA in performing their review. Mandatory information includes the following: • Freeboard design, including that for riverine and coastal levees • Closure designs showing all openings have closure devices; closures are designed according to sound engineering practice and are a structural part of the levee during operation • Embankment protection demonstrating no appreciable erosion of levee embankment during the base flood • Embankment and foundation stability analyses evaluating expected seepage during base flood loading conditions, including flooding depth, duration, penetrations, and other seepage and stability factors • Settlement analysis assessing potential freeboard loss due to settlement, showing that minimum freeboard will be maintained • An interior drainage analysis identifying the source(s) and magnitude of interior flooding performed by a licensed Professional Engineer • In some unique situations, FEMA may require additional design criteria to ensure the levee provides adequate risk reduction

Operations and Maintenance Plan and Criteria

O&M plans must include information fulfilling the minimum requirements of 44 CFR 65.10(C) and (D) (FEMA, 2011a and 2011b, respectively). The O&M of the levee must be under the jurisdiction of an approved agency and officially adopted by that agency. Official adoption generally requires a vote by a governing body, like the MSD Board.

Certification Requirements

Data submitted to support a given levee comply with the requirements outlined herein must be certified by a licensed Professional Engineer, along with certified as-built plans for the levee. Certification, as defined in 44 CFR 65.2(b) (FEMA, 2001), is a statement that the submitted information is accurate and in accordance with sound engineering practices. The Levee System Evaluation, National Flood Insurance Program (LSE; USACE, 2015) provided the certification required by FEMA. Chapters 3 and 4 of Volume 4 summarize the deficiencies identified in the LSE, which were used to identify CIP projects.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 9 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

1.6.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Hurricane Katrina generated a plethora of potential actions to mitigate floodwall and levee concerns. Conversations with USACE indicate that all Hurricane Katrina-related requirements for floodwalls and levees are already incorporated into current regulations.

1.6.3 Other Regulations

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Design Criteria

MSD’s current design criteria are based on total precipitation values that were established five decades ago. Quoting from the MSD Design Manual (MSD, 2015a): “…annual exceedance probabilities are referenced from the Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1961 (also known as TP-40). The 24-hour duration rainfall values used for analysis in Jefferson County are as follows: • 2-year - 3.2 inches; • 10-year - 4.5 inches; and • 100-year - 6.2 inches.”

Floodplain Regulations

MSD’s current floodplain regulations were last updated in 2006 and amended in 2015 (Louisville Metro, 2006). As stated and described in detail in Section 1.5, three significant pieces of legislation have been introduced since 2012: EO 13690, Biggert-Waters Act of 2012, and Homeowner’s Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. These legislations significantly impact the current flood insurance regulations; however, they do not impact the ORFPS directly.

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

Review of current and projected MSD Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requirements did not identify any rules or requirements that would affect the ORFPS.

Stormwater Master Plan

Review of current and projected Stormwater Management Master Plan (MSD, 2010) requirements did not identify any rules or requirements that would affect the ORFPS.

Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits

Review of current and projected Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) requirements did not identify any rules or requirements that would affect the ORFPS.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 10 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

1.7 FUTURE REGULATORY DRIVERS

1.7.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USACE is considering changes to policies and procedures for activities administered under authority of Public Law (PL) 84-99 (USACE, 1941). These changes will update USACE policies to align with national preparedness and response frameworks, encourage broader flood risk management activities by sponsors, reduce repetitive damage to projects, and incorporate a life-cycle risk management approach to civil works disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. These changes support the agency’s strategic direction and the advances in risk-informed decision making, increased risk awareness communications, improved relationships with nonfederal sponsors (like MSD), and enhanced long-term sustainability and resiliency of projects. The USACE Rehabilitation Program, as authorized by PL 84-99, assists with public flood risk management projects, primarily levees and levee repair projects. This assistance is directed at levee systems that have been damaged by floods and coastal storms. To be eligible for rehabilitation assistance, levee projects must maintain an Active status by receiving an “acceptable” or “minimally acceptable” rating based on annual and periodic inspections conducted by USACE. USACE is considering changes to the Rehabilitation Program eligibility criteria to encourage broader flood risk management activities by project sponsors. For example, USACE is considering linking eligibility more closely to sponsored actions, such as emergency preparedness planning, risk communication to the public, and prioritization of maintenance activities based on risk. USACE has stated that the following guiding principles will be used to guide the development of revised policies: • Federal assistance is supplemental to state, local, and tribal efforts and does not replace them. • Public sponsors have primary responsibility for operations, maintenance, and risk communication activities associated with their projects. • Risk-informed decision-making guides USACE and sponsor activities. • Projects should be considered as systems and across the full flood life-cycle. • Programs should be implemented in a flexible manner to address serious or systemic deficiencies or when complex natural resources or tribal issues exist. • Benefits of federal investment are being maintained and reduce future repair costs, USACE is changing its relationship with sponsors in the Rehabilitation Program because of the recognition that sponsors are the primary responsible parties for O&M, repair, rehabilitation, replacement, and risk communication associated with their projects. USACE is adjusting its focus to better engage with sponsors to provide detailed information related to the nature of risk associated with projects, provide technical assistance, and promote sponsor activities to effectively manage and communicate risks associated with their projects.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 11 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

USACE is also considering further expansion of the system-wide improvement framework, an option that allows sponsors to retain eligibility for rehabilitation assistance while conducting longer-term, system- wide improvement activities beyond the scope of the usual O&M. This includes activities related to addressing complex natural resource issues that require additional time and coordination to ensure that public safety and environmental requirements are adequately addressed and resolved. USACE issued the Interim Policy for Determining Eligibility Status of Flood Risk Management Projects for the Rehabilitation Program (USACE, 2014). USACE intends to develop a final policy through the rulemaking process, but this has not occurred as of June 2017.

1.7.2 Federal Directives on Climate Changes

As referenced in Section 1.6, Current Regulatory Drivers, EO 13690 requires all current and future studies and projects to consider climate change. A detailed discussion of this is included in Volume 4, Chapter 2. Based on these considerations, flood severity and frequency will most likely change in the future because of the increased frequency of extreme storms. This will result in reanalysis of current flood protection systems and possibly capital projects to bring existing systems into compliance with increased flood levels to protect against climate change impacts.

1.7.3 Risk Assessment

The Facility Plan Team reviewed the recommendations from the National Committee on Levee Safety’s Recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program (National Committee on Levee Safety, 2009). The report makes clear that USACE is moving to a risk-informed decision-making policy for levees similar to the process now used on dams. This process has been used on several levee systems already, such as the Dallas Floodway. While it is recognized that the 2015 LSE resulted in a certification under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for the levee systems, most risk for levee systems traditionally comes from higher loading than the 1-percent annual chance of exceedance event. A risk assessment determines total risk for the project and includes analyzing the system according to current criteria plus all loading and consequence scenarios. For some time, the USACE website for flood risk management stated the following in regards to risk assessment (USACE, undated): It is important to know how levees are expected to perform and what the potential consequences of nonperformance would be – in other words, to place levee systems in a risk-informed context. The essential questions are: • What possible loading events (flood, storm, earthquake, etc.) could occur? • How will the levee perform when subjected to these events? • What are the consequences if the levee doesn't perform well, in particular, what loss of life could occur?

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 12 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Putting levees in a risk context is a consistent and credible way to prioritize actions in a time of constrained resources. USACE plans to use risk assessments to prioritize life safety risks for its own levee safety activities, and also to provide a basis for communicating risk so levee sponsors and other stakeholders can make more informed decisions. Implementing this guidance will result in levee risk assessments. This risk assessment could have a significant impact on the facility improvements required to maintain levee certification after the risk- based approach is implemented. While the performance of a complete system-wide risk assessment is not anticipated to result in additional projects, the results of the risk assessment are expected to aid in prioritizing projects from a risk-based perspective.

Volume 4, Chapter 1 Page 13 of 13 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

VOLUME 4—OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 2 LEVEL OF FLOOD PROTECTION

2.1 CURRENT OPERATIONS

The following sections discuss the FPSs and the level of flood protection they provide. These discussions center on the station capacities and the events that influence their capacities. They also discuss flows on the Ohio River and their impact on the floodwalls and levees. Finally, levels of protection for flood protection are evaluated for each station. The following different datums are recognized along the ORFPS: • Ohio River Datum (ORD)/National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1913 (NGVD13) • Louisville City Datum (LCD) • National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) • North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) Both UGs and LGs are along the Ohio River located near the McAlpine Locks and Dam at mile marker 606.8 (that is, 606.8 miles downstream from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). The UG is on the Indiana side of the Ohio Falls Bridge (also known as the Pennsylvania Railroad Bridge) and is commonly referred to as the Indiana Pass Gauge. The LG is at the McAlpine Locks and Dam on the lower lock wall. Relationships amongst the datums and gauges in the Metro area are provided in Table 4.2-1.

Table 4.2-1. Datum and Gauge Relationships

Datum Upper Gauge Height = 0 (Elevation) Lower Gauge Height = 0 (Elevation)

ORD/NGVD13 408.00 374.00

LCD 407.50 373.50

NGVD29 407.18 373.18

NAVD88 406.69 372.69

Also, the ORFPS as-built drawings (USACE, unpublished, various dates) were constructed using a separate datum. The following is the conversion between the ORFPS as-built drawings and NAVD88: NAVD88 = ORFPS as-built drawings - 0.84-foot.

2.1.1 Present Pumping Capabilities

The ORFPS’s Louisville Reach was constructed in the early 1950s, with the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach completed in the 1980s. Prominent changes in development have occurred in the Metro

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 1 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

area since that time. The number of significant rainfall events has notably increased over the last 20 years, which has exacerbated flows within the internal drainage system conveyed to the ORFPS, as well as floods on the Ohio River itself. Given these changes, verifying the ability of the FPSs to convey flow over the levees and the ability of the floodwall and levees to protect the Metro area from Ohio River flooding has increased in importance. Table 4.2-2 lists the name, construction date, and total station capacity for each of the FPSs.

Table 4.2-2. Flood Pumping Stations

FPS Name Construction Date Total Station Nameplate Capacity

Beargrass Creek 1952 2,452,750 gpm (3,532 MGD)

Robert J. Starkey 1952 (constructed); 2005 (reconstructed) 98,000 gpm (141 MGD)

Bingham Way 1996 44,430 gpm (64 MGD)

4th Street 1952 95,400 gpm (137 MGD)

5th Street 1952 36,210 gpm (52 MGD)

10th Street 1952 61,380 gpm (88 MGD)

17th Street 1952 35,500 gpm (51 MGD)

27th Street 1952 165,710 gpm (239 MGD)

34th Street 1951 62,400 gpm (90 MGD)

Shawnee Park 1951 526,500 gpm (758 MGD)

Western Parkway 1952 810,000 gpm (1,166 MGD)

Paddy’s Run 1953 607,500 gpm (875 MGD)

Upper Mill Creek 1983 519,000 gpm (747 MGD)

Riverport 1980 84,150 gpm (121 MGD)

Lower Mill Creek 1980 220,500 gpm (318 MGD)

Pond Creek 1989 1,840,328 gpm (2,650 MGD)

gpm gallons per minute MGD million gallons per day

2.1.2 Past Flooding Experiences

Flooding can impact the ORFPS in two ways: 1) floods on the Ohio River can, if significant enough, overtop or breach the floodwalls and levees causing major flood damage in the Metro area; and

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 2 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

2) floods internal to the ORFPS can be significant enough to overwhelm one or more of the FPSs, which could result in localized flooding in the Metro area. The following sections discuss these situations.

2.1.2.1 Floods on the Ohio River

Although previous floods have occurred on the Ohio River, the Great Flood of 1937 (between late January and early February) clarified the need for a strategic and vast flood protection system. On January 27, 1937, the Ohio River crested at 52.15 feet (459.33 NGVD29) on the UG in the downtown Louisville area. This event was considered well over a 1-percent annual chance of exceedance event (commonly referred to as a 100-year flood). In 1945, the second-highest flood occurred in Louisville’s recorded history, and the Ohio River crested at 42.10 feet (449.28 NGVD29). Because of the onset of World War II in 1939, a flood protection system had not yet been put in place. World War II concluded in 1945, and construction of the ORFPS began in 1948 under the direction of USACE. The floodwalls and levees of the ORFPS were designed to protect against a crest that is 3 feet higher than that of the Great Flood of 1937. Since the completion of the Louisville Reach in 1956 and the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach in 1989, there have been numerous peak flood events on the Ohio River. The top 10 peak flood events from 1956 to present, based on NAVD88, are listed in Table 4.2-3. The elevations were taken from the LG of the McAlpine Locks and Dam.

Table 4.2-3. Peak Historical Floods (1956 to Present)

Elevation (feet) Date Annual Chance of Exceedance

446.2 March 13, 1964 1.5 percent (65-year)

443.3 March 7, 1997 2.9 percent (35-year)

437.9 March 4, 1962 6.7 percent (15-year)

436.2 December 14, 1978 10 percent (10-year)

436.0 March 13, 1967 10 percent (10-year)

435.6 April 27, 2011 Greater than 10 percent (10-year)

435.4 March 22, 1963 Greater than 10 percent (10-year)

434.7 May 11, 1961 Greater than 10 percent (10-year)

434.0 March 16, 2015 Greater than 10 percent (10-year)

433.0 January 4, 1991 Greater than 10 percent (10-year)

According to hydraulic model simulations using the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s (HEC’s) Flood Damage Analysis in the LSE (USACE, 2015), there is a 0.01-percent (10,000-year) chance of the ORFPS being overtopped in the next 10 years, a 0.02-percent chance (5,000-year) chance of overtopping in the

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 3 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

next 25 years, and a 0.05-percent chance (2,000-year) it will be overtopped in the next 50 years. Should a 0.2-percent chance (500-year) flood occur, there is a 0.5-percent chance the ORFPS would be overtopped. These results indicate that the original floodwall and levee system provide significant protection for the Metro area due to floods on the Ohio River. The frequency of overtopping events at the present time is actually lower than when the ORFPS was constructed because of other flood reduction facilities, including the Ohio River Locks and Dam System, that have since been constructed upstream of the Metro area.

2.1.2.2 Floods Internal to the Ohio River Flood Protection System

According to the LSE (USACE, 2015), the internal floods were evaluated under two conditions: 1) when the gravity outlets were open, and 2) when the gravity outlets were closed because of flooding on the Ohio River. The sub-basins for the drainage areas inside the ORFPS are relatively small compared to the Ohio River drainage basin. The interior and exterior rain events can be evaluated independently of one another because of the differences in the drainage areas. Based on this assumption, coincident frequency analyses were run to determine the 1-percent annual chance of exceedance chance of flooding. Based on the LSE’s hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) analysis (USACE, 2015), the ORFPS meets all FEMA criteria with no outstanding issues. These criteria include freeboard, closure, embankment protection, interior drainage, and operational plan analysis.

2.1.3 Impact of Recent Precipitation Events

Recent precipitation events becoming more extreme and frequent have been noted. These more frequent events have not only resulted in the interior drainage problems discussed in Volume 3, but have raised the importance of verifying the capability of the FPSs to cope with increased flows during flood events on the Ohio River. The recent precipitation events raise concerns that the level of protection for each FPS has been decreased. The following sections discuss some of these concerns.

2.1.3.1 Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station

The ORFPS’s largest FPS is the Beargrass Creek FPS. Beargrass Creek’s drainage area is approximately 54 square miles. During a major precipitation event during April 2011, approximately 4 inches of rain fell in the Metro area. The Ohio River was already above flood stage because of an exceptionally wet February and March. With six of the eight pumps online, the station kept up with the flow from the creek. The seventh and eighth pumps were not turned on because the precipitation event passed before rising creek levels could create localized flooding issues.

2.1.3.2 Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station

The Western Parkway FPS, which pumps several CSOs, is the ORFPS’s third-largest FPS with a total pumping capacity of 810,000 gallons per minute (gpm). In April 2011, Western Parkway was undergoing a rehabilitation project to replace the station’s pumps, motors, and electrical components. Pump 2 had recently been removed as part of the project, lowering the overall pumping capacity of the station by

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 4 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

54,000 gpm. The April 2011 rain event that delivered 4 inches of rain to the Metro area required all six of the station’s remaining pumps (756,000 gpm) to be in service at the same time. This was the first time in the station’s history that six pumps were required to keep up with the incoming flow.

2.1.3.3 Upper Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station

Similar to Beargrass Creek and Western Parkway, the Upper Mill Creek FPS struggled to make it through the April 2011 precipitation event that saw 4 inches of rain fall in the Metro area. Upper Mill Creek is the sixth-largest FPS in the ORFPS, with a total pumping capacity of 519,000 gpm. Even with all three FPS pumps running simultaneously, the FPS could not keep up with the incoming creek flows at times. However, the ponding areas around the FPS worked as designed by allowing the creek to surcharge until the event had passed.

2.1.3.4 Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station

Given its age and condition, the Paddy’s Run FPS has been slated for rehabilitation for a number of years. This rehabilitation is now in the planning and design stage. As part of the planning process, hydrologic modeling of the FPS was undertaken, incorporating the latest information on development, as well as updated rainfall atlas data. This modeling indicated the FPS could pump a 50-percent annual chance of exceedance storm over the levee system. The station was originally intended to convey a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall.

2.1.3.5 Other Stations

No other reports or observations were identified that indicate an inability to manage flows during recent storm events. However, anecdotally, the MSD staff raised concerns about the condition of the Pond Creek FPS’s pumps based on the station’s response to recent precipitation events.

2.2 CURRENT LEVEL OF FLOOD PROTECTION

A very legitimate concern exists regarding the ability of the existing FPSs to cope with incoming flow during major precipitation events that may occur while the Ohio River is at flood stage. The following sections discuss the original criteria used to design the stations, preparatory to further discussions on the possible need to improve these capabilities. The following sections also discuss original development assumptions and changes that have occurred. They also discuss rainfall atlas assumptions and their impact on original design assumptions.

2.2.1 Level of Development Assumed

The design of the 13 FPSs along the Louisville Reach was completed in 1946. The Lee’s Lane and Mill Creek FPSs were decommissioned when the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach was constructed in the 1980s, which included an additional four FPSs. The Bingham Way FPS was added in 1996, but it is not part of the federal system. The Robert J. Starkey FPS replaced the Buchanan Street FPS in 2005. By

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 5 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

the 1964 flood, approximately 18 years had passed and the development rate increased since the original designs were completed. Some lower areas around the FPSs designated as ponding areas were developed into subdivisions. Since the 1980s and 1990s, stricter controls on building in the floodplain have been implemented. Of the 16 FPSs, six use low-lying areas along the creek channels as storage areas. These six are Beargrass Creek, Paddy’s Run, Upper Mill Creek, Riverport, Lower Mill Creek, and Pond Creek FPSs. The latter four FPSs were added during construction of the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach. Development has since encroached on these stations as well. Therefore, the original design assumptions regarding development are no longer valid to the present-day conditions.

2.2.2 Rainfall Atlas Assumptions

In 1935, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published the first rainfall atlas, which predicted rainfall precipitation levels versus time. In 1955, Technical Paper No. 25 (TP-25) was published (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 1955) and improved upon the information in USDA’s rainfall atlas. USACE participated in developing TP-25, and it is assumed that, because of USACE involvement, some versions of the 1935 and 1955 publications were used in the designs of the original 13 FPSs. In 1961, Technical Paper No. 40 (TP-40) was published (NOAA, 1961) and further improved upon the information found in TP-25. This document is currently used by MSD and was presumably used by USACE to design the four FPSs in the southwestern expansion and the reconstruction of the Robert J. Starkey FPS (formerly the Buchanan Street FPS). As discussed in previous sections, the intensity of storms with longer reoccurring intervals has been increasing with each subsequent rainfall atlas, resulting in larger volumes of stormwater being generated than originally anticipated.

2.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Design Assumptions

MSD has copies of USACE records for the designs of many of the FPSs in its files. However, the available records are incomplete and often do not represent the as-built conditions. For instance, the design for one FPS indicates a capacity level that is higher than the actual nameplate pumping capacity, and no reason is given for the reduced total station capacity. While it might be beneficial for historical purposes to know the rationale behind each station’s design, evaluating the FPSs does not depend upon that information.

2.2.4 Flood Pump Operational Data

The constructed flood pump and motor horsepower (HP) information was determined from nameplate information. This information is provided in Table 4.2-4, along with other pertinent information, including the elevation at which each FPS enters flood mode. Elevations are also provided for minor flood mode pumping. This information will be used to review and model the capabilities of each FPS to provide the levels of protection chosen for evaluation.

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 6 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.2-4. Flood Pumping Stations

Nameplate Pump River Elevation (feet) to Run FPS Name Motor Sizes Capacity Pumps (NGVD29)

6: 350,000 gpm 6: 3,000 HP 432.1 (UG): Flood Mode Beargrass Creek 1: 300,000 gpm 1: 2,500 HP 1: 52,750 gpm 1: 600 HP

Robert J. Starkey 4: 24,500 gpm 4: 500 HP 423.1 (UG): Flood Mode

Bingham Way 3: 14,810 gpm 3: 134 HP 435.5 (UG): Flood Mode

424.8 (UG): Minor Flood Mode 4th Street 3: 31,800 gpm 3: 350 HP 436.3 (UG): Flood Mode

3: 11,070 gpm 3: 50 HP 434.3 (UG): Flood Mode 5th Street 1: 3,000 gpm 1: 25 HP

3: 19,950 gpm 3: 200 HP 434.6 (UG): Flood Mode 10th Street 1: 1,530 gpm 1: 25 HP

3: 11,400 gpm 3: 75 HP 437.5 (UG): Flood Mode 17th Street 1: 1,300 gpm 1: 15 HP

4: 40,000 gpm 4: 350 HP 427.5 (UG): Minor Flood Mode 27th Street 1: 5,710 gpm 1: 60 HP 436.8 (UG): Flood Mode

421.6 (LG): Minor Flood Mode 34th Street 4: 15,600 gpm 4: 150 HP 434.7 (LG): Flood Mode

5: 103,500 gpm 5: 800 HP 425.2 (LG): Minor Flood Mode Shawnee Park 1: 9,000 gpm 1: 75 HP 434.7 (LG): Flood Mode

4: 162,000 gpm 4: 1,250 HP 416.1 (LG): Flood Mode Western Parkway 3: 54,000 gpm 3: 450 HP

4: 121,500 gpm 4: 1,250 HP 432.0 (LG): Flood Mode Paddy’s Run 2: 60,750 gpm 2: 700 HP

Upper Mill Creek 3: 173,000 gpm 3: 3,000 HP 422.0 (LG): Flood Mode

Riverport 3: 28,050 gpm 3: 450 HP 425.0 (LG): Flood Mode

Lower Mill Creek 3: 73,500 gpm 3: 1,250 HP 423.3 (LG): Flood Mode

Pond Creek 4: 460,082 gpm 4: 4,800 HP 421.0 (LG): Flood Mode

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 7 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

2.3 STORM ATLAS AND EXTREME STORM FREQUENCY IMPACTS ON CURRENT EVENT CRITERIA

Among MSD’s responsibilities are drainage and flood control. A significant and long-term change in precipitation intensity, duration, and frequency (IDF) could affect the adequacy of its wet-weather facilities, in essence reducing their level of protection. Evaluating the potential for changes in IDF would allow MSD to develop mitigation strategies for existing facilities and incorporate revised design criteria for the development of new wet-weather facilities to restore and maintain their levels of protection.

2.3.1 Rainfall Atlas Updates

As previously discussed, publications of IDFs for the United States began in 1935 with Miscellaneous Publication No. 204: Rainfall Intensity-Frequency Data (USDA, 1935). Since that time, several other papers have been published using updated data and methods to categorize rain events. MSD currently uses the 1979 edition of TP-40 (NOAA, 1979), which uses data through 1970. The most recent publication is the NOAA Atlas 14 (NOAA, 2004), which was released in 2004 and revised 2006 and includes IDF data up to 2000. In 2015, the Analysis of Historical Precipitation Intensity-Duration Frequency for Jefferson County, Kentucky (CH2M, 2015a) updated data from NOAA Atlas 14, using the three National Weather Service (NWS) stations in the Louisville area to develop IDFs that included data through 2014. Table 4.2-5 summarizes rainfall depth (in inches) for a 24-hour storm at various return intervals. Storms with shorter recurrence intervals have similar depths, but longer recurrence interval storms show greater and greater differences. Because TP-40 had a shorter period of station record data, it could more accurately evaluate the shorter recurrence intervals; longer recurrence intervals were less accurate. NOAA Atlas 14 is based on more stations and longer periods of rainfall data than any other document. Some stations had an additional 40 years of data than that of TP-40. NOAA Atlas 14 also had more than 10 times the stations used with TP-40.

Table 4.2-5. Comparison of Jefferson County, Kentucky Intensity, Duration, and Frequency Amounts (inches) for a 24-hour Storm Duration by Rainfall Atlas

MSD Design Manual NOAA Atlas 14 Updated NOAA Atlas 14 Return Period (Years) (TP-40, 1979) (through 2000) (through 2014)

2 3.2 2.87 3.03 5 4.0 3.78 4.05 10 4.5 4.45 4.82 25 5.2 5.37 5.91 50 5.7 6.12 6.82 100 6.2 6.93 7.81

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 8 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

The additional information of NOAA Atlas 14 improved the accuracy of the rainfall frequency data. The additional 14 years of information provided in the updated NOAA Atlas 14 further increased the data accuracy and reflects the trend towards fewer total number of storms, but an increase in more extreme storms in the Louisville area, as demonstrated in the comparison of the storm events that generate over 3 inches of precipitation. In the 56 years between 1949 and 2004, 21 events occurred during which there were 3 inches or more of precipitation in the Louisville area. There have been 11 events from 2005 to April 10, 2015 (10+ years).

2.3.2 Extreme Storm Frequency Changes

Combined with the study (CH2M, 2015a), which updated the NOAA Atlas 14 with 2000 to 2014 data, a technical memorandum was prepared (CH2M, 2015b) that predicted changes to Louisville area storm events in the next 20 and 50 years. Table 4.2-6 summarizes these projections and shows similar trends to those found in Table 4.2-5.

Table 4.2-6. Comparison of Jefferson County, Kentucky Intensity, Duration, and Frequency Amounts (inches) for 24-hour Storm Duration by Rainfall Atlas

Annual Rainfall Rainfall MSD Design Updated NOAA Percent NOAA Atlas 14 Projection for Projection for Manual Atlas 14 Chance of (through 2000) 2035 2065 (TP-40, 1979) (through 2014) Exceedance (CH2M, 2015) (CH2M, 2015) 50 3.2 2.87 3.03 3.0 3.0 20 4.0 3.78 4.05 4.2 4.4 10 4.5 4.45 4.82 5.1 5.3 4 5.2 5.37 5.91 6.3 6.7 2 5.7 6.12 6.82 7.3 7.8 1 6.2 6.93 7.81 8.4 9.1

2.3.3 Level of Development Considerations

Since the 1950s, development in the Metro area has expanded significantly and with it brought substantial increases in the amount of impervious area and decreases in available ponding areas. Increased impervious areas result in more rainfall being conveyed more quickly to area drainage ways, which in turn increases the peak capacity needed to pump the stormwater to the Ohio River without causing damaging flood conditions. Floodplain encroachment worsens these conditions by decreasing the area available to flood without causing damage to property, thereby decreasing the available storage volume during flood events. Review of the data used to design most of the key components of the ORFPS indicates assumptions underestimated the extent of development in Louisville, the changes in impervious area, and the

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 9 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

reduction of the floodplain’s storage capacity. The effects of these incorrect estimations are exacerbated by the trends shown above that predict even larger storms occurring more frequently.

2.3.4 Federal Directives on Climate Changes

USACE policy requires all current and future studies, and projects to take climate change into consideration. USACE projects (including the ORFPS) have generally been designed to accommodate precipitation events over their operating life spans. Recent studies have shown a shift in the climatological baseline of natural climate variability due to climate change. This is relevant to USACE, particularly regarding hydrological assessments of inland watersheds, because the baseline and natural variability may no longer be appropriate. Following are three specific areas impacting hydrological analyses: • Qualitative assessment of potential climate change threats and impacts to the particular USACE hydrologic analysis being performed • Resources to support the qualitative assessment of climate threats and impacts specific to those analyses • An early overview of the guidance planned for future quantitative assessments of potential climate threats and impacts for use in hydrologic analyses Climate changes can have direct effects on projects through temperature changes, precipitation increases, and other variables, and even subsequent variations such as sedimentation loadings that are changed because of the primary climate concerns. More specific directives have been issued via EO, including EO 13690. Amongst other things, it provides three approaches by which federal agencies can now establish flood elevations and hazard areas for consideration in their decision-making. They are: • Using a climate-informed science approach • Adding 2 to 3 feet of elevation to the 100-year floodplain • Using the 500-year floodplain The 2- to 3-foot freeboard criteria would apply to critical facilities. These directives will impact future designs of the ORFPS as the facilities require both USACE review and approval. Future projects may be needed to meet the requirements established by EO 13690.

2.3.5 Impacts to Level of Protection

Extreme storms that historically had longer recurrence intervals are now occurring more frequently as evidenced by current data with higher levels of accuracy. Data indicate that this trend will continue into the future. The net result of this effect is a diminished level of protection against flood events. Infrastructure sized to meet a certain level of protection based on information in TP-40 would not be able to perform as expected when updated storm information is applied. For example, infrastructure sized to manage a 1-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm as defined by TP-40 would only be able to manage a 2- to 4-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm as defined by the

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 10 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

updated NOAA Atlas 14. Therefore, the actual level of protection the infrastructure provides from a storm recurrence perspective would be less than what was originally designed.

2.4 LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR EVALUATION AND MODELING

To further evaluate the impacts discussed in Section 2.3, H&H modeling of the ORFPS was completed to determine what level of protection the existing FPSs could meet currently under various storm events. To our knowledge, prior to the LSE, the capacity of these FPSs has never been reassessed through comprehensive H&H modeling.

2.4.1 Selecting Level of Protection Design Criteria

Meetings were held with various MSD staff to select as many as five level of protection scenarios to be evaluated against MSD’s existing ORFPS infrastructure. Any differences between the level of protection the existing infrastructure meets and the proposed level of protection will be used to identify project alternatives to close any service gaps between the two. The level of protection selected by MSD for evaluation is addressed in Volume 4, Chapter 3.

2.4.1.1 LOP 1—No Action

LOP 1 serves as a baseline and determines the extent of flooding based upon various storm sizes. This information was already partially calculated as part of the LSE completed by USACE and will need to be updated using desired backwater elevations (that is, elevations above which an undesirable level of flooding would occur).

2.4.1.2 LOP 2—Maintaining Existing Capacities with Enhanced Reliability Improvements

LOP 2 will be assessed based on the benefits of improved FPS reliability and not on changes to the size of storm managed. No additional modeling will be necessary for this level of protection, because it is covered in LOP 1. Examples of potential reliability improvements could be backup power or new motor controls.

2.4.1.3 LOP 3—Maximizing Capacities within Existing Structures with Expanded Pools

The potential capacity increase of the existing FPS infrastructure is constrained to the physical limits of its structures. Eventually, higher capacity pumps will become too large to fit in the spaces available; this could be mitigated by allowing backwater to pool further upstream in the interceptors and creeks and/or by expanding the volume held within the ponding areas. To evaluate this level of protection, the infrastructure will be assessed to determine the largest capacity of pumps that could be installed in the existing FPS buildings while still meeting Hydraulic Institute (HI) standards. Opportunities for increasing the pool volume will be incorporated in the model with the increased pumping capacities to determine what size of storm the system can manage without exceeding the desired backwater pool elevation.

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 11 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

2.4.1.4 LOP 4—Capacity to Meet a 10-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance, 24-Hour Storm

NOAA Atlas 14, using data through the year 2000, defines a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm as 4.5 inches. A storm of this size would be modeled against different FPS capacities to determine what size pumps are necessary to maintain the desired backwater elevations. Depending upon available space, this may require the existing FPS structures to be expanded and/or additional infrastructure to be constructed in parallel to the existing stations to accommodate the additional pumping capacity.

2.4.1.5 LOP 5—Capacity to Meet a 10-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance, 24-Hour Storm (Increased Frequency of Extreme Storms)

The Analysis of Projected Changes in Precipitation IDF Values Based on Climate Change Projections (CH2M, 2015b) projects changes to Louisville’s storm events to account for the increased frequency of extreme storms. The projected 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm amount in 2035 is 5.1 inches, or 13 percent larger than the NOAA Atlas 14 storm. Modeling analysis on the Paddy’s Run FPS was already performed using a 5-inch storm. Therefore, a 5-inch storm will be modeled against different FPS capacities to determine what size pumps are necessary to maintain the desired backwater elevations, while taking advantage of the already completed work. Depending on available space, this may require the existing FPS structures to be expanded and/or additional infrastructure to be constructed in parallel with the existing stations to accommodate the additional pumping capacity.

2.4.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling

A planning-level analysis of the current and required pumping rates for a variety of design storms was performed using the InfoWorks Integrated Catchment Model (ICM) of MSD’s CSS by Heritage Engineering (Heritage). Additionally, Heritage performed a similar analysis for the FPSs located outside the combined sewer area. Heritage’s Analysis of Flood Pumping Stations for the Facilities Plan Team is provided in Appendix 4A. Before design upgrades proceed at any FPS, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. Analyses performed by Heritage and the Facility Plan Team was completed with the understanding that MSD’s goal is to ultimately provide the same level of protection at all FPSs. Projects will be prioritized using the values-based benefit-cost scoring system developed and approved by MSD’s stakeholder group. This system includes measures to account for risk and scale of impact to the community to prioritize projects accordingly.

2.4.2.1 Modeling for LOPs 1 and 2

The primary goal of the LOP 1 evaluation was to determine the current level of protection (design event recurrence interval) for each FPS using TP-40 rainfall data. The backwater pool elevations are critical to this evaluation, generally allowing minor flooding on some local streets and a few buildings (that is, basements in the combined sewer area, first floors in the separate sewer area). For modeling purposes,

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 12 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Heritage targeted a water surface elevation (WSEL) approximately 1 to 2 feet below the critical elevation where flooding and damage would increase significantly because of an undesirable level of flooding. No additional modeling was performed for LOP 2, because it is based on the benefits of improved reliability and not changes in the size of storm managed. Table 4.2-7 shows the current modeled pumping rates and level of protection recurrence interval for each of the FPSs using TP-40 rainfall data.

Table 4.2-7. Current Modeled Pumping Rates and Level of Protection

Current Modeled LOPs 1 and 2 Current Level of Protection FPS Name Pumping Rate (TP-40 Rainfall Data) (MGD)

Beargrass Creek 3,555/4,155 10-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Robert J. Starkey 108 a 1-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Bingham Way 64 20-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

4th Street 137 4-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

5th Street 52 10-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

10th Street 88 10-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

17th Street 51 Less than 50-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

27th Street 239 50-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

34th Street 90 4-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Shawnee Park 770 20-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Western Parkway 1,150 Less than 50-Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Paddy’s Run 925 50- Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Upper Mill Creek 750/910 4- Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Riverport 140 1- Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Lower Mill Creek 320 10- Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

Pond Creek 2,650/3,375 1- Percent Annual Chance of Exceedance Storm

a Robert J. Starkey FPS can pump 108 MGD (Ohio River Interceptor) or 140 MGD (Ohio River).

The current levels of protections for the Shawnee Park and Western Parkway FPSs are restricted by the existing upstream infrastructure. Upstream improvements will be necessary to bring additional flow to these stations.

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 13 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Dual pumping rates are provided for the Beargrass Creek, Upper Mill Creek, and Pond Creek FPSs. The first rate reflects the pumping capacity at the designed pumping elevation. The second rate identifies the pumping capacity at the targeted WSEL previously discussed.

2.4.2.2 Modeling for LOP 3

For LOP 3, an evaluation was performed to determine whether additional pumping capacities could be provided within the footprints of the existing stations while still meeting HI standards. Generally, the original designs were found to either maximize or exceed the size of pumps that could be installed within the existing FPS infrastructure without violating HI standards. While there are a few exceptions, it was determined that very little additional capacity could be gained by installing larger pumps within the existing FPS infrastructure.

2.4.2.3 Modeling for LOPs 4 and 5

The primary goals of the LOPs 4 and 5 evaluations were to determine the following: • LOP 4—Required capacity to bring the level of protection to that of a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm (NOAA Atlas 14, 4.5-inches), to maintain the desired backwater elevations • LOP 5—Required capacity to bring the level of protection to that of a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm with increased frequency of extreme storms (NOAA Atlas 14, projected to 2035, 5 inches), to maintain the desired backwater elevations Depending on available space, LOPs 4 and 5 may require the existing FPS structures to be expanded and/or additional FPS infrastructure to be constructed in parallel to the existing stations to accommodate the additional pumping capacity. Table 4.2-8 shows the increased pumping rates available under the LOP 3 criteria and the required pumping capacities to meet the LOPs 4 and 5 criteria for each of the FPS.

Table 4.2-8. Proposed Pumping Rates for LOPs 3, 4, and 5

Critical Current Modeled LOP 3 LOP 4 LOP 5 FPS Name Elevation Pumping Rate (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Modeled (feet) (MGD)

Beargrass Creek 442 3,555/4,155 3,555/4,155 4,155 4,700

Robert J. Starkey 445 108a 190 108 108

Bingham Way 440 64 64 80 90

4th Street 445 137 143 150 195

5th Street 445 52 52 52 52

10th Street 445 88 150 88 88

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 14 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.2-8. Proposed Pumping Rates for LOPs 3, 4, and 5

Critical Current Modeled LOP 3 LOP 4 LOP 5 FPS Name Elevation Pumping Rate (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Modeled (feet) (MGD)

17th Street 448 51 74 107 122

27th Street 442 239 248 280 320

34th Street 434 90 90 90 90

Shawnee Park 434 770 770 1,100 1,250

Western Parkway 428 1,150 1,150 1,400 1,600

Paddy’s Run 433 925 925 1,625 1,900

Upper Mill Creek 434 750/910 750/910 910 1,370

Riverport 444 140 140 140 140

Lower Mill Creek 430 320 320 320 320

Pond Creek 430 2,650/3,375 2,650/3,375 3,375 3,375

a Robert J. Starkey FPS can pump 108 MGD (Ohio River Interceptor) or 140 MGD (Ohio River).

2.4.2.4 Key Modeling Assumptions

Because of the size and complexity of the areas being analyzed, several key assumptions were made to simplify the analysis. In general, Heritage’s analysis was intended to be a planning-level analysis of the capacity of each FPS relative to the flow rates for varying events. The analysis is useful in determining the general conditions of each FPS and to determine approximate sizes for upgrades under varying conditions. The following are some key assumptions used in this evaluation: • All pumps are available and operational,and each pump is pumping at its design capacity. • The Ohio River is at a level that requires each FPS to be engaged. • The on and off elevations are based on what was previously used in the InfoWorks ICM, which were generally based on USACE’s manuals, but not reconfirmed with MSD staff. Changes in operations from USACE’s manuals could affect output results. • The WSELs reported and used for analysis are reflective of the elevations at the upstream ends of each of the FPS facilities. When giving capacities for existing and future conditions, flow rates reference all components of an FPS (that is, trash rakes, gates, and influent pipes).

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 15 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

• The critical elevations are based on the direct impact of WSELs at the upstream end of either the FPS facility or the CSO structure. No attempt was made to further project the impacts the water surfaces would have on upstream hydraulic grade lines and structures. • Storage areas in the CSS were added upstream of the Western Parkway and Paddy’s Run FPSs. Storage areas were not added upstream of other FPS facilities in the CSS. However, the model does account for pipe storage and approximate storage above the rims of structures. • In the separate sewer system, storage was added upstream of each FPS facility based on Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium (LOJIC) contour data. • Critical elevations in the combined sewer area were based on LOJIC data. These were developed by calculating the minimum ground elevations at each house. Using Property Valuation Administration (PVA) data, it was determined which houses had basements, and 6 feet were subtracted from the lowest adjacent grade. Critical elevations are either at the assumed basement elevation or lowest adjacent grade. • The models for the Upper Mill Creek and Lower Mill Creek FPSs were created in HEC-1 in the mid-1990s. These models were converted to HEC – Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), but were not validated. • Current conditions were assumed in all models. Basins proposed as part of the IOAP were not included but will provide some contingency and additional level of protection once constructed. However, basins will not provide contingency if they are full from back-to-back rain events.

Volume 4, Chapter 2 Page 16 of 16 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

VOLUME 4—OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 3 FLOOD PUMPING STATIONS

3.1 REPORTS, STUDIES, AND PLANS

Numerous reports, studies, and plans have been developed that discuss the various components of the ORFPS. The documents applicable to the FPSs are summarized in the following sections. Results from these documents were used to develop projects prioritized for inclusion in the Facility Plan.

3.1.1 Original Drawings and Specifications

The original USACE drawings and specifications for the ORFPS were produced in response to the FCA and its amendments. These documents were reviewed as part of this Facility Plan and found to have varying levels of accuracy and completeness. While these documents do provide useful information on the layout of the FPSs for hydraulic modeling purposes, the drawings and specifications do not contain any information on proposed capital improvement projects as related to the ORFPS.

3.1.2 1989 Evaluation of Mechanical, Electrical, and Structural Components

In 1989, GRW Engineers, Inc. (GRW) assembled a project team to evaluate the vulnerability of 11 of the FPSs, the need for component replacement and improvements, and the availability of electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation system components. The project entitled Evaluation of Mechanical, Electrical, and Structural Components at Eleven Flood Pumping Stations (GRW, 1989) found that, considering their age, the FPSs were overall in relatively good condition. However, many recommendations for improvement were also noted. Several deficiencies were found at the Paddy’s Run FPS. With respect to all the stations, the more severe electrical problems were predominantly found in the outdoor electrical substations. Deterioration was frequently severe at these substations. Interior electrical equipment was generally in good condition for its age. The major mechanical problems were related to the trash removal systems. With a few exceptions, the GRW report did not find any major problems with the pumps and motors, but noted they had not been tested under actual load conditions and no detailed inspections or diagnostic tools had been used to make this determination. The air compressors in most of the stations were old, had not received sufficient preventive maintenance, and were, therefore, recommended for replacement. Replacement parts, especially for the electrical components, were also extremely difficult to find. Unfortunately, the GRW report was never used to directly develop a capital plan nor prioritization of projects for FPS improvements.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 1 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.1.3 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations

MSD contracted with CH2M, in association with Strand Associates, Inc., Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc., and Quest Engineers, to perform an updated condition assessment of the FPSs. Most of the FPSs and their associated components had at the time been installed for over 50 years and had not undergone major rebuilding, nor had any major mechanical or electrical maintenance been performed. CH2M used the mechanical services of Strand Associates, Inc., the electrical services of Quest Engineers, and the structural services of Jacobi, Toombs & Lanz, Inc. to complete this evaluation. The project objective was to provide a condition assessment of the mechanical, structural, and electrical components for 14 of the 16 FPSs, excluding the Bingham Way FPS (recently constructed at the time) and the Buchanan Street/Robert J. Starkey FPS (undergoing major rehabilitation at the time). The scope of the assessment included an evaluation of condition based on station age, visual inspection of components, operational concerns, and maintenance history. The assessment included a review of structural and site access; process mechanical; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; electrical and instrumentation/control components; and potential safety hazards. This information was then used to create a prioritization of capital improvements, along with projected costs for the rehabilitation or replacement of station components.

3.1.4 2014 Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Flood Pumping Station Generator Analysis

For the most part, the FPSs currently do not have a reliable source of secondary power. The purpose of this study (Engineered Solutions, Inc., 2014) was to review the feasibility of installing standby generators at the 16 FPSs within the ORFPS. The analysis results provided generator-sizing recommendations for each FPS, along with projected costs. The data in this report were used to assist with the emergency power evaluation included later in this chapter.

3.1.5 2014 Flood Protection System Emergency Preparedness Plan

The purpose of the Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP; MSD, 2012) was to identify MSD’s response to flood protection emergency situations, or system failures, and to define communication protocols with regard to adverse conditions that may occur during flooding events. The protocols are intended to enhance the communication between various departments and divisions within MSD and appropriate outside agencies. The EPP acknowledges that enacting an evacuation plan during an emergency is the responsibility of other agencies within the Louisville Metro Government. MSD’s role in an evacuation is to serve as a technical advisor to those agencies, providing information relative to flood prone areas, status of flood protection equipment, and historical information that may help predict flooding scenarios. No capital improvement projects were identified in the EPP, which is further covered in Volume 4, Chapter 5.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 2 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.1.6 2015 Levee System Evaluation

USACE, through an agreement with MSD, conducted an intensive inspection of the ORFPS during 2014. The inspection resulted in a report dated January 2015 and entitled Levee System Evaluation, National Flood Insurance Program (USACE, 2015). This report included a thorough review of the FPSs, which were critically appraised as to the structural, mechanical, and electrical condition of each station. This appraisal resulted in numerous recommendations for upgrades and rehabilitation that are incorporated into this chapter. However, USACE did not estimate costs for the recommended improvements. The recommendations associated with the FPSs are broken down by structural, mechanical, and electrical recommendations.

3.1.7 Other Information

The following documents were also reviewed to assist in the condition assessment for each of the FPSs: • O&M manuals (USACE, 2013a and 2013b) • MSD’s FY16 and FY17 CIPs • Initial Assessment Report (USACE, 2008a) • Periodic Inspection Report (Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. [Stantec], 2011) • FPS standard operation procedures Data from these reports were incorporated into the condition assessment for each FPS. This condition assessment does not address the adequacy of the existing capacities of each of the FPSs because the FPS capacities will be addressed separately.

3.2 CONDITION ASSESSMENTS

Field investigations of each of the FPSs and interviews with MSD flood protection staff were conducted from March to May 2015. Conditions observed and information provided during these encounters supplemented the data collected from the previously reviewed reports, studies, and plans. This information was incorporated into the condition assessments for each of the FPSs. One of the MSD Operations’ goals is to update each FPS to provide for remote operation and eliminate the need to staff the station full-time during flood mode. Some of the FPSs have this capability and MSD is making provisions to provide this capability at all of the FPSs. FPSs with needs for supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) improvements were identified during field investigations as shown in the following sections. The following sections provide a summary of the existing conditions at each of the FPSs along with identifications of needs. In general, notations were made at each station with regards to the conditions of its structure, pumps and motors, electrical components, ancillary equipment, mechanical systems, plumbing, and the surrounding site. Comments were only provided in these particular areas if an issue or concern was identified.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 3 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.2.1 Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station

The Beargrass Creek FPS is located at the corner of Brownsboro Road and Story Avenue and spans Beargrass Creek. During Ohio River flood events, the station pumps Beargrass Creek flow from the landside to the riverside of the flood protection system. The Beargrass Creek FPS is the fourth station on the upper gauge to go on line should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the FPS operates about once every 3 to 4 years. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1952. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service, most of which have not had a major rebuild since originally installed. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations (Strand Associates, Inc., 2004) identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors, and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps as required; electrical, mechanical, and structural improvements; replacement of gate actuators and stems; replacement of transformer, level control system, and hatch covers; and installation of a new medium voltage motor control center (MCC). The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan included a project for electrical modifications for a projected cost of $7,560,000. This project included the following: new medium voltage MCC and substation upgrades (not including transformers); replacement of old wiring to low voltage equipment; roof replacement; and improvements to the SCADA system. Construction on this project is underway.

Structure

The 2015 LSE noted the FPS shows typical signs of concrete spalling throughout the basin walls. Loose concrete should be removed down to sound concrete and a patch repair should be attempted to replace voids in these areas. The FPS shows cracking in the foundation walls where they meet the masonry walls. The cracks are not considered a structural problem, but should be monitored for future repairs. Some areas needing repairs are being addressed under the ongoing electrical modifications project.

Pumps and Motors

All eight of the existing pumps and motors are recommended for removal, inspection, and rehabilitation or replacement, as required. The 2015 LSE recommended the voltage meters be recalibrated, motors retested and motor currents further investigated (still out of balance), and corrective actions be performed on the motor winding insulation. Some of this is being addressed under the ongoing electrical modifications project.

Electrical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the electrical switchgear, including medium voltage MCC, and substation components (not including transformers) be replaced. The old wiring to low voltage equipment and the level control system should also be replaced. This is being addressed under the

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 4 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

ongoing electrical modifications project. The existing control system for this station is rudimentary by today’s standards and should be completely replaced with a system consistent with MSD’s current standards and capable of being fully integrated into MSD’s SCADA system. An ongoing project will replace and upgrade much of the original electrical switchgear and controls.

Ancillary Equipment

The 2015 LSE noted the east river gate does not close properly and needs further investigation and repair, as required. The coupling on the west gate has excessive movement and needs further investigation and possible repair. Both gates need to be cleaned and painted. Gate actuators, gearboxes, and stems need to be repaired or replaced as appropriate. Trash rakes need to be rehabilitated or replaced. Trash rakes are used daily when pumping. Trash racks have some waves and need to be rehabilitated or replaced. These units were rehabilitated later in 2015. The two bypass gates, one in the east bay and one in the west bay, used to equalize the inside and outside pressures against the intake gates both leak with no way to inspect since they are continuously submerged. These bypass gates need to be investigated to determine options for inspection and repair.

Mechanical

The HVAC system needs to be replaced and is being addressed in an ongoing project.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from Greenway Access and does not require improvement. The surrounding development is a mix of residential and commercial improvements. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.2 Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station

The Robert J. Starkey FPS, located at the corner of Buchanan and Franklin Streets, is the first station on the UG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates in flood mode about once every year. The pump station, formerly the Buchanan Street FPS, was reconstructed as a completely new FPS in 2005. The station is operated as a sanitary pumping station during periods of normal river stage and as a combined storm and sanitary pumping station during periods of high water. The station has a rated capacity of 140 MGD with all four pumps operating at full speed. However, operational experience has shown that pumping 140 MGD to the downstream CSS, the Ohio River Interceptor (ORI), can cause major issues. When the station pumps flow in excess of 108 MGD, the CSS starts experiencing overflow problems at manhole 08771 on Washington Street near North Campbell Street, especially when the ORI is flowing close to capacity during a wet weather event. The station is capable of pumping 140 MGD to the Ohio River, but this is only done if there is a capacity emergency in the ORI with no other options.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 5 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

The IOAP’s level of control for the nearby Ohio River Tunnel Project and its upstream facilities are based on the Robert J. Starkey FPS operating at a maximum pumping capacity of 108 MGD. Any project to increase the station’s capacity above 108 MGD will require costly downstream conveyance improvements and affect several other ongoing projects, some of which are already under construction. The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan included a project to install a new generator to supplement the existing generator for a projected cost of $3,500,000. The necessity of this project is being reevaluated with respect to the proposed Ohio River Tunnel Project. There was also a planned project for improvements to the station’s exterior crane for a projected cost of $50,000, which includes a shelter to protect the crane from the elements.

Structure

The exterior bridge crane and hoist system needs protection from the elements. This item is being addressed in a current improvement project that has been bid and will be underway shortly.

Pumps and Motors

The pumps and motors are approximately 10 years old. The only identified issue was with Pump 3 where vibration has been an issue. The vibration issue needs to be investigated and repaired, as necessary. Following our visit, all pumps and motors were completely rebuilt and windings, stators, impellers, and bearings were replaced. There are currently no pump vibration issues. MSD also purchased a complete spare pump in case one of the other pumps is removed for future maintenance or repairs.

Ancillary Equipment

Sluice gates 22 (MH 27) and 23 (MH 27B) associated with this station need to be cleaned and painted. The biggest concern inside the FPS is the check valves, which are closed using variable-frequency drives (VFDs) since they do not have mechanical arms. When VFDs fault, the check valves slam shut resulting in a water hammer effect. Other concerns include issues with the DeviceNet system, which operates the electrical breakers. These breakers need to be replaced and the system needs to be converted to the MODBUS communications protocol. The existing generator will only operate two of the four pumps. A second standby generator is needed to work in parallel with the existing standby generator to operate all four pumps in lieu of one larger generator. This will allow MSD to operate at least two pumps in the event one generator goes down during a flood event. The necessity of this project is being reevaluated with respect to the proposed Ohio River Tunnel Project. The conceptual design of the Ohio River Tunnel Project would allow flow to be diverted to the tunnel if power was lost.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 6 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Site Conditions

Existing access is from Buchanan Street and does not require improvement. The surrounding development is a mix of industrial and commercial improvements. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.3 Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station

The Bingham Way FPS, located in downtown Louisville on Bingham Way, is the seventh station on the UG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. This station houses two separate pumping stations, a sanitary pumping station and an FPS. The sanitary pumping station serves a separate sanitary sewer system that functions continuously and houses two 17-HP Flygt Model NP-3153.820 sanitary sewage pumps with a total pumping capacity of approximately 1,120 gpm at minimum design head. The FPS’s three flood pumps convey stormwater only when the river is at high levels. This station was not constructed by USACE as part of the flood protection system, but by MSD in 1996 to address a localized flooding situation.

Electrical

The existing SCADA system needs to be upgraded. The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan included a project to address the identified needs for a projected cost of $150,000, but this project has since been put on hold.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from Bingham Way and does not require improvement. No roadway improvements were noted for the site. Landscaping was done to blend in with the adjacent Waterfront Park. The surrounding development is primarily park open spaces and commercial improvements. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.4 4th Street Flood Pumping Station

The 4th Street FPS, located at the southeastern corner of 4th Street and Main Street in the heart of downtown Louisville, is the second station on the upper gauge to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operated in flood mode about once every 5 years. However, recent real-time control modifications implemented as part of the Dry Weather Overflow Elimination Project now results in the station operating in minor flood mode between 1 and 2 times a year. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1952. The 4th Street FPS Improvement Project will address the currently identified needs for this station, including pumps, motors, and electrical equipment to match its current capacity. The project costs are projected at $3,100,000. Construction on this project is underway.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 7 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Pumps and Motors

This FPS currently contains three flood pumps and three sanitary pumps. An ongoing project will replace the three flood pumps with new flood pumps (matching current capacity), provide two new sanitary pumps, and rehabilitate the other two existing sanitary pumps. New or rehabilitated motors will be supplied with the pumps.

Electrical

The existing electrical switchgear, controls, and SCADA will be replaced by the ongoing project.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from Main Street and is extremely limited. The surrounding development is 100 percent commercial. The ability to control access to the station is limited by the fact it is located immediately adjacent to sidewalks.

3.2.5 5th Street Flood Pumping Station

The 5th Street FPS is located at the north end of 5th Street and is confined to a small space between the Kentucky Center for the Arts and the Riverfront Parking Garage. The 5th Street FPS is the fifth station on the upper gauge to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about once every 5 years. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1952. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system is original equipment, which cannot be repaired with currently available components. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations (Strand Associates, Inc., 2004) identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included inspection of pumps, motors, and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; and electrical, mechanical, and structural improvements. The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan included an improvements project for a projected cost of $1,400,000. This project included installation of submersible pumps in place of the existing vertical turbine pumps. Preference is for submersible pumps to be compatible with one or more of the following FPSs: 10th Street, 17th Street, and 34th Street. This compatibility will allow MSD to purchase a spare pump for use in multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations. This project will also include an upgrade to and complete automation of the station’s electrical and mechanical components to reduce the need for continuous staffing during a flood event.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 8 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Structure

The 2015 LSE noted the only structural issue identified for this station is to monitor cracks in the existing concrete structure and repair as necessary.

Pumps and Motors

The existing vertical turbine pumps and motors are original equipment. The Facility Plan Team recommends that these pumps and motors be replaced with submersible pumps compatible with the 10th Street, 17th Street, and 34th Street FPSs to promote uniformity of operation, maintenance, and replacement. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Electrical

The existing electrical switchgear and controls are original equipment and it is recommended that this equipment be replaced. The 2015 LSE noted the MCC should be upgraded or replaced in the near term. It is also recommended that the existing SCADA system be upgraded to meet current MSD standards.

Ancillary Equipment

All gates, actuators, and valves are recommended for inspection and rehabilitation or replacement, as required. Operation of the FPS during flood mode results in trapped water that can lead to a DWO. Also, wet well dewatering during FPS cleanup can result in a DWO. MSD has taken a proactive approach in developing standard operating procedures for this station, to confirm these situations do not result in DWOs.

Mechanical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing HVAC system at this station be replaced.

Plumbing

The existing sanitary line serving the water closet and the sink currently discharges directly to the overflow line leading to the river. These facilities are no longer in service. A port-a-pot is rented and located at the site whenever the station is staffed for a flood event. A more permanent solution is preferred to redirect the sanitary line.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from 5th Street and does not require improvement. The surrounding development is 100 percent commercial. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable; however, the station is hard to access and maintain in its current location.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 9 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.2.6 10th Street Flood Pumping Station

The 10th Street FPS, located at the northwest corner of 10th and Rowan Streets, is the sixth station on the UG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about once every 5 years. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1952. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system is original equipment, which cannot be repaired with currently available components. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; and electrical, mechanical and structural improvements. The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan included two improvement projects for a total projected cost of $1,800,000. The main project included installation of submersible pumps in place of the existing vertical turbine pumps. Preference is for submersible pumps to be compatible with one or more of the following FPSs: 5th Street, 17th Street, and 34th Street. This compatibility will allow MSD to purchase a spare pump for use in multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations. The main project also includes an upgrade and complete automation of the station's electrical and mechanical components to reduce the need for continuous staffing during a flood event. This part of the project has a projected cost of $1,400,000. There is also a project to install a new swing gate closure on the floodwall for $400,000.

Structure

The 2015 LSE noted the only structural issue identified for this station is to monitor cracks in the existing concrete structure and repair as necessary.

Pumps and Motors

The existing vertical turbine pumps and motors are original equipment. The Facility Plan Team recommends that these pumps and motors be replaced with submersible pumps compatible with the 5th Street, 17th Street, and 34th Street FPSs to promote uniformity of operation, maintenance, and replacement. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Electrical

The existing electrical switchgear and controls are original equipment and it is recommended that this equipment be replaced. The 2015 LSE noted the MCC should be upgraded or replaced in the near term. It is also recommended that the existing SCADA system be upgraded to meet current MSD standards.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 10 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Ancillary Equipment

All gates, actuators, and valves are recommended for inspection and rehabilitation or replacement, as required. Operation of the FPS during flood mode results in trapped water that can lead to a DWO. Wet well dewatering during FPS cleanup can also result in a DWO. MSD has taken a proactive approach in developing standard operating procedures for this station to ensure these situations do not result in DWOs.

Mechanical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing HVAC system at this station be replaced.

Plumbing

The existing sanitary line serving the water closet and the sink currently discharges directly to the overflow line leading to the river. These facilities are no longer in service. A port-a-pot is rented and located at the site whenever the station is staffed during a flood event. A more permanent solution is preferred to redirect the sanitary line.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from 10th and Rowan Streets and does not require improvement. The surrounding development is a mix of commercial and industrial improvements. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.7 17th Street Flood Pumping Station

The 17th Street FPS, located at the north end of 17th Street immediately north of the Northwestern Parkway, is the eighth and final station on the UG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about once every 5 years. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1952. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system was recently upgraded along with gate actuators and controls. The station is still staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors, and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; miscellaneous electrical, mechanical, and structural improvements; and roof repair. The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan included an improvements project for a projected cost of $1,400,000. The project included installation of submersible pumps in place of the existing vertical turbine pumps. Preference is for submersible pumps to be compatible with one or more of the following FPSs: 5th Street, 10th Street, and 34th Street. This compatibility will allow MSD to purchase a spare pump for use in multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 11 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations. This project will also include an upgrade and complete automation of the station's electrical and mechanical components to reduce the need for continuous staffing during a flood event.

Structure

The 2015 LSE noted the only structural issue identified for this station is to monitor cracks in the existing concrete structure and repair as necessary.

Pumps and Motors

The existing vertical turbine pumps and motors are original equipment. The Facility Plan Team recommends that these pumps and motors be replaced with submersible pumps compatible with the 5th Street, 10th Street, and 34th Street FPSs to promote uniformity of operation, maintenance, and replacement. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Electrical

The existing electrical switchgear and controls were replaced in January 2015.

Ancillary Equipment

All gates, actuators, and valves are recommended for inspection and rehabilitation or replacement, as required. Operation of the FPS during flood mode results in wet well dewatering that can result in a DWO. MSD has taken a proactive approach in developing standard operating procedures for this station to prevent this from occurring. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the main FPS building’s roof be replaced. The 2015 LSE recommended that the existing trash racks be cleaned and re-galvanized.

Mechanical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing HVAC system at this station be replaced.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from the Northwestern Parkway and does not require improvement. The surrounding development is a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential improvements. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.8 27th Street Flood Pumping Station

The 27th Street FPS, located on the landside of the levee with access from 27th Street, is the third station on the UG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 12 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

operates about once every 5 years. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1952. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system was recently upgraded along with gate actuators and controls. The station is still staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors, and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; miscellaneous electrical and structural improvements; new medium voltage MCC, and replacement of valve actuators and stems.

Pumps and Motors

The original pumps and motors at this station are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed in 1952. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the pumps and motors be inspected and rehabilitated or replaced as required.

Ancillary Equipment

The 2015 LSE recommended that the existing trash racks for this FPS be cleaned and re-galvanized and the sluice gates be cleaned and painted. Gates 58, 59, 64, and 65 have all been cleaned and coated since the evaluation.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from 27th Street and does not require improvement. No roadway or landscaping improvements were noted for the site. The surrounding development is a mix of industrial (McAlpine Locks), residential, and park open spaces. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.9 34th Street Flood Pumping Station

The 34th Street FPS, located just landside of the levee on 34th Street, is the second station on the LG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about once every year. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1951. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system was recently upgraded along with gate actuators and controls. The station is still staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors, and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; miscellaneous electrical, mechanical, and structural improvements. The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan included an improvements project for a projected cost of $2,000,000. The project included installation of submersible pumps in place of the existing vertical turbine pumps. Preference is for submersible pumps to be compatible with one or more of the following FPSs: 5th Street, 10th Street, and 17th Street. This compatibility will allow MSD to purchase a spare

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 13 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

pump for use in multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations. This project will also include an upgrade and complete automation of the station's electrical and mechanical components to reduce the need for continuous staffing during a flood event and a new generator to run both the sanitary and flood pumps.

Structure

The 2015 LSE noted the only structural issue identified for this station is to monitor cracks in the existing concrete structure and repair as necessary.

Pumps and Motors

The existing vertical turbine pumps and motors in this FPS are original equipment and it is recommended that these pumps and motors be replaced with submersible pumps compatible with the 5th Street, 10th Street, and 17th Street FPSs to promote uniformity of operation, maintenance, and replacement. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Electrical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the electrical controls be upgraded to allow the station to operate unattended during flood mode. The existing SCADA system needs to be upgraded to meet current MSD standards and allow the station to operate unattended.

Ancillary Equipment

The 2015 LSE recommended the existing gates be inspected and repaired or replaced as required. Gate 71 has been replaced since the evaluation. The station currently has a standby generator that can run the sanitary pumps. The Facility Plan Team recommends that this generator be replaced with a new generator sized to run both the sanitary pumps and the flood pumps at the same time or that the existing generator be supplemented with an additional generator to run the flood pumps.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from 34th Street and does not require improvement. The surrounding development is primarily residential improvements. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.10 Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station

The Shawnee Park FPS, located within a Louisville Metro park at the west end of Broadway, is the fourth station on the LG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about once every 5 years. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 14 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

1951. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system is original equipment, which cannot be repaired with currently available components. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; and miscellaneous electrical, mechanical, and structural improvements.

Structure

The FPS shows cracking in the foundation walls where they meet the masonry walls. The 2015 LSE noted these cracks are not considered a structural problem, but should be monitored and repaired, as required. The FPS also has cracking in the downstream face of the masonry, which should be monitored and repaired as necessary.

Pumps and Motors

The original pumps and motors at this station are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were installed in 1951. The 2015 LSE recommended corrective actions on the motor winding insulation and to retest. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the pumps and motors be inspected and rehabilitated or replaced as required.

Electrical

The existing electrical switchgear and controls in this FPS is original equipment and it is recommended that this equipment be replaced. The existing 2,400-volt (V) service box conduit is open to combustible gases in the wet well. This situation should be corrected with the replacement of the switchgear. The existing SCADA system should be upgraded to meet current MSD standards and allow the station to operate unattended.

Ancillary Equipment

The 2015 LSE recommended that the existing trash racks be cleaned and re-galvanized. It is also recommended that Gate 81 (a 132-inch-by-120-inch sluice gate) be evaluated and replaced, if required. Gate 81 is scheduled for replacement in FY18.

Mechanical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing HVAC system be replaced.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 15 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Site Conditions

Existing access is from Shawnee Park Road and does not require improvement. The station is located completely within a Louisville Metro park. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.11 Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station

The Western Parkway FPS, located near Chickasaw Park off of Southwestern Parkway and just north of the Morris Forman WQTC, is the first station on the LG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about once or twice every year. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1952. The pump station was recently reconstructed with new pumps, motors, an electrical substation and switchgear, and controls using the original structure. Completed in 2013, this project also included a new trash removal system, plumbing, HVAC, roofing membrane, and aesthetic improvements. Louisville Gas and Electric (LG&E) also provided a redundant power feed from their system as part of this project. The new roofing membrane installed as part of the recent project was not sloped to drain in all areas. Insufficient sloping occurred because of conflicts with the new steel truss that supports the HVAC energy recovery unit. MSD agreed to accept the new roofing membrane during construction so long as Firestone Building Products Company, LLC provided a 25-year roofing system limited warranty. This warranty, dated December 5, 2011, was provided and should cover any installation or material defects through 2036. The Facility Plan Team recommends that MSD closely monitor the roof and use the warranty to repair or replace it if needed. The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan included a project to evaluate the recently upgraded FPS to address recurring issues with the station’s operation for a total projected cost of $200,000. Additional capital needs identified for this station include the replacement of existing Gate 102.

Pumps and Motors

There are issues with the new motors running higher amps, hydraulic issues in the combined wet well for Pumps 1, 2, and 3, and the power factor correction capacitor bank does not work correctly. CE Power was brought in since Eaton could not get the capacitor bank working properly. The capacitor bank is now working, but it is a passive system, not an active system. Regarding hydraulics, MSD will have a physical hydraulic model constructed to evaluate the wet well issue.

Ancillary Equipment

It was recommended that existing Gate 102 be replaced and Gate 103 be evaluated for replacement. Gate 102 is scheduled for replacement in FY17.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 16 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Site Conditions

Existing access is from Southwestern Parkway, through a Marathon Oil tank farm. The station is located between an industrial area and a Louisville Metro park. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.12 Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station

The Paddy’s Run FPS, located on the northern bank of Paddy’s Run Creek, adjacent to the LG&E facility, was the eighth station on the LG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. Historically, this pump station had been online twice in 17 years, but is now being operated in minor flood mode earlier and more frequently when flooding occurs to improve hydraulics elsewhere in the system as MSD implements its real-time control initiative. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1953. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system is original equipment, which cannot be repaired with currently available components. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations.

Structure

Structurally, the station is in good condition; but there is still a need to monitor cracks and make repairs as required. Some of the concrete beams have exposed rebar, which indicates they were constructed without adequate cover for the rebar. These beams and exposed rebar need to be cleaned and painted to prevent further corrosion.

Pumps and Motors

The original pumps and motors at this station are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were installed in 1953. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the pumps and motors be replaced. Also, MSD is currently conducting evaluations to determine the adequacy of the FPS’s current pumping capacity. The station’s current configuration includes four large pumps and two small pumps. The large pumps do not extend the full depth into the wet well. Recent operation procedures require additional pumping capacity at the full wet well depth to minimize flooding during minor flood mode.

Electrical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing electrical switchgear, controls, and lighting be replaced. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing SCADA system be upgraded to meet current MSD standards and allow the station to operate unattended.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 17 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Ancillary Equipment

The trash rack cleaner is extremely rusted and is recommended for sand blasting and painting. Additionally, it is recommended to clean and re-galvanize the existing trash racks and straighten bent bars. The trash rack should be investigated and either repaired or replaced.

Mechanical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the HVAC equipment be reviewed and modified as necessary to satisfy the needs of the overall FPS modifications.

Plumbing

The existing FPS does not have a potable water service or sanitary sewer service. The Facility Plan Team recommends that this be addressed during the overall FPS modifications.

Site Conditions

Access to the FPS has always been an issue. Original access was through a chemical plant that required safety training prior to entry. Recently, MSD added a secondary entrance through the LG&E facility. The new access helps, but is still difficult to maneuver. LG&E is in the process of removing infrastructure it no longer uses. MSD plans to improve their access across LG&E’s site once these assets are removed. Roadway improvements should be addressed in conjunction with the facility access. The surrounding development is 100 percent industrial. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.13 Upper Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station

The Upper Mill Creek FPS, located 1 mile south of the terminus of Lee’s Lane at the levee, is the fifth station on the LG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about every other year. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1983. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system is original equipment and replacement parts are becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain, when needed. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; electrical, mechanical and structural improvements; level control system replacement; and miscellaneous building and site improvements.

Structure

The 2015 LSE noted the roof parapets have spalling concrete throughout. The loose concrete should be removed down to sound concrete and a patch repair should be made to replace voids.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 18 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Pumps and Motors

The original pumps and motors are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were installed. The motor temperature probes were found to be leaking oil onto the electrical board boxes during the Facility Plan team’s site visit. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the pumps and motors be evaluated and rehabilitated or replaced as required. MSD staff reported that during a 2011 storm event, all three pumps were in operation and not meeting demand.

Electrical

The 2015 LSE recommended that the existing electrical switchgear and controls be replaced. It was recommended that the existing SCADA system be upgraded to meet current MSD standards and allow the station to operate unattended. Implementation of these upgrades is underway.

Ancillary Equipment

The 2015 LSE recommended that the existing trash racks be cleaned and re-galvanized, the bent bars straightened, and the air vents cleaned and painted.

Site Conditions

Existing access is along the path atop the levee or a gravel road through the open space on the riverside of the levee. The surrounding development is a mix of industrial and open space. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.14 Riverport Flood Pumping Station

The Riverport FPS, located at 8100 Cane Run Road just inside the levee, is the seventh station on the LG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about every other year. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1980. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system is original equipment and replacement parts are becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain, when needed. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors, and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; substation replacement; electrical, mechanical, and structural improvements; mechanical improvements; and miscellaneous site work.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 19 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Pumps and Motors

The original pumps and motors are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were installed. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the pumps and motors be evaluated and rehabilitated or replaced as required.

Electrical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing electrical switchgear and controls be replaced. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing SCADA system be upgraded to meet current MSD standards and allow the station to operate unattended.

Ancillary Equipment

The 2015 LSE recommended that the trash racks be cleaned and re-galvanized. Gate 139 (a 78-inch by 78-inch sluice gate) should be cleaned and painted. Also, the existing air vents on the discharge lines should be cleaned and painted.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from Cane Run Road and does not require improvement. The station’s surroundings are undeveloped, open space. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.15 Lower Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station

The Lower Mill Creek FPS, located at 12701 Lower River Road, is the third station on the LG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about every other year. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1980. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system is original equipment and replacement parts are becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain, when needed. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; substation replacement; level control system replacement; miscellaneous building improvements; and mechanical and structural improvements.

Pumps and Motors

The original pumps and motors are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were installed. The motor temperature probes were found to be leaking oil onto the electrical board boxes during our site visit. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the pumps and motors be evaluated and

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 20 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

rehabilitated or replaced as required. MSD staff reported that during a 2011 storm event, all three pumps were in operation and not meeting demand.

Electrical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing electrical switchgear and controls be replaced. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing SCADA system be upgraded to meet current MSD standards and allow the station to operate unattended.

Ancillary Equipment

The 2015 LSE recommended that the existing trash racks be cleaned and re-galvanized. Gate 147 (the 96-inch by 96-inch sluice gate) should be painted and cleaned. Also, the existing air vents on the discharge lines should be cleaned and painted.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from Lower River Road and does not require improvement. The station’s surroundings are undeveloped, open space. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.2.16 Pond Creek Flood Pumping Station

The Pond Creek FPS, located on U.S. Highway 44 just east of Dixie Highway, is the sixth station on the LG to go online should a flood occur on the Ohio River. On average, the pump station operates about every other year. The pump station was designed by USACE and put into service in 1989. The original pumps, motors, and ancillary systems are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were originally installed. The electrical system is original equipment and replacement parts are becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain, when needed. The control system is rudimentary by today’s standards, requiring the station to be staffed at all times during flood pumping operations. The 2004 Evaluation of Flood Pumping Stations identified additional equipment inspections and needed improvements for the station, which included the following: inspection of pumps, motors, and valves; rehabilitation of the flood pumps; electrical, mechanical, and structural improvements; level control system replacement; sandblast and repaint bar screen; and replacement of dehumidifiers and heaters.

Structure

The 2015 LSE noted spalling concrete at the base of the handrails. This loose concrete should be removed down to sound concrete and a patch repair should be made to replace voids. There are also a few areas of cracking and/or spalling at the wing walls. The cracks in the wing walls larger than 0.02-inch should be repaired by epoxy injection to prevent water infiltration. In the areas with spalls, loose concrete should be removed down to sound concrete and a patch repair should be performed to replace voids.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 21 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Pumps and Motors

The original pumps and motors are still in service and have not had a major rebuild since they were installed. MSD believes there may be a design flaw regarding the pump shafts. A bearing goes out almost every time the pumps are operated. The shaft only has an upper bearing and a lower bearing. Intermediate bearings were removed shortly after the station was put into service leaving roughly 30 feet between the upper and lower bearings. The 2015 LSE noted the motors should be checked for insulation deterioration. The Facility Plan Team recommends that the pumps and motors be evaluated and rehabilitated or replaced as required.

Electrical

The Facility Plan Team recommends that the existing electrical switchgear and controls be replaced.

Site Conditions

Existing access is from U.S. Highway 44 and does not require improvement. The station’s surroundings are undeveloped open space. The ability to control access to the station is acceptable.

3.3 SECONDARY POWER

An examination of the power supply grid along the ORFPS was conducted to review the feasibility of providing a second, separately derived, electrical utility service as a redundant source of normal power to each FPS. A separate electrical utility service is permitted for use as an emergency source of power where approved by the Authorities Having Jurisdiction. Consultation with the local/state Emergency Management Agency and review of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, 2013 should be completed before selecting a second electrical utility service for use as an emergency source of power. The following were also evaluated: • Costs of installing an onsite generator versus a second electrical utility service • Costs associated with operating the FPSs by either a generator or electric utility source • A brief analysis of using an onsite generator for peak demand shaving

3.3.1 Existing Electrical Plan Review

The FPSs electrical plans were reviewed to gather data on existing service voltage and motor loads. The estimated Demand Loads shown in Table 4.3-1 were calculated while the FPSs were operating in “Flood Mode” with all pumps running. The Demand Load calculation assumes no pumps are intended for 100 percent standby process redundancy. Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 provide a projected cost per day to run each FPS at the estimated demand load.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 22 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Each site was evaluated to determine whether adequate physical space was available to locate standby generator(s) as listed in the MSD Flood Pumping Station Generator Analysis. The FPSs at 4th Street, 5th Street, 34th Street, and Bingham Way are very limited in spare physical space for the location of generators. Further evaluation is needed to confirm if generators could be located at these sites. Beargrass Creek, Robert J. Starkey, Western Parkway, and Lower Mill Creek FPSs would also need additional review for the suggested quantity of generators. With proper planning and site improvements, the remaining FPSs listed in Table 4.3-1 could handle the physical space demands of the recommended generator size and quantity.

3.3.2 2014 Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Flood Pumping Station Generator Analysis Report

The Generator Analysis Report provides recommendations for “Standby” rated generators, permanent versus portable, sizing, quantity, and cost projections. The generator cost projections were selected from the highest listed cost of the three proposed generator manufacturers. It should be noted that the generator cost projections provided in the Generator Analysis Report do not include costs associated with automatic transfer switches, paralleling switchgear, sound dampening, and installation. These costs were subsequently calculated to supplement to costs provided in the Generator Analysis Report.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 23 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-1. Site Information

Electric Service and Flood Pumping LG&E Site Has Physical Space to Install 2014 Location Information FPS Name Service Sizing Report Recommended Comments Description Conductors Generator Set(s)? Voltage/ Quantity/ Estimated Phase Size Demand Load a Beargrass Commercial/ 4,160V/ Equipped with two electric Overhead Yes 8/3000 HP 21,097 kW Creek Industrial 3 Phase utility service feeds. Has existing generator capable Robert J. Site limited. Additional review required 480V/ Commercial Overhead 4/500 HP 1,962 kW of running two of the four Starkey to determine feasibility. 3 Phase pumps. Bingham Site very limited. Additional review 480V/ Commercial Below grade 3/134 HP 412 kW -- Way required to determine feasibility. 3 Phase Site very limited. Additional review 2,300V/ Two 45-HP and one 60-HP 4th Street Inner City Below grade 3/350 HP 1,254 kW required to determine feasibility. 3 Phase sanitary pumps. Site very limited. Additional review 480V/ 5th Street Inner City Below grade 4/50 HP 216 kW -- required to determine feasibility. 3 Phase

Commercial/ 480V/ 3/200 HP; 10th Street Overhead Yes 798 kW -- Industrial 3 Phase 1/25 HP

Commercial/ 480V/ 3/75 HP; 17th Street Overhead Yes 257 kW -- Industrial 3 Phase 1/15 HP Residential- 2,300V/ 4/35 0 HP; 27th Street Overhead Yes 1,386 kW -- Fringe 3 Phase 1/60 HP Residential- 480V/ Existing generator sized for 34th Street Overhead Yes 4/150 HP 758 kW Fringe 3 Phase two 75-HP sanitary pumps.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 24 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-1. Site Information

Electric Service and Flood Pumping LG&E Site Has Physical Space to Install 2014 Location Information FPS Name Service Sizing Report Recommended Comments Description Conductors Generator Set(s)? Voltage/ Quantity/ Estimated Phase Size Demand Load a Shawnee Residential- 2,300V/ 5/800 HP; Overhead Yes 4,075 kW -- Park Fringe 3 Phase 1/75 HP Station billed by two service meters; one shows no billing Western Site limited. Additional review required 4,160V/ 4/1,250 HP; Industrial Overhead 6,060 kW activity. One line diagram Parkway to determine feasibility. 3 Phase 3/450 HP (09/2001) indicates one service drop used. Station undergoing 2,300V/ rehabilitation. Review of Paddy's Run Rural Overhead Yes 6/1,250 HP 6,884 kW 3 Phase station improvements not completed under this study. Upper Mill Additional review required with 4,160V/ -- Rural Overhead 3/3,000 HP 7,911 kW Creek quantity of Gen Sets. 3 Phase Commercial- 4,160V/ -- Riverport Overhead Yes 3/450 HP 1,275 kW Fringe 3 Phase Lower Mill Residential/ Site limited. Additional review required 4,160V/ -- Overhead 3/1,250 HP 3,588 kW Creek Rural to determine feasibility. 3 Phase 4,160V/ -- Pond Creek Rural Overhead Yes 4/4,800 HP 17,985 kW 3 Phase a Estimated demand load is calculated while pump station is operating in flood mode with all pumps running. kW kilowatt

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 25 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-2. Diesel Fuel Cost Analysis

2014 Generator Report Fuel Consumption 1-Day Outage 1-Day Fuel Cost Test Run 3 Hours per Month per Year a Percent FPS Name Proposed Sizing (gallons per hour Total Fuel ($2.75 per at 50-Percent Load Loading Quantity Size Generator Set) (gallons) gallons) Gallons Fuel Fuel Cost 100 141.4 40,723.20 $111,988.80 Beargrass Creek 12 2,000 kW 50 82 35,424.00 $97,416.00 100 122.1 5,860.80 $16,117.20 Robert J. Starkey 2 1,600 kW 50 70 5,040.00 $13,860.00 100 34.7 832.80 $2,290.20 Bingham Way 1 500 kW 50 18.7 673.20 $1,851.30 100 122.1 2,930.40 $8,058.60 4th Street 1 1,600 kW 50 70 2,520.00 $6,930.00 100 19.59 470.16 $1,292.94 5th Street 1 250 kW 50 10.5 378.00 $1,039.50 100 56.4 1,353.60 $3,722.40 10th Street 1 800 kW 50 28.8 1,036.80 $2,851.20 100 23.07 553.68 $1,522.62 17th Street 1 300 kW 50 12.23 440.28 $1,210.77 100 141.4 3,393.60 $9,332.40 27th Street 1 2,000 kW 50 82 2,952.00 $8,118.00 100 56.4 1,353.60 $3,722.40 34th Street 1 800 kW 50 28.8 1,036.80 $2,851.20

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 26 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-2. Diesel Fuel Cost Analysis

2014 Generator Report Fuel Consumption 1-Day Outage 1-Day Fuel Cost Test Run 3 Hours per Month per Year a Percent FPS Name Proposed Sizing (gallons per hour Total Fuel ($2.75 per at 50-Percent Load Loading Quantity Size Generator Set) (gallons) gallons) Gallons Fuel Fuel Cost 100 141.4 10,180.80 $27,997.20 Shawnee Park 3 2,000 kW 50 82 8,856.00 $24,354.00 100 122.1 20,512.80 $56,410.20 Western Parkway 7 1,600 kW 50 70 17,640.00 $48,510.00 100 141.4 13,574.40 $37,329.60 Paddy's Run 4 2,000 kW 50 82 11,808.00 $32,472.00 100 122.1 20,512.80 $56,410.20 Upper Mill Creek 7 1,600 kW 50 70 17,640.00 $48,510.00 100 141.4 3,393.60 $9,332.40 Riverport 1 2,000 kW 50 82 2,952.00 $8,118.00 100 122.1 8,791.20 $24,175.80 Lower Mill Creek 3 1,600 kW 50 70 7,560.00 $20,790.00 100 141.4 47,510.40 $130,653.60 Pond Creek 14 2,000 kW 50 82 41,328.00 $113,652.00 Totals: 157,285.08 $432,533.97 a Quantity and size shown were selected by largest single listed or most quantity listed in the Flood Pumping Station Generator Analysis (Engineered Solutions, Inc. 2014).

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 27 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-3. Utility Cost Analysis

Rate

ide Estimated S Estimated Daily per per usted

Estimated Daily Utility

LG&E Standard Demand Environmental FPS Name Demand Cost at Rate Type Surcharge at Load (kW) emand Demand

kWh kWh a

Charge Demand Load per kW per kW per ediate kWh per Load anagement Charge per kW per Charge M Energy Charge per per Charge Energy Electric D Electric Base Demand Charge Charge Demand Base Peak Demand Charge Charge Demand Peak Electric Fuel Adj Fuel Electric Basic Monthly Service Service Monthly Basic Interm Beargrass Power Serv. 21,097 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $697.47 $268,395.19 Creek Prim. – Comm. Robert J. Industrial Time 1,962 $300.00 $0.03538 $4.63 $3.79 $3.63 $0.00 $0.00224 $37.24 $14,929.44 Starkey of Day Prim. Bingham General Service 412 $35.00 $0.09134 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00266 $0.00224 $1.00 $953.75 Way 3 Phase Power Serv. 4th Street 1,254 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $41.46 $15,958.50 Prim. – Comm. General Service 5th Street 216 $35.00 $0.09134 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00266 $0.00224 $1.00 $501.04 3 Phase Power Serv. 10th Street 798 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $26.38 $10,157.40 Prim. – Comm. Power Serv. 17th Street 257 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $8.50 $3,274.96 Prim. – Comm. Power Serv. 27th Street 1,386 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $45.82 $17,637.76 Prim. – Comm.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 28 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-3. Utility Cost Analysis

Rate

ide Estimated S Estimated Daily per per usted

Estimated Daily Utility

LG&E Standard Demand Environmental FPS Name Demand Cost at Rate Type Surcharge at Load (kW) emand Demand

kWh kWh a

Charge Demand Load per kW per kW per ediate kWh per Load anagement Charge per kW per Charge M Energy Charge per per Charge Energy Electric D Electric Base Demand Charge Charge Demand Base Peak Demand Charge Charge Demand Peak Electric Fuel Adj Fuel Electric Basic Monthly Service Service Monthly Basic Interm Power Serv. 34th Street 758 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $25.06 $9,648.53 Prim. – Comm. Shawnee Power Serv. 4,075 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $134.72 $51,846.41 Park Prim. – Comm. Western Power Serv. 6,060 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $200.34 $77,098.99 Parkway Prim. – Comm. Power Serv. Paddy's Run 6,884 $170.00 $0.03926 $0.00 $0.00 $11.66 $0.00136 $0.00224 $227.59 $87,581.67 Prim. – Comm. Upper Mill Retail Trans. 7,911 $750.00 $0.03610 $4.55 $3.00 $2.75 $0.00 $0.00224 $121.23 $50,045.33 Creek Riverport Retail Trans. 1,275 $750.00 $0.03610 $4.55 $3.00 $2.75 $0.00 $0.00224 $19.54 $8,086.00 Lower Mill Retail Trans. 3,588 $750.00 $0.03610 $4.55 $3.00 $2.75 $0.00 $0.00224 $54.99 $22,711.06 Creek Pond Creek Retail Trans. 17,985 $750.00 $0.03610 $4.55 $3.00 $2.75 $0.00 $0.00224 $275.61 $113,743.07 a Environmental surcharge is a monthly fee based on a percentage of cost associated with energy charge, applicable demand charges, and electric demand side management. kWh kilowatt-hours

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 29 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Cost projections for standby generator(s), supporting generator components and installation, budgetary costs for LG&E to provide a second utility service, and electrical improvements associated with second service are provided for each FPS under Section 3.5. Generator sizing is determined by power usage (watts); voltage output can be specified to match existing service. The 5th Street, 17th Street, and Bingham Way FPSs were listed as potentially suitable sites for portable generators. All other sites will require permanent generators due to the generator sizes listed in the analysis. Table 4.3-2 lists each FPS and provides estimates for 1-day fuel usage and fuel costs at the estimated Demand Load. The table also provides an estimate for annual fuel usage/cost related to the testing for standby generators.

3.3.3 Redundant Electrical Utility Service

LG&E was asked to research the feasibility of a second, separately derived, utility service for each FPS and to provide preliminary costs. A separately derived LG&E utility service would originate from an alternate substation. Section 3.5 provides the LG&E budgetary costs associated with providing a second electric utility service to each of the FPSs. Table 4.3-3 lists each FPS and provides estimates for 1-day utility costs at the estimated Demand Load. The table also identifies the LG&E standard rate type assigned to the FPS. The rate classification determines how the electrical consumption is metered and billed. Adding a second service will not affect rates. The 16 FPSs fall into four different service rates which are described in the following sections.

General Service Three Phase

Stations under this category have a monthly basic service charge, plus an energy charge per kilowatt- hour (kWh).

Power Service Primary

Stations under this category have a monthly basic service charge, plus an energy charge per kWh, plus a demand charge per kilowatt (kW). The demand charge is the base rate at all hours. Minimum Billing Demand Rate is the demand charge base rate minimum tariff. This is 25 kW or 50 percent of the highest billing demand of the previous 11 months; whichever is greater.

Retail Transmission Service

Stations under this category have a monthly basic service charge, plus an energy charge per kWh, plus a demand charge per kW. Demand charge is base rate at all hours, plus intermediate rate for select hours, plus peak rate for select hours. Minimum Billing Demand Rate is the demand charge base rate minimum tariff. This is 250 kW or 75 percent of the highest billing demand of the previous 11 months, or 75 percent of the contract capacity based on the maximum load expected on the facilities; whichever is greater. Demand charge peak and intermediate rate minimum tariff is the maximum measured load in the current billing period or 50 percent of the highest billing demand of the previous 11 months, whichever is greater.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 30 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Industrial Time-of-Day Primary Service

Stations under this category have a monthly basic service charge, plus an energy charge per kWh, plus a demand charge per kW. Demand charge is base rate at all hours, plus intermediate rate for select hours, plus peak rate for select hours. Minimum Billing Demand Rate is the demand charge base rate minimum tariff. This is 250 kW or 75 percent of the highest billing demand of the previous eleven months, or 75 percent of the contract capacity based on the maximum load expected on the facilities; whichever is greater. Demand charge peak and intermediate rate minimum tariff is the maximum measured load in the current billing period or 50 percent of the highest billing demand of the previous 11 months, whichever is greater. For stations where a demand charge is included, LG&E measures the actual kW and averages the demand delivered during a 15-minute period of maximum use during the month. Services, which include a demand charge, are eligible for peak shaving.

3.3.4 Peak Shaving

To provide peak shaving, onsite generators may be installed. For peak shaving duty, the generator supplies prime power in parallel with the utility source. In peak shaving mode, the generator supplies power to select loads to reduce the actual measured demand load of the facility. In emergency mode, the generator supplies emergency power to all desired loads. If the generator is used to supply desired loads and the normal utility source is present, the generator must be U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-rated for Tier 4 emissions. Additionally, if the generator is used for peak shaving, the generator will have a manufacturer’s Prime rating. Tier 4 emissions and Prime ratings increase the purchase cost of generators. The FPSs serving the ORFPS service area generally operate on an as-needed basis. The requirement for operation and duration of run time is intermittent, based on the impulses of nature. In consideration for providing onsite generators for peak shaving, the application needs to be balanced against the need for readily availability standby power. Under normal power outage conditions, generators are intended to provide 24 to 48 hours of run time. Using generators for peak shaving could greatly reduce the available standby power when needed the most. Each FPS should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine if peak shaving is warranted.

3.3.5 Summary of Conditions

Although adding a redundant electrical utility service could help negate power outages that are local within LG&E electrical distribution network, a regional power outage could take multiple FPSs offline. It is apparent from the analysis that the initial purchase cost for onsite generators is considerably higher than the compared costs for a second utility service. However, onsite generators do provide higher level of emergency power preparedness in the event of manmade or natural disasters. Additional research should be conducted during design to determine if the FPSs could operate on fewer flood pumps as to reduce the size/quantity of the recommended standby generators. This would reduce the initial startup costs for installing standby generators.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 31 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Authorization from Louisville Metro Government’s Air Pollution Control District (APCD) would also be required prior to installing standby generators. APCD permits ensure that emission controls meet the needs of Louisville and Jefferson County to make steady progress toward achieving and maintaining federal air quality standards. Note the usages and costs in the following tables are to the nearest 0.01 values given the rates and other factors from LG&E. The table values cannot be construed as being that precise given the assumptions made in developing usages and costs.

3.4 GAP ANALYSIS

To define projects for alternative development, evaluation and prioritization, a gap analysis was completed by comparing existing planning and studies against identified changes in condition or status. A review of the Analysis of Flood Pumping Station for the Facilities Plan Team (Heritage, 2016), was also performed to determine which stations may or may not be able to meet future pumping demands. As a result, several planned projects are now recommended for a change to include a more detailed evaluation of the station’s pumping capacity. It is further recommended that all new pump rehabilitation or replacement projects include an evaluation to determine the station’s ability to meet future pumping demands.

3.4.1 Regulatory Forecast

As discussed in Volume 4, Chapter 1, future changes in regulations governing the FPSs are expected to be minimal. Conversations with the applicable agencies, literature reviews, and discussions with others involved in this field have identified no known or probable changes in regulations or new rules that would require MSD to complete new projects to comply. It should be noted that FEMA has requested that communities evaluate whether changing FPS operating parameters can lower flood levels. For example, adjustments at the FPSs would reduce flood levels and thus reduce flood insurance requirements for homeowners if not eliminate them. This is not an official policy; but it is FEMA’s preference.

3.4.2 Planned Projects Not Requiring Change

Table 4.3-4 summarizes planned FPS projects not requiring any changes as of December 2015.

Table 4.3-4. Planned Projects Not Requiring Change

FPS Name Project Description Install new medium voltage MCC and substation upgrades (not including transformers); Beargrass Creek replace old wiring to low voltage equipment; and improve the station’s SCADA for a total projected cost of $7,560,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan). Upgrade and complete automation of the station’s SCADA system for a total projected cost of Bingham Way $150,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan).

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 32 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-4. Planned Projects Not Requiring Change

FPS Name Project Description Install new mixed-flow pumps; upgrade and complete automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; make structural repairs; replace Gate P3; and make 4th Street other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $3,000,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan). Install new submersible pumps; upgrade and complete automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; make structural repairs; and make other 10th Street miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $1,400,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan). Install new submersible pumps; upgrade and complete automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; make structural repairs; upgrade generator; and make 34th Street other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $2,000,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan).

3.4.3 Planned Projects Requiring Change

Table 4.3-5 summarizes planned FPS projects requiring changes as of December 2015.

Table 4.3-5. Planned Projects Requiring Change

FPS Name Project Description Robert J. There is a planned project for a new generator to run in parallel with the existing generator for a Starkey total projected cost of $3,500,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan). There is also a planned project for improvements to the station’s exterior crane for a total projected cost of $50,000 (FY16 CIP), including a shelter to protect it from the elements. One of these projects needs to be amended to investigate the operation of the VFD operated check valves on the pump discharges (when VFDs fault, the check valves slam shut resulting in a water hammer effect). Also, the DeviceNet system that operates the electrical breakers needs to be replaced and the system converted to the MODBUS communications protocol. 5th Street There is a planned project to install new submersible pumps; upgrade and completely automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components; and perform structural repairs and other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $1,400,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan). This project needs to be amended to include an evaluation of the station’s pumping capacity and a capacity increase, if required. 17th Street There is a planned project to install new submersible pumps; upgrade and completely automate of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components; and perform structural repairs, a roof replacement and other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $1,400,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan). This project needs to be amended to include an evaluation of the station’s pumping capacity and a capacity increase, if required.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 33 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-5. Planned Projects Requiring Change

FPS Name Project Description Western There are planned projects to evaluate the recently upgraded FPS to address recurring operation Parkway issues for a total projected cost of $200,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan) and to replace the existing Gate 102, which is currently in design. There may also be a need to replace the new roofing membrane that is inadequately sloped for the reasons discussed in Section 3.2.11. However, any roofing replacement necessitated by installation or material defects should be covered under the manufacturer’s warranty through 2036. Paddy’s There is a planned project to completely rehabilitate the existing FPS for a total projected cost of Run $18,563,000 (FY16 CIP proposed spending plan). This project should address all currently identified needs for this facility, including the installation of new mixed flow pumps; upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; structural repairs; trash removal system repairs; and other miscellaneous improvements. This project needs to be amended to include the lowering of the wet well and pump intakes (to better accommodate current pumping operations using real-time controls), an evaluation of the station’s pumping capacity, and a capacity increase, if required.

3.4.4 New Projects

Table 4.3-6 summarizes new FPS projects.

Table 4.3-6. New Projects

FPS Name Project Description Beargrass Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace, as required, the station’s eight pumps and motors; Creek evaluate the station’s pumping capacity and a capacity increase, if required; make structural repairs as identified by the USACE LSE; repair or replace the existing river gates, bypass equalizer gates, and actuator boxes; and repair trash removal system. Bingham Evaluate the station’s pumping capacity to determine whether additional capacity is necessary. Way Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace, as required, the station’s flood pumps and motors, if required. 4th Street Evaluate the station’s pumping capacity to determine whether additional capacity is necessary. 27th Street Install new mixed-flow pumps; evaluate the station’s pumping capacity and a capacity increase, if required; upgrade and complete automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; make structural repairs; repair trash removal system; and make other miscellaneous improvements. Shawnee Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors; evaluate the Park station’s pumping capacity and a capacity increase, if required; upgrade and complete automation of the station's SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; make structural repairs; repair or replace Gate 81, as needed; repair trash removal system; and make other miscellaneous improvements. Western Evaluate the station’s pumping capacity to determine whether additional capacity is necessary. Parkway

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 34 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-6. New Projects

FPS Name Project Description Upper Mill Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors; evaluate the Creek station’s pumping capacity and a capacity increase, if required; upgrade and complete automation of the station's SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; and make structural repairs and other miscellaneous improvements. Riverport Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors; evaluate the station’s pumping capacity and capacity increase, if required; upgrade and complete automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; make structural repairs; replace electrical substation replacement; and make other miscellaneous improvements. Lower Mill Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors; evaluate the Creek station’s pumping capacity and capacity increase, if required; upgrade and complete automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; make structural repairs; replace electrical substation; and make other miscellaneous improvements.

Pond Creek Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps, motors, and valves; evaluate the station’s pumping capacity and capacity increase, if required; upgrade and complete automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components; make structural repairs; replace dehumidifiers and heaters; and make other miscellaneous improvements.

3.5 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

Projects identified in Section 3.4 were developed into alternatives based on the impacts of increased frequency for extreme storms and the level of protection ranges identified in Volume 4, Chapter 2. This section will summarize the alternative development and evaluation for the FPS component of the ORFPS. Each station is addressed as a separate subsection. Details of the station’s location, activation order, age, and condition are covered in Section 3.2. As covered in Volume 4, Chapter 2, Heritage used the InfoWorks ICM of MSD’s CSS to perform a planning-level analysis of the current and required pumping rates for a variety of design storms. Heritage performed a similar analysis for the stations located outside the combined sewer area. Prior to design and upgrades proceeding at any FPS, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. Secondary power alternatives were developed for each FPS, including redundant power services and onsite generators. Although adding a redundant power service could help negate power outages that are local within LG&E’s electrical distribution network, a regional power outage could take multiple stations offline. Onsite generators do provide a higher level of emergency power preparedness in the event of manmade or natural disasters. However, several stations were found to have site limitations that would make onsite generators unfeasible. When both alternatives were feasible, the alternative yielding the highest value-based benefit-cost score was evaluated for prioritization purposes. Additional research should be conducted to determine if any of the stations could operate on fewer flood pumps to reduce the size and/or quantity of the recommended onsite generators. The Bingham Way FPS, 5th Street FPS, and 17th Street FPS appear to be suitable sites for portable generators with

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 35 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

electrical switchgear upgrades. All other sites will require permanent generators because of the recommended generator size and/or quantity. The improvement and secondary power alternatives presented are intended to represent a planning- level description of potential projects. Section 3.6 takes the project alternatives and narrows them down by selecting a preferred level of protection. The preferred project alternatives are then scored and prioritized against each other to determine the recommended schedule. Further details on the specific scope of work and costs should be developed and evaluated during the design process. All costs are presented using 2016 dollars.

3.5.1 Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

BEARGRASS CREEK FLOOD PUMPING STATION ELECTRICAL MODIFICATIONS Construction on this project is underway. The project includes the installation of a new medium voltage MCC and electrical substation upgrades (not including transformers). The project also includes the replacement of the station’s old electrical wiring to the low voltage equipment, a roof replacement, and improvements to the existing SCADA system. Construction of this project has a total projected cost of $6,428,852 per the approved FY16 and proposed FY17 CIPs ($4,000,000 approved for FY16 and $2,428,852 proposed for FY17). Table 4.3-7 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at Beargrass Creek FPS.

Table 4.3-7. Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs

Electrical Modifications FY16 and FY17 $6,428,852

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner, making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability or its modeled capacity of 3,555 MGD (4,155 MGD modeled at targeted WSEL). Regarding secondary power, the station already has a redundant power service from the electric utility. MSD would continue to depend on that redundant power service to operate the station if their primary power service is interrupted.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. Perform minor upgrades to the station’s SCADA, electrical, and

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 36 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

mechanical components to automate the station’s rehabilitated or replaced pumps and motors. Perform structural and trash removal system repairs, if necessary. Repair or replace the existing river gates, bypass equalizer gates, and actuator boxes, as needed. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $77,690,000. Regarding secondary power, the station already has a redundant power service from the electric utility. Converting to onsite generators would require the installation of up to seven 3,250-kW generators, along with upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements. Planning-level costs to convert to onsite generators are projected to be $12,500,000. The Facility Plan Team recommends that MSD continue to depend on its redundant power service to operate the station when their primary power service is interrupted. Onsite generators are not recommended because of the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency power preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 The station is already capable of pumping 4,155 MGD (modeled at its targeted WSEL), meeting a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 4,700 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building will be extended to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 545 MGD (272.5 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform structural and trash removal system repairs, if necessary. Extend the trash removal system’s rails to accommodate the additional suction bays. Repair or replace the existing river gates, bypass equalizer gates, and actuator boxes, as needed. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $96,880,000.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 37 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Regarding secondary power, the station already has a redundant power service from the electric utility. Converting to onsite generators would require the installation of up to eight 3,250-kW generators, along with upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements. Planning-level costs to convert to onsite generators are projected to be $14,280,000. The Facility Plan Team recommends that MSD continue to depend on its redundant power service to operate the station when their primary power service is interrupted. Onsite generators are not recommended because of the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency power preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. Table 4.3-8 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Beargrass Creek FPS.

Table 4.3-8. Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Protection Level of Protection General Redundant Power Description Total Costs Improvements Service 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $77,690,000 $0 $77,690,000 3 Maximize Capacity $77,690,000 $0 $77,690,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas $77,690,000 $0 $77,690,000 14 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas $96,880,000 $0 $96,880,000 14 2035 Projected

3.5.2 Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

ROBERT J. STARKEY FLOOD PUMPING STATION OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS This project includes the installation of a new generator to run in parallel with the existing generator for a total projected cost of $3,500,000 per the FY16 CIP proposed spending plan ($1,750,000 proposed for FY17 and $1,750,000 proposed for FY18). The necessity of this project is being reevaluated with respect to the proposed Ohio River Tunnel Project. This project should be amended to investigate and remedy an issue with the check valves on the pump discharges. When the VFDs fault, the check valves slam shut resulting in pressure surges that shake the discharge piping. A possible solution would be to replace the existing check valves with ones that are air or hydraulic-cushioned. This project should also be amended to convert the existing DeviceNet system, which operates the electrical breakers, to the MODBUS communications protocol.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 38 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

ROBERT J. STARKEY FLOOD PUMPING STATION EXTERIOR CRANE IMPROVEMENT This project included the installation of a shelter to protect the station’s exterior crane from the elements. This project had a total projected cost of $50,000 per the approved FY16 CIP. Table 4.3-9 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at Robert J. Starkey FPS.

Table 4.3-9. Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs Operational Improvements FY17 and FY18 $4,360,000 Exterior Crane Improvement FY16 $50,000

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, its operating capacity of 108 MGD, or its rated capacity of 140 MGD. Regarding secondary power, the station already has one onsite generator that supplies enough power to run two of the four total pumps. MSD would continue to depend on that onsite generator to partially operate the station if their primary power service is interrupted.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 There should be no need to rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps or motors within the next 20 years since the station was reconstructed in 2005 and all the pumps and motors were recently rebuilt. As a result, no general improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. Regarding secondary power, the station already has one onsite generator that supplies enough power to run two of the four total pumps. The planned operational improvements project proposed for FY17 and FY18 may install a second generator to run in parallel with the existing generator to operate all four pumps for a projected cost of $4,360,000. The necessity of this project is being reevaluated with respect to the proposed Ohio River Tunnel Project. A redundant power service could be provided in lieu of this planned project, but it would need to include the Check Valve Investigation and MODBUS Communications Protocol Conversion covered above under Planned Projects. Planning-level costs to convert to a redundant power service is projected to be $1,440,000. The Facility Plan Team recommends that MSD move forward with the planned operational improvements project because of the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide and the station is under continuous operation as a sanitary pumping station, further justifying this extra level of protection.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 39 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 HI standards indicate that a maximum total pumping capacity of 190 MGD could be achieved within the existing structure, but MSD has set a maximum operating capacity for this station at 108 MGD (three of four pumps running simultaneously). This restriction is the result of downstream limitations on the ORI when multiple downstream FPSs are engaged during wet weather. Any project to increase the station’s capacity above 108 MGD will require costly downstream conveyance improvements and affect several other ongoing projects. As a result, no general improvements are being recommended to meet this level of protection. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 MSD has set a maximum capacity for this station at 108 MGD because of downstream limitations on the ORI when multiple downstream FPSs are engaged during wet weather. Any project to increase the station’s capacity above 108 MGD will require costly downstream conveyance improvements and affect several other ongoing projects. As a result, no general improvements are being recommended to meet this level of protection. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 MSD has set a maximum capacity for this station at 108 MGD because of downstream limitations on the ORI when multiple downstream FPSs are engaged during wet weather. Any project to increase the station’s capacity above 108 MGD will require costly downstream conveyance improvements and affect several other ongoing projects. As a result, no general improvements are being recommended to meet this level of protection. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Table 4.3-10 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Robert J. Starkey FPS.

Table 4.3-10. Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description General Onsite Protection Total Costs Improvements Generators a 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $0 $4,360,000 $4,360,000 3 Maximize Capacity $0 $4,360,000 $4,360,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $0 $4,360,000 $4,360,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $0 $4,360,000 $4,360,000

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 40 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.5.3 Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

BINGHAM WAY FLOOD PUMPING STATION SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION UPGRADES AND AUTOMATION This was a planned project proposed for FY16, but it has since been put on hold. The project included the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA system for a total projected cost of $150,000 per the approved FY16 CIP. Table 4.3-11 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at Bingham Way FPS.

Table 4.3-11. Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs SCADA Upgrades and Automation On Hold $150,000

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 64 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 There should be no need to rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps or motors within the next 20 years since the station was constructed in 1996. As a result, no general improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 500-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning- level costs are projected to be $890,000 for a redundant power service or $220,000 for an onsite generator. However, this station may have site limitations that would make a permanent onsite generator unfeasible. Based on this, it is recommended that MSD obtain a portable generator, either by purchase or rental agreement, due to its lower capital costs and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 41 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. As a result, no general improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 80 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The building extension is to include one additional suction bay and an expanded wet well. Install one additional flood pump, motor, trash rack, and discharge pipe to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 16 MGD. Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $5,460,000. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2. Electrical switchgear costs for the redundant power service alternative are expected to increase to $960,000 with the station’s total pumping capacity. However, no cost increase is expected for onsite generators since the generator configuration will remain the same as for LOP 2. Based on this, it is recommended that MSD obtain a portable generator, either by purchase or rental agreement, due to its lower capital costs and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 90 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building extension is to include one additional suction bay and an expanded wet well. Install one additional flood pump, motor, trash rack, and discharge pipe to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 26 MGD. Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $6,240,000.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 42 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 750-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $990,000 for a redundant power service or $350,000 for an onsite generator. However, this station may have site limitations that would make a permanent onsite generator unfeasible. Based on this, it is recommended that MSD obtain a portable generator, either by purchase or rental agreement, due to its lower capital costs and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. Table 4.3-12 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Bingham Way FPS.

Table 4.3-12. Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description General Onsite Protection Total Costs Improvements Generators a 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $0 $220,000 $220,000 3 Maximize Capacity $0 $220,000 $220,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $5,460,000 $220,000 $5,680,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 $6,240,000 $350,000 $6,590,000 Projected a Onsite generators may be a mix of fixed and portable units as determined during the design process.

3.5.4 4th Street Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

4TH STREET FLOOD PUMPING STATION UPGRADES AND AUTOMATION Construction on this project is underway. The project includes the installation of new mixed flow pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 137 MGD (modeled). The project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, replacement of Gate P3, and other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $3,100,000. Table 4.3-13 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at 4th Street FPS.

Table 4.3-13. 4th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs

Upgrades and Automation FY16, FY17, and FY18 $3,100,000

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 43 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 137 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 There should be no need to rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps or motors within the next 20- years since this equipment is currently being upgraded as part of an ongoing project. As a result, no general improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. Secondary power should be provided via redundant power service or the installation of one 1,600-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $430,000 for a redundant power service or $830,000 for an onsite generator. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to site limitations, which make onsite generators unfeasible. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 HI standards indicate that a maximum total pumping capacity of 143 MGD could be achieved without an expansion to the existing building and wet well structure. The ongoing upgrades and automation project will increase reliability at the station. Professional judgment yields the minimal 4.4 percent increase in pumping capacity does not warrant additional replacement of the equipment already being replaced by the ongoing project. As a result, no general improvements are recommended to meet this level of protection. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 150 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The building extension is to include one additional suction bay and an expanded wet well, which may require additional space. An allocation is being made for this additional space in the amount of $2,500,000, which has been added to the Improvement Costs. Install one additional flood pump, motor, trash rack, and discharge pipe to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 13 MGD. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $11,250,000.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 44 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2. Electrical switchgear costs for the redundant power service alternative are expected to increase to $440,000 with the station’s total pumping capacity. However, no cost increase is expected for onsite generators since the generator configuration will remain the same as for LOP 2. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to site limitations, which make onsite generators unfeasible. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 195 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building extension is to include one additional suction bay and an expanded wet well, which may require additional space. An allocation is being made for this additional space in the amount of $2,500,000, which has been added to the Improvement Costs. Install one additional flood pump, motor, trash rack, and discharge pipe to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 58 MGD. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $12,420,000. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Electrical switchgear costs for the redundant power service alternative are expected to increase to $500,000 with the station’s total pumping capacity. However, no cost increase is expected for onsite generators since the generator configuration will remain the same as for LOP 2. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to site limitations, which make onsite generators unfeasible. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. Table 4.3-14 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at 4th Street FPS. Table 4.3-14. 4th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description General Redundant Protection Total Costs Improvements Power Service 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $0 $430,000 $430,000 3 Maximize Capacity $0 $430,000 $430,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $11,250,000 $440,000 $11,690,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 $12,420,000 $500,000 $12,920,000 Projected

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 45 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.5.5 5th Street Flood Pumping Station

MSD should consider combining project alternatives at this station with one or more of the projects proposed for the 10th Street FPS, 17th Street FPS, and 34th Street FPS. These four stations are smaller in size and have similar rehabilitation needs. Planned projects also indicate an interest in converting these stations to submersible pumping stations. If possible, these stations could be rehabilitated with similar- sized pumps, allowing MSD to purchase spare pumps that are interchangeable between multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Planned Projects

5TH STREET FLOOD PUMPING STATION UPGRADES AND AUTOMATION This project includes the installation of new submersible pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 52 MGD (modeled). The project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural and trash rack repairs, sanitation redirection to eliminate an illicit discharge (if delayed, this work should be moved into a separate project for immediate completion), and other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $1,400,000 per the FY16 CIP proposed spending plan ($400,000 proposed for FY18 and $1,000,000 proposed for FY19). Table 4.3-15 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at 5th Street FPS.

Table 4.3-15. 5th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs

Upgrades and Automation FY18 and FY19 $1,400,000

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 52 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 The planned upgrades and automation project will include all the general improvements needed to achieve LOP 2. These general improvements are projected to cost $1,400,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 250-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $630,000 for a redundant power service or $240,000 for an onsite generator. However, this station may have site limitations that would

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 46 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

make a permanent onsite generator unfeasible. Based on this, it is recommended that MSD obtain a portable generator, either by purchase or rental agreement, due to its lower capital costs and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 The station is already capable of pumping 52 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 The station is already capable of pumping 52 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Table 4.3-16 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at 5th Street FPS.

Table 4.3-16. 5th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description Protection General Onsite Total Improvements Generators a Costs 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $1,400,000 $240,000 $1,640,000 3 Maximize Capacity $1,400,000 $240,000 $1,640,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $1,400,000 $240,000 $1,640,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $1,400,000 $240,000 $1,640,000

a Onsite generators may be a mix of fixed and portable units as determined during the design process.

3.5.6 10th Street Flood Pumping Station

MSD should consider combining project alternatives at this station with one or more of the projects proposed for the 5th Street FPS, 17th Street FPS, and 34th Street FPS. These four stations are smaller in size and have similar rehabilitation needs. Planned projects also indicate an interest in converting these stations to submersible pumping stations. If possible, these stations could be rehabilitated with similar- sized pumps, allowing MSD to purchase spare pumps that are interchangeable between multiple

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 47 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Planned Projects

10TH STREET FLOOD PUMPING STATION UPGRADES AND AUTOMATION This project includes the installation of new submersible pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 88 MGD (modeled). The project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural and trash rack repairs, sanitation redirection to eliminate an illicit discharge (if delayed, this work should be moved into a separate project for immediate completion), and other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $1,400,000 per the FY16 CIP proposed spending plan ($400,000 proposed for FY19 and $1,000,000 proposed for FY20). Table 4.3-17 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at 10th Street FPS.

Table 4.3-17. 10th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs

Upgrades and Automation FY19 and FY20 $1,400,000

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 88 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 The planned upgrades and automation project will include all the capital improvements needed to achieve LOP 2. The FY16 CIP proposed spending plan provided a total projected cost of $1,400,000 for these improvements. However, it is recommended the planning-level costs for these improvements be increased to $1,680,000 based on updated cost projections. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 800 kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $490,000 for a redundant power service or $390,000 for an onsite generator. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 48 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 HI standards provides a maximum total pumping capacity of 150 MGD without an expansion to the existing building and wet well structure. This substantially exceeds the estimated pumping rates required to meet LOPs 2, 4, or 5. Professional judgment yields this increase to be excessive and unnecessary. As a result, the capital improvements recommended for LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 The station is already capable of pumping 88 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 The station is already capable of pumping 88 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Table 4.3-18 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at 10th Street FPS.

Table 4.3-18. 10th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description General Onsite Protection Total Costs Improvements Generators a 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $1,680,000 $390,000 $2,070,000 3 Maximize Capacity $1,680,000 $390,000 $2,070,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $1,680,000 $390,000 $2,070,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $1,680,000 $390,000 $2,070,000

a Onsite generators may be a mix of fixed and portable units as determined during the design process.

3.5.7 17th Street Flood Pumping Station

MSD should consider combining project alternatives at this station with one or more of the projects proposed for the 5th Street FPS, 10th Street FPS, and 34th Street FPS. These four stations are smaller in size and have similar rehabilitation needs. Planned projects also indicate an interest in converting these stations to submersible pumping stations. If possible, these stations could be rehabilitated with similar- sized pumps, allowing MSD to purchase spare pumps that are interchangeable between multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 49 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Planned Projects

17TH STREET FLOOD PUMPING STATION UPGRADES AND AUTOMATION This project includes the installation of new submersible pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 51 MGD (modeled). The project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural and trash rack repairs, roofing replacement, and other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $1,400,000 per the FY16 CIP proposed spending plan ($400,000 proposed for FY20 and $1,000,000 proposed for FY21). Table 4.3-19 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at 17th Street FPS.

Table 4.3-19. 17th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs Upgrades and Automation FY20 and FY21 $1,400,000

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 51 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 The planned upgrades and automation project will include all the general improvements needed to achieve LOP 2. These general improvements are projected to cost $1,400,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 300-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $710,000 for a redundant power service or $160,000 for an onsite generator. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 Evaluate and maximize the station’s pumping rate to a total pumping capacity of 74 MGD (estimated) per HI standards. Install new submersible pumps and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 23 MGD. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs and roofing replacement. Perform

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 50 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $1,600,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 400-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $820,000 for a redundant power service or $190,000 for an onsite generator. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 107 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The building extension is to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install two additional submersible pumps, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 56 MGD (28 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps with new submersible pumps. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs and roofing replacement. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $3,600,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 500-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $960,000 for a redundant power service or $220,000 for an onsite generator. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 122 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building will be extended to include three additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install three additional submersible pumps, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 71 MGD (24 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps with new submersible pumps. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA,

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 51 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

electrical and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs and roofing replacement. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $4,800,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 600-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $1,020,000 for a redundant power service or $250,000 for an onsite generator. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. Table 4.3-20 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at 17th Street FPS.

Table 4.3-20. 17th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description General Onsite Protection Total Costs Improvements Generators a 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $1,400,000 $160,000 $1,560,000 3 Maximize Capacity $1,600,000 $190,000 $1,790,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $3,600,000 $220,000 $3,820,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $4,800,000 $250,000 $5,050,000

a Onsite generators may be a mix of fixed and portable units as determined during the design process.

3.5.8 27th Street Flood Pumping Station

The 27th Street FPS and 34th Street FPS have a unique interaction that should be explored before progressing a selected alternative into detailed design. These stations are operated to keep dry weather flow and some wet weather flow in the system while the Ohio River is at a flood stage. As a result, a portion of the flows tributary to the 27th Street FPS may actually flow toward the 34th Street FPS and onto the Morris Forman WQTC. While these projects were developed independently for flexibility purposes, an alternative MSD should consider during preliminary design, combining the improvements at these two stations to increase the pumping capacity at the 34th Street FPS in lieu of the 27th Street FPS.

Planned Projects

MSD does not currently have any planned projects at the 17th Street FPS.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 52 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 239 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $6,430,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 2,000-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning- level costs are projected to be $750,000 for a redundant power service or $1,270,000 for an onsite generator. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to the availability of site space and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 Evaluate and maximize the station’s pumping rate to a total pumping capacity of 248 MGD (estimated) per HI standards. Install new flood pumps, motors, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 9 MGD. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $6,670,000. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2. Electrical switchgear costs for the redundant power service alternative are expected to increase to $770,000 with the station’s total pumping capacity. However, no cost increase is expected for onsite generators because the generator configuration will remain the same as for LOP 2. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to the availability of site space and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 280 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 53 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Atlas 14. The building will be extended to include one additional suction bay and an expanded wet well. Install one additional flood pump, motor, trash rack, and discharge pipe to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 41 MGD. Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $9,180,000. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2. Electrical switchgear costs for the redundant power service alternative are expected to increase to $820,000 with the station’s total pumping capacity. However, no cost increase is expected for onsite generators since the generator configuration will remain the same as for LOP 2. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to the availability of site space and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 320 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building extension is to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 81 MGD (40.5 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $10,750,000. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Electrical switchgear costs for the redundant power service alternative are expected to increase to $880,000 with the station’s total pumping capacity. However, no cost increase is expected for onsite generators since the generator configuration will remain the same as for LOP 2. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite generator be provided due to the availability of site space and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. Table 4.3-21 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at 27th Street FPS.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 54 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-21. 27th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description General Onsite Protection Total Costs Improvements Generators a 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $6,430,000 $1,270,000 $7,700,000 3 Maximize Capacity $6,670,000 $1,270,000 $7,940,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $9,180,000 $1,270,000 $10,450,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $10,750,000 $1,270,000 $12,020,000

a Onsite generators may be a mix of fixed and portable units as determined during the design process.

3.5.9 34th Street Flood Pumping Station

MSD should consider combining project alternatives at this station with one or more of the projects proposed for the 5th Street FPS, 10th Street FPS, and 17th Street FPS. These four stations are smaller in size and have similar rehabilitation needs. Planned projects also indicate an interest in converting these stations to submersible pumping stations. If possible, these stations could be rehabilitated with similar- sized pumps, allowing MSD to purchase spare pumps that are interchangeable between multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations. Additionally, the 27th Street FPS and 34th Street FPS have a unique interaction that should be explored before progressing a selected alternative into detailed design. These stations are operated to keep dry weather flow and some wet weather flow in the system while the Ohio River is at a flood stage. As a result, a portion of the flows tributary to the 27th Street FPS may actually flow toward the 34th Street FPS and onto the Morris Forman WQTC. While these projects were developed independently for flexibility purposes, an alternative MSD should consider during preliminary design, combining the improvements at these two stations to increase the pumping capacity at the 34th Street FPS in lieu of the 27th Street FPS.

Planned Projects

34TH STREET FLOOD PUMPING STATION UPGRADES, GENERATOR, AND AUTOMATION This project includes the installation of new submersible pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 90 MGD (modeled). The project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural and trash rack repairs, generator upgrade, and other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $2,000,000 per the FY16 CIP proposed spending plan ($500,000 proposed for FY17 and $1,500,000 proposed for FY18). Table 4.3-22 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at 34th Street FPS.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 55 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-22. 34th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs

Upgrades, Generator and Automation FY17 and FY18 $2,000,000

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability or its modeled capacity of 90 MGD. Regarding secondary power, the station already has one onsite generator that supplies enough power to run the sanitary pumps. MSD would continue to depend on that onsite generator to run the sanitary pumps if their primary power service is interrupted with no means to run the flood pumps.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 The planned upgrades and generator and automation project will include all capital improvements needed to achieve LOP 2. The planned generator upgrade will be considered separately as a secondary power alternative, resulting in a projected cost of $1,750,000. Regarding secondary power, the station already has one onsite generator that supplies enough power to run the sanitary pumps. The planned upgrades, generator and automation project will replace this generator with a larger 800-kW generator to run both the sanitary and flood pumps for a projected cost of $250,000. A redundant power service could be provided in lieu of this planned project along with upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements. Planning-level costs to convert to a redundant power service is projected to be $680,000. The Facility Plan Team recommends that MSD move forward with the planned upgrades and generator and automation project because of its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 The station is already capable of pumping 90 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 56 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 The station is already capable of pumping 90 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Table 4.3-23 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at 34th Street FPS.

Table 4.3-23. 34th Street Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description Protection General Onsite Total Improvements Generators a Costs 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $1,750,000 $250,000 $2,000,000 3 Maximize Capacity $1,750,000 $250,000 $2,000,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $1,750,000 $250,000 $2,000,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 $1,750,000 $250,000 $2,000,000 Projected a Onsite generators may be a mix of fixed and portable units as determined during the design process.

3.5.10 Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

MSD does not currently have any planned projects at the Shawnee Park FPS.

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 770 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $23,010,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of two 2,500-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 57 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning- level costs are projected to be $1,020,000 for a redundant power service or $3,730,000 for onsite generators. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,100 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The building extension is to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 330 MGD (165 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $36,210,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of two 3,000-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $1,160,000 for a redundant power service or $4,930,000 for onsite generators. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,250 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building will be extended to include three additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install three additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 480 MGD (160 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical, and

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 58 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $41,490,000. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 4. Electrical switchgear costs for the redundant power service alternative are expected to increase to $1,240,000 with the station’s total pumping capacity. However, no cost increase is expected for onsite generators because the generator configuration will remain the same as for LOP 4. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. Table 4.3-24 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Shawnee Park FPS. Table 4.3-24. Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description Protection General Redundant Total Improvements Power Service Costs 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $23,010,000 $1,020,000 $24,030,000 3 Maximize Capacity $23,010,000 $1,020,000 $24,030,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $36,210,000 $1,160,000 $37,370,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 $41,490,000 $1,240,000 $42,730,000 Projected

3.5.11 Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

WESTERN PARKWAY FLOOD PUMPING STATION EVALUATION This project includes an evaluation to identify solutions to hydraulic issues in the combined suction bay for the three smaller pumps. The evaluation will also explore solutions to possible electrical issues internal to the recently upgraded motors and electrical switchgear at the station. This evaluation has a total projected cost of $200,000 per the approved FY17 CIP. Table 4.3-25 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at Western Parkway FPS.

Table 4.3-25. Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs

Evaluation FY17 $200,000

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 59 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability or its modeled capacity of 1,150 MGD. Regarding secondary power, the station already has a redundant power service from the electric utility. MSD would continue to depend on that redundant power service to operate the station if their primary power service is interrupted.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 There should be no need to rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps or motors within the next 20 years since the station was rehabilitated in 2013. As a result, no general improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. Regarding secondary power, the station already has a redundant power service from the electric utility. Converting to onsite generators would require the installation of up to three 3,000-kW generators, along with upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements. Planning-level costs to convert to onsite generators are projected to be $7,380,000. The Facility Plan Team recommends that MSD continue to depend on its redundant power service to operate the station when their primary power service is interrupted. Onsite generators are not recommended because of the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency power preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. As a result, no general improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,400 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The building will be extended to include one additional suction bay and an expanded wet well. Install one additional flood pump, motor, trash rack, and discharge pipe to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 250 MGD. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash removal system repairs. Extend the trash removal system’s rails to accommodate the additional suction bays. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. Project should also include Western Parkway FPS Evaluation project previously described. These general improvements are projected to cost $10,560,000. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 60 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

A drainage study performed in August 1990 expressed concerns for the hydraulic capacity of the Southern Outfall sewer between the surge basin and the station. This study should be re-evaluated and updated before increasing the station’s total pumping capacity, to determine whether the Southern Outfall sewer can handle the additional flows. Projected costs to perform this study are included with the LOP 4 general improvements. However, projected costs to increase the hydraulic capacity of the Southern Outfall sewer or to lay a parallel sewer may need to be included based on the recommended improvements.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,600 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building will be extended to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 450 MGD (225 MGD per additional pump). Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash removal system repairs. Extend the trash removal system’s rails to accommodate the additional suction bays. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. Project should also include Western Parkway FPS Evaluation project previously described. These general improvements are projected to cost $17,470,000. Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. The August 1990 drainage study should be re-evaluated and updated before increasing the station’s total pumping capacity, to determine whether the Southern Outfall sewer can handle the additional flows between the surge basin and the station. Projected costs to perform this study are included with the LOP 5 general improvements. However, projected costs to increase the hydraulic capacity of the Southern Outfall sewer or to lay a parallel sewer may need to be included based on the recommended improvements. Table 4.3-26 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Western Parkway FPS. Table 4.3-26. Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description General Redundant Protection Total Costs Improvements Power Service 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $0 $0 $0 3 Maximize Capacity $0 $0 $0 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $10,560,000 $0 $10,560,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $17,470,000 $0 $17,470,000

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 61 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.5.12 Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

PADDY’S RUN FLOOD PUMPING STATION FULL REHABILITATION This was a planned project proposed for FY16 through FY19, but it has since been put on hold. The project included the installation of new flood pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 925 MGD (modeled). The project also included the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural repairs, trash removal system repairs, and other miscellaneous improvements for a total projected cost of $18,535,962 per the FY16 CIP proposed spending plan ($490,000 approved for FY16, $2,500,000 proposed for FY17, $12,545,962 proposed for FY18, and $3,000,000 proposed for FY19). For this report, the total projected cost has been rounded to $18,540,000. Table 4.3-27 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at Paddy’s Run FPS.

Table 4.3-27. Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Planned Projects

Project Description Proposed Schedule Planning-Level Costs

Full Rehabilitation On Hold $18,540,000

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 925 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 The planned full rehabilitation project will include all the capital improvements needed to achieve LOP 2. These general improvements are projected to cost $18,540,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of three 3,000-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $860,000 for a redundant power service or $7,380,000 for onsite generators. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 62 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,625 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The building extension is to include three additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install three additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 700 MGD (233 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash removal system repairs. Extend the trash removal system’s rails to accommodate the additional suction bays. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $48,410,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of four 3,000-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $1,270,000 for a redundant power service or $9,850,000 for onsite generators. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,900 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building will be extended to include four additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install four additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 975 MGD (244 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash removal system repairs. Extend the trash removal system’s rails to accommodate the additional suction bays. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $58,740,000.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 63 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Regarding secondary power, the required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 4. Electrical switchgear costs for the redundant power service alternative are expected to increase to $1,440,000 with the station’s total pumping capacity. However, no cost increase is expected for onsite generators because the generator configuration will remain the same as for LOP 4. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. Table 4.3-28 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Paddy’s Run FPS.

Table 4.3-28. Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description Protection General Redundant Total Improvements Power Service Costs 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $18,540,000 $860,000 $19,400,000 3 Maximize Capacity $18,540,000 $860,000 $19,400,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $48,410,000 $1,270,000 $49,680,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $58,740,000 $1,440,000 $60,180,000

3.5.13 Upper Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

MSD does not currently have any planned projects at the Upper Mill Creek FPS.

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 750 MGD (910 MGD modeled at targeted WSEL), or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 64 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $26,670,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of three 3,000- kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $6,090,000 for a redundant power service or $7,380,000 for onsite generators. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 The station is already capable of pumping 910 MGD (modeled at its targeted WSEL), meeting a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 Evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,370 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The building will be extended to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. Install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 460 MGD (230 MGD per additional pump). Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors. Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $42,340,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of four 3,000-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $6,700,000 for a redundant power service or $9,850,000 for onsite generators. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 65 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. Table 4.3-29 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Upper Mill Creek FPS.

Table 4.3-29. Upper Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description Protection General Redundant Total Improvements Power Service Costs 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $26,670,000 $6,090,000 $32,760,000 3 Maximize Capacity $26,670,000 $6,090,000 $32,760,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $26,670,000 $6,090,000 $32,760,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $42,340,000 $6,700,000 $49,040,000

3.5.14 Riverport Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

MSD does not currently have any planned projects at the Riverport FPS.

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 140 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components. Perform replacement of the electrical substation. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $4,840,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 1,500 kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $4,060,000 for a redundant power service or $1,270,000 for an onsite generator. The Facility Plan Team recommends that an onsite

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 66 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

generator be provided due to its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 The station is already capable of pumping 140 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 The station is already capable of pumping 140 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Table 4.3-30 lists the planning-level costs for planned projects at Riverport FPS.

Table 4.3-30. Riverport Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description General Onsite Protection Total Costs Improvements Generators a 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $4,840,000 $1,270,000 $6,110,000 3 Maximize Capacity $4,840,000 $1,270,000 $6,110,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $4,840,000 $1,270,000 $6,110,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 $4,840,000 $1,270,000 $6,110,000 Projected

aOnsite generators may be a mix of fixed and portable units as determined during the design process.

3.5.15 Lower Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

MSD does not currently have any planned projects at the Lower Mill Creek FPS.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 67 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 320 MGD, or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components. Perform replacement of the electrical substation. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades. These general improvements are projected to cost $9,720,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of two 2,500-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $4,060,000 for a redundant power service or $3,730,000 for onsite generators. The Facility Plan Team recommends that onsite generators be provided due to their lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 HI standards indicate that a maximum total pumping capacity of 363 MGD (estimated) could be achieved without an expansion to the existing building and wet well structure, but would require expanded pools on Lower Mill Creek. This substantially exceeds the estimated pumping rates required to meet LOPs 2, 4, or 5. Professional judgment yields this increase to be excessive and unnecessary. As a result, the capital improvements recommended for LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 The station is already capable of pumping 320 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 The station is already capable of pumping 320 MGD, exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Table 4.3-31 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Lower Mill Creek FPS.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 68 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-31. Lower Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description Protection General Onsite Total Improvements Generators a Costs 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $9,720,000 $3,730,000 $13,450,000 3 Maximize Capacity $9,720,000 $3,730,000 $13,450,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $9,720,000 $3,730,000 $13,450,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 Projected $9,720,000 $3,730,000 $13,450,000

aOnsite generators may be a mix of fixed and portable units as determined during the design process.

3.5.16 Pond Creek Flood Pumping Station

Planned Projects

MSD does not currently have any planned projects at the Pond Creek FPS.

Alternative Projects

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 1 As LOP 1 is a “no-action” alternative, no capital improvements would be made to meet this level of protection. MSD would continue to operate the station in a reactive manner making repairs as necessary to maintain operability, but doing nothing to increase the station’s reliability, modeled capacity of 2,650 MGD (3,375 MGD modeled at targeted WSEL), or level of emergency power preparedness.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 2 Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades, including the replacement of dehumidifiers and heaters. These general improvements are projected to cost $73,320,000. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of five 3,660-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $6,090,000 for a redundant power service or $13,060,000 for onsite generators. The Facility Plan Team recommends that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 69 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 The station is already pumping at its maximum total pumping capacity per HI standards. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 3 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 4 The station is already capable of pumping 3,375 MGD (modeled at its targeted WSEL), exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on NOAA Atlas 14. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 4 are the same as for LOP 2.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION 5 The station is already capable of pumping 3,375 MGD (modeled at its targeted WSEL), exceeding a 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. The required capital improvements to achieve LOP 5 are the same as for LOP 2. Table 4.3-32 lists the planning-level costs for alternative projects at Pond Creek FPS.

Table 4.3-32. Pond Creek Flood Pumping Station Planning-Level Costs—Alternative Projects

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars) Level of Level of Protection Description Protection General Redundant Total Improvements Power Service Costs 1 No Action $0 $0 $0 2 Maintain Capacity $73,320,000 $6,090,000 $79,410,000 3 Maximize Capacity $73,320,000 $6,090,000 $79,410,000 4 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 $73,320,000 $6,090,000 $79,410,000 5 10-Year, 24-Hour NOAA Atlas 14 2035 $73,320,000 $6,090,000 $79,410,000 Projected

3.6 SCORING, PRIORITIZATION, AND SCHEDULING

Project prioritization and scheduling followed the development and evaluation of project alternatives. Prior to this, decisions needed to be made regarding level of protection and whether secondary power would be included in the projects. The following sections discuss the process for prioritizing and scheduling both planned and alternative projects. In general, projects were prioritized based on benefit- cost factors and risk reduction rather than the order that facilities are used.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 70 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

3.6.1 Level of Protection Selection

Meetings were held with both MSD staff and the Stakeholder Group to discuss the results of the project alternatives development and evaluation. Through these meetings and other correspondence, it was recommended and MSD selected LOP 5 as the preferred level of protection moving forward. LOP 5 is defined in Volume 4, Chapter 2 as the capacity to meet the 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm accounting for the increased frequency of extreme storms projected to 2035. It should be noted that generally, the incremental cost difference between implementing LOP 4 and LOP 5 is relatively minimal. The Facility Plan recommends improvements to the ORFPS that will be made via capital improvement projects over the next 20-years. Considering this, improvements made should be to protect the Metro area from storms that are expected to occur in the mid to late-2030s. Another consideration is the improvements recommended in Volume 3. Improvements to the stormwater system are intended to manage this same 10-percent annual chance of exceedance, 24-hour storm to the ORFPS. The specific mix of conveyance and storage used to manage stormwater will impact the required pumping capacities, should MSD decide to apply drainage criteria to the FPSs. If more storage is used, FPS capacities may require smaller increases. The FPS improvements and the Stormwater Master Plan must be coordinated. If the Ohio River is at flood stage, the FPSs must be able to pump the same storm up and over the ORFPS’s floodwalls and levees. If the Stormwater Master Plan recommends conveyance-only improvements, any reduction in pumping capacity below the LOP 5 storm will lead to flooding on the landside of the ORFPS. Recommendations were also made to combine the general and secondary power improvement projects at each of the FPSs. This was done as a cost-savings measure in anticipation that completing these improvements independently would require additional equipment replacements. Combining these projects together will result in the one-time installation of electrical switchgear equipment that can receive secondary power from a standby or onsite generator or a redundant LG&E power service.

3.6.2 Risk-Based Cost-Benefit Prioritization

By May 2016, several of the planned projects were well into design if not already under construction. Following is a list of these FPS projects that continued to move forward and were not included in the risk-based cost-benefit scoring and prioritization process. All costs are presented using 2016 dollars. • Beargrass Creek FPS Electrical Modifications—$6,428,852 • Robert J. Starkey FPS Exterior Crane Improvement—$50,000 • 4th Street FPS Upgrades and Automation—$3,100,000 • Western Parkway FPS Evaluation—$200,000 The remaining planned and alternative projects were scored based on benefits to environmental impacts, regulatory compliance, public health protection, property protection, sustainability, and economic vitality. Scoring adjustments were then made based on risk reduction.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 71 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Multiple risk reduction factors were calculated based on probability and consequence of flood occurrence. Probabilities included pumping capacity deficiency (that is, difference between current capacity and LOP 5), activation frequency, and effective facility age. Consequences included the number of buildings and population that would be impacted by failure of any specific FPS. Using LOJIC data, impacted buildings and people were identified as those located in a FPS’s contributing area below the top elevation of the ORFPS’s floodwalls and levees. In general, projects providing a significant capacity increase (that is, Paddy’s Run FPS) or improving reliability of one of the original stations constructed in the 1950s yielded the highest risk reduction factors. The highest risk reduction factor was then selected for each FPS project and multiplied against its benefit score. The projects were then prioritized based on the ratio of their benefits to their planning-level costs. The prioritization results shifted many of the downtown FPS projects to the beginning of the schedule due their minimal project costs. Likewise, many of the larger, more critical stations were moved to the end of the schedule based on their significantly higher project costs. These moves were seen as a flaw in the prioritization process, which was later addressed using professional judgement. A few adjustments were made to the resulting schedule based on professional judgment as shown in Table 4.3-33. One such adjustment was moving the Paddy’s Run FPS Capacity, Reliability, and Redundant Service project to the beginning of the schedule as design is already underway. The Paddy’s Run FPS is also operated much more frequently than in the past per MSD’s real-time controls. Its current condition and gap in current to LOP 5 pumping capacity warranted such a scheduling adjustment. Table 4.3-33. Preliminary Project Prioritization by Prioritization Score

Benefit/ Risk Budget Benefit Prioritization Project Cost Reduction (2016 $) Score Score Ratio Factor 5th Street FPS—Improvements/Generator $1,640,000 7,380 4,500 1.4 6,300 34th Street FPS—Improvements/Generator $2,000,000 7,841 3,921 1.6 6,273 10th Street FPS—Improvements/Generator $2,070,000 7,841 3,788 1.4 5,303 17th Street FPS—Improvements/Generator $5,050,000 19,106 3,783 1.4 5,297 Bingham Way FPS—Improvements/Generator $6,590,000 18,821 2,856 1.1 3,142 27th Street FPS—Improvements/Generator $12,020,000 18,913 1,573 1.6 2,518 4th Street FPS—Improvements/Redundant Service $12,920,000 21,055 1,630 1.2 1,956 Riverport FPS—Improvements/Generator $6,110,000 8,260 1,352 1.3 1,757 Western Parkway FPS 5—Improvements $17,470,000 19,106 1,094 1.5 1,640 Robert J. Starkey FPS—Improvements/Generator $4,360,000 6,894 1,581 1 1,581 Lower Mill Creek FPS—Improvements/Generator $13,450,000 7,841 583 1.75 1,020 Shawnee Park FPS—Improvements/Redundant Service $42,730,000 19,298 452 2 903

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 72 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.3-33. Preliminary Project Prioritization by Prioritization Score

Benefit/ Risk Budget Benefit Prioritization Project Cost Reduction (2016 $) Score Score Ratio Factor Upper Mill Creek FPS—Improvements/Redundant Service $49,040,000 18,686 381 1.75 667 Paddy's Run FPS—Improvements/Redundant Service $60,180,000 19,566 325 2 650 Beargrass Creek FPS— Improvements $96,880,000 19,862 205 1.6 328 Pond Creek FPS—Improvements/Redundant Service $79,410,000 8,721 110 1.75 192

3.6.3 Technical Workshop

A technical workshop was held with MSD to discuss the results of the prioritization and scheduling process. MSD’s familiarity with the FPSs allowed them to provide valuable input on the schedule and adjustments were made where necessary. A couple of the projects were modified to break out key components for earlier completion, allowing the remaining components to be moved further back in the schedule. These adjustments were made while keeping a relatively even distribution of project costs across the 20-year period. The following list of projects is organized in the order of priority developed during the workshop. Revisions to the planning-level costs are included below based on the removal of project components into stand-alone projects. Capacity projects increase the FPS’s capacity to LOP 5. Reliability projects replace existing equipment to improve the FPS’s dependability. Secondary power projects are noted by the type of secondary power recommended for each FPS. All costs are presented using 2016 dollars. • Paddy’s Run FPS Capacity (New Station)—$42,100,000 (FY18-FY21) • Robert J. Starkey FPS Operational Improvements—$4,360,000 (FY18-FY19) • 34th Street FPS Reliability/Standby Generator—$2,000,000 (FY18-FY19) • Shawnee Park FPS Reliability (MCC Replacement)—$1,000,000 (FY18-FY19) • Western Parkway FPS Reliability (Evaluation Repairs)—$5,000,000 (FY19-FY21) • Western Parkway FPS Capacity—$17,470,000 (FY19-FY21) • 5th Street FPS Reliability/Standby Generator—$1,640,000 (FY20-FY21) • 10th Street FPS Reliability/Standby Generator—$2,070,000 (FY20-FY21) • 17th Street FPS Capacity/Reliability/Standby Generator—$5,050,000 (FY20-FY21) • Beargrass Creek FPS Capacity/Reliability—$96,880,000 (FY21-2026) • Paddy’s Run FPS Reliability/Redundant Service—$23,610,000 (FY22-FY26) • Pond Creek FPS Reliability (Pump Replacements) —$17,100,000 (FY24-FY25) • Upper Mill Creek FPS Capacity/Reliability/Redundant Service—$49,040,000 (FY27-FY31) • Lower Mill Creek FPS Reliability/Standby Generator—$13,450,000 (FY27-FY31)

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 73 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

• 27th Street FPS Capacity/Reliability/Standby Generator—$12,020,000 (FY27-FY31) • 4th Street FPS Capacity/Redundant Service—$12,920,000 (FY27-FY31) • Shawnee Park FPS Capacity/Reliability/Redundant Service—$42,730,000 (FY29-FY33) • Riverport FPS Reliability/Standby Generator—$6,110,000 (FY32-FY36) • Bingham Way FPS Capacity/Reliability/Standby Generator—$6,590,000 (FY32-FY36) • Pond Creek FPS Reliability/Redundant Service—$65,310,000 (FY34-Thereafter) It was also recommended that an allocation for Annual Flood Pumping Stations Equipment Renewals and Replacements be added to better facilitate future key equipment replacements. This allocation provides flexibility to perform needed flood pumping equipment renewals and/or replacements as necessary. Areas where this allocation could be useful range from minor component repairs to whole replacements of pumps, motors, electrical switchgear, generators, and other critical equipment. The Robert J. Starkey FPS is an example where such an allocation would be useful. In addition to its flood pumping obligations, the Robert J. Starkey FPS operates continuously as a sanitary pumping station. Continuous operation deteriorates these pumps at a quicker rate than at other FPSs, necessitating significant repairs or replacements every 5 years. A $19,000,000 (FY18-FY36) allocation (that is, $1,000,000 annually) in 2016 dollars is recommended for Annual Flood Pumping Stations Equipment Renewals and Replacements throughout the ORFPS. A full schedule of the recommended ORFPS capital improvement projects and annual allocations is included in Appendix 4B.

Volume 4, Chapter 3 Page 74 of 74 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

VOLUME 4—OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 4 FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES

4.1 REPORTS, STUDIES, AND PLANS

Numerous reports, studies, and plans discuss the various components of the ORFPS. The documents applicable to the floodwalls and levees are summarized in the following sections. Results from these documents were used to develop projects prioritized for inclusion in this Facility Plan.

4.1.1 Original Drawings and Specifications

The original USACE drawings and specifications for the ORFPS were produced in response to the FCA and its amendments. The drawings and specifications for the floodwalls and levees include the following: • Louisville, KY, Flood Protection As-Builts (USACE, unpubished, various dates) • Southwestern Jefferson County, KY, Local Flood Protection As-Builts (USACE, unpublished, various dates) These documents were reviewed as part of this Facility Plan and were found to have varying levels of accuracy and completeness. While these documents do provide useful information on the layout of the floodwalls and levees, they do not contain any information on proposed CIPs as related to the ORFPS.

4.1.2 Planning Documents

Planning documents were reviewed to determine whether there are existing plans for improvements or changes to floodwall and levee systems. Previous inspections were reviewed to determine whether the floodwall or levee components had any continuing problems over time. The following design and construction guidance documents were reviewed to determine whether floodwalls and levees meet current criteria: • Louisville and Jefferson County Floodplain Management Plan (MSD, 2001) • 2002 Revised Five-Year Action Plan (MSD, 2002) • Louisville Metro Multi-Hazard Mitigation Five-Year Action Plan (Louisville Metro, 2011) • MSD Strategic Business Plan 2014-18 (MSD, 2014) • MSD’s FY15, FY16, and FY17 CIPs The MSD Strategic Business Plan 2014-2018 (MSD, 2014) recognizes the need for risk-based decision- making. Under Strategy 5, Develop Disaster Response and Business Continuity Plan, the following initiative is listed: Conduct a comprehensive risk and vulnerability assessment of MSD operations and infrastructure assets using industry best practices. The Louisville Metro Multi-Hazard Mitigation Five-Year Action Plan (Louisville Metro, 2011) lists risk assessment as an activity under the flood hazard. A grant was received and progress made on this

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 1 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

initiative. Investigation is needed to determine how to assess the total risk of the system; a complete risk assessment is recommended. Under the mitigation category “Property Protection and Structural Projects,” the Louisville and Jefferson County Floodplain Management Plan (MSD, 2001) and the 2002 Revised Five-Year Action Plan (MSD, 2002) mentions that there will be support by way of matching funds to be provided for large flood-control projects in cooperation with the USACE. Risk evaluation will help to determine the precedence and priority of projects to gain the greatest reduction in risk. The FY15 and FY16 CIPs were reviewed to determine planned projects involving floodwalls and levees. It is apparent from the proposed spending plan that continued maintenance is planned for the floodwalls and levees. An example is yearly budgeted activities for floodwall structure repair, floodwall concrete repair and sealing, and floodwall joint repair. This level of maintenance is assumed to have occurred in the past. Based on this level of maintenance, a “Minimally Acceptable” rating is likely to be the outcome of the next annual and periodic inspections. Documented issues that persist result in the levee system being rated as “Minimally Acceptable.” Additional efforts could be made to improve this rating to the “Acceptable” level.

4.1.3 Other Reports, Studies, and Plans

A review of the various existing studies, reports, and plans was conducted. The following documents were reviewed: • Engineer Manual (EM) 1110-2-2502 Retaining and Floodwalls (USACE, 1989) • EM 1110-2-1913 Design and Construction of Levees (USACE, 2000) • Evaluation of Flood Pump Stations (Strand Associates, Inc. 2004) • Louisville Metro Floodplain Management Ordinance (Louisville Metro, 2006) • Phase 1 I-Wall Study and Phase 2 I-Wall Study (USACE, 2006a and 2007a) • 2010 Periodic Inspection Report (Stantec, 2011) • Gate Evaluation Reports 1-150 (including maps, schematics, and infrastructure and flood protection [IFP] reports) (Heritage, 2011a) • Infrastructure and Flood ProtectionFlood Gate Evaluation (Heritage, 2011b) • Operations and Maintenance Flood Protection Works (Manuals 1 and 2; USACE, 2013a and 2013b) • Metro Operations Gate Evaluation Report (Heritage, 2012a) • Top-of-the-Wall Evaluation (Heritage, 2012b) • Annual Inspection (USACE, 2006b, 2007b, 2008c, 2009a, and 2013c) • Design Manual (MSD, 2015a), Standard Drawings (MSD, 2013), and AutoCAD Sample Drawings (MSD, 2015b) • Interim Policy for Determining Eligibility Status of Flood Risk Management Projects for the Rehabilitation Program (Levee Certification Report; USACE, 2014)

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 2 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

• National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual (FEMA, 2014b) • Levee System Evaluation—National Flood Insurance Program (USACE, 2015) • Guidance on Risk-Informed Decision-Making for Levees (USACE, unpublished) • Periodic Inspection Policy and Checklist (USACE, unpublished)

2010 Periodic Inspection Report

Periodic inspections for levee systems are intended to confirm the inspected structures and facilities are continually maintained and operated as necessary, to obtain maximum benefits. USACE’s Rehabilitation Inspection Program (RIP) can provide funding for the levee system should it become damaged by a flood event, but a rating of “Acceptable” or “Minimally Acceptable” is necessary to remain active in the program. The 2010 Periodic Inspection Report (Stantec, 2011) reviewed 850 of the ORFPS’s various components and from that identified only 120 floodwall and levee components as “Unacceptable.” A summary of these findings include the following: • The levee system has an overall rating of “Minimally Acceptable.” USACE defines “Minimally Acceptable” as follows: The system is Active in the RIP during the time that it takes to make needed corrections. Active systems are eligible for rehabilitation assistance. However, if the sponsor does not present USACE with proof that serious deficiencies (which had previously resulted in a Minimally Acceptable system rating) were corrected within the established timeframe, then the system will become Inactive in the RIP. • Earthen levees were observed to be functional; however, several areas of unwanted vegetation and encroachments were observed. No slope stability issues were noted during the inspection. Several areas of missing sod cover and/or active erosion were noted. Depressions and rutting greater than 6 inches deep were noted in some locations. • Of the 22 original relief wells, only 13 are still in service (seven at the Paddy’s Run FPS and six at the Pond Creek FPS). How many are still operable is unknown; the other nine original relief wells were associated with a portion of the levee that is no longer in service since the Southwest Extension was constructed. Relief wells were observed to need pump testing, maintenance, and/or repair. USACE recommended that additional studies be performed at the Paddy’s Run and Pond Creek FPSs to determine whether relief wells are needed. • Of the 30 original piezometers, only nine are currently operational. • Floodwalls appeared to be functional. Some unwanted vegetation and encroachments were noted. Some surface spalling and cracking was observed. Monolith joints were noted to require resealing. The 2010 Periodic Inspection Report rated the following items less than acceptable: • Unwanted vegetation growth on levees (Unacceptable)—Trees were noted to be present near the toe of the levee in the Louisville Reach near the Beargrass Creek FPS, 18th Street, and

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 3 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Northwestern Parkway. Trees were present near the toe of the levee in the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach that is adjacent to the railroad tracks near Station (Sta.) 415+00, adjacent to the railroad tracks near Sta. 455+00, and near Sta. 490+00. • Unwanted vegetation growth by floodwalls (Unacceptable)—Trees were growing adjacent to the floodwall in the Louisville Reach at Sta. 62+00. It was noted that these were scheduled to be removed within 120 days of the inspection. • Levee encroachments (Minimally Acceptable)—Several utility poles were found to be within 15 feet of the levee toe. The report mentions that an evaluation of the utility poles will be performed by USACE. • Levee and floodwall closure structures (Unacceptable)—All closure vaults were said to have been inventoried in the past year. A schedule was provided for trial assemblies every 3 years as specified by the O&M Manuals (USACE, 2013a and 2013b). • Animal control on levees (Minimally Acceptable)—Animal burrows were observed in the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach near the Riverport (Port Road) closure structure and near the drainage structure at Sta. 766+18. • Floodwall concrete surfaces (Minimally Acceptable)—A small cracked area was noted near the Pond Creek FPS. • Tilting, sliding, or settlement of concrete floodwall structures (Minimally Acceptable)— Misalignment of six floodwall monoliths near Sta. 150+00 upstream of the 11th Street closure structure was found. • Floodwall monolith joints (Minimally Acceptable)—The monolith joint material was deteriorating and needs to be repaired or replaced to prevent spalling and cracking during freeze-thaw cycles. MSD is currently replacing monolith material in small increments. MSD then provided USACE with a plan to address the items that were found unacceptable and provided documentation once these items were corrected.

2011 Infrastructure and Flood Protection Flood Gate Evaluation

The 2011 IFP Flood Gate Evaluation (Heritage, 2011) recommended repairs to 20 gates and elimination of two other gates. These projects should be pursued by MSD to completion. The LSE report was compared against the findings of the 2011 IFP Flood Gate Evaluation and projects were evaluated for repair and replacement.

2013 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Annual Inspection

The 2013 USACE Annual Inspection resulted in a “Minimally Acceptable” rating. AOCs are similar to those identified in the previous USACE Annual Inspection (2009a) and 2010 Periodic Inspection Report, including: • Unwanted vegetation growth, sod cover, and encroachments • Erosion and bank caving, settlement, and depressions and rutting

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 4 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

• Underseepage relief wells and toe drainage systems • Deterioration in monolith joints and seepage

2015 Levee System Evaluation

The LSE provided a condition assessment of the floodwalls and levees that make up the ORFPS. An affirmative LSE was determined indicating the ORFPS has met the requirements and the levee system can be reasonably expected to reduce the risk of flooding with less than a 1-percent annual chance of exceedance. The LSE noted areas of concern along the ORFPS including: unwanted vegetation, encroachments, monolith joint repair, concrete crack repair, replacement of floodgates, repair to corroded metal works on floodgates, and removal of pipe blockages. The USACE and MSD team recommended corrective actions for the floodwalls and levees; but no costs were estimated for the recommended improvements.

4.2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

A field site visit was performed during May 2015. This investigation confirmed the findings of the document review and identified any other potential projects not covered in those documents. The findings of the field investigations are discussed in the following sections.

4.2.1 Levees and Crossings

Field investigations were performed near Mellwood Avenue, Story Avenue, 26th Street, Highway 44 closure at Dixie Highway, Floodgate 143, Johnstown Road Crossing, Dreamland Road, throughout Chickasaw Park, and crossings at Bethany Lane, Johnstown Road, and Dreamland Road. In general, the earthen levee sections are in good condition with a healthy stand of vegetative cover. There were areas of erosion or rutting, caused in most instances by wheeled vehicles, but they were minor in nature.

4.2.2 Floodwalls

Field investigations were performed near the 7th Street Closure, Frankfort Avenue, and 10th Street FPS; between 11th and 12th Streets; and the north end of Chickasaw Park. In general, the floodwall is considered to be in good condition. There are areas of concrete spalling (that is, near the 7th Street and 26th Street closures), but these areas are minor in nature. Areas were also observed where the joint sealant material was deteriorating, but these areas were not widespread and considered to be minor in nature. There are areas of noticeable maintenance, including concrete spall repairs and graffiti cover, indicating that the floodwall maintenance level has been adequate to date.

4.2.3 Floodgates

Field investigations were performed at Floodgates 18, 60, 61, 125, 143, and 146. These floodgates were found to be in good condition. The inlets were serviceable and, while there was some debris noted on racks, it was not considered to be excessive. Staff expressed concerns about operating floodgates during

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 5 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

power outages and suggest that generators could be installed at key locations. Another feasible option would be MSD obtaining portable generators, either by purchase or rental agreement, to accommodate floodgate installations during power outages.

4.2.4 Closures

Field investigations were performed at closures near Bingham Way at KFC Yum! Center, Louisville Slugger Field, Preston Street, 6th Street, 7th Street, Ohio Street, Story Avenue, Mellwood Avenue, 11th Street, 26th Street, 27th Street, and Highway 44 (with vault). The closures are in good condition with only minor spalling around the seals. The removable closure structures were not observed, but the recent LSE indicated that the structures were acceptable. The Bingham Way closure was inspected although it is outside the protection of the Louisville Reach as defined by USACE. The Bingham Way closure needs a major overhaul; this project has been designed, but MSD is waiting on the Ohio River Bridges Project to complete construction before moving this project forward. Additional concerns were raised about the problems associated with the storage vaults. Many vaults are arranged such that the structural members needed to close off floodwall openings are physically difficult to retrieve. Some vaults, namely the ones at Slugger Field, 6th Street, Muhammad Ali Center, and 7th Street have been torn down and the structural members are now being stored at a central location on trailers designated for each location. Other vaults are being modified to allow for better access.

4.2.5 Interconnections with Existing Structures

Field investigations were performed at the Beargrass Creek, 10th Street, Upper Mill Creek, and Lower Mill Creek FPSs. The interconnections of the earthen levee with the floodwall and other structures, including FPSs, appear to be in good condition. No erosion or rutting was evident immediately adjacent to the structures. Further analysis of this is currently being performed by USACE.

4.3 CURRENT REGULATORY DRIVERS

The following sections elaborate on current regulatory drivers specific to the floodwalls and levees. These are provided in addition to those regulatory drivers presented in Volume 4, Chapter 1.

4.3.1 Current Design Criteria

The LSE analyzed the floodwall and levee components to the 1-percent annual chance exceedance (100-year) flood elevation, with 90-percent assurance loading, and used the following current design guidance from the USACE: • EM 1110-1-1804, Geotechnical Investigations ENG 1836 and 1836A (USACE, 2001a) • Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-569, Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage USACE, 2005a) • EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams (USACE, 1993)

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 6 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

• EM 1110-2-1902, Slope Stability (USACE, 2003) • EM 1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees (USACE, 2000) • EM 1110-2-2100, Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (USACE, 2005b) • EM 1110-2-2502, Retaining and Flood Walls (USACE, 1989) • EM 1110-2-2705, Structural Design of Closure Structures for Local Flood Protection Projects (USACE, 1994) • Engineer Circular (EC) 1110-2-6066, Design or Evaluation of I-Walls (USACE, 2008b) The loading that was considered during original design was the 1937 flood elevation plus approximately 3 feet; this would be a water level to the protection top. This original design loading is greater than the 1-percent event loading in the 2015 LSE analyses. EM 1110-2-2502, Section I, Loading Conditions, paragraph 4-4b, requires that structural stability of inland floodwalls be checked with water to the top of the wall. Analysis of the system, using original design load and current criteria, could result in additional projects needed to ensure that the system meets current criteria.

4.3.2 Hydraulic Steel Structures

Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-8157, Responsibility for Hydraulic Steel Structures (USACE, 2009b) and EM 1110-2-6054, Inspection, Evaluation, and Repair of Hydraulic Steel Structures (USACE, 2001b) define hydraulic steel structures (HSSs) as structures that control or regulate water. These documents apply to the design, fabrication, operation, inspection, and repair of all HSSs. HSSs include bulkheads, stoplogs, certain steel components of pumping plants, flood protection gates, outlet works gates, and lifting beams used for installing other HSSs. Detailed guidance on types and frequency of inspections of HSSs, including inspection planning and documentation, is provided in ER 1110-2-8157. The focus of the mandated engineering inspections is to evaluate the HSS structural adequacy, rather than just the general maintenance condition. For all HSS with fracture critical members (that is, members whose failure would be expected to result in collapse or partial collapse of the structure), an in-depth engineering inspection is required. This in-depth inspection requires nondestructive testing of all welds on all fracture critical members where failure of those members would result in probable loss of life or large economic losses. According to ER 1110-2-8157, USACE experience with past HSS inspections and evaluations have indicated that a significant number of HSSs at civil works projects showed signs of distress and had deficient welds requiring repair. In some instances, complete replacement of the structure was necessary. Initial and continuing compliance with all current HSS regulations is necessary for the safe operation of the project and may require more time, manpower, and funding than originally anticipated in the current maintenance budget cycle. Previous MSD inspection reports do not indicate the need for a significant quantity of repairs and/or replacements of HSSs. However, the documentation of these HSS inspections did not detail either the identification of fracture critical members and their associated critical welds, as defined in ER 1110-2-8157, or any subsequent in-depth weld inspection. The extent of needed HSS repairs beyond

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 7 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

that originally identified will be difficult to determine prior to identification and inspection of fracture critical members.

4.4 GAP ANALYSIS

To define projects for alternative development, evaluation, and prioritization, a gap analysis was completed by comparing existing planning and studies against identified changes in condition or status.

4.4.1 Regulatory Forecast

As discussed in Volume 4, Chapter 1, future changes in regulations governing the ORFPS are expected to be minimal. Conversations with the applicable agencies, literature reviews, and discussions with others involved in this field have identified no known or probable changes in regulations or new rules that would require MSD to complete new projects to comply.

4.4.2 Planned Projects Not Requiring Change

Review of the existing studies and field investigations resulted in a list of projects that are still considered appropriate when compared with current regulations for flood protection systems (Table 4.4-1). Many items are not expensive and could be addressed through maintenance activities, but because they replace or extend the life of facilities, they could also be bundled into a CIP project to address them all at one time and establish an allocation for continued future maintenance. The FY16 and FY17 CIPs were reviewed to determine planned projects that involve floodwalls and levees. Projects scheduled to occur during the CIP’s first year are approved to move forward. The remaining 4 years of projects and their budgets are listed in the CIP for planning purposes. This review made it apparent that continued maintenance is planned for the following floodwall and levee projects: • Levee Trail Repair and Repave—$500,000 (FY17, FY18, FY19, and FY20) • Paddy’s Run Relief Well Study and Remediation—$100,000 (FY17) • Gate 81 Replacement—$335,000 (FY17) • Gate 102 Replacement—$320,000 (FY17) • 10th Street Swing Gate Closure—$400,000 (FY17 and FY18) • Canal Street Floodwall—$1,500,000 (FY20 and FY21) • Concrete Panel Repairs—$235,000 (FY21) • Truss Anchorage Load Test—$85,000 (FY16) • Floodwall Closures and Vaults—$1,000,000 (FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21) • Floodwall Gates and Actuators—$500,000 (FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21) • Floodwall and Levee Repair and Toe Drains—$1,250,000 (FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21) • Floodwall and Levee Repair and Light Maintenance—$1,250,000 (FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21)

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 8 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.4-1. Planned Projects Not Requiring Change

Project Name Project Description Gate 2 is a sluice gate shown on Drawing 604-12, 1/100. This gate is scheduled for complete Replace Flood replacement. Based on the 2011 IFP Gate Evaluation, this gate has a failure rating of 1 (1 Gate 2 being the most severe) and a frequency of loading rating of 3 (1 being the most severe). A gate failure would result in flood protection failure. Gate 3A is a sluice gate located on Drawing 604-12, 7/88. This gate is scheduled for complete Replace Flood replacement. Based on the 2011 IFP Gate Evaluation, this gate has a failure rating of 2 (1 Gate 3A being the most severe) and a frequency of loading rating of 3 (1 being the most severe). A gate failure would result in flood protection failure. Gate 71 is a sluice gate located on Drawing 607-12, 3/18. This gate is scheduled for replacement of guide rails for a projected cost of $300,000 (FY2016). Based on the 2011 IFP Replace Flood Gate Evaluation, this gate has a failure rating of 1 (1 being the most severe) and a frequency Gate 71 of loading rating of 3 (1 being the most severe). A gate failure would result in flood protection failure. The 2011 IFP Gate Evaluation recommended repairing the concrete structure on six gates (29, 39, 9, 36, 54, and 16C). The projected costs to repair vary from $5,000 to $35,000 per Repair Gate gate, with a total repair cost of $167,000. Future costs if these repairs are not accomplished is Structure projected at $280,000 (2011). Gates 29 and 39 are rated by the 2011 IFP Gate Evaluation Concrete survey as 2 for failure (1 being the most severe). This project also includes repairing the exposed rebar in the sewer pipe 34 feet downstream of Gate 118. Replace Flood The 2011 IFP Gate Evaluation recommended replacing components on four gates (82, 15, 16, Gate and 36). The projected cost for replacement is $80,000 (2011). Components Repair The 2011 IFP Gate Evaluation recommended repairing the metalworks on eight gates (90, 94, Corroded 109, 110, 6, 24, 111, and 49). The projected cost for gate repairs and associated metalwork is Metalworks on $172,000 (2011). Failure to repair the gates could result in the need for total replacement, Flood Gates which is projected to cost $302,000 (2011).

4.4.3 Planned Projects Requiring Change

No previously planned projects were identified as needing to be changed.

4.4.4 New Projects

Review of the planned and defined projects and current regulations resulted in the following “gaps” in the projects needed to bring the system into compliance:

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 9 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

• Comprehensive risk assessment—This project involves a systemwide risk assessment of the floodwall and levee. The results should aid in prioritizing annual allocation projects from a risk- based perspective. • HSSs inspection—This project will involve inspecting HSS and repairs to aluminum-riveted trusses, steel-riveted trusses, steel-welded trusses, sheeting panels, and miscellaneous purlins, braces, posts, and walkway panels. The 46 removable roadway and railroad closures, ten steel bulkhead manway closures, and welded bulkheads at three FPSs (5th Street, 10th Street, and 17th Street) are all HSS. The embedded anchorages of removable closure structure trusses and posts are very susceptible to corrosion damage that may not be apparent from visual inspections. All embedded anchorages should be load-tested to assure structural adequacy and be repaired or replaced, as needed. • Earthen levee maintenance and encroachments—Earthen levees were observed to be functional; however, several encroachments were observed and should be removed to improve levee stability and bring it into compliance. No specific budget item exists for this project; this should be budgeted annually. This is a driver for the levee system being rated as “Minimally Acceptable” and needs to be improved. • Earthen levee maintenance and repair of active erosion, missing sod, depressions and Rutting, and animal burrows—Earthen levees were observed to be functional; however, several areas of missing sod cover and/or active erosion were also noted. Depressions and rutting greater than 6 inches deep were noted in several locations. These issues should be repaired to improve levee ratings and stability. This should be budgeted annually at a more robust rate than in the past. This project is a driver that contributes to the levee system being rated as “Minimally Acceptable.” • Earthen levee maintenance and relief wells pump testing, maintenance, and repair—In the findings of the 2010 Periodic Inspection Report, relief wells were observed to need pump testing, maintenance, and/or repair. The inspection noted that of the 22 wells installed originally, only six were operable. This element was rated unsatisfactory in the 2010 Periodic Inspection and contributes to the overall rating for the levee system of Minimally Acceptable. There was a study completed and maintenance performed. • Piezometer repairs—The 2010 Periodic inspection Report noted that of the 30 piezometers originally installed, only nine were operational at the time of the inspection. Nonoperational piezometers were investigated and maintenance performed. • Floodwall maintenance and unwanted vegetation and encroachments—Floodwalls appeared to be functional, but some unwanted vegetation and encroachments were noted and should be removed to improve stability and bring into compliance. • Floodwall maintenance and surface spalling and cracking—Some surface spalling and cracking was observed during the 2010 Periodic Inspection Report. Concrete surface spalling and cracking should be removed down to sound concrete and repaired as appropriate. • Floodwall maintenance and monolith joint repairs—Monolith joints were noted to require resealing. The monolith joint material is deteriorating and needs to be repaired or replaced to

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 10 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

prevent spalling and cracking during freeze-thaw cycles. MSD is currently replacing monolith material in small increments; this initiative should be continued. • Levee embankments and unwanted vegetation removal—Trees were noted to be present near the toe of the levee in the Louisville Reach near the Beargrass Creek FPS, 18th Street, and Northwestern Parkway. Trees were present near the toe of the levee in the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach adjacent to the railroad tracks near Sta. 415+00, adjacent to the railroad tracks near Sta. 455+00, and near Sta. 490+00. Tree removal will bring the levee into compliance and should be completed. Tree and vegetation removal is an ongoing process and has been adequately funded in the past. • Levee embankments and floodwalls and closure structures—All closure vaults were inventoried in the past year. A schedule was provided for trial assemblies every 3 years as specified by the O&M Manual. Documentation of trial assemblies is being kept. • Floodwall concrete surfaces crack repair—A small cracked area was noted near the Pond Creek FPS in the Southwestern Jefferson County Reach and should be repaired. • Floodwall monolith repair and tilting, sliding, or settlement of concrete structures minimally acceptable—There were some misalignment of six floodwall monoliths near Sta. 150+00 upstream of the 11th Street closure structure that should be repaired. • Investigate pipe defects and slipline—Pipe defects reported in the LSE should be inspected. Five gates (59, 66, 21, 43, and 136C) were discovered to have holes or cracks in the pipes; these should be further investigated to determine the severity of the defects. Based on the findings, either monitoring should continue through the surveillance program already established or lining the pipes should be considered. • Pipe blockages removal—The LSE noted four pipes that were severely blocked (75 feet downstream of Gate 69, 24 feet downstream of inlet OH15299 near Gate 75A, 4 feet upstream of inlet 51403B near Gate 76, and 50 percent loss of cross-section 10 feet upstream of Gate 76). These should be cleared as a part of routine maintenance. • 27th Street closure sealing—The 27th Street closure is the first closure to be installed due to the sill elevation; this means that it is the most frequently installed closure. Discussions with MSD revealed the 27th Street closure is also one of the more difficult closures to install due its configuration. The LSE recommended sealing this closure to eliminate an additional opening in the levee system. This recommendation should be completed. • Closure upgrade and replacement—Routine maintenance and upgrade for closure structures should be initiated; this will include repairing miscellaneous concrete items in the sills and abutments as detailed in the LSE and USACE annual and periodic inspections.

4.5 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

Projects identified in Section 4.4 were developed into alternatives based on the impacts of increased frequency for extreme storms and the level of protection ranges identified in Volume 4, Chapter 2. This section summarizes the alternative development and evaluation for the ORFPS floodwall and levee

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 11 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

component. Many projects identified in the gap analysis were incorporated into alternatives that may combine several individual projects or similar efforts to streamline project planning and budgeting and to enhance potential economies-of-scale. Level of protection ratings are assumed to not apply to the floodwall, levee, or their associated closures and floodgates, because they are intended to protect Jefferson County from rising waters on the Ohio River and are not affected by FPS capacities. The alternatives are assumed to cover all level of protection scenarios. As noted in other sections, USACE has determined the current height and condition of the floodwall and levee meets its standards. Therefore, the focus of the following projects is on maintaining the system integrity and identifying potential weaknesses or risks that could result in compromise if corrective actions are not taken. As the projects are focused on delivering the lowest life-cycle costs and need to be initiated at certain times to be successful, they are not subject to scheduling using the prioritization system. Therefore, benefits and costs and risk-reduction scoring was not conducted for these projects (see Volume 1, Chapter 3 for more information on the prioritization process). The floodwall and levee projects have been organized into two categories: (1) projects that will occur once or nonannually and (2) annual repair and replacement allocations. The intent of this approach is to account for planned projects to address known issues early in the 20-year planning window and then fund dedicated budgets to maintain the floodwall and levee as needs arise, or are identified for the remaining years.

4.5.1 One-Time or Nonannual Projects

Table 4.4-2 summarizes the projects that are intended to address specific, identified needs that were either previously planned or developed as part of the gap analysis process. All costs are presented using 2016 dollars.

4.5.2 Annual Repair and Replacement Allocations

Table 4.4-3 summarizes the annual repair and replacement allocations that were identified through the planning process. These allocations were developed based on existing capital improvement plans, projected needs, and condition assessments performed along the floodwall and levee. All costs are presented using 2016 dollars. These values are recommended to be updated annually for changes in inflation, material costs, and labor costs. These allocations are planned to begin in year 1 of the 20-year CIP and performed in addition to the projects identified in Table 4.4-2. A full schedule of the recommended ORFPS CIPs and annual allocations is included in Appendix 4B.

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 12 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.4-2. One-Time or Nonannual Projects

Planning-Level Project Name Project Description Cost (2016 Dollars) Concrete Panel This project will complete repairs identified in the 2012 Top-of-the-Wall $235,000 Repairs Inspection Report. The repairs for the floodwall panels are separated into two categories, concrete surface repairs and full joint repairs. Gate Study and Seven components are planned for this project: Inspection of Flood $1,640,000 Repair or Protection Penetrations, Levee Gate/Outfall Study, Gate 145 Electric Replacement Service and Actuator Replacement, Gate 129A and B Replacement, Gate 147 Bank Stabilization, Gate 30 Repair, and Gates 6 and 20 Replacement. Canal Street This project will replace a section of the existing floodwall when LG&E $1,500,000 Floodwall demolishes one of their buildings, which serves as a section of the floodwall across that property. HSSs This project will inspect HSSs and repairs to aluminum-riveted trusses, $245,000 steel-riveted trusses, steel-welded trusses, sheeting panels, and miscellaneous purlins, braces, posts, and walkway panels. This is required per USACE directive. Risk Assessment This project involves a systemwide risk assessment of the floodwall and $750,000 levee. The results should aid in prioritizing annual budget projects from a risk-based perspective. Truss Anchorage This project will require a static load test be conducted to verify the $85,000 Load Test structural adequacy of the embedded anchors. At each closure location where movable trusses are used to support the sheeting panels, the river side of the truss is attached to an embedded anchorage. A failure of any one loaded truss anchorage would probably lead to a failure of the closure. The embedded anchorages are susceptible to corrosion damage that may not be apparent from visual inspections. Gate 81 $335,000 This project will replace Gate 81 at the Shawnee Park FPS. Replacement Gate 102 $320,000 This project will replace Gate 102 at the Western Parkway FPS. Replacement

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 13 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Table 4.4-3. Annual Repair and Replacement Allocations

Allocation Average Annual Total Allocation Allocation Description Allocation over 20 Years Name (2016 Dollars) (2016 Dollars) Annual Closure $250,000 $5,000,000 These projects would include annual repairs and/or Repair and replacements to a portion of the trusses, sheeting Replacement panels, and walkways. Allocation Annual Floodwall Heavy maintenance projects for floodwalls and $975,000 $19,500,000 and Levee Heavy levees would include corrugated metal pipe Maintenance replacement, toe drain access repairs, trail Allocation repair/repave, levee gate repair/replace, gate automation (if possible), painting floodwall and trusses, floodwall structure repair, floodwall joint repair, and floodwall concrete repair and sealing. Annual Floodwall Light maintenance projects for floodwalls and levees $500,000 $10,000,000 and Levee Light would include minor repairs to gate structures, Maintenance floodwall concrete surface crack repairs, unwanted Allocation vegetation removal, surface spalling and cracking, encroachments, piezometer repair, relief well pump testing, maintenance and/or repair, repair of active erosion, missing sod and depressions/rutting, and animal burrows. Annual Gate These projects would include annual repairs and/or $347,000 $6,933,378 Repair and replacements of the existing gates, drives (actuators, Replacement gearboxes, hand-wheels), stems, and automation, if Allocation possible.

Volume 4, Chapter 4 Page 14 of 14 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20-Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

VOLUME 4—OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 5 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN

5.1 CURRENT SITUATION

The purpose of the ORFPS EPP (MSD, 2012) is to identify MSD’s response to flood protection emergency situations or system failures and to define communication protocols with regard to adverse conditions that may occur during flooding events. The protocols are intended to enhance the communication between various departments and divisions within MSD and appropriate outside agencies. The EPP acknowledges that an evacuation plan to be enacted during a flood emergency is the responsibility of other agencies within the Louisville Metro. MSD’s role during an evacuation is to serve as a technical advisor to those agencies; providing information relative to flood-prone areas, status of flood protection equipment, and historical information that may help predict flooding scenarios. These roles and responsibilities will be practiced through planned tabletop exercises and discussions. In 2013, MSD received a grant through the USACE Silver Jackets Program for an enhancement to the current EPP. Modeling was performed to evaluate the impacts of catastrophic flooding because of failures of the Louisville Metro’s flood protection system. Once the surface modeling was completed by USACE, MSD projected how the CSS and separate sanitary and drainage systems would convey the flood waters. Once this work was completed, an emergency tabletop exercise was facilitated with 19 local, state, federal, and private entities.

5.2 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS

No capital construction projects were identified within the EPP; however, the EPP did recommend future planning efforts, engaging outside agencies, staff training, and revisiting the communication plan on an as-needed basis to maintain current staff titles and contact information. To continue receiving credit for the EPP in the Community Rating System, the EPP must be updated periodically, and MSD must be included with any updates of the plan. For budgeting purposes, MSD should plan on spending approximately $30,000 in 2016 dollars every 4 years, for assistance in updating the EPP. MSD anticipates developing detailed inundation mapping, including FPS failure scenarios and levee overtopping and procedures to determine impacted areas because of a breach. This may become an increasingly important tool considering the added potential effects of more frequent extreme storms.

Volume 4, Chapter 5 Page 1 of 1 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 |Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

VOLUME 4—OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM

REFERENCES

CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M). 2015a. Analysis of Historical Precipitation Intensity‐Duration Frequency for Jefferson County, Kentucky. Final Technical Memorandum prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Unpublished. May 31. CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M). 2015b. Analysis of Projected Changes in Precipitation IDF Values Based on Climate Change Projections. Final Technical Memorandum prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Unpublished. May 31. Engineered Solutions, Inc. 2014. MSD Flood Pumping Station Generator Analysis. Prepared by Tori Oberhausen. Prepared for Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. August 29. Executive Order (EO) No. 11988 of May 24, 1977—Floodplain Management. Federal Register Volume 42, Issue 26951. Available at https://www.archives.gov/federal‐register/codification/executive‐ order/11988.html. Executive Order (EO) No. 13690 of January 30, 2015—Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the‐press‐office/2015/01/30/executive‐order‐establishing‐ federal‐flood‐risk‐management‐standard‐and‐. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2001. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 65.2(b)—Definitions. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR‐2010‐title44‐ vol1/pdf/CFR‐2010‐title44‐vol1‐sec65‐2.pdf. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2011a. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 65.10(C)—Mapping of areas protected by levee systems, Operation plans and criteria. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR‐2011‐title44‐vol1/CFR‐2011‐title44‐vol1‐sec65‐10. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2011b. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 65.10(D)—Mapping of areas protected by levee systems, Maintenance plans and criteria. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR‐2011‐title44‐vol1/CFR‐2011‐title44‐vol1‐ sec65‐10. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. The Biggert‐Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. Available at https://www.fema.gov/vi/media‐library/assets/documents/31946. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2014a. The Homeowner’s Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. Available at https://www.fema.gov/media‐library/assets/documents/93074. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014b. National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual. FIA‐15/2013, OMB No. 1660‐0022, expires December 31, 2016.

Volume 4, References Page 1 of 6 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 |Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

GRW Engineers, Inc. 1989. Evaluation of Mechanical, Electrical, and Structural Components. Prepared for Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Heritage Engineering, LLC (Heritage). 2011a. Gate Evaluation Reports 1‐150. Prepared for Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Heritage Engineering, LLC (Heritage). 2011b. Infrastructure and Flood Protection Flood Gate Evaluation. Prepared for Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Heritage Engineering, LLC (Heritage). 2012a. Metro Operations Gate Evaluation Report. Prepared for Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Heritage Engineering, LLC (Heritage). 2012b. Top‐of‐the‐Wall Evaluation. Prepared for Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Heritage Engineering, LLC (Heritage). 2016. Analysis of Flood Pumping Station for the Facilities Plan Team. Draft Memorandum. Prepared for Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Unpublished. January 13. Louisville‐Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro). 2006. Louisville Metro Floodplain Management Ordinance. Ordinance No. 125, Series 2005. Amended in 2015. December. Louisville‐Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro). 2011. Louisville Metro Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Five‐Year Action Plan. Appendix 4.4 of the Louisville Metro Multi‐Hazards Mitigation Plan. Available at https://louisvilleky.gov/sites/default/files/emametrosafe/appendix_4_4_five‐ year_action_plan_final.pdf. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2001. Louisville and Jefferson County Floodplain Management Plan. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/programs/crssite/fpmp.html. June 25. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2002. 2002 Revised Five‐Year Action Plan. Appendix to the Louisville and Jefferson County Floodplain Management Plan. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/programs/crssite/2002.REVISEDactionplan_1.pdf. September. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2010. Stormwater Management Master Plan. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/programs/crssite/SMMP/ WATERSHED%20MASTER%20PLAN.pdf. August. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2012. Ohio River Flood Protection System Emergency Preparedness Plan. August 12. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2013. Standard Drawings. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/insidemsd/pdfs/MSD_Standard_Drawings_06172013.pdf. June 17. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2014. MSD Strategic Business Plan 2014‐18. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/pdfs/MSD‐SBP‐2014‐18.pdf.

Volume 4, References Page 2 of 6 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 |Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2014. Flood Pump Station Generator Analysis Report. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2015a. Design Manual. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/insidemsd/pdfs/MSD_Design_Manual_2009%20‐%20REVISED%2010‐ 22‐2015.pdf. Published August 2, 2010. Last revised October 22, 2015. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2015b. AutoCAD Sample Drawings. Chapter 4 of the Design Manual. Available at http://www.msdlouky.org/insidemsd/pdfs/2009_DM_SD_SPECS/MSD_Design_Manual_2009.pd f. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). 2016. Proposed Capital Improvement Plan for FY17‐FY21. May 23. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). Undated. Flood Pump Station Standard Operation Procedures. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District and Louisville‐Jefferson County Metro Government (MSD and Louisville Metro). 1986. Storm Water Drainage Interlocal Agreement of 1986. National Committee on Levee Safety, 2009. Recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program. Available at http://www.leveesafety.org/docs/NCLS‐Recommendation‐ Report_012009_DRAFT.pdf. January 15. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 1955. NOAA 1955 edition of Technical Paper No. 25 (TP‐25). Available at http://floodsafety.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/Technical_papers/TP25.pdf. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 1961. Technical Paper No. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States—For Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from I to 100 Years. Available at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/PF_documents/TechnicalPaper_No40.pdf. May. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 1979. Technical Paper No. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States—For Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from I to 100 Years. 1979 edition. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 2004. NOAA Atlas 14: Precipitation‐Frequency Atlas of the United States. Volume 2, Version 3.0: Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Available at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/PF_documents/Atlas14_Volume2.pdf. Prepared by G.M. Bonnin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M. Yekta, D. Riley. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, National Weather Service. 2004, revised 2006.

Volume 4, References Page 3 of 6 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 |Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec). 2011. Periodic Inspection Report. Louisville Metro, Kentucky, Local Flood Protection Project, Levee Period Inspection. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District. March 30. Strand Associates, Inc. 2004. Evaluation of Flood Pump Stations. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Tetra Tech. 2016. 2nd Street Flood Protection Performance Study. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. April. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1941. Public Law (PL) 84‐99. Last amended 2016. Available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/frmp/PL84‐99factsheet.pdf. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987a. Operations and Maintenance Flood Protection Works. Manual No. 2. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Published 1954, revised 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987b. Operations and Maintenance Flood Protection Works. Manual No. 3, Beargrass Creek Pumping Station. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Published 1954, revised 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1988. Operations and Maintenance Flood Protection Works. Manual No. 1. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. Published 1954, revised 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1989. Retaining and Flood Walls. Engineer Manual 1110‐2‐2502. Available at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110‐ 2‐2502.pdf. September 29. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1993. Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams. Engineer Manual 1110‐2‐1901. Available at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110‐ 2‐1901.pdf. April 30. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1994. Structural Design of Closure Structures for Local Flood Protection Projects. Engineer Manual 1110‐2‐2705. March 31. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000. Design and Construction of Levees. Engineer Manual 1110‐ 2‐1913. Available at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110‐ 2‐1913.pdf. April 30. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001a. Geotechnical Investigations ENG 1836 and 1836A. Engineer Manual 1110‐1‐1804. Available at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil /Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110‐1‐1804.pdf. January 1.

Volume 4, References Page 4 of 6 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 |Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001b. Inspection, Evaluation, and Repair of Hydraulic Steel Structures. Engineer Manual 1110‐2‐6054. Available at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110‐ 2‐6054.pdf. December 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Slope Stability. Engineer Manual 1110‐2‐1902. Available at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110‐ 2‐1902.pdf. October 31. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005a. Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage. Engineer Technical Letter 1110‐2‐569. Available at http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/docs/engineering/HurrGuide/ETL_1110‐2‐ 569_%20DESIGN_GUIDANCE_FOR_LEVEE_UNDERSEEPAGE_May_2005.pdf. May 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005b. Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures. Engineer Manual 1110‐2‐2100. Available at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/ EngineerManuals/EM_1110‐2‐2100.pdf. December 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006a. Phase 1 I‐Wall Study. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006b. Annual Inspection. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Floodwall and Levee System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007a. Phase 2 I‐Wall Study. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007b. Annual Inspection. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Floodwall and Levee System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).2008a. Initial Assessment Report. Prepared for Metro Louisville, Kentucky, Pumping Station Reconstruction Study. February. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008b. Design or Evaluation of I‐Walls. Engineer Circular 1110‐2‐ 6066. December 31. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008c. Annual Inspection. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Floodwall and Levee System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009a. Annual Inspection. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Floodwall and Levee System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009b. Responsibility for Hydraulic Steel Structures. Engineer Regulation 1110‐2‐8157. Available at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER_1110 ‐2‐8157.pdf. June 15.

Volume 4, References Page 5 of 6 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 |Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Local flood protection works; maintenance and operation of structures and facilities. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Chapter II, Section 208.10. Department of the Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013a. Operations and Maintenance Flood Protection Works. Manual 1. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. January. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013b. Operations and Maintenance Flood Protection Works. Manual 2. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. January. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013c. Annual Inspection. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Floodwall and Levee System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. Interim Policy for Determining Eligibility Status of Flood Risk Management Projects for the Rehabilitation Program. March. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015. Levee System Evaluation—National Flood Insurance Program. Final Report, January 2015. Prepared for the Louisville‐Metro Levee System, Louisville, Kentucky. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Undated. Levee Safety Program, Risk Assessment. Available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil‐Works/Levee‐Safety‐Program/Risk‐Assessment/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Undated. Periodic Inspection Policy and Checklist. Prepared for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Unpublished. Guidance on Risk‐Informed Decision‐Making for Levees. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Unpublished. Southwestern Jefferson County, KY, Local Flood Protection As‐Builts. 1973‐1989. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Unpublished. Louisville, KY, Flood Protection As‐Builts. 1946‐1956. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1935. Miscellaneous Publication No. 204: Rainfall Intensity‐ Frequency Data. Available at https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87205951/PDF. Prepared by D.L. Yarnell, Senior Drainage Engineer, Division of Drainage, Bureau of Agricultural Engineering. August.

Volume 4, References Page 6 of 6 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

ATTACHMENT 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETS

Budget ID Budget Name Page No.

F14172 PADDY'S RUN FPS ‐ CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS (NEW STATION) 43

F15009 GATE 81 REPLACEMENT 35

F15010 GATE 102 REPLACEMENT 33

F16020 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL CLOSURE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT 13

F16021 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL GATE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT 21

F16022 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL FLOODWAL AND LEVEE HEAVY MAINTENANCE 17

X_0038 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL FLOODWAL AND LEVEE LIGHT MAINTENANCE 19

X_0041 BEARGRASS CREEK FPS ‐ CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS 23

X_0044 SHAWNEE PARK FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE 57 IMPROVEMENTS

X_0078 TRUSS ANCHORAGE LOAD TEST 61

X_0079 CONCRETE PANEL REPAIRS 29

X_0080 HYDRAULIC STEEL STRUCTURES 39

X_0081 CANAL STREET FLOODWALL 27

X_0082 RISK ASSESSMENT 51

X_0083 5TH STREET FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 11

X_0084 34TH STREET FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 7

X_0085 10TH STREET FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 1

X_0086 17TH STREET FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 3

X_0087 BINGHAM WAY FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 25

X_0088 4TH STREET FPS ‐ CAPACITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 9

X_0089 ROBERT J. STARKEY FPS ‐ OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 55

X_0090 27TH STREET FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY AND GEN++ 5

X_0091 RIVERPORT FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 53

X_0092 WESTERN PARKWAY FPS ‐ CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS 65

X_0093 LOWER MILL CREEK FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 41

X_0094 UPPER MILL CREEK FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE 63 IMPROVEMENTS

Volume 4, Attachment 1 Index Page 1 of 3 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Budget ID Budget Name Page No.

X_0095 POND CREEK FPS ‐ RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (PUMP REPLACEMENTS) 49

X_0317 GATE STUDY AND REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT 37

X_0318 PADDY'S RUN FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 45

X_0319 POND CREEK FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 47

X_0320 SHAWNEE PARK FPS ‐ RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (MCC REPLACEMENT) 59

X_0321 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL FLOOD PUMPING STATIONS EQUIPMENT RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT 15

X_0322 WESTERN PARKWAY FPS ‐ RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (EVALUATION REPAIRS) 67

X_0323 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN UPDATES 31

Note: Fact sheets were not made for projects under contract for construction as of December 31, 2015.

Budget ID Budget Name Page No.

X_0085 10TH STREET FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 1

X_0086 17TH STREET FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 3

X_0090 27TH STREET FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY AND GEN++ 5

X_0084 34TH STREET FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 7

X_0088 4TH STREET FPS ‐ CAPACITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 9

X_0083 5TH STREET FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 11

F16020 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL CLOSURE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT 13

X_0321 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL FLOOD PUMPING STATIONS EQUIPMENT RENEWAL AND 15 REPLACEMENT

F16022 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL FLOODWAL AND LEVEE HEAVY MAINTENANCE 17

X_0038 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL FLOODWAL AND LEVEE LIGHT MAINTENANCE 19

F16021 ALLOCATION ‐ ANNUAL GATE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT 21

X_0041 BEARGRASS CREEK FPS ‐ CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS 23

X_0087 BINGHAM WAY FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 25

X_0081 CANAL STREET FLOODWALL 27

X_0079 CONCRETE PANEL REPAIRS 29

X_0323 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN UPDATES 31

F15010 GATE 102 REPLACEMENT 33

Volume 4, Attachment 1 Index Page 2 of 3 Louisville and Jefferson County MSD 20‐Year Comprehensive Facility Plan Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan Volume 4 | Ohio River Flood Protection System June 30, 2017

Budget ID Budget Name Page No.

F15009 GATE 81 REPLACEMENT 35

X_0317 GATE STUDY AND REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT 37

X_0080 HYDRAULIC STEEL STRUCTURES 39

X_0093 LOWER MILL CREEK FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 41

F14172 PADDY'S RUN FPS ‐ CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS (NEW STATION) 43

X_0318 PADDY'S RUN FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 45

X_0319 POND CREEK FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 47

X_0095 POND CREEK FPS ‐ RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (PUMP REPLACEMENTS) 49

X_0082 RISK ASSESSMENT 51

X_0091 RIVERPORT FPS ‐ RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 53

X_0089 ROBERT J. STARKEY FPS ‐ OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 55

X_0044 SHAWNEE PARK FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE 57 IMPROVEMENTS

X_0320 SHAWNEE PARK FPS ‐ RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (MCC REPLACEMENT) 59

X_0078 TRUSS ANCHORAGE LOAD TEST 61

X_0094 UPPER MILL CREEK FPS ‐ CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE 63 IMPROVEMENTS

X_0092 WESTERN PARKWAY FPS ‐ CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS 65

X_0322 WESTERN PARKWAY FPS ‐ RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (EVALUATION REPAIRS) 67

Note: Fact sheets were not made for projects under contract for construction as of December 31, 2015.

Volume 4, Attachment 1 Index Page 3 of 3 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name 10TH STREET FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0085

Start FY 2020 Completion FY 2021

Project Budget $2,070,000 Project Budget $2,364,768 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project includes the installation of new submersible pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 88 MGD (modeled). The project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural and trash rack repairs, sanitation redirection to eliminate an illicit discharge (if delayed, this work should be moved into a separate project for immediate completion), and other miscellaneous improvements.

MSD should consider combining project alternatives at this station with one or more of the projects proposed for the 5th Street FPS, 17th Street FPS, and 34th Street FPS. These four stations are smaller in size and have similar rehabilitation needs. If possible, these stations could be rehabilitated with similar-sized pumps, allowing MSD to purchase spare pumps that are interchangeable between multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 800 kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $490,000 for a redundant power service or $390,000 for an onsite generator.

It is recommended that an onsite generator be provided due to its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The 10th Street Flood Pumping Station protects nearly 3,300 residents and 300 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations . .

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 1 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 2 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name 17TH STREET FLOOD PUMP STATION - CAPACITY, RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0086

Start FY 2020 Completion FY 2021

Project Budget $5,050,000 Project Budget $5,769,120 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 122 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). The building will be extended to include three additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. The project will also look to install three additional submersible pumps, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 71 MGD. Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. The project will also:

• Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps with new submersible pumps; • Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate; • Upgrade and automate the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components; • Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs and roofing replacement; and • Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

MSD should consider combining project alternatives at this station with one or more of the projects proposed for the 5th Street FPS, 10th Street FPS, and 34th Street FPS. These four stations are smaller in size and have similar rehabilitation needs. If possible, these stations could be rehabilitated with similar-sized pumps, allowing MSD to purchase interchangeable spare pumps. Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 600-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $1,020,000 for a redundant power service or $250,000 for an onsite generator. It is recommended that an onsite generator be provided. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The 17th Street Flood Pumping Station protects over 1,000 residents and 500 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 3 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 4 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name 27TH STREET FLOOD PUMP STATION - CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0090

Start FY 2027 Completion FY 2031

Project Budget $12,020,000 Project Budget $17,667,236 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 320 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). The building extension is to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. The project would also look to install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 81 MGD (40.5 MGD per additional pump). Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity.

The 27th Street FPS and 34th Street FPS have a unique interaction that should also be explored before progressing a selected alternative into detailed design. These stations are operated to keep dry weather flow and some wet weather flow in the system while the Ohio River is at flood stage. While these projects were developed independently for flexibility purposes, an alternative that MSD should consider is combining the improvements at these two stations. The project will also:

• Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors; • Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate; • Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station; • Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs; and • Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 2,000-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $880,000 for a redundant power service or $1,270,000 for an onsite generator.

It is recommended that an onsite generator be provided and should be reevaluated during design.

Project Justification The 27th Street Flood Pumping Station protects over 10,500 residents and 5,600 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 5 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 6 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name 34TH STREET FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0084

Start FY 2018 Completion FY 2019

Project Budget $2,000,000 Project Budget $2,153,600 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project includes the installation of new submersible pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 90 MGD (modeled). The project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural and trash rack repairs, generator upgrade, and other miscellaneous improvements. MSD should consider combining project alternatives at this station with one or more of the projects proposed for the 5th Street FPS, 10th Street FPS, and 17th Street FPS. If possible, these stations could be rehabilitated with similar-sized pumps, allowing MSD to purchase spare pumps that are interchangeable between multiple stations.

Additionally, the 27th Street FPS and 34th Street FPS have a unique interaction that should be explored before progressing a selected alternative into detailed design. These stations are operated to keep dry weather flow and some wet weather flow in the system while the Ohio River is at flood stage. While these projects were developed independently for flexibility purposes, an alternative MSD should consider is combining the improvements at these two stations to increase the pumping capacity at the 34th Street FPS in lieu of the 27th Street FPS.

Regarding secondary power, the station already has one onsite generator that supplies enough power to run the sanitary pumps. This project will replace this generator with a larger 800-kW generator to run both the sanitary and flood pumps for a projected cost of $250,000. A redundant power service could be provided in lieu of this along with upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements. Planning-level costs to convert to a redundant power service are projected to be $680,000. It is recommended that MSD move forward with the generator replacement because of its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The 34th Street Flood Pumping Station protects over 12,500 residents and 6,600 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 7 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 8 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name 4TH STREET FLOOD PUMP STATION - CAPACITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0088

Start FY 2027 Completion FY 2031

Project Budget $12,920,000 Project Budget $18,990,074 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 195 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). The building extension is to include one additional suction bay and an expanded wet well, which may require additional space. An allocation is being made for this additional space in the amount of $2,500,000, which has been added to the Improvement Costs. The projecft will also look to install one additional flood pump, motor, trash rack, and discharge pipe to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 58 MGD. Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. The project will also:

• Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity; • Upgrade and automate the station's electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station; • Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs; and • Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Secondary power should be provided via redundant power service or the installation of one 1,600-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $500,000 for a redundant power service or $830,000 for an onsite generator.

It is recommended that a redundant power service be provided due to site limitations, which make onsite generators unfeasible. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The 4th Street Flood Pumping Station protects key areas of downtown Louisville from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage. Failure of this station would have significant negative consequences to the economic vitality of the City as over 440 buildings could be impacted.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 9 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 10 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name 5TH STREET FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0083

Start FY 2020 Completion FY 2021

Project Budget $1,640,000 Project Budget $1,873,536 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project includes the installation of new submersible pumps to match the station’s current capacity of 52 MGD (modeled). The project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural and trash rack repairs, sanitation redirection to eliminate an illicit discharge (if delayed, this work should be moved into a separate project for immediate completion), and other miscellaneous improvements.

MSD should consider combining project alternatives at this station with one or more of the projects proposed for the 10th Street FPS, 17th Street FPS, and 34th Street FPS. These four stations are smaller in size and have similar rehabilitation needs. If possible, these stations could be rehabilitated with similar-sized pumps, allowing MSD to purchase spare pumps that are interchangeable between multiple stations. A study is in progress to determine the feasibility of replacing these pumps with submersible pumps having a common model with one or more of the other stations.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 250-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $630,000 for a redundant power service or $240,000 for an onsite generator. However, this station may have site limitations that would make a permanent onsite generator unfeasible.

Based on this, it is recommended that MSD obtain a portable generator, either by purchase or rental agreement, due to its lower capital costs and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The 5th Street Flood Pumping Station protects key areas of downtown Louisville from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage. Failure of this station would have significant negative consequences to the economic vitality of the City as over 180 buildings could be impacted.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 11 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 12 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name ALLOCATION - ANNUAL CLOSURE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT

Budget ID F16020

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2036

Project Budget $5,000,000 Project Budget $6,919,125 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description The Annual Closure Repair and Replacement Allocation is intended to better facilitate future key equipment repairs and replacements. This allocation will provide flexibility to perform needed closure repairs and replacements as necessary. Trusses, sheeting panels, and walkways are the components that will be focused on with this allocation.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. The components of the system require regular repair or replacement in order to function properly during a flood event. Not properly addressing these items could lead to a failure during a flood event, which could pose significant health and property risks.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 13 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 14 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name ALLOCATION - ANNUAL FLOOD PUMPING STATIONS EQUIPMENT RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT

Budget ID X_0321

Start FY 2018 Completion FY 2036

Project Budget $19,000,000 Project Budget $26,646,500 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description The Annual Equipment Renewal and Replacement Allocation is intended to better facilitate future key equipment replacements. This allocation provides flexibility to perform needed flood pumping equipment renewals and/or replacements as necessary. Areas where this allocation could be useful range from minor component repairs to whole replacements of pumps, motors, electrical switchgear, generators, and other critical equipment.

The Robert J. Starkey FPS is an example where such an allocation would be useful. In addition to its flood pumping obligations, the Robert J. Starkey FPS operates continuously as a sanitary lift station. Continuous operation deteriorates these pumps at a quicker rate than at other FPSs, necessitating significant repairs, parts or impeller replacements every five years.

Project Justification The 16 flood pumping stations together protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 15 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 16 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name ALLOCATION - ANNUAL FLOODWAL AND LEVEE HEAVY MAINTENANCE

Budget ID F16022

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2036

Project Budget $19,500,000 Project Budget $27,419,805 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description The Annual Floodwall and Levee Heavy Maintenance Allocation is intended to better facilitate key heavy maintenance repairs and replacements. Heavy maintenance projects for floodwalls and levees would include items such as, but not limited to corrugated metal pipe replacement, toe drain access repairs, trail repair/repave, levee gate repair/replace, gate automation (if possible), painting floodwall and trusses, floodwall structure repair, floodwall joint repair, and floodwall concrete repair and sealing.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. The components of the system require regular repair or replacement in order to function properly during a flood event. Not properly addressing these items could lead to a failure during a flood event, which could pose significant health and property risks.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 17 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 18 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name ALLOCATION - ANNUAL FLOODWAL AND LEVEE LIGHT MAINTENANCE

Budget ID X_0038

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2036

Project Budget $10,000,000 Project Budget $13,838,250 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description The Annual Floodwall and Levee Light Maintenance Allocation is intended to better facilitate key light maintenance repairs and replacements. Light maintenance projects for floodwalls and levees would include items such as, but not limited to, minor repairs to gate structures, floodwall concrete surface crack repairs, unwanted vegetation removal, surface spalling and cracking, encroachments, piezometer repair, relief well pump testing, maintenance and/or repair, repair of active erosion, missing sod and depressions/rutting, and animal burrows.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. The components of the system require regular repair and/or replacement in order to function properly during a flood event. Not properly addressing these items could lead to a failure during a flood event, which could pose significant health and property risks.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 19 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 20 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name ALLOCATION - ANNUAL GATE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT

Budget ID F16021

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2036

Project Budget $6,933,378 Project Budget $9,876,459 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description The Annual Gate Repair and Replacement Allocation is intended to better facilitate future key equipment repairs and replacements. This allocation will provide flexibility to perform needed gate repairs and replacements as necessary. Gates, drives (actuators, gearboxes, hand-wheels), stems, and automation (if possible) are the components that will be focused on with this allocation.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. The components of the system require regular repair or replacement in order to function properly during a flood event. Not properly addressing these items could lead to a failure during a flood event, which could pose significant health and property risks.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 21 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 22 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name BEARGRASS CREEK FLOOD PUMP STATION - CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0041

Start FY 2021 Completion FY 2026

Project Budget $96,880,000 Project Budget $121,080,436 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 4,700 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). The building will be extended to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. The project will also look to install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 545 MGD (272.5 MGD per additional pump). Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. The project will also:

• Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors; • Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity; • Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station; • Perform structural and trash removal system repairs, if necessary; • Extend the trash removal system’s rails to accommodate the additional suction bays; • Repair or replace the existing river gates, bypass equalizer gates, and actuator boxes, as needed; and • Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Regarding secondary power, the station already has a redundant power service from the electric utility. Converting to onsite generators would require the installation of up to eight 3,250-kW generators, along with upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements. Planning-level costs to convert to onsite generators are projected to be $14,280,000.

It is recommended that MSD continue to depend on its redundant power service to operate the station when their primary power service is interrupted. Onsite generators are not recommended because of the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency power preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated.

Project Justification The Beargrass Creek Flood Pumping Station protects over 17,600 residents and over 6,600 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 23 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 24 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name BINGHAM WAY FPS - CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0087

Start FY 2032 Completion FY 2036

Project Budget $6,590,000 Project Budget $11,228,701 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 90 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). The building extension is to include one additional suction bay and an expanded wet well. The project will also look to install one additional flood pump, motor, trash rack, and discharge pipe to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 26 MGD. Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. The project will also:

• Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors; • Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity; • Upgrade and automate the station's electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station; • Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs; and • Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 750-kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $990,000 for a redundant power service or $350,000 for an onsite generator. However, this station may have site limitations that would make a permanent onsite generator unfeasible.

Based on this, it is recommended that MSD obtain a portable generator, either by purchase or rental agreement, due to its lower capital costs and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The Bingham Way Flood Pumping Station protects a key area in downtown Louisville from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage. This station is part of the Riverfront Flood Protection System that protects the area north of Main Street between Floyd and 3rd Streets. Failure of this station would have significant negative consequences to the economic vitality of this area.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 25 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 26 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name CANAL STREET FLOODWALL - FY17

Budget ID X_0081

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2017

Project Budget $1,500,000 Project Budget $1,545,000 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will replace a section of the existing floodwall when LG&E demolishes one of their buildings. LG&E’s building currently serves as a section of the floodwall across that property.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. When the LG&E building is removed, a portion of the floodwall will be missing and the area will be more vulnerable to flooding until the section is replaced.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 27 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 28 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name CONCRETE PANEL REPAIRS

Budget ID X_0079

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2018

Project Budget $235,000 Project Budget $491,362 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will complete repairs identified in the 2012 Top of Wall Inspection Report. The repairs for the floodwall panels are separated into two categories, concrete surface repairs and full joint repairs.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. Failure of the concrete floodwalls would result catastrophic consequences to the City and its inhabitants.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 29 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 30 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN UPDATES

Budget ID X_0323

Start FY 2018 Completion FY 2034

Project Budget $150,000 Project Budget $204,417 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description The Emergency Preparedness Plan recommends future planning efforts, engaging outside agencies, staff training, and revisiting the communication plan on an as-needed basis to maintain current staff titles and contact information. For budgeting purposes, MSD should plan on updating the emergency preparedness plan every four years.

Project Justification Should the Ohio River Flood Protection System be in danger of failing, an emergency preparedness plan is needed to facilitate a response to minimize the loss of life and/or property damage. Regular updates to the plan allows MSD and other agencies to account for changes in the protected areas. Additionally, in order to continue to receive credits in the Community Rating System program, MSD must be involved with any updates of the plan and the plan must be updated periodically.

Other Considerations MSD anticipates the development of detailed inundation mapping, including flood pumping station failure scenarios and levee overtopping, and procedures to determine impacted areas due to a breach. This may become an increasingly important tool considering the added potential effects of increased frequency of extreme storms.

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 31 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 32 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name GATE 102 REPLACEMENT

Budget ID F15010

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2017

Project Budget $320,000 Project Budget $320,000 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will replace Gate 102 at the Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station. Gate 102 is one of two large sluice gates that are used to isolate the Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station from the Ohio River when the river is at flood stage.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. Maintaining functional and structurally intact gates are key to the successful operation of the system.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 33 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 34 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name GATE 81 REPLACEMENT

Budget ID F15009

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2017

Project Budget $335,000 Project Budget $335,000 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will replace Gate 81 at the Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station. Gate 81 is a large sluice gate that is used to isolate the Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station from the Ohio River when the river is at flood stage.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. Maintaining functional and structurally intact gates are key to the successful operation of the system.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 35 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 36 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name GATE STUDY AND REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT

Budget ID X_0317

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2017

Project Budget $1,640,000 Project Budget $1,689,200 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description There are seven planned components for this project, which include the Inspection of Flood Protection Penetrations, Levee Gate/Outfall Study, Gate 145 Electric Service and Actuator Replacement, Gate 129A and B Replacement, Gate 147 Bank Stabilization, Gate 30 Repair, and Gate 6 and 20 Replacement.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. Maintaining functional and structurally intact gates are key to the successful operation of the system.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 37 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 38 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name HYDRAULIC STEEL STRUCTURES

Budget ID X_0080

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2017

Project Budget $245,000 Project Budget $252,350 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will include an inspection of all hydraulic steel structures and repairs to aluminum riveted trusses, steel riveted trusses, steel welded trusses, sheeting panels, and miscellaneous purlins, braces, posts, and walkway panels.

Project Justification The United States Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdictional authority over the floodwalls and levees and has directed that hydraulic steel structures be inspected and repaired as required.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 39 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 40 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name LOWER MILL CREEK FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0093

Start FY 2027 Completion FY 2031

Project Budget $13,450,000 Project Budget $19,769,079 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. It will also upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components. The project will also perform replacement of the electrical substation and necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Lastly it will perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of two 2,500-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $4,060,000 for a redundant power service or $3,730,000 for onsite generators.

It is recommended that onsite generators be provided due to their lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The Lower Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station protects over 70,400 residents and 51,300 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 41 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 42 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name PADDY'S RUN FLOOD PUMP STATION - CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS (NEW STATION)

Budget ID F14172

Start FY 2018 Completion FY 2021

Project Budget $42,100,000 Project Budget $42,100,000 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will construct a new flood pumping station adjacent to the existing Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station. The new station shall provide a total, estimated pumping capacity of 975 MGD. The new station will supplement the existing Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station to provide a total, estimated, and combined pumping capacity of 1,900 MGD to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance. 24-hour storm is based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035. Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity.

The new wet well and building shall be constructed to accommodate at least four new flood pumps (244 MGD per each pump if similarly sized or a combination of smaller and larger pumps), motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes. Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity, pump size configurations, and wet well depth to optimize pumping operations.

This project will also install all necessary SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components to operate the new flood pumps, in addition to the required aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC equipment. The primary electrical service shall be evaluated and upgraded as necessary for the simultaneous operation of both the new and existing stations. Secondary power will be evaluated and addressed during the latter Reliability and Redundant Electrical Service Improvements project planned for the station.

Project Justification The Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station protects over 36,500 residents and 23,500 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 43 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 44 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name PADDY'S RUN FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0318

Start FY 2022 Completion FY 2026

Project Budget $23,610,000 Project Budget $29,935,119 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors to maintain the existing station’s current total pumping capacity of 925 MGD (modeled). The existing station will continue to supplement the newer Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station to provide a total combined pumping capacity of 1,900 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate. This project also includes the upgrade and automation of the station’s SCADA, electrical and mechanical components, structural repairs, trash removal system repairs, and other miscellaneous improvements. Perform necessary structural and trash removal system repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Secondary power should be provided to both the existing and newer stations via a redundant power service or the installation of four 3,000-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $1,440,000 for a redundant power service or $9,850,000 for onsite generators.

It is recommended that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The Paddy’s Run Flood Pumping Station protects over 36,500 residents and 23,500 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 45 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 46 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name POND CREEK FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0319

Start FY 2034 Completion FY 2036

Project Budget $65,310,000 Project Budget $94,856,244 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity of 3,375 MGD (modeled at its targeted WSEL). Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components. Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs. Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades, including the replacement of dehumidifiers and heaters.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of five 3,660 kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $6,090,000 for a redundant power service or $13,060,000 for onsite generators.

It is recommended that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The Pond Creek Flood Pumping Station protects nearly 34,000 residents and 22,600 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 47 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 48 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name POND CREEK FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (PUMP REPLACEMENTS)

Budget ID X_0095

Start FY 2024 Completion FY 2025

Project Budget $17,100,000 Project Budget $21,987,180 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project includes the replacement of the existing flood pumps to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity of 3,375 MGD (modeled at its targeted WSEL). The existing flood pumps were installed in 1989 when the station was originally constructed. Shortly after installation, the intermediate bearings were removed leaving roughly 30 feet between the pump shaft’s upper and lower bearings. Because of this, one of the two bearings goes out almost every time the pumps are operated.

The new pumps shall include all necessary intermediate bearings to prevent damage during operations. The new pumps shall also be compatible with the existing motors and electrical switchgear, which are scheduled for rebuild or replacement during the latter Reliability and Redundant Electrical Service Improvements project planned for the station. The Reliability Improvements (Pump Replacements) project should extend the station’s useful life until the Reliability and Redundant Electrical Service Improvements project is constructed.

Project Justification The Pond Creek Flood Pumping Station protects nearly 34,000 residents and 22,600 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 49 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 50 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name RISK ASSESSMENT

Budget ID X_0082

Start FY 2018 Completion FY 2018

Project Budget $750,000 Project Budget $795,675 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project is for a system-wide risk assessment of the floodwall and levee. The results should aid in prioritizing annual budget projects from a risk-based perspective.

USACE has said it prioritize projects based on risk assessment and communities that have quantified the potential events, the ability of the floodwall/levee to withstand these events, and the consequences of under-performanced will be more likely to see their projects advance.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdictional authority over the floodwalls and levees and has encouraged local authorities to make the most use of available budgets evaluating risk and determining where resources should be focused to derive maximum benefit.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 51 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 52 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name RIVERPORT FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY AND GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0091

Start FY 2032 Completion FY 2036

Project Budget $6,110,000 Project Budget $10,410,829 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s pumps and motors to maintain the station’s current total pumping capacity. It will also upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components and perform replacement of the electrical substation. The project will also perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs as well as perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of one 1,500 kW generator. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $4,060,000 for a redundant power service or $1,270,000 for an onsite generator.

It is recommended that an onsite generator be provided due to its lower capital cost, availability of site space, and the high level of emergency power preparedness that generators provide. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The Riverport Flood Pumping Station protects nearly 250 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage. These structures are in a key area of Jefferson County that could have serious negative consequences if they were impacted.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 53 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 54 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name ROBERT J. STARKEY FLOOD PUMP STATION - OPERTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0089

Start FY 2018 Completion FY 2019

Project Budget $4,360,000 Project Budget $4,694,848 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project includes the installation of a new generator to run in parallel with the existing generator. The necessity of this project is being reevaluated with respect to the proposed Ohio River Tunnel Project.

This project should be amended to investigate and remedy an issue with the check valves on the pump discharges. When the VFDs fault, the check valves slam shut resulting in pressure surges that shake the discharge piping. A possible solution would be to replace the existing check valves with ones that are air or hydraulic-cushioned. This project should also be amended to convert the existing DeviceNet system, which operates the electrical breakers, to the MODBUS communications protocol.

Project Justification The Robert J. Starkey Flood Pumping Station protects key areas of downtown Louisville from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage. Failure of this station would have significant negative consequences to the economic vitality of the City as over 6,600 buildings could be impacted.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 55 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 56 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name SHAWNEE PARK FLOOD PUMP STATION - CAPACITY, RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0044

Start FY 2029 Completion FY 2033

Project Budget $42,730,000 Project Budget $66,629,744 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,250 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). The building will be extended to include three additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. The project will also look to install three additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 480 MGD (160 MGD per additional pump). Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. The project will also:

• Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors; • Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity; • Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical, and mechanical components for the expanded station; • Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs; and • Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of two 3,000-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $1,240,000 for a redundant power service or $4,930,000 for onsite generators.

It is recommended that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station protects over 30,600 residents and 15,900 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 57 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 58 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name SHAWNEE PARK FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (MOTOR CONTROL CENTER REPLACEMENT)

Budget ID X_0320

Start FY 2018 Completion FY 2019

Project Budget $1,000,000 Project Budget $1,076,800 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project includes the replacement of the station’s motor control center (MCC). The existing MCC was installed in 1951 when the station was originally constructed. Replacement parts are becoming increasingly more difficult to locate as many manufacturers are no longer in business or no longer continue to make replacement parts. The new MCC will be installed to operate the existing flood pumps and maintain the station’s current pumping capacity of 770 MGD (modeled). The Reliability Improvements (Motor Control Center Replacement) project should extend the station’s useful life until the Capacity, Reliability, and Redundant Electrical Service Improvements project is constructed.

Project Justification The Shawnee Park Flood Pumping Station protects over 30,600 residents and 15,900 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 59 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 60 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name TRUSS ANCHORAGE LOAD TEST

Budget ID X_0078

Start FY 2017 Completion FY 2017

Project Budget $85,000 Project Budget $87,550 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will require a static load test be conducted to verify the structural adequacy of the embedded anchors. At each closure location where movable trusses are used to support the sheeting panels, the river side of the truss is attached to an embedded anchorage. A failure of any one loaded truss anchorage would probably lead to a failure of the closure. The embedded anchorages are susceptible to corrosion damage that may not be apparent from visual inspections.

Project Justification The floodwalls and levees protect over 228,600 residents and 136,800 buildings from flooding on the Ohio River. A failure of any one loaded truss anchorage would likely lead to a failure of the closure. Testing under controlled conditions will identify susceptible trusses and allow them to be repaired or replaced, rather than risk failure during a flood event.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 61 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 62 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name UPPER MILL CREEK FLOOD PUMP STATION - CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND REDUNDANT ELECTRICAL SERVICE

Budget ID X_0094

Start FY 2027 Completion FY 2031

Project Budget $49,040,000 Project Budget $72,079,973 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,370 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). The building will be extended to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. The project will also look to install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 460 MGD (230 MGD per additional pump). Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. The project will also:

• Remove, inspect, and rehabilitate or replace the station’s existing pumps and motors; • Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate, to accommodate the station’s increased pumping capacity; • Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station; • Perform necessary structural and trash rack repairs; and • Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Secondary power should be provided via a redundant power service or the installation of four 3,000-kW generators. Upgrades to the existing electrical switchgear and site improvements will be required to accommodate the selected secondary power alternative. Planning-level costs are projected to be $6,700,000 for a redundant power service or $9,850,000 for onsite generators.

It is recommended that a redundant power service be provided due to the high initial capital costs and future maintenance costs necessary to keep these generators operating at a high level of emergency preparedness. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station.

Project Justification The Upper Mill Creek Flood Pumping Station protects over 39,600 residents and 27,300 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 63 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 64 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name WESTERN PARKWAY FLOOD PUMP STATION - CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS

Budget ID X_0092

Start FY 2019 Completion FY 2021

Project Budget $17,470,000 Project Budget $19,668,241 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description This project will evaluate and expand the existing station to accommodate an increased total pumping capacity of 1,600 MGD (estimated) to meet a 10 percent annual chance of exceedance (24-hour storm based on a projection of NOAA Atlas 14 to year 2035). The building will be extended to include two additional suction bays and an expanded wet well. The project will also look to install two additional flood pumps, motors, trash racks, and discharge pipes to increase the station’s total pumping capacity by 450 MGD (225 MGD per additional pump). Prior to design, a more detailed analysis should be performed to finalize the station’s total desired pumping capacity. The project will also:

• Evaluate and upgrade the station’s discharge piping and appurtenances, as appropriate; • Upgrade and automate the station's SCADA, electrical and mechanical components for the expanded station; • Perform necessary structural and trash removal system repairs; • Extend the trash removal system’s rails to accommodate the additional suction bays; and • Perform other miscellaneous improvements such as aesthetic, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades.

Project should also include Western Parkway FPS Evaluation project previously described. The station already has a redundant power service from the electric utility. It is recommended that MSD continue to depend on its redundant power service to operate the station. This recommendation should be reevaluated during the design process for the improvements at this station. The August 1990 drainage study should be re-evaluated and updated prior to increasing the station’s total pumping capacity to determine whether the Southern Outfall sewer can handle the additional flows between the surge basin and the station. Projected costs to perform this study are included with the LOP 5 general improvements. However, projected costs to increase the hydraulic capacity of the Southern Outfall sewer or to lay a parallel sewer may need to be included based on the recommended improvements.

Project Justification The Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station protects over 93,500 residents and 41,700 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 65 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 66 of 68 COMPREHENSIVE 20-YEAR FACILITY PLAN PROJECT FACT SHEET LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY MSD

Project Name WESTERN PARKWAY FLOOD PUMP STATION - RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS (EVALUATION REPAIRS)

Budget ID X_0322

Start FY 2019 Completion FY 2021

Project Budget $5,000,000 Project Budget $5,629,133 (2016 Dollars) (Escalated Dollars) Service Type Stormwater Program Ohio River Flood Protection

Project Description A planned project is underway to identify solutions to hydraulic issues in the combined suction bay for the three smaller pumps. The evaluation is also exploring solutions to possible electrical issues internal to the recently upgraded motors and electrical switchgear at the station. The Reliability Improvements (Evaluation Repairs) project will take and implement the recommendations of the ongoing evaluation to eliminate and/or minimize the station’s current hydraulic and electrical issues.

Project Justification The Western Parkway Flood Pumping Station protects over 93,500 residents and 41,700 buildings from flooding during rain events when the Ohio River is at flood stage.

Other Considerations

Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 67 of 68 Last Updated: 6/5/2017 Printed: 6/9/2017 68 of 68