PROJECT PROPOSAL AND FEASIBILITY...

PROJECT PROPOSAL AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

Christ Church Stormwater Management

TEAM 3: THE INFILTRATORS STEVEN JOHNSON |ELVIN VINDEL |MEGAN DAUBENMIER | PETER WAGENMAKER

CHURCH CHRIST

of 48 ©2017, Calvin College, Megan Daubenmier, Steven Johnson, Elvin Vindel, Peter Wagenmaker

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

With the limited access to and scarcity of clean water in the world today, the team of four Civil/Environmental Engineering majors chose a project that will help to preserve fresh water by the restoration an impaired waterway. This relatively new area of water resources engineering aims to design structures and incorporate various Best Management Practices (BMPs) in order to protect waterways that are essential to life. The team has the privilege of working with the Plaster Creek Stewards initiative and Christ Church to reduce stormwater runoff at the church’s property on Breton Rd. The Plaster Creek Stewards have successfully implemented stormwater management projects for several years, and these have slowly but steadily begun to return life and beauty to Plaster Creek. In this project, by the reduction the volumes of polluted sediment that are carried to the Plaster Creek from Christ Church’s property, the team shall help preserve the health of this water body and protect downstream water bodies such as the Grand River and Lake Michigan. This project will incorporate the implementation of green infrastructure that shall retain runoff during storm events, the reduction the peak discharges into the Plaster Creek Tributary from the church’s property. The designs presented in this report and a future comprehensive design will be presented to the MDEQ for approval of grant money. Implementation of the design is tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2018.

There are two crucial elements that were identified as key problems in the site’s stormwater management system. First, half of the impervious area in the church drains to the northeast of the property to a ravine created by discharge from the stormwater runoff outlet. Second, the church’s property contains a 68,000 ft3 detention pond that was initially designed to hold a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. This detention pond provides ample runoff storage, but problems with its usage cause it to be ineffective. The pond is not able to perform to full capacity given that its inlet and outlet structures are in close proximity, and because a large portion of the runoff from the site never enters the pond.

The majority of the design and engineering calculations will be done in the spring of 2018. Nevertheless, this report summarizes the discoveries of our team and the design decisions that directly address the problems mentioned above. The proposed design includes the re-routing of two key pipes to direct runoff to the detention pond, 5500 ft2

of rain gardens to promote infiltration and therefore reduce the sheer volume of runoff from the site, a 625 ft2 bioswale in the detention pond to route water that enters the detention pond away from the outlet, and the increase of the elevation of the existing detention pond outlet so that it functions as a retention pond for the 2-year, 24-hour storm event.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Table of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8

Senior Design Background ........................................................................................................................ 8

Calvin College Engineering Department ............................................................................................... 8

Senior Design ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Team 3................................................................................................................................................... 8

Project Management .................................................................................................................................. 10

Team Organization .................................................................................................................................. 10

Roles .................................................................................................................................................... 10

Advisors ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Meetings ............................................................................................................................................. 11

Documents .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Schedule .................................................................................................................................................. 11

Budget ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Updates ............................................................................................................................................... 12

Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Task Specification and Schedule ................................................................................................................. 12

WBS Summary and Link .......................................................................................................................... 12

Percentage complete .............................................................................................................................. 13

Tasks Behind Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 13

Total Expected Person-hours .................................................................................................................. 13

Method of Approach ............................................................................................................................... 14

Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 14

Design Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 14

Test and Integration ............................................................................................................................ 17

Requirements and Problem Definition ....................................................................................................... 19

Project Description.................................................................................................................................. 19

Client ....................................................................................................................................................... 20


Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Christ Church ....................................................................................................................................... 20

MDEQ .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Problem Definition .................................................................................................................................. 21

Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Pipe Network ...................................................................................................................................... 22

Detention Pond ................................................................................................................................... 22

Outlet to Ravine .................................................................................................................................. 22

Volume Reduction ............................................................................................................................... 22

Education ............................................................................................................................................ 22

Design Norms .......................................................................................................................................... 23

Stewardship ........................................................................................................................................ 23

Justice .................................................................................................................................................. 23

Caring .................................................................................................................................................. 23

System Design ............................................................................................................................................. 23

Design – Existing ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Design Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 24

Plaster Creek Stewards ....................................................................................................................... 24

Christ Church ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Dan Vos Construction Company ......................................................................................................... 24

MDEQ Budget – Design Constraints .................................................................................................... 24

MDEQ Budget – Financial Constraints ................................................................................................ 25

Design Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 25

Design Alternative #1: Manhole at Ravine Outlet .............................................................................. 25

Design Alternative #2: Pipe Network Redesign .................................................................................. 26

Design Alternative #3: Detention Pond Flow path Extension ............................................................. 28

Design Alternative #4: Rain garden Construction ............................................................................... 29

Comprehensive Design Alternative #1 ................................................................................................ 30

Comprehensive Design Alternative #2 ................................................................................................ 30

Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 31

Rain Gardens ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Pipe Network Redesign ....................................................................................................................... 31


Detention Pond Redesign ................................................................................................................... 32

Outlet to Ravine .................................................................................................................................. 33

Educational Deliverable ...................................................................................................................... 33

Design Decisions ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Design – Proposed .................................................................................................................................. 34

Site Design ........................................................................................................................................... 34

Education Deliverable ......................................................................................................................... 37

Cost Estimate .............................................................................................................................................. 37

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 38

Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Remaining Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Coordination ....................................................................................................................................... 38

Outlet To Ravine ................................................................................................................................. 38

Future Work ............................................................................................................................................ 38

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 39

References .................................................................................................................................................. 40

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 42

Appendix A – Team Budget ..................................................................................................................... 42

Appendix B – WBS ................................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix C - Glossary ............................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix D – Infiltration Test Raw Data ................................................................................................. 46

Appendix E – Soil Type ............................................................................................................................ 47


TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Flow Diagram for Team 3 .............................................................................................................. 10

Figure 2 Task Completion Schedule ............................................................................................................ 13

Figure 3 Expected Total Person-Hours Per Month ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 4 Level Logger Diagram .................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 5 Digital Elevation Model of Plaster Creek Watershed .................................................................... 19

Figure 6 Christ Church PCA Aerial Overview ............................................................................................... 20

Figure 7 Ravine Drop and Pipe Outlet ......................................................................................................... 25

Figure 8 Drop Manhole with Backfill Ravine Restoration ........................................................................... 26

9 Existing Pipe Network System .................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 10 Proposed Pipe Network System .................................................................................................. 27

Figure 11 Redesign of the Detention Pond with a Berm ............................................................................ 28

Figure 12 Redesign of the Detention Pond with a Bioswale ....................................................................... 29

Figure 13. Proposed Rain Garden Locations ............................................................................................... 30

Figure 14. Manhole Volume Collection ...................................................................................................... 32

Figure 15 Detention Pond Outlet Structure Reconfiguration ..................................................................... 35

Figure 16 Christ Church Preliminary Design ............................................................................................... 36

Figure 17. Budget Items Explanation Diagrams .......................................................................................... 42

Figure 18. Geology Soil Survey 1 for Christ Church .................................................................................... 47

Figure 19 Geology Soil Survey 1 for Christ Church...................................................................................... 48

\


TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 Proposed Design Cost Estimate...................................................................................................... 37

Table 2. Team Budget. ................................................................................................................................ 42

Table 3. Work Breakdown Schedule ........................................................................................................... 43

Table 4. Infiltration Test Data ..................................................................................................................... 46


INTRODUCTION

SENIOR DESIGN BACKGROUND

CALVIN COLLEGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Calvin’s engineering program is an ABET accredited program that aims to equip future professionals with the technical skills to solve complex problems and create brilliant designs. The Calvin engineering program is shaped by the Christian faith through thought and practice, including a broad liberal arts and global education.

SENIOR DESIGN

The Engineering Department at Calvin College requires a two-course capstone class centered around a major design project. Teams of three to five persons are chosen by the students and are assigned a primary advisor. The teams are then to identify a suitable project and perform a project feasibility study in the first semester. Over the second semester, the teams are to complete an engineering analysis of the proposed project with consideration for ethical design norms. This process tests the students' capacities to use their accumulated knowledge in engineering design and analysis pertinent to their concentrations. A final presentation is given in May, during Senior Design Weekend.

TEAM 3

The members of Team 3 (The Infiltrators) are students in the civil/environmental engineering program of the Calvin College Department of Engineering. Shared international experience and interests in sustainability and resilience coalesced the members into a team. The team decided to partner with the non-profit organization Plaster Creek Stewards to design a better stormwater management system for at Christ Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The end goal that Team 3 hopes to help PCS reach is the restoration of Plaster Creek, an impaired waterway that runs through Kent County, Michigan.

Steven Johnson is a civil and environmental engineering major from Tanzania, East Africa. He has a zest for life, and passion for finding solutions to real

world problems. His love of designing drew him to Calvin, after which he hopes to use this knowledge to

engineer a better world.

Steven Johnson (Civil/Environmental Concentration)


Elvin Vindel is a Civil/Environmental engineering student born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. He has always wanted to frame his career centered on people guided by a strong

desire to help society build a sustainable and dependable future. He hopes to pursue graduate studies to prepare

himself to be part of the group of people that push society forward by designing and advocating for the sustainable

infrastructure of tomorrow.

Elvin Vindel (Civil/Environmental Concentration)

Megan Daubenmier is a double major in Civil/Environmental Engineering and Spanish. While

she has spent most of her life in the States, she spent her high school years with her family in Kenya. The

impact of those years planted in her a desire to someday use her technical and linguistic abilities in

humanitarian work.

Megan Daubenmier (Civil/Environmental Concentration)

Peter Wagenmaker is a well-traveled civil and environmental engineering major from Chicago, IL. Soon after graduation, he hopes to be exposed to a breadth of

engineering applications aimed at the betterment of clients’ welfare through work at a consulting firm in the Midwest. Upon licensure, he may continue his career in the United States or may transition abroad to practice

with a profit- and/or development-structured company.

Peter Wagenmaker (Civil/Environmental Concentration)


PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TEAM ORGANIZATION

The site design at Christ Church incorporates major civil/environmental concepts. The educational expertise and internship experience of each team member contributes well to the team dynamic. The project components were broken into four major sections which allows each of the four team members to assume responsibility in each of these project’s characteristics.

ROLES

Peter Wagenmaker’s role within the group is that of document editor, meeting minute recorder and communicator with advisors and project consultants; this vital role brings clarity to the team deliverables and ties the project to the real world which allows for transparency and smooth data acquisition. Elvin Vindel’s function within the team is that of research and implementation; he gathers and synthesizes large quantities of information and processes key material to arrive at tangible results. Megan Daubenmier’s role within the team is that of scheduling and internal communication; she keeps the group on track and organizes team meetings. Steven Johnson’s function is that of webmaster and team designer; he maintains and updates the team’s website. These specified functions are not completely restricted to assigned roles which allows for team integration and full transparency in task completion.

Figure 1 Flow Diagram for Team 3


ADVISORS

The team works closely with Professor Julie Wildschut, a part-time civil engineering professor at Calvin College, and a member of the board of Plaster Creek Stewards. The team’s contact at the church is Scott Gritter, the youth director at Christ Church and a long-term active member of the Plaster Creek Stewards. Professor Leonard De Rooy acts as the faculty advisor for civil/environmental teams for the senior design course, and provides accountability for the team as they seek to reach course goals. Each of these advisors provide essential insights and refer the team to resources that aid the progress of the project. In addition, the team has several engineering faculty members available, as well as broad library research resources.

MEETINGS

The team meets weekly for two or more hours to discuss research and progress. During these meetings a plan of action for the week is formed and tasks for the week are assigned to individual group members. Meetings with Professor Wildschut occur biweekly, during which the team gathers in her office to deliver a status report and ask pertinent questions. Peter Wagenmaker records minutes for each meeting held.

DOCUMENTS

Team documents are kept on a Microsoft OneDrive folder shared among the team members for document creation and editing. Many of these documents are publicly available on the team website, which may be accessed via a search at www.calvin.edu for senior design projects. A scroll down the search page reveals a list of current and previous team names as well as links to their websites. The link to the Team 3: Infiltrators website will allow access to the team documents such as research notes, meeting minutes, and an initial PowerPoint.

SCHEDULE

The team’s approach to scheduling is two-fold. At the beginning of the year, the team sat down and looked ahead to all assignments, deadlines, due dates, and presentations from the very first week of the project all the way through the end of the project timeline. A list of major components of the project was compiled and it was estimated how long each component would take and what the timeline should be. The second aspect of the approach is the team’s weekly meeting, set in place so that the team could meet on a regular basis without the need to navigate each individual schedule every week. At this weekly meeting scheduling for the rest of the week occurs, and the schedule is maintained and updated accordingly.

Responsible for scheduling, Megan Daubenmier employs skills gained from past leadership positions in student organizations to strive for efficiency in necessary logistics of Team 3. To use the schedule as a management tool, there must be clear communication on scheduling expectations among team members so that each member can accommodate all senior design tasks and meetings in their respective schedules.


The team anticipates two kinds of scheduling issues. The first is that assignment deadlines may be missed. In this scenario, a team member or members will attend to the schedule issue at one of the weekly team meetings. If the team experiences chronic and prolonged scheduling issues, however, the team will meet to re-structure the schedule and responsibilities, and seek external intervention from an advisor if needed.

It is estimated that each team member will spend an average of six hours per week on senior design throughout the course of the year, and eight hours per week in February, when the bulk of the modeling and design plans will be completed. These estimates are derived from the Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS) in the “Task Specifications and Schedule” section of the report.

BUDGET

The team’s current budget can be viewed in Appendix A. Due to the nature of the project and the computer modeling design aspect, a relatively small budget will be needed by the team. The software and research tools required to help Christ Church reduce their runoff to Plaster Creek are available through the resources on Calvin's campus.

UPDATES

Several adjustments have been made to the budget throughout the duration of the project. One such budget item that has changed is the senior design showcase budget item. It was redefined as the senior design night prototype followed by a breakdown of the cost. As the project further develops, there will most likely be unforeseen items that should be purchased, yet the team is confident that the current budget should be able to cover these items.

MAINTENANCE

Steven Johnson maintains the budget and updates the expenditures as needed. There have been no purchases required yet; should there be any, the budget will be updated appropriately. It is reviewed weekly by Steven. With the budget proposal due in the fall, the Infiltrators had to anticipate what would be needed to best aid Plaster Creek Stewards and Christ Church.

TASK SPECIFICATION AND SCHEDULE

WBS SUMMARY AND LINK

The team utilized a Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS) both for scheduling and for task breakdown and delegation purposes. The link to the Fall 2017 and preliminary Spring 2018 WBS on the team's website is as follows: http://engr.calvinblogs.org/17-18/srdesign03/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/WBS-Version-2.0.pdf. The WBS may also be seen in Appendix B of this report.


PERCENTAGE COMPLETE

The progress the team has made in each of its Fall 2017 tasks (as per the WBS included in Appendix B) may be seen in Figure 2 below. The red bars represent the percentage complete for each category, while the blue bars represent the percentage complete for each sub-task.

Figure 2 Task Completion Schedule

TASKS BEHIND SCHEDULE

All tasks are currently on schedule.

TOTAL EXPECTED PERSON-HOURS

Total expected person-hours per month may be seen in Figure 3 below. Since in October the team fell behind on a few tasks (see Figure 3 above), an increase in the number of person-hours is expected. That increase is expected to remain throughout the spring semester. A lull, however, is expected during January when two members of the team will be overseas.


Figure 3 Expected Total Person-Hours Per Month

METHOD OF APPROACH

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Plaster Creek fails two government regulations mandated by the MDEQ and the EPA: Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): sediment (biota) and E. coli. The failure to meet these TMDLs causes Plaster Creek to be considered an impaired waterway, as the poor water quality disallows three designated uses of the Plaster Creek: warm water fishery, indigenous aquatic life and other wildlife, and total body contact recreation ("Plaster Creek Watershed Management Plan").

The Plaster Creek Stewards is a group of Calvin College faculty, staff, and students that collaborate with local schools, churches, and other community partners to restore the Plaster Creek watershed ("Plaster Creek Stewards – About Us"). The team will come alongside Plaster Creek Stewards to provide a potential stormwater management design for the Christ Church property, as a part of the larger vision to restore the Plaster Creek Waterway.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The design process began with research into the effectiveness of various stormwater management strategies and the collection of relevant data. Communication with a representative of Christ Church

0 50 100 150 200 250

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

Total Person-Hours Per Month (Includes Expected)M

onth


and with representatives of Dan Vos Construction Company allowed Team 3 to understand the church's relevant desires and the fluctuating plans for future construction.

RESEARCH TECHNIQUES

The team first compiled several books and articles on storm water management that were available from the Hekman Library at Calvin College and investigated all the stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) mentioned. These resources are cited in the "References" section at the end of this report. The list was then parsed down to the BMPs that are most feasible for the Christ Church property and budget.

The team then set out to answer a variety of questions specific to their design, including:

• As the team intends to redesign the existing detention pond, what design elements make a detention pond most effective?

• The site is on clay soil. Are there methods that can increase the infiltration rate of clay soil? • What kinds of porous pavement exist, and which are most effective in storm water runoff

reduction? Which are most cost-effective? Is porous pavement viable on clay soil? • What kinds of plants and soil are most effective in a rain garden?

DATA COLLECTION

An initial visit to Christ Church generated an understanding of the basic layout of the site, especially parking lot slopes and spatial relationships between various structures. Later visits allowed Team 3 to collect further information.

Level loggers were installed at four points of interest: in the ravine by the outlet pipes from the parking lot and from the detention pond as well as in the detention pond and the north manhole closest to the playground. Level loggers, described graphically in Figure 4 below, record the height of the water table or the surface elevation of ponded water. These data allow for the determination of the relationship between the precipitation depth on the site during a rain event and the stormwater volume that passes through the specified points of interest. As the time of publication of this report, the data has not yet been collected.


Figure 4 Level Logger Diagram

To perform an infiltration test, a coffee can was pressed about 2 inches into the ground, a waterproof ruler was placed vertically in the can, and the can was filled with water. Once the can was filled, a timer was started. Every 30 seconds, the new height of the water in the can was recorded in a field notebook. The digitized time and height data is in included in Appendix D. Unfortunately, since the resulting infiltration rate of 4 in/hr is wildly inconsistent with the other infiltrations rate found to be typical of the soil type on the Christ Church site, these results have been ignored.

Since no plans were found for the pipe network that connects the parking lot drainage to the ravine and the existing detention pond, water was hosed through various pipes on the site to determine the direction of flow for each pipe. These flow directions are displayed in Figure 16 in the "Site Design" sub-section of the "Design – Proposed" section.

A National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map of the Christ Church site was referenced to determine that the hydrologic soil type of the site is group C. The full citation is found in the "References" section.

The Calvin College Fall 2017 Geology 252 (geomorphology) course conducted a series of soils tests at various locations on the Christ Church site. Their report was delivered to Team 3 and used to determine numerous soil characteristics of the site. Most significantly, the site soil was determined to be silty clay for 50 – 70 cm with clay below the silty clay. The pages of the report that contain soil property information are provided in Appendix E (Figures 18 and 19).

Precipitation data for modeling was taken from Atlas 14 which is fully cited in the "References" section.


COMMUNICATION

The team has been in regular communication with Professor Julie Wildschut throughout the course of the design. Professor Wildschut acts as the team’s primary mentor, and her rich experience with stormwater management design was used to shape and refine the team’s designs.

Team 3 frequently communicated with Scott Gritter, a representative of Christ Church, to keep updated on what Christ Church would like to see happen on their property as Dan Vos continues their work and the MDEQ 319 Grant is better understood. Christ Church's desires for the project, as they are conveyed, are implemented into the design.

Team 3 has also communicated with representatives of Dan Vos Construction Company to collaborate on the design of the future site since both parties want their work to benefit Christ Church and complement the work of the other.

MODELING

Team 3 completed preliminary modeling of their design and will complete a final model in the spring of 2018. The modeling process is detailed in the "Test and Integration" section.

POST-PLAN SET SUBMITTAL

In early March of 2018, after the final design is submitted for review to the MDEQ so it can be approved for construction by the fall of 2018, Team 3 will refine their design in the event that the MDEQ requests a resubmittal.

Team 3 will also design some educational tools for Senior Design Night. The plans for the design of these tools is detailed in the "Test and Integration" section.

Thirdly, Team 3 will prepare an excellent final report and stellar presentations for the last American Society of Civil Engineering luncheon of the spring semester and for Senior Design Night.

TEST AND INTEGRATION

Given the largescale nature of this project, a physical prototype of the design is not feasible. It would have to include the installation of rain gardens, adjustments to existing pipes, and improvements to an existing detention pond. The permissions and finances to execute the design will only be available once and not until the fall of 2018 at the earliest.

To achieve the innovation and confidence in the design that testing often offers mechanical and electrical senior design projects, this design project requires extensive modeling and intensive validation of the modeling.

Another need for testing is the production of educational tools for use at Senior Design Night to aid explanations of relevant design concepts. After Senior Design Night, the educational tools will be given to Plaster Creek Stewards or Christ Church for further education efforts.


MODELING

The preliminary modeling was done with the Kent County Stormwater Calculator, developed by Calvin College hydraulic engineering Professor Dr. Robert Hoeksema, and aided by the Low Impact Development Manual for Michigan. This software takes inputs of land use, curve number, hydrologic soil group, and area, as well as BMP information. It then calculates retention and detention volumes necessary for stream protection, water quality, and flood control requirements with respect to Kent County storm events. The pre-development site land use was modeled as woods in fair condition.

Final modeling will be accomplished primarily with the free program EPA SWMM 5.1, the Environmental Protection Agency Stormwater Management Model. The recommendation of this software was provided by Dr. Robert Hoeksema who has extensive experience with EPA SWMM.

Hydrologic soil groups are determined from the NRCS Web Soil Survey, and further soils information has been obtained from the soil sample analysis performed by a Calvin College geology course. Precipitation data is taken from Atlas 14.

Other software programs used in preliminary and final modeling include ArcGIS to produce maps of the sub-basin in which Christ Church is located to use as backdrops in EPA SWMM, and Autodesk Civil 3D to produce plan sets of the design.

MODEL VALIDATION

In order to validate the EPA SWMM model, the team will use the data collected by the level loggers to get ballpark runoff volumes for specific storm events. The team will ensure that these volumes are adequately reflected in the hydrology portion of the EPA SWMM model.

As to the hydraulic portion of the model, the model will be reviewed by two professionals: Dr. Robert Hoeksema who has over 30 years of modeling experience and Professor Julie Wildschut who is familiar with the site and has many years of consulting engineering experience.

EDUCATIONAL TOOLS

Civil engineers often struggle to relate the practicality of large-scale civil projects to the lay observer. As Team 3 faces this same struggle, Professor Wildschut recommends they construct an educational model for Senior Design Night which can later be used by Plaster Creek Stewards or Christ Church for further education. The proposed design can be found in "Educational Deliverable" subsection of the "Proposed-Design" section of the report. To reach a final educational display, Team 3 will iterate through prototypes to determine optimal soils types and container materials for learning of the expected audience of team members' family, friends, and fellow students of Calvin College. Safety issues of soil and material escape from holding containers will be addressed with caps to cover the tube ends.


REQUIREMENTS AND PROBLEM DEFINITION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Team 3's project site is located on the property of Christ Church. Christ Church is a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) located at 2500 Breton Road in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The church’s property is part of the Plaster Creek watershed (as shown in Figure 5 below). Runoff from the site has contributed to flashy flows and high E. coli levels in the Plaster Creek. Plaster Creek has been classified by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as an impaired waterway. By the provision of feasible designs for both new, sustainable stormwater solutions and redesign of existing stormwater infrastructure, Team 3 seeks to come alongside Plaster Creek Stewards to retain the total volume of a 2-year, 24-hour storm event and to provide appropriate detention for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Plaster Creek Stewards has received a 319 Grant from the MDEQ for the implementation of green infrastructure retention and erosion control measures. An aerial map of the site is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5 Digital Elevation Model of Plaster Creek Watershed


Figure 6 Christ Church PCA Aerial Overview

CLIENT

OVERVIEW

All things considered, the community is the client that will receive a healthier Plaster Creek as a result of the final design of Team 3. Since the design is to be implemented on Christ Church’s property and with the resources of the MDEQ, however, these two entities are referred to as the team’s clients. They are the ones who provide spatial and financial time constraints, and the plan will only be implemented on with the permission of both Christ Church and the MDEQ.

CHRIST CHURCH

Christ Church is an eager recipient of a green infrastructure stormwater management design. The Director of Youth Ministries at the church, Scott Gritter, is a member of the Plaster Creek Stewards. He is excited to see the stormwater management design in place and to see how his youth group can be involved in the implementation.

CURRENT CONSTRUCTION

Christ Church plans to expand the main building to have larger foyer in the front and extra classroom space in the back, to reseal the existing parking lot and to install several rain gardens and bioswales. Dan Vos Construction Company been hired for this work and are in the conceptual design phase at the time of this report. The involvement of Dan Vos poses a unique collaboration challenge to the team. Team 3


must now determine how to collaborate over the detention that Dan Vos is required to provide as a result of the building expansions that add impervious area to the site. Team 3 seeks both to differentiate their work from that of Dan Vos and to improve their design through concurrent construction with Dan Vos.

In a meeting on December 5, 2017 Team 3 found that Dan Vos wishes to collaborate on our design work for the same site. The team will provide a straight-line survey of the church's pipe network drainage system in addition to their proposed plans. In turn, Dan Vos Construction Company will share with the team any survey data they collect throughout the course of the project.

MDEQ

The collaboration is essential, as any confusion of work may result in disqualification of the project for the MDEQ 319 Grant that Plaster Creek Stewards has secured. Since the MDEQ will not pay for private improvements, it is imperative that Christ Church's private work through Dan Vos and the team's work in conjunction with Plaster Creek Stewards remain separate. Though Dan Vos had drawn up plans to install considerable rain gardens, they may instead adjust their design to send the runoff from Christ Church's roof to the existing detention pond and allow Team 3 to implement rain gardens.

Additionally, the team must ensure that their design is compatible with the purpose of the MDEQ 319 Grant so that the MDEQ will approve the design for implementation. This coordination is discussed further in the "Design Constraints" section of the report.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

Behind the church building, a tributary to Plaster Creek runs through the site. A 15-foot deep ravine that feeds to the tributary has developed as high-velocity stormwater off the main parking lot enters the ravine from a PVC pipe.

While the big picture problem is thus evident, tracking down the precise source of the infrastructure on site proved more challenging. Through extensive conversations with Scott Gritter and much time inspecting the site, the team has come to understand the problem as follows.

On the site, there exists a large detention pond designed to hold 67,700 cubic feet of stormwater (as determined from the plans of Christ Church’s property). There are two problems with the existing detention pond, however: (1) most of the runoff from the site is routed straight to the ravine instead of first to the detention pond, and then to the ravine, and (2) the inlet and outlet of the detention pond are located too closely together for effective detention and water quality improvements.

OBJECTIVES

The team seeks to design and implement a combination of sustainable infrastructure and erosion control measures to reduce the volume and velocity of surface runoff from Christ Church into the ravine that leads to Plaster Creek, and to stabilize said ravine. The team also seeks to develop educational


models that Plaster Creek Stewards and Christ Church’s Youth Group may use to aid in their efforts to educate the congregation.

PIPE NETWORK

The primary cause of erosion due to stormwater that exits Christ Church’s property is the fact that currently the runoff from about one acre of parking lot and 0.3 acres of roof are routed straight to the ravine (the rest of the site is routed to the detention pond, and then to the ravine). In order for the existing detention pond to be effective, the runoff must be routed to it before it reaches the tributary.

DETENTION POND

The secondary cause of erosion is the inefficient design of the existing detention pond. The inlet and outlet of the existing pond are located about 10 feet apart which causes the water to flow straight from the inlet to the outlet, without adequate detention. Team 3 hopes to address this issue via installation of a bioswale in the detention pond such that the water is detained for longer. Polluted sediments will then have more time to settle out of the water and the water will be released from the detention pond at a slower rate which will result in minimal ravine erosion.

OUTLET TO RAVINE

Thirdly, the team hopes to provide additional control measures at the existing outlet to the ravine from the parking lot. There are flows that the team will not be able to redirect, given the current budget. For example, the roof drains are internal to the building and then connect under the building to the existing outlet to the ravine from the parking lot. Therefore, these flows cannot be re-directed to the detention pond.

With this in mind, the team looks to install stormwater control measures at the outlet to the ravine itself, as delineated in the following sections.

VOLUME REDUCTION

The team desires to reduce the sheer volume of runoff that leaves the site through the retention of water via green infrastructure BMPs. The more water the team retains, the less will leave the site, and the less the ravine will be eroded.

EDUCATION

One of the Plaster Creek Steward’s main goals is that of education – they look to incorporate students in their work as much as possible to raise up a generation of people who understand and are concerned about stormwater management issues.

The team looks to come alongside the Plaster Creek Stewards in this area by the construction of a physical description of the importance of green infrastructure, as delineated in the following sections.


DESIGN NORMS

As representatives and agents of the one true God, the team considers not only the technical aspects in its design, but also design norms that transcend any technical considerations. The following three design norms are those in which the team has chosen to focus throughout the design process.

STEWARDSHIP

Stewardship is the heart and soul of this design project. The essential nature of water to human life greatly motivated the choice of this project. More than the mere protection of clean water sources, Team 3 seeks to conserve environmental resources and minimize degradation of the environment by the reduction of the erosion and runoff from Christ Church.

JUSTICE

The site redesign at Christ Church incorporates justice as the team seeks to promote justice for the large immigrant population downstream of Christ Church. By consideration for all stakeholders, or "users," of Plaster Creek and their protection, the team abets Christ Church in their care for Plaster Creek so that Plaster Creek can be a wonderful resource for all, and not just for those who "have".

CARING

The team's design considers the effect on individuals who live around Plaster Creek. They seek to promote caring relationship between the team members and the church as well as with the community. As shareholders in God’s creation, the team must protect and care for it, which can be accomplished in part by the restoration of the impaired waterway.

SYSTEM DESIGN

DESIGN – EXISTING

At present, Christ Church has numerous assets designed to manage stormwater on its property. Drains collect water from the parking lots and deliver it, via a simple pipe network, to either a detention pond or an adjacent ravine. The drainage network is comprised of pipes of various sizes and materials. Water which flows out of the outlet to the ravine first passes over a concrete run and some riprap before following the ravine to the Plaster Creek Tributary, which then flows to Plaster Creek. Water which flows to the detention pond encounters ten feet of native plants and invasive species, then exits the detention pond via an 8" PVC outlet to enter the ravine. The pond has more storage than is utilized, since about half of the impervious area is routed to the ravine instead of to the detention pond. Additionally, the inlet and outlet to the detention pond are located very closely together, which causes the water to leave the pond almost as soon as it enters. This is an ineffective design, as the water is not detained for long, and polluted settlements do not have a chance to settle out of flow.


Also on the property are two acres of parking lot. The lots are moderately cracked and have been heavily patched. Several small, occasionally treed grassy islands split the lots into sections and divide a drop-off lane adjacent to the front door from the rest of the parking spaces.

DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

The major factors that constrain the team’s design are the timeline set by the Plaster Creek Stewards, coordination with Christ Church and Dan Vos Construction Companies, the design constraints of the MDEQ budget, and the financial constraints of the MDEQ budget.

PLASTER CREEK STEWARDS

The team’s design must be approved by Julie Wildschut, a member of the board of Plaster Creek Stewards and a mentor to Team 3. Additionally, the Plaster Creek Stewards have set a deadline for the delivery of a 95% plan set by March 1. This deadline will allow the design to be reviewed by the MDEQ, revised as needed, and sent out to bid. If all goes according to plan, the design will be implement in the fall of 2018.

CHRIST CHURCH

While the purpose of this design is not to benefit Christ Church specifically, the site for the design is Christ Church’s property, and the team hopes that Christ Church will indeed be benefited by the design. Therefore, the team must take into account factors such as the willingness of the church to dedicate their space to rain gardens and their willingness to give up impervious area.

DAN VOS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Dan Vos Construction Company is currently in the conceptual design phase for a building expansion for Christ Church. Therefore, the team must take into account that the amount of runoff from the site is likely to increase in the near future, and to base the design on Dan Vos’s proposed design. Additionally, through expansions of the impervious area of the site, Dan Vos has its own detention requirements. The team must work closely with Dan Vos to coordinate stormwater management designs, so that each design will be most effective. Finally, the team must work with Dan Vos to clearly differentiate between the stormwater management BMPs required for the building expansion and the stormwater management BMPs to be implemented by Plaster Creek Steward. This differentiation is critical since the MDEQ 319 Grant will not cover any stormwater management BMPs included in private construction.

MDEQ BUDGET – DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

As the construction budget for the project is to be provided by the MDEQ, the team’s design must be approved by that entity. The MDEQ wants to see the budget used for the retention of 2-year storm event. This design criterion is reflected in the design by the increase in elevation of the detention pond outlet.


MDEQ BUDGET – FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS

The MDEQ has awarded the Plaster Creek Stewards a 319 Grant for improvements to the Plaster Creek watershed. $52,000 for construction costs and $8,000 for plants has been designated to this project, which provide a total budget of $60,000. The team will work to provide the most effective design that meets this financial constraint.

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

The team has assessed that the primary issue with the facility is the pipe network and discharge of high velocity runoff that bypasses the detention pond and discharges into the ravine behind the church. The following design alternatives give an overview of the different exclusive solutions that were explored. In the "Design – Proposed" section, the preferred design alternative will be explained based on financial and engineering feasibility.

DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1: MANHOLE AT RAVINE OUTLET

Peak discharges and flashy floods have caused major erosion in the rear part of the church on the northeast part of the property. This erosion has caused significant sediment transportation to Plaster Creek and a concerning risk hazard due to the ravine of several feet. Figure 7 shows a picture that exemplifies the significant erosion caused by the poorly designed outlet structure.

Figure 7 Ravine Drop and Pipe Outlet


A large portion of the church’s property is drained by the two outlet pipes. The drainage includes a significant portion of the largest parking lot and about half of the roof drains. Since the team analyzed the possibility that modifications to the pipe network might be a costly solution, other possibilities were explored. Energy dissipation at the ravine outlet was determined to be key. Two solutions to dissipate outlet energy were identified. First, a large (15 feet deep) drop manhole is installed behind the Church to slow the flows and release the stormwater runoff at ground level in the ravine (see Figure 8 for reference). To restore the ravine, a backfill composed of large and small rocks can potentially dissipate even more energy after the manhole is built. If this were combined with a rain garden at the outlet of the manhole, it will greatly reduce erosion in Plaster Creek. This option is costly however, as a standard 5-foot-deep, 4.5-foot diameter culvert costs $3,500. This value is based on cost estimation by an industrial firm located in Chicago. A deeper manhole is significantly more expensive.

Figure 8 Drop Manhole with Backfill Ravine Restoration

DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2: PIPE NETWORK REDESIGN

A second alternative is to divert as much runoff as possible away from the ravine and to the detention pond. This allows the vast storage that the detention pond offers to be fully utilized. In this alternative, the team re-routed the runoff from manholes A and B, as shown in Figure 9 below. The existing pipe network is shown in Figure 9 below.


9 Existing Pipe Network System

The team’s proposed network is shown in Figure 10 below. In this diagram, the slope of Pipe 1 has been reversed, and Pipe 2 used to go to the ravine, but now is directed toward the detention pond.

Figure 10 Proposed Pipe Network System


The team seeks to minimize asphalt removal in this process. There is the possibility that the team will be able to collaborate with Dan Vos Construction Companies, as they are in the conceptual design phase for an expansion of the front of the building. If this portion of the pavement needs to be torn up for their purposes, the team will re-route the pipes at that time if concurrent construction schedules can be established.

DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3: DETENTION POND FLOW PATH EXTENSION

An appropriate redesign of the detention pond to increase the length of the flow path and therefore the time the water takes to infiltrate. This can be accomplished in one of two ways, the implementation of a berm or the placement of a bioswale.

The first option involves a large berm that extends down the center of the detention pond, as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 Redesign of the Detention Pond with a Berm

A berm that consists of packed soil and with a standard 2:1 slope is placed in the existing detention pond. A 2-foot-high, 3-foot-wide compacted soil berm that extends 100-150 feet can cost anywhere from $2,600 (Finnemore) to $9000 (FEMA). This cost range most depends on, soil type, soil availability, and equipment cost. The Christ Church youth group has volunteered to do several work days which reduces the labor cost. The cost is covered with the MDEQ 319 Grant so long as adequate proof were provided that a berm aids in retention of stormwater onsite.


The team also considered the implementation of a bioswale in place of a berm as an appropriate detention pond redesign alternative. In this case, the flow path is similarly expanded since soil dug up from the bioswale is used to construct a small berm that aids in the guidance of flow (Figure 12).

Figure 12 Redesign of the Detention Pond with a Bioswale

A bioswale is a landscape element used to concentrate or remove silt and pollution out of stormwater runoff and consists of a swaled drainage course with gently sloped sides. To construct and install a 125-foot-long by 5-foot-wide bioswale in the existing detention pond costs roughly $8125, although volunteer labor may reduce this value (Brennan).

DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #4: RAIN GARDEN CONSTRUCTION

Christ Church and Plaster Creek Stewards both intend on the implementation rain gardens. A rain garden typically involves the excavation and replacement of native soil with higher infiltration soil in combination with native vegetation. Often rain gardens have an underlying drain as well. There are eight areas identified on Christ Church’s property that make ideal rain gardens, five of which are small parking lot islands. The other three are larger including two possible rain gardens around two parking lot culverts and a third in a low portion in the northern area of the church (Figure 13).


Figure 13. Proposed Rain Garden Locations

Eight rain gardens occupy 8,215 ft2, and at around $5/ft2 cost around $41,000.

COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1

Team 3 determined that a viable solution involves the implementation a combination of the design alternatives as follows: three rain gardens, two pipe replacements, implementation of a bioswale to extend the flow path in the detention pond, and the increase of the elevation of the outlet from the detention pond above the two-year storm water surface elevation. This alternative is discussed further in the "Design-Proposed" section below.

COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2

Alternatively, the placement of a manhole at the outlet to the ravine and the implementation rain gardens would also appropriately detain a 25-year, 24-hour storm. In this scenario, the rain gardens retain 36% of a two-year storm, as well as the performance of vital sediment removal. The manhole slows the velocities that exit into the ravine. Overall, this comprehensive design is a strong contender.


DESIGN CRITERIA

The team considered the following aspects of each BMP during the design process:

RAIN GARDENS

Design criteria for the rain gardens are as follows.

NATIVE VEGETATION

The rain gardens must be planted with native vegetation so that the proliferation of invasive species is not promoted through the implementation of rain gardens.

LOW-MOISTURE CONTENT

The sooner that a low-moisture content is established in the soil, the sooner more water can be absorbed by the rain garden. Studies have shown that some plant species establish a low-moisture content sooner following a rain event than others. Specifically, one study found that certain vegetation types, such as prairie, decreased soil moisture and increased the storage capacity of rain gardens in comparison to shrubs and turf grass (Nocco, 1686). Therefore, the rain garden should be planted with prairie grasses.

INFILTRATION RATE

The soil used in rain garden design should have a high infiltration rate in order to treat the maximum amount of water possible. Sandy soils have high infiltration rates, and therefore should be incorporated into the proposed rain gardens. In one study, loamy sand was used to obtain the desired high infiltration rate (Dietz, 125).

LOCATION

The location of rain gardens is crucial in rain garden design. Ideally, rain gardens are located where runoff ponds naturally, in a topographic depression. Alternatively, rain gardens may be located around an existing or proposed drain, as the site is likely to be graded in that direction.

PIPE NETWORK REDESIGN

COLLECTION VOLUME

It is most effective to re-route the existing pipes that carry the most volume to the ravine outlet. Once moved, these pipes catalyze the most change in the system. This fact allows Team 3 to divert the majority of stormwater runoff into the detention pond. The collection area of each manhole is shown in Figure 14 below.


Figure 14. Manhole Volume Collection

DEPTH

How deep pipes have been buried determines the ease of removal, and thus which pipes may be most easily changed or replaced. The team spent a day on site taking data on pipe invert elevations, discovering the pipe network.

PIPE REMOVAL

If an existing pipe need not be removed because a new pipe must be installed to connect two manholes, it reduces cost to simply block the existing pipe and leave it in place. This is because the cost of excavating a pipe to lay in a new direction would double digging and backfilling costs.

LENGTH

The length of the pipe is an important criterion because it varies tremendously on site and longer pipes are much harder to remove and more expensive to replace or reroute. The design decision must account for all the above pipe network redesign criteria.

DETENTION POND REDESIGN

The existing detention pond holds a 25-year storm with ease. The volume requirements are certainly met, but the inlet-outlet mechanic is not favorable for the optimal use of the pond. In the existing pond, the inlet and outlet are located approximately 20 feet apart, allowing the water to flow out of the pond almost immediately after it enters. According to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, it is always recommended that the distance between the inlet and outlet of a detention pond be maximized.


Configurations with the greatest length to width ratio result in the highest hydraulic efficiency (Janson and Law). This extended detention/retention time allows for stormwater quality enhancement through infiltration and sedimentation. Accordingly, the team’s alternatives shall maximize the distance between the inlet and the outlet.

OUTLET TO RAVINE

The outlet to the ravine that leads to Plaster Creek was designed to output the runoff from the northwest parking lot as well as half of the roof. The Plaster Creek Stewards recognizes that the watershed hydrology has drastically changed from its natural condition. High urbanization, exemplified by Christ Church’s site development, have increased due to increase flows that cause channel erosion and flooding. In a report delivered in October, FTC&H suggested riprap as a solution to exterior streambank erosion. In more recent developments this solution ceases to be viable given that many of the project sites managed this way have failed. Because of this, it is necessary to provide a design that can dissipate energy appropriately.

An appropriate alternative will therefore reduce runoff velocity, encourage infiltration, improve runoff quality, and take into consideration the project’s budgetary constraints.

EDUCATIONAL DELIVERABLE

Team 3 intends to produce several education models, these must have a certain aesthetic appearance if the team intends to donate them to Plaster Creek Stewards or Christ Church. They also must be able to be understood by a wide variety of audiences, including a younger audience. Portability is also essential to consider as a criterion because the team must be able to transport the models to several presentation locations. It should be relatively easy to set up and take down without mess-creation. Finally, the educational deliverables must be within Team’s 3 budget, which means an appropriate low-cost material is essential.

DESIGN DECISIONS

The team arrived at a decision after much thought and debate. Part of the struggle with design decisions came from the delicate position Team 3 maintains in navigating the politics of coordinating the needs and requirements of the MDEQ, Dan Vos Construction Company, Christ Church and Plaster Creek Stewards. The team had to find the combination of alternatives that best fit the needs of the church and yet remained within the budget constraints and fulfills the requirements of the MDEQ.

Design Alternative #1, the Manhole at Ravine Outlet was ultimately rejected by the team due to costly complications. A standard 4-foot diameter, 5-foot deep concrete manhole is priced at about $3500; however, the manhole outlined in the alternative is 15 feet deep, and the costs of the construction of such a manhole are large due to high excavation costs. Therefore, this alternative was rejected due to financial infeasibility.


Design Alternative #2, Pipe Network Redesign, was selected for incorporation into the proposed design. Pipe 1 was selected to be re-routed since settling in the parking lot has caused it to become ineffective, with a slope change in the middle of the pipe. Additionally, it is a fairly short pipe, and there is a possibility that it is located in Dan Vos’s future construction site, which makes it more easily accessible. Pipe 2 was selected to be rerouted since it collects run off from approximately 0.3 acres of parking lot, as shown in Figure 14 above. In the existing system, this flow is directed to the ravine outlet, but will be directed to the detention pond in the proposed system, as shown in Figure 10 above.

Design Alternative # 3, Detention Pond Flow Path Extension, was selected based on the criteria of extended detention. The initial consideration was to reroute the inlet pipe to the opposite side of the pond, but this option was neglected due to better alternatives. To meet the desired result the option the team chose is a bioswale that extends the flow upstream of the pond forcing extended detention and some retention capability. The bioswale was also seen as a feasible solution given that it is expected that the church will provide labor for its construction, significantly reducing construction costs. Finally, bioswale retention fits perfectly our design goals in a non-invasive and relatively inexpensive way.

Design Alternative #4, Rain Garden Construction, was selected based on the primary goal of infiltration. The grant that will potentially fund this project relies heavily on proof of stormwater retention and rain gardens prove to be a very attractive solution. The rain gardens that will be designed will be placed in locations that prove to have low implementation costs, least damage the landscape architecture and primarily collect a significant amount of rainwater.

Comprehensive Design Alternative #1 was chosen because it more closely accomplished the team’s objectives for the project. The redesign of the pipe network conveys high volumes of runoff to the detention pond to be dealt with by the bioswale. This wholistic approach incorporates all the requirements and criteria that must be met. The proposed design is as follows.

Comprehensive Design Alternative #2, is a defensive mechanism against erosion in the ravine. This would include a manhole drop structure followed by a raingarden that completely neutralizes future erosion. This option was regarded as feasible because research and contact with Joseph Geelhoed, a professional engineer at Dan Vos, confirmed it. It is worth noting that this design alternative is regarded as last priority because it imposes both financial and design complications given that this alternative is not common practice.

DESIGN – PROPOSED

SITE DESIGN

Team 3 has decided on a comprehensive site plan that combines several of the design alternatives. The preferred decision involves new two rain gardens, two pipe replacements, implementation of a bioswale along the detention pond, and the increase in elevation of the outlet from the detention pond above the two-year storm water surface elevation.


For the preferred decision, Team 3 proposes the placement of a 3700 ft2 rain garden around the manhole on the north side of the parking lot, and a 1800 ft2 rain garden to replace the south portion of the central island. At $5 per square foot, rain garden implementation costs about $27,000.

Stormwater collected in manholes 2 and 3 will be rerouted as shown in Figure 16 below. Currently, the runoff collected in manhole 2 runs through an 8 in diameter green PVC pipe under the Church and out back into the ravine. The runoff from manhole 3 is discharged under the church and out to the ravine, although it does contain a pipe that connects to manhole 4 that appears to poorly convey water towards manhole 4. It is proposed that the pipes to the ravine be blocked and new pipes be installed that connect manhole 2 to manhole 4, and 3 to 4 be redone to establish appropriate slope towards manhole 4 and therefore the detention pond. If this process were combined with the construction of the central island rain garden which incorporates manhole 2, then construction due to redesign of the pipe network costs approximately $20,000 (see cost estimate below).

A bioswale installation in the detention pond extends the flow path of the water away from the outlet to make better use of the existing pond, as seen in Figure 16 below. Soil from the excavation of the central island location and the bioswale is repurposed for the berm. It is feasible to construct the bioswale with volunteer labor provided by the Christ Church youth group, and the cost of native plants is covered by the MDEQ 319 Grant. The proposed bioswale is 5 feet wide, 2 feet deep, and 100 feet long, and is price at approximately $8,100.

Finally, the increase in the elevation of the outlet of the detention pond is proposed to be accomplished by the shortened length of the existing PVC outlet and the addition a 45-degree elbow as shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15 Detention Pond Outlet Structure Reconfiguration


drawing

Figure 16 Christ Church Preliminary Design


EDUCATION DELIVERABLE

It is proposed to use several 3 to 6 inch diameter clear plastic tubes filled with differing types of soil. Several possible combinations include vegetation on top of soil (the typical soil at Christ Church), sand as a comparison, and rocks and higher infiltrating soil to demonstrate the raingardens and bioswale. A conceptual diagram is located in Appendix A (Figure 17). The cylinders could be mounted over a bucket using wire to suspend them in place with a perforated cap on the bottom keeping the soil from escaping yet allowing water to pass though. “Polluted” water is then poured in the top of the cylinders and observers watch the water infiltrate and become “filtered”.

COST ESTIMATE

The cost breakdown for the proposed design is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Proposed Design Cost Estimate


CONCLUSION

LESSONS LEARNED

The bulk of the learning experience for the team this semester has been related not to technical aspects of the project, but rather to project management and teamwork. Each individual on the team has worked to refine their collaborative skills, and the team has become effective at listening to all perspectives before decision is made. Furthermore, the team learned the importance of a team leader to provide coherence in team vision, purpose, and direction.

Additionally, the team learned the importance of effective communication, which involves both effective speaking and listening. Senior design projects demand many hours of meetings, group work, and individual work. The team learned how integral it was to be considerate of others' time constraints when planning both group work and individual assignments, to still achieve group goals.

REMAINING ISSUES

Looking forward, a few major issues remain.

COORDINATION

The remaining issues the team faces are largely coordination issues. The team’s design must take into account the mission of the Plaster Creek Stewards, the wants and needs of Christ Church, the design of Dan Vos Construction Companies, and work within the constraints of the budget from MDEQ.

OUTLET TO RAVINE

The team would like to see a manhole or other energy-loss structure installed at the outlet to the ravine from the parking lot. The team will reassess after further design and pricing to determine if it is financially feasible to install such a structure.

FUTURE WORK

Future work includes hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the design. As previously stated, Team 3 will use EPA SWMM 5.1 to perform this modeling. The team will work to complete modeling as well as a 95% plan set by March 1. After this deadline, the team will address any revisions from the MDEQ, work to develop their educational deliverable, and prepare written and oral presentations of the final design.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The team would like to formally thank the following people for their generous gifts of time and expertise to the team throughout the project:

Audrey Waldron, the team's contact in the Career Center, for her close work with the team in preparing them for professional life and work after college; Nellie Anderson-Wright for allowing us to borrow equipment for the soil infiltration test at Christ Church; David Malone, the Dean of the Calvin College and Seminary Library, for his time in teaching the team research methodology; Dr. Robert Hoeksema, a hydraulics engineering professor at Calvin College, for his advice in the field of stormwater management and for his software, the stormwater calculator; Leonard De Rooy, a structural engineering professor at Calvin College and the team's advisor, for his management and supervision; Lon Tiffany, Jeremy Roon, and Joe Geelhoed from Dan Vos Construction Company for their coordination of design work and open exchange of information; Scott Gritter, the youth director at Christ Church, for his insights, availability, and enthusiasm for the project; and Julie Wildschut, an engineering professor at Calvin College and a member of the Plaster Creek Stewards, without whom this project would never have been undertaken.


REFERENCES

ASCE. (2001). Guide for Best Management Practice (BMP) Selection in Urban Developed Areas. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Brennan, Amy H. “Cost Analysis of Low Impact Development Best Management Practices.” EPA.Ohio.Gov, Environmental Protection Agency, epa.ohio.gov/Portals/41/storm_workshop/lid/CRWP_LID_Cost%20Study.pdf.

Chang, N. (Ed.). (2010). Effects of Urbanization on Groundwater. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Cost Helper. Rain Garden Cost. Retrieved from http://home.costhelper.com/rain-garden.html

Dennison, M. S. (1996). Stormwater Discharges, Regulatory Compliance and Best Management Practices. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Dietz, Michael E., and John C. Clausen. "A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment." Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 167.1 (2005): 123-138.

“8' PVC Tubing Central Vacuum.” Walmart.com, www.walmart.com.

Eisenberg, B., Lindow, K. C., Smith, D. R. (Eds.). (2015). Permeable Pavements. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures. See Chapters VI-F, Floodwalls and VI-L: Levees.

Field, R., O’Shea, M. L., & Chin, K. K. (Eds.). (1993). Integrated Stormwater Management. Lewis Publishers.

Finnemore, E. John, and William G. Lynard. “Management and Control Technology for Urban Stormwater Pollution.” Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), vol. 54, no. 7, 1982, pp. 1099–1111. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25041628.

Herricks, E. E. (Ed.). (1995). Stormwater Runoff and Receiving Systems: Impact, Monitoring, and Assessment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Gringich, Jonathan, et al. “Project Proposal and Feasibility Study.” BiOdor, Calvin College, 2015, www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/2015-16-team17/Final%20PPFS.pdf++.

Janson, Ketah and Law Seth (2005), The Hydraulic Efficiency of Simple Stormwater Ponds Institute of Water Technology

Mays, L. W. (Ed.). (2004). Urban Stormwater Management Tools. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017). [Interactive map of precipitation data for all the United States of America December 9, 2017]. National Weather Service. Retrieved from https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html.

National Resources Conservation Service. (2017). [Interactive map of site soil characteristics for all the United States of America December 9, 2017]. Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

Nix, S. J. (1994). Urban Stormwater Modeling and Simulation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Nocco, Mallika A., Sara E. Rouse, and Nicholas J. Balster. "Vegetation type alters water and nitrogen budgets in a controlled, replicated experiment on residential-sized rain gardens planted with prairie, shrub, and turfgrass." Urban Ecosystems 19.4 (2016): 1665-1691.

"Plaster Creek Stewards - About Us." Calvin College, Plaster Creek Stewards, www.calvin.edu/admin/provost/pcw/about/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2017.

"Plaster Creek Watershed Management Plan." Calvin College, FTC&H, Oct. 2008, www.calvin.edu/admin/provost/pcw/learn/Plaster%20Creek%20WMP.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov. 2017.

Porous Pavement Alternatives Cost Analysis. Century West Engineering, www.centurywest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Metro-Porous-Pavement-Cost-Analysis.pdf++.

Retention Pond. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Nov. 2015, udfcd.org/wp-content/uploads/uploads/vol3%20criteria%20manual/08_T-07%20Retention%20Pond.pdf+.

Sipes, J. L., Sipes, M. L. (2013). Creating Green Roadways: Integrating Cultural, Natural, and Visual Resources into Transportation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

“Soil Infiltration Rate.” Sacramento County Code, 1990, qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/ view.php?topic=14-14_10-14_10_110.

Stahre, P., Urbonas, B. (1990). Stormwater Detention for Drainage, Water Quality, and CSO Management. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Urbonas, B., Stahre, P. (1993). Stormwater: Best Management Practices and Detention for Water Quality, Drainage, and CSO Management. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wanielista, M. P. (1978) Stormwater Management Quantity and Quality. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.

Young, Edward S., and William E. Sharpe. “Rainwater Cisterns: Design, Construction, and Treatment.” Penn State Extension, Pennsylvania State University, 24 Aug. 2017, extension.psu.edu/rainwater-cisterns-design-construction-and-treatment.


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – TEAM BUDGET

Table 2. Team Budget.

Team # 3 #REF!

Team Name The Infiltrators

Senior Design Advisor Prof. De Rooy

Last Revised 11/13/2017

TOTALS $100.00 $0.00 0.00% $100.00

Line Item Budget Spent % Remain

Prototype:

Clear Plastic Tubes $50.00 $0.00 0.00% $50.00 Other (Vegetation, Gravel, etc) $10.00 $0.00 0.00% $10.00

Plastic Caps $20.00 $0.00 0.00% $20.00

Level Logger:

PVC Pipe $20.00 $0.00 0.00% $20.00

The level logger and prototype referenced in Table 2 above are detailed in Figure 17 below.

Figure 17. Budget Items Explanation Diagrams


APPENDIX B – WBS

The team’s work breakdown schedule for the fall of 2017 and the spring of 2018 is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Work Breakdown Schedule Task Name Duration Start Finish Miscellaneous 44 days Wed 10/4/17 Mon 12/4/17 Set Up Initial Meeting with Client 6 days Wed 10/4/17 Wed 10/11/17

Project Brief 4 days Wed 10/11/17 Mon 10/16/17 Budget Proposal 4 days Wed 10/11/17 Mon 10/16/17 Team Photos 1 day Thu 10/12/17 Thu 10/12/17 Team Devotions 3 days Wed 10/18/17 Fri 10/20/17 Meet with Librarian 1 day Thu 11/2/17 Thu 11/2/17 Updated Poster 5 days Mon 10/30/17 Fri 11/3/17 Practice Interview Due 44 days Wed 10/4/17 Mon 12/4/17 Presentations 36 days Fri 10/13/17 Fri 12/1/17 Oral Presentation 1 6 days Fri 10/13/17 Fri 10/20/17 Oral Presentation 2 31 days Fri 10/20/17 Fri 12/1/17 Website 9 days Wed 10/18/17 Mon 10/30/17 Select Webmaster 4 days Wed 10/18/17 Mon 10/23/17 Website Complete 7 days Wed 10/18/17 Thu 10/26/17 Website Posted 3 days Thu 10/26/17 Mon 10/30/17 PPFS 49 days Wed 10/4/17 Mon 12/11/17 Research 23 days Wed 10/4/17 Fri 11/3/17 Outline 2 days Fri 11/3/17 Mon 11/6/17 Preliminary Design Selection 6 days Mon 11/6/17 Mon 11/13/17 Draft 6 days Mon 11/6/17 Mon 11/13/17 Final Design Selection 16 days Mon 11/13/17 Mon 12/4/17 Final Version 6 days Mon 12/4/17 Mon 12/11/17 Data Collection 20 days Tue 11/14/17 Mon 12/11/17 Place Level Loggers 1 day Tue 11/14/17 Tue 11/14/17 Loggers Active 20 days Tue 11/14/17 Mon 12/11/17 Hydrologic Modeling 76 days Mon 11/13/17 Mon 2/26/18 Stormwater Calculator 6 days Mon 11/13/17 Mon 11/20/17 Hydrologic Modeling 6 days Mon 11/20/17 Mon 11/27/17 Hydraulic Modeling 16 days Mon 2/5/18 Mon 2/26/18 Plan Set 36 days Mon 1/29/18 Mon 3/19/18 40% Design 8 days Mon 1/29/18 Wed 2/7/18 60% Design 6 days Wed 2/7/18 Wed 2/14/18 95% Design 12 days Wed 2/14/18 Thu 3/1/18


100% Design 13 days Thu 3/1/18 Mon 3/19/18 Cost Estimate 64 days Mon 12/4/17 Thu 3/1/18 Preliminary Cost Estimate 6 days Mon 12/4/17 Mon 12/11/17 Final Cost Estimate 12 days Wed 2/14/18 Thu 3/1/18 Final Report 154 days Wed 10/4/17 Sat 5/5/18 Research 44 days Wed 10/4/17 Mon 12/4/17 Outline 8 days Thu 3/1/18 Mon 3/12/18 Draft 21 days Mon 3/12/18 Mon 4/9/18 Final 21 days Mon 4/9/18 Sat 5/5/18 Final Poster 21 days Mon 4/9/18 Sat 5/5/18 Preliminary Thoughts 6 days Mon 4/9/18 Mon 4/16/18 Draft 6 days Mon 4/16/18 Mon 4/23/18 Final 11 days Mon 4/23/18 Sat 5/5/18 Prototype 46 days Sun 3/4/18 Sat 5/5/18 Materials Collection 14 days Mon 3/5/18 Thu 3/22/18 Assembly 33 days Thu 3/22/18 Sat 5/5/18 Senior Design Night 1 day Sat 5/5/18 Sat 5/5/18 Presentation 11 days Mon 4/23/18 Sat 5/5/18


APPENDIX C - GLOSSARY

ArcGIS ArcGIS is a geographic information system (GIS) for working with maps and geographic information.

Atlas 14 NOAA Atlas 14: Point Precipitation Data

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

319 Grant The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) established the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program. Section 319 addresses the need for greater federal leadership to help focus state and local nonpoint source efforts. Under Section 319, states, territories and tribes receive grant money that supports a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

EPA SWMM EPA’s Storm Water Management Model


APPENDIX D – INFILTRATION TEST RAW DATA

The raw data from the team’s in-situ infiltration test is shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Infiltration Test Data Time (s) Water Height (cm)

0 12.5 30 11.7 60 11.5 90 11.4

120 11.3 150 11.3 180 11.25 210 11.15 240 11.05 270 11 300 11


APPENDIX E – SOIL TYPE

The soils data received from Calvin College’s geology class are shown in Figures 18 and 19 below.

Figure 18. Geology Soil Survey 1 for Christ Church


Figure 19 Geology Soil Survey 1 for Christ Church

PROJECT PROPOSAL AND FEASIBILITY...

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT PROPOSAL AND FEASIBILITY...