Team 18
GRswis
Grand Rapids Surface Water Infiltration System
John-Marc Eshelman
Brandon Kuyers
Brenton Newswanger
Dan VanKooten
11/13/2014
ENGR 339/340 Senior Design Project
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
© 2014, Calvin College and John-Marc Eshelman, Brandon Kuyers, Brenton Newswanger, Dan
VanKooten.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Calvin College Senior Design ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Senior Design Team GRswis ................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Team Members ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.2 Project Definition ......................................................................................................................... 3
2 Project Management ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Team Organization .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Schedule .............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.4 Team Budget ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3 Project requirements ................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1 Site Constraints ................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Watershed Basin .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Storm............................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1.3 Soil ................................................................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 7
3.3 Environmental Requirements ............................................................................................................. 7
3.3.1 Sediment ...................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3.2 E. coli ............................................................................................................................................ 8
3.3.3 Nutrient Pollution ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3.4 Thermal Pollution......................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.5 Toxins ........................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.6 Allowable Pollution Levels ........................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Traffic Requirements........................................................................................................................... 9
4 Research and Modeling ........................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 11
4.1.1 Businesses and Existing Utilities ................................................................................................ 12
ii
4.1.2 Traffic ......................................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Hydraulic Model ................................................................................................................................ 18
4.2.1 Runoff Calculations .................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 Infiltration Calculations .............................................................................................................. 19
4.2.3 Detention Calculations ............................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Pollutant Modeling ........................................................................................................................... 19
5 Design....................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.1 Design Norms .................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 21
5.2.1 Groundwater recharge............................................................................................................... 21
5.2.2 Stream Channel Protection ........................................................................................................ 21
5.2.3 Flood Control ............................................................................................................................. 21
5.2.4 Water Quality Protection ........................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Design Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 21
5.3.1 Rain Gardens .............................................................................................................................. 23
5.3.2 Vegetated Swales ....................................................................................................................... 23
5.3.3 Infiltration Trenches................................................................................................................... 24
5.3.4 Subsurface Infiltration Beds ....................................................................................................... 25
5.3.5 Planter Boxes ............................................................................................................................. 25
5.4 Traffic Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 27
5.5 Design Decision ................................................................................................................................. 29
6 Business Plan............................................................................................................................................ 30
6.1 Existing competitors.......................................................................................................................... 30
6.1.2 FTC&H ........................................................................................................................................ 30
6.1.3 Moore & Bruggink ...................................................................................................................... 30
6.1.4 Prein & Newhof .......................................................................................................................... 30
6.1.5 Williams & Works ....................................................................................................................... 30
6.2 Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................................... 31
6.2.1 Sidewalk Planters ....................................................................................................................... 31
6.2.2 Road Construction...................................................................................................................... 31
6.2.3 Pipe ............................................................................................................................................ 31
6.2.4 Total Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................... 31
iii
Conculsion ................................................................................................................................................... 31
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 32
References .................................................................................................................................................. 33
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 35
iv
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Team 18 – GRswis .......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Map of Alger Heights business district (Google Maps) .................................................................. 3
Figure 3: Topographic map of the business district (blue rectangle) with storm sewer network (Only
representative, not to scale) ......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Accessible pedestrian ramp integrated into stormwater curb (Nevue Ngan Associates and
Sherwood Design engineers, 2009) ............................................................................................................ 10
Figure 5: Map of Grand Rapids with the Alger Heights business district highlighted ................................ 11
Figure 6: Satellite image over the Alger Heights business district (Google Maps) ..................................... 13
Figure 7: Topographic map of the business district with street labels and storm sewer network (Only
representative, not to scale) ....................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: Topographic map of the business district with the storm sewer network shown (Only
representative, not to scale) ....................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 9: Soil type map with map legend ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Land use map and legend .......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Schematic of engineered rain garden (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008)... 23
Figure 12: Vegetated swale cross-section (Green Planet Ethics, 2012)...................................................... 24
Figure 13: Infiltration trench schematic (New Zealand Water Environment Research Foundation, 2004)24
Figure 14: Infiltration bed below the surface of a parking lot (Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Watershed Management, 2006) ................................................................................................ 25
Figure 15: Contained planter (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008) ................................. 26
Figure 16: Schematic of infiltration planter (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008) ........... 26
Figure 17: Schematic of flow-through planter (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008) ...... 27
Figure 18: Street with brick pavers in on-street parking ............................................................................ 28
Figure 19: Grass pavers for on-street parking ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 20: A bioretention median ............................................................................................................... 29
Figure 21 Design matrix for bioretention system ....................................................................................... 30
v
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Calvin College Senior Design
Calvin College is a private college in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The college offers an ABET accredited
Bachelor of Science in Engineering in four different concentrations. The concentrations offered are
Chemical, Civil and Environmental, Electrical and Computer, and Mechanical. Engineering 339/340, the
Senior Design Course, is the capstone class for engineering majors at Calvin College. This course focuses
on the integration of the design process with a reformed Christian worldview1. The class also focuses on
preliminary validation of designs through use of basic analysis and prototyping.
Through this project, the members of team 18 have learned how to complete several different goals. The
first of these goals was the ability to define, plan, and implement a major project such as the design of a
storm water collection system. The second goal was being an effective team member. This was achieved
through the interaction of the team members within the team.
The last and most important goal learned was integration of the Calvin education, particularly the team’s
senior design course, with Christian faith. This was accomplished through the identification of engineering
design norms and how they relate to the project. The team decided to focus on three design norms:
Stewardship, Integrity, and Trust.
1
(Calvin College, 2014)
1
1.2 Senior Design Team GRswis
Team Grand Rapids Storm Water Infiltration System (GRswis) consists of four Calvin College Civil and
Environmental students. The team members (from left to right in Figure 1 below) are Dan VanKooten,
Brandon Kuyers, Brenton Newswanger, and John-Marc Eshelman.
Figure 1: Team 18 – GRswis
1.2.1 Team Members
John-Marc Eshelman is from Fremont, California. John-marc is currently working at Viable Inc. in
downtown Grand Rapids. There he has learned the ins and outs of small businesses.
Brenton Newswanger grew up on a farm in Manchester, Kentucky. While at Calvin, he has traveled to
both Europe and Asia. His emphasis is on hydraulic engineering and structural engineering. He expects to
obtain a job in the civil engineering industry after graduation.
Brandon Kuyers is from South Bend, Indiana. For past two summers, he has worked at Abonmarche Inc.
in South Bend. After graduation, he wishes to move to Milwaukee, Wisconsin and obtain engineering work
there.
Dan VanKooten is from the city of Kentwood, Michigan. He has worked the past three summer at Medema
VanKooten & Associates as a land surveyor and junior level engineer. He has accepted a position there
after graduation.
2
1.2.2 Project Definition
The project involves designing bioretention basins for the business district at the corner of Alger Street
and Eastern Avenue in Grand Rapids, Michigan, shown in Figure 2. This area is almost entirely covered by
concrete, building roofs, and other impervious surfaces. Runoff from these areas contributes to flooding
and water pollution in Plaster Creek. The team’s goal is to decrease the runoff from the site and remove
pollutants from the runoff through the use of bioretention basins, improve traffic flow, and increase the
beauty of the area through the addition of green space.
N
Figure 2: Map of Alger Heights business district (Google Maps)
Bioretention basins are a type of low impact development (LID) that consist of grassy swales or enclosed
planters that provide a place for water to collect and infiltrate into the soil. This decreases the amount of
pollutants in the runoff through use of the soil and plants as filters and decreases the volume of runoff.
Bioretention structures also provide needed green space, which the city of Grand Rapids has recently
been trying to increase.
3
2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
2.1 Team Organization
Each member of the team is assigned an aspect of the project and is responsible for educating the other
members on the status of their tasks. Dan VanKooten is the webmaster and is in charge of keeping the
website up to date as well as making it pleasing and appealing to the visitor. Brandon Kuyers is developing
the project CAD drawings that will make up the final construction documents. John-Marc Eshelman is in
charge of developing the road redesign and verifying that the designs follow traffic regulations and do not
impede traffic flow through the business district. Brenton Newswanger is modeling runoff discharge and
infiltration in the business district and is in charge of many of the calculations and relevant design data.
Team meetings with Professor Wunder, the team’s advisor, are regularly held at 9:30am on Thursdays.
Typically, the team presents what they have accomplished during the prior week and the advisor suggests
things to fix or do for the next week.
Team documents and data are kept in hard copy form in a file cabinet located at the team’s station in the
Engineering Building and electronic copies are kept in the engineering scratch drive in a folder called
“Team 18” that only the members of the team have access to.
2.2 Approach
The basic design methodology involved first finding out current performance data for the area in terms of
traffic counts, discharge during storm events, and current pollution counts. The next step was to design
bioretention basins to improve pollution and storm water management as well as improving traffic flows
through the site. The design itself was partitioned into three categories. The hydraulic design involved the
infiltration basins and pipes involved with the bioretention basin. The hydrologic design included
examining the watershed as well as the analysis of storm events. The road design investigated how to
improve traffic flows through the area while possibly expanding the current parking along the side of the
road.
The primary research methods used included studying existing examples of bioretention as well as
gathering documents on design criteria related to the project. The LID Manual for Michigan provided by
SEMCOG was one of the team’s main sources. Many resources were found via online databases; Glen
Remelts of Calvin College’s Hekman Library trained the team in the use of these databases and provided
some research techniques and ideas.
Team communication was handled with the idea that no idea is dumb. The team made an effort to field
any idea whether it is as small as an edit to as large as a full design idea. Respect was a key mantra during
the research and design process. Main mediums of communication were in person, via email, or via text.
2.3 Schedule
Scheduling for the team is handled at team meetings outside of the advisor meetings, and is discussed
until a plan is agreed upon.
The team typically evaluates the schedule of tasks to be completed once a week and updates it based on
progress made or the surfacing of other necessary activities. Brandon Kuyers acts as the team’s project
coordinator, outlining the upcoming tasks at team meetings and leading task prioritization as well as
4
splitting up work. In the event of scheduling issues coming up, tasks with the most critical deadlines are
given highest priority. When multiple tasks require priority, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis,
including dividing the tasks among team members.
2.4 Team Budget
Dan VanKooten is in charge of team budget and all related issues. When budgeting issues arise, the team
will decide how to reallocate funds provided for the project adequately to solve the issue. Since the
intended final outcome of the project is to produce a set of construction drawings and specifications for
the site, the team budget will be approximately $0. This is separate from the cost of the project, which is
highlighted in more detail in section 6.2
3 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Site Constraints
3.1.1 Watershed Basin
The basin for the Alger Heights business district consists of approximately 1 acre of roadway and sidewalk,
1.5 acres of rooftop, and another 2.5 acres of parking behind the businesses. Due to runoff flow paths or
volume constraints in the design, it is likely that not all of this area will contribute to the infiltration basin.
The roadway and sidewalk will definitely contribute to the site. The building roofs might depending on
how much capacity is available. The parking lots most likely will not contribute flow to the basin due to
the difficulty of routing the water. The storm sewer lines serving the business district start in the business
district, as shown in Figure 3.
5
N
Figure 3: Topographic map of the business district (blue rectangle) with storm sewer network (Only
representative, not to scale)
3.1.2 Storm
The bioretention basin must have enough capacity to handle the runoff from a 24-hour 25-year storm
without causing flooding. This storm produces an average of 4.71 inches of rain.1
3.1.3 Soil
According to the SCS Soil Survey, the soil around the site is sand and loamy sand, 2 allowing for high
infiltration rates. In addition to this, the use of native plants with deep root systems will break up the soil
even further and increase infiltration rates. The Cass County Site Development Rules manual defines the
design infiltration rate for sand as 3.6 in/hr and for loamy sand as 1.63 in/hr as shown in Table 1. 3
1
(NOAA, 2014)
2
(USDA NRCS, 2013)
3
(Cass County Water Resources Commissioner, 2010)
6
Table 1: Design Infiltration Rates by USDA Soil Texture Class (Cass County Water Resources
Commissioner, 2010)
Soil Texture Class
Design Infiltration
Hydrologic Soil
Rate
Group
(inches per hour)
Gravel
10
A
Sand
3.6
A
Loamy Sand
1.63
A
Sandy Loam
0.5
A
0.24
B
(Medium) Loam
0.13
B
Silty Loam/ (Silt)
Sandy Clay Loam
0.11
C
Clay Loam
0.03
D
Silty Clay Loam
0.04
D
0.04
D
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
0.07
D
Clay
0.07
D
3.2 Aesthetics
The area surrounding the site has much more green infrastructure than the site. The site's green
infrastructure can be increased through the use of native plants and trees. Adding trees to the site works
towards the city's goal of having 40% tree cover that was set in 2009 in the City of Grand Rapids Urban
Forestry Plan.
3.3 Environmental Requirements
Pollutants in stormwater runoff can come in the form of human or animal waste, hydrocarbons from
automobiles, and heavy metals, as well as pollutants from other sources. According to the Plaster Creek
Watershed Management Plan compiled by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc., the main water
quality concerns in Plaster Creek, in order of priority, are sediment, Escherichia coli (E. coli), excess
nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus), thermal pollution, and toxic substances.1
3.3.1 Sediment
Sediment increases as a pollution concern when the velocity of runoff increases. In a developed area, this
velocity increase is due to the concrete or metal structures that are designed to move water away from
the developed area as quickly as possible. Due to increased water velocities, more soil particles are
displaced and they remain suspended in the water longer. Downstream, excessive amounts of sediment
suspended in a body of water can create an unattractive water way and can harm aquatic life.
1
(Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc, 2008)
7
3.3.2 E. coli
E. coli is bacterium of the genus Escherichia. Most strains of E. coli do not cause disease. Those that do
cause a variety of stomach, digestive system, and urinary system sicknesses. 1 E. coli pollution often
originates from human and animal waste, but also originates from other sources. When rain falls on an
area, E. coli bacteria are then swept into nearby streams by runoff. When runoff from a site is increased
due to development, the amount of E. coli washing into the streams increases.
3.3.3 Nutrient Pollution
Excess nutrients (i.e. phosphorus and nitrogen) in water bodies are not problematic by themselves. The
problem occurs when algae blooms occur as a result of excess nutrients. As these blooms die off and begin
to decompose, the oxygen in the water is used up by the decomposition process, creating a dead area
where many fish cannot survive. Some algae species also produce neurotoxins that can be harmful to
aquatic life or even humans when the density of the algae is significantly increased.2
3.3.4 Thermal Pollution
Thermal pollution is a change in the temperature of a body of water due to runoff from a developed area.
During the summer, when water runs across a hot surfaces (e.g. pavement and roof tops), the
temperature of the runoff entering the stream is increased. Increasing the temperature of the water
decreases the amount of dissolved oxygen available for aquatic life, making water bodies unlivable for
some species.
3.3.5 Toxins
Other toxic substances come in a wide variety of forms. The most common in runoff pollution are heavy
metals from paints or fertilizers, and hydrocarbons from vehicle fuels. Similar to other pollutants, the
more runoff flowing from a site, the more of these pollutants get into water ways.
3.3.6 Allowable Pollution Levels
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) defines the allowable levels of E. coli in surface
water as 130/100 mL for total body contact. The levels for partial body contact are 1000 E. coli/100 mL of
water.3 Phosphorus, the main nutrient concern for water quality, is restricted to a level of 1 mg/L.4 The
DEQ does not establish a numerical level for sediment, but does provide a narrative standard in Rule 50
of the Michigan Water Quality Standards, Part 4 of Act 451. Rule 50 states that “The surface waters of the
state shall not have any of the following physical properties in unnatural quantities which are or may
become injurious to any designated use: turbidity, color, oil films, floating solids, foams, settleable solids,
1
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014)
2
(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2014)
3
(Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau, 2006)
4
(Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau, 2006)
8
suspended solids, or deposits.1 These water quality standards are summarized in Table 2. Standards for
other chemicals and metals were found in the Michigan DEQ Rule 57 Water Quality Values Surface Water
Assessment Section. Selected metals from Rule 57 are also shown in Table 2. The team’s water quality
goals are to meet these standards.
Table 2: Allowable levels of Pollutants
E. coli (total body contact)
130 E. coli/100 mL
E. coli (partial body contact)
1000 E. coli/100 mL
Phosphorus
1 mg/1L
Sediment
Narrative standard, Rule 50 of Act 451, Part 4
Lead2
0.19 mg/L
Copper3
38 mg/L
4
Cadmium
0.13 mg/L
Zinc5
16 mg/L
3.4 Traffic Requirements
The San Mateo Guidebook suggests decreasing auto lane width from 12 feet to 10 feet to decrease the
speed of traffic and provide more area for alternative traffic and green infrastructure in small business
area such as the Alger heights business district.6 Creating a differentiation between the roadway and the
adjacent on-street parking can also help to slow traffic speed through the area. Adding brick pavers to
parking areas creates the illusion of a less spacious roadway and can increase infiltration because of the
void space between brick pavers. The guidebook also suggests reclaiming unused asphalt space into
something that can be used for stormwater management. Examples include consolidating traffic lanes
and reducing parking spaces.
Accessible pedestrian ramps can be added to green infrastructure areas as demonstrated in Figure 4 to
make them more pedestrian friendly.
1
(Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau, 2006)
2
(MDEQ, 2014)
3
(MDEQ, 2014)
4
(MDEQ, 2014)
5
(MDEQ, 2014)
6
San Mateo Guidebook. N.p.: Nevue Ngan Associates and Sherwood Design Engineers, 2009. 22. Print.
9
Figure 4: Accessible pedestrian ramp integrated into stormwater curb (Nevue Ngan Associates and
Sherwood Design engineers, 2009)
Adding stormwater retention areas in intersection contractions where on-street parking is prohibited
provides a great opportunity for increasing green infrastructure without decreasing usable space.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, 60 inch sidewalks are recommended but more can be
used to accommodate more pedestrian traffic. There are not any sidewalk requirements, there are only
guidelines.
10
4 RESEARCH AND MODELING
4.1 Existing Conditions
The Alger Heights business district is in Grand Rapids, MI in Kent County. The site is south and a little east
of downtown and is just south of the intersection of Alger Street and Eastern Avenue, as can be seen in
Figure 5.
N
2.5 miles
Figure 5: Map of Grand Rapids with the Alger Heights business district highlighted
11
4.1.1 Businesses and Existing Utilities
In the business district, there are a number of one to two story buildings on both sides of the street
housing the following businesses:













The Real Food Café
Gentleman Fashion
Ryan & Hart
Alger International Market
Jon T Dance Arts Center
A Listen and Learn
Creative Window Treatment
Beauty House
The Posh Pet
Ken’s Fruit Market
Alger Hardware and Rental
Sweet Melissa’s Cupcakes Ice
Grand Rapids Public Library Branch
The business district is located just south of Alger Street with Eastern Avenue running through the center
of the business district as shown in Figure 6. Eastern Avenue is one lane in each direction with a center
turn lane running the length of the business district and parallel parking on both sides of the street. Light
poles line both sides of Eastern Ave and power lines follow the west side of the street, crossing in the
center and south end of the business district. There are a 30-foot sidewalks between the storefronts and
the street. At points along the sidewalk there are existing planters containing shrubbery and trees.
Storm sewer mains flow north and south from the business district, with no storm sewer mains flowing
into the site. The sewer mains are 8 inches in diameter on the north side and 12 inches in diameter on the
south side. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the topography of the area as well as the storm sewer network.
Buried infrastructure in the district also includes gas, electric, sanitary, and water lines. The soil type in
the area is an urban land-Spinks complex with 0-8% slopes with the developed land zoned as a “traditional
business area.” More information regarding these details can be found in Figure 9 and Figure 10.
12
N
Figure 6: Satellite image over the Alger Heights business district (Google Maps)
13
N
Figure 7: Topographic map of the business district with street labels and storm sewer network (Only
representative, not to scale)
14
N
Figure 8: Topographic map of the business district with the storm sewer network shown (Only
representative, not to scale)
15
N
Figure 9: Soil type map with map legend
16
N
Figure 10: Land use map and legend (City of Grand Rapids)
4.1.2 Traffic
Existing sidewalks in the Alger Heights business district measure close to 30 feet in width and are in an
acceptable condition. There are raised brick planters along the length of the sidewalk. The planters are
placed in the middle of the sidewalk. The current road layout consists of one 12 feet lane going each
direction with a shared turning lane between them. There is also on-street parallel parking on each side
of road. The only available turns are at the north and south ends of the business district. On the north
side, Eastern Ave meets Alger St and the shared turning lane turns into a left turn lane and separate right
turn lane is added in line with the on-street parking. At the south side of the business district, there are
driveways on either side of Eastern Ave leading to parking in the rear of the buildings.
17
4.2 Hydraulic Model
4.2.1 Runoff Calculations
Runoff from the site is modeled using the SCS lag equation to calculate times of concentration and the
rational method to calculate peak discharges. The SCS lag equation is
𝑡𝑐 =
1000
100 𝑥 𝐿0.8 𝑥 (( 𝐶𝑁 ) − 9)
0.7
1900 𝑥 𝑆 0.5
Eq. (1)
where 𝑡𝑐 is the time of concentration in minutes, L is the flow length in feet, CN is the curve number, and
S is the slope in %. The rational method uses the equation
𝑄=𝐶𝑥𝑖𝑥𝐴
Eq. (2)
where Q is peak discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs), C is the rational method runoff coefficient, i is
the storm intensity, and A is the watershed area.
Peak discharges have been calculated for 25 year storms. Using only the area of the roadway, the peak
discharge is 6.7 cfs and occurs during a 4 minute storm. Using the area of both the roadway and the
buildings, the peak discharge is 14 cfs and occurs during a 7 minute storm. It is likely that the entire site
area of 5 acres will not all be integrated into the bioretention system. Table 3 shows a summary of the
runoff calculations. Area and flow length have been approximated using google maps-based calculators.
The storm intensity is determined from Atlas 14 data by setting storm duration equal to time of
concentration. Time of concentration and peak discharge are calculated using equations 1 and 2.
Table 3: Summary of Runoff Calculations for a 25 Year Storm
Roadway
Roadway and Roofs Entire Area
Area (acres)
1
2.5
5
Flow Length (feet)
150
300
500
Time of Concentration
4.2
7.2
10.9
(min)
Intensity (in/hr)1
7.65
6.38
5.35
Peak Discharge (cfs)
6.7
14
23.5
1
(NOAA, 2014)
18
4.2.2 Infiltration Calculations
The infiltration rate calculations are based on the USDA design infiltration rate for sand shown in Table 1.
The USDA infiltration rate is 3.6 in/hr, 1 the estimated infiltration area is 5200 square feet (sqft), and the
total infiltration rate for the estimated infiltration area is 0.434 cfs.
4.2.3 Detention Calculations
The amount of detention necessary was calculated using a Rational Method Detention calculation
spreadsheet provided by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, and Huber (FTCH), a Grand Rapids civil engineering
firm. The spreadsheet uses the Rational Method to calculate peak runoffs into the detention are, while
the allowable release rate from the detention area is set by the user. The infiltration rate of .434 cfs was
used as the release rate for this project. The spreadsheet uses the runoff and release rates to calculate
the total volume of flow in and out of the detention area over the duration of the storm event for storms
varying in length from 10 minutes to 24 hours. The necessary storage volume is the difference between
the inflow volume and the outflow volume.
4.3 Pollutant Modeling
A pollutant load spreadsheet, provided by FTCH, was used to calculated pollutant runoff and removal. The
spreadsheet uses the Event Mean Concentrations shown in Table 4 to calculate pollutant runoff. These
concentrations are identified in the Michigan DEQ’s Water Quality Trading Rule. 2 The spreadsheet
assumes an LID removal efficiency of 80% for all pollutants.
Table 4: Michigan DEQ Event Mean Concentrations of Pollutants
Land use category (non-site specific) TSS (mg/l) BOD (mg/l) TP (mg/l) DP (mg/l) TKN (mg/l) NO2+3 (mg/l) Pb (ug/l) Cu (ug/l) Zn (ug/l)
Agricultural
Commercial
Forest/Rural Open
High Density Residential
Highways
Industrial
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Urban Open
Water/wetlands
145
77
51
97
141
149
70
70
51
6
3
21
3
14
24
24
38
38
3
4
0.37
0.33
0.11
0.24
0.43
0.32
0.52
0.52
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.17
0.027
0.08
0.22
0.11
0.27
0.27
0.03
0.04
0.192
1.74
0.94
1.17
1.82
2.08
3.32
3.32
0.94
0.79
4.06
1.23
0.8
2.12
0.83
1.89
1.83
1.83
0.8
0.59
0
49.3
0
40.5
49.3
72.4
56.9
56.9
14.2
11.1
0
37
0
33
37
58
26.2
26.2
0
6.5
0
156.3
0
217.9
156.3
670.8
161.1
161.1
40.2
30.3
Cd (ug/l)
0
2.7
0
3.2
2.7
4.8
3.9
3.9
0.8
0.6
The pre- and post-treatment pollutant concentrations are shown in Table 5. TSS represents the
concentration of the total suspended solids. BOD stands for the biochemical oxygen demand, a measure
of the organic content of the water. TP and DP stand for total phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus. TKN
stands for total Kjeldahl nitrogen, a measure of combined organic, ammonia, and ammonium. NO2+3
represents the combined concentration of nitrate (NO2) and nitrite (NO3). Pb, Cu, Zn, and Cd are the
1
(Cass County Water Resources Commissioner, 2010)
2
(Michigan DEQ Surface Water Quality Division, 2002)
19
concentrations of Lead, Copper, Zinc, and Cadmium. According to the Pollutant Load Spreadsheet, the
design meets the allowable pollution levels set in Table 2.
Table 5 Pre- and Post-treatment Pollution Concentrations from Pollutant Loads Spreadsheet
Pollutant
TSS BOD
TP
DP
TKN NO2+3
Pb
Cu
Zn
Cd
Pretreatment
Concentration 77
(mg/l)
Posttreatment
15.4
Concentration
(mg/l)
21
0.33
0.17
1.74
1.23
0.0493
0.037
0.1563
0.0027
4.2
0.066
0.034
0.348
0.246
0.00986
0.0074
0.03126
0.00054
5 DESIGN
5.1 Design Norms
Calvin College integrates the Christian faith into the senior design course through the use of design norms.
These norms represent part of the Christian faith that a team wants part of the focus of their project to
be. Each team choose three or four design norms. Team 18 has chosen stewardship, integrity, and trust.
The first design norm is integrating into the project is stewardship. The team applies this idea through the
use of LID design. Christians are called to be good stewards of the earth and the natural resources it
provides. The infiltration system will promote stewardship by helping to prevent flooding and pollution in
Plaster Creek.
The team’s second design norm that is integrity. The team wants their design to be harmonious by working
with the surrounding area. The design needs to be functional and also aesthetically appealing. To this end,
the structure is being designed to provide green space as well as allowing water to infiltrate. The design
also must have minimal impact on the existing infrastructure, including the flow of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic and existing utilities.
The last design norm is trust. Keeping this design norm in mind, the team is developing the design to be
dependable. The team is accomplishing this by creating a design with sufficient capacity to prevent
flooding.
20
5.2 Design Criteria
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Low Impact Development (LID) Manual
identifies four design criteria for LID projects: groundwater recharge, stream channel protection, flood
control, and water quality protection.1
5.2.1 Groundwater recharge
Groundwater recharge is an important part of the water cycle. Under presettlement conditions, around
90% of precipitation infiltrated into the soil in Michigan. Much of this was used by plants. The rest fed
local wetlands, springs, and lakes. LID projects increase the groundwater recharge by slowing the water
down and allowing it to infiltrate. The suggested method of creating groundwater recharge design criteria
for LID is to create a volume control criteria and maximize the use of infiltration type BMPs.
5.2.2 Stream Channel Protection
Stream channels are formed by the volume and rate of runoff that flow into them from their tributary
watersheds. This flow, called the bankfull flow, generally occurs during a 1 to 2 year storm. Development
increases the volume and rate of flow during these storms, and the channel begins to change shape. This
causes excessive erosion and sedimentation.
Design criteria for stream channel protection involve the use of volume control criteria. LID BMPs control
volume through infiltration and retention of water. The ideal goal for volume control is to reduce flows to
levels no higher than the presettlement flows for all storms up to the two-year, 24-hour storm.
5.2.3 Flood Control
Flood control is important for the protection of life and property. Criteria for flood control are based on
local drainage needs and flooding risk. Design criteria for flood control are based on decreasing peak flows
and runoff volume to the levels associated with the 100 year event in presettlement conditions.
5.2.4 Water Quality Protection
Runoff from impervious surfaces picks up pollutants which get washed into natural water bodies. The
majority of this pollution is washed away after a period of time. The water that carries away this first layer
of pollution is called the first flush and is generally assumed to be the first 0.5 to 1 in of precipitation.
When the entire volume of the first flush allowed to infiltrate in a LID BMP, the water quality criteria are
met.
5.3 Design Alternatives
Chapter 7 of the SEMCOG LID Manual is the team’s main source for information on best management
practices (BMPs). Table 7.1 of the SEMCOG Manual, abbreviated in Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 provide
a summary of the BMPs for a wide variety of LID situations. From these, rain gardens, vegetated swale,
infiltration trenches, subsurface infiltration beds, and planter boxes were identified as potential BMPs for
the project, specifically. Other BMPs were excluded from the abbreviated tables since they required too
1
(Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008)
21
large an area, did not emphasize infiltration as much as was desired, or were otherwise unsuitable for this
project.
Table 6: Abbreviated List of Potential Applications of BMPs
Potential Applications
Residential Commercial Ultra Urban Industrial
Rain Garden
YES
YES
LIMITED
LIMITED
Vegetated Swale
YES
YES
LIMITED
YES
Infiltration Trench
YES
YES
YES
YES
Subsurface Infiltration Bed
YES
YES
YES
YES
Planter Box
YES
YES
YES
LIMITED
BMP
Road
YES
YES
YES
LIM
NO
Recreation
YES
YES
NO
NO
LIM
Table 7: Abbreviated List Volume, Cost, Maintenance, and Winter Performance of BMPs
BMP
Stormwater Quantity Functions
Cost
Maint
Winter
Perform.
Volume
GW Recharge Peak Rate
Rain Garden
MED/HIGH
MED/HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MED
MED
Vegetated Swale
LOW/MED
LOW/MED
LOW/ME LOW/MED
L/M
MED
D
Infiltration Trench
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW/ME
MED
L/M
HIGH
D
Subsurface Infiltration Bed
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MED
HIGH
Planter Box
LOW/MED
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MED
MED
Table 8: Abbreviated List of Pollutant Removal Levels of BMPs
Stormwater Quality Functions
Total Solids Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Temperature
Rain Garden
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
Vegetated Swale
MED/HIGH LOW/HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Infiltration Trench*
HIGH
MED/HIGH
LOW/MED
HIGH
Subsurface Infiltration Bed*
HIGH
MED/HIGH
LOW
HIGH
Planter Box
MEDIUM
LOW/MED
LOW/MED
HIGH
BMP
*The infiltration trench and subsurface infiltration bed suspended solids removal levels assume that total
suspended solids loads have been properly managed to prevent clogging.
Table 6 lists the BMPs relevant to this project along with the applicability of each BMP for different
locations or types of development. Table 7 shows a comparative rating of the volume and peak discharges
that can be managed by each BMP as well as the groundwater recharge that it provides. Table 7 also
shows a comparative rating of the cost, required maintenance, and winter performance for each BMP.
Table 8 shows a comparative rating for the pollutant removal rates for total solids, phosphorus, and
nitrogen. It also rates each BMP in its ability to moderate the temperature of runoff.
22
5.3.1 Rain Gardens
Rain gardens are surface depressions capable of capturing and treating stormwater runoff from rooftops,
streets, or parking lots. These areas are generally planted with native species of plants as shown in Figure
11. Rain gardens serve as a retention/detention area. Rain gardens are a fairly flexible alternative and can
be integrated with other management systems. These could be placed along the sides of the road or down
the center in this project. Salt-tolerant vegetation would need to be used since a significant amount of
snow-melt with salt can be expected.
Figure 11: Schematic of engineered rain garden (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008)
5.3.2 Vegetated Swales
Vegetated swales are shallow channels planted with a variety of trees and grasses. These are designed to
slow runoff and promote infiltration. They differ from rain gardens in that they act as a means of
conveyance as well as retention and detention in the form of infiltration. Check dams can be used to
improve the efficiency of a vegetated swale on steeper slopes. Some sort of pretreatment of water to
slow down flow and remove sediments can increase the functional life. For this project, a vegetated swale
could be constructed as an island in the center of the road. However, these would not be practical for
construction along the sides of the road. Figure 12 shows a vegetated swale with an overflow pipe at the
downstream end.
23
Figure 12: Vegetated swale cross-section (Green Planet Ethics, 2012)
5.3.3 Infiltration Trenches
Infiltration trenches are subsurface infiltration structures generally composed of a trench lined with
geotextile cloth and filled with stones as shown in Figure 13. These trenches act as a means of conveyance
as well as infiltration. According to the SEMCOG manual, they are suitable for drainage areas of less than
5 acres. Some sort of settling basin is necessary to allow excess sediment to settle out and prevent the
trench from clogging.
Figure 13: Infiltration trench schematic (New Zealand Water Environment Research Foundation, 2004)
24
5.3.4 Subsurface Infiltration Beds
Subsurface infiltration beds are generally a rock storage bed located under a surface such as a parking lot
or lawn. These structures provide temporary storage and infiltration for up to 10 acres according to the
SEMCOG LID manual. Figure 14 shows a subsurface infiltration bed below a porous asphalt parking lot.
Both infiltration trenches and subsurface infiltration beds could be placed below the surface of the road.
Figure 14: Infiltration bed below the surface of a parking lot (Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Watershed Management, 2006)
5.3.5 Planter Boxes
There are three main types of planter boxes: contained, infiltration, and flow-through. Contained planters
can be placed on top of impervious surfaces. These planters collect water and then release it through an
overflow structure or weep holes. They simply slow stormwater runoff, and do not allow any infiltration
as can be seen in Figure 15.
25
Figure 15: Contained planter (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008)
An infiltration planter box is designed to allow the collected runoff to infiltrate through the planter soils
into the native soil. The dimensions of the media used in the planter should be designed for the amount
of runoff received. Figure 16 shows the flow of stormwater through an infiltration planter.
Figure 16: Schematic of infiltration planter (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008)
Flow-through planter boxes are completely contained and drain to a storm water system. They serve to
reduce pollution as the water percolates through the planter soil and control flow by ponding water above
26
the soil. Figure 7 shows the cross-section of a flow-through planter. For the purposes of this project,
planter beds could be placed along the side of the road or in the central median.
Figure 17: Schematic of flow-through planter (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008)
5.4 Traffic Alternatives
A major idea for road redevelopment would be to add pavers to on street parking. Adding pavers or some
sort of permeable pavement to the on street parking will not only increase the infiltration rate of the area
but also serve to slow traffic. By changing the on street parking so that it does not match the roadway the
illusion of narrower lanes can be made without actually decreasing the physical width. Pavers in the
parking areas can also help beautify the area and enhance the appeal of the area. Two examples of onstreet parking can be seen below. Figure 18 shows brick pavers while Figure 19 in contrast shows a kind
of grass paver this allows grass to grow in this area of road unharmed. This second option may prove more
attractive because it will add a greener element to the area.
27
Figure 18: Street with brick pavers in on-street parking1
Figure 19: Grass pavers for on-street parking2
1
http://www.brothersamos.com/daveamos/tumblr/portlandpaving.jpg
2
http://www.soilretention.com/_admin/userfiles/0905120230DSCF1827_drivable_grass_parking_opt.jpg
28
In addition to this, a bioretention median could be added to the center of the road to further increase
retention. Since the median is at the crown of the road water will be piped in from the edges. An example
of a bioretention median can be seen in Figure 20 below.
Figure 20: A bioretention median1
5.5 Design Decision
Figure 21 shows the decision matrix for the design. Using the decision matrix and engineering judgment,
planter boxes were determined to be the best solution for the design. Planter boxes provide a high level
of aesthetics with good functionality in runoff control and pollution management. They have a
comparatively low cost and work well with the space limitations of the site. The layout of the proposed
design is shown in the appendix.
1
http://www.arlingtonconnection.com/news/2012/may/23/arlington-launches-new-pilot-stormwater-runoff/
29
Decision Factors
Factor Weight
Space
Populution management
Volume
Aesthetics
Cost
6
8
7
5
7
TOTAL SCORE
Sub-Surface
Rain Vegetated Infiltration
Planter
Infiltration
Garden
Swale
Trench
Box
bed
3
3
10
10
5
9
8
5
4
7
6
6
7
9
7
8
4
1
1
10
6
7
4
2
6
2.14
1.93
1.82
Figure 21 Design matrix for bioretention system
1.74
2.27
6 BUSINESS PLAN
6.1 Existing competitors
Competition around the Grand Rapids area is pretty stiff in the civil engineering field, about 10 companies
exist in the city with several more in the surrounding areas. Those companies that present the greatest
competition are: FTC&H, Moore & Bruggink, Prein & Newhof, and Williams & Works.
6.1.2 FTC&H
Fishbeck, Thomson, Carr, & Huber, Inc. (FTC&H) is a civil engineering firm in Grand Rapids, MI that deals
with hydraulic, environmental, and traffic engineering along with surveying and mapping. FTC&H would
be a direct competitor with expertise in similar things.
6.1.3 Moore & Bruggink
Moore & Bruggink is also a civil engineering firm in Grand Rapids, MI that has expertise in hydraulic,
environmental, and surveying. Moore & Bruggink would also be a direct competitor as they have services
that are similar to FTC&H.
6.1.4 Prein & Newhof
Prein & Newhof, in Grand Rapids, also has services related to hydraulic, environmental, and traffic
engineering as well as geotechnical and structural engineering. Prein & Newhof would represent a “onestop shop” for all needs related to developing a site and competes directly.
6.1.5 Williams & Works
Williams & Works deals with hydraulic, traffic, structural, and environmental engineering. It is similar to
the previous competitor and directly competes.
30
6.2 Cost Estimate
Since the project is currently at the planning level, costs were estimated based on similar projects and
unit costs of components.
6.2.1 Sidewalk Planters
The unit cost of the sidewalk planters was estimated to be $500 per linear foot. The design work done by
Calvin College Senior Design team “Islands in the Streets,” and the SEMCOG LID Manual were used to
estimate the unit cost of the project. The “Islands in the Streets” Team calculated a total cost of $260,000
for 400 ft of biorention islands. The equivalent unit cost, found by dividing the total cost by the length of
bioretention, is $650 per linear foot. The SEMCOG LID Manual references the Michigan Avenue
bioretention planter box project in Lansing Michigan. This project had an estimated cost of $500 per linear
foot.1
6.2.2 Road Construction
Road construction costs are estimated to be $200 per linear foot based on information provided by the
Roadway Construction Cost Estimation Matrix.2
6.2.3 Pipe
Pipe replacement costs are estimated to be $200 per ft according to the Dayton, Ohio Water Department.3
6.2.4 Total Cost Estimate
The added up unit costs of the components comes out to a total of $900 per foot. Adding a 50%
contingency cost brings the estimated cost to $1350 per linear foot. The current design is approximately
350 ft in length. The estimated total cost is $472500.
CONCLUSION
The team concludes that bioretention in the Alger Heights business district is feasible. Thorough research
and modeling show that sidewalk planters with a brick paver street-side parking area are the most feasible
design. Future work includes developing a detailed design for the bioretention system.
1
(Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008)
2
(Seminole County, 1997)
3
(Water Department, Division of Sewer Maintenance Dayton, Ohio, 2007)
31
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Prof. David Wunder, Advisor and course instructor
Claire Schwartz, Industrial Consultant
Prof. Ned Nielsen, Course instructor
Prof. Jeremy VanAntwerp, Course instructor
Prof. Mark Michmerhuizen, Course instructor
Glen Remelts, Research
Prof. Robert Hoeksema, Advisor
Michael Ryskamp, Client
William Byl, Kent County Drain Commissioner
32
REFERENCES
Calvin College. (2014, October 27). Senior Design Projects. Retrieved from Calvin College:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/senior-design
Cass County Water Resources Commissioner. (2010, April). Site Development Rules. Retrieved from
casscountymi.org:
http://www.casscountymi.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=CmBEG3FT_hc%3D&tabid=332&mid=90
8
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014, May 22). E. coli (Escherichia coli. Retrieved from
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/
Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management. (2006). Pennsylvania
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Pennsylvania.
Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau. (2006). DEQ Water Beureau water Resources
Protection. Act 451, Part 4. Water Quality Standards. Michigan.
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc. (2008). Plaster Creek Watershed management Plan. Grand
Rapids.
Green Planet Ethics. (2012, April 29). Green Infrastructure - What is Green Infrastructure. Retrieved from
Green Planet Ethics: http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/green-infrastructure-what-isgreen-infrastructure/
MDEQ. (2014). Rule 57 Water Quality Values Surface Water Assessment Section. Michigan Department
of Environomental Quality.
Michigan DEQ Surface Water Quality Division. (2002). Water Resources Protection Part 30. Water
Quality Trading.
Nevue Ngan Associates and Sherwood Design engineers. (2009). San Mateo Guidebook. San Mateo.
New Zealand Water Environment Research Foundation. (2004, October). On-site stormwater devices:
description and standard design steps. Retrieved from Water New Zealand:
http://www.nzwwa.org.nz/Folder?Action=View%20File&Folder_id=101&File=section4.pdf
NOAA. (2014, August 27). Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center Precipitation Frequency Data
Server. Retrieved from NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: MI:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=mi
Seminole County. (1997, June 1). www.seminolecountyfl.gov. Retrieved from Seminole County:
http://www.seminolecountyfl.gov/fs/pdf/road_paving.pdf
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. (2008). Low Impact Development Manual for Michigan: A
Design Guide for Implementers and Reviewers. Detroit, Michigan.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, October 23). Harmful Algal Blooms. Retrieved
from United States Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/harmful-algal-blooms
33
USDA NRCS. (2013, December 6). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from Web Soil Survey:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
Water Department, Division of Sewer Maintenance Dayton, Ohio. (2007, July 1). Sewer Service
Installation Costs. Retrieved from City of Dayton Water:
http://www.daytonwater.org/uploads/documents/Sewer_Service_Installation_Costs.pdf
34
APPENDIX
Figure A 1 Rational Method peak runoff calculations
35
Figure A 1 Rational Method peak runoff calculations
36