Project Proposal Feasibility Study Daylighters Team 20 Zach Boeve, Steve Brown, Caitlin Callow, Helina Krieger Engr 339/340 Senior Design Project Calvin College 12/8/14 © 2014‐15 Daylighters Team 20 Calvin College. All Rights Reserved. Executive Summary Calvin College’s engineering program requires a capstone design project for senior students. Team 20 is made up of four civil and environmental engineers: Zach Boeve, Steve Brown, Caitlin Callow, and Helina Krieger. The team was presented with a project in Grand Rapids involving the improvement of an existing stormwater basin (Southfield) off of Silver Creek (creek) by the Kent Count Drain Commission. After discussing the potential of the project, the team decided to accept it due to their interest in water treatment and hydraulics. The basin has two inlet structures which discharge into Southfield (basin) during large storm events. The problem is that the storm required to cause discharge rarely happens. Southfield is underutilized and provides little benefit to the creek. Other partner organizations of this project are Friends of Grand Rapids Parks and Plaster Creek Stewards. They have expressed a desire for the implementation of a park area at Southfield which extends the goals of the project. The three main goals were determined to be improvement of water quality, reduction of downstream peak flows, and implementation of park space. The team decided on design norms to be implemented and upheld in their work. These design norms are strongly tied to the team’s Christian values and ideals. The first is stewardship, due to the team’s belief that humans are called to take care of the world and its resources. The team’s second design norm is delightful harmony. This applies to the project’s need to seamlessly combine the three main goals. These different parts of design must work together and not conflict or limit each other. The final design norm is transparency, due to the public nature of the project and impact it will have on the community. The group seeks to make the progress of the design open to the public and disclose any issues concerning health and safety. The group developed a team management strategy before starting the design. The team established weekly work sessions and a meeting time with its professorial advisor, Dr. David Wunder. At this time, the team also created a work breakdown schedule. This contained a list of all the individual tasks required throughout the course of the semester. Additionally, the team assigned roles to each member. Caitlin Callow was chosen to be the project manager. Zach Boeve was appointed to be the manager of client relations. Helina Krieger was selected to be the team’s document expert. Steve Brown was elected to be the modeling manager. These roles were assigned based on the talents and skills of the members. The group conducted research on the background and existing conditions of Southfield. This was important in understanding how the basin currently performs. The team acquired as‐builts and soil borings for Southfield from the Kent County Drain Commission (KCDC). These schematics helped the team to comprehend the current configuration of the basin and all its features. From these drawings, a clay liner was discovered which eliminates any infiltration of stormwater into the ground. It was also discovered that the water table is located approximately three feet below the ground surface. The team analyzed previously constructed models of the basin and creek to establish peak flow rates. Topographic data was reviewed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to delineate the watershed. This data, along with land use and soil type data, helped to determine the area of the watershed of Silver Creek. Using SCS rainfall data the stormwater runoff volume was determined. A 24 hour, 25‐year storm was selected as the design storm. Although other storms will be modeled, this storm will be used for the basin sizing design. After the team established a fully comprehensive understanding of the existing basin, Best Management Practices (BMPs) were analyzed to select an improvement method to be utilized. BMPs are standardized design techniques, which have low impact on the surroundings and provide stormwater management benefits. The team created a decision matrix to determine that the best design for Southfield is a constructed wetland to provide maximum water retention and room for a park. Completion of the current conditions model will take place in early January. Further design decisions and site planning will be done in the spring semester. A preliminary cost estimate was calculated for the construction of the proposed Southfield Basin. The total cost estimate ranges between $382,000 and $597,000. This was calculated using similar project cost estimates and a 40% contingency. Cost estimation was broken into three main parts: stormwater management, park construction, and labor costs. Table of Contents 1. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1 The Team................................................................................................................................................... 1 Silver Creek ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Southfield .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Partners ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Design Norms ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Stewardship .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Delightful Harmony ................................................................................................................................... 5 Transparency ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3. Work Breakdown Schedule and Roles .................................................................................................. 6 4. Team Management ............................................................................................................................... 7 5. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................... 8 6. Project Goals ......................................................................................................................................... 9 7. Problem Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 10 8. Existing Site Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 12 Historical and Current Use ...................................................................................................................... 12 Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Topography ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Zoning ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Pollutant .................................................................................................................................................. 20 9. Hydrologic Model ................................................................................................................................ 21 Modeling Software .................................................................................................................................. 21 Delineation of the Watershed ................................................................................................................ 21 SCS Runoff Curve Number Calculation ................................................................................................... 21 Current Conditions Model ...................................................................................................................... 24 Future Construction ................................................................................................................................ 24 10. Best Management Practices ........................................................................................................... 25 Detention Basin ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Infiltration Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Infiltration Trench ................................................................................................................................... 28 Riparian Buffer ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Vegetated Filter Strip .............................................................................................................................. 29 Vegetated Swale ..................................................................................................................................... 30 11. Basis of Design ................................................................................................................................ 31 Decision Matrix ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Design ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 12. Cost Estimation ............................................................................................................................... 33 13. Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 34 14. Works Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 35 List of Tables Table 7.1 Summary of Pollutant Goals Table 8.1 Summary of Existing Pollutants Table 10.1 Structural BMPs Table 11.1 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies Table 11.2 Pollutant Load from Runoff Entering Southfield Table 11.3 Project Cost Estimate Table 12.1 Cost Estimates List of Figures Figure 1.1 Team 20, Daylighters Figure 1.2 Silver Creek Location Figure 1.3 Close‐up View of Southfield Figure 8.1 Southfield and Silver Creek Location Figure 8.2 Cross Section of the Basin Figure 8.3 Cross Section of Underdrain Figure 8.4 NRCS Soil Types Figure 8.5 Southfield Surveying Results Figure 8.6 Basin Inlet Structure Figure 8.7 Existing Clay Liner Schematic Figure 9.1 Contributing Silver Creek Watershed to Southfield Figure 9.2 Land Use Map Figure 9.3 Inflow to Southfield for Storm Events Figure10.1 Detention Basin Figure10.2 Infiltration Basin Schematic Figure 10.3 Infiltration Trench Figure 10.4 Riparian Buffer Figure10.5 Vegetated Filter Strip Schematic Figure 10.6 Swale Schematic Figure 11.1 SCS Rainfall Data Figure 11.2 Flow of Silver Creek at Southfield Figure 11.3 Proposed Design Areas 1. Background Calvin College capstones its engineering program with a yearlong, full scale design project and class. The first semester course focuses on team formation, project identification, and feasibility analysis. In the second semester, emphasis is placed on the completion and full design of the project. Class lectures are built around the ideas of design norms, Christian integration, professionalism, and professional practice. The Team Team 20, the Daylighters, consists of Zach Boeve, Steve Brown, Caitlin Callow and Helina Krieger, four civil and environmental engineering seniors who have interests in water hydraulics and treatment. Figure 1.1 displays a photograph of the team with Steve Brown, Caitlin Callow, Helina Krieger, and Zach Boeve from left to right. Figure 1.1 Team 20, Daylighters Zach is a senior civil and environmental engineering student at Calvin College. He grew up locally in Wyoming, Michigan. He has interned at the City of Wyoming for the past two years. There he learned about municipality projects and designed a portion of water main for the north side of Wyoming. After graduation, he hopes to find a civil engineering job in Michigan. Steve is a senior civil and environmental engineering student at Calvin College. He grew up in Tinley Park, a suburb of Chicago. He is interested in water resources and environmental engineering and plans to build off of these interests and do engineering design work in developing regions of the world. Caitlin is a senior civil and environmental engineering major at Calvin College. She grew up in Muskegon, Michigan. She has interned at Lakeshore Environmental Inc. for the past two summers and learned about sampling techniques, report writing, and design aspects around environmental engineering. After graduation from Calvin College in May 2015, she plans on working in the environmental engineering field. 1 Helina Krieger is a senior civil and environmental engineering major at Calvin College. She grew up in Accra, Ghana. Her strong desire to obtain an engineering degree in a Christian environment brought her to Calvin College in the year 2011. After graduating from Calvin in May 2015, Helina plans to go to graduate school for a Master’s degree in Engineering Management. In the future, she wants to move back to Ghana to work at her dad’s Civil and Marine Engineering Company. Silver Creek Silver Creek, a tributary of Plaster Creek, is a stormwater drain located on the southeast side of the Grand Rapids in Kent County (Figure 1.2). Historically, the main goal of stormwater management has been to quickly convey runoff from a storm event. The Silver Creek stormwater drain is an effective way to control stormwater runoff volumes. Southfield Detention Basin was used to reduce flooding and retain stormwater during a large rain event. Stormwater runoff control has become more about detention and treatment. Instead of allowing large volumes of untreated stormwater runoff to flow directly into Plaster Creek and eventually the Grand River, new development strategies are being implemented to treat and retain the runoff. In May 2013, the City of Grand Rapids upgraded their Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP). This included the new methods of stormwater management. Silver Creek is currently the old style of stormwater treatment design. The team plans to make improvements to Southfield in accordance with the SWMP, to improve the downstream water quality of Silver Creek. 2 Figure 1.2 Silver Creek location. (Calvin College Team Silver Creek Website)
3 Southfield Southfield is located in Madison Square Community, an industrial area of Grand Rapids that has little green space. Southfield, which is a stormwater overflow basin, is located between Madison and Jefferson Ave, about 5 miles west of Calvin College (Figure 1.3). At this location, Silver Creek flows through an underground concrete conduit along the south end of the basin. In 1993, the basin was designed using the old stormwater management methodology for removal of stormwater. Currently, this 7 acre basin is completely fenced off to ensure safety for the public when Southfield is flooded. Southfield only retains water during high intensity rain events when Silver Creek reaches a peak level. When flow reaches a peak level, it will discharge into Southfield and run back into the conduit when the flow conditions return to normal. Southfield is only used for overflow conditions and the majority of the time it is dry. This allows for no detention or treatment of stormwater during average flow conditions. A clay liner exists in Southfield to prevent any infiltration into the ground. Therefore, Southfield does not infiltrate and minimal treatment occurs. N Figure 1.3 Close‐up View of Southfield The Southfield project was proposed to the senior design team and accepted because it fit the team’s engineering interests. The project focuses on improving the stormwater management in Southfield, while creating green space for recreation. Partners The Plaster Creek Stewards proposed the project in conjunction with work they are currently doing in the Plaster Creek watershed to improve water quality. Other clients for the project are the Kent County Drain Commission, Friends of Grand Rapids Parks, and the City of Grand Rapids. Each of these have a particular interest in creating a community park in that area. These clients have helped establish the constraints for water volume and quality treatment, as well as having space for community recreation. 4 2. Design Norms As a group of Christian engineers, the team seeks to integrate their beliefs into the design of Southfield. The team believes that God created the world perfect in every way. However, through human sinfulness, this world is now totally depraved. God has called humans to be agents of renewal to the world. In Genesis 1:28, God blesses mankind and says to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Listening to God’s call of service, the team selected three design norms to ensure a Christian influenced project. Stewardship Stewardship is managing and caring for God’s creation. The intentions of the project are that Southfield will be better utilized to minimize pollution. This will improve conditions for downstream bodies of water such as Plaster Creek, the Grand River, and Lake Michigan. Delightful Harmony Delightful Harmony is the completeness of the design to show the integrity of the project. The project needs to be a success in both form and function. The design requires a fusion of stormwater management and a community park. The designs need to blend these two ideas without any sacrifices to quality. Transparency As Christian engineers, the team wants the public to have confidence in the end result of the project and to know that their safety is important to the team throughout every step of the design process. To establish this trust, the team will fully disclose any of the issues regarding effects, defects, and tradeoffs to the public. 5 3. Work Breakdown Schedule and Roles The team broke down the work of the project into three main categories: research, modeling & design, and deliverables. The research category was broken down further into general research topics and possible field tests that need to be conducted. Appendix A contains the complete work breakdown schedule. The team assigned roles to each member according to their strengths to divide up the work efficiently. The positions established were Project Manager, Documentation Expert, Modeling Manager, and Client Relations. Caitlin Callow was selected as the Project Manager for her natural ability to lead and motivate the team. Helina Krieger was assigned the task of Document Expert for her excellent organizational skills and eye for perfection. Steve Brown took on the role of Modeling Manager for his extensive knowledge of the software and his ability to envision the whole project. Zach Boeve is in charge of client relations, due to his charismatic personality and professionalism. Even with the roles assigned to each member, the team still equally contributes to each task, whether it is modeling, managing files, or communicating with their clients. 6 4. Team Management For a project of this magnitude, proper management is essential for efficient production throughout the year. In order to keep track of the team’s progress, the team implemented various task management tools. For instance, a Microsoft Project calendar was used to keep track of proposed deadlines, completed tasks and hours worked which were logged in an Excel document and both are included in Appendix A. Google Drive provided the possibility to work as a team on various reports without having to physically be together. This also held each member responsible for the work that was assigned to him or her. As the team gathered information about the project, important documents were collected and stored using Calvin College’s NetStorage server. This allowed the team members to always have access to documents like Geographic Information System (GIS) files, models, maps of the Silver Creek Watershed, and construction plans for Southfield. The team established regular meeting times in order to evaluate progress made, maintain organization, and to move forward as a team. The team meets regularly on Monday from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm and Tuesday from 12:30 pm to 6:00 pm. They have an advisor consultation with Professor David Wunder every Thursday at 11:30 am. The team also established other meetings when time allowed. In a large design project like this, there are numerous design choices to be made. When a decision had to be made, it would be presented to the group. The group would then discuss the proposed plan and would only implement it if there were no major objections. The team felt that it was important to have everyone involved in the design process. 7 5. Problem Statement Southfield Basin is an underutilized green space in terms of value to the community and stormwater management. The basin is only utilized during high intensity storm events. By getting Silver Creek to flow into Southfield during low flow conditions, the water would be treated naturally by daylight and vegetation. The improved use of this detention basin would decrease volumes of stormwater downstream. Silver Creek is a direct tributary to Plaster Creek. It runs almost completely underground in cement pipes. The team plans to daylight the stream and utilize Southfield as a location where the stormwater is contained and treated. 8 6. Project Goals The team has three broad goals for the improvement in utilization of Southfield. The first is to detain more water from Silver Creek and keep it from flowing directly into Plaster Creek. This is based off of the Clean Water Act passed in 1972 and the changing approach to stormwater management. The 25‐year, 24 hour storm will be used as the design basis for runoff volume. The second goal is to improve the water quality of Silver Creek by reducing common stormwater pollutants including sediment, excess nitrogen and phosphorus, and heavy metals. The last project goal is to meet the two previous goals with the ability to set aside a portion of the land as community space. 9 7. Problem Constraints One problem constraint is the detention of stormwater to decrease runoff volumes. Southfield improvements will be based around the 25–year design storm and the reduction of peak flow to below 271 cubic feet per second (cfs). This is based off of the Kent County standard of 0.13 ft3/acre for stormwater detention basins and 2,091 acres of watershed area. Calculations are included in Appendix D. Being able to detain and infiltrate water under all flow conditions in Southfield is an important constraint of this project. In order to meet any of the quality constraints below, large volumes of water will have to be stored on site. The second project constraint is based around stream pollution. The priority pollutants and desired quality levels are identified in the Plaster Creek Management Plan (PCMP) prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber (FTC&H). These priority pollutants include sediment, excess nutrients, thermal pollution, and toxic substances. Quantifying stormwater pollution is difficult because it is hard to obtain a sample that characterizes an entire storm event and/or watershed. Due to this, the team has quantified a few bench mark values as listed in Stormwater Pollution Control by Roy Dodson. Benchmark values are the concentrations at which stormwater discharge has the potential to impair water quality or have adverse effects on humans or other wildlife (Dodson). A Stormwater Pollutant Calculator provided by FTC&H will be used to calculate pollutant loads and is included in Appendix D. The problem with excessive sediment in the stream is that it can destroy the habitats of aquatic life. Even though Silver Creek is a piped drain, sediment at high discharge volumes can be carried into Plaster Creek and the Grand River. Excessive sediment is quantified as Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The benchmark (or goal) for TSS is 100 mg/L (Dodson). Nutrients from fertilizer and agricultural runoff can cause problems in the stream. The two most common nutrient issues are elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus which can cause eutrophication. Levels of 0.05 mg/L of phosphorus are acceptable for non‐nuisance aquatic growth and nitrogen levels should be less than 3.0 mg/L. These levels will be used as the goals for nutrient removal as prescribed in the PCMP. The pH is a measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of a substance based on the concentration of hydrogen ions. This value is measured on a logarithmic scale with values ranging from zero to fourteen. A pH value less than seven is considered acidic and a value greater than seven is basic. Generally, fish eggs can only hatch at a pH range between six and nine, which is the goal range for this project (Dodson). Another stream pollutant is temperature. Fish and other aquatic life in this area need water to be between 60 ‐ 70° F for survival (PCMP). With more impervious surfaces, the speed and volume of runoff will increase, which can raise the overall temperature of receiving waters. Slowing down the stream in vegetated areas or ponds will help equalize the temperature to better match the natural temperature in the stream. Toxic runoff is another pollutant which is hard to quantify because it does not have a constant presence, toxin amount, or type. Most remediation can be done with improved care at the point source. The use of a detention area that slows stormwater will allow more response time for treatment. Other contaminants that will be analyzed are biological oxygen demand (BOD), Lead (Pb), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), and Cadmium (Cd). The major pollutants are the heavy metals, which will be managed by controlling the sediments as described above. Design will be completed using the Pollutant Load 10 Calculator. Table 7.1 displays the main sources of the pollutants and the benchmark levels (or determined goals) for each of these pollutants, as found in Stormwater Pollution Control or the PCMP as noted above. Table 7.1 Summary of Pollutant Goals Pollutant Source Sedimentation Erosion or farming practices
Water Quality Benchmarks 100 mg/L Total Phosphorus Lawn fertilizers or agricultural use 0.05 mg/L Total Nitrogen Lawn fertilizers or agricultural use 3.0 mg/L BOD Decaying organic matter
30 mg/L pH Varies
6 ‐ 9
Temperature High volume and velocity runoff Varies 11 8. Existing Site Conditions Historical and Current Use Southfield was originally an athletic field for South High School and had no other major uses. In 1993, Southfield was designed to be one of four detention basins for Silver Creek. During this construction, two inlets were designed below the elevation of the field. Flow does not enter the field until there is a 25‐50 year storm. Figure 8.1 displays where Silver Creek intersects Southfield. In the 1993 design, a 1 foot clay liner was introduced 1 foot below the ground surface to keep detained stormwater from infiltrating to groundwater. Underdrains were also added in order to expedite drainage out of the basin. Cross sections of the basin and underdrain from the Kent County Drain are displayed in Figures 8.2 and 8.3. Soils The area, being primarily industrial, is defined by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) data as urban land. Figure 8.4 displays a map of NRCS soils. The surrounding area is comprised of two main types of soils. They are end moraines of fine textured till and glacial outwash sand and gravel and post glacial alluvium as mapped by the 1982 Quaternary Geology study. The clay layer designed in 1993 will constrict infiltration rates of the soil. The clay layer will be excavated with the improvements to the basin. Existing soil borings were used to determine new infiltration rates. Soil borings from the 1992 Preliminary Design Report report are included in Appendix F. The soil borings show varying layers of topsoil and medium sand across the entire site. Using the infiltration rates laid out in Table 7 of the Design Infiltration Rates section of the Cass County Water Resources Commissioners Site Development Rules (included in Appendix F), an infiltration rate of 3.60 inches per hour was determined.
12 Figure 8.1 Southfield and Silver Creek Location
13 Figure 8.2 Cross Section of the Basin 14 Figure 8.3 Cross Section of Underdrain 15 Urban Land_
Spinks
Urban Land_
Perrinton
Urban Land
Figure 8.4 NRCS Soil Types
16 Topography In 2013, a team of Calvin Engineering students surveyed Southfield and the existing contours are in Figure 8.5. Figure 8.5 Southfield Surveying Results The invert elevation of Silver Creek is 652.0 feet, which is 1.9 feet below the basin. This elevation change is what causes Silver Creek to run the majority of flow through the pipe and not onto the basin during low flow conditions. Figure 8.6 displays the inlet structure with pipe and entrance elevations noted. Zoning Based on the City of Grand Rapids zoning maps the Southfield area is a special district type, Industrial Transportation. The surrounding area includes mixed density residential to the north, low density residential to the South, and traditional business area directly east. Groundwater A clay liner exists 1 foot below the ground surface to keep water from infiltrating to groundwater. The water table is approximately 11 feet below ground surface. Infiltration to groundwater is restricted by the clay liner throughout the basin. Figure 8.7 displays a schematic of the existing clay liner. 17 Figure 8.6 Basin Inlet Structure
18 Figure 8.7 Existing Clay Liner Schematic 19 Pollutant Using the pollutant calculator provided by FTC&H, existing pollutant loads were calculated. The results of these calculations are displayed in Table 8.1. Table 8.1 Summary of Existing Pollutants TSS
Total [lb]
Total [lb/ac]
BOD
TP
354,158.78 141,129.26 1,934.45
169
68
1
DP
TKN
NO2+3
956.51 12,342.96 7,469.20
0
6
4
Pb
244.32
0
Cu
Zn
134.42 1,076.68
0
1
Cd
16.51
0
These numbers were calculated using existing conditions including soil types, land uses and total acreage of the watershed flowing into Southfield Basin. Using these values, a complete runoff analysis was calculated. These calculations included pervious and impervious areas along with average curve numbers of the total watershed and curve numbers of the pervious areas. Using Bulletin 71, average annual runoff depths were inputted into the calculations. Using the average annual depth and industry accepted water quality concentrations, total pollutant loads were established. 20 9. Hydrologic Model
To understand and evaluate Southfield and potential design alternatives, a hydrologic model of the Silver Creek watershed was created. A 25‐year storm event was selected for the design storm. 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year, 24 hour events will also be modeled for better understanding of creek and basin characteristics. Modeling Software
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) and Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC‐HMS) were identified as the most relevant to the project and were considered. HEC‐HMS is used to model open channels and spillways, but has limitations when used to model urban stormwater systems. EPA SWMM is used to model stormwater networks including storm mains, manhole junctions, and detention ponds. EPA SWMM is not as accurate as HEC‐
HMS when modeling undeveloped areas, but it does have the capacity to model undeveloped land. EPA SWMM was selected as the modeling software because an existing watershed model was available for use by the team. Delineation of the Watershed
When evaluating the watershed for delineation, the team obtained an existing delineation of Silver Creek from a previous senior design team “From Retention to Redemption”. They used GIS data collected from the KCDC of 2 foot contours and storm utilities to establish a total watershed for Silver Creek. The Silver Creek watershed was divided into 4 sub‐basins: Kreiser, Calvin, Southfield, and Otsego. Figure 9.1 shows the Silver Creek watershed and three of the sub‐areas. For the Southfield design, the Otsego sub‐basin will be subtracted from the model because it is downstream of Southfield. The team reviewed the delineation by checking the contours on a topography map. SCS Runoff Curve Number Calculation
After the sub‐basins were established through the delineation process, soil types and land uses were used to calculate the amount of runoff from each sub‐basin. The existing land use is comprised of commercial, industrial, residential, and open areas. Figures 8.4 and 9.2 show the soil types and land uses, respectively.
Soil types are categorized into four categories, A through D. Soil type A is a sandy soil that has a high infiltration rate, while soil type D is clay with little infiltration. Soil types B and C have intermediate infiltration rates and are a mix of soil type A and D. According to the GIS information, a majority of the soil types within the Silver Creek watershed are sand (soil type A) and sandy clay (soil type C). Also seen in Figure 8.4, there are some locations where the soil type is unknown. Soil at Southfield was determined to be sand based off of the existing soil borings. The calculation spreadsheet distributed by the MDEQ, was used to calculate curve numbers based on land use and soil types. 21 Figure 9.1 Contributing Silver Creek Watershed to Southfield
22 Figure 9.2 Land Use Map
23 Current Conditions Model Using SWMM, the team modeled the hydrology and hydraulics for the existing Southfield conditions. Calculated curve numbers were applied to delineated watersheds upstream of Southfield. A full layout of the model is included in Appendix B. The team then modeled the hydrology for the contributing watershed in order to calculate runoff volumes. Different frequency storm events were run in the system to figure out the peak flow rates. The SCS rainfall data is included in Appendix D. In the model, the node upstream of the basin was analyzed for peak flows. The flow rates can be seen in Figure 9.3 and model output results for each storm event and summary data table are included in Appendix B. One concern with the model is that the old data used could cause discrepancies in the modeled and actual conditions. The model will be checked and finalized in early January. 700
600
500
Flow (CFS)
400
300
200
100
0
1‐yr
2‐yr
5‐yr
10‐yr
25‐yr
50‐yr
100‐yr
Storm Intensity
Figure 9.3 Inflow to Southfield for Storm Events Future Construction
Once an accurate model of the Silver Creek watershed is constructed, the team will be able to use the model to determine the volume reduction of the selected design. The modeling will provide the maximum volume of water that must be retained during a storm in order to ensure safety. An important concern for this team is the liability of having a park next to a detention basin. The basin must be designed accurately to provide a safe place for public access. 24 10.Best Management Practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used in water pollution control to prevent or reduce the amount of pollutants, control runoff volumes, and restore or maintain the natural system of a given area. The BMPs are grouped into structural BMPs and nonstructural BMPs. The nonstructural BMPs are geared towards preserving the natural system of a given area. The nonstructural BMPs are listed and also included in Appendix E.  Cluster development  Minimize soil compaction  Minimize total distributed area  Protect natural flow paths  Protect riparian buffers  Protect sensitive areas  Reduce impervious surfaces  Stormwater disconnection Structural BMPs are used to improve water quality, control runoff volumes and restore the natural system of an area. Table 10.1 shows the various types of structural BMPs and more information is included in Appendix E. 25 Table 10.1 Structural BMPs Restoration Runoff Quality/ Non‐infiltration Runoff Volume/ Non‐infiltration Runoff Volume/ Infiltration Bioretention Potential Applications Residential Commercial Ultra Urban Industrial Retro Road Rec YES YES LIMITED LIMITED YES YES YES Vegetated Filter Strip YES YES LIMITED LIMITED YES YES YES Vegetated Swale YES YES LIMITED YES LIM YES YES Pervious Pavement YES YES YES YES YES LIM NO Infiltration Basin YES YES LIMITED YES LIM LIM NO Subsurface Infiltration Bed YES YES YES YES YES LIM NO Infiltration Trench YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Dry Well YES YES YES LIMITED YES NO NO Level Spreaders YES YES NO YES YES YES YES Berming YES YES LIMITED YES YES YES NO Planter Box YES YES YES LIMITED YES NO LIM Vegetated Roof LIMITED YES YES YES YES N/A YES Capture Reuse YES YES YES YES YES NO YES Constructed Wetland YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Wet Ponds/ Retention Basins YES YES YES YES YES YES YES LIMITED YES YES YES YES YES YES Water Quality Devices YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Underground Detention YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Extended Detention/ Dry Pond YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Riparian Buffer Restoration YES YES YES YES YES LIM YES Native Revegetation YES YES LIMITED YES YES LIM YES Soil Restoration YES YES YES YES LIM YES YES Constructed Filters 26 Since this project focuses on improving water quality and controlling the runoff volumes into Southfield, the BMPs to be considered for this project are:  Detention basin  Infiltration trench  Infiltration basin  Riparian buffer  Vegetated filter strip  Vegetated swale These BMPs can be combined and used in conjunction with each other in order to achieve desired results. Detention Basin A detention basin is a stormwater storage area that fills and holds water to reduce downstream flow. There are various types of detention basins such as dry ponds, wet ponds, and constructed wetlands. The main purpose of a detention basin is to reduce runoff peaks during storm events. Figure 10.1 displays a detention basin. Figure10.1 Detention Basin (SEMCOG, 2008) Infiltration Basin An infiltration basin is a depressed area of land that gets filled with water. Runoff fills the basin and infiltrates through the ground over several days. Figure 10.2 displays a schematic of an infiltration basin. NRCS soil types of A or B are preferred over C and D, because they provide better infiltration. Some pretreatment may be needed to prevent sediment from clogging the infiltration surface. Along with volume reduction, infiltration basins also decrease pollutant concentrations. 27 Figure10.2 Infiltration Basin Schematic (SEMCOG, 2008) Infiltration Trench An infiltration trench is a linear ditch that is filled with gravel. This stone‐filled trench contains a perforated pipe and is wrapped in a geo‐textile. Infiltration trenches are often used in confined areas and work well to improve stormwater quality. Although they can handle small rain events, they cannot control peak hydraulic flows. Figure 10.3 displays an infiltration trench. Figure 10.3 Infiltration Trench (SEMCOG, 2008) Riparian Buffer A riparian buffer is a sloped area of land which is adjacent to a body of water and is used to improve water quality before it flows to the receiving waters. This vegetated land extends outward from the surface of the water and acts as an intermediate zone for runoff. Riparian buffers are often used because of their 28 ecological value and their ability to act as a wildlife habitat. Some drawbacks of this BMP is the costs and required maintenance of the implemented vegetation. Figure 10.4 displays a riparian buffer. Figure 10.4 Riparian Buffer (SEMCOG, 2008) Vegetated Filter Strip A vegetated filter strip is a section of land covered in grasses, shrubs, and other types of vegetation. These areas of vegetation slow the sheet flow runoff and filter the water. The main function of the vegetated filter strips is pollutant removal through sedimentation, filtration, absorption, biological uptake, and microbial activity. Vegetated filter strips are generally used as pretreatment for other larger BMPs. Figure 10.5 displays a vegetated filter strip schematic and its major components. Figure 10.5 Vegetated Filter Strip Schematic (SEMCOG, 2008)
29 Vegetated Swale A vegetated swale is a shallow channel filled with densely planted grasses. The channel conveys runoff while filtering sediment and pollutants. The vegetation also helps to slow the runoff, promoting infiltration. Underdrains are often added below the channel with perforated pipes to connect back to the sewer system. Vegetated swales are often used to convey roadway runoff as pretreatment for other BMPs. A bypass system is often needed for high flow situations. Figure 10.6 displays a swale schematic. Figure 10.6 Swale Schematic (California DOT, 2014) 30 11. Basis of Design Decision Matrix A decision matrix of the Best Management Practices was used in the selection of a design alternative for Southfield. The factors considered in the decision matrix were water quality, aesthetics, runoff volume control, availability of park area, design norms and other factors including cost and maintenance. The weights in the decision matrix were assigned to ensure that the main goals of this project are met during the selection of a design alternative. The construction costs and how easily it can be maintained were factors in the feasibility of a chosen design. Stewardship, delightful harmony and transparency, which are the design norms governing this design project, also contributed to the outcome of the decision matrix. The structural Best Management Practices discussed in section 9 were all considered in the decision matrix to find the best alternative for this project. From the decision matrix, a constructed wetland was the design alternative selected for this project. This BMP, has the highest total score in the decision matrix and represents the BMP which meets the design goals taking into consideration the design norms and costs. The full design matrix results are included in Appendix C. Design The team proposes a constructed wetland for treatment of stormwater in Southfield, designed for a 25‐ year storm event. A section of this green space left for a community park. The design basis schematic provided includes the following tables and figures. ‐ Table 11.1 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies ‐ Table 11.2 Pollutant Load from Runoff Entering Southfield ‐ Table 11.3 Project Cost Estimate ‐ Figure 11.1 SCS Rainfall Data ‐ Figure 11.2 Flow of Silver Creek at Southfield ‐ Figure 11.3 Proposed Design Areas The basin will have an inlet and outlet structure, with erosion protection measures used to protect these structures. The inlet/outlet structures will consist of a weirs and orifices. They will be redesigned to allow Silver Creek to flow through Southfield for treatment under low flow conditions. The vegetation planning and design will be assisted by an ecologist. 31 Table 11.1 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies Table 11.2 Pollutant Load from Runoff Entering Southfield TSS
Pollutant Total Phosphorus Soluble Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Nitrate Copper Zinc TSS Infiltration Practices 70% 85% 51% 82% N/A
99%
95%
Stormwater Wetlands 49% 35% 30% 67% 40%
44%
76%
Stormwater Ponds Wet 51% 66% 33% 43% 57%
66%
80%
Filtering Practices 59% 3% 38% ‐14% 49%
88%
86%
Water Quality Swales 34% 38% 84% 31% 51%
71%
81%
Stormwater Dry Ponds 19% ‐6% 25% 4% 26%
26%
47%
Total [lb]
Total [lb/ac]
BOD
TP
354,158.78 141,129.26 1,934.45
169
68
1
TKN
NO2+3
956.51 12,342.96 7,469.20
0
6
Pb
244.32
4
0
Cu
Zn
134.42 1,076.68
0
Cd
16.51
1
0
Table 11.3 Project Cost Estimate DP
COST ESTIMATES
Quantity
Units
Cost/Unit
Stormwater Management
Total Cost
Wetland Construction (including earthwork, maintenance and planting)
1
LS
$37,800‐81,900
$37,800‐81,9000
Inlet/ Outlet Structure 2
EA
$50,000‐80,000
$100,000‐160,000
Park Construction
Fill Sand (Park Area)
Park
19000
Tons
$6.25
$118,750
1
LS
$500‐50,000
$500‐50,000
$80
$16,000
Labor
Engineer
200
Hours
Total
Figure 11.1 SCS Rainfall Data Figure 11.2 Flow of Silver Creek at Southfield Figure 11.3 Proposed Design Areas Total
‐
$273,050‐426,650
Contingency
‐
40%
Total
‐
$382,270‐597,310
12. Cost Estimation At this stage of design the team estimates a projected total cost ranging between $382,000 and $597,000. The cost estimates are based on similar previous projects and broken into three main portions: stormwater management costs, park construction costs, and labor costs. Each portion is summarized in Table 12.1. The stormwater management is primarily a lump sum cost for wetland construction as given in the SEMCOG LID manual section included in Appendix E. This lump sum includes earthwork, vegetation, and construction of berms and overflow structures. The cost will be most dependent on size. The maintenance costs are included in the lump sum and range from 2‐5% of total capital costs. Table 12.2. Cost Estimates COST ESTIMATES
Quantity
Units
Cost/Unit
Stormwater Management
Total Cost
Wetland Construction (including earthwork, maintenance and planting)
1
LS
$37,800‐81,900
$37,800‐81,9000
Inlet/ Outlet Structure 2
EA
$50,000‐80,000
$100,000‐160,000
Park Construction
Fill Sand (Park Area)
Park
19000
Tons
$6.25
$118,750
1
LS
$500‐50,000
$500‐50,000
$80
$16,000
Labor
Engineer
200
Hours
Total
Total
‐
$273,050‐426,650
Contingency
‐
40%
Total
‐
$382,270‐597,310
33 13. Acknowledgements Team 20 would like to thank those who have assisted us in creating our project proposal and feasibility study. We cannot express enough thanks to our professors for their continued support and encouragement: Professor David Wunder, our project advisor, and Professor Robert Hoeksema, our modeling advisor. Team 20 offers our sincere appreciation for the learning opportunities provided by them. The completion of this project could not have been accomplished without the support and guidance of local professionals. Team 20 would like to thank Michael Ryskamp, for his advice and help in testing and treatment design of Southfield, for Claire Schwartz, our industrial consultant for her invaluable professional advice and help with calculating stormwater pollutants, and Bradley Boomstra and the Kent County Drain Commission, for providing the existing plans of Southfield and a comprehensive understanding of Silver Creek. Additionally, the members of the team would like to thank their friends and families for their support and prayers for guidance. Their encouragement is much appreciated. 34 14. Works Cited Benson, Brian, Tyler DeNooyer, Tyler Hanna, and Brad Quist. From Retention to Redemption. Rep., 14 Dec. 2012. Print. "Biofiltration Swales." ‐ Caltrans EC Toolbox. Web. Nov. 2014. City of Grand Rapids, MI. Stormwater Master Plan 2013. Rep., May 2013. Print. Dodson, Roy D. Storm Water Pollution Control: Municipal, Industrial, and Construction NPDES Compliance. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1999. Print. "EPA ‐ Stormwater Menu of BMPs." EPA ‐ Stormwater Menu of BMPs. Web. Oct. 2014. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=factsheet_results>. FTC&H. Plaster Creek Watershed Management Plan. Rep. Grand Rapids:, 2008. Print. Kent County, Michigan. Drain Commissioner. Development Drainage Rules. Grand Rapids: County of Kent, Michigan, 2011. Print. Low Impact Development Manual for Michigan: A Design Guide for Implementers and Reviewers. Detroit: SEMCOG, 2008. 2011. Web. Oct 2014. <http://library.semcog.org/InmagicGenie/DocumentFolder/LIDManualWeb.pdf>. 35 Appendix Appendix A: Team Management Documentation Appendix B: SWMM Model Data Appendix C: Decision Matrix Appendix D: Design Calculations Appendix E: SEMCOG Pages and Tables Appendix F: Referenced Reports Appendix A: Team Management Documentation ‐
‐
‐
Work Breakdown Schedule Calendar Team Work Hours Summary Research Contacts/ Meeting Background‐ Modeling & Design Weekly memo Design Storm Selection Topo, soil, site conditions, GIS Pick model Design Standards Current low flow model Regulations Current over flow model
Testing Standards Alternatives modeling Selection of appropriate BMP Remediation Techniques Overall Site Design
Testing Design Equations Site Visit Design improvements Design Norms Soil Testing Water Testing Infiltration Test Soil Borings WBS (10/8) Project Brief (10/15) Website (10/22) Poster (10/31) PPFS draft (11/10) BMPs, LID Surveying Deliverables Design Matrix CAD drawings Cost breakdown Figure 1. Work Breakdown Schedule PPFS (12/8)
September 2014
Sunday
Monday
1
Tuesday
2
Wednesday
3
Thursday
4
Team Definition, 2 days
7
8
9
Friday
5
Saturday
6
Define Project, 5 days
10
11
12
13
Define Project, 5 days
Set up client meetings, 3 days
ALL-Define project scope/ initial research, 9 days
Research project ideas, 3 days
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
25
26
27
ALL-Define project scope/ initial research, 9 days
21
22
23
24
Meetings w/ Wunde
ALL-Define project scope/ initial research, 9 days
28
29
PPFS outline due
30
October 2014
Sunday
Monday
5
Tuesday
6
Wednesday
7
1
8
Thursday
2
9
Friday
3
Saturday
10
4
11
ZB - research regulations/ standards, 4.5 days
WBS Due
SB - research Silver Creek, 4.5 days
CC - research background information, 4.5 days
12
13
14
15
16
ZB - research regulations/ standards, 4.5 days
Update meeting, 1 d HK - design norms/ WBs memo portion, 4 d
CC - research background information, 4.5 days
20
21
CC - problem constraints/ water quality me
22
23
SB - Background memo portion, 4 days
Update meeting, 1 d
CC - problem constraints/ water quality memo portion, 4 days
27
24
25
CC - Existing conditions memo portion, 4 da
HK - design norms/ WBs memo portion, 4 days
26
18
SB - Background memo portion, 4 days
SB - research Silver Creek, 4.5 days
19
17
28
ZB - Modeling memp portion, 4 days
SB - Deliniation memo portion, 4 days
29
30
31
CC - Existing conditions memo portion, 4 days
ZB - Modeling memp portion, 4 days
SB - Deliniation memo portion, 4 days
Update meeting, 1 d
ALL - design alternative choices/ discussion
November 2014
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
1
ALL - design alternative choices/ discussion
2
3
4
Research
5
6
7
Project Poster
8
Infiltration testing, 1
SB-Team logo/ project poster, 2 days
Update Meeting, 1 d
Existing conditions modeling, 7 days
ALL - design alternative choices/ discussion, 7 days
9
10
Draft PPFS due
11
Decision matrix outline, 2 days
12
13
14
Weights/score to DM, 4 days
15
Update Meeting, 1 d
Existing conditions modeling, 7 days
ALL - design alternat
16
17
Weights/score to DM, 4 days
18
19
20
21
22
SB/ZB Presentation preparation, 2 days
Update Meeting, 1 d
23
SB/ZB Presentation p
24
25
26
Presentation II
27
BREAK, 4 days
28
PPFS edits and writing, 10 days
Finalizing current conditions model and looking at other models, 10 days
30
BREAK, 4 days
PPFS edits and writing, 10 days
Finalizing current conditions model and looking at other models, 10 days
29
December 2014
Sunday
Monday
1
Tuesday
2
Wednesday
Thursday
3
4
Friday
5
Saturday
6
Update meeting, 1 d
PPFS edits and writing, 10 days
Finalizing current conditions model and looking at other models, 10 days
7
8
9
PPFS due
10
11
12
13
Meet w/ Hoeksema,
PPFS edits and writin
Finalizing current co
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Table 1. Team Work Hours
Daylighters Semester 1 Hours
Tracking:
Total
Hours
Every week meeting times:
(12 weeks)
36
66
Monday
Tueday
2:30
12:30
5:30
6:00
3
5.5
6
Thursday (w/ Wunder)
11:30
12
0.5
Meetings with clients/ consultant
5
Expected Indivual Time spent
60
Hours/ week
5/week*
Extra group meeting time:
Defining Proect
8
Presentations/memos
8
PPFS draft
10
PPFS final
Other
15
20
TOTAL HOURS
234
*varied based on other work and due dates of delvierables
Appendix B: SWMM Model Data ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
SWMM Model Layout 1 – Year Intensity Runoff Curve 2 ‐ Year Intensity Runoff Curve 5 – Year Intensity Runoff Curve 10 – Year Intensity Runoff Curve 25 – Year Intensity Runoff Curve 50 – Year Intensity Runoff Curve 100 – Year Intensity Runoff Curve Peak Runoff Summary Table Figure 2. SWMM Model Layout Figure 3. 1 ‐ Year Intensity Runoff Curve
Figure 4. 2 ‐ Year Intensity Runoff Curve
Figure 5. 5‐ Year Intensity Runoff Curve
Figure 6. 10 ‐ Year Intensity Runoff Curve
Figure 7. 25 ‐ Year Intensity Runoff Curve
Figure 8. 50 ‐ Year Intensity Runoff Curve
Figure 9. 100 ‐ Year Intensity Runoff Curve
Table 2. Peak Runoff Summary
Storm Event Inflow (CFS)
1‐yr
176.13
2‐yr
225.9
5‐yr
305.09
10‐yr
374.7
25‐yr
506.83
50‐yr
542.71
100‐yr
620.61
Appendix C: Decision Matrix Table 3. Decision Matrix
Design Norms
Stewardship
Weights
Detention Basin
Dry pond
Wet pond
Constructed wetlands
Retention Basin
Dry pond
Wet pond
Inflitration trench
Vegetated filter strip
Vegetated swale
Riparian buffer
Combinations
Pond & Strip
Pond & swale
Pond & buffer
Delightful Transparency
Harmony
Aesthetics
Sediment Reduction
TP Reduction
Nitrogen Reuction
Temp Stabilization
Volume runoff Peak Rate Park Area
control
8
5
8
Other Factors
Sight
Smell
Cost
Construction Maintenance Winter Use
Total
5
5
6
5
6
5
100
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
6
7
7
5
5
6
3
4
6
3
3
3
6
2
4
8
8
8
7
6
6
3
5
5
3
3
4
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
3
4
5
5
5
67
68
78
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
1
1
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
5
6
2
5
2
6
5
6
2
3
7
6
5
6
2
2
5
2
3
3
8
5
4
2
3
3
5
4
2
2
4
1
3
4
1
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
4
5
4
4
1
1
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
5
5
4
5
60
64
64
66
63
65
5
5
5
2
2
2
5
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
3
3
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
1
3
4
3
3
3
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
58
68
57
Appendix D: Design Calculations ‐
‐
‐
Pollutant Loading Calculator SCS Rainfall Data Calculations Page 1 of 1
Table 4. Pollutant Loading Calculator
Pollutant Load Calculator
City of Holland, Michigan
FISHBECK, THOMPSON,
CARR & HUBER, INC.
1515 Arboretum Drive, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
District: Silver Creek
By: Daylighters
Date: November 11, 2014
Table 1: Pollutant Loads under Existing Land Use
Description: 2006 National Land Cover Data Set
Land Use Data
Land Use
Commercial
Commercial
Industrial
Industrial
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Urban Open
Urban Open
Forest/Rural Open
Forest/Rural Open
HSG
Area
[ac]
A
C
A
C
A
C
D
A
C
D
A
C
A
C
11.94
21.45
204.11
25.62
84.71
358.75
1.63
1054.55
223.47
5.21
73.10
18.23
3.23
4.75
Total
Area
Treated
[ac]
Runoff Calculations
Pollutant Load [lb]
Land
Imp. Area Perv. Area Land Use Ave.
Percent Percent
Imp.
Perv.
Perv.
Use
Annual
Annual
Annual Runoff
Treated
Imp. Area [ac] Area [ac] CN
Ave. CN Runoff [in] Runoff [in]
[in]
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2090.75
85
85
72
72
20
20
20
38
38
38
0
0
0
0
10.15
18.23
146.96
18.45
16.94
71.75
0.33
400.73
84.92
1.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.85
1.79
3.22
57.15
7.17
67.77
287.00
1.30
653.82
138.55
3.23
73.10
18.23
3.23
4.75
39
74
39
74
39
74
80
39
74
80
68
86
45
77
1320.32
53
89
94
81
91
51
79
84
61
83
87
68
86
45
77
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
0.1
2.6
0.1
2.6
0.1
2.6
4.3
0.1
2.6
4.3
1.6
6.9
0.2
3.3
TSS
BOD
TP
DP
TKN
NO2+3
Pb
Cu
Zn
Cd
18.5
18.9
15.7
16.4
4.4
6.5
7.8
8.3
9.9
10.9
1.6
6.9
0.2
3.3
3859
7076
108165
14202
5907
36761
201
138960
35117
902
1369
1452
6
183
1052
1930
17423
2288
3207
19956
109
75436
19064
490
81
85
0
11
16.5
30.3
232.3
30.5
43.9
273.1
1.5
1032.3
260.9
6.7
3.0
3.1
0.0
0.4
8.5
15.6
79.9
10.5
22.8
141.8
0.8
536.0
135.5
3.5
0.8
0.9
0.0
0.1
87.2
159.9
1510.0
198.3
280.1
1743.5
9.5
6590.7
1665.6
42.8
25.2
26.8
0.1
3.4
61.6
113.0
1372.0
180.1
154.4
961.0
5.2
3632.8
918.1
23.6
21.5
22.8
0.1
2.9
2.47
4.53
52.56
6.90
4.80
29.88
0.16
112.95
28.55
0.73
0.38
0.40
0.00
0.00
1.85
3.40
42.10
5.53
2.21
13.76
0.08
52.01
13.14
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.83
14.36
486.96
63.94
13.59
84.60
0.46
319.81
80.82
2.08
1.08
1.14
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.25
3.48
0.46
0.33
2.05
0.01
7.74
1.96
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
Total [lb]
Total [lb/ac]
354159
169
141129 1934.4
68
1
956.5
0
12343.0
6
7469.2
4
244.32
0
134.42
0
1076.68
1
16.51
0
Table 2: Pollutant Loads under Future Land Use and BMP Treatment
NOT APPLICABLE AT THIS TIME
Modified Land Use Data
Runoff Calculations
Area
Area
Land
Imp. Area Perv. Area Land Use Ave.
[ac]
Percent Percent
Imp.
Perv.
Perv.
Use
Annual
Annual
Annual Runoff
Land Use
HSG
(must = Treated
Treated
Imp. Area [ac] Area [ac] CN
[ac]
Ave. CN Runoff [in] Runoff [in]
[in]
existing
)
Commercial
Commercial
Industrial
Industrial
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Urban Open
Urban Open
Forest/Rural Open
Forest/Rural Open
A
C
A
C
A
C
D
A
C
D
A
C
A
C
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
1400.00
S:\Engineering\Teams\Team20\Team 20\Model and Calculations\Pollutant Loads\Pollutant Load Calc from FTCH.xlsx
85
85
72
72
20
20
20
38
38
38
0
0
0
0
34.86
85.00
85.00
72.00
72.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
38.00
38.00
38.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
28.00
28.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
62.00
62.00
62.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
39
74
39
74
39
74
80
39
74
80
68
86
45
77
912.00
66
89
94
81
91
51
79
84
61
83
87
68
86
45
77
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
0.1
2.6
0.1
2.6
0.1
2.6
4.3
0.1
2.6
4.3
1.6
6.9
0.2
3.3
Pollutant Load [lb]
TSS
BOD
TP
DP
TKN
NO2+3
Pb
Cu
Zn
Cd
18.5
18.9
15.7
16.4
4.4
6.5
7.8
8.3
9.9
10.9
1.6
6.9
0.2
3.3
32315
32990
52994
55433
6973
10247
12303
13177
15714
17308
1767
7962
185
3860
8813
8997
8536
8929
3785
5563
6679
7153
8531
9396
104
468
11
227
138.5
141.4
113.8
119.1
51.8
76.1
91.4
97.9
116.7
128.6
3.8
17.2
0.4
8.3
71.3
72.8
39.1
40.9
26.9
39.5
47.5
50.8
60.6
66.8
1.0
4.7
0.1
2.0
730.2
745.5
739.8
773.8
330.7
486.0
583.5
625.0
745.3
820.9
32.6
146.8
3.4
71.1
516.2
527.0
672.2
703.1
182.3
267.9
321.6
344.5
410.8
452.5
27.7
124.9
2.9
60.5
20.69
21.12
25.75
26.94
5.67
8.33
10.00
10.71
12.77
14.07
0.49
2.22
0.00
0.00
15.53
15.85
20.63
21.58
2.61
3.84
4.60
4.93
5.88
6.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
65.60
66.97
238.58
249.56
16.05
23.58
28.31
30.33
36.17
39.83
1.39
6.28
0.00
0.00
1.13
1.16
1.71
1.79
0.39
0.57
0.69
0.73
0.88
0.96
0.03
0.12
0.00
0.00
Total [lb]
Total [lb/ac]
Reduction [lb]
Reduction [%]
263228
188
77191
55
1105.0
1
524.2
0
6834.6
5
4614.2
3
158.76
0
101.93
0
802.64
1
10.15
0
90931
26%
63938
45%
829.5
43%
432.3
45%
5508.4
45%
2855.0
38%
85.57
35%
32.50
24%
274.04
25%
6.35
38%
12/7/2014
Table 5. SCS Rainfall Data
Hours
1 Year
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
21.5
22
22.5
23
23.5
24
0
0.011
0.021
0.032
0.043
0.056
0.068
0.081
0.094
0.109
0.125
0.14
0.156
0.174
0.191
0.213
0.234
0.259
0.287
0.318
0.353
0.398
0.458
0.552
1.293
1.433
1.505
1.558
1.599
1.628
1.658
1.687
1.716
1.734
1.751
1.769
1.786
1.804
1.821
1.839
1.856
1.868
1.88
1.892
1.903
1.915
1.927
1.938
1.95
2 Year
0
0.013
0.026
0.039
0.052
0.068
0.083
0.098
0.114
0.133
0.152
0.171
0.19
0.211
0.232
0.258
0.284
0.315
0.348
0.386
0.429
0.483
0.557
0.671
1.571
1.742
1.83
1.894
1.943
1.979
2.015
2.05
2.086
2.107
2.128
2.15
2.171
2.192
2.214
2.235
2.256
2.27
2.285
2.299
2.313
2.327
2.342
2.356
2.37
5 Year
0
0.017
0.033
0.05
0.066
0.086
0.105
0.125
0.144
0.168
0.192
0.216
0.24
0.267
0.294
0.327
0.36
0.399
0.441
0.489
0.543
0.612
0.705
0.849
1.989
2.205
2.316
2.397
2.46
2.505
2.55
2.595
2.64
2.667
2.694
2.721
2.748
2.775
2.802
2.829
2.856
2.874
2.892
2.91
2.928
2.946
2.964
2.982
3
10 Year
0
0.019
0.039
0.058
0.077
0.1
0.123
0.146
0.169
0.197
0.225
0.253
0.282
0.313
0.345
0.384
0.422
0.468
0.517
0.574
0.637
0.718
0.827
0.996
2.334
2.587
2.717
2.812
2.886
2.939
2.992
3.045
3.098
3.129
3.161
3.193
3.224
3.256
3.288
3.319
3.351
3.372
3.393
3.414
3.436
3.457
3.478
3.499
3.52
25 Year
0
0.024
0.049
0.073
0.098
0.127
0.156
0.185
0.214
0.249
0.285
0.32
0.356
0.396
0.436
0.485
0.534
0.592
0.654
0.725
0.805
0.908
1.046
1.259
2.95
3.271
3.435
3.556
3.649
3.716
3.783
3.849
3.916
3.956
3.996
4.036
4.076
4.116
4.156
4.196
4.236
4.263
4.29
4.317
4.343
4.37
4.397
4.423
4.45
50 Year
0
0.029
0.058
0.087
0.116
0.15
0.184
0.219
0.253
0.295
0.337
0.379
0.422
0.469
0.516
0.574
0.632
0.701
0.775
0.859
0.954
1.075
1.238
1.491
3.494
3.873
4.068
4.211
4.321
4.4
4.48
4.559
4.638
4.685
4.732
4.78
4.827
4.875
4.922
4.97
5.017
5.049
5.08
5.112
5.144
5.175
5.207
5.238
5.27
100 Year
0
0.034
0.068
0.101
0.135
0.175
0.215
0.255
0.295
0.344
0.394
0.443
0.492
0.547
0.603
0.67
0.738
0.818
0.904
1.002
1.113
1.255
1.445
1.74
4.077
4.52
4.748
4.914
5.043
5.135
5.228
5.32
5.412
5.467
5.523
5.578
5.633
5.689
5.744
5.799
5.855
5.892
5.929
5.966
6.002
6.039
6.076
6.113
6.15
Table 5. Volume Constraint Calculations
Total Watershed Size:
- Kreiser
- Calvin
2091 acres
483 acres
861 acres
-Southfield
747 acres
Stanards:
0.13 cubic ft/ s*acre
Maximum Allowed Q:
271.83 CFS
Appendix E: SEMCOG Pages and Tables ‐
‐
General nonstructural/structural BMP information Wetland Construction Section Appendix F: Referenced Reports ‐
‐
Soil Borings – KCDC 1992 Infiltration Rate Table Lbln
(ns-as) 13/ 'l'lls
'ONYS 3SUVO3-3NIJ
'u
"]l^vu9 3nos
.zL/92 's's
,9t
'l'fiOug 'lSNfO nnlO3n
(as) .c'tr
's's
@
1f,\
'-1:l(vu9
? I-lls 'ul
'oNvs
nnlofn-3Nlj'f,laous'3sN30 nnKlftl
.0'l t
.d-tzz-{'s-
(,ns-as) .z'ol o l3A,\ 'l'lls 'u 13AYU9 Tllln
'oNvs 3suvo3-3NlJ 'l'{/$ou8 '3SN3C nnlo3n
-zrlw
.or
,s
(lt:-as)
rsPn
"'l3 vug 'uI ".]'llj -llosdol ? oNvs
nnro3r{-lNlJ '03xln '3sN30 nnlofn
'ilosdol- loNvs
'N/hou8
+8't99
uobrqclry'sPldog
"13
.0'r
-zt/tt
55
tS-B
ZS-8
z66l 't
OLZZ6 'o51 1cafol3
alls
:laqureseo
Puo-tg
Plegqlnos - ulDro laarc ra^lls
lrodag uotlobtlsanul af,olJnsqns :
aexcn T Jesselg 'dwo3
3U
SUOA]N UNS
:
sul3NtcNl
911
z6/Bt/6
8V .o'Ot
o
'1'n
(ns-as) ,or o t3A\ 't'lts 'uL "t3nvu9 f-lut"l
'oNvs 3swo3-3Nll 'r'tr\oug ?sNfo nntcan
's's
c
(lu-as) tston 'TlJ -losdor rs cNvs
nnlo3n-3Ntj '03xrn 'twlod8 '3sN30 nntofn
'lrosdol oNvs
'NAtouS
T9'299
'-13
ES-B
z66l ''
OLZZ6 'o11 1ca[o:3
uobtqclyl .spldog puo.r9
ells PlauLllnos - u!D.to >lear3 ra^lls
lrodag uorlobrlsaaul arollnsqnS :3U
./aquJe3eo
aa)ohl ,g Jassaig 'du.ro3 :
SdOAIAUnS
.
SU33Nl9Nl