Copyright © 2015, Calvin College, Justin Brink, Ryan Byma, Josh De Young, Jarod Stuyvesant
1

E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
The Sub-PAR Engineers Team has developed preliminary plans for bridge and drainage improvements at Stormy Creek Golf Course at the Christian Athletic Complex in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. The current conditions of the golf course render it unplayable for multiple days after about a 2-year rain event. Plaster Creek meanders through holes 11, 12, 13, and 15 of the golf course. Golfers are unable to return to the course after a rain event because of frequent floods of
Plaster Creek, sometimes twice or more per year. The flooding problem is not unique to the
CAC, but the soil at the CAC remains saturated for about 72 hours after the flood waters have receded. This means that the CAC loses time and money both trying to drain the course and not being able to allow golfers on the course. The flooding of Plaster Creek has also caused excessive wear on four bridges over the creek, as they were built with flat girders, so flow is restricted and the bridges are often hit by debris during times of high flow. During the course of this project, two of the four bridges have become unusable. Erosion around the bridge piers and the creek banks also contributes to the issues faced at the CAC.
The Sub-PAR Engineers Team has evaluated and investigated several solutions to fix or eliminate the problems at Stormy Creek Golf Course. Drainage solutions such as bio-swales, underdrains, detention ponds, and flood benches were considered for the golf course. Through multiple conversations with Plaster Creek Stewards, the CAC, and other agencies, it was determined that flood benches would be the most practical solution. Using HEC-RAS modeling, the team has designed about 2000 linear feet of flood benches to be implemented along the creek. Using the soil cut from the benches, the team has also designed a grading plan to raise the existing fairways and slope them to swales and the flood benches. Underdrains within the swales will move the water away from the course efficiently.
Arched aluminum bridges were also designed for the golf course. After considering many designs and materials for the bridges, arched aluminum was decided upon because of the advantages it provides over steel and wood. The new bridges are designed to be 10 feet wide and have a span of 55 feet. 6"x 6" and 3"x 3" extruded aluminum members form the truss frame of the bridge and 2x10 wood planks form the deck. The approach fill slopes to meet the existing ground within 10 feet on either side of the bridge. Most importantly, the new bridges have been designed to be mostly out of the 100 year floodplain of Plaster Creek, which means that less water will get onto the fairways during a flood event.
Erosion control plans have also been developed. The plan involves cutting back the banks of the creek to a stable slope and installing cedar tree revetments. Rip-rap under the proposed bridges will also help to decrease the erosion and scour around the bridge foundations.
2

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
E
XECUTIVE
S
UMMARY
................................................................................................................... 2
T
ABLE OF
F
IGURES
......................................................................................................................... 5
A
BBREVIATIONS
............................................................................................................................. 7
1.
I NTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.1.
Calvin College Engineering Program .............................................................................. 8
1.2.
Team Members ................................................................................................................. 8
1.2.1.
Josh De Young .......................................................................................................... 8
1.2.2.
Jarod Stuyvesant ....................................................................................................... 8
1.2.3.
Ryan Byma................................................................................................................ 9
1.2.4.
Justin Brink ............................................................................................................... 9
1.3.
Project Background .......................................................................................................... 9
1.3.1.
Location .................................................................................................................... 9
1.3.2.
Client ....................................................................................................................... 10
1.3.3.
Current Conditions .................................................................................................. 10
1.3.4.
Project Scope .......................................................................................................... 11
1.4.
Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 11
1.4.1.
Project Management ............................................................................................... 11
1.4.2.
Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................................... 12
1.4.3.
Design Norms ......................................................................................................... 13
2.
I
NITIAL
R
ESEARCH
............................................................................................................... 14
2.1.
Stormy Creek Golf Course ............................................................................................. 14
2.2.
Plaster Creek Stewards ................................................................................................... 15
2.3.
City of Kentwood ........................................................................................................... 15
2.4.
Department of Environmental Quality ........................................................................... 16
3.
P RELIMINARY D ESIGN A LTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 16
3.1.
Drainage ......................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.
Bridges ........................................................................................................................... 18
3.3.
Erosion Control .............................................................................................................. 19
4.
D ESIGN A PPROACH ............................................................................................................... 19
4.1.
Drainage ......................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.1.
Bio-swales ............................................................................................................... 19
4.1.2.
Flood Benches ......................................................................................................... 19
3

4.1.3.
Underdrains ............................................................................................................. 20
4.1.4.
Cross Sections ......................................................................................................... 22
4.1.5.
HEC-RAS Model .................................................................................................... 23
4.2.
Bridges ........................................................................................................................... 24
4.2.1.
Geometry................................................................................................................. 24
4.2.2.
Materials ................................................................................................................. 24
4.2.3.
Structural Modeling ................................................................................................ 25
4.2.4.
Foundation .............................................................................................................. 25
4.2.5.
Connections............................................................................................................. 25
4.3.
Erosion ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.1.
Plaster Creek Stewards ........................................................................................... 26
4.3.2.
Similar Design Solutions ........................................................................................ 26
5.
F
INAL
D
ESIGN
....................................................................................................................... 26
5.1.
Drainage ......................................................................................................................... 26
5.1.1.
Flood Benches ......................................................................................................... 26
5.1.2.
Fairway Fill ............................................................................................................. 27
5.1.3.
Underdrains ............................................................................................................. 27
5.2.
Bridges ........................................................................................................................... 28
5.2.1.
Geometry................................................................................................................. 28
5.2.2.
Material ................................................................................................................... 30
5.2.3.
Preliminary Plans .................................................................................................... 30
5.3.
Erosion ........................................................................................................................... 30
5.3.1.
Cedar Tree Logs ...................................................................................................... 30
5.3.2.
Rip-Rap ................................................................................................................... 31
5.3.3.
Natural Vegetation .................................................................................................. 31
6.
C
OST
E
STIMATE
.................................................................................................................... 32
6.1.
Drainage and Erosion Control ........................................................................................ 32
6.2.
Bridge Replacement ....................................................................................................... 33
7.
A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 33
8.
R EFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 35
9.
A PPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A: Relevant Pages from the Christian Athletic Complex Long Range Planning
Committee Final Report and Recommendations ...................................................................... 36
4

Appendix B: Relevant Pages from the Christian Athletic Complex Long Range Planning
Committee Summary Report ..................................................................................................... 37
Appendix C: Meeting Minutes .................................................................................................. 38
Appendix D: MDEQ Correspondence ...................................................................................... 39
Appendix E: Multi-Flow Golf Course Installation Guide ......................................................... 40
Appendix F: Aluminum Evaluation from Maadi Group ........................................................... 41
Appendix G: Bridge Expansion Joint Specifications ................................................................ 42
Appendix H: Preliminary Fairway Improvement Plans ............................................................ 43
Appendix I: Preliminary Bridge Replacement Plans ................................................................ 44
Appendix J: Detailed Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 45
T
ABLE OF
F
IGURES
Figure 1: Sub-PAR Engineers Team: Josh De Young, Jarod Stuyvesant, Ryan Byma, and Justin
Brink from left to right .................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Location of Stormy Creek Golf Course (Google Maps) ................................................ 9
Figure 3: Stormy Creek Golf Course showing hole layout and bridge locations (Google Maps)10
Figure 4: Land & Resource Engineering original layout for the CAC master plan .................... 14
Figure 5: Original drainage plan using bio-swales with underdrain and outlet structures .......... 17
Figure 6: Before and after cross sections for proposed flood bench areas .................................. 20
Figure 7: Vertical installation instructions for Multi-Flow drainage system ............................... 21
Figure 8: Plan view branching installation of the Multi-Flow drainage system. The green lines denote the small-vaned plastic underdrains, as shown in the previous figure. These funnel toward larger PVC pipes which bring the water to the appropriate outlet point ...................................... 22
Figure 9: An existing cross section during a 10-year storm. The water has overtopped the banks and the 11th fairway is under about one foot of standing water. .................................................. 23
Figure 10: The proposed cross section at the same location as Figure 9. As shown, the water has not overtopped the flood bench bank, and the fairway remains dry. ............................................ 23
Figure 11: Typical flood bench cross section .............................................................................. 27
Figure 12: 11th Fairway underdrain plan .................................................................................... 28
Figure 13: Rendering of final bridge design ................................................................................ 29
5

Figure 14: Final bridge design profile ......................................................................................... 29
Figure 15: Final bridge design plan view .................................................................................... 29
Figure 16: Typical erosion control cross section ......................................................................... 31
Figure 17: Typical erosion control for bridge crossings .............................................................. 31
Figure 18: Brown fox sedge (left) [12] and coconut fiber erosion control blanket (right) [13] .. 32
6

A BBREVIATIONS
ABET
BMP
BSE
CAC
DEQ
LRE
SCGC
SCS
Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology
Best Management Practices
Bachelor’s of Science in Engineering
Christian Athletic Complex
Stormy Creek Golf Course
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Environmental Quality
Land & Resource Engineering, Inc
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System
7

1.
I NTRODUCTION
1.1.
Calvin College Engineering Program
Calvin College is a 4-year liberal arts college located in Grand Rapids, MI. The Calvin
Engineering Program has been accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and
Technology (ABET). The Engineering Program offers a Bachelor's of Science in Engineering
(BSE) degree with a concentration in one of four engineering disciplines: civil and environmental engineering, chemical engineering, electrical and computer engineering, and mechanical engineering.
During the final year of the 4-year BSE program, students participate in a capstone course, known as Senior Design. The goal of this course is to integrate what students have learned in the program into a real world project that spans the academic year. The course also teaches students to be Christian professionals in the engineering workforce. "The engineering program equips students to glorify God by meeting the needs of the world with responsible and caring engineering." [1]
1.2.
Team Members
The Sub-PAR Engineers Team consists of four civil and environmental engineering students, each with unique interests and skills. Each team member is committed to developing solutions which fit the needs of the client and using their gifts and talents to further God's kingdom.
Figure 1: Sub-PAR Engineers Team: Josh De Young, Jarod Stuyvesant, Ryan Byma, and Justin Brink from left to right
1.2.1.
Josh De Young
Josh De Young grew up in Waupun, Wisconsin and graduated from Central Wisconsin Christian
School. He is interested in site development and road and highway design. Josh attends Calvin
College and is studying Civil Engineering. He will be graduating in May and accepted a full time position at Moore & Bruggink Consulting Engineers.
1.2.2.
Jarod Stuyvesant
Jarod Stuyvesant is originally from Grandville, Michigan. He attended Calvin Christian High
School. He enjoys golfing, wakeboarding, hiking, and snowboarding. At Calvin College, he is
8

studying Civil engineering, with an interest in site development, highway construction, bridge construction, and wastewater treatment design. After graduation in May 2016, Jarod will begin his full time position at Moore & Bruggink Consulting Engineers.
1.2.3.
Ryan Byma
Ryan Byma graduated from high school in Lynden, Washington, but grew up in northern
Michigan. Ryan's hobbies include any type of sport, such as baseball, golfing, wakeboarding and snowboarding. He is interested in buildings, architectural and structural engineering, and site planning and site development. For this project, Ryan is most interested in the design of the golf cart bridges, but is finding an interest in drainage as well. Ryan has completed an architecture minor at Calvin, and has accepted a Project Engineer position with Anchor Construction in
Granger, Indiana upon graduation in May 2016.
1.2.4.
Justin Brink
Justin Brink is from Grand Rapids, Michigan and graduated from Grand Rapids Christian High
School. Justin spends lots of his spare time outdoors, enjoying activities such as rock climbing, backpacking, soccer, hockey, and skiing. Within this project, Justin finds the drainage and the problems that lie within Plaster Creek particularly interesting, along with the design and aesthetics of the bridges. Justin has accepted a full time position with Exxel Engineering after he graduates in May 2016.
1.3.
Project Background
1.3.1.
Location
The Christian Athletic Complex (CAC) (formerly known as the Christian Recreation Center) is located in Kentwood, MI near the southeast corner of the intersection of 36th St. SE and Shaffer
Ave. The property is accessed from both 36th St. and Shaffer Ave. The property is about 121 acres in size and includes 8 softball fields, a basketball court, miniature golf, and an 18-hole golf course known as Stormy Creek Golf Course (SCGC).
Figure 2: Location of Stormy Creek Golf Course (Google Maps)
9

1.3.2.
Client
The client for the project is the CAC and Graham Rayburn is the representative for the client.
Mr. Rayburn serves as the executive director at the CAC and is very knowledgeable about current operations. He has 17 years of experience in the golf and turf industry and spent four years as the Director of Golf for Gratiot Country Club and the Fields Golf Course.
1.3.3.
Current Conditions
At the present time, SCGC is experiencing numerous drainage and erosion problems. Plaster
Creek often overflows its banks due to a rain event, causing flooding on the golf course. The
100-year floodplain elevation for Plaster Creek covers about 75% of the back nine holes of the course, including four complete fairways. Once the flood waters recede back within the creek banks, the ground around the creek remains saturated and can take up to 72 hours to drain enough to allow golfers back on the course. There are four flat girder golf cart bridges spanning the creek. When the water level in the creek is high, it also erodes the stream banks, causing scour at the bridge piers and large portions of soil to be carried downstream. Because of these conditions, the bridges are nearing the end of their life expectancy. Two bridges are 15 years old, and the other two have failed within the duration of this design. [2]
Figure 3: Stormy Creek Golf Course showing hole layout and bridge locations (Google Maps)
10

1.3.4.
Project Scope
The scope of this project will focus on three main areas of concern for SCGC. On September 18,
2015 the design team met with Mr. Rayburn for the first time and asked what his priorities were for the project. The first priority was safety concerning the golf cart bridges and the excessive wear the bridges have experienced. Mr. Rayburn noted that with public safety being the most important, the replacement of the four golf cart bridges would be something the design team should consider. Second, the drainage of the golf course is another main concern and a priority for the project. The client expressed displeasure with the current drainage system, as it does not efficiently drain water from the course. In most cases, the ground will remain saturated for 48 –
72 hours after a rain event. This makes it impossible or very difficult for golfers to get on the course during that period. The client stated that the goal is not to prevent flooding, but simply try to manage it better than what is being done now. The CAC realizes that Plaster Creek is not going to stop flooding, but in order to achieve a satisfactory level of golf play, the grounds need to be dry and green. Mr. Rayburn needs a place to go with the water, and currently has nowhere to put it, so it remains on the course. The design team will explore ways to solve this problem efficiently. The third priority is controlling soil erosion on the banks of the creek. When the water in the creek is high, large portions of stream bank are eroded and carried away by the creek. The design team will also consider measures for stream bank stabilization as part of the project. [3]
1.4.
Project Overview
1.4.1.
Project Management
Ryan Byma was the team leader and was in charge of arranging meeting times with the client representative, industrial consultant, and any other parties involved in this project. He also coordinated meetings and deadlines within the team itself. Josh De Young was the website manager, and was in charge of keeping the website live and up to date with the team's most recent progress. Josh also worked on the HEC-RAS model and used the model to lay out proposed contours. Jarod Stuyvesant was in charge of keeping meeting minutes during formal meetings with the client, consultant, city engineers, Plaster Creek Stewards, and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Jarod also worked extensively on the CAD drawing and kept information in the file up to date. Justin Brink worked with Ryan to design the bridges and worked mainly on the 3D model to help visualize the bridge design.
During the fall semester, the team's main priority was meeting with all parties involved in this project, gathering research about possible solutions, and developing a number of design alternatives. The team drew an existing layout of the entire site, based on data from previous surveys, Google Maps, and floodplain information from Land & Resource Engineering (LRE).
The team developed a list of design alternatives by the end of the first semester, based on information gathered during meetings and site visits.
At the beginning of the spring semester, the team was divided into two sub-teams. Ryan and
Justin were assigned to bridge design, while Josh and Jarod were put in charge of drainage and erosion design. During the spring, the team selected the final designs from the list of possible alternatives and developed a preliminary design for the project. The design includes a bridge
11

replacement plan, a drainage design that will allow for much quicker flood water recession and more water contained within the banks of the creek, and a soil erosion design that will reduce soil deposits from erosion of the banks.
The team first determined the feasibility of the project. There are many restrictions when doing work inside the 100 year floodplain, which encompasses a large portion of the site. The DEQ will have control over some of the design aspects of the project. The team received information from the DEQ regarding the regulations concerning the cart bridges. Knowing the bridge regulations allowed the team to move forward with their design of the four cart bridges. The team developed their final design alternatives after receiving more information from the DEQ.
Once the final alternatives were chosen, the team took these to the client representative and began sketching potential designs and developing of the base plan. A cost estimate was performed for each alternative. Mr. Rayburn and the team then collaborated to decide which alternative is the most economical, feasible, and aesthetically pleasing.
1.4.2.
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the project was to design address some of the issues faced at Stormy Creek Golf
Course. The problems that the Sub-PAR Engineers Team is trying to solve are mainly in the areas of drainage and bridges. The CAC's Long Range Planning Report from July 2015 states that "eliminating flooding is not a realistic goal, but managing flood waters is a plausible and workable goal." An important question was also raised in the Report: "How can Plaster Creek be renovated on the property such that it can handle low to moderate amounts of rainfall without flooding?" [2] This question is the basis of the Sub-PAR Engineers project. The CAC also required that arched bridges that span Plaster Creek be implemented on the golf course and be mostly out of the Plaster Creek floodplain. The purpose of this project is to improve the golf course to be a pleasing, competitive, well maintained course for many people to enjoy.
The design team has developed objectives relating to three areas of the golf course that will guide the project. These objectives are the criteria that the team would like to meet at the completion of the project. Some of these objectives are outlined below:
The first objective is to reduce the turnaround time that it takes for golfers to return to the course after a rain event. Currently, the ground will remain saturated for up to 72 hours after the flood waters have receded into the creek banks, causing delays and loss of revenue for the CAC. The objective set forth for this area of the project includes developing a plan to reduce the amount of downtime the course experiences after the flood waters have receded. At a minimum, the ground will need to be drained enough to allow walking golfers, likely with pull carts, to return to the course in less time than current conditions allow. Mr. Rayburn and the CAC would prefer the time golf course to be playable within 24 hours after the flood has receded, but the design team will need to test the preliminary design in order to determine whether this is a realistic goal. At a minimum, the team would like to reduce the time before golfers return to the course. According to the CAC’s Long Range Planning Report, “the goal here is not to eliminate the flooding, just try to manage it” [2].
12

Another objective concerning this project deals with the four existing bridges and the priority that they be replaced. The current bridges are nearing the end of their life expectancy and will need to be replaced. The objective that has been determined for the project is that the four golf cart bridges will be replaced and the design team has developed plans to achieve this objective.
Based on email correspondence with the DEQ, the design team’s primary alternative of bridge replacement is a feasible objective. The bridge projects would fall under the DEQ regulations for a Minor Project and the team was able to obtain the criteria that the proposed bridges would need to meet in order to be permitted. The requirements are straightforward and fall under two laws,
Part 31 and Part 301. Part 31 requires “a clear span bridge that has the lowest bottom of beam elevation at or above the natural ground elevations on either bank and the approach fill sloping to natural ground elevations within 10 feet on either end of the bridge.” The main requirement of
Part 301 states that the bridge foundations must span a minimum of 1.2 times the bankfull width of the creek. [4][5] These are the primary requirements that the team needs to meet in the design of the new bridges. The design team plans to design new arched bridges with a longer span and move the footings farther from the creek. Also, there seems to be no major issue concerning the deconstruction of the existing bridges. The 4 bridge locations are shown in Figure 3. The approximate bankfull stream width at the four bridge crossings is between 30 feet and 40 feet. In order to meet the Part 301 requirements, the new bridges would need to span 36 – 48 feet. In addition to the DEQ regulations, an ordinance from the City of Kentwood establishes a do-notdisturb zone that extends 25 feet on either side of the centerline of Plaster Creek. [6] A variance to this ordinance could be obtained, but in order to meet this requirement, the team has designed bridges with a span of at least 50 feet so that the abutments are not within the do-not-disturb zone.
In addition to the drainage and bridge objectives, the design team has also outlined objectives to control the erosion of the creek bank on the areas that are in-play on the golf course. When the water level in the creek is high, the banks of the creek are being eroded away and carried downstream. The design team will develop plans to stabilize the banks of the creek. This includes log vanes, cutting the stream banks back to a stable slope, and reinforcing the soil with large rocks or natural vegetation. Another potential solution would be a geotextile fabric wrapping method of the soil in 12" lifts. In either case, natural vegetation with large root systems will be planted on the stream banks to help hold them in place.
1.4.3.
Design Norms
In keeping with the Christian calling of the Calvin College Engineering Program, the design team has outlined three design norms to guide the project. These norms provide ethical guidelines and a framework for the design process. The three design norms that were chosen for this project are transparency, trust, and integrity. The design team understands that in order to complete the project and meet the objectives, the team will need to be transparent in many parts of the project. This includes communication with the client and governing agencies. Questions and concerns should be properly communicated and the team should do everything in its power to follow parameters set forth by all parties. The designs set forth by the team should also be complete, and be pleasing and intuitive to use. The project should provide a harmony of form and function, and users should feel comfortable using both the golf course and the bridges. The
13

designs should perform their intended use while providing users with pleasure. The project should be trustworthy and reliable. The designs should be dependable and be able to last for an extended period of time without unnecessary maintenance. The team should avoid conflict of interest between involved parties.
2.
I NITIAL R ESEARCH
2.1.
Stormy Creek Golf Course
The team was not entirely familiar with the history of the Christian Athletic Complex. Some research was required for them to move forward. The team had reviewed the long term master plan for the facility on the CAC’s website, but to fully understand the scope of the organization and their goals for their complex, the team had to meet with a member of the complex itself.
Therefore, the team set up its first meeting with Graham Rayburn, who at the time was the director of buildings and grounds for the CAC. He laid out all of the information from the master plan, and told the group that it was a ten million dollar project overall. Figure 4 shows the original master plan for the CAC.
Figure 4: Land & Resource Engineering original layout for the CAC master plan
Obviously, the team would not be able to accomplish this within a nine month period. Thus, the team and Mr. Rayburn narrowed the scope of the project to the highest priority items. These were easily stated by Mr. Rayburn, as they have given the golf course problems for many years.
He informed the team that the top priority was the four bridges on site. He stressed how they are nearing the end of their design life and could possibly fail within the next five years. Next, he
14

explained the issue of the drainage on site. He described how high the water level gets and how long it stays at that elevation for smaller rain events, like a two-year storm. He also informed the team members that these storms would easily prohibit play for two to three days after the water receded back into the creek banks. Additionally, Mr. Rayburn asked if the team could design a solution to some erosion issues on site as well.
After the meeting, the team thought it was most appropriate to take a walk around the site to gather baseline information and existing conditions photos to work from. They also predicted problem areas for the flooding issues from photos given to them from Mr. Rayburn. Detailed photos of the bridges were taken to understand the issues with them and thus understand how to incorporate a better design. All of this information was needed in order to move forward with the design.
2.2.
Plaster Creek Stewards
In addition to researching the site itself, the team thought it was necessary to learn more about the Plaster Creek Stewards organization. In order to do so, the team set up multiple meetings with Mr. Michael Ryskamp, who is a member of the organization and works on many projects involving Plaster Creek. During the time of research, Mr. Ryskamp was working on a project at
Indian Trails Golf Course, which had some similarities to the team's design project. Due to the high amounts of development around the Plaster Creek watershed, the river has become extremely subject to flooding and pollution issues. The team originally approached Mr. Ryskamp with the idea of creating bio-swales to alleviate the flooding issues. The Indian Trails project incorporated a few bio-swales and there is a bio-swale on the Calvin College campus. The team thought it would be appropriate to use this method at SCGC as well. Later, the team found of that flood benches would be the best available option to help with the mass amounts of flooding the course receives. Mr. Ryskamp also provided the team with some erosion control design guidance. He suggested using log vanes to hold banks in place and slow down water around erosion-prone bends. [7]
The information acquired from Mr. Ryskamp helped the team begin to build their base plan for the project.
2.3.
City of Kentwood
The next issue the team faced was following the proper rules and regulations of local and state organizations. The CAC is located within City of Kentwood boundaries, so the team set up a meeting with three members of the City engineering department. They used this time to ask questions about any regulations there may be on the site, because of its location in relation to
Plaster Creek. The City engineers told the team that the DEQ may require the bridges to span the entire 100-year flood plain. In the case of Stormy Creek Golf Course, four of the holes are located entirely inside the flood plain boundary, so this feat was impossible. However, they did let the team know that if the bridge is deemed unsafe and hazardous to the public, then a new bridge can be placed in the exact location of the old one, as long as there is no net gain or net loss of soil from the flood plain. The City engineers also told the team that there are discharge regulations out of bio-swales into Plaster Creek, and the DEQ would have to be involved if that were the design scenario.
15

2.4.
Department of Environmental Quality
Due to the information provided by the City of Kentwood, the team decided to contact the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The team wanted to seek out information regarding the bridge regulations as well as discharge regulations. After many attempts to contact a member of the agency, contact was finally established. However, they refused to meet with the team on-site unless a sum of $250 was paid. Therefore, the team and the representative from the DEQ decided to communicate via email. The DEQ representative informed the group about special regulations of bridges in the flood plain. They required the team to provide HEC-RAS numbers that prove the design does not raise the flood stages. Also, they informed the team that a clear span bridge could be built if the bottom beam of the bridge is above existing ground level. They require 10 feet on both sides for approach fill and slope. [4][5]
Once this information was given, the team could move forward with the preliminary design of the bridges. As for the drainage, the team decided against bio-swales. Therefore, the discharge requirements were no longer in effect, as this report will explain in future sections of final design decisions.
3.
P RELIMINARY D ESIGN A LTERNATIVES
One of the first stages of design for the team was a brainstorming stage. The group sat down a few times a week and evaluated ideas for solutions to the problems. These ideas were formulated into various design alternatives for each area of problems. Because of this, the team could assess each alternative individually, as well as in conjunction with other alternatives, creating a list of nearly a dozen different design options altogether. Once these options were outlined, the team, could narrow down their design decisions, based on feasibility, needs, and effectiveness along with guidance from Mr. Rayburn, Mr. Ryskamp, and numerous professors.
3.1.
Drainage
When the team first began this design project, drainage was one of the main concerns of Stormy
Creek Golf Course. Originally, detention ponds and/or bio-swales were the most considered design approaches to mitigate the flooding problem. Figure 5 shows for the original plan of design for the holes of concern (holes 11, 12, 13, 15).
16

Figure 5: Original drainage plan using bio-swales with underdrain and outlet structures
This preliminary design included large bio-swales located along holes in locations that minimally interfered with golf play. These swales were proposed to have underdrains leading into them from underneath the fairways in branch-like patterns. This style of underdrain was acquired from the manufacturers of MultiFlow. This underdrain system has capabilities to use branch like structures to span under all problematic areas on each fairway. Therefore, when the flood waters reside into the banks of Plaster Creek, the water will be soaked into the ground through sand trenches, into the underdrain, and outletted into the bio-swales, which naturally infiltrate and filter the runoff water with natural vegetation, before discharging the water into Plaster Creek through an outlet structure and pipe. [9]
Another option the team considered was flood benches. Flood benches are areas along the creek where soil is excavated out of the bank to a certain width for a certain length of the river. The key is that the elevation of the bottom of this excavation is above normal river elevation. Thus, the flood bench is only filled with water when a rain event happens. This increases the conveyance of the body of water so that more volume can flow through the area without overtopping the banks. These flood benches would need to be vegetated with native species of plants and grasses, in order to maintain a sustainable ecosystem, as well as naturally settle any sediment or treat any pollutants that find their way into the flood bench area. This design alternative would also include the MultiFlow underdrain system, which would collect soil from the saturated fairways and direct it into the flood benches, naturally feeding it to the creek.
17

3.2.
Bridges
The first bit of information the group was given by the client was that they wanted arched bridges. The team based its research off this requirement. They also agreed with the client and thought that an arched bridge would allow for more conveyance through the creek and decrease risk of build-up on the bridge trusses. The team came up with multiple different design alternatives for the bridge: three for the materials and two for the layout of the structure. The three materials considered were steel, aluminum, and wood. The two layouts considered had to do with the placement and use of the truss. The team considered both a truss underneath the bridge itself and a truss that extends up above the bridge deck to act as a railing as well. There were some pros and cons to each of these alternatives. Evaluations were made for each alternative, as outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Decision Criteria for Proposed Bridge Material and Geometry
Alternative
Steel



Strengths
Strong
Inexpensive
Durable



Concerns
Rust easily
Requires maintenance
Heavy
 High initial cost
Aluminum
Wood
Truss underneath deck








Strong
Low maintenance
Lightweight
Low total cost of ownership
High salvage value
Aesthetically pleasing
Most inexpensive
Natural material
 Free space above bridge deck




Not as safe
Rotting
Difficult to arch
Truss could restrict flow when water level is high
Truss/railing combination above deck


Truss does not restrict flow
Increased conveyance of river


More materials
More unique and harder to design
The six alternatives that result are the three materials in combination with either of the two truss configurations. The next step for the team's bridge design process was to choose a material and configuration of the truss. They could then design an approach slope and camber, as well as total span. As for the foundation of the bridge, the team first considered pouring concrete around the existing foundations. Another alternative looked at was pouring new concrete foundations with a pad footing. They also realized that they had to look at designing connections from the bridge to the foundation. Since all the alternatives were laid out at this point, the team moved forward with the optimization of the different options. These are described in the next section.
18

3.3.
Erosion Control
The design team realized how prevalent the erosion issues were on certain holes on the back nine at Stormy Creek Golf Course. Erosion is a big contributor to the poor health of Plaster Creek.
The stream banks around holes 11 and 12 are either vertical or concave. The team hoped to incorporate a design that anchors the banks with native vegetation on a gentler bank slope. The team looked at several design alternatives for the material used and the slope of the bank. The team's options include permanent or degradable fabric, and a 1:2 or 1:3 slope. These options would be incorporated for the severely eroded sections of the river. The team also explored placing rip rap along the banks if they decided that vegetation was not sufficient. Erosion was also currently prevalent underneath the bridges. The water has scoured away most of the soil underneath the existing bridges, revealing the foundations. This is a large problem, because a large rain event could remove one of the bridges from its location. This was a key design factor for the team. They want their erosion solution to be long term, so that Stormy Creek does not have to worry about the river eroding the course away.
4.
D ESIGN A PPROACH
4.1.
Drainage
4.1.1.
Bio-swales
The team's initial drainage solution included the design of multiple bio-swales along Plaster
Creek, as shown in Figure 5 of Section 3.1. The idea was for underdrain to bring standing water from the soil to these swales. The swales would be designed to naturally infiltrate the groundwater as well as build up standing water which could be infiltrated as the soil and water table allowed. At the downstream end of each swale, there would be an outlet structure. These structures were to be made of concrete, similar to a manhole structure, with an outlet pipe feeding the water underground and into Plaster Creek. These swales were also designed with an overflow spillway at a lower elevation than the surrounding ground, in order to allow relief of high volumes of water after a flood recedes. Once the team had designed preliminary locations and sizes of these swales, they did a rough earthwork estimate using Excel ®. The total amount of soil which would be excavated from these swales was about 4,200 cubic yards. One of the team’s goals was to raise some of the playing areas so that water does not remain on the fairways. In order to do this, soil needed to be used from the site, in order to follow the DEQ's ordinances that no fill be placed within the 100-year flood plain without compensating cut. The approximate amount of soil desired for this fill was estimated to be 6,000 cubic yards. The swales would not provide enough volume of soil to achieve this goal. In addition, the swales would not increase the conveyance of Plaster Creek, and the flood waters would breach the banks just as easily as the existing scenario. Because of these reasons, the team then moved forward with the design of flood benches.
4.1.2.
Flood Benches
The new drainage solution includes the construction of several flood benches along Plaster
Creek. A flood bench, also known as a secondary high flow channel, is an excavation into the side of an existing river bank, that moves the top of the bank further away from the river, thus increasing the cross sectional volume of the river from bank to bank, as shown in Figure 6. This excavation does not extend below the normal water surface level. Rather, the bottom of the flood
19

bench was designed to be at the water surface level of approximately a two year storm.
Therefore, the flood bench will not fill with water for a storm less than a two year event. Figure 6 shows a before and after view of the cross section for a typical flood bench construction project.
Figure 6: Before and after cross sections for proposed flood bench areas
Once the team came up with a plan for the location and sizes of the flood benches, they presented it to the client representative, Graham Rayburn, who was pleased with the idea. With this design, the team aimed to decrease the elevation of the river water for each intensity of storms. The increased flow path for the river due to these flood benches will allow for more water to flow through, and also allow for more sediment to settle out. These flood benches will be vegetated so that pollutants and sediment will be settled out, due to the flow patterns forced by the vegetation. With this design, not only will the course become more playable, but it will also be more aesthetically pleasing. These flood benches will allow for a more natural looking stream and wetland area, rather than the soggy brush and woodlands areas currently on site. In addition to helping the course, this design will help mitigate the issues associated with Plaster
Creek, and assist in cleaning the river and its downstream receiving waters.
4.1.3.
Underdrains
The CAC is aware that due to upstream development, they cannot prevent the flooding of Plaster
Creek altogether. The flood benches will keep flood levels lower, but a large storm (larger than
10-year) will still overtop the banks of the river and its proposed flood benches. Therefore, a major goal of this project is to allow for quicker drainage of the course once the flood waters subside. In order to accomplish this, the team researched various forms of golf course drainage.
After much research, the design team discovered an underdrain design known as Multi-Flow.
Multi-Flow underdrain systems utilize a smaller vane branch-like structure, to spread out underneath the problem areas, such as fairways and greens. [8]Figures 7 and 8 illustrate an
20

example drawing, courtesy of Varicore Technologies, Inc. For more information on the Multi-
Flow drainage system, refer to Appendix E.
Figure 7: Vertical installation instructions for Multi-Flow drainage system
21

Figure 8: Plan view branching installation of the Multi-Flow drainage system. The green lines denote the small-vaned plastic underdrains, as shown in the previous figure. These funnel toward larger PVC pipes which bring the water to the appropriate outlet point
This underdrain system was chosen because of the positive reviews from past users, as well as the functionality of the product. There are numerous possible orientations with the products, in order to cover the desired areas. Being that Stormy Creek Golf Course sits on a bed of clay, it will take multiple underdrain units to collect all of the water. Refer to the final design section for the specific placement of the team's proposed underdrain systems.
4.1.4.
Cross Sections
In order to get a better grasp on the flood benches and underdrain, the team began developing cross sections of the river. To do this, the team borrowed some basic survey equipment, courtesy of Moore & Bruggink, Inc. The team shot existing cross section elevations at twenty-four sites along Plaster Creek on the CAC’s property. Using a benchmark previously determined on site, the team set up the survey instrument in four different locations during the process, checking previous elevations to get a new instrument height for each series of shots. Two team members pulled a hundred foot tape measure across each location, while another member held a grade rod at five foot increments, walking through the river itself with waders on. The fourth team member read the instrument and recorded the data points. Once all the data was recorded, the team entered into Excel ® and developed real elevations for each cross section. The purpose of these cross sections was ultimately to develop a model using HEC-RAS.
22

4.1.5.
HEC-RAS Model
The existing surveyed cross section data was entered into HEC-RAS. The twenty cross sections were used to model the river, with calculated interpolations in between. The boundary condition used for this model was the downstream slope between the first and second cross sections, near the 11 th bridge. Once the model was developed, flow data needed to be associated with it. Using records from USGS, appropriate flow rates were added to the model. [11] The goal of using this software was to develop 2-year and 10-year water surface elevations at each of the cross sections. Once the existing model was finalized, a proposed model that incorporated the flood bench designs was developed to attempt to keep a 10-year storm within the flood bench area.
Refer to Figure 9 for an existing cross section on site, on hole 11 upstream from the bridge.
Figure 9: An existing cross section during a 10-year storm. The water has overtopped the banks and the
11th fairway is under about one foot of standing water.
Once the proposed model was developed, the team adjusted flood bench sizes in order to maintain the 10-year storm within the flood bench. Figure 10 illustrates the proposed cross section in the same location as the previous figure.
Figure 10: The proposed cross section at the same location as Figure 9. As shown, the water has not overtopped the flood bench bank, and the fairway remains dry.
23

The development of a HEC-RAS model was pivotal in the success for the project. This model assured the team that the flood benches would greatly decrease the chance that the fairways become flooded during and after a rain event. According to the model, only about once every eleven years would the flood benches be breached. This of course assumes that no debris or trees block the flow of the river downstream of the site. Nevertheless, the team was confident in their approach, and the design will greatly increase the number of golfers that can return to the course throughout the season.
4.2.
Bridges
4.2.1.
Geometry
From the beginning of the project, the design team was aware that the CAC desired arched bridges to be implemented on the golf course. Once it was determined from research and DEQ correspondence that arched bridges would be feasible for the scope of the project, the team moved forward with this design. Other alternative solutions were not explored because of the owner's specification that the bridges be arched.
Another component in the design of the bridges were ordinances from the City of Kentwood and regulations governed by the DEQ. The City of Kentwood informed the team of a 50-foot no disturbance zone centered on the creek. While a variance could be granted for this ordinance, the design team wanted to be respectful and follow this regulation, so the decision was made to design the bridges to span this zone. DEQ laws state that the distance between the bridge foundations needed to be at least 1.2 times the bankfull width of the creek and the lowest bottom beam elevation is at or above the natural ground elevations on either bank and spans the entire bankfull width. Also, the DEQ requires that the approach fill slopes to natural ground elevation within 10 feet on either side of the structure.
With these design criteria, the design team was able to develop a design for the new bridges that met all the requirements set forth by the City of Kentwood and the DEQ.
4.2.2.
Materials
After much research and consulting the client, the bridge material was chosen. The team originally assumed that a steel structure would be the best option for the CAC because of the requirement that the bridges be arched. A steel structure could be designed for the golf course, and there are many design examples of arched steel bridges on golf course and other places.
However, research brought the design team to consider designing the bridges out of aluminum.
Aluminum is an ideal material for this design because of it is lightweight (about 1/3 the weight of steel) and has a high load bearing capacity. Aluminum also requires little to no maintenance and is corrosion resistant because the material naturally produces a protective oxide that coats the exterior. This means that the CAC's bridge maintenance budget can be greatly reduced with aluminum bridges. These bridges also have a lower total cost of ownership over its lifetime when compared to a steel bridge. The lightweight material and design means there will be less installation and transportation costs.
For these reasons, it was decided that the bridges would be designed using standard extruded aluminum members.
24

4.2.3.
Structural Modeling
In order to model the bridge for strength and simulate many load cases, the design team utilized the STAAD.Pro computer modeling program. The geometry of the bridge was put into the software and sizes assigned to each member. The bridge was modeled as a pinned-roller connection, meaning that one side of the bridge was pinned and only allowed to rotate, while the other side of the bridge was allowed to move in the X-direction, but was fixed in the Y- and Zdirections. The roller supports were also allowed to rotate to release the moment of the bridge.
Load cases were then determined and assigned to the geometry of the bridge. The team determined about 50 load cases, based on pedestrian loading, golf carts, maintenance vehicles, and mowers. Also included in the STAAD model were the self-weight of the aluminum members and the decking load, which helped the team determine the total dead load of the bridge to design the foundations. The STAAD model also included a wind load of 55 mph on the side of the bridge.
After running an analysis of the bridge with the loads and differing load combinations, the team was able to determine the reactions at each end of the bridge and the deflection of each member.
Using these values and comparing to design code and capacity of the soil and the foundation, the team was able to size the bridge members to meet the requirements of the soil and the design code.
4.2.4.
Foundation
The bridge foundations were designed using the dead load and live load calculations determined from the structural model discussed in the previous section. The design for the foundations uses reinforced concrete and is based on the geometry of the bridge. Steel reinforcing is an integral part of the foundation design and makes the foundation stronger and able to withstand the loads that are applied to it.
4.2.5.
Connections
The connection of the bridge to the foundation was also able to be analyzed using the structural model. From the model, the design team was able to determine the movement of the bridge due to different load combinations. The lateral movement of the bridge at each of the four corners where it is in contact with the foundation was determined. The team also analyzed the material properties of aluminum to determine the thermal expansion and contraction of the bridge due to changing temperature. Using a temperature change of 150° F, the thermal movement of the bridge was calculated. The combination of the movement due to loading and the thermal movement allowed the team to size slotted holes in the base plates where the bridge connects to the foundation.
Another connection detail that was determined from the movement of the bridge was the expansion joints that will be implemented on both sides of the bridge along the width of the bridge. These joints will allow the bridge to move laterally as it expands and contracts. After much research, two kinds of joints were selected, one to control the movement of the bridge and one to cover the small gap between the end of the bridge and the foundation.
4.3.
Erosion
25

4.3.1.
Plaster Creek Stewards
Plaster Creek has had countless occurrences of stream bank erosion. This is said to be a result of upstream developments. During any rain event, the majority of the rain runs off into Plaster
Creek. This causes a surge of water to come down the river. Around bends especially, the water scours away existing soil and light vegetation, gouging out a bare spot in the banks. Once the vegetation is gone, the banks are eroded continually. The water eats away further into the land. A result of erosion is extremely sediment-heavy water. This polluted water makes it near impossible for wildlife to exist. Plaster Creek Stewards is an organization that has worked on many projects in order to clean up Plaster Creek and its watershed. Mr. Michael Ryskamp is a member of this association and was one of the key components in the team's research phase.
4.3.2.
Similar Design Solutions
Mr. Ryskamp and Plaster Creek Stewards have been working on a project at Indian Trails Golf
Course this past year. Plaster Creek runs through a couple holes on the back nine of this course.
Mr. Ryskamp shared his ideas with us that they used at this project. However, this project had used swales to monitor and manage the runoff water, and the team has decided to use flood benches. Then, Mr. Ryskamp showed the team one of his projects at a park in Grand Rapids. Mr.
Ryskamp informed the team of the general specifications of the flood benches they used, including slope, seeding, and erosion control. The team used this information to finish the proposed design, as well as design cost estimate . [7]
5.
F INAL D ESIGN
The final design plans includes a set of plans describing each of the three areas of improvement: drainage, bridges, and erosion.
5.1.
Drainage
5.1.1.
Flood Benches
The proposed flood benches are designed to be located on holes 11, 12, 13, and 15. These are designed to be above normal flow elevations, so that they will remain dry unless a rain event occurs. The goal of this portion of the project was to maintain the waters of a two-year storm in the river channel, and a ten-year storm in the channel and the flood benches. Thus, a ten-year storm will not present any river flooding issues on the course. The team decided, based on Mr.
Ryskamp's recommendations, to go with a brown fox sedge seed in the flood benches. This seed will be spread throughout the benches at a rate of about 7 lbs. per acre. The finished design has about 3.2 acres of flood benches. In addition to the sedges, the team's plan proposed that rye plugs are planted in the flood benches as well. These will help provide some more aesthetic appeal to these areas. The flood benches will have coconut fiber erosion control blanket laid overtop of the seeds. This will keep the soil in place while the sedges are taking root. Once the vegetation has formed, the root systems will hold the soil in place and prevent major erosion within the flood benches. The benches will run on a 1% slope up from the river, and a 1:2 slope where they meet the golf area grade. This will allow for surface runoff to make its way to the river. See Figure 11 for a typical cross section of the proposed flood benches.
26

Figure 11: Typical flood bench cross section
5.1.2.
Fairway Fill
The construction of the flood benches will require excavation. This soil will be utilized inside the flood plain. As a result, the team decided to use it to raise the fairways next to the proposed flood benches. One of the team's plan sheets include existing and proposed contours. The team has created a design that will raise the side of the fairway further from the river, and create natural swales to funnel water to the river. The team performed an earthwork analysis on the changed contours using a planimeter, in order to make sure the fill did not exceed the cut. A 7% shrinkage factor was used to ensure enough fill even after construction irregularities.
5.1.3.
Underdrains
In order to assure better drainage from the fairways, the team proposes placing underdrains underneath the natural swales created by the fairway contours. These underdrain systems are modeled from Varicore Technology's Multi-Flow Drainage Systems [Appendix E]. See Figure
12 for a plan view of the proposed underdrain at hole 11.
27

Figure 12: 11th Fairway underdrain plan
The branch-like layout of this system will allow for maximum drainage underneath these areas.
The underdrains are placed underneath the swales because this is where the majority of the water will flow. The trenches will be backfilled with sand to allow better infiltration. The 6" PVC will daylight into the closest flood bench, with smaller rip rap protecting the outlet from eroding.
5.2.
Bridges
5.2.1.
Geometry
The final bridge design geometry is shown in Figures 13, 14, and 15. The bridge is 10 feet wide and spans 55 feet. The bridge rests on reinforced concrete foundations on each side and the approach fill slopes to meet the existing ground within 10 feet on either side. The entry and exit of the bridge is about 2.5 feet above the existing ground and the apex of the bridge is about 4.25 feet above the existing ground.
28

Figure 13 : Rendering of final bridge design
Figure 14: Final bridge design profile
Figure 15: Final bridge design plan view
29

The supporting truss system of the bridge is a triangle grid system, with vertical and diagonal members connected to arched extruded members to form the sides of the bridge. Under the decking, another grid system forms the support for the loading. 2x10 lumber decking and two
2x6 golf cart rub rails are attached to the bottom and sides of the bridge, respectively.
12"x16"x1/2" baseplates with slotted holes are welded to the bridge at each corner. The 1.2" slotted holes allow the bridge to expand and contract with change in temperature and loading.
Under the baseplates are 12"x18"x1" UHMW bearing pads provide for smooth movement of the bridge under contraction and expansion.
Two expansion joints were selected to control the lateral movement of the bridge. The expansion joints were chosen based on their reliability and ability to perform the necessary function.
Wabo® Compression Seal was chosen to be placed between the bridge and the foundation to control the movement of the bridge. Wabo® Safety Flex was selected to be placed over the gap between the bridge and the foundation to provide a smooth and quiet transition onto the bridge while also providing safety to users by covering the gap to reduce tripping hazards. More information about the expansion joints can be seen in Appendix I and bridge plans with details of the integration of the joints are shown in Appendix K.
5.2.2.
Material
The bridges were designed to be constructed out of aluminum. This material has many advantages over steel or wood as discussed in previous sections. Three standard sizes of extruded aluminum will be used in the bridge, 6"x6"x1/2" square tube for the main truss, 3"x3"x1/2" square tube for the floor grid system, and six 6"x2"x0.3" channels for the stringers to support the decking.
5.2.3.
Preliminary Plans
Preliminary bridge plans have been developed to gain a better understanding of the bridge and its components. The plans show the overall bridge in plan and profile, section views of different portions of the bridge, and details of the connections and the reinforced concrete foundation. The preliminary bridge plans can be seen in Appendix K.
5.3.
Erosion
5.3.1.
Cedar Tree Logs
In order to facilitate and control flow through high velocity areas of the stream, cedar tree revetments are proposed in certain locations. These locations are denoted on the plans, and are usually around the outside of bends in the river, as well as near the bridges. The plans propose that approximately 8" diameter cedar trees are placed along the corner of the channel, and anchored with galvanized re-bar. The tips of the trees are to point upstream, so that flow can propagate over the length of the tree. See Figure 16 for a cross section of the erosion control areas.
30

Figure 16: Typical erosion control cross section
5.3.2.
Rip-Rap
One of the areas with the highest erosion in existing conditions was the bridge locations. Water would scour away underneath the piers of the bridge and expose the structural supports. In the design, the team has proposed that 4"-8" limestone rip rap be placed underneath the width of the bridges on both sides, extending two feet past the bridge in both directions along the river as well. These stones will protect the soil on the banks, especially when flood levels occur. Refer to
Figure 17 to see typical erosion control for the bridge crossing areas.
Figure 17: Typical erosion control for bridge crossings
5.3.3.
Natural Vegetation
The team wanted to use natural and native vegetation to anchor the stream banks. Like the flood benches, the team has decided to use brown fox sedge seed to plant along the banks of the
31

proposed erosion control areas. The sedge roots will create a strong vegetated mesh to hold the stream banks in place. Refer to Figure 18 for pictures of mature brown fox sedge and erosion control blanket. On top of the seed, a coconut fiber erosion control blanket is proposed to be placed and anchored. This blanket will protect the bank until the seeds take root. Native vegetation is always the best solution for this type of project, because they allow for the natural wildlife and ecosystems to once again populate the area. [10]
Figure 18: Brown fox sedge (left) [12] and coconut fiber erosion control blanket (right) [13]
With these erosion control designs, the river will maintain a natural, aesthetically pleasing, and healthy course for years to come.
6.
C OST E STIMATE
6.1.
Drainage and Erosion Control
The drainage and erosion cost estimation portion of this project took much time and research.
The team found rates using web services and incorporated a fixed labor and contractor mark up in order to obtain these prices. The prices shown are reflective of a fully contracted project, so if the CAC opted to perform some of the design changes themselves, the costs would be sufficiently lower. Table 2 shows a summary of the drainage and erosion control cost estimate.
See appendix J for a detailed cost estimate.
Table 2: Drainage and Erosion Control Cost Estimate
Item
Clearing & Grubbing
Filling and Grading
Slope Stabilization
Flood Bench
Underdrain
Units Quantity Cost/Unit acre cyd lft sft lsum
2.1
9000
520
155000
$ 1,500.00
$
$
60.00
80.06
$ 3.80
1 $ 30,267.18
Total
Total Cost
$ 3,150
$ 540,000
$ 41,633
$ 588,939
$ 30,267
$ 1,203,990
32

6.2.
Bridge Replacement
Using the final bridge design, the design team was able to conduct a detailed cost estimate for the bridge replacement portion of the project. The cost estimate includes each item necessary for construction of the bridges as well excavation for the bridge foundations and the approach grading at the entrance and exit to the bridge. The CAC will be able to use the estimated bridge cost to organize a budget in order to raise funds to implement the bridge design in the near future. A detailed cost breakdown of the bridge construction for a single bridge is shown in
Table 3.
Table 3: Bridge Replacement Cost Estimate
Foundation Excavation
Approach Fill
Extruded Aluminum
Connection Items
Decking and Rail
Reinforced Foundation
Item Units Quantity Cost/Unit cyd cyd lft lsum lft cyd
70
10
1095
1
742
50
$
$
$
$
$
10.00
60.00
66.09
1,900.60
$ 18.91
597.63
Subtotal (1 bridge)
Total (4 bridges)
Total Cost
$ 700
$ 600
$ 72,370
$ 1,901
$ 14,033
$ 29,881
$ 119,486
$ 477,942
7.
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The design team would like to acknowledge and thank the following people for their guidance and support of the project up to this point and beyond.
Professor Robert Masselink of the Calvin College Engineering Department, for meeting with the team on a bi-weekly basis to keep the project on course and offer insight into design alternatives and the next steps.
Graham Rayburn of the Christian Athletic Complex, for being the client contact for the project and offering any help he can regarding the design solutions.
Dan Vanderheide of the City of Kentwood, for meeting with the team and providing guidance for dealing with city codes and ordinances, and for providing the team with many plans to assist with the design.
Robb Lamer of Exxel Engineering, for being the industrial consultant for the project and always being willing to answer questions and help with meetings.
Michael Ryskamp of Plaster Creek Stewards, for meeting with the team regarding designs that have been approved and implemented and best management practices.
Matt Occhipinti and Amanda Whitscell of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, for their help regarding laws and ordinances.
Professor Leonard De Rooy of the Calvin College Engineering Department for meeting with team members to discuss structural bridge design.
33

Moore and Bruggink, Inc, for allowing the team to borrow and utilize basic survey equipment to gather information at the project site.
34

8.
R EFERENCES
[1] "Calvin College Engineering," [Online].
Available: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/about/mission.html
.
[2] "Summary of the Christian Athletic Complex 2014-2015 LRPC Report &
Recommendations." Christian Athletic Complex, 25 July 2015. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
<http://christianreccenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/LRPC-Final-Report-truncated-
2015-08-192.pdf>.
[3] Christian Athletic Complex. Meeting with Graham Rayburn. Meeting Minutes. 18
September 2015.
[4] Matthew Occhipinti, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, [Email
Correspondence]. 17 November 2015
[5] Amanda Whitscell, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, [Email
Correspondence]. 2 December 2015
[6] City of Kentwood. Meeting with Dan Vander Heide. Meeting Minutes. 14 October 2015.
[7] Calvin College. Meeting with Michael Ryskamp of Plaster Creek Stewards. Meeting
Minutes. 2 November 2015.
[8] Golf Course Drainage. Multi-Flow, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <http://www.multiflow.com/Menu/golf_courses_app.html>.
[9] Gibb, Terry. "Bioswales can improve water quality resources." Michigan State University
Extension . N.p., 10 June 2015. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.
<http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/bioswales_can_improve_water_quality_resources>.
[10] "Stream Bank Stabilization." Michigan.gov
. N.p., Sept. 1997. Web. 8 Dec.
2015. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-wb-nps-sbs_250898_7.pdf
[11] USGS National Water Information System, Plaster Creek at 28 th St. Grand Rapids, MI
[12] Brown fox sedge photo http://www.agrecol.com/NativeGrassSedgeSeed
[13] Coconut fiber erosion control blanket photo http://www.colemanmoorecompany.com/product/erosion-control/
35

9.
A PPENDICES
Appendix A: Relevant Pages from the Christian Athletic Complex Long Range Planning
Committee Final Report and Recommendations
36

Appendix B: Relevant Pages from the Christian Athletic Complex Long Range Planning
Committee Summary Report
37

Appendix C: Meeting Minutes
38

Appendix D: MDEQ Correspondence
39

Appendix E: Multi-Flow Golf Course Installation Guide
40

Appendix F: Aluminum Evaluation from Maadi Group
41

Appendix G: Bridge Expansion Joint Specifications
42

Appendix H: Preliminary Fairway Improvement Plans
43

Appendix I: Preliminary Bridge Replacement Plans
44

Appendix J: Detailed Cost Estimate
Drainage and Erosion Control Detailed Cost Estimate
45

Bridge Replacement Detailed Cost Estimate
Bridge Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
Foundation Excavation
Approach Fill
Extruded Aluminum
6"x6"x1/2" Tube - Arched
6"x6"x1/2" Tube
3"x3"x1/4" Tube
6"x2"x0.3" Channel
Units Quantity Cost/Unit cyd cyd lsum lft lft lft lft
12"x16" Baseplates
6"x6" Gusset Plate ea ea
Connection Items
1" dia. 90° Anchor Bolt (Portland Bolt - Part #18930) ea
1" Lock Nut
1" Round Washer (Portland Bolt - Part #11964) ea ea
12"x18"x1" UHMW Bearing Pad
Wabo® CompressionSeal Expansion Joint (WA-250)
Wabo® SafetyFlex Expansion Joint (SFP-600)
Wabo® PrimaLub Adhesive
Decking and Rail
2"x10" IPE Decking lft lft 2"x6" IPE Rub Rail
Reinforced Foundation
Concrete - Formed and Poured
#8 Steel Reinforcing Bar
#6 Steel Reinforcing Bar ea lft lft gal cyd lft lft
70
10
224
300
235
336
4
12
8
16
8
4
18
18
1
630
112
50
105
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10.00
60.00
143.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
26.00
$
$
6.50
3.90
91.00
26.00
32.50
140.40
$
$
93.60
16.90
22.10
195.00
$ 6.76
20.37
10.71
585.00
$ 2.60
260 $ 1.38
Subtotal (1 bridge)
Total (4 bridges)
Total Cost
$ 700.00
$ 600.00
$ 72,370.22
$ 32,032.00
$ 28,080.00
$ 3,971.50
$ 7,425.60
$ 780.00
$ 81.12
$ 1,900.60
$ 208.00
$ 104.00
$ 31.20
$ 364.00
$ 468.00
$ 585.00
$ 140.40
$ 14,033.47
$ 12,833.73
$ 1,199.74
$ 29,881.28
$ 29,250.00
$ 273.00
$ 358.28
$ 119,485.57
$ 477,942.30
46