Final Design Report

Team 06: The Calvin Drain Trust

Michael DeWeerd, Matthew Schanck, Aaron Venema, Katherine Wever

Calvin College ENGR 339/340 Senior Design Project

May 9, 2016

© 2016, Team 06 and Calvin College

Executive Summary: Calvin College’s engineering program requires a capstone design project for senior students. Team 06 is made up of four civil and environmental engineers: Mike DeWeerd, Matt Schanck, Aaron Venema and Katherine (Kat) Wever. There are three problems presented in this project. The first problem is that the well on the eastside of campus is currently operating at capacity and will be unable to provide an adequate supply of water if Calvin College decided to expand and develop on that side of campus. The second problem is located in the Commuter Parking Lots. Currently when it rains the water from the parking lot discharges into the Grand Rapids stormwater system; however, due to the uneven surface of the parking lot, water often pools in the low areas of the parking lot. The third problem occurs at the bioswales in front of the Seminary Building. When it rains the stormwater flows through the existing bioswales at a high velocity that does not allow for the proper settlement of particles in the pond before the water is discharged into Plaster Creek. The three main goals were determined to be the reuse of stormwater for irrigation in Knollcrest East (KE) apartments, reduce runoff and prevent standing water in the commuter parking lots, and decrease the velocity of water flowing through the Seminary pond bioswales. The team is proposing a concrete tank with a connection to irrigation for the KE apartments area, a series of stormwater chambers underneath the parking lot in the commuter parking lots, and a combination of a detention pond, a meandering system, and a check dam bioswale to help slow the velocity of the water and increase sedimentation.

i

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 

1.1. INTRODUCTION OF TEAM ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CURRENT SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. IRRIGATION SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.4. INTRODUCTION OF PROJECT ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.5. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 4 

2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 6 2.1. TEAM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2. SCHEDULING .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. BUDGET ................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.4. METHOD OF APPROACH .......................................................................................................................... 7 

3. MODELING ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 RUNOFF AREAS ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2. STORMWATER SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................... 15 

4. DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. DESIGN NORMS ................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2. SOUTH COMMUTER LOT ........................................................................................................................ 18 

4.2.1. Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2. Design Alternatives................................................................................................................... 18 

Porous Asphalt ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Infiltration Chambers ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Bioswales ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Porous Pipes .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Underdrain ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Irrigation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 

4.2.3. Design Solutions ....................................................................................................................... 23 Parking Lot Surface ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Islands ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Storm Chambers ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Subbase ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Connecting Storm Drains ................................................................................................................................................ 30 Irrigation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 System Overflow ............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................................... 31 

4.3. KNOLLCREST EAST APARTMENTS ............................................................................................................. 31 4.3.1. Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.2. Design Alternatives................................................................................................................... 32 

Detention pond ............................................................................................................................................................... 33 Underground Storage ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 Cudo Cube ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34 RainStore ......................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Concrete Tank ................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Irrigation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 

4.3.3. Design Solution ......................................................................................................................... 36 Decision Matrix ............................................................................................................................................................... 36 Storage Design ................................................................................................................................................................ 37 

4.4. SEMINARY POND .................................................................................................................................. 43 4.4.1. Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 43 4.4.2. Design Alternatives................................................................................................................... 43 

ii

Weirs ............................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Detention Basins ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 Meandering ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Rain Gardens ................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Check Dams ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47 

4.4.3. Design Solutions ....................................................................................................................... 47 Channel Design ............................................................................................................................................................... 49 Bioswale 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Bioswale 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Vegetation....................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................................... 56 

5. IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................................... 57 5.1. COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................................... 57 

5.1.1. Commuter Parking Lot ............................................................................................................. 57 5.1.2. KE Apartments .......................................................................................................................... 58 5.1.3. Seminary Pond .......................................................................................................................... 59 

5.2. PRESENTATION TO BOARD FOR MASTER PLAN .......................................................................................... 60 

6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 61 

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 62 

8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 63 

iii

Table of Figures

FIGURE 1: TEAM 06, (LEFT TO RIGHT) KAT WEVER, AARON VENEMA, MIKE DEWEERD AND MATT SCHANCK ............................................................................................................................................. 1 

FIGURE 2: WATERSHED BOUNDARIES FOR CALVIN COLLEGE’S CAMPUS ............................................... 2 

FIGURE 3: PROPOSED PROJECT ZONES FOR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) ........................... 4 

FIGURE 4: KE SUBBASIN DELINEATIONS ................................................................................................ 8 

FIGURE 5: ZONE 4 SUBBASIN DELINEATION .......................................................................................... 9 

FIGURE 6: KE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (SCS) SOILS MAP ............................................................ 11 

FIGURE 7: ZONE 4 SCS SOILS MAP ...................................................................................................... 11 

FIGURE 8: SC LOT SCS SOILS MAP ....................................................................................................... 13 

FIGURE 9: KE SWMM MODEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................. 16 

FIGURE 10: NODE 26 STORAGE CURVE ............................................................................................... 17 

FIGURE 11: PROFILE VIEW FROM INLET TO OUTFALL .......................................................................... 17 

FIGURE 12: POROUS PAVEMENT EXAMPLE ........................................................................................ 19 

FIGURE 13: MODEL OF INFILTRATION CHAMBER ................................................................................ 20 

FIGURE 14: EXAMPLE OF BIOSWALE ................................................................................................... 21 

FIGURE 15: DIAGRAM OF POROUS PIPES ............................................................................................ 22 

FIGURE 16: REDIRECTION OF CALVIN’S ROADS ................................................................................... 23 

FIGURE 17: AREA OF STORMWATER RETENTION DESIGN ................................................................... 24 

FIGURE 18: ISLAND DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 25 

FIGURE 19: PROFILE VIEW OF ISLAND ................................................................................................. 26 

FIGURE 20: PROFILE VIEW OF ISLAND ................................................................................................. 26 

FIGURE 21: DIAGRAM OF STORM CHAMBERS WITH PUMP ................................................................ 27 

FIGURE 22. STORMCHAMBER 44 SPECS. ............................................................................................. 28 

FIGURE 23: PLAN VIEW OF CHAMBERS ............................................................................................... 29 

FIGURE 24: TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF KE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 33 

FIGURE 25: CUDO CUBE SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 34 

FIGURE 26: RAINSTORE SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 35 

FIGURE 27: CONCRETE TANK ............................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 

FIGURE 28: PROFILE VIEW OF INLET OVER TANK ................................................................................ 37 

FIGURE 29: PROFILE VIEW OF OVERFLOW STRUCTURE ....................................................................... 38 

FIGURE 30: LAYOUT VIEW OF TANK .................................................................................................... 39 

FIGURE 31: CROSS‐SECTION OF DAYLIGHTED PIPE .............................................................................. 39 

iv

FIGURE 32: PROFILE VIEW OF INLET ................................................................................................... 40 

FIGURE 33: UPDATED MODEL OF TANK .............................................................................................. 41 

FIGURE 34: TANK PROFILE WITH SPILLOVER ....................................................................................... 41 

FIGURE 35: GRAPHIC PROOF OF WATER RETENTION .......................................................................... 42 

FIGURE 36: VISUAL PROOF OF WATER RETENTION ............................................................................. 42 

FIGURE 37: VOLUME OF FLOODING AT INLET ..................................................................................... 43 

FIGURE 38: EXAMPLE OF WIERS ......................................................................................................... 44 

FIGURE 39: EXAMPLE OF DETENTION BASIN ....................................................................................... 45 

FIGURE 40: MEANDERING RIVER ........................................................................................................ 46 

FIGURE 41: EXAMPLE OF RAIN GARDEN ............................................................................................. 47 

FIGURE 42: EXISTING SUB‐BASIN AND PIPE NETWORK SYSTEM IN ZONE 4 ......................................... 48 

FIGURE 43: CHANNEL DIMENSIONS .................................................................................................... 49 

FIGURE 44: ORIFICE WEIR STRUCTURE EPA‐SWMM ............................................................................ 50 

FIGURE 45: FLOW OF WATER THROUGH ORIFICE WEIR STRUCTURE ................................................... 50 

FIGURE 46: WATER ELEVATION IN DETENTION POND FOR 100‐YEAR STORM ..................................... 51 

FIGURE 47: MODIFIED CHANNEL GEOMETRY ...................................................................................... 52 

FIGURE 48: DESIGNED MEANDERS ..................................................................................................... 53 

FIGURE 49: WATER VELOCITY PROFILE ............................................................................................... 53 

FIGURE 50: CHECK DAM AND POOL PROFILE ...................................................................................... 54 

FIGURE 51: WATER VELOCITY PROFILE ............................................................................................... 54 

FIGURE 52: COMPLETE WATER PROFILE FOR BIOSWALE ..................................................................... 55 

FIGURE 53: WATER VELOCITY PROFILE ............................................................................................... 56 

FIGURE 54: PRICING FROM STORMCHAMBER .................................................................................... 57 

Table of Tables TABLE 1: KE SOIL MAP LEGEND........................................................................................................... 11 

TABLE 2: ZONE 4 SOIL MAP LEGEND ................................................................................................... 12 

TABLE 3: SC LOT SOIL MAP LEGEND .................................................................................................... 13 

TABLE 4: AREAS AND RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (RCN) FOR KE APARTMENTS ................................... 14 

TABLE 5: RUN‐OFF VOLUMES FOR COMMUTER LOT ........................................................................... 14 

TABLE 6: RUN‐OFF VOLUMES FOR KE ................................................................................................. 15 

TABLE 7: STORMCHAMBER DETAILS. .................................................................................................. 30 

TABLE 8: DECISION MATRIX FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE .............................................................. 36 

v

TABLE 8: COST ESTIMATE FOR COMMUTER LOT ................................................................................. 58 

TABLE 9: COST ESTIMATE FOR KE APARTMENTS ................................................................................. 59 

TABLE 10: COST ESTIMATE FOR SEMINARY POND .............................................................................. 60 

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Introduction of Team The Calvin Drain Trust is a Senior Design team of four Civil Engineering students. The four group members are Mike DeWeerd, Matt Schanck, Aaron Venema and Kat Wever.

Figure 1: Team 06, (left to right) Kat Wever, Aaron Venema, Mike DeWeerd and Matt Schanck Mike is a senior Civil/Environmental Engineering major with a business minor. He was involved in Capella for a year and a half, and is a founding member of uKnighted, a men's acapella group on campus. During the summer between sophomore and junior year, he worked as an intern at Prein & Newhof, and between junior and senior year, he worked at Weaver Consultants Group. He is engaged right now and is getting married in August and will start working at Exxel Engineering after graduation. His hobbies include music, board games and solving rubix cubes. Matt is a senior Civil/Environmental Engineering student with a writing minor. He is from Howell, NJ. He is involved in Calvin's Ballroom and Social Dance Club as well as Dance Guild. The past two summers he has interned at R.C. Burdick Engineering, the summer before that he studied in Germany. In his free time he dances ballroom, writes stories and poems, works on bikes, and crafts metal wire art. Aaron is a senior Civil/Environmental Engineering student from Grand Haven, MI. He was a Calvin swimmer on the Men’s Varsity Swimming and Diving Team, and the founder of the Calvin Cycling Club. In the summer before his junior year Aaron studied in Germany and would love to travel there again. The following summer he worked as an intern for the City of Grand Rapids Engineering Department. Some of his hobbies include cycling, triathlons, board games, and crafting projects.

2

Kat is a senior Civil/Environmental Engineering major with a French major. During the summers after her sophomore year and junior year, she worked as an intern at Prein & Newhof. She worked with the survey department and collected data for the S.A.W. grant work they were performing for various townships surrounding Grand Rapids. Her hobbies include music, drawing, and playing intramural volleyball.

1.2 Current System Currently a large portion of stormwater surface runoff is not contained within the Calvin College campus. The infiltration of stormwater into the soil on the campus is severely limited by loamy clay, with the exception of the Knollcrest East (KE) apartments which has a primarily sandy clay soil with higher infiltration rates. Because the majority of campus experiences low infiltration rates, the campus is prone to standing water where there are no catch basins or underdrain to capture and transport stormwater. To determine the general flow of stormwater, the team has delineated the campus into five runoff zones as displayed in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Runoff Zones for Calvin College’s Campus

3

The first zone is located on the northeast side of campus, divided by the road between the Prince Conference Center and Knollcrest East apartments, and by the east beltline. The runoff discharges into a series of ponds in constructed marshlands. The runoff water in this zone is treated as the ponds allow time for settling of particles. The second zone is located on the southeast side of campus centered on the KE Apartments. In this zone, water gathers quickly due to steep ground surfaces. The stormwater here either infiltrates in the sandy soil or flows into the Grand Rapids stormwater system. The volume of water that comes out of this zone can cause flooding issues for larger storm events. The third zone is located on the west side of campus, which includes parking lots 1-5 in the south west corner of campus. This zone contains underdrains and catch basins to capture storm water. Runoff collected from these basins enters the Grand Rapids stormwater system through storm drains on the south end of campus. The fourth zone is located directly east of zone 3 and extends to the Beltline. The runoff water in this zone discharges to the seminary pond. The pond is designed to allow for particles to settle before the water exits over a weir on the south end of the pond and is discharged to Plaster Creek. During larger rainfall events settling does not happen. The water flows through the seminary pond with a high velocity that prevents settling of the particles. The fifth zone contains the remainder of the northwest side of campus. The water from this zone enters the Calvin’s north pond on the northwest corner of campus. An underdrain pipe connects Calvin’s north pond to a series of marshland and ponds that eventually flow into Reeds Lake.

1.3. Irrigation System Part of the appeal of Calvin College is the pleasant aesthetics around the campus. One of the contributing factors to the aesthetic appeal is the lush green grass. Keeping the campus maintained at this standard requires upwards of 33 million gallons of water a year for irrigation. The water is currently being drawn from wells on campus. The wells draw from the local water table down and it may contain metallic ions that can cause issues for irrigation like damaging the plant life and corrosion of the piping system. Additionally, the current well water supply is not sustainable for long-term irrigation needs. Calvin is looking to expand the east side of campus and existing irrigation wells will not be capable of supplying additional water for irrigation. To continue irrigating Calvin’s campus to the same quality standards, the college will eventually need to invest in an additional water supply for irrigation.

1.4. Introduction of Project The team’s goal is to reduce runoff water entering the Grand Rapids stormwater system, limit pollutants entering Plaster Creek watershed, and increase the irrigation systems water supply. To help understand the project goals the team has established Geoffrey Van Berkel, irrigation specialist of Calvin College, as our representative to our client Calvin College. He assisted in the designing phase, comparing design alternatives, and general guidance. The team has also established Travis Vruggink from GMB Engineering as our industrial consultant for the project. This project is part of an Engineering Senior Design class at Calvin College. This gives the team two semesters to complete the project before the deadline. The team used the first semester to collect rainfall data, perform simulations, visit existing sites, research, and meet with professionals for guidance. The

4

team used the second semester to design the system and run the calculations necessary to verify the design that is proposed.

1.5. Project Objectives The objective of this project is to reduce the volume of runoff water from Calvin’s Campus entering the Grand Rapids stormwater system, limit pollutants entering Plaster Creek watershed, increase the irrigation systems water supply and meet the master campus plan requirements. Based on stormwater outflow location and irrigation needs the team has identified three key zones as seen in Figure 3; A: Parking lots 1-5, B: The bioswales upstream of the Seminary pond, and C: The KE apartments.

Figure 3: Proposed Project Zones for Best Management Practices (BMPs) The team plans to find a solution to meet future irrigation needs, limit outflow, and reduce pollutant discharge. The team investigated the reuse of runoff storm water and drilling another well as alternatives for additional irrigation water supply. The team found suitable locations to collect and store the water and perform water quality tests to ensure adequate water quality. In the case of reusing rainwater or drawing from the pond, a method for isolating the rainwater from the well will have to be developed. Department

5

of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations do not allow for an open connection between a well and a rainwater reuse system. Additionally, the team will research and evaluate methods of removing pollutants and increasing infiltration for stormwater runoff The end result of the project is to get approved and have this project used in the future. The campus master plan includes reducing the campus runoff. Part of being good stewards includes responsible management of our campus. The team plans to use Professor Wunder in assistance of obtaining master plan approval.

6

2. Project Management

2.1. Team Organization The team has four members, as well as a faculty advisor, industrial consultant, client and other mentors for the project. The team’s faculty advisor is Professor Masselink. The team’s industrial consultant is Travis Vruggink from GMB. The team’s client for the project is Calvin College, and the team’s main contact is Geoff Van Berkel. Other mentors that the team has consulted with on this project are Scott Davidson from Frederick Meijer Gardens, and Mike Herrema from Cornerstone University. Both Scott and Mike have similar systems in place and the team met with each to discuss how their system works and some things they would like to improve. Each team member was focused on a specific section of the project. Mike has been communicating with the clients, mentors, setting up meetings with different people and coordinating trips to places such as Frederick Meijer Gardens and Cornerstone University. Mike worked on the team and schedule management, making sure that each of the assignments are completed correctly, on time, and done well. Mike prepared a majority of the visual aids for the team’s presentations that were given in class. Matt has been focusing on the design aspect of the project. He worked with AutoCAD to model each of the drainage areas. He researched the soil types for each location. Matt calculated the peak stormwater discharges for each zone. For more detailed account of his work, see section 3. Aaron created the team’s website and has been working on optimizing the website, making sure that it is up to date and looking good. Aaron was involved in the design of the South Commuter lot and the design decisions for that zone. Kat has been doing the research for the project by focusing on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations as well as DEQ and design options for the KE Apartments, the parking lots, and the seminary pond. She designed the system for the seminary pond. The team scheduled a regular weekly meeting for around 1 hour as well as meetings when needed. A few of the meetings were spent traveling to Frederick Meijer Gardens, and Cornerstone University, as well as meetings with Travis from GMB, with Geoff Van Berkel, as well as meetings with Professor Masselink and with a variety of different people. Each member worked on different projects throughout the week and reported on how each of the projects were progressing. All of the team’s documents, including project documents, meeting notes, and other documents are stored in a shared Google Drive folder. This folder has many different sections including project documents, project presentations, research, organization, and meeting notes.

2.2. Scheduling Scheduling is an essential part of a senior design project. From the start of the project the planning for the project has to be firm, but still be flexible enough to adjust if the requirements are not met in time or are met before time. The schedule has been managed by Mike mainly using Excel and Word to allocate tasks. The schedule was updated at every meeting to accommodate what the team was working on that week.

7

2.3. Budget The team has far we have not spent any of the money on equipment at this time. If the team was to spend money, Mike would be in charge of the budget, which would be managed using Excel.

2.4. Method of Approach While working on this project, the team approached each section of the design through team collaboration. The team discussed different design alternatives and determined which alternative was the best. The team collaborated to think of different design alternatives and information to research, and each member contributed thoroughly to the goal. The primary research method included using case studies from Kent country and EPA stormwater regulations to retrieve bioretention principles and ideas. According to the EPA, stormwater needs little to no further filtration before being used for irrigation. If the stormwater is kept in a cistern, the captured water must be used in a timely fashion. The team examined Chapter 7 in the Low Impact Development (LID) Manuel for Michigan to obtain design guidelines for bioswales, bioretention, check dams, porous pavement, infiltration practices, detention basins, and captured reuse. Many resources were found via online databases; Glenn Remelts of Calvin College’s Hekman Library trained team members in the use of these databases and provided some research ideas. Team communication was kept open, with opportunities to share new ideas ranging from minor editorial preferences to major alterations in scope definition. Efforts were made to respect the suggestions of team members, even when making decisions which lacked universal agreement. Team members were flexible in the decision making process, which created less friction during team meetings and task completion. Disagreements were not taken personally but were recognized as mere differences in project ideas.

8

3. Modeling

3.1 Runoff Areas When approaching the problem of modeling the two major areas (namely the KE Apartments, and the South Commuter [SC] Lot), the initial task was performing a delineation. This meant dividing the land into drainage subbasins. The subbasins for KE were centered around storm drains depicted in a campus map given to the team from Geoff VanBerkel, with the addition of three storm drains not depicted on the drawing. The delineation of the subbasins was very approximate and based on the combination of contour elevation maps and physical on-site observation for the KE apartments. These delineations are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: KE Subbasin Delineations The delineation of Zone 4, the area where surface runoff discharges into the Seminary Bioswales, was done using the topographical campus map. The subbasins were determined using the ridges on the topographical map as well as Calvin College’s academic buildings. The delineations are shown in Figure 5.

9

Figure 5: Zone 4 Subbasin Delineation

10

The delineation of zone 3, the commuter parking lot, was completed based on drain locations and counter lines on the parking surface. This delineation is shown in Figure 6. Since the parking lot is the only surface considered the curve number remains consistent for the entire lot. A delineation of the neighboring Calvin Loop was also performed, but these values were not considered as the group felt it was outside the scope of the project, especially with the master campus plan already committed to resign the road.

Figure 6: Zone 3 Commuter Lot Delineation

After the sites were delineated, the team determined runoff curve numbers to calculate the surface runoff volume. The first step was to determine the hydraulic soil type for each sub-basin. The hydraulic soil type for most of the area around the KE apartments was determined to be a type C; moderately well drained soil. A small portion of the KE apartments was determined as a type D; poorly drained soil. The SCS Soil Map for KE is shown in Figure 7 and the corresponding soil legend is in Table 1.

11

Figure 7: KE Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soils Map

Table 1: KE Soil Map Legend

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name Hydrologic Soil Rating

Acres in AOI

18B Glynwood loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes D 0.4

18C Glynwood loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes D 3.4

45B Perrinton loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes C 4.9

75 Udorthents, loamy C 13.5

78 Urban land 0.2

82B Urban land-Perrinton complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes

1.9

The hydraulic soil types for Zone 4 was determined to be mostly type D, a moderately poorly drained soil. Figure 8 shows the SCS Soil Map for Zone 4 and corresponding soil legend in Table 2.

Figure 8: Zone 4 SCS Soils Map

12

Table 2: Zone 4 Soil Map Legend

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name Hydrologic Soil Rating

Acres in AOI

18B Glynwood loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes D 4.718C Glynwood loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes D 2.718 Urban land 13.182B Urban land-Perrinton complex, 0 to 8

percent slopes D 1.2

The hydraulic soil type for the SC Lot was type D, poorly drained soil, the SCS Soil Map for SC Lot is shown in Figure 9 and the corresponding soil legend is in Table 3.

13

Figure 9: SC Lot SCS Soils Map

Table 3: SC Lot Soil Map Legend

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name Hydrologic Soil Rating

Acres in AOI

18B Glynwood loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes D 6.2

18C Glynwood loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes D 0.4

78 Urban land 2.5

82B Urban land-Perrinton complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes

D 27.7

14

The next step is determining the land usage of each area. The KE apartments land usage consists of woods in poor condition, meadows, and impervious structures. The SC Lot is mostly impervious pavement and some meadow land. Using the information of the land usage and soil types, the team determined the runoff curve numbers. The breakdown of the Curve Number for the Subbasins in the KE apartments is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Areas and Runoff Curve Numbers (RCN) for KE Apartments Subbasin Area RCN

units Sq. ft. 1 16666 96.632 32252 87.963 27164 97.074 132216 80.485 37100 80.656 54741 84.777 6705 98 8 23290 78.359 35147 75.49

10 25751 73.4111 14242 98 12 6058 98 13 7655 93.8914 16146 83.0615 3485 78.9316 24047 95.2317 27448 93.9218 15546 93.8619 12225 74.01

The Curve Method was used to determine the runoff volume for specific rain events. The same method applies for SC Lot, which has a curve number of 98 with an area of 287,487 ft2. Then the team used the MDEQ Computing Flood Discharges for Small Ungauged Watersheds document to determine an initial runoff volume. The runoff volumes for a 1 year, 2 year, 25 year, and 100 year 24 hour storm are shown for the Commuter Lot and the entire KE area as well as the basin area where the tank will be installed in Tables 5 & 6. The final modelling will be done in EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), which requires the subbasins to be a rectangular area with a set channel in the middle. The channel flows into a drain at the end of the subbasin with a constant slope.

Table 5: Run-off volumes for Commuter Lot Commuter Lot

24 hr. Storm Event Precipitation Volume Volume Yr. in cubic ft. Gallons 1 2.22 47,737 357,095 2 2.56 56,068 419,419 25 4.7 106,937 799,946

100 6.34 146,175 1,093,468

15

Table 6: Run-off volumes for KE KE Area Total

24 hr. Storm Event Precipitation Volume Volume Yr. in cubic ft. Gallon

1 2.22 44,593 333,581 2 2.56 55,849 417,781

25 4.7 134,682 1,007,491 100 6.33 199,378 1,491,453

KE Area Basin Storm year Precipitation Volume Volume

yr. in cubic ft. Gallon 1 2.22 32,624 244,042 2 2.56 41,265 308,682

25 4.7 102,660 767,949 100 6.33 153,525 1,148,448

3.2. Stormwater System The project deals with an existing stormwater pipe network that transports the water towards a central outflow for each zone (there were some variations in the team’s project, which will be discussed in the sections discussing the area where the variations occur). The team will be using the existing stormwater system as a means of conveyance for each of the subbasins into the storage and retention areas that will be designed. Since this existing system is important to the design of the project, the stormwater system must be modelled with the subbasins and this modelling requirement makes EPA SWMM as the better modeling system to be used. Using the data obtain between on-site observation, the CAD file the team obtained, and the MDEQ method described in section 3.1, the team created a SWMM model for KE with the entire pipe network, shown in Figure 10.

16

Figure 10: KE SWMM Model for Existing Conditions In this model, the team modelled pipe 3 as an open channel and the inlet at node 26, which is the low point in KE, as a tank with a storage volume set-up, shown in Figure 11, which roughly represents the existing condition the depression at KE.

17

Figure 11: Node 26 Storage Curve

Using this model, the team modelled a 2 year 24-hour storm and determined the outflow through pipe from the inlet, which was approximately 397,000 gallons. This volume is larger than the volume determined by the MDEQ method and this was the volume used in designing the tank for this area. The model shows significant flooding in the depression area with a water depth of 4.7 feet, as show in Figure 12, and the team designed will help reduce this issue.

Figure 12: Profile view from inlet to outfall

18

4. Design

4.1. Design Norms The team considered focusing on a few design criteria on for this project. The principle focus of the team was reducing stormwater runoff water leaving Calvin College’s campus. The team focused on three different design norms while evaluating this project: sustainability, caring, and transparency. Sustainability is the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources. The team’s project is being sustainable by not being harmful to the environment or ecosystem that are at Calvin and the surrounding areas. The team was looking to contain runoff water that originated at Calvin and would otherwise end up in the Grand Rapids stormwater system or Plaster Creek. This design will reduce the negative impact on the watershed by stromwater from Calvin’s campus. Another design norm that the team was focused on for the project is caring. Caring is important to the project because the project design should care for Calvin’s campus and the people who are on the campus. The design will care for the campus by helping use the water that is retained on the campus, and not transport it to other areas. The project design focused on caring by helping to meet the needs of the current and future irrigation system, and improving the water supply for the system. The new design system still has to fulfil the needs of the current irrigation system. The third design norm that the team focused on was transparency. The team wants to be as transparent as possible in the completion of this project. Whether it is with the EPA, DEQ, or Calvin, the team wants to be as transparent as possible and to show the progress that the team is making, as well as making sure that the data needed is available to be used.

4.2. South Commuter Lot The south commuter lot on campus contains parking lots 1-5. Currently the parking lot discharges runoff water directly into the city of Grand Rapids stormwater system. Another issue is the uneven parking lot surface that promotes standing water after rainfall events and snow melt. A project objective is to redesign the parking lot to eliminate runoff water entering the Grand Rapids stormwater system for a 2-year 24 hour storm event and minimize standing water.

4.2.1. Design Criteria The goals of redesigning the south commuter lot were to increase parking capacity, reduce stormwater outflow to the city of Grand Rapids stormwater system and minimize standing water. To minimize standing water and increase parking capacity a reconstruction of the parking lot was recommended. The standing water is caused by poor initial grading of the parking lot. This means the team must redefine the parameters of the parking lot and design a more efficient parking solution. To reduce the runoff stormwater entering the Grand Rapids stormwater system the team must determine a solution to either reduce, reuse or reallocate runoff stormwater.

4.2.2. Design Alternatives

19

The design alternatives for the commuter lot consisted of methods to reduce, reuse or reallocate the stormwater runoff. The team considered porous asphalt, infiltration chambers, bioswales, and porous pipes as a methods to reduce the stormwater runoff, underdrain to reallocate the stormwater runoff and irrigation to reuse the stormwater runoff.

Porous Asphalt Porous asphalt would cover the entire parking lot, allowing a large surface for infiltration to occur. This solution would minimize ponding as water on the surface would infiltrate through the asphalt. One drawback for porous asphalt is upkeep; the typical recommendation of vacuuming the surface at least once a year. Porous asphalt also has a risk factor because the long-term durability is unproven. The major drawback to this solution is the loamy clay underneath the parking lot will severely limit infiltration rates into the subsurface soils. The loamy clay underneath the parking lot turns this into a collection system rather than an infiltration system.

Figure 13: Porous Pavement Example

Infiltration Chambers Collecting water in infiltration chambers allows for a few points throughout the parking to collect all of the runoff water. The benefits being the limited space and resources this requires. The water head created during storm events increases infiltration rates. The drawback to this solution being the percolation may decrease over time. Over time as fine silt sediments enter the loamy clay and the soil mixture becomes less permeable.

20

Figure 14: Model of Infiltration Chamber

Bioswales Creating bioswales around the parking lot will remove silt, sediments and pollutants such as oil on the parking lot from the surface stormwater runoff before infiltrating the water. The benefit to this solution is the prevention of silt from entering the loamy clay, which if mixed will lower percolation rates over time. The need for increased parking capacity makes the main drawback the space required for the bioswales.

21

Figure 15: Example of Bioswale

Porous Pipes The porous pipes will run underneath the parking lot. These pipes contain a large storage area for runoff water along with a large surface area that allows for infiltration. To construct these underneath the parking lot the site must be excavated several feet deep to create a boundary layer between the asphalt and pipes as well as sand soil around the pipes. The main drawback for this solution is the cost of excavating the entire parking lot.

22

Figure 16: Diagram of Porous Pipes

Underdrain This design solution is meant to reallocate the storm water. The stormwater catch basins would be connected to underdrain that extends to the north pond on campus. During rainfall events the pollutants from the parking lot surfaces would be sent directly into the north pond. The benefit being this is a simple solution, but with the drawback of not actually eliminating the issue, only reallocating the issue.

Irrigation The final solution is to determine a way to reuse the stormwater runoff. This solution would require an underdrain connecting catch basins to a storage tank. After rainfall events, collected water would be used for irrigation. This solution would increase the irrigation systems water supply. The drawback for this solution is possibility of pollutants from the parking lot surface entering the irrigation system. These pollutants could potentially harm the grass being irrigated or clog the sprinkler head. Another obstacle is that a direct connection cannot be made to the wells. A control device would need to be implemented to maintain the separation between the systems.

23

4.2.3. Design Solutions Based on the combined project objectives of containing runoff water and increasing the irrigation capacity on campus, a stormwater retention system for irrigation was decided upon. This design was able to address the needs of the campus master plan towards becoming a more sustainable and eco-friendly campus. The team needed to consider the proposed changes in the campus master plan to avoid conflicts between the teams redesign and the master campus plans. The published master plan recommends rerouting the campus loop road to the exterior of the commuter of the parking. With the exception of the most southern section, the parking lot will move towards campus when the road is relocated to the exterior of the parking lot. These changes are shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Redirection of Calvin’s Roads

24

The team decided to make the design of the stormwater retention adaptable to the current system as well as the proposed master plan. Therefore the team determined to place the designed system in the southern most section of the committer parking lot, seen in Figure 18, since this area will not experience any major changes. This placement will allow the teams system to function in conjunction with the current parking lot underdrain with the capability to connect to a redesigned stormwater collection system for the proposed parking lot.

Figure 18: Area of Stormwater Retention Design

Parking Lot Surface The team decided not to use porous asphalt. Porous asphalt allows for a large surface area to infiltrate water given a sandy subgrade, but this location has a loamy-clay subgrade. Additionally, porous asphalt typically cost an extra forty percent, making this an ineffective and expensive system for the commuter parking lot. The parking lot surface will be completely repaved with MDOT spec 13A; typical impervious asphalt. This paving will be done in two lifts. The first lift will be a 2 inch base and the surface will be a

25

1.5 inch top layer. Having the two layers will promote sustainability for this parking lot. The separation between the two layers will help to prevent the spreading of cracks in the top layer and as the top layer deteriorates it can easily be milled and the surface repaved (Mill and Fill). The surface grading for this parking lot will slope towards the center of the parking lot islands, this design ensures that during rainfall water will flow towards the islands for drainage to prevent flooding or standing water on the parking lot.

Islands Parking lot islands will be reconstructed in the existing locations. The new islands will be reconstructed to utilize space by having a rectangular shape as opposed to the existing triangular islands, which contain a lot of dead space. These islands are currently placed strategically to help define traffic ways, especially during winter when parking lot markings are not visible. Due to the limited parking available to students, the intent is to maintain current parking capacity in this region while redesigning the parking lot.

Figure 19: Island Design The existing trees will need to be replaced during the reconstruction of the parking lot. According to Geoff VanBerkel, these trees typically only last 10-15 years and are currently nearing the end of their lifespan. Groundskeeping has recently cut a few of these trees down because they are dying. The reconstructed islands would each receive two new trees. These trees should be capable of growing well in sandy soil, have limited root sizes, and will be chosen at the recommendation of the biology department. The islands will have a top layer of mulch followed by a sandy base to promote tree grow and allow for sufficient infiltration. The island will bank down at a 3:1 slope towards a flow point in the center where an elevated storm drain is location. Sheet flow from the parking lot will infiltrate through the islands media bed until the island becomes saturated and the water overflows into the elevated storm drain. The design premise behind capturing initial runoff water is to capture pollutants and oils that run off the parking lot surface and filter them through the media bed. Some of these contaminates can then be consumed by the biological growth located in the islands. The design for the islands can be seen in Figures 20 and 21.

26

Figure 20: Profile View of Island

Figure 21: Profile View of Island

Storm Chambers Storm chambers were chosen as the most effective way to store and utilize water in this section. The manufacturer that the team chose for these chambers was the company StormChamber. They are designed with an open bottom that connects the chamber with the artificial water table for the surrounding rocks. A diagram of the chambers can be seen in Figure 22.

27

Figure 22: Diagram of Storm Chambers with Pump

This design increased the storage efficiency of the chambers by combining storage between the rocks and the open chamber. There will be two series of StormChambers, specification SC-44, underneath the parking lot as seen in Figure 23.

28

Figure 23. StormChamber 44 specs. These Chambers at a depth of 22” below the parking surface are rated at 2.5 times above the minimum AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) requirements. A plan view of the chambers can be seen in Figure 24.

29

Figure 24: Plan View of Chambers These Chambers will serve as a collection basin for the inlets at the islands and connecting storm drains. The details for the two StormChamber systems can be seen in Table 7. Following inlet points the chambers will have a wall with a sediment trap to allow for the settlement of particles in the water. This

30

water will then either be used for irrigation purposes or overflow into The City of Grand Rapids stormwater system when the system's capacity is exceeded.

Table 7: StormChamber Details. Chambers

Length [ft] 7.5

# per row 53

# of rows 2

Row length [ft] 397.5

# of Chambers 106

Subbase The subbase will consist of two layers that promote the storage, transfer, and filtration of the runoff water. The top layer will be MDOT 21AA modified; open graded crushed stone (depth varies on location). This top layer will create a surface suitable for paving, while at the same time allowing water to infiltrate. The next layer will be MDOT spec 6A aggregate stone. This stone has a void space of approximately 40% and can be used in combination with the StormChambers for water storage. This base layer of stone will be surrounded with non-woven fabric to help contain the stone and water inside the storage system.

Connecting Storm Drains The existing stormwater management system for this section consist of storm drains underneath the Calvin Loop and parking lot that feed into the Grand Rapids stormwater system at the south end of the commuter parking lot. The proposed retention system has the ability to connect to the existing underdrain, allowing the existing stormwater conveyance system to be redirected into the proposed retention system. The system will have the capability of connecting with the redesign of the parking lot by installing piping to direct stormwater into the StormChamber storage system.

Irrigation Water collected in this retention system will be used to supply irrigation water for the Burton entrance of Calvin and in front of the Dewitt Manor. The sprinkler system contains 6 zones near the Burton entrance of Calvin College. With the assistance of Geoffrey VanBerkel, the head groundskeeper at Calvin College, we determined the gallons per month based on the number of zones, number sprinklers in each zone, run time, run frequency and sprinkler flow. We estimated each zone to have a flow of between 7000-9000 gallon/month resulting in a total of 48,000 gallons/month for all six zones. The water will be drawn using a submersible pump in the southern end of the StormChamber with an enclosed pump station at the east edge of the parking lot. In accordance with Goeff, the head groundskeeper, the pump should be 220 volts, 5 horsepower and can be purchased from Fuller Supply. The pumping system will prevent backflow from occurring and remain under constant water pressure to prevent air gaps from forming inside the irrigation system. A float valve will be used at the influent end of the pump to activate an emergency shutoff in the scenario of a diminished water supply. In this scenario of inadequate supply a gate valve will be closed to the stormwater retention system and another gate valve opened to allow the well water system to provide irrigation water. According to the DEQ regulations the runoff water from the parking lot must at all times have an air separation from the wells to prevent

31

contamination of the groundwater. This will be solved using an air separation valve to stop flow from both directions and allow for an air gap between the two systems. One of the major concerns with using runoff water for irrigation is particles collecting and clogging the sprinkler system. As mentioned previously the runoff water will receive filtration of particles through the sediment traps in the StormChambers and the media bed for the parking lot islands. Our design condition is to prevent particles from clogging a TORO 570 sprinkler head, the sprinkler heads currently in use on Calvin College’s campus. There are no published specifications for particle sizes that can pass through this specific sprinkler head. Although, according to Irrigation Tutorials, a website focused on irrigation information, a 100 mesh (150 micron) screen will remove particles capable of clogging the sprinkler head. Based on this information a 100 mesh filter screen will be added at the enclosed pumping station to prevent clogging particles from entering the sprinkler heads.

System Overflow The ends of the StormChambers will connect to effluent storm drains. These drains will be placed at the top of the StormChambers to only allow water to overflow as the StormChamber reaches capacity. This overflow system will accommodate for rainfall events that exceed our systems maximum desired storage. It’s optimal to not allow these chambers to sit full due to the possibility of water freezing in a full chamber causing expansion and breakage. In the case of a near full system at the start of a major storm event the system will be capable of temporarily holding additional storage volume as it passes through. The 18 inches above the StormChambers will be a combination of stone and crushed stone to act as a buffer between the StormChamber system and the parking lot. This buffer zone could potentially serve as additional storage volume temporarily as the water drains into the Grand Rapids Stormwater System at the south end of the parking lot. Any overflow for this system will go through an existing bioswale at the south end of the parking lot before entering the existing City’s stormwater inlet structures. This will utilize existing bioswale to maximize filtration and infiltration before discharging Calvin College’s runoff water into the city’s stormwater system.

Maintenance The first measure to maintenance of this system is prevention. It is recommend by the manufacturer that after construction the parking lot surface should be cleared of all debris and two storm events should be allowed to wash sediment from the impervious surfaces before opening the StormChambers to runoff water. Inside the StormChambers water will flow the downhill direction towards Burton Street. As water flows in this direction sediment will be transported downstream until it hits a wall similar to a cofferdam, as noted on StormChambers detailing and design specifications (Appendix C). After hitting the wall the sediments will settle and enter into sediment trap. Above the sediment trap there is a 10” riser pipe to the parking lot surface. On a yearly basis a pump truck goes around campus to pump out all of the storm drains and manholes. These sediment traps would need to be included in the annual maintenance done by the pump truck. Additionally the 100 mesh screen filter in the pumping station will need to be cleared on an annual basis or more if required.

4.3. Knollcrest East Apartments The KE Apartments are owned and operated by the campus and are located on the east half of campus. The land surface consists of several parking lots, pathways, apartment buildings and as open grassland. Currently the stormwater collection system drains into the City of Grand Rapids stormwater system. The main objective for the KE Apartments is to collect and reuse stormwater for irrigation with a design capable of holding a 2 year 24-hour rainfall event.

32

4.3.1. Design Criteria The main objective for the KE Apartments is to limit flooding and reuse runoff stormwater for irrigation. The irrigation on the east side of campus is currently running on one well. In order to accommodate the future expansion of Calvin’s campus the east side of campus needs additional water capacity for irrigation. Resulting in drilling of an additional well or finding another water source for irrigation. Therefore, most of the design alternatives are storage based to collect water for reuse. Another major design criteria for this area is space due to the lack of available space with the reconstruction of the KE Apartments in the master campus plan. The final major design criteria is safety, since the KE Apartments is home to seminary students and undergraduate students, the former having the likelihood of having kids. The existence of children in this area means that for safety reasons standing water should be avoided in open areas accessible to children.

4.3.2. Design Alternatives The team looked at placing the storage device in the KE Apartments at the low point of the system. This is located in the lawn near the Zeta-Lambda apartment complex. This spot was chosen because it is a topographical low point in the system and a major hub for the stormwater system. This spot is located in the blue rectangle in Figure 25.

33

Figure 25: Topographical Map of KE System Some design alternatives considered for the KE Apartments were detention ponds, underground storage, and irrigation.

Detention pond This design method would work as an effective means of storing the stormwater in the KE Apartments while not taking up a large amount of space and still allowing for some drainage. The team decided against this design because there would not be enough room to create a detention pond in the KE apartments. One of the main design norms is caring, and putting a detention pond in this area would not be caring. Putting a detention pond in that area of the lawn would cut off all access to the area and a fence would have to be put up to prevent people from going into the pond, especially for the safety of the seminary children. Additionally, Calvin has large focus around a greener campus and aesthetic appeal, a fence in the middle of the apartments would contradict this focus.

34

Underground Storage This design method involves an underground tank system either in the form of tanks or stormwater chambers that can hold a large volume of water without requiring a large amount of aboveground space. The major downside is the difficulty associated with the maintenance of the storage system. Although maintenance would be relatively infrequent if filters were applied before the water entered the storage system. This solution would be an ideal method to apply in the KE apartments. The team looked at three main alternatives for an underground storage system: Cudo Cubes, RainStore, and a concrete tank.

Cudo Cube Cudo Cube is a system of interlocking plastic cubes that work together as a unit to store water underground. This system has a maximum height of 8 feet with a ground cover range of 2’-5’ with the strength to support a truck. This plastic system can use 96% of its total volume to store water. This system would be lined with plastic liner and sealed in order to hold water, see Figure 26. This storage unit is a modular system, which is constructed on site to the client’s specific dimensions. The designed size would be 82 by 84 feet with a maximum height of 8 feet, which is 55,104 cubic feet or 398,000 gallons. The cost of the cubes with the liner comes to $500,000.

Figure 26: Example of Cudo Cube System

RainStore RainStore is a system factory stacked plastic gridlocked columns that work together as a unit to store water underground, see Figure 27. This system has a maximum height of 7.97 feet with a ground cover range of 1’-3’ with the strength to support a truck. This plastic system can use 94% of its total volume to

35

store water. This system would be lined with plastic liner and sealed in order to hold water. This storage system would have to be installed in preformed column units. The designed size would be 83 feet by 70 feet set at max height of 8 feet, which is 53,900 cubic feet or 398,000 gallons. The cost of the Rainstore System with the liner comes to $315,000.

Figure 27: Example of Rainstore System

Concrete Tank The concrete tank is set as an underground tank with an interior volume of 70 by 70 feet and 11 feet tall, which is a size of 53,900 cubic feet or 398,000 gallons. The walls of the tank are one foot thick. The tank would be designed of reinforced concrete designed to sustain uplift and to handle the possibility of cracking of the concrete. The tank would be design with columns to support the ceiling of the tank. This tank shall be designed to be waterproof. The cost of the tank will be around $300,000.

36

Figure 28: Concrete Tank

Irrigation This method will use the storm water stored in the detention pond or in the underground storage and reuse if for irrigation, which is the primary objective for the KE Apartments.

4.3.3. Design Solution

Decision Matrix To make a final decision about which underground storage solution to use, the team made a decision matrix in which cost, design life, expandability, containment, ease of upkeep, water accessibility, structural integrity, negative impact, cover requirement, and piping change were factored into the decision matrix. The primary consideration in the decision matrix, which were not dependent on the team’s design size, was negative impact on the current campus conditions. Negative impact was defined as requiring major changes in current utility set-up, major changes in grading that would require a detention wall or carving out a hill, filling the depression area to the point where open channel draining into a single low point is no longer effective, or requiring major changes to permanent structures.

Table 8: Decision Matrix for Underground Storage

37

Storage Design The recommended alternative for this system using the decision matrix is the concrete tank. The concrete tank that the team is looking to implement shall be designed with columns that are 1 foot by 1 foot columns spaced 10 feet apart. Due to time constraints on the project, the team recommends that a structural engineer designs the tank for the system implementation to meet the design criteria specified by the team. The final design calls for an inlet with a sump installed a foot above the tank as shown in Figure 29. This inlet is designed to be almost directly over the center of the tank.

Figure 29: Profile view of inlet over tank The water that overflows the sump depth of 2 feet will overflow into a pipe that empties into an overflow structure connected to the tank, shown in Figure 30. The overflow structure will be located at the western edge of the tank centered at the connection point to the existing outflow pipe from the existing inlet, shown in Figure 30.

38

Figure 30: Profile view of overflow structure

The current design also calls for the removal of existing outlet pipe, which is 6” with an 8” pipe to reduce water buildup for overflow in larger storms. The irrigation draw point will be in the northeast corner of the tank and will be installed as a manhole with a submersible pump with a float valve connected to a pump control structure, which will be connected to the irrigation line, see Figure 31.

39

Figure 31: Layout View of Tank The team’s current design also calls for the daylighting of the 12” pipe that drains the eastern half of KE in order to spread out the water and give it time to filter out some of the pollutants before dumping into the sump. This change is shown in the southeast corner of Figure 32. The channel cross-section, shown in Figure 30, is designed with stones and sloped sides to increase the spread before it reaches the grass.

Figure 32: Cross-Section of Daylighted Pipe The changes to the area were modelled in EPANET SWMM. The proposed inlet changed were modeled as well. The profile is shown in Figure 33.

40

Figure 33: Profile View of Inlet The tank was also modelled with its pipe connections, the updated model is shown in Figure 33 and the tank profile with spillover back into the depression is shown in Figure 34.

41

Figure 34: Updated Model of Tank

Figure 35: Tank Profile with Spillover

42

The tank is designed to hold a 2-year 24-hour storm and the modeled tank holds the water, Figure 36 graphically shows flow in pipe 22 and volume in node 26 while Figure 37 shows this visually for final volume. The volume of flooding at the inlet is shown in Figure 38.

Figure 36: Graphic Proof of Water retention

Figure 37: Visual proof of Water retention

43

Figure 38: Volume of Flooding at Inlet This format of modeling is very limited in predicting what will happen, since it is a theoretical storm, and annual variance in irrigation demand. For this information, the team ran a year worth of rain data and past irrigation data through excel to determine how well tank size met with irrigation demands. The information was obtained and place into a spreadsheet, shown in Appendix B, and the team determined that for the year 2014, with the tank starting empty on January 1, 2014, the tank would be able to provide irrigation with excess at the end of the year. A system of plan should be designed to handle the excess standing water to follow current government regulations. This could be solved by installing a pump that empties to a bioswale and then connect to the overflow by expanding the irrigation region. The irrigation system will have a submersible pump with a flout valve and a control box and filtration screen specified by the client.

4.4. Seminary Pond

4.4.1. Design Criteria In order to allow for particles to settle in the seminary pond properly the velocity of the water being discharged into the pond must be slowed. Currently when large storms occur the amount of runoff that accumulates from the Covenant Fine Arts Center (CFAC) parking lot and surrounding roads is too large and the flow through the bioswales do not allow for water to be retained in the bioswales long enough for the proper settlement of particles once the water reaches the pond. To slow down the velocity of water it is necessary to redesign the area where the two bioswales are located.

4.4.2. Design Alternatives There are many possible solutions to slow down the velocity of water through the bioswales. The following design options for BMPs have the capability to slow down the flow of water and allow for the proper settlement of particles.

44

Weirs A weir is a barrier across a moving water feature designed to alter the flow characteristics of the water. In most cases a weir causes the water upstream to rise and regulates the flow of water. As a result of this regulated flow there will be an adequate amount of time for particles to settle. Figure 39 displays a weir.

Figure 39: Example of Wiers

Detention Basins 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 40 displays a detention basin.

45

Figure 40: Example of Detention Basin

Meandering Meandering water is water that flows in a winding path or course. When a stream or river meanders it allows particles in the water to be deposited in the inside corners of the stream and increases the time water flows before it reaches body of water it empties into. Figure 41 displays a meandering river.

46

Figure 41: Meandering River

Rain Gardens A rain garden is a garden which takes advantage of rainfall and storm water runoff in its design and plant selection. Usually, it is a small garden which is designed to withstand the extremes of moisture and concentrations of nutrients, particularly Nitrogen and Phosphorus, which are found in stormwater runoff.

47

Figure 42: Example of Rain Garden

Check Dams Check dams are dams are placed in the flow path of water with the purpose of slowing the velocity of water. By interrupting the flow of the water, the water's velocity is reduced and particles settle easier, thus resulting in a reduced amount of sediments discharged.

4.4.3. Design Solutions Before a hydrological model could be constructed, a number of important sources of data had to be obtained to determine the feasibility of the model. This background data may not be information that will be directly entered into the model but it will support the hydrological model and allow for some inputs to be calculated. The most important piece of data was determining the impervious and pervious surfaces in each drainage zone. The resulting numbers were used to calculate the runoff coefficient numbers and times of concentration. These numbers were inserted into the MDEQ stormwater calculator; excel spreadsheet, to determine the runoff volume for each zone. The calculated runoff volume is approximately one million gallons. The flow data is used as the target for pre-existing flow calculations in the model to determine the accuracy of the both the inputs in the model and the selected calculation method. Once the accuracy of the pre-existing conditions have been assured, preliminary designs could be created and tested with confidence. With the established flow data from the MDEQ storm calculator, an EPA-SWMM model was created. It is capable of producing runoff hydrographs and analyzing the resulting flows through channel and pipe

48

networks. Figure 43 displays the EPA-SWMM sub-basin and pipe network for the existing stormwater system in Zone 4.

Figure 43: Existing Subbasin and Pipe Network System in Zone 4 The flows from these models are based on average velocity and cross-sectional area; however, this program lacks a velocity distribution calculation engine and output. These drawbacks lower the accuracy of the model when calculating flows over large flood plains. EPA-SWMM is also limited to a uniform channel shape between network nodes, unlike Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), which creates a stream channel from multiple cross-sections between nodes. HEC-RAS is an excellent tool for hydraulic engineering. In this project is was used to demonstrate the flows in the proposed stream channels and to determine the depth of flow to properly control storm water flows ranging up to a 25- year storm event. This allows for a more realistic stream cross-sections and the program interpolates the cross-sections between the enter shapes. These outputs will become important for designing the shape and size of the new stream section.

49

Channel Design The team used EPA-SWMM to determine preliminary designs for the seminary bioswales. Several models were developed to determine which design alternative would allow for an acceptable decreased velocity through the second bioswale. The first challenge the team faced was to establish a defined channel through both bioswales. The team estimated the dimensions for the reaches in each bioswale by first calculating the minimum depth of the channel. The calculated minimum calculated depth is 1.93 ft. Figure 44 displays the design channel dimensions.

Figure 44: Channel Dimensions The channel will be lined with Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) plain riprap to provide a stable channel walls. The team then determined that the flow velocity of the water was still too high to allow for the proper settlement of sediments before the water discharges into Whisky Creek. It was determined that a separate design for each bioswale would be necessary to control the discharge from Bioswale 1 into Bioswale 2 and then Bioswale 2 into the Seminary Pond.

Bioswale 1 With the new channel dimensions established the flow through the first bioswale is less restricted increasing the velocity of the water. The team decided to design an orifice weir outlet structure for the first bioswale. The orifice weir will connect with the existing culvert and allow for a steady controlled discharge of water with a steady velocity. Figure 45 shows the EPA-SWMM model of the detention pond with the orifice weir structure and Figure 46 shows the velocity of water as it flow through the structure.

50

Figure 45: Orifice weir structure EPA-SWMM

Figure 46: Flow of water through Orifice Weir Structure In turn this outlet structure causes the first bioswale act as a detention pond when large storm events occur. The detention pond is designed to hold up to a 100-year storm event without flooding, Figure 47.

51

Figure 47: Water Elevation in Detention Pond for 100-Year Storm The water elevation will rise up to four feet but the weir will not allow the water to rise any higher. A berm will be built around the edges that run along the road to prevent any possible flooding that could occur.

Bioswale 2 The second bioswale stretches from the end of a 24-inch culvert to the 27-inch culvert that discharges into the Seminary Pond. The channel was originally designed with the same dimensions as the channel that runs through Bioswale 1; however, it was later determined that the channel geometry from Station 221 to Station 281 would have to be modified to control the flow coming from the culvert. The channel geometry from Station 221 to Station 281 can be seen in Figure 48.

52

Figure 48: Modified Channel Geometry The channel that runs through this bioswale is also lined with MDOT plain riprap for stream stability. As a result of creating a wider channel the velocity of the water increased due to the increased area in the channel. Meanders were then designed and implemented to increase the length of the channel in hopes that this would decrease the velocity of the water. The meanders were calculated and designed with radii large enough so that the corners would not be damaged by the flow of water. Figure 49 shows the meanders designed for the bioswale modeled in HEC-RAS and Figure 50 shows the velocity profile of the water as it flows through the meanders.

53

Figure 49: Designed Meanders

Figure 50: Water Velocity Profile The meanders decreased the velocity of flow but the team decided that as the velocity of the water was decreased more than more sediments would settle out of the water. The team designed three check dams in the channel to decrease the velocity of the water. Along with each check dam a pool was designed to

54

obstruct the flow and catch the sediments as they settle out of water. Figure 51 displays a profile view of a check dam and pool.

Figure 51: Check Dam and Pool Profile The check dams and pools decrease the velocity to a rate that allows for sediments to settle out of the water. The velocity for of the water is shown in Figure 52.

Figure 52: Water Velocity Profile

55

With the completed the design the team provided an additional four locations for sediments to settle out of the water. Figure 53 displays the water profile for the completed Seminary Bioswales containing the orifice/weir outlet structure, stream meanders, and check dams and Figure 54 displays the velocity profile for the design.

Figure 53: Complete Water Profile for Bioswale

56

Figure 54: Water Velocity Profile

Vegetation The team has decided to vegetate the stream banks and the flood bank area with semi-wetland plants. In the event of large storm events these plants will help prevent erosion and add to the aesthetic appeal of both swales. The team consulted with Professor David Warners to determine which plants would be most appropriate for the design. The existing trees in bioswale 1 are water loving trees and can handle the rise in water for the period of time when bioswale 1 would be flooded due to a storm event.

Maintenance The maintenance required to maintain this system will add to the duties of the Calvin College’s Physical Plant but will increase the lifespan of the design. These duties include these additional task: inspecting the channels at regular intervals and after storm events; checking for rock stability, sediment accumulation, and possible scour holes through the length of the channel, and looking for erosion at inlets and outlets. When stones have been displaced, remove the debris and replace the stones in such a way as to not restrict the flow of water. Give special attention to outlets and points where concentrated flow enters the channel and repair eroded areas promptly by extending the riprap as needed.

57

5. Implementation

5.1. Cost Estimate The cost estimate has been made for each section using the MDOT unit pricing system as well as contingencies determined by the team and Professor Masselink.

5.1.1. Commuter Parking Lot The cost estimate for the Commuter Parking Lot was made by the MDOT unit pricing as well as pricing from StormChamber received from their local representative, Tom Mullen. The pricing for the Commuter Parking Lot system is shown in Figure 55 and Table 8.

Figure 55: Pricing from StormChamber

58

Table 8: Cost Estimate for Commuter Lot Quantity  Unit Price  Total 

Start Chamber  2  300  600 

End Chamber  2  300  600 

Middle Chamber  228  300  68400 

Frame and lid for 10" rise pipe  6  165  990 

Sediment Trap  6  400  2400 

Heavy Duty Netting ‐ 6.7 x 10'  8  150  1200 

Light duty Netting ‐ LD 4330  4  305  1220 

4 oz Non‐woven Filter Fabric  6  400  2400 

6A aggregate base [yd3]  3945  28.88  113931.6 

Modified Crushed Stone 21AA [yd3]  2798  45  125910 

Excavation  [yd3]  8737  5  43685 

Load offsite disposal [yd3]  8737  5  43685 

Sand Backfill  [yd3]  82  10  820 

Pavement Removal [yd2]  14247  6  85480 

Tree / stump removal 6‐18'  24  500  12000 

HMA commercial [ton]  1389  125  173625 

Curb and Gutter [ft]  2489  5  12445 

Tree Planting  24  250  6000 

Total    695391.6 

Using the cost estimate, this accounts for the excavation of the parking lot as well as the regarding and applying the asphalt. The total cost is 696,000.

5.1.2. KE Apartments The pricing for the KE Apartments was determined using MDOT unit pricing as well as advice from Professor Masselink. The results can be seen in Table 9.

59

Table 9: Cost Estimate for KE Apartments

Material Costs

Item Quantity Units Cost/Quantity units Cost Structural Concrete for Tank 514.3704Yd3 500$/yd3 $ 257,185.19

12" PVC 29Ft 22.87$/ft $ 663.23

8" PVC 105Ft 12.37$/ft $ 1,298.85Channel (Poured Concrete including non material costs) 2.41Yd3

280$/yd3

$ 674.80

Pump+System 1system $ 2,500.00

Concrete Catch basin 24" x 4'

ft (dia) ft (depth) 256$/Catchbasin $ 256.00

Manhole Access (48" w rubber joints) 13V. Ft 58.6$/V. ft $ 761.80

Structural Concrete Other 2.04Yd3 500$/yd3 $ 1,017.78

Total $ 264,357.64Non-Material Costs

Item Quantity Units Cost/Quantity Units Cost

Excavation 4625.02 Yd3 5$/yd3 $ 23,125.10

Spread on-site 1673.25 Yd3 2S/yd3 $ 3,346.50

Offsite Disposal 2951.77 Yd3 10$/yd3 $ 29,517.70

Restoraation of Area 655.95Yd2 6$/yd2 $ 3,935.70

total $ 59,925.00

Material Cost $ 324,282.64

Labor (75% of Material) $ 243,211.98

Sub-Total Cost $ 567,494.63

Contigency (20%) $ 113,498.93

Total $ 680,993.55 Using the cost estimate, the estimated total cost to implement the system is $681,000.

5.1.3. Seminary Pond The final cost estimates for the bioswales was completed using MDOT unit prices. These prices were provided to us by Professor Robert Masselink. By using these prices the team was able to arrive at a more complete estimate which included basic engineering services and a 20% contingency fund. All quantities were calculated using the current drawing produced on AutoCAD Civil 3D. Volumes of cut and fill were calculated by comparing the proposed stream channel surfaces with the current ground surface. All other measurements, such as fencing lengths and ground clearing area were calculated based on the proposed design. The final cost of the Seminary Bioswale design was $65,000. Table 10 shows the breakdown of project cost.

60

Table 10: Cost Estimate for Seminary Pond

Material Amount Units Unit Cost Total Cost ($)

Rip-rap 270 Cubic Yards

$25 $6,750 Geotextile fabric (light weight 150" x 360') 2 Feet $375 $750

Concrete Orifice/Weir Structure3.6 Cubic

Yards$500 $1,800

Fill 333 Cubic Yards

$10 $3,330

Excavation Costs 332.4Cubic Yards

$5 $1,662 Ditch Clean out 3000 Feet $1.50 $4,500 Possible Tree Removal 10 $1,000 $10,000

Tree Replacement 2 Black

Walnut$34.95 $70

2 Red Oak $24.95 $50 1 White ash $29.95 $30 4 Cottonwood $19.99 $80

Silt fence (2' x 100') 10 feet $19.97 $200 Wetland Plants $1,000

Material Cost 30221.41

Labor (75% of

Material) 22666.0575

Sub-Total Cost 52887.4675

Contingency (20%) 10577.4935

Total 63464.961

5.2. Presentation to Board for Master Plan The group is in the process of looking at the current master plan for Calvin’s campus and looking to how the group’s design can be incorporated into the new master plan.

61

6. Conclusion The ultimate goal for this project is to reduce runoff water, limit sediments entering Plaster Creek watershed and increase the irrigation systems water supply. This was accomplished by responsible time management, following the design norms, and determining design locations and their design alternatives. The first semester was used to collect rainfall data, perform simulations, visit existing sites, research, and meet with professionals for guidance. During the second semester the team designed the system and request it to be approved as part of master campus plan. The structure of the semesters kept the team members responsible and knowledgeable of their responsibilities. Following our design norms kept our team accountable. Sustainability held the team members responsible for developing an effective system that does what we intended. Caring helped ensure that we develop a system that is safe. Transparency allowed our peers to see and offer constructive criticism of our project. The design norms created responsibility for the team that held us to a higher standard. In keeping to the project goal the team focused on the three key zones; Parking lots 1-5, the bioswales near the Seminary pond, and the KE apartments. The different design alternatives were evaluated for each section. The team had responsibility of weighing each design alternative and determining a solution that best served the needs of Calvin College. By following the time management structure, design norms, and weighing the design alternative the team decided the best solution and design a system that will reduce runoff water, limit sediments entering Plaster Creek watershed and increase the irrigation systems water supply. The system once finished will then be submitted to become a part of Calvin’s master campus plan.

62

7. Acknowledgements Team 06 would like to those who have assisted in creating the project proposal and feasibility study. The team would like to thank their advisor Professor Masselink for raising valuable questions to take into consideration over the course of the project. His guidance helped deepen the team’s understanding of their project and ensure the best result can be produced by the end of the year. Team 06 would also like to thank Travis Vruggink for being the team’s industrial consultant and critiquing ideas during the development of the project. Travis was able to provide meaningful insight for improving the weak points of the project. Finally, thanks to Geoff Van Berkel from Calvin’s Physical Plant for being their client and providing them with valuable information about how Calvin’s irrigation system operates and where storm water runoff drains to.

63

8. References Barr Engineering Co. “Sediment Control Check Dams.” 2000. Pond Outlet Structures. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/finaldesign/pdf/sampleplan/drndetl.pdf Calvin Tree Map. http://gis.calvin.edu/trees/ Plaster Creek Stewards. http://www.calvin.edu/admin/provost/pcw/ Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. “Low Impact Development Manuel for Michigan: A Design Guide for Implementors and Reviewers.” SEMCOG 2008.

1

Appendices Appendix A: Business Plan Appendix B: Excel Spreadsheets Appendix C: Final Drawings

2

Appendix A: Business Plan

December 11, 2015 Investment Proposal By Kemal Talen, Aaron Venema, Matthew Schanck, and Kat Wever

 

 

Calvin College

3

Executive Summary SI Consulting

Company Leadership Consulting Engineer - Matt Schanck Consulting Engineer - Katherine Wever Receptionist - Kemal Talen Consulting Engineers (2) Both engineers have Bachelor’s degrees in civil engineering, a Professional Engineering License, and four years of design experience. The implementation of these design solutions are relatively new, and both engineers have experience designing these systems. These two engineers are knowledgeable about stormwater reuse design and are highly self-motivated to complete assigned tasks. The resumes for these employees is attached and can be seen in the Appendix. Receptionist (1) This employee will manage phone calls, clients, paperwork, and handle busy work around the office.

Company Brief SI Consulting is a start-up consulting firm that focuses on design of storm water irrigation systems and installment through building contractors and developers. The company values sustainability, caring, transparency, and trust.

Market SI Consulting’s target will be several types of clients. First, the company will market design services to engineering firms. This will allow the company to have a steady inflow of design work as the engineering firms supply the company with projects that require the company’s specialty design service. The company will not have much name recognition initially and being sub-contracted by other firms will help with increasing clientele and name recognition. Next, the company will seek out to be the primary consultant for projects. This means it will design the system then sub contract all of the work. This will require the company to manage the project and all of the subcontractors. Initially, this method will be challenging, but overtime the company will develop name recognition and contractor relationships. Finally, the company will contract out design services to developers who wish to use the company’s specialty designs.

Business Strategies Several strategies have been developed to ensure the success of the company. The company will create multiple design alternatives to show traditional designs compared to stormwater reuse designs. The initial cost and the return on investment (ROI) analysis will show customers that the product is not only an environmentally friendly option, but also a cost effective method. This will reassure potential clients that the specialty design service is the correct decision. The company plans to develop good professional relationships, customer relationships, network, and

4

advertisements of their product. Implementing these strategies will give the company a good reputation and name recognition.

Financials SI Consulting is requesting an initial loan of $ 144,500. This will cover the first 6 months of employee salaries as the company is still establishing a regular client workload, office lease, engineering software, computers, engineering printers, and a printing budget.

5

Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 2 COMPANY LEADERSHIP .................................................................................................................................. 3 COMPANY BRIEF ........................................................................................................................................... 3 MARKET ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 BUSINESS STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................................... 3 FINANCIALS .................................................................................................................................................. 4 

1.  VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT ............................................................................................... 8 1.1 ENTREPRENEUR’S VISION FOR THE COMPANY ............................................................................................... 8 1.2 VALUES AND PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE BUSINESS STANDS ............................................................................ 8 

2.  INDUSTRY PROFILE AND OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 8 2.1 INDUSTRY BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 MAJOR CUSTOMER GROUPS .................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.1.1 AGRICULTURAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS ............................................................................ 8 2.1.1.2 LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 INDUSTRY BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 9 2.3 SIGNIFICANT TRENDS ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 GROWTH RATE ....................................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 BARRIERS TO ENTRY ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.6 KEY SUCCESS FACTORS IN INDUSTRY ........................................................................................................... 9 2.7 OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE ....................................................................................................................... 9 

3   BUSINESS STRATEGY ...................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 DESIRED IMAGE AND POSITION ON MARKET .............................................................................................. 10 3.2 COMPANY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 OPERATIONAL .................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.2 FINANCIAL ......................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 SWOT ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.1 STRENGTHS ....................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.2 WEAKNESSES ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.3 OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................................................. 11 3.3.4 THREATS ........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 COMPETITIVE STRATEGY ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.1 COST LEADERSHIP ............................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.2 DIFFERENTIATION ............................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.2 RESPONSIVE ...................................................................................................................................... 11 

4   COMPANY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ............................................................................................ 11 4.1 DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 12 4.1.1 PRODUCT FEATURES ........................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 WARRANTIES AND GUARANTEES ........................................................................................................... 12 4.1.3 UNIQUENESS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 12 

5   MARKETING STRATEGY .................................................................................................................. 13 5.1 TARGET MARKET ................................................................................................................................... 13 5.1.1 PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED AND BENEFIT TO BE OFFERED ............................................................................. 13 5.1.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 13 

6

5.1.3 OTHER SIGNIFICANT CUSTOMER CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................. 13 5.2 CUSTOMERS' MOTIVATION TO BUY .......................................................................................................... 13 5.3 MARKET SIZE AND TRENDS ..................................................................................................................... 13 5.3.1 MARKET SIZE ..................................................................................................................................... 13 5.3.2 MARKET TRENDS ................................................................................................................................ 14 5.4 ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION ............................................................................................................... 14 5.4.1 MEDIA .............................................................................................................................................. 14 5.4.2 PROMOTION COSTS ............................................................................................................................ 14 5.5 PRICING ............................................................................................................................................... 14 5.5.1 DESIRED IMAGE IN MARKET ................................................................................................................. 14 5.5.2 COMPARISON AGAINST COMPETITORS' PRICES ........................................................................................ 14 5.5.3 DISCOUNT POLICY .............................................................................................................................. 14 5.5.4 PROJECTED GROSS PROFIT MARGIN ...................................................................................................... 15 5.6 DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY ‐ CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................. 15 

6   LOCATION LAYOUT ........................................................................................................................ 15 

7   COMPETITOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 15 7.1 EXISTING COMPETITORS ......................................................................................................................... 15 7.1.1 EXISTING COMPANY’S STRENGTHS ........................................................................................................ 15 7.1.2 EXISTING COMPANY’S WEAKNESSES ...................................................................................................... 15 7.2 POTENTIAL COMPETITORS ....................................................................................................................... 16 

8   DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT TEAM ......................................................................................... 16 8.1 KEY EMPLOYEES .................................................................................................................................... 16 8.2 FUTURE ADDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 16 8.2.1 CONSULTANTS ................................................................................................................................... 16 8.2.2 FINANCIAL EXPERTS ............................................................................................................................ 16 8.2.3 FIELD INSPECTORS/MODELERS .............................................................................................................. 17 

9   PLAN OF OPERATION ..................................................................................................................... 17 9.1 LEGAL FORM OF OWNERSHIP .................................................................................................................. 17 9.2 ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................................................................... 17 9.3 DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................ 17 9.4 COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS ............................................................................................................... 17 9.5 FACILITY ............................................................................................................................................... 17 

10   FINANCIAL FORECASTS ................................................................................................................ 18 10.1 FINANCIAL FORECAST ........................................................................................................................... 18 10.2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 18 10.3 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 18 10.3.1 INCOME STATEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 18 10.3.2 BALANCE SHEET ............................................................................................................................... 18 10.3.3 CASH FLOW STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 18 10.4 BREAK‐EVEN ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 19 10.5 RATIO ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 19 

11   LOAN OR INVESTMENT PROPOSAL .............................................................................................. 19 11.1 AMOUNT REQUESTED .......................................................................................................................... 19 11.2 PURPOSE OF USES OF FUNDS ................................................................................................................ 19 11.3 REPAYMENT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................ 19 

7

11.4 TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTING PLAN AND LAUNCHING THE BUSINESS .......................................................... 19 

8

1. Vision and Mission Statement 

1.1 Entrepreneur’s Vision for the Company SI Consulting’s vision is to promote environmental stewardship through consulting with building contractors in the implementation of stormwater irrigation systems that help meet runoff standards.

1.2 Values and Principles on which the Business Stands The company values sustainability, caring, transparency, and trust in everyday business practices. The company strongly believes in the sustainability design norms because the owners want to protect and preserve the environment. The second design norm is caring. This applies to the company maintaining the safety of all of the individuals that interact with the stormwater irrigation system. The third design norm is transparency. Due the high publicity of these types of projects, the company will disclose any information pertinent to the safety and health of any affected communities. The last design norm is trustworthiness. The company will offer a service that people can rely on and trust that it will meet their demands. The company has decided on these design norms to be implemented and upheld in their work. These design norms are strongly tied to the owner’s Christian values and ideals.

2.  Industry Profile and Overview

2.1 Industry Background and Overview Major uses for stormwater harvesting are in irrigation. Stormwater harvesting is becoming more popular with homeowners, institutions, and industrial plants. Overall, stormwater harvesting is used mostly for irrigation and non-potable water (flushing toilets), but some uses even include potable-water. Irrigation accounts for 34% of water use in the world. Making irrigation more renewable through stormwater harvesting is a growing industry in Michigan. In Washington state, stormwater harvesting is being used more frequently in residential homes due to large water bill costs.

2.1.1 Major Customer Groups

2.1.1.1 Agricultural/Industrial Building Contractors SI Consulting’s end customers will be agricultural/industrial building contractors. The company will work directly with building contractors to implement stormwater irrigation systems into their building plans. The company’s expertise in this area will be highly valued with building contractors trying to meet runoff standards in industrial areas.

2.1.1.2 Local Municipalities SI Consulting will also work directly with city officials to educate them on the cost benefits of stormwater irrigation. The company will work with city contractors to implement these systems into existing and new constructions. As well as performing case studies for large projects that involve large public funding.

9

2.2 Industry Background and Overview The DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) has placed limitations on construction for new development. The DEQ requires that new development stormwater surface runoff is lower or equal to the pre-development runoff for a 2-year 24 hour storm event or the first 2 inches of rainfall (Location dependent). This requires developers in Michigan to consider stormwater harvesting. Stormwater harvesting provides a way to manage runoff water while gaining an economical gain from the reuse of greywater. Stormwater harvesting means that buildings retain the water that would accumulate from a rainfall. Stormwater irrigation is an additional process that repurposes collected water for non-potable (flushing toilets, irrigation, etc) and irrigation water. The type of buildings that use stormwater irrigation systems range from residential to commercial to agricultural.

2.3 Significant Trends Stormwater irrigation is becoming more common in urban areas where infiltration is not always possible and cost savings from reuse of water are high. It is also becoming more common with commercial buildings that require large amounts of non-potable water. In terms of water treatment, the level of water quality requirements for reuse are determined by local municipalities and state governments and can affect the use of stormwater irrigation systems. In general, when public health is not a safety issue, stormwater irrigation is allowed.

2.4 Growth Rate Stormwater reuse and irrigation is rapidly growing in popularity across the US. It is especially popular in states that have drought problems and high water utility costs. In states such as Washington, water reuse is becoming more popular in residential homes. In other countries such as Australia, water reuse is being used to overcome water shortages.

2.5 Barriers to Entry Barriers to entering the consulting business are raising starting capital, developing a project team, finding clientele, utilizing development software, and obtaining legal rights to operate. Barriers to exiting the industry include on-going projects, unreturned starting funds, and binding contracts.

2.6 Key Success Factors in Industry One key success factor in the industry is utilizing inexpensive, small, above ground space usage. Another pair of factors is utilizing minimal effective filtration for small-scale systems and high effective filtration with large capacity for large scale systems.

2.7 Outlook for the Future As the years go on, more local governments will establish regulations for stormwater reuse water treatment levels, which will allow the company to expand into new markets.

10

3   Business Strategy

3.1 Desired Image and Position on Market SI Consulting desires to be a leader in the residential and commercial stormwater harvesting market. Also well-known and trusted among commercial building contractors and other civil engineering firms. While creating a trustworthy company image by through quality design and maximum return on investment for clients.

3.2 Company Goals and Objectives 

3.2.1 Operational SI Consulting’s operational goal is to design stormwater reuse systems for irrigation in commercial, academic, and some residential areas. The company also wishes to implement these practices in an economically feasible manner. This will be done by developing designs with site specific details as well as generic pre-site development designs to produce fast turnaround time.

3.2.2 Financial SI Consulting’s financial goal is to make the design and implementation of the stormwater reuse system as cost effective as possible for the clients while still allowing for general profit for the design firm.

3.3 SWOT Analysis 

3.3.1 Strengths One of the main strengths of the SI Consulting is that the service is of high quality and has a low overhead cost. The design for a cleaner and more environmentally friendly system will attract environmentally friendly clients. The company will be specializing in the reuse system designs. This means the company will focus on similar designs and become very effective as they become well versed with the local geography and client needs. Another strength of the company is that the employees are fully invested in the success of the company because they own the company.

3.3.2 Weaknesses One of the primary weaknesses of the SI Consulting is being dependent on building contractors for work. Another weakness of the company is the size of the company; the company is small (only three employees) and does not have the reach that other consulting firms have to attract customers. One last weakness is that there will be no senior engineer in the company.

11

3.3.3 Opportunities The main opportunity of SI Consulting is the growth of the market in the field of consulting. As stormwater reuse becomes more accepted by the general public the company will gain more business.

3.3.4 Threats The primary threat to the SI Consulting is the potential for no employment. Smaller engineering firms have a potential of not receiving consulting opportunities, while larger firms have a potential of not needing the company’s services in lieu of the larger firms may potentially have departments for this specialized service.

3.4 Competitive Strategy 

3.4.1 Cost Leadership Companies offering stormwater management, and irrigation systems will be the SI Consulting’s primary competitors. The company's price objective will be to offer stormwater reuse design solutions at the same rate as traditional stormwater management. Being able to offer design solutions and project implementation at a competitive price will draw consumers to choose the more environmentally friendly option. This solution also has a return on investment with water saved, making this the long term financially responsible decision.

3.4.2 Differentiation  SI Consulting will strive to have a service to differentiate themselves from competitors. This involves finding methods to stay ahead of the curve with technology and design standards. These two methods are investing resources in research and development, along with staying invested in the new emerging systems globally.

3.4.2 Responsive The response to customer demand ties directly into what differentiates SI Consulting. The company will constantly look to seek improvements to their design approach, keeping the design team ahead of the curve. Using the latest available design approaches keeps the company highly sought after for design development.

4   Company Products and Services SI Consulting’s main service is consulting with building contractors on stormwater reuse and irrigation implementation.

12

4.1 Description

4.1.1 Product Features SI Consulting provides planning and design services for the storage and reuse of stormwater runoff. This service will include the stormwater calculations required by the DEQ for new construction projects. The company will get the client approved for construction on the new development sites. If the company is hired as the primary contractor for the project, it will take the responsibility of subcontracting and managing the project.

4.1.2 Warranties and Guarantees SI Consulting will guarantee a structurally sound and functional design. If the company is the primary contractor for the design, it will claim responsibility of ensuring that the subcontractors do a satisfactory job. If the subcontractors are at fault of poor construction, it is the responsibility of SI Consulting to enforce reconstruction at the subcontractor's expense. If the structure fails due to design problems, SI Consulting will take responsibility for reconstruction and recover all the costs. Proper client maintenance must be performed as necessary. If the design fails due to poor maintenance, SI Consulting will not be responsible for the failure.

4.1.3 Uniqueness Some benefits to the client will be the potential for LEED certification for commercial and institutional clients. For clients installing irrigation systems, they will benefit from the reductions in city water use. For all clients, SI Consulting’s services will help give developers the image of going green for their business, while creating financial savings.

4.2 Description of Service Process SI Consulting will tailor their work to the needs of each client. Every project consists of different variables such as soil type, topography, local features, site type, and client needs. The design team will begin with retrieving any available information from the client. Then, the company will proceed using Atlas 14 and SCS to find site information. If necessary for the project site the company may have contract someone to determine site contour lines. Using the site information the company’s consultants will perform modeling on HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS and SWWM. Using the modeled information and the client needs, the consultants with design a system specific to the site. If SI Consulting is the primary contractor for the project they will be in charge of managing the project entirely. This means creating bid proposals, organizing bidding processes, and selecting the subcontractors. From here the firm will manage that the subcontractors construct the system to design specifications.

13

5   Marketing Strategy

5.1 Target Market The target markets will be primarily civil engineering firms and building contractors in commercial, agricultural, and municipal building construction. The target markets will also be in regions with intense stormwater regulations.

5.1.1 Problem to be Solved and Benefits to be Offered The problem to be solved will be the rising need for developers to meet stormwater regulations. The company will work with provided site plan to design and creates a parts list for a cost effective system. The benefits offered by the company is a reduced workload for clients and a robust design.

5.1.2 Demographic Profile Market demographics for SI Consulting will be other engineering firms, building contractors, and individual clients. The initial goal will be to market design services to other engineering firms. Engineering firms receive large volumes of projects and the company would provide services supplement their specialty design needs for reuse systems. After developing some market presence the company will seek to work directly with contractors and clients.

5.1.3 Other Significant Customer Characteristics Clients will be concerned with sustainability either by mandates, or by their own desire to build sustainable water systems. Contractors might also be involved with the construction of buildings for non-profit organizations concerned with environmental stewardship. Contractors working for city governments might have available grants for sustainable systems.

5.2 Customers' Motivation to Buy A customer’s motivation is to meet stormwater regulations for his/her area of development. They are also interested in sustainable irrigation systems because they, or the landowners, are motivated to help the environment. Additionally clients have the benefit of receiving grants through the EPA, GLRI, wege foundation, DEQ, and GR community foundation.

5.3 Market Size and Trends The market is relatively small, only serving a handful of states in the United States. However, the size is continually growing as state governments establish standards for stormwater reuse, costs of water continue to increase, and more states establish grants for sustainable building systems.

5.3.1 Market Size The market is mostly in industrial building projects, but also includes buildings that require LEED certification. As SI Consulting gains recognition they will be able to perform business with many developers that may reach into new markets, such as institutional and agricultural.

14

5.3.2 Market Trends Based on research, there is a growing demand for stormwater reuse. The market is growing because more building complexes want to become LEED certified. By using LEED (a voluntary, market-driven green building certification program) buildings have greater zoning allowances, save money through tax rebates and demonstrate environmental stewardship.

5.4 Advertising and promotion 

5.4.1 Media The target market of SI Consulting primarily includes engineering firms and developers. Because of this, using media such as TV advertisements or social media advertisements will not be appropriate. SI Consulting will have a website to promote the stormwater reuse projects this company has worked on. The site will also display case comparisons between the traditional methods and the reuse systems, along with a detailed description of the benefits of stormwater reuse. The company will initially underbid projects to get their foot in the door. As the company's consulting service receives good reviews, the clients will spread these good reviews by word-of-mouth. In turn as more engineering firms and developers use the company’s services the company will a good reputation.

5.4.2 Promotion Costs Since the majority of the advertising will be done by the website and word-of-mouth, website developer will not be necessary since the team members have experience with website design. The cost of maintaining the domain of the website will be $10 per year.

5.5 Pricing

5.5.1 Desired Image in Market SI Consulting wants to be portrayed as a company that values sustainability, caring, transparency, and trust in everyday business practices.

5.5.2 Comparison Against Competitors' Prices Compared to other consulting firms, this consulting cost offers competitive design prices. Although the customer experiences savings in the implementation and use of the design.

5.5.3 Discount Policy Initially the firm will offer services at a lower rates to establish relationships with larger engineering firms and developers. After the company has shown that they offer a quality product with a quality service the company will charge standard rates. Low discount pricing will be used for establishing business and working relationships.

15

5.5.4 Projected Gross Profit Margin The projected gross profit margins for the first three years is $ 317,444.

5.6 Distribution Strategy ‐ Channels of Distribution SI Consulting will produce designs for engineering firms, developers and clients. The company will receive projects from connected engineering firms as well as seek out bids from developers and clients.

6   Location Layout The company will be based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Since SI Consulting is a consulting firm and very little space is needed, the company will rent out office spaces to fulfill the space requirement for the company.

7   Competitor Analysis

7.1 Existing Competitors The current market consists of companies that use traditional stormwater management design practices. The primary method is to eliminate the excess runoff water through detention to slowly release back into the environment, through infiltration practices to put the water back into the ground, or focus on conveyance to allow high storm flows to pass through.

7.1.1 Existing Company’s Strengths Existing companies have the advantage of being the market norm. Developers currently expect to use the systems implemented in traditional consulting firms’ designs. The name recognition and developed relationships with the developers will help the existing companies maintain market control. Also, traditional stormwater management, depending on the site requirements, can sometimes offer less expensive design alternatives.

7.1.2 Existing Company’s Weaknesses Existing design methods of conveyance and detention come with a few weaknesses, including no potential return on investment and lacking the “going green” aspect, which has less appeal to the environmentally conscious customer. While infiltration methods have the “going green” aspect, they lack any potential return on investment. Additionally, these methods are not always a feasible option, since construction sites may not have space for an open detention pond, and a submerged concrete detention pond would be too expensive. Regional code may prevent conveyance as a solution due to regulations to reduce flooding downstream of the development or a requirement of retaining the first 2 inches of rainfall for new developments.

16

7.2 Potential Competitors Because of the relatively new acceptance of reusing greywater, this is an emerging market. As the use of environmentally friendly tactics become industry standards, new consulting firms will emerge, and existing firms will modify their site development tactics to be competitive in this market. Project bidding competition will increase as a result of new consulting firms entering the market. The company will have to develop good client relationships by providing quality service in a timely manner. This will allow the consulting firm the continuation of obtaining new construction bids, even at times when others bid lower.

8   Description of Management Team 

8.1 Key Employees Consulting Engineer - Matt Schanck Consulting Engineer - Katherine Wever Receptionist - Kemal Talen Consulting Engineers (2) Both engineers have Bachelor’s degrees in civil engineering, a Professional Engineering License, and four years of design experience. The implementation of these design solutions are relatively new, and both engineers have experience designing these systems. These two engineers are knowledgeable about stormwater reuse design and are highly self-motivated to complete assigned tasks. Receptionist (1) This employee will manage phone calls, clients, paperwork, and handle busy work around the office.

8.2 Future Additions

8.2.1 Consultants As workload increases, SI Consulting will seek more consulting engineers with a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and related design experience. This will give the company the ability to work with more clients at a given time.

8.2.2 Financial Experts As SI Consulting gains more consultants and projects, the amount of bidding proposals, salary expenses, project payments, and general financial hassle will increase. The need for an employee

17

to handle this will increase. This employee will assist in project bidding, and take responsibility for overarching financial work for the company. This employee will have a Bachelor’s degree in business or finance and at least 4 year of related work experience.

8.2.3 Field Inspectors/modelers  As SI Consulting becomes more developed and becomes the primary contractor for projects, they will need to supervise the construction of the projects. This will require the company to hire employees for inspection. These employees will also be trained in drafting and basic modeling software to assist in the office when there are currently no construct jobs.

9   Plan of Operation 

9.1 Legal Form of Ownership The company will be owned by the original consulting engineers. Ownership of the company is 50% owned by Matthew, and 50% owned by Katherine.

9.2 Organization Matthew and Katherine are dual owners that have their own clients. This is initially a small organization where Matt and Katherine both have equal responsibilities and rights. So both consultant/co-owners will be responsible for leadership and project responsibility.

9.3 Decision Making Authority Each owner makes their own decisions concerning projects for their clients. Any decision involving the company itself such as capital expenses or hiring of another employee will be agreed upon by both Matt Schanck and Katherine Wever.

9.4 Compensation and Benefits Because the company is run by its owners, there are no compensation and benefits packages.

9.5 Facility The office will be located in Grand Rapids, MI. The office will be located in a relatively inexpensive region of town. There are many locations with inexpensive lease agreements and close proximity to the booming construction business surrounding Grand Rapids, and in West Michigan in general. Because of the limited amount of employees there is a limited amount of office space needed. The office will have enough space for a receptionist, printing equipment, two offices, a storage room for project files, and additional space for future employees.

18

10   Financial Forecasts

10.1 Financial Forecast The financial forecast for SI Consulting is the Project Financials in Appendix A. The detailed statement shows the company's cash flows for predicted first 3 years of business. The projection shows the break even analysis, ratio analysis, debt repayment schedule, and possible but unlikely exit strategy.

10.2 Key Assumptions The key financial assumption for this company is that the business experiences a healthy amount of clientele work. The company has accounted for a lack of initial work. Over the first year the company expects to expand their foothold in the market. The company plans to have an average of 40 total billable consulting hours a week for 50 weeks the first year, and 60 total billable consulting hours a week for 50 weeks the second year. The assumption would be the consulting firm may work slightly longer hours during the summer when construction is booming and less hours during the winter months. With the variation the company still assumes that within the seasons the company will be able to evenly distribute the workload over the course of the season. Another main key assumption is that the two co-owners of the company are credible. The consultant owners will be licensed professional engineers with 4 years of greywater reuse system design experience. The company can initially gain subcontracting under engineering firms, as well as work periodic work from small consulting firms. The credibility and assumed workload load will allow the company to charge $100 per hour service charge. The company will therefore have a total sales charge of $200,000 the first year and $300,000 the following years.

10.3 Financial Statements

10.3.1 Income Statement The key points of the income statement is the sales revenue, fixed operating cost, and net income. The company’s profitability is based upon the amount of consulting hours the engineering firm is capable of obtaining. Apart from employee pay, the company has relatively low operating costs.

10.3.2 Balance Sheet The company assets are its equipment, office space, and cash. The equity is equal to the initial loan amount. The liabilities are its loan payments and retained earnings.

10.3.3 Cash Flow Statement The company will take out a $144,500 loan in the first year, and invest $25,000 of its own money as well to cover a portion of the initial fixed costs. Then, debt repayments of $30,000 will be made at the end of each year.

19

10.4 Break‐Even Analysis The break-even analysis uses hours of consulting as the unit. Based on the yearly fixed operating costs of $258,000 and a total variable cost of $500, the break-even amount of consulting hours worked at $100 per hour is 2,585 hours. This equal to about 25 hours a week for 52 weeks.

10.5 Ratio Analysis A ratio analysis was not performed due to the only source of revenue being wage hours.

11   Loan or Investment Proposal

11.1 Amount Requested SI Consulting is requesting an initial loan of $144,500. This initial loan will be combined with an invested capital of $25,000 from the two company co-owners.

11.2 Purpose of Uses of Funds These initial funds will be used to cover 6 months salary for all employees, engineering printer, printing budget, lease expense, engineering software and computer equipment for engineering purposes.

11.3 Repayment Schedule SI Consulting plans to pay off the borrowed debt at the rate of $30,000 a year. This will allow the company to easily repay the debt while retaining capital for potential company investment. If the company reaches the intended goal of achieving 3,000 project hours a year, then the company will have no issue repaying the debt while achieving financial gain. If the company does not achieve desired project hours, the consultant engineers will take a reduction in pay, allowing the company to pay off debt. If the co-owners wish to exit the business they will work on severely cut pay and sell all of the equipment, and use all of the money to pay off the debt. If the company can’t pay the debt, then they will declare bankruptcy.

11.4 Timetable for implementing plan and launching the business SI Consulting is planned to start after both of the engineers Katherine Wever and Matt Schanck obtain a Bachelor's in civil engineering and four years of experience. The company will launch in 2020.

Appendix A

SI Consulting Pro‐Forma Statement of Income

20

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Sales revenue 200,000 300,000 300,000 Variable Cost of Goods Sold 500 500 500 Fixed Cost of Goods Sold ‐ ‐ ‐ Depreciation 2,429 4,306 3,361 Gross Margin 197,071 295,194 296,139 Variable Operating Costs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Fixed Operating Costs 258,000 258,000 258,000 Operating Income (60,929) 37,194 38,139 Interest Expense 5,058 9,065 6,965 Income Before Tax (65,987) 28,129 31,174 Income tax (40%) (26,395) 11,252 12,470 Net Income After Tax (39,592) 16,877 18,704 SI Consulting Pro‐Forma Statement of Cash Flows Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Beginning Cash Balance ‐ 115,337 105,521 Net Income After Tax (39,592) 16,877 18,704 Depreciation expense 2,429 4,306 3,361 Invested Capital (Equity) 25,000 ‐ ‐ Increase (decrease) in borrowed funds 144,500 (30,000) (30,000) Debt Outstanding 144,500 114,500 84,500 Equipment Purchases (17,000) (1,000) (1,000) Ending Cash Balance 115,337 105,521 96,586 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Fixed Costs 265,487 271,371 268,326 Contribution Margin % 100% 100% 100% Break Even Sales Volume 266,152.18 271,824 268,774 Equipment Depreciation Purchases Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Equipment Purchases Year 1 17,000 2,429 4,163 2,973

21

Equipment Purchases Year 2 1,000 143 245 Equipment Purchases Year 3 1,000 143 2,429 4,306 3,361 MACRS Rates (7‐year recovery period) 0.1429 0.2449 0.1749 Interest Expense: Annual interest rate on debt 7% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Average debt balance 72,250 129,500 99,500 Interest expense 5,058 9,065 6,965

22

Appendix B: Excel Spreadsheets Knollcrest East Calculations:

2 years 2.56 in

Sub Basin Percent Ponding Q V V Re‐Use Optionunits cfs cubic ft gallon 87752.44

1 0 3.90 3034 22694

2 0 3.01 3844 28753

3 0 3.28 5049 37767

4 0 7.77 10543 78868

5 0 3.87 2986 22338

6 0 7.85 5527 41345

7 0 2.36 1302 9742

8 0 2.89 1639 12260

9 0 2.25 2074 15512

10 0 1.84 1325 9913

11 0 1.92 2766 20690

12 0 2.84 1177 8802

13 0 2.47 1223 9148

14 0 1.28 1487 11123

15 0 0.38 254 1899

16 0 3.62 4096 30638

17 0 4.33 4391 32848

18 0 2.65 2479 18546

19 0 0.65 655 4897

Q V V V required Only Summer Only Julycfs cubic ft gallon gallon gallon

Total Outflow 59.16 55849 417781 880000 660006 358950

Basin outflow 43.78 41265 308682 880000 660006 358950

Courtyard Ou 8.40 7714 57705

All but Spring All but Fall All but summer SWMM Vgallon gallon gallon cubic ft

Total Outflow 856848 683168 219994 53082.5 11818

Basin outflow 856848 683168 219994 397,084.70

Cudo Store 5430 449,173.39$ 535,731.00$ 554,282.40$ 571,009.60$ 567,179.20$ 5415.5 5416 6505 6732 6936 6888

41161.6 1083.2 49438 51163.2 52713.6 52348.8

33 49031.4

66 383724

Rainstore 356,911.22$

Concrete 4825.681818 70x70x11

69.46712761 767185.19

Average PrecipatationStorm ProbabilityGeoff's volume w/o PC

23

Sub Basin S SRO tc qp' DA

units in in hours cfs/(in/sqmi) sq mi

1 0.35 2.18 0.046 2984.95 0.0006

2 1.37 1.43 0.084 1818.15 0.0012

3 0.30 2.23 0.105 1509.66 0.0010 connects to 44 2.42 0.96 0.090 1713.13 0.0047

5 2.40 0.97 0.045 3011.70 0.0013 Add pipe6 1.80 1.21 0.041 3301.92 0.0020 Add pipe7 0.20 2.33 0.030 4213.93 0.0002 add pipe8 2.76 0.84 0.031 4093.21 0.0008

9 3.25 0.71 0.056 2522.47 0.0013

10 3.62 0.62 0.042 3219.30 0.0009

11 0.20 2.33 0.097 1614.32 0.0005

12 0.20 2.33 0.021 5603.69 0.0002 9.4425

13 0.65 1.92 0.026 4686.88 0.0003 0.794252436

14 2.04 1.11 0.075 1999.76 0.0006

15 2.67 0.87 0.039 3445.39 0.0001

16 0.50 2.04 0.072 2056.13 0.0009

17 0.65 1.92 0.063 2291.41 0.0010

18 0.65 1.91 0.057 2482.64 0.0006

19 3.51 0.64 0.063 2300.13 0.0004 2.4460

24

Sub Basin Area Wooded C Wooded D Meadow C Meadow D Impervious C Impervious D Pond DA (pervious)units Sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft

1 16666.85 0 0 846.14 0 15820.71 0 1 846.14

2 32252.89 0 0 11992.64 0 20260.25 0 1 11992.64

3 27164.93 0 0 936.44 0 26228.50 0 1 936.44

4 132216.64 0 0 85771.98 0 46444.66 0 1 85771.98

5 37100.56 15240.93 0 11989.46 0 9870.18 0 1 27230.39

6 54741.47 34485.95 0 0 0 20255.52 0 1 34485.95

7 6705.84 0 0 0 0 6705.84 0 1 0.00

8 23290.54 0 0 16954.48 0 6336.06 0 1 16954.48

9 35147.00 0 0 29297.84 0 5849.16 0 1 29297.84

10 25751.86 0 0 23449.00 0 2302.86 0 1 23449.00

11 14242.11 0 0 0 0 14242.11 0 1 0.00

12 6058.87 0 0 0 0 6058.87 0 1 0.00

13 7655.70 0 0 0 1572.00 0 6083.70 1 1572.00

14 16146.10 10642.07 1180.70 0 0 4153.22 170.10 1 11822.78

15 3485.50 3165.75 0 0 0 319.76 0 1 3165.75

16 24047.04 0 0 2465.31 0 21581.74 0 1 2465.31

17 27448.77 0 0 4143.73 0 23305.04 0 1 4143.73

18 15546.79 0 0 2384.67 0 13162.12 0 1 2384.67

19 12225.79 0 0.00 10236.29 848.79 1008.65 132.06 1 11085.08

Sub Basin %Wooded %Wooded %Meadow %Meadow %Impervious %Impervious RCN RCN SWMM

units Type C Type D Type C Type D Type C Type D1 0% 0% 5.08% 0% 94.92% 0% 96.63 71

2 0% 0% 37.18% 0% 62.82% 0% 87.96 71

3 0% 0% 3.45% 0% 96.55% 0% 97.07 71

4 0% 0% 64.87% 0% 35.13% 0% 80.48 71

5 41.08% 0% 32.32% 0% 26.60% 0% 80.65 74.36

6 63.0% 0% 0% 0% 37.00% 0% 84.77 77

7 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 98.00 0

8 0% 0% 72.80% 0% 27.20% 0% 78.35 71

9 0% 0% 83.36% 0% 16.64% 0% 75.49 71

10 0% 0% 91.06% 0% 8.94% 0% 73.41 71

11 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 98.00 0

12 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 98.00 0

13 0% 0% 0% 20.53% 0% 79.47% 93.89 78

14 65.91% 7.31% 0% 0% 25.72% 1.05% 83.06 77.60

15 90.83% 0% 0% 0% 9.17% 0% 78.93 77

16 0% 0% 10.25% 0% 89.75% 0% 95.23 71

17 0% 0% 15.10% 0% 84.90% 0.00% 93.92 71

18 0% 0% 15.34% 0% 84.66% 0% 93.86 71

19 0% 0% 83.73% 6.94% 8.25% 1.08% 74.01 71.54

25

rcn C rcn D flow type K

Wooded 77 83 small tributary 2.1

Meadow 71 78 waterway 1.2

Impervious 98 98 sheet flow 0.48

Sub Basin Soil C Area Soil D Area Wooded Area meadow Area impervious area Pond

units sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft1 16666.85 0 0 846.14 15820.71 1

2 32252.89 0 0 11992.64 20260.25 1

3 27164.93 0 0 936.44 26228.50 1

4 132216.64 0 0 85771.98325 46444.66 1

5 37100.56 0.00 15240.93 11989.45509 9870.18 1

6 54741.47 0 34485.95 0.00 20255.52 1

7 6705.84 0 0 0 6705.84 1

8 23290.54 0 0 16954.47922 6336.06 1

9 35147.00 0 0 29297.83971 5849.16 1

10 25751.86 0 0 23449.00 2302.86 1

11 14242.11 0 0 0.00 14242.11 1

12 6058.87 0 0 0.00 6058.87 1

13 0.00 7655.70 0 1571.9991 6083.70 1

14 16146.10 1351 11823 0 4323.32 1

15 3485.50 0 3165.75 0.00 319.76 1

16 24047.04 0 0 2465.31 21581.74 1

17 27448.77 0.00 0 4143.73 23305.04 1

18 15546.79 0 0 2384.6719 13162.12 1

19 11244.95 980.85 0 11085.08 1140.710243 1

26

1 2 3

Recurance Average Precipation 0 0.2 0.5 1

Years in Option Water Average Use Zones #1 2.22 1 0.93 0.87 gallons/zone

2 2.56 1 0.94 0.88 0.83 Average vol 26315 44

5 3.2 1 0.95 0.89 0.84 Average Vo 26315 48

10 3.79 1 0.96 0.9 0.86 Geoff's volu 20000 44

25 4.7 1 0.97 0.91 0.87 Goeff's Volu 20000 48

50 5.48 1 0.98 0.92 0.88 144192.5

100 6.33 1 0.99 0.94 0.9 Total Zones 137

200 7.27 1 1 0.95 0.92

500 8.61 1 1 0.96 0.94

1000 9.71 1 1 0.97 0.96

24 hr KE Storms (Atlas 14) Percent Ponding

Ponding FactorWater Use

27

Tc calcs

type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti

sheet flow 0.48 1 85.69233333 0.045905975 sheet flow 0.48 6 191.5856083 0.062651 sheet flow 0.48 3 206.0077 0.098791745

waterway 1.2 3 136.7853333 0.02138 waterway 1.2 1 43.43584 0.006626567

type K deltaz L ti #N/A tc 0.084031 #N/A tc 0.105418312

sheet flow 0.48 12 137.901025 0.02705309

waterway 1.2 30 607.6292833 0.063301452 type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti

#N/A tc 0.090354542 waterway 1.2 12 358.7671917 0.045409 sheet flow 0.48 6 94.43234 0.021680125

waterway 1.2 18 229.0199 0.018909927

type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti tc 0.040590052

sheet flow 0.48 3 93.37586667 0.030147243 sheet flow 0.48 22 185.7512167 0.031235

type K deltaz L ti

type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti sheet flow 0.48 16 247.6028 0.056367616

sheet flow 0.48 17 207.207775 0.041864014 sheet flow 0.48 3 203.7109 0.097144

type K deltaz L ti

type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti sheet flow 0.48 5 87.81014 0.021295521

sheet flow 0.48 7 113.588725 0.026479518 sheet flow 0.48 8 186.8638083 0.052264

sheet flow 0.48 4 188.39075 0.07482 type K deltaz L ti

type K deltaz L ti sheet flow 0.48 1 76.25902 0.038538345

sheet flow 0.48 3 139.5212417 0.055062526 type K deltaz L ti

waterway 1.2 2 103.6124333 0.017263111 sheet flow 0.48 9 220.9963583 0.063374 type K deltaz L ti

#N/A tc 0.072325637 #N/A #N/A sheet flow 0.48 7 190.4151 0.057472413

#N/A #N/A

type K deltaz L ti

sheet flow 0.48 6 192.4628667 0.063081362

#N/A #N/A

sb1

sb4

sb2 sb3

sb5 (add pipe) sb6

sb7 sb8

sb9

sb10 sb11

sb18

sb19

sb12

sb13 sb14

sb15

sb16

sb17

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Commuter Lot Calculations:

2 years 2.56 in

Sub Basin Percent Ponding Q V V Re‐Use Optionunits cfs cubic ft gallon

1 0 5.18 8335 62348

2 0 3.97 9392 70254 2.255810538

3 0 2.28 5323 39818

4 0 1.87 3277 24513

5 0 1.29 983 7351

6 0 3.44 4159 31115

7 0 1.23 2015 15074

8 0 2.94 6744 50451

9 0 2.47 3209 24004

10 0 1.78 3925 29360

11 0 1.45 6569 49136

12 0 0.87 1293 9671

Q V V V required All but Spring All But Fallcfs cubic ft gallon gallon Gallon Gallon

Total Outflow 28.80 55223 413095 753900 708552.7559 595493.8583

SWMM V Only Summer Only Julycubic ft Gallon Gallons

49611 5612 550259.0551 293974.0157

Sub Basin S SRO tc qp' DA

units in in hours cfs/(in/sqmi) sq mi

1 0.26 2.27 0.111 1444.66 0.0016

2 0.28 2.26 0.178 982.59 0.0018

3 0.32 2.21 0.175 996.99 0.0010

4 0.28 2.25 0.123 1327.36 0.0006

5 0.27 2.26 0.045 3058.98 0.0002

6 0.25 2.29 0.078 1923.22 0.0008

7 0.36 2.17 0.113 1421.21 0.0004

8 0.23 2.31 0.172 1012.91 0.0013

9 0.22 2.32 0.086 1789.63 0.0006

10 0.25 2.28 0.163 1055.59 0.0007

11 0.27 2.26 0.393 513.42 0.0013

12 0.20 2.33 0.101 1569.55 0.0002

1.737 0.0105 6.711693303

Average PrecipatationStorm ProbabilityFront of Calvin

38

Sub Basin Area Wooded C Wooded D Meadow C Meadow D Impervious C Impervious D DA (pervious)units Sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft

1 44047.13 0 0 0 1212.27 0 42834.86 1212.27

2 49959.70 0 0 0 1722.27 0 48237.43 1722.27

3 28855.54 0 0 0 1571.02 0 27284.52 1571.02

4 17445.36 0 0 0 615.37 0 16829.99 615.37

5 5213.39 0 0 0 164.96 0 5048.43 164.96

6 21839.05 0 0 0 450.41 0 21388.64 450.41

7 11122.44 0 0 0 817.02 0 10305.42 817.02

8 35082.51 0 0 0 377.13 0 34705.38 377.13

9 16629.05 0 0 0 112.19 0 16516.86 112.19

10 20657.51 0 0 0 479.40 0 20178.11 479.40

11 34869.56 0 0 0 1125.35 0 33744.21 1125.35

12 6656.90 0 0 0 0.00 0 6656.90 0.00

Sub Basin %Wooded %Wooded %Meadow %Meadow %Impervious %Impervious RCN RCN SWMM

units Type C Type D Type C Type D Type C Type D1 0% 0% 0% 2.75% 0% 97.25% 97.45 78

2 0% 0% 0% 3.45% 0% 96.55% 97.31 78

3 0% 0% 0% 5.44% 0% 94.56% 96.91 78

4 0% 0% 0% 3.53% 0% 96.47% 97.29 78

5 0% 0% 0% 3.16% 0% 96.84% 97.37 78

6 0% 0% 0% 2.06% 0% 97.94% 97.59 78

7 0% 0% 0% 7.35% 0% 92.65% 96.53 78

8 0% 0% 0% 1.07% 0% 98.93% 97.79 78

9 0% 0% 0% 0.67% 0% 99.33% 97.87 78

10 0% 0% 0% 2.32% 0% 97.68% 97.54 78

11 0% 0% 0% 3.23% 0% 96.77% 97.35 78

12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100.00% 98.00 0

39

rcn C rcn D flow type K

Wooded 77 83 small tributary 2.1 Recurance Average PrecipationMeadow 71 78 waterway 1.2 Years in

Impervious 98 98 sheet flow 0.48 1 2.22

2 2.56

5 3.2

Sub Basin Soil C Area Soil D Area Wooded Area meadow Area impervious area Pond 10 3.79

units sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft 25 4.7

1 0 44047.13 0 1212.27 42834.86 1 50 5.48

2 0 49959.70 0 1722.27 48237.43 1 100 6.33

3 0 28855.54 0 1571.02 27284.52 1 200 7.27

4 0 17445.36 0 615.37 16829.99 1 500 8.61

5 0 5213.39 0 164.96 5048.43 1 1000 9.71

6 0 21839.05 0 450.41 21388.64 1

7 0 11122.44 0 817.02 10305.42 1

8 0 35082.51 0 377.13 34705.38 1

9 0 16629.05 0 112.19 16516.86 1

10 0 20657.51 0 479.40 20178.11 1

11 0 34869.56 0 1125.35 33744.21 1

12 0 6656.90 0 0.00 6656.90 1

24 hr KE Storms (Atlas 14)

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

0 0.2 0.5 1 Months

Option Water AveraZones # Total WaterMay June July August September October All but SprinAll but Fall Only SummeAll

1 0.93 0.87 gallons/zone gallons

1 0.94 0.88 0.83 Only Sem Po 25130 15 376950 22617.4016 60302.3622 146987.0079 67840.1575 75377.9528 3768.8976 354276.4 297746.9 275129.5 376893.8

1 0.95 0.89 0.84 Front of Calv 25130 30 753900 45234.8031 120604.724 293974.0157 135680.315 150755.906 7537.7953 708552.8 595493.9 550259.1 753787.6

1 0.96 0.9 0.86 Total Zones 127 191,494.00 510,560.00 1,244,490.00 574,380.00 638,200.00 31,910.00 1 0.97 0.91 0.87

1 0.98 0.92 0.88

1 0.99 0.94 0.9

1 1 0.95 0.92

1 1 0.96 0.94

1 1 0.97 0.96

Percent Ponding

Ponding FactorWater Use

41

Tc calcs

type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti

sheet flow 0.48 3.2 227.8044833 0.111230701 sheet flow 0.48 3.6 324.1188333 0.177976 sheet flow 0.48 3 301.4228 0.174848

type K deltaz L tc type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti

sheet flow 0.48 1 165.6073833 0.123332009 sheet flow 0.48 0.6 70.8505 0.044555 sheet flow 0.48 1 122.5048 0.078467

type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti

sheet flow 0.48 3.3 233.23545 0.113472633 sheet flow 0.48 7 394.6747 0.171501 sheet flow 0.48 1.5 148.6856 0.085667

type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti type K deltaz L ti

sheet flow 0.48 1.3 217.7462083 0.163083674 sheet flow 0.48 0.5 284.52075 0.392773 sheet flow 0.48 1.5 165.4244 0.100533

sb10 sb11 sb12

sb5 sb6

sb7 sb8 sb9

sb1

sb4

sb2 sb3

42

6A aggregate gravel volume Width [ft]  Height [ft]  Area [ft2]  Number  Total Area [ft2]  Volume [ft3] 

Top rows  173.5  20  3470  2.0  6940  30652 

Bottom Rows  173.5  54.5  9455.75  1.0  9455.75  41763 

Top Columns  16.5  132  2178  2  4356  19239 

Bottom Columns  16.5  179  2953.5  2  5907  26089 

Chamber Overlap  11236 

Total 6A Gravel  106507 

Storage Before overflow begins (0.4 void space for 6A)

Volume [ft3]  Volume [yd3] 

Total 6A Gravel Storage   42603  1578 

Total Chamber Storage   11236  416 

Total Combined Storage   53839  1994 

21AA modified crushed stone, above 6A

Width [ft]  Height [ft]  Area [ft2]  Number  Total Area [ft2]  Volume [yd3] 

Top rows  173.5  20  3470  2.0  6940  471 

Bottom Rows  173.5  54.5  9455.75  1.0  9455.75  642 

Top Columns  16.5  132  2178  2  4356  296 

Bottom Columns  16.5  179  2953.5  2  5907  401 

Addition for Grade    1    26658.75  987 

Total Gravel    2798 

Excavation Required

Volume  [yd3] 

6A aggregate base   3945 

Modified Crushed Stone 21AA   2798 

Total Chamber Storage   1994 

Total Excavation  8737 

Storage system perimeter

Perimeter [ft] 

Outside  1516.5 

Top Gap  459 

Bottom Gap  364 

Total  2340 

Layer depths and stone type

   Gravel 

  Height [in] 

Above Chamber (21AA)  22 (minimum) 

Below Chamber (6A)  9 

43

Chamber (6A)  44 

Below + Chamber (6A)  53  

44

Appendix C: Final Drawings

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58