Sub-PAR Engineers - Calvin College

Team 02 Project Proposal and Feasibility Study Calvin College Department of Engineering Engineering 339 Senior Design Project

Sub-PAR Engineers

Justin Brink Ryan Byma Josh De Young Jarod Stuyvesant

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

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sub-PAR Engineers Team will provide a set of preliminary plans for the Christian Athletic Complex golf course, Stormy Creek Golf Course. The team is working with Graham Rayburn, executive director at the CAC. The back nine of Fellowship Greens has four holes located on Plaster Creek. Currently, after a 2-year rain event, the ground remains saturated for up to three days in areas near the creek. Also, the four bridges across Plaster Creek are in poor condition and need to be replaced. Finally, the stream banks in some areas are eroding away, causing sediment to be washed downstream. The goal of this project is to provide a bridge replacement or maintenance plan, prevent further stream bank erosion, and diminish flooding on the golf course after a significant rain event. The team has provided alternatives for all three design areas, and will decide on these based on client needs and influences by governing bodies. A base plan has been developed to focus efforts on specific design alternatives. In the spring, the team will develop plans of the preliminary design for the chosen design alternatives. In addition to preliminary plans, the team will have a 3-D model of the proposed bridges, and possibly a physical scale model as well. The team will also continue to collect site data, such as cross-sections at different locations on the creek, soil information, and best locations to implement the designs.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 3 TABLE OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... 5 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 8 1.1.

Calvin College Engineering Program .............................................................................. 8

1.2.

Team Members ................................................................................................................. 8

1.2.1.

Justin Brink ............................................................................................................... 8

1.2.2.

Ryan Byma................................................................................................................ 9

1.2.3.

Josh De Young .......................................................................................................... 9

1.2.4.

Jarod Stuyvesant ....................................................................................................... 9

1.3.

2.

Project Description ........................................................................................................... 9

1.3.1.

Location .................................................................................................................... 9

1.3.2.

Current Conditions .................................................................................................... 9

1.3.3.

Client ......................................................................................................................... 9

1.3.4.

Project Scope .......................................................................................................... 10

PROJECT OVERVIEW............................................................................................................. 10 2.1.

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

2.1.1.

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

2.1.2.

Schedule .................................................................................................................. 10

2.1.3.

Budget ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.4.

Design Approach .................................................................................................... 11

2.2.

Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1.

Drainage Improvements .......................................................................................... 11

2.2.2.

Bridge Replacement ................................................................................................ 12

2.2.3.

Stream Bank Stabilization....................................................................................... 13

2.3.

Requirements .................................................................................................................. 13

2.3.1.

Site Information ...................................................................................................... 14

2.3.2.

Research .................................................................................................................. 14

2.3.3.

Meetings .................................................................................................................. 14

2.4.

Design Norms ................................................................................................................. 15

2.4.1.

Transparency ........................................................................................................... 15

2.4.2.

Integrity ................................................................................................................... 15 3

2.4.3. 3.

INITIAL RESEARCH ............................................................................................................... 15 3.1.

Existing Conditions................................................................................................. 15

3.1.2.

Long Range Planning Report .................................................................................. 19

3.1.3.

Client Priorities ....................................................................................................... 19

City of Kentwood ........................................................................................................... 19

3.2.1.

Codes and Ordinances............................................................................................. 19

3.2.2.

Permitting................................................................................................................ 19

3.3.

Plaster Creek Stewards ................................................................................................... 20

3.3.1.

Initiatives................................................................................................................. 20

3.3.2.

Best Management Practices .................................................................................... 20

3.3.3.

Design Recommendations ...................................................................................... 20

3.4.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality........................................................... 20

3.4.1.

Floodplain ............................................................................................................... 20

3.4.2.

Bridge Design ......................................................................................................... 20

3.5.

Similar Design Solutions ................................................................................................ 20

3.5.1.

Calvin College ........................................................................................................ 20

3.5.2.

Golf Courses ........................................................................................................... 21

PRELIMINARY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 22 4.1.

Fairway Drainage ........................................................................................................... 22

4.1.1.

Underdrains ............................................................................................................. 22

4.1.2.

Bioswales ................................................................................................................ 22

4.1.3.

Detention Ponds ...................................................................................................... 23

4.2.

Golf Cart Bridges ........................................................................................................... 23

4.2.1.

Arched ..................................................................................................................... 23

4.2.2.

Flat Girders ............................................................................................................. 24

4.2.3.

Location of Foundations ......................................................................................... 24

4.3.

5.

Stormy Creek Golf Course ............................................................................................. 15

3.1.1.

3.2.

4.

Trust ........................................................................................................................ 15

Erosion Control .............................................................................................................. 24

4.3.1.

Stream Bank Vegetation ......................................................................................... 24

4.3.2.

Stream Bank Cut ..................................................................................................... 25

BUSINESS PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 25 4

5.1.

5.1.1.

Material Cost ........................................................................................................... 25

5.1.2.

Christian Athletic Complex Considerations ........................................................... 25

5.2.

6.

Cost................................................................................................................................. 25

Benefits........................................................................................................................... 25

5.2.1.

Aesthetic Appeal ..................................................................................................... 25

5.2.2.

Increased Reliability ............................................................................................... 26

5.2.3.

Increased Revenue .................................................................................................. 26

FUTURE WORK ...................................................................................................................... 26 6.1.

Preliminary Design ......................................................................................................... 26

6.1.1.

Drainage Strategy.................................................................................................... 26

6.1.2.

Bridge Design ......................................................................................................... 26

6.1.3.

Soil Erosion Plan..................................................................................................... 26

7.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 27

8.

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 27

9.

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A: Christian Athletic Complex Summary Report .................................................... 28 Appendix B: Meeting Minutes .................................................................................................. 29 Appendix C: DEQ Correspondence .......................................................................................... 30 Appendix D: Multi-Flow Typical Fairway Drainage Installation ............................................. 31 Appendix E: Preliminary Drainage Improvments ..................................................................... 32

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Sub-PAR Engineers Team: Ryan Byma, Jarod Stuyvesant, Josh De Young, and Justin Brink ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2: Site map showing bridge locations ................................................................................ 13 Figure 3: Site map showing areas likely to flood ......................................................................... 16 Figure 4: Flooding on Hole 11 ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Flooding and bridge on Hole 11 .................................................................................... 17 Figure 6: Eroding Plaster Creek stream banks at Hole 12 ............................................................ 17 Figure 7: Fallen tree due to erosion on Hole 12............................................................................ 18 Figure 8: Wooden bridge at Hole 13............................................................................................. 18 Figure 9: Calvin College's bioswale near nature center preserve ................................................. 21 5

Figure 10: Existing swale with cobble banks and check dams on golf course in Santa Barbara . 21 Figure 11: Multi-Flow drainage system ........................................................................................ 22 Figure 12: Arched golf cart bridge example ................................................................................. 23 Figure 13: Arched golf cart bridge example ................................................................................. 24

6

ABBREVIATIONS ABET

Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology

BSE

Bachelor’s of Science in Engineering

CAC

Christian Athletic Complex

DEQ

Department of Environmental Quality

LRE

Land & Resource Engineering, Inc

SCGC

Stormy Creek Golf Course

SCS

Soil Conservation Service

7

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Calvin College Engineering Program Calvin College is a 4-year liberal arts college located in Grand Rapids, MI. The Calvin Engineering Program has been accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET). The Engineering Program offers a Bachelor's of Science in Engineering (BSE) degree with a concentration in one of four engineering disciplines: civil and environmental engineering, chemical engineering, electrical and computer engineering, and mechanical engineering. During the final year of the 4-year BSE program, students participate in a capstone course, known as Senior Design. The goal of this course is to integrate what students have learned in the program into a real world project that spans the academic year. The course also teaches students to be Christian professionals in the engineering workforce. "The engineering program equips students to glorify God by meeting the needs of the world with responsible and caring engineering." [1] 1.2. Team Members The Sub-PAR Engineers Team consists of four civil and environmental engineering students, each with unique interests and skills. Each team member is committed to developing solutions which fit the needs of the client and using their gifts and talents to further God's kingdom.

Figure 1: Sub-PAR Engineers Team: Ryan Byma, Jarod Stuyvesant, Josh De Young, and Justin Brink

1.2.1. Justin Brink Justin Brink is from Grand Rapids, Michigan and graduated from Grand Rapids Christian High School. Justin spends lots of his spare time outdoors, enjoying activities such as soccer, rock climbing, hockey, skiing, and extreme downhill sledding. In his future career, Justin hopes to be involved as a traffic engineer or working with site development and planning. Within this project, Justin finds the drainage and the problems that lie within Plaster Creek particularly interesting. He is still looking for jobs in the area where he can utilize his skills, preferably in the area of traffic and road design. 8

1.2.2. Ryan Byma Ryan Byma graduated from high school in Lynden, Washington, but grew up in northern Michigan. Ryan's hobbies include any type of sport, such as baseball, golfing, wakeboarding and snowboarding. He is interested in buildings, architectural and structural engineering, and site planning and site development. For this project, Ryan is most interested in the design of the golf cart bridges, but is finding an interest in drainage as well. Ryan has completed an architecture minor at Calvin, and has plans to pursue a job in the Midwest where he can practice both architecture and civil engineering. 1.2.3. Josh De Young Josh De Young grew up in Waupun, Wisconsin and graduated from Central Wisconsin Christian School. He is interested in site development and road and highway design. Josh attends Calvin College and is studying Civil Engineering. He will be graduating in May and plans to pursue a consulting job in the Grand Rapids area. For this project Josh is the website designer. 1.2.4. Jarod Stuyvesant Jarod Stuyvesant is originally from Grandville, Michigan. He attended Calvin Christian High School. He enjoys golfing, wakeboarding, hiking, and snowboarding. At Calvin College, he is studying Civil engineering, with an interest in site development, highway construction, building design, and bridge construction. After graduation in May 2016, Jarod plans to pursue a consulting job in the Grand Rapids area. 1.3. Project Description 1.3.1. Location The Christian Athletic Complex (CAC) (formerly known as the Christian Recreation Center) is located in Kentwood, MI near the southeast corner of the intersection of 36th St. SE and Shaffer Ave. The property is accessed from both 36th St. and Shaffer Ave. The property is about 121 acres in size and includes 8 softball fields, a basketball court, miniature golf, and an 18-hole golf course known as Stormy Creek Golf Course (SCGC). 1.3.2. Current Conditions At the present time, SCGC is experiencing numerous drainage and erosion problems. Plaster Creek often overflows its banks due to a rain event, causing flooding on the golf course. The 100-year floodplain elevation for Plaster Creek covers about 75% of the back nine holes of the course, including four complete fairways. Once the flood waters recede back within the creek banks, the ground around the creek remains saturated and can take up to 72 hours to drain enough to allow golfers back on the course. When the water level in the creek is high, it also erodes the stream banks, causing scour at the bridge piers and large portions of soil to be carried downstream. Because of these conditions, the bridges are nearing the end of their life expectancy. One bridge is 30 years old, while the other three are 15 years old, and at least one bridge is expected to fail within five years. [2] 1.3.3. Client The client for the project is the CAC and Graham Rayburn is the representative for the client. Mr. Rayburn serves as the executive director at the CAC and is very knowledgeable about 9

current operations. He has 17 years of experience in the golf and turf industry and spent four years as the Director of Golf for Gratiot Country Club and the Fields Golf Course. 1.3.4. Project Scope The scope of this project will focus on three main areas of concern for SCGC. On September 18, the design team met with Mr. Rayburn for the first time and asked what his priorities were for the project. The first priority was safety concerning the golf cart bridges and the excessive wear the bridges have experienced. Mr. Rayburn noted that with public safety being the most important, the replacement of the four golf cart bridges would be something the design team should consider. Second, the drainage of the golf course is another main concern and a priority for the project. The client expressed displeasure with the current drainage system, as it does not efficiently drain water from the course. In most cases, the ground will remain saturated for 48 – 72 hours after a rain event. This makes it impossible or very difficult for golfers to get on the course during that period. The client stated that the goal is not to prevent flooding, but simply try to manage it better than what is being done now. He needs a place to go with the water, and currently has nowhere to put it, so it remains on the course. The design team will explore ways to solve this problem efficiently. The third priority is controlling soil erosion on the banks of the creek. When the water in the creek is high, large portions of stream bank are eroded and carried away by the creek. The design team will also consider measures for stream bank stabilization as part of the project. [3]

2.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.1. Project Management 2.1.1. Team Organization Ryan Byma is the team leader and is in charge of arranging meeting times with the client representative, industrial consultant, and any other parties involved in this project. He also coordinates meetings and deadlines within the team itself. Josh De Young is the website manager, and is in charge of keeping the website live and up to date with the team's most recent progress. Josh also does research regarding possible design solutions and is helping to develop the team's business plan for the project. Jarod Stuyvesant is in charge of keeping meeting minutes during formal meetings with the client, consultant, city engineers, Plaster Creek Stewards, and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Jarod also works extensively on the working CAD drawing and keeps information in the file up to date. Justin Brink provides the team with research and offers insightful design ideas while assisting Josh with the business plan. 2.1.2. Schedule The senior design project course is broken up into two semesters. During the first semester, the team's main priority was meeting with all parties involved in this project, gathering research about possible solutions, and developing a number of design alternatives. The team has drawn an existing layout of the entire site, based on data from previous surveys, Google Maps, and floodplain information from Land & Resource Engineering (LRE). The team will have a list of design alternatives by the end of the first semester, based on information gathered during meetings and site visits.

10

During the second semester, the team will come up with a preliminary design for the project. This design will include a bridge replacement/maintenance proposal, a drainage modification design that will allow for much quicker flood water recession, and a soil erosion design that will allow for more volume of water to be contained within the creek banks, while also reducing soil deposits from erosion of the banks. 2.1.3. Budget The budget for this project will likely stay below the $500 threshold set by the Calvin College Engineering Department. The only expected expenses would be a formal meeting with the DEQ, a scale model of the potential bridge design, and a sample of proposed underdrain material to test on site in the spring. 2.1.4. Design Approach The team will first determine the feasibility of the project. Ideally, the final design would include four new bridges, a drainage system that outlets into a detention system such as bioswales or ponds, and a plan to modify the banks of the creek in order to allow more water to flow through, make the banks healthier and less likely to erode. However, there are many restrictions when doing work inside the 100 year floodplain, which encompasses a large portion of the site. The DEQ will have control over some of the design aspects of the project. The team has received information from the DEQ regarding the regulations concerning the cart bridges, and is awaiting answers pertaining to design options for drainage and erosion control. As soon as these regulations are known, the team can move forward with design. Because the team is waiting for these answers, some of the final design alternatives cannot be fully determined at this time. Knowing the bridge regulations allows the team to move forward with their design of the four cart bridges. The team will develop their final design alternatives after receiving more information from the DEQ. Once the final alternatives are chosen, the team will take these to the client representative and begin sketching of potential designs and development of the base plan. A cost estimate will be performed for each alternative. Mr. Rayburn and the team will then collaborate to decide which alternative is the most economical, feasible, and aesthetically pleasing. During the second semester of this design project, the team will work on a set of preliminary plans for the proposed design. 2.2. Objectives The design team has developed objectives relating to three areas of the golf course that will guide the project. These objectives are the criteria that the team would like to meet at the completion of the project. 2.2.1. Drainage Improvements The design team has developed objectives for improving drainage on the golf course. The first objective is to reduce the turnaround time that it takes for golfers to return to the course after a rain event. Currently, the ground will remain saturated for up to 72 hours after the flood waters have receded into the creek banks, causing delays and loss of revenue for the CAC. The objective set forth for this area of the project includes developing a plan to reduce the amount of downtime the course experiences after the flood waters have receded. It remains to be determined whether this objective will include both walking golfers and golfers riding in carts. 11

Obviously, because the carts weigh more than a walking golfer, the ground would need to be drained more in order to allow carts on the course. The team will need to perform field tests and research to decide the final criteria of this objective. At a minimum, the ground will need to be drained enough to allow walking golfers, likely with pull carts, to return to the course in less time than current conditions allow. Mr. Rayburn and the CAC would prefer the time golf course to be playable within 24 hours after the flood has receded, but the design team will need to test the preliminary design in order to determine whether this is a realistic goal. At a minimum, the team would like to reduce the time before golfers return to the course. According to the CAC’s Long Range Planning Report, “the goal here is not to eliminate the flooding, just try to manage it.” [2] 2.2.2. Bridge Replacement Another objective concerning this project deals with the four existing bridges and the priority that they be replaced. The current bridges are nearing the end of their life expectancy and will need to be replaced. The objective that has been determined for the project is that the four golf cart bridges will be replaced or maintained, and the design team will develop plans to achieve this objective. Based on email correspondence with the DEQ, the design team’s primary alternative is a feasible objective. The bridge projects would fall under the DEQ regulations for a Minor Project and the team has been able to obtain the criteria that the proposed bridges would need to meet in order to be permitted. The requirements are straightforward and fall under two laws, Part 31 and Part 301. Part 31 requires “a clear span bridge that has the lowest bottom of beam elevation at or above the natural ground elevations on either bank and the approach fill sloping to natural ground elevations within 10 feet on either end of the bridge.” The main requirement of Part 301 states that the bridge foundations must span a minimum of 1.2 times the bankfull width of the creek. [4][5] These are the primary requirements that the team needs to meet in the design of the new bridges. The design team plans to design new arched bridges with a longer span and move the footings farther from the creek. Also, there seems to be no major issue concerning the deconstruction of the existing bridges. The 4 bridge locations are shown in Figure 2. The approximate bankfull stream width at the four bridge crossings is between 30 feet and 40 feet. In order to meet the Part 301 requirements, the new bridges would need to span 36 – 48 feet. In addition to the DEQ regulations, an ordinance from the City of Kentwood establishes a do-not-disturb zone that extends 25 feet on either side of the centerline of Plaster Creek. [6] A variance to this ordinance could be obtained, but in order to meet this requirement, the team will likely design bridges with a span of at least 50 feet so that the abutments are not within the donot-disturb zone.

12

#11

#12 #11 #11

#13

#15

Figure 2: Site map showing bridge locations

2.2.3. Stream Bank Stabilization In addition to the drainage and bridge objectives, the design team has also outlined objectives to control the erosion of the creek bank on the areas that are in-play on the golf course. When the water level in the creek is high, the banks of the creek are being eroded away and carried downstream. The design team will develop plans to stabilize the banks of the creek. This might include log vanes, cutting the stream banks back to a stable slope, and reinforcing the soil with large rocks or natural vegetation. Another potential solution would be a geotextile fabric wrapping method of the soil in 12" lifts. In either case, natural vegetation with large root systems will be planted on the stream banks to help hold them in place. The team is awaiting information from the DEQ pertaining to allowable methods to stabilize the banks. Once this information is received, the team will move forward with design. 2.3. Requirements In order to meet the objectives, the design team has outlined requirements that need to be met. There may be requirements that are specific to each objective, but three basic requirements are explained below.

13

2.3.1. Site Information The team will need to gather information from the site, including contour and grade information, soil data, as-built plans, floodplain and wetlands data, and creek hydrology. The contour information will initially be obtained from a Regis survey of the area, but the team likely will need more accurate data than what is provided. In this case, members of the team will take measurements on-site to determine grades and stream cross sections. Preliminary soil information has been obtained from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) website, and allows the team to approximately determine which soil types are on the site to a depth of 60 inches. As-built plans of an existing sanitary sewer that traverses the site have also been given to the team by the City of Kentwood, and Mr. Rayburn also provided the design team with preliminary plans of the existing bridges, as well as helpful correspondence from when the bridges were built. Information regarding the floodplain and wetlands has also been obtained. During the process of the CAC's long range planning, LRE provided the CAC with a plan showing the 100 year floodplain and wetland delineation. The design team currently does not have hydrology information for Plaster Creek because it is unsure whether a creek model will be necessary for this project. If a model is required, the team has two contacts at the Kent County Drain Commissioner's Office and Plaster Creek Stewards that may be able to assist with the model. The team will also need to acquire information about flood levels for certain rain events. The information that the team has gathered is organized into a working AutoCAD file which will be used to determine the ideal areas for the design solutions. 2.3.2. Research In addition to gather site information, the team has also performed research into possible design solutions to meet the three main objectives. This research includes possible drainage and detention techniques, golf course design, bridge design, and soil erosion control measures. Drainage techniques include multi-flow drainage systems, which use vertically stacked tubes, allowing for more surface area. From the bridge research, the team learned about common golf course bridge techniques, as well as the possibility of using prefabricated bridge structures. As far as soil erosion research, Michael Ryskamp of Plaster Creek Stewards provided the team with some insight into possible solutions, including log vanes and natural vegetation. It is expected that some of this research will carry into the spring semester, and will become more focused after meeting with all involved parties to determine the design parameters for the project. The design team also expects to visit sites where similar solutions have been implemented, such as small arched bridges over waterways and sites where drainage has been improved by using similar techniques. 2.3.3. Meetings During the fall semester, the design team has participated in many meetings with all involved parties. This is a requirement for the project, as it allows the team to understand certain viewpoints and guidelines that must be followed. First, the team met with the client representative to determine the scope of the project and understand the client’s goals and priorities. Since that meeting, two other meetings have been held with the client representative to visit the site and observe some areas of greatest concern, and to update him on the progress of the project. The design team has also met with engineers and officials from the City of 14

Kentwood to understand some of the codes and ordinances that govern the area in which the work will be done. A meeting was also held with the DEQ via email to determine the guidelines under which the project would need to fall in order to get approval, and ultimately, a permit from the DEQ. The design team also met with an industrial consultant, Robert Lamer from Exxel Engineering, and Michael Ryskamp from Plaster Creek Stewards. Mr. Lamer provided the team with insights into dealing with the DEQ and Mr. Ryskamp provided possible design alternatives, as well as DEQ contacts and best management practices currently being used in the Plaster Creek watershed. Mr. Ryskamp also gave the team examples of bioswale techniques that he is currently implementing at Indian Trails Golf Course. 2.4. Design Norms In keeping with the Christian calling of the Calvin College Engineering Program, the design team has outlined three design norms to guide the project. These norms provide ethical guidelines and a framework for the design process. 2.4.1. Transparency The design team understands that in order to complete the project and meet the objectives, the team will need to be transparent in many parts of the project. This includes communication with the client and governing agencies. Questions and concerns should be properly communicated and the team should do everything in its power to follow parameters set forth by all parties. 2.4.2. Integrity The designs set forth by the team should be complete, and be pleasing and intuitive to use. The project should provide a harmony of form and function, and users should feel comfortable using both the golf course and the bridges. The designs should perform their intended use while providing users with pleasure. 2.4.3. Trust The project should be trustworthy and reliable. The designs should be dependable and be able to last for an extended period of time without unnecessary maintenance. The team should avoid conflict of interest between involved parties.

3.

INITIAL RESEARCH

3.1. Stormy Creek Golf Course 3.1.1. Existing Conditions The first meeting with Mr. Rayburn was held at the site on September 18. The purpose of the meeting was to become acquainted with the client as well as the physical site. A tour of the course followed shortly after this meeting and Mr. Rayburn showed the team some of the areas that cause the biggest problems on the course. The design team took many photos of the existing creek on the back nine of the course, as well as the four bridges over the creek. The holes with the greatest concern are #11, #12, # 13, and #15.

15

Figure 3: Site map showing areas likely to flood

The par-3 10th hole does not have many drainage issues, as only the 10th green is within the 100 year floodplain. The 11th hole runs along the downstream portion of Plaster Creek, and experiences a considerable amount of flooding during rain events. The entirety of the 11th hole is within the floodplain. The bridge across the creek on this hole is also close to the water surface, and the creek banks are eroding.

Figure 4: Flooding on Hole 11

16

Figure 5: Flooding and bridge on Hole 11

Hole 12 runs in between two wooded areas along the creek. This fairway is flat and floods easily, and also lies entirely within the floodplain. The bridge here is in similar condition as the bridge on the 11th hole. The ground elevation here is about 4 feet above normal creek levels. Plaster Creek affects the 12th hole in two places, crossing the fairway between the tee box and the green, and also makes a sharp bend near the green. Some of the stream banks on this hole are vertical, causing a great amount of erosion when water levels are high.

Figure 6: Eroding Plaster Creek stream banks at Hole 12

17

Figure 7: Fallen tree due to erosion on Hole 12

Figure 8: Wooden bridge at Hole 13

Hole 13 has now been converted into a par 3, with the green being placed right across the creek. The bridge on this hole is over 30 years old. The stream banks along the green at hole 13 are not protected, which causes fear of the green being eroded away. Hole 14 is located at a higher elevation out of the floodplain and does not cause concern Mr. Rayburn pertaining to drainage. Hole 15 is at another low point and crosses the creek. The bridge at this location has also experienced wear, mostly from excessive erosion of the soil protecting the bridge piers. The creek banks here are in better condition than the other holes. There is a swale across the fairway on this hole to funnel water toward the creek. Holes 16, 17, and 18 are mostly out of the floodplain and pose less threat to flooding after storms. 18

3.1.2. Long Range Planning Report Over the course of the past year, the CAC has studied their existing spaces and land use and developed a Long Range Planning Report. The basis for this project originally came from the CAC's proposed master plan, which was fully detailed and explained in a detailed report by the Long Range Planning Committee. [2] Eventually, as indicated in the full report, the CAC would like to build soccer fields, a new maintenance building, bathrooms throughout the golf course, a new concession stand, remodel the existing clubhouse, and resurface all the fairways on the golf course. The estimated cost for this whole project was around $10 million. All items discussed in the master plan were intended to be implemented over an extended period of time. 3.1.3. Client Priorities Because all of the master plan propositions would be too much to design in the given timeline of 9 months, the team asked Mr. Rayburn which areas are the highest priority. Thus, the team focused on repair and replacement of the bridges, improving the drainage after rain events, and fixing the erosion issues in certain areas. Graham was insistent that the drainage and bridges be fixed as soon as possible. First, even after a small rain event, the course's back nine is almost impassable. This situation prevents business and also irritates customers when they can't play. Furthermore, the course remains noticeably soggy during the week after a rain storm. As noted in the Long Range Planning Report, the CAC “wastes so much money trying to maintain a wet facility, it is a burden financially.” [2] In addition to the flooding issues, the bridges raise concern for the safety of the users. The CAC would prefer sturdy and reliable bridges that do not prevent flow, and look aesthetically pleasing. 3.2. City of Kentwood 3.2.1. Codes and Ordinances When the team met with the City of Kentwood, the city personnel was asked what regulations or limitations there might be when working inside the floodplain, or next to Plaster Creek. They informed the team that their only stipulation was a do not disturb area which prevents any kind of excavation or construction. This area extends 25 feet from each side of the stream centerline, but a variance could be granted depending on the type of work being done. They told the team that the DEQ might require new bridges to span the 100-yr floodplain. This feat would be nearly impossible at the CAC, because the floodplain is roughly a minimum of 150 feet wide at most places. They gave the team tentative information that any underdrain could outlet into the creek directly. As a result of their uncertainty with how the DEQ would view the problem, they suggested setting up a meeting with the DEQ. 3.2.2. Permitting In addition to information about restrictions within the floodplain, the City of Kentwood informed the team that a number of permits would be needed to do any work. They suggested meeting with the DEQ with a list of different design alternatives and let them decide which would be the most feasible. This would be the best way to get a permit approved. It is undecided at this point whether or not the team will apply for permits, or if the engineering firm that takes this project over will apply for them. [6]

19

3.3. Plaster Creek Stewards 3.3.1. Initiatives The team met with Michael Ryskamp, a Plaster Creek Steward member and faculty member at Calvin College. This was a step in the right direction with the design and helped the team get acquainted with the Plaster Creek watershed specifically and current initiatives being used. Mr. Ryskamp is currently involved in a similar project at Indian Trails Golf Course, which is also located on Plaster Creek and experiences similar problems. He has considerable experience with this watershed, and knows which designs work best for each scenario. 3.3.2. Best Management Practices Mr. Ryskamp informed the team that outletting an underdrain directly into the creek will likely not be permissible by the DEQ. He described how they usually keep all drainage to the creek on top of the ground surface using bioswales and detention ponds. 3.3.3. Design Recommendations Mr. Ryskamp suggested using swales in the rough areas between holes or next to holes to funnel water away from the course. At the end of each swale, he encouraged the use of an outlet structure that limits the discharge to the value given by the DEQ. Also, he told the team that they would have to have some kind of water quality treatment method, such as cobblestone check dams. These would naturally settle out the sediment or soil washed away by the rain. These swales could be enlarged or shrunk to account for runoff volumes. [7] 3.4. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 3.4.1. Floodplain The DEQ regulates all construction within the 100-year floodplain. The team will use their assistance and direction when deciding which design alternatives to use. Some items of discussion will be the underdrain outlet locations, amount of discharge allowed into the creek, and whether or not cutting back stream banks will be allowed. The design team is awaiting answers regarding these alternatives, and hopes to receive guidelines about the DEQ requirements in the coming weeks. 3.4.2. Bridge Design The City of Kentwood had mentioned that the DEQ might not allow the demolition of existing bridges and construction of new bridges. However, after receiving correspondence from the DEQ, it appears that designing new bridges and removing the existing bridges will be permissible by the DEQ, as long as the new bridges meet the design criteria. The design team believes that the new bridges will be able to meet the DEQ requirements and are moving forward with design of new arched bridges with foundations that are farther from the creek than the existing bridge piers. 3.5. Similar Design Solutions 3.5.1. Calvin College Calvin College currently utilizes a drainage swale located on the east side of the campus by the nature center preserve. The design of this swale is similar to what the team had in mind for the

20

CAC. The size of this swale is expected to be similar to what would be needed on the golf course at the CAC, based on available space, desired depth, and side slopes.

Figure 9: Calvin College's bioswale near nature center preserve

3.5.2. Golf Courses As mentioned earlier, Indian Trails Golf Course is implementing a swale with cobble check dams on their 11th hole. This is a common practice with golf courses. Depending on placement and methods of construction and design, the swale can bring a certain aesthetic appeal to the course.

Figure 10: Existing swale with cobble banks and check dams on golf course in Santa Barbara

Golf courses use these drainage designs to allow for quick removal of a large portion of rainfall, while adding an attractive feature to the course. Some of the water stored in these swales can infiltrate into the ground as soon as the soil will allow, without creating problems on the fairways of the golf course. These structures do create a potential hazard for golfer's strokes, but the placement of these swales can be manipulated to minimize golfers from hitting their balls into 21

them. These locations will be shown to Mr. Rayburn and he will give the team feedback as to whether or not these locations will minimize interference with play.

4.

PRELIMINARY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

4.1. Fairway Drainage 4.1.1. Underdrains One of the options being considered for fairway and rough area drainage would be a series of underdrain piping systems, which gathers water infiltrated through the grass and soil, and directs it into Plaster Creek or the bioswales. This design plan would only remain in the team's list of alternatives if approved by the DEQ. Since there has been a considerable amount of hesitation if water is directly outletted into the creek, this idea may not be feasible. However, underdrains could be used to efficiently bring water into proposed or existing detention ponds or bioswales. The current method being considered is a series of branching underdrain pipes. There would be about 3 or 4 branches per swale. One of these branches would include a main line pipe extending toward the desired drainage area. From this mainline, four or five pipes would branch off in various directions, equally spaced. These pipes will all be backfilled with coarse sand, allowing for quicker infiltration. The team is considering implementing the Multi-Flow drainage system pipe design, which utilizes vertically stacked smaller pipes. The minimum cover for these is 6 inches. The ends of the branches would start at this elevation, and run toward the swales at a slope of 1%. [8]

Figure 11: Multi-Flow drainage system

4.1.2. Bioswales As described in the previous section, bioswales are used in a wide variety of applications. Currently, this solution is thought to be the most practical, useful, and feasible. This option will allow for natural sediment control with cobblestone check dams throughout the swale. Also, an outlet structure would regulate the discharge from the swale if the stored water reaches a certain level. The outlet would be designed to keep the peak discharge below the requirements set by the DEQ. The team plans to have an emergency overflow spillway if the water level in the swale gets too high. The team will design the side slopes of the swale to be vegetated with natural and native plants with large root structures. The size of the bioswale could be adjusted to meet these requirements and to fit within the space requirements of the DEQ. If the size requirement of the swale was too large, a detention pond could be implemented into the design as well. [9] 22

4.1.3. Detention Ponds There are currently two detention ponds located in the course already, and these seem to be useful with getting surface water off of the course. Rain water is routed to these ponds via existing underdrains, and they have an overflow structure in the middle, which transports water into an underground piping system connected to the Kentwood municipal storm sewers. If the bioswales become too large to act as streams, then they could be made into detention ponds and treated that way in the design. After evaluating the three ideas mentioned in this section, the team has come to a conclusion that all three may have to be incorporated somehow in the design portion of this project. If the DEQ's required discharge is too small for the team to use swales, ponds may need to be implemented. However, if space is utilized and discharges are feasible with swales, these would be the best option. 4.2. Golf Cart Bridges 4.2.1. Arched Arched bridges provide many benefits to golf courses. They allow for more water to flow underneath them, preventing blockages and backups. Also, they provide a certain aesthetic appeal to golfers playing the course. Many popular courses around the world use grand arched bridges to cross over their rivers. Obviously, cost will be a big concern when designing these bridges, but the team would incorporate some kind of eye-catching feature. See the picture below for an example of an arched bridge on a golf course. Arched bridges would be the preferred option of the CAC and it appears that this alternative will be allowed by the DEQ as long as the designs meet their criteria. The main requirements of the DEQ is “a clear span bridge that has the lowest bottom of beam elevation at or above the natural ground elevations on either bank and the approach fill sloping to natural ground elevations within 10 feet on either end of the bridge" and the bridge foundations must span a minimum of 1.2 times the bankfull width of the creek. [4][5] These are the primary requirements that the team needs to meet in the design of the new bridges. The design team plans to design new arched bridges with a longer span, similar to the following pictures and move the footings farther from the creek. At the present time, the design team is moving forward with the design of new arched golf cart bridges that meet the DEQ specifications.

Figure 12: Arched golf cart bridge example

23

Figure 13: Arched golf cart bridge example

4.2.2. Flat Girders The alternative design would be flat girder bridges. This option seems to be cheaper. However, if the bridges had to be raised due to earthwork restrictions in the do not disturb area, costs could add up quickly. This option would include a design similar to the existing flat bridges currently used on site. If not raised, these new flat bridges would still restrict flow and produce blockages. Flat bridges would likely not allow the team to accomplish the goal of reducing flooding. 4.2.3. Location of Foundations With the knowledge of the DEQ requirements regarding the bridge design, the design team must determine the ideal location for the foundations of the new bridges. The foundations must span a minimum of 1.2 times the bankfull width of the creek. Preliminary measurements at the site revealed that the bankfull widths of the creek at the bridge crossings are between 30 feet and 40 feet. This means that the foundations of the new bridges would be no less than 36 feet. However, the City of Kentwood advised the team that a city ordinance establishes a 50-foot do-not-disturb zone centered on the creek. In order to satisfy the city and their ordinance, the team is planning to design the new bridges with foundations that are outside of the do-not-disturb zone. This longer span will also allow the new bridge to have a higher arch, thereby increasing the hydraulic capacity and improving the flooding of Plaster Creek. Soil borings will need to be taken in order to determine the best areas for the foundations. Using the soil borings, the team can perform a soil analysis and obtain a required depth of the pier footings. 4.3. Erosion Control 4.3.1. Stream Bank Vegetation The design team would like to work with Plaster Creek Stewards and other agencies to determine native vegetation that would be placed along the stream banks. These plants would likely have deep roots and be able to control or stop the erosion. One additional solution that may help would be planting trees along the creek in areas of concern. However, this may obstruct ball flights for the golf course and would increase costs. [10]

24

4.3.2. Stream Bank Cut If allowable by the DEQ, the design team would also prefer to propose plans that allow the stream banks to be cut back in some places along the fairways of the golf course. Currently there are places where the banks are at a vertical or 1:1 slope. The team would like to propose these banks to be cut back to a 1:2 or 1:3 slope and planted with natural and native vegetation. This would greatly reduce the erosion of the banks, and would also create more volume within the bank of the creek, which would likely help the flooding problem as well. In addition to natural vegetation, the team would like to add log vanes to hold the banks in place and further prevent additional erosion.

5.

BUSINESS PLAN

5.1. Cost 5.1.1. Material Cost Material and equipment will be the largest portion of the costs for the project. Underdrain will likely be used to direct water into the bioswales. The size required to meet the drainage needs of the CAC will be between 4" and 8" underdrain. Table 1. Underdrain Items and Their Estimated Costs Item 4" Underdrain with sand backfill 6" Underdrain with sand backfill 8" Underdrain with sand backfill

Cost per foot $6.42 $21.19 $40.60

Unit prices are from the Michigan Department of Transportation 2015 weighted average item price report. These numbers reflect a contractor's price for the work, but the CAC will be implementing the design drainage itself so these numbers may be an over-estimate. Pricing for the bridges is unavailable without designs, so this cost estimate will be developed in the future once preliminary plans are designed. 5.1.2. Christian Athletic Complex Considerations The CAC would like to keep excess costs to a minimum. Because of this, the team will utilize basic design concepts and work efficiently and effectively to come up with the best design solution for the right price. Mr. Rayburn has not given the team a dollar amount for this project yet, but this will be attained during the beginning of the design process next semester. 5.2. Benefits 5.2.1. Aesthetic Appeal Plaster Creek can be a beautiful natural creek, creating a unique area of golf course and a sense of peace and calm as golfers play through that area. Unfortunately, due to quickly rising waters and flooding, the creek is not always a welcoming site. Steep, open banks and great amounts of erosion and scour around the bridges that cross the creek have developed an area that is not beautiful and calming, but instead, raging, violent, fierce, and dilapidated. With implementation of the team's future design, the creek area will have naturally vegetated stream banks and bridges that are protected from scour and will retain their integrity for years of play to come. 25

Along with renewal of the creek, replacing the bridges will give golfers confidence with the CAC and will create a more beautiful landscape. Many golf courses are known for their signature holes, and bridges often contribute to make a hole signature to the course. Because the bridges that cross Plaster Creek are a staple image of the course and are the only part of the creek's landscape that golfers interact with in a tangible way, they greatly define how golfers view the CAC's course as a whole. In the end, the beauty that was once seen in Plaster Creek will be restored within the golf course and will be a calm, beautiful area to interact with and to play golf once again. 5.2.2. Increased Reliability If the CAC takes these steps and works towards the team's solution, the bridges will be more dependable and safe. The course will drain within the desired time interval. With these improvements the course as a whole will give the CAC's customers confidence that the course will be reliably available to them. 5.2.3. Increased Revenue With improvements to the drainage and replacement of the bridges comes an increase in aesthetic appeal. Due to this increase in appeal the course will experience more play from a higher end customer. When the course is flooded, there is no attraction, as the course is unplayable. By implementing a solution that increases playing time, customers will be able to pay for more total hours of playing time than before. With this increased demand at the CAC, they will be able to charge more and increase revenue.

6.

FUTURE WORK

6.1. Preliminary Design The spring semester will focus mainly on preliminary design of the three areas of the project. The team would like to develop preliminary plans to present to the CAC at the end of the project. 6.1.1. Drainage Strategy Depending on DEQ discharge regulations, the design team will produce plans for bioswales on the golf course and size them appropriately. This will include grading plans and calculations for volume in the swale, as well as a study of the outlet structure regarding the rim and invert elevations and orifice sizes. 6.1.2. Bridge Design The design for the golf cart bridges will utilize steel arched components. The team will complete preliminary plans for the chosen design. Each bridge will be of the same span, therefore, all four bridges will be the same design. Load calculations and structural details will be included in the plans. The team may also construct a scale model of the proposed design. 6.1.3. Soil Erosion Plan Preliminary plans for soil erosion control will also be developed. These plans should be straightforward, depending on DEQ regulations dealing with excavating in a floodplain and within a floodway. Recommendations for stream bank vegetation and cutting stream banks back 26

on an angle in certain areas will be provided. Proposed cross sections and details will be included as well.

7.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The design team would like to acknowledge and thank the following people for their guidance and support of the project up to this point and beyond. Robert Masselink of the Calvin College Engineering Department, for meeting with the team on a bi-weekly basis to keep the project on course and offer insight into design alternatives and the next steps. Graham Rayburn of the Christian Athletic Complex, for being the client contact for the project and offering any help he can regarding the design solutions. Dan Vanderheide of the City of Kentwood, for meeting with the team and providing guidance for dealing with city codes and ordinances, and for providing the team with many plans to assist with the design. Robb Lamer of Exxel Engineering, for being the industrial consultant for the project and always being willing to answer questions and help with meetings. Michael Ryskamp of Plaster Creek Stewards, for meeting with the team regarding designs that have been approved and implemented and best management practices.

8.

REFERENCES

[1]

"Calvin College Engineering," [Online]. Available: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/about/mission.html. "Summary of the Christian Athletic Complex 2014-2015 LRPC Report & Recommendations." Christian Athletic Complex, 25 July 2015. Web. 16 Nov. 2015. . Christian Athletic Complex. Meeting with Graham Rayburn. Meeting Minutes. 18 September 2015. Matthew Occhipinti, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, [Email Correspondence]. 17 November 2015 Amanda Whitscell, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, [Email Correspondence]. 2 December 2015 City of Kentwood. Meeting with Dan Vander Heide. Meeting Minutes. 14 October 2015. Calvin College. Meeting with Michael Ryskamp of Plaster Creek Stewards. Meeting Minutes. 2 November 2015. Golf Course Drainage. Multi-Flow, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. . Gibb, Terry. "Bioswales can improve water quality resources." Michigan State University Extension. N.p., 10 June 2015. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. . "Stream Bank Stabilization." Michigan.gov. N.p., Sept. 1997. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-wb-nps-sbs_250898_7.pdf

[2]

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

[10]

27

9.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Christian Athletic Complex Summary Report

28

Summary of the

Christian Recreation Center 2014 – 2015 LRPC Report & Recommendations

Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

By: Long Range Planning Committee For: Board of Directors Submitted: 7.25.2015

Drainage and Water Management One of the biggest problems the Rec Center faces is drainage and water management. Approximately 25 acres of the facility sit in the Plaster Creek flood plain. The entire facility is built on heavy clay soil that drains poorly. While the golf course bears the brunt of these problems the softball complex faces significant water management problems as well. The result in both instances is damage from play, decreased revenue and an increase in maintenance costs both in labor and wear on equipment. Flooding The 25 acres of Fellowship Greens that sits in the Plaster Creek flood plain floods regularly in the spring and fall. Occasional heavy rains in the summer can also cause the creek to breach its banks. The flooding problem is not unique to the Rec Center but occurs across Kent County within the flood plain. The problem unique to the Rec Center is that while the flood waters usually recede within 24 – 48 hours, the ground beneath remains saturated. It takes longer to mow and in many cases areas cannot be mowed due to wet conditions. In many cases crew members need to spend time removing water from portions of the facility with squeegees or pumps. This is labor intensive and can take hours if conditions are not favorable. Stream Bank Erosion and Silt Deposit A result of the heavy flooding that occurs in the Plaster Creek flood plain is severe stream bank erosion. Again, this is not a problem specific to the Rec Center, but it does result in some unique problems. First, it has created excessive wear on the bridges that exist. Second, large pieces of turf are falling into the creek and in some cases affecting irrigation pipe that runs near the creek. During flooding high volumes of silt are moved downstream. Some of this gets deposited on site and one result is high quantities deposited in our irrigation pond. Drainage Both the golf course and softball facility are built on clay soil and drain poorly. Water management techniques including water retention and drainage are both inadequate. Much effort has been made in the last two years to locate and clean existing drain tile. However, much of the tile in place is either too small, is non-perforated (does not allow water to enter), or has been crushed over the years. What drainage does exist often has nowhere to go. Bridges The bridges crossing Plaster Creek at the Rec Center are in serious peril. One bridge is nearly 30 years old and the other three are over 15 years old. All bridges were built with flat girders rather than arched. The consequences of this are excess stress on the structures as they restrict water flow during high water times and are often hit with debris. Additionally, the flat girders result in pooling around the stream bank edges. This has eroded the bridge support systems to the point where failure is likely to occur on one or more bridges within the next five years. Repairs are made as needed, but significant upgrades cannot be made without approval from the City of Kentwood and the DEQ.

8

Part 2 Land Use Options – Master Planning

12

Final Land Use Recommendation

14

2. Capacity vs. Use – Currently the supply of fields greatly outweighs the demand at the Rec Center. Eight fields could be reduced to four. 3. Umpires – It’s difficult to compare the Rec Center cost-wise to taxpayer supported municipal facilities. Art Van and Westwood are private and charge $15 per game per team for 1 umpire or $20 for 2 umpires. The Rec Center spends over $30,000 annually on umpires and does not separately charge for it. The team fees are comparable. The Rec Center has a $20 player membership fee but supplies balls for every game. 4. Marketing – Increased Participation – We need to match field capacity to demand. It costs us the same to prepare the fields no matter how many games are played on them. 5. Weekend Tournaments – Currently the Rec Center fields get very little weekend use. While adult slow pitch participation remains stagnant, youth softball, and specifically youth travel fast pitch softball continues to see high participation and growth. There are a number of local and regional teams, many without home facilities. Tournaments for ages 8-18 provide high demand for facilities like Art Van on most weekends throughout the summer. With field rentals per field, per day, parking fees, admission, concessions, etc. a single weekend tournament can generate more than $7,500 in revenue. 6. Softball Director – As in other areas, our current staff is stretched too thin with softball. A part-time softball director position is needed to adequately manage the day-to-day operations of our fields, and market our facility to begin hosting weekend tournaments. Generating weekend revenue will help offset the additional staffing costs needed. Long Range Plan 1. Number, Location, & Size of Fields – If the board moves forwarded with the LRPC recommended master plan, we’ll see a reduction to 6 fields. The quad formation for four fields works best for spectators and for maintenance. The location of the fields is largely unchanged, while the orientation would change significantly – as seen on page 14. 2. Location of Playgrounds – The playground between diamonds 3 and 6 could be removed. 3. Partnerships – The LRPC contacted the Michigan head of the USSSA Bob Wilkerson, as well as the coach of a local girls fast pitch team, the West Michigan Venom. Both expressed the need for more local field availability and thought the Rec Center could be well used for both weekend tournaments and mid-week summer practice for local teams without home facilities. There is more need for these facilities than one might expect, because schools often resist use of their fields during the summer.

Golf Considerations Golf Course 1. Drainage – Eliminating flooding is not a realistic goal, but managing flood waters is a plausible and workable solution. 2. Best Use of Space – In the planning process and during the discussion of possibly moving to a nine-hole facility, the idea of eliminating the back nine of the golf course was discussed. After many discussions, the LRPC came to understand that large sections of the back nine could not be used for anything but a golf course. Furthermore, golf courses with just nine holes have far higher closure rates than 18-hole layouts over the last 10 years.

16

Operations 1. Competition/Capacity- There are many golf courses in Grand Rapids, but our most direct competition is probably Indian Trails. It has a similar short layout with reasonable greens fees. Fellowship Greens is in very comparable condition but gets far less play. Indian Trails averages over 20,000 rounds per year; Mines- 28,000; Highlands- 35,000 rounds. This represents approximately 50% of their total capacity. The CRC averages only 15-20% of its capacity, or about 6,500 rounds. If marketed properly, the golf course should get up to at least 20,000 rounds per year, which is about 40% of total capacity. 2. Marketing- Much of these poor usage numbers are due to the fact that no one outside of the Rec Center knows that Fellowship Greens exists. The location is excellent, just off the Beltline, but inadequate signage and marketing keeps the facility unknown to most local golfers. One concern the LRPC harbors is that people falsely feel that the golf course is tied to the denomination and is somehow private or exclusive. 3. Leagues / Tournaments- With increased usage will come the need for increased league and tournament play. Golf leagues are great ways to provide steady income all season long. Due to its length and layout, Fellowship Greens offers an ideal spot for both women’s and senior leagues. Expectations should be tempered slightly due to our limited food service and the fact that the Rec Center does not serve alcohol. The LRPC feels no need to change that stance at the current time, but food service and alcohol do draw leagues. 4. Number of Carts – The Rec Center currently leases just 20 carts. On busy days, the facility runs out. Many golfers are not willing or physically able to walk the course, so if they come on a busy day, they’ll either need to wait for a cart to return or – as is most often the case – they simply leave. To handle expected demand, plus changeover times and cart charging, the Rec Center needs a minimum of 48 carts available. This is especially helpful during tournaments – a shotgun tournament with just 18 groups will require 36 carts. Often the course will have multiple groups on some holes. If the Rec Center needs to bring in additional carts for a tournament it’s nearly $50 each. 5. F&B Service/Merchandise – This is an area the Rec Center can really improve upon. While the profit margin for golf can be hard to determine, food and beverage service and merchandise have a nice profit margin. Fellowship Greens currently offers a modest selection of candy and snacks, as well as a drink cooler. A simple hotdog warmer and condiment station would likely see high usage, and would be comparatively inexpensive to implement and run. The Rec Center also needs to offer more golf balls, tees, hats, shirts, etc. Logo apparel is an excellent marketing tool. Golf courses typically mark up merchandise 30-50% and food and beverage 80-100%. The long-term goal should be to have a limited service menu thus bringing golfers in early and keeping them later. 6. Staffing/Director of Golf – Most golf courses have 2 or 3 full-time staff members. The Rec Center needs a Director of Golf to oversee the operation as a whole and to help promote league and tournament play. Long Range Plan 1. Layout/Number of Holes – Ultimately, the rate of closure of 9-hole layouts pointed the LRPC toward maintaining a full 18 holes. While long-term some changes should be made, the basic layout will remain the same. 2. Practice Area/Driving Range – There simply isn’t enough room for both an 18-hole layout and a driving range. It would not generate the revenue to justify the amount of space it would take up. 3. Clubhouse: Remodel or Rebuild – Ultimately, we found the best choice was to simply upgrade the current facility. This is the lowest cost option, and it will help maintain some of the history of this place. 4. Drainage – Drainage is the number one concern. The Rec Center wastes so much money trying to maintain a wet facility, it is a burden financially. 17

5. Plaster Creek Water Management/Erosion- The goal here is not to eliminate the flooding, just try to manage it. The LRPC has a conceptual idea of how to handle it, but the final solution will require extensive help from outside engineering and construction firms. The internal focus needs to be on getting golfers back on the course as quickly as possible after the rain.

18

Christian Recreation Center 2014 – 2015 LRPC Final Report & Recommendations

By: CRC Long Range Planning Committee For: CRC Board of Directors Submitted: 7.25.2015

2014 – 2015 LRPC Final Report

Drainage and Water Management One of the biggest problems the CRC faces is drainage and water management. Approximately 25 acres of the facility sits in the Plaster Creek flood plain. The entire facility is built on heavy clay soil that that drains poorly. While the golf course bears the brunt of these problems the softball complex faces significant water management problems as well. The result in both instances is damage from play, decreased revenue and an increase in maintenance costs both in labor and wear and tear on equipment.

34

2014 – 2015 LRPC Final Report Flooding The 25 acres of Fellowship Greens that sits in the Plaster Creek flood plain floods regularly in the spring and fall. Occasional heavy rains in the summer can also cause the creek to breach its banks. The flooding problem is not unique to the CRC facility but occurs across Kent County within the flood plain. The problem unique to the CRC is that while the #11 Fairway and green under water during flood flood waters usually recede within 24 – 48 hours, the ground beneath remains saturated.

Stream Bank Erosion and Silt Deposit A result of the heavy flooding that occurs in the Plaster Creek flood plain is severe stream bank erosion. Again, this is not a problem specific to the CRC, but it does result in some unique problems. First, it has created excessive wear on the bridges that exist. Second, large pieces of turf are falling into the creek and in some cases affecting irrigation pipe that runs near the creek.

Stream bank erosion, #12

35

2014 – 2015 LRPC Final Report During flooding high volumes of silt are moved downstream. Some of this gets deposited on site and one result is high quantities deposited in our irrigation pond.

Irrigation pond – left edge shallowed by silt deposits

Drainage Both the golf course and softball facility are built on clay soil and drain poorly. Water management techniques including water retention and drainage are both inadequate. Much effort has been made in the last two years to locate and clean existing drain tile. However, through this process it has been discovered that much of the tile in place is either too small, is non-perforated (does not allow water to enter) or has been crushed over the years. What drainage does exist often has nowhere to go. Some water retention techniques include catch basins with no outlets. These often do more harm than good as they act as a collection site with for water but offer no place for the water to exit. The result is turf loss, damage to mowers and increased maintenance costs. Catch basin with no outlet - #9 green

36

2014 – 2015 LRPC Final Report Turf Damage Poor drainage is created by three main factors: 1. Hydrophobic soil composition. 2. Lack of elevation change. 3. Limited locations for water to collect. At the CRC each of these items exists. The result is costly on multiple fronts: First, the CRC loses revenue when the facility is unplayable. While the golf course fares better in the summer months than spring and fall, both it and the softball complex are susceptible to problems throughout the season. Heavy rain or consecutive days of rain can render portions of the facility unusable for up to 48 hours. Again, this can result from as little as 1” of rain. Second, labor costs go up when the facility is wet. It takes longer to mow and in many cases areas cannot be mowed due to wet conditions. In many cases crew members need to spend time removing water from portions of the facility with squeegees or pumps. This is labor intensive and can take hours if conditions are not favorable. Turf damaged by standing water - #5 green

Finally, significant turf damage occurs when water sits in low spots as mentioned previously. Turf can die and soil can become contaminated in a short period of time if water is not managed properly.

37

2014 – 2015 LRPC Final Report Bridges The bridges crossing Plaster Creek at the CRC are in serious peril. One bridge is nearly 30 years old and the other three are over 15 years old. The biggest concerns are their construction and the excess wear they receive as a result. All bridges were built with flat girders rather than arched. The consequences of this are excess stress on the Bridge by #11 tee structure as they restrict water flow during high water times and are often hit with debris. There is also significant concern over the footings of the bridges. The flat girders result in pooling around the stream bank edges. This has eroded the bridge support systems to the point where

Structural stress - #15 bridge

failure is likely to occur on one or more bridges within the next five years. As it stands currently the bridges are a safety hazard for golfers and staff alike. Repairs are made as needed, but significant upgrades cannot be made without approval from the City of Kentwood and the DEQ.

38

2014 – 2015 LRPC Final Report Golf Considerations Golf Course 1. Drainage – As mentioned in the water management section of this report, the LRPC has large concerns about the ability of this facility to handle drainage including flooding events from Plaster Creek. The LRPC has determined that eliminating flooding is not a realistic goal, but managing flood waters is a plausible and workable solution. 2. Best Use of Space – In the planning process and during the discussion of possibly moving to a nine-hole facility, the idea of eliminating the back nine of the golf course was discussed. After many discussions, the LRPC came to understand that large sections of the back nine could not be used for anything but a golf course. Furthermore, golf courses with just nine holes have far higher closure rates than 18-hole layouts over the last 10 years. Operations 1. Competition/Capacity- There are many golf courses in Grand Rapids, but our most direct competition is probably Indian Trails. Similar short layout with reasonable greens fees. Fellowship Greens is in very comparable condition but gets far less play. Indian Trails averages over 20,000 rounds per year. Mines28,000, Highlands- 35,000 rounds. This represents approximately 50% of their total capacity. The CRC averages only 15-20%, or about 6,500 rounds. The LRPC sees no reason why, if marketed properly, the golf course couldn’t get up to at least 20,000 rounds per year, which is about 40% of total capacity. 2. Marketing- Much of these poor usage numbers are simply due to the fact that no one outside of the CRC even knows that Fellowship Greens exists. The location is excellent, just off the Beltline, but inadequate signage and marketing keeps the facility unknown to most local golfers. One concern the LRPC harbors is that people falsely feel that the golf course is tied to the denomination and somehow private or exclusive. 3. Leagues / Tournaments- With increased usage will come the need for increased league and tournament play. Golf leagues are great ways to provide steady income all season long. Due to its length and layout, Fellowship Greens offers an ideal spot for both women’s and senior leagues. The LRPC does note, however, that expectations should be tempered slightly 59

2014 – 2015 LRPC Final Report due to our limited food service and the fact that the CRC does not serve alcohol. The LRPC feels no need to change that stance at the current time, but it does need to be recognized the draw that food service and alcohol create for leagues. 4. Number of Carts – The CRC currently leases just 20 carts. On busy days, the facility runs out. Many golfers are not willing or physically able to walk the course, so if they come on a busy day, they’ll either need to wait for a cart to return or – as is most often the case – they simply leave. To handle expected demand, plus changeover times and cart charging, the CRC needs a minimum of 48 carts available. This is especially helpful during tournaments – a shotgun tournament with just 18 groups will require 36 carts. Often the course will have multiple groups on some holes. Further exacerbating the need for additional carts, if the CRC needs to bring in additional carts for a tournament it’s nearly $50 each. 5. F&B Service/Merchandise – The LRPC believes this is an area the CRC can really improve upon. While the profit margin for golf can be hard to determine, food and beverage service and merchandise have a nice fixed profit margin. Fellowship Greens currently offers a modest selection of candy and snacks, as well as a drink cooler. A simple hotdog warmer and condiment station would likely see very high usage, and would be very inexpensive to implement and run. The CRC also needs to offer far more golf balls, tees, hats, shirts, etc. Logo apparel is an excellent marketing tool. Golf courses typically markup merchandise 30-50% and food and beverage 80-100%. The long-term goal should be to have a limited service menu - thus bringing golfers in early and keeping them after. 6. Staffing/Director of Golf – Most golf courses have 2 or 3 full-time staff members. The CRC needs a Director of Golf position to oversee the operation as a whole and to help promote league and tournament play. Long Range Plan 1. Layout/Number of Holes – The LRPC spent significant time discussing nine and 18-hole options and what is the best use of space. Ultimately, the rate of closure of 9-hole layouts, pointed the LRPC toward maintaining a full 18 holes. While long-term, some changes should be made, the basic layout will remain the same. 2. Practice Area/Driving Range – This was another point of discussion within the LRPC. There simply isn’t enough room for both an 18-hole layout and a driving range. Ultimately the LRPC was convinced it just would not generate the revenue to justify the amount of space it would take up. 3. Clubhouse: Remodel or Rebuild – The LRPC looked at a number of different options here. Ultimately, we found the best choice was to simply upgrade the current facility. This is the lowest cost option, and it will help maintain some of its history of this place. 4. Drainage – For the LRPC, drainage is the number one concern. The CRC wastes so much money trying to maintain a wet facility, it is a burden financially. 5. Plaster Creek Water Management/Erosion- The goal here is not to eliminate the flooding, just trying to manage it. As documented earlier there is needed a multi-faceted approach to help manage that water. The LRPC has a conceptual idea of how to handle it, but the final solution will require great help from outside engineering and construction firms. The internal focus needs to be on getting golfers back on the course as quickly as possible after the rain.

60

Appendix B: Meeting Minutes

29

To: Prof. R. Masselink From: Team 2 Justin Brink Ryan Byma Josh DeYoung Jarod Stuyvesant Date: September 18, 2015 Subject: Meeting #1 with Client

At the first meeting, the team met with the client for the first time. Introductions were done and the meeting started with the client asking the team for some of our ideas based on the summary report put together by the Long Range Planning Committee. Some options for the scope of our project were discussed, and it was decided that we would focus on the area of the golf course. The problems that the client faces on the golf course area were presented and discussed. These problems include drainage, soil erosion, and bridges that are nearing failure. The client was asked what his needs and priorities were. He listed these priorities in order: 1) Bridges: one or more bridges are nearing the end of their lifespan and are expected to fail within five years. The soil supporting the bridge piers has eroded, contributing to the need for replacement. The client stated that arched bridges are a necessity in order to allow debris to flow under the bridge during the high water stage. 2) Drainage: the client expressed displeasure with the current drainage system, as it does not efficiently drain water from the course. In most cases, the ground will remain saturated for 48 – 72 hours after a rain event. This makes it impossible or very difficult for golfers to get on the course during that period. The client stated that the goal is not to prevent flooding, but simply try to manage it better than what is being done now. He needs a place to go with the water, and currently has nowhere to put it, so it remains on the course. 3) Maintenance: the current maintenance building is dated and does not meet the client’s space needs. He said that a new building (approx. 9600 sf) would be much better for meeting his needs. As the meeting concluded, the team asked the client for any files that he would be willing to provide, such as a topographic map and the full report from the LRPC. He said the he would provide them to us via email. The meeting was ended and the team left with a better understanding of the scope for our project. Action Items: - Obtain topo maps and files from client

To: Prof. R. Masselink From: Team 2 Justin Brink Ryan Byma Josh DeYoung Jarod Stuyvesant Date: September 21, 2015 Subject: Meeting #2 with client The team arrived at the second meeting with the client and we got into golf carts and drove around the golf course with the client to see some of the problem areas. The most prominent areas were on Hole #12 where we could see erosion of the creek bank and the bridge piers. This was common throughout the areas of the course that we observed. On one of our stops, some options for stabilization of the creek bank were discussed. One team member mentioned some native plants with deep roots in order to keep the soil in place during high water stage. It was also discussed that the team should be in contact with the DEQ and find out what our options are due to the flood plain and wetland areas. The team drove to more areas of the golf course and observed more options for detention ponds. As the meeting ended, the client provided the team with plans and some correspondence for the bridges on site. Action Items: -

To: Prof. R. Masselink From: Team 2 Justin Brink Ryan Byma Josh DeYoung Jarod Stuyvesant Date: October 14, 2015 Subject: Meeting #3 Personnel: City of Kentwood

This meeting took place at Kentwood City Hall. Dan VanderHeide was the main professional engineer involved. Another engineer and a city planner was in attendance as well. We first discussed our project scope and our goals for the year. Dan informed us that we would need to get special permission from the city to work within the 100-yr floodplain. As a result, our plan to demolish and replace the bridges is not feasible. The only way to build a new bridge over the river would be to span over the entire 100-yr flood plain, which would be far too expensive. Then, they suggested a maintenance plan for the bridges instead. The main point we gathered from this meeting was to draw up some sketches on different options for the bridges, and bring them to the DEQ to see what is not allowed. The meeting was ended and the team left with a better understanding of the feasibility of the project and what type of work we can do in the floodplain and how to maintain Plaster Creek. Action Items: - Meet with Graham to discuss alternatives for bridges and bank maintenance - Draw up some sketches to present to the DEQ.

To: Prof. R. Masselink From: Team 2 Justin Brink Ryan Byma Josh DeYoung Jarod Stuyvesant Date: October 23, 2015 Subject: Meeting #4 Personnel: Client, Graham Rayburn at CRC

We met with Graham to give him a current status update. We told him we have a working AutoCAD drawing of the existing topographical features of the property. We also told him we have a 3-D model of the existing bridges. We informed him of Kentwood’s concern with new bridge construction, and that the DEQ might not allow it. Graham was thinking that the DEQ might allow a bridge as long as it spans the 50 foot do not disturb area (25’ from each side of the centerline of the river). We also need to ask the DEQ if we can outlet drain tiles into the creek directly. Graham informed us that their facility is phosphorus free, which helps a lot in dealing with DEQ regulations. We presented Graham with different alternatives for the three major areas. 1. Bridges a. Graham would prefer four new bridges b. If this is not allowed, provide maintenance to existing bridges 2. Drainage a. Drain tile b. Swales c. Sand top fill 3. Erosion a. Cut back banks and plant natural vegetation b. Keep banks how they are, but plant natural vegetation Graham seemed to be thrilled with the alternatives, and he thinks we are right on track. Action Items: 1. Set up meeting with Plaster Creek Stewards 2. Set up meeting on site with the DEQ 3. Get soil boring samples.

To: Prof. R. Masselink From: Team 2 Justin Brink Ryan Byma Josh DeYoung Jarod Stuyvesant Date: November 2, 2015 Subject: Meeting #5 Personnel: Industrial Consultant Robert Lamer, Exxel Engineering

We held our first meeting with our industrial consultant on November 2. He explained to us that whoever will do the final engineering of these plans will need a permit to work within the wetlands and floodplain. He said that if we show that our bridges would improve the floodway, the DEQ would approve it. He also showed us a floodplain information booklet that has river bottom elevations and water surface elevations in it at certain points along the creek. When applying for a DEQ permit, Mr. Lamer informed us of the necessary outline: 1. Cover sheet with properties around ours and their parcel numbers and addresses. 2. Plan view with contours including cross sections in two different orientations. 3. Cross section profiles of the two section lines. He informed us of the ordinary high water level, which is the level which vegetation does not grow below. Action Items: 1. Meet with the DEQ 2. Bring information to the city of Kentwood 3.

To: Prof. R. Masselink From: Team 2 Justin Brink Ryan Byma Josh DeYoung Jarod Stuyvesant Date: November 2, 2015 Subject: Meeting #6 Personnel: Michael Ryskamp, Plaster Creek Stewards

We met with Michael Ryskamp, member of the Plaster Creek Stewards, to discuss what designs have been done in the past and what designs he suggests. Mike informed us that the DEQ will have an issue of dumping underdrain directly into the creek. He says they will want it filtered, in order to maintain good water quality. He suggested possibly using a swale with an overflow. He also suggested that instead of underdrains, we make swales in the rough areas on holes and funnel it toward the river. We would need check dams and cobbles in these swales to detain some water, and naturally treat it. We would also need to use natural vegetation on the banks of the swales. Mike gave us contact information for the DEQ and the Kent County permit department Dana Strouse – [email protected] DEQ Josh Crane – [email protected] Kent County Permits If we use a swale, we can only discharge water at a certain rate. If we can treat a 2-year storm (2.5” in 24 hr.) and meet discharge requirements, the DEQ should approve it. To cut bank banks, need to put in log vanes or root wads. Find linear feet of restoration for stream in order to provide a cost estimate. He also informed us of a pre-fab bridge manufacturer out of Wisconsin. Action items: 1. Meet with DEQ 2.

Appendix C: DEQ Correspondence

30

12/11/2015

Gmail ­ Request to meet

Ryan Byma 

Request to meet Occhipinti, Matthew (DEQ)  To: Ryan Byma  Cc: "Whitscell, Amanda (DEQ)" <[email protected]>

Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:33 AM

For bridge projects, there are two laws that come into play… Part 31, Floodplains, and Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams.  Amanda Whitscell covers the 301 issues. I believe you will need to file a pre‐application request to meet with her.  There is a charge even for the in‐office meeting.  Follow‐up with Amanda for more details on the 301 meeting/ issues.    The part 31 issues are relatively simple.  You need to meet Minor Project (MP) criteria, or you will need to provide hydraulics (HEC‐RAS model) that shows that the proposed crossings do not increase flood‐stages on upstream properties.    MP criteria for Part 31 bridges is:  “A clear span bridge that has the lowest bottom of beam elevation at or above the natural ground elevations on either bank and the approach fill sloping to natural ground elevations within 10 feet on either end of the bridge. “  I’ve also attached a figure showing this.    The MP criteria for Part 301 is different and more restrictive…. The structure would need to span 1.2 times  the bankfull width. So it’s possible that the crossing could meet MP under 31 (meaning no hydraulics required), but it may still need to be public noticed under  Part 301.    Matt   Matthew Occhipinti, P.E. | Grand Rapids District Engineer | Water Resources Division 350 Ottawa Ave, NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 |  616­204­1708 | Fax: 616­356­0202            From: Ryan Byma [mailto:[email protected]]  Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 10:17 AM To: Occhipinti, Matthew (DEQ)  Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Request to meet https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e3dbe5c23a&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=151161437831bc24&siml=151161437831bc24

1/2

12/11/2015

Gmail ­ Request to meet

[Quoted text hidden]

sample MPcrossing.pdf 1697K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e3dbe5c23a&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=151161437831bc24&siml=151161437831bc24

2/2

12/11/2015

Gmail ­ Part 301 questions ­ CRC Project

Ryan Byma 

Part 301 questions ­ CRC Project Whitscell, Amanda (DEQ) <[email protected]> To: Ryan Byma  Cc: "Occhipinti, Matthew (DEQ)" 

Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:55 AM

Hi Ryan,   Below is the criteria, for clearspan bridge projects under a General Permit Category applying to Part 301 Inland Lakes and Streams, the criteria also includes a definition of what “bankfull” is.    Typically I try to get measurements of bankfull at, upstream, and downstream of a proposed project.  I’m not sure if you are planning to replace the old structure in the same spot and the scouring that is occurring will make it difficult/impossible to get a bankfull measurement at the existing bridge.  The bankfull width is a

measure of how wide the stream is when it is carrying the channel‐forming flows. These are the flows that occur on a regular (annual or semiannual) basis and maintain the channel shape (higher flows after a 1 – 2 year storm event).  To measure bankfull width, stretch a measuring tape across the channel, perpendicular to the bankfull flow direction, from the point of bankfull elevation on the left bank across the stream to the bankfull elevation on the right.  Pin the tape at these two points at the bankfull elevation. View the stretched tape from downstream to be sure that it is level. This measurement should be taken over a riffle.  Bankfull indicators are typically hard to find when a when a stream has been degraded and/or altered in some way, I typically don’t use measurements from an area of the stream that may be impacted by an existing structure as they will not be accurate.  When you apply for your permit I will be doing a site inspection and I’ll take a look at the current situation and I will be checking your bankfull measurements to see if we get the same number so that the proposed bridge abutments are at least 1.2 times bankfull width.

  C. Clear Span Bridge   Category applies to: Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams   New or replacement clear span bridges that meet all of the following:            Any abutments or foundations must be placed a minimum of 1.2 times the bankfull width.          The lowest bottom beam elevation is at or above the natural ground elevations on either bank

and spans the entire bankfull width.          No filling or dredging in the bankfull channel is included in this category, unless approved by the DEQ based on site conditions.          The structure will allow passage of watercraft that could be expected to navigate the water involved. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e3dbe5c23a&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=151639ea5ff6e26b&siml=151639ea5ff6e26b

1/3

12/11/2015

Gmail ­ Part 301 questions ­ CRC Project

         The bridge shall be anchored to prevent floatation during periods of high water.

  (Bankfull is the width of the stream that corresponds to the depth where water fills a main channel to the point of overflowing. In instances where the applicant is unsure of the bankfull width, it is recommended that the applicant contact DEQ staff and request a preapplication site review. In legally established drains (except those constituting mainstream portions of certain natural watercourses identified in rule), if bankfull indicators are not present, the structure span may be determined by calculating the 1.5­year stream width at the 1.5­year flow that is based on a stable stream width and depth or by applying the regional reference curves in the report “Estimated Bankfull Discharge for Selected Michigan Rivers and Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves for Estimating Bankfull Characteristics in Southern Michigan Rivers" or other DEQ approved report.)   For stream crossing locations where the drainage area is 2 square miles or greater, the crossing must meet one of the following: 1.       The applicant must submit, and receive DEQ approval of, a certification by a licensed engineer with supporting hydraulic computations stating that either the replacement structure, including any weir flow, is designed with equal or greater hydraulic capacity that does not cause a harmful interference OR a new structure, including weir flow, is designed to pass the 100­year flood without causing a harmful interference. 2.       For replacement bridges: o   The proposed structure must have an equal or greater hydraulic capacity when compared to the existing bridge. o   The proposed road grade shall not exceed that of the existing road grade by more than 4 inches, unless the road grade has been shown to be above the 100­year floodplain elevation. 3.       For new bridges, the approach fill slopes to natural ground elevations within 10 feet of either side of the structure, unless the fill has been shown to be above the 100­year floodplain elevation.

    If you would like to install riprap for shoreline protection we may be able to cover this activity under the same permit application.  Please see the criteria below to see if the riprap you are proposing would meet the Minor Project Category.   37. Riprap Shoreline Protection   Category applies to:       Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands   The placement of riprap to facilitate bank stabilization activities that meets all of the following:          The placement of riprap does not exceed 300 linear feet of shoreline and extend more than 5 feet below the ordinary high water mark. The riprap shall be placed at a 1­on­2 slope (e.g., 1­foot vertical to 2 feet horizontal) or gentler, unless a different non­vertical slope is approved by the DEQ based on site conditions. This category does not include vertical rock walls. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e3dbe5c23a&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=151639ea5ff6e26b&siml=151639ea5ff6e26b

2/3

12/11/2015

Gmail ­ Part 301 questions ­ CRC Project

         There is evidence of ongoing erosion.          Riprap shall consist of natural field stone or rock (broken concrete is not allowed). For inland lakes, the riprap shall be a maximum of 24­inch diameter rock. For streams, riprap shall be properly sized based on velocity. Broken concrete, free of protruding metal, contaminants, and other foreign material, may be allowed in legally established drains, except those constituting mainstream portions of certain natural watercourses identified in rule.          Geotextile may be placed and tied in before installation of the riprap.          Vegetation, including plantings and other potentially viable material such as live stakes, brush bundles, or other gathered woody material, comprised of plant species that are considered native to Michigan is encouraged.          Riprap shall not be placed in any wetland areas or in any manner that impairs surface water flow into or out of any wetland areas.

  I hope the information that I have provided helps answer your questions.  Please let me know if you have any other questions.   Sincerely,   Amanda Whitscell Environmental Quality Analyst Department of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division          350 Ottawa Avenue NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 New Phone #: 616­401­1201 Fax: 616­356­0202       From: Ryan Byma [mailto:[email protected]]  Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 9:56 AM To: Whitscell, Amanda (DEQ) <[email protected]> Subject: Part 301 questions ‐ CRC Project [Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e3dbe5c23a&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=151639ea5ff6e26b&siml=151639ea5ff6e26b

3/3

Appendix D: Multi-Flow Typical Fairway Drainage Installation

31

Appendix E: Preliminary Drainage Improvments

32

CAC STORMY CREEK GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS 2016

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

SHEET TITLE:

DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SHEET NUMBER: