kite hill senior design final presentation fall 2015
TRANSCRIPT
Kite Hill Stormwater Management
C. Bury, J. Davis, A. Hough, R. Middlewarth, J. Ossorio
Clemson University - Biosystems Engineering BE 4750 Fall 2015 Senior Design Presentation
November 23, 2015
Table of Contents 1. Introducing the Problem
a. Kite Hill Impact on Hunnicutt Creek 2. Project Assessment
a. Defining problem, goals, constraints, considerations, and design elements
3. Design Elements a. Area of Interestb. Existing Conditionsc. Design and Methodologyd. Cost Estimatione. Design Comparisons
4. Sustainability Measures5. Conclusion
Introduction
http://www.clemson.edu/public/hunnicutt/about.html
Google Maps
Clemson Subdrainage Exhibit
Recognition of Problem Stormwater runoff results in● Heavy peak flows
Sediment transport / erosion
● Pollution transportation
● Destruction of downstream ecology of Hunnicutt Creek watershed
C. Bury
C. Bury
C. BuryC. BuryC. Bury
C. Bury C. Bury
C. Bury
Project Assessment
Define ProblemLack of infiltrationPollution runoffDamage to Hunnicutt Creek
Goals of the ProjectBiological: Treat stormwater pollutants before entering Hunnicutt Creek Structural: Reduce peak flows and runoff velocity of stormwater for a 10 yr - 24 hr storm event
http://www.cnyhiking.com/NCTinPA-MinisterCreekTrail892.jpg
Constraints and Considerations Constraints
Existing InfrastructureFuture Construction
http://fisheyestudios.com/gallery-categories/aerial/
ConsiderationsSafety
Entering for maintenanceSafety around the area
SustainabilityMinimal maintenanceDurable design options
Aesthetics
Budget
3 Questions User - Clemson University
1. Is this going to limit where people can park on campus?
2. How much maintenance is required? What does this entail?
3. Will the design be aesthetically pleasing?Client - Clemson University Facilities, Subcontractor/Developer
4. Can the design system elements be implemented at different times?
5. What is the approximate cost of the design and installation of the project?
6. What is the expected lifetime of the structures and systems being proposed?
Designer - Stormwater Project Team7. What regulations must we work within?
8. Is the design system resilient?
9. What funding is available for this project? What requirements would need to be met for this design to be implemented?
http://www.sciway.net/sc-photos/wp-content/uploads/tillman-hall-clemson1.jpg
Elements of Design ● Kite Hill Erosion Control
● Parking Lot Median BMPs
● Enhanced Swale
● End of Pipe BMPs
Basemap: Google Maps; Highlighted Areas: J. Davis
Kite Hill Erosion Control
Area Section
Area of Section
(ft2)
Slope Percent
1 4239 12.9 %
2 2922 22.4 %
3 6033 10.6 %
4 8908 10.5 %
5 11325 3 %
6 5097 19 %
7 11848 5.6 %
8 6938 17 %
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio
Hill Redesign:Sub-Goals and Area of Interest
Area Section
Area of Section
(ft2)
Slope Percent
9 4557 8.9 %
10 3236 18 %
11 3589 8 %
12 4642 15.1 %
13 3819 26.8 %
14 4729 9.6 %
15 5309 20.4%
16 4722 18.22 %
Goals:1. Reduce Erosion from Kite Hill by 75% per yr2. Safe Driving Option: Gameday parking3. Reduce Runoff Rate by 25 % for a 25 yr- 24 hr storm
Existing Conditions Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE): T= R*K*LS*VMR- Rain factor = 250 (Pickens, SC)K- Soil Erodibility Factor = 0.17 (Web Soil Survey)VM- Vegetative Mulch LS- Length Slope Factor = (Calculated separately for each area)
Estimated Soil Loss
T=(250)*(.17)*(.34)*(2.12) = 9.37 tons/ acre/ year
9.37 tons/ acre/ yr *2.601 acres = 24.39 tons =
22.13 tonnes of SOIL LOSS per year
Erosion Estimation Runoff Volume Estimates Soil-Cover Complex Method CN- Weighted Curve Number = 62.8 for Sod and Mulch P- Rainfall for 25 yr -24 hr storm = 6.77 in (Rain Data obtained from Tony Putnam)S- Surface StorageQ- Runoff Vr- Volume of Runoff
S = (1000/CN)-10 = 5.92 inQ= (P - 0.2S)2/(P + 0.8S) = 2.95 in of runoffVr = 2.95 in * (2.60 acres) = 27335 ft3 =
774 m3 of Runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm
Existing Conditions
Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015
Runoff Flow Rate Estimates Peak Runoff Rate Qp = qp*A*QQ = 2.95 inS = 5.92 intL= L0.8(S +1) 0.7/(1900γ0.5)tc = tL/0.6
Weighted qp = 1.543 (cfs/ac-in)Qp= (1.543 cfs/ac-in *2.95 in *2.60 ac = 11.6cfs
= 0.329 m3/s is the FLOW RATE of Runoff during a 25 yr -24 hr Storm
Design 1 - Hillside TerraceBenches are covered with grass (9600 ft2) and the Risers are covered with liriope and straw mulch (1790 ft2 = 1020 plants). The Cut and Fill Volume is 385 cu. yd
Erosion Reduction:Soil Delivery Ratio Method for Slope 14-16%
Reduce Soil Loss per year from 24.39 tons to 1.95 tons92 % reduction in erosion for overall AOI.
Runoff Volume:Soil Cover Complex Method Weighted CN 65.2 to 61Reduce Runoff Volume for a 25 yr- 24 yr storm from 7173 ft3 to 6171 ft3, 13.96 % reduce volume for the hillside area and 3.4 % for total AOI.Runoff Peak Flow Rate: Peak Runoff RateReduce Flow Rate from 3.48 cfs to 2.61 cfs for the hillside area 25.18 % reduction in Peak Flow Rate.
Design Specs (Determined using Agricultural Terrace Design) Direction 1: Length 49 ft, 14 %, 0.44 acDirection 2: Length 60 ft, 16.5 %, 0.2 acTerraces include: 2 benches (14.76 ft), 3 risers (1:1) 2.83 ft depth
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio
Source: Chap. 5 Physical Methods for Erosion Control
Design 2 - Hillside Vegetative Cover Hillside is covered with juniper plants and straw mulch, but any shrub-like plants can be used for hillside cover.
Erosion Reduction:Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Weighted VM from 0.12 to 0.012 (Canopy of Bushes 25% and 80% grass cover)
Reduce Soil Loss per year from 7.5 tons to 1.27 tons88.6 % reduction in erosion for the hillside area and 27% reduction for ENTIRE AOI.
Runoff Volume:Soil Cover Complex Method for Weighted CN from 65.2 to 48Reduce Runoff Volume for a 25 yr- 24 yr storm from 7173 ft3 to 3339 ft3 53.4% reduce volume for the hillside area and 12.9 % for total AOI.Runoff Peak Flow Rate: Peak Runoff RateReduce Flow Rate from 3.48 cfs to 1.38 cfs for the hillside area 60.44% reduction in Peak Flow Rate.
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio
Design Specs:Direction 1: Length 49 ft, 14 %, 0.44 acDirection 2: Length 60 ft, 16.5 %, 0.2 acJuniper Spacing: 6 ft (~1030 plants)
http://2minutegardener.blogspot.com/2011/12/photo-creeping-myoporum-myoporum.html
Curb and sidewalk removal to add ramp way (located 425 ft from Perimeter Road corner)Area: 1,588 ft2 Width of 60 ft by 25 ft
Design Driving Options
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio
Driveway already exists, but the proposal is to allow access to this entrance after hours by changing Recycling Center enclosure New Fencing: 500 ftGate Removal: 53 ft
Existing Driveway at Recycling Center Semi-Driveway on Highway 76
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio
Kite Hill Erosion Control Budget
Kite Hill Erosion Control Budget
Kite Hill Erosion Reduction: Design ComparisonHillside Redesign Terraced Side ($25,630.00)Pros -Reduce erosion by 92 % -Reduce Runoff Volume by 14%-Reduce Runoff Velocity by 26 %- Discourages driving on the hillside -Instant functionality Cons -Has some maintenance once established (mulch and cut grass)-Heavy Construction
Driving Options Existing Drive at Recycling Center ($7,657.00)Pros - Fence is already needed for area -Already developed Drive Cons -Heavy traffic around Recycling Center
Vegetative Cover ($27,542.00)Pros -Reduce erosion by 27% overall and 89% for the Area -Reduce Runoff Volume by 13 % overall and 54 % for Area-Reduce Runoff Velocity by 61%- Discourages driving on the hillside - Low maintenance after establishment Cons -3 year establishment -Cannot Handle foot or car traffic slow recovery Semi Drive on Highway 76 ($6,811.00)Pros -Allows for safer option for drivers who ride of curb on gameday-Minimal space to preserve Green Space-Two Entrances and Exits Cons -Additional Traffic on game day
Parking Lot Median BMPs
Median BMPs: Sub-Goals and Area of Interest 1. Reduce the Velocity of Runoff2. Allow Infiltration into Medians3. Prevent Sediment Loss
77
1234
56
7
Source: Google Maps
Area (ft2)
Slope (%)H.
Slope (%)V.
1 4145 10.8 1.0
2 6603 4.2 0.9
3 9944 6.7 0.8
4 10,008 6.1 1.0
5 7917 6.4 1.2
6 7491 5.9 1.4
7 6469 5.0 1.6
Runoff Volume Parking Lot Estimates Soil-Cover Complex Method CN - Curve Number = 92 (Commercial Parking Lot, HSG B, 85% Impervious Area)P- Rainfall for 25 yr -24 hr storm = 6.77 in (Rain Data obtained from Tony Putnam)S = (1000/CN)-10 = 0.87 inQ= (P - 0.2S)2/(P + 0.8S) = 5.83 in of runoffVr = 5.83 in * (1.21 acres) = 25,534 ft3
723 m3 of runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm
Peak Runoff RateQp = qp*A*Q
Q = 5.83 in
S = 0.87 in
tL= L0.8(S +1) 0.7/(1900γ0.5)
tc = tL/0.6
Average qp = 0.86 (cfs/ac-in)
Qp= (1.2 cfs/ac-in * 5.83 in * 0.41 ac) = 2.88 cfs
0.546 m3/s flow rate of runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm
Photo credit: Conor Bury
Design 1 - Vegetated Filter Strip Area (ft2)
Slope (%)
Q (cfs)
Bottom Width (ft)
Top Width (ft) y (ft) Velocity
(ft/s)
1 17,966 1 2.88 1.67 2.51 0.83 1.01
2 26,107 0.9 2.96 1.72 2.59 0.86 0.98
3 34,173 0.8 3.88 1.95 2.92 0.97 1.00
4 30,072 1 2.01 1.46 2.19 0.73 0.93
5 23,298 1.2 2.80 1.60 2.40 0.80 1.08
6 20,170 1.4 2.42 1.47 2.21 0.73 1.10
7 18,212 1.6 1.94 1.32 1.98 0.66 1.09
Q = (k/n)*Rh(⅔)*A*So
(½)
n: Gauckler-Manning’s coefficient tall vegetation - 12 to 24 inches: 0.08
trapezoidal channel design0.25 (H:V - 4:1)height of trapezoid is equal to bottom width
tree removal
curb stops
retaining wall pavers
fill dirt, soil and compost mixture, plant with liriope and bermuda
create berm
gravel, compost, soil and mulch layer with native plants
Source: http://www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov/stormwater/htm/sw_gi_bmp_bioretention.htmSource: Ashleigh Hough
Design 2 - Erosion Mat
T= R*K*LS*VMR - Rain factor = 250 (Pickens, SC)K - Soil Erodibility Factor = 0.17 (Web Soil Survey)LS - Length Slope FactorVM (before) =0.9 (rough, irregular bare soil)VM (after) = 0.08 (coconut mat)
Before After
VM factor - 0.9 VM factor - 0.08
29.7 tonnes/year 2.6 tonnes/year
● curb stops● seeding (bermuda grass)
live stakes (Miscanthus)
source: http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20120404-IR-312120154NRA.xml.html
source: http://www.hgtvgardens.com/flowers-and-plants/maiden-grass-miscanthus-sinensis-morning-light
Medians Budget
Medians Design ComparisonVegetative Strip with Rain GardenPros
- Nearly all runoff that enters swale infiltrates back into the ground
- Greatly reduces erosion- Slows down velocity of stormwater- Removes pollutants- More permanent solution
Cons - Eliminates most trees- Failure issues of pavers- Maintenance- Expensive
Coconut MatPros
- Slows down the velocity of stormwater- Reduces erosion by 91%- Allows for trees to stay- Biodegradable mats - Less expensive
Cons - Temporary solution (possibly)- Maintenance - Less pollutant removal
Flow Diversion and Enhanced Swale
Flow Diversion TechniquesFlow Diversion Options:
Concrete cut with apron & stabilizationGrated Trench Drain
Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015 Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: R. Middleswarth
Curb Cut with ApronDivert flow into swale Must set stabilizers and apron
ConcreteGCLErosion Mat
Source: www.lastreetblog.org
source: http://www.beinginplace.org
Grated Trench Drain
Source: www.trenchdrainsupply.com
Hill Area Section
Area of Section (A)
[m2]
Coefficient of runoff (C )
Rainfall Intensity (I)
[m/s]
Volumetric Flowrate (Qreq)
[m3/s]
1 393.8 ..35 5.6E-05 0.1332
2 271.5
3 560.5
4 827.6
Driveway 432.0 .95
Total 2485.3
Grated Trench Drain
Qreq=(k*A*R2/3*S1/2)/nQreq - volumetric flowrate
k - conversion from Eng to SIA - cross sectional area of drain
R - Hydraulic Radius S- Slope
n - coefficient of frictionSolve for WIDTH
Cross Sectional Area (m2)
Hydraulic Radius (R )
[m]Slope
Volumetric Flowrate (Q)
[m3/s]
Coefficient of Friction
(n)
Base Width (b) [m]
Peak Capacity
Depth (h) [m]
0.062 0.198 0.020 0.133 0.013 0.352 0.176
Finding Peak Flowrate and Volume
Peak Runoff RateQn = qp*A*Qx
Qx = runoff depth
qp - peak discharge coefficient
S = (1000/CN)-10tL= L0.8(S +1) 0.7/(1900γ0.5)
tc = tL/0.6
L - Hydraulic Length
y - slope
Soil-Cover Complex Method S = (1000/CN)-10CN - Curve Number
P- Rainfall for 25 yr -24 hr storm = 6.77 in (Rain Data obtained from Tony Putnam)
Qx = (P - 0.2Sn)2/(P + 0.8Sn)
∑Q*Area = total volume of runoff
43,847 ft3 of runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm
Peak Runoff AverageQdesign =∑(Qn*(Vn/VTOTAL))
V - Volume of basin
Q - Peak Runoff Rate of Basin
7.95 cfs flow rate of runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm
Enhanced Swale Design500ft stretch options:
Grassy SwaleCheck Dam Swale
Must Handle a Peak Storm of:7.95 ft3/s flow rate43,848 ft3 volume
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: R. Middleswarth
Peak Runoff RateA = b*y + z*y2
A = b*0.1 + 0.25*0.12
R = A/(b + 2*0.1*0.25)Q = 1/n * A * S1/2 * R2/3
Q- volumetric flowrate
A- cross sectional area of drain
R - Hydraulic Radius
S- Slope
n - coefficient of friction
Trapezoidal Grass SwaleUsed for channels because of side slope
stabilityEasy to maintainLarge surface area for infiltration
Q = 0.225 m3/s
S = 0.06
0.225 = 1/0.033 * (b*0.1 + 0.25*0.12) * ((b*0.1 + 0.25*0.12)/(b + 2*0.1*0.25))⅔ * 0.061/2
b = 1.405 [m]
Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu
Solved GeometriesHydraulic
Radius (R ) [m]
Crossectional Area (m^2) Slope Volumetric Flowrate (Q)
[m^3/s]Coefficient of Friction (n)
0.098 0.143 0.06 0.225 0.033
Base Length (b)
[m]
Peak Capacity Depth (y) [m] Side Slope Swale Height (H) [m] Top Width (wt)
[m]
1.405 0.100 0.250 1 1.91
(4.6 ft) (3.94 in) (3.28 ft) (6.25 ft)
Enhanced Grass SwaleV=Q/AV - velocity (m/s)Q - Peak Flow rate (m3/s)A - Cross-sectional area (m2)V = 0.225/.143 = 1.57m/s [5.2 fps]
Factors affecting velocity include:- Manning’s coefficient n- Cross-sectional area- Slope- designed hydraulic radius
Source: www.scdot.org
Enhanced Rock SwaleRip-rap lined swales have varying n values
Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu
0.1m flow depth = 0.32ft = 3.8in
n = 0.0395*(D50)⅙
(D50) = 3in
n = 0.047
V = 1.09 m/s
(3.2 ft/s)
Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu
Check Dam DesignPrimary Design Benefits:
Soil ErosionSediment ControlTotal Suspended Solids (TSS)Flow Attenuation
Source: www.riverlink.org
Flow Through a dam
Q = h1.5/(L/D + 2.5 + L2)0.5
L = (ss)*(2d - h)
Q- flow rate exiting check dam
h - flow depth
L - length of flow
D - average stone diameter in feet
ss - check dam side slope (maximum 2:1)
d = height of dam
Secondary Benefits:Runoff Volume ReductionPhosphorousNitrogenHeavy MetalsFloatablesBOD
Check Dam Design33 ft intervals @ 6% slope ⅓ - ⅔ of the swale depth~66% slope on upstream side of damActs as terracing to reduce sedimentation and
velocity
Dam Depth ft (d) Number of Dams
2.19 15.00
Flowrate through Dam (Q) [ft^3/s] 0.83
Flow depth (h) [ft] 1.46
Length of Flow (L) [ft] 0.73
Stone Diameter (D) [ft] 0.50
Check Dam Slope (ss) 0.25
Exit Velocity (ft/s) 0.54
Check Dam Design
Max Retainage Volume (ft^3) 3388.6
Max Volume From 25 yr - 24 hr Storm (ft^3)
43847.4
VMAX = N*VDAM
VDAM = ½*d*L*w + 2*(½)*d*x*L
N = number of damsd = dam height (ft)L = distance between dams (ft)w = bottom widthx = x distance of side slope
Source: http://chesapeakestormwater.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/swale_checkdam.jpg
Construction Budget
Maintenance Budget
Total yearly cost = $375/year
McMillan Road Enhanced Swale Design ComparisonCheck Dams Pros
- Inexpensive- Reduces erosion and sediment transport- Allows infiltration- Some physical filtration- May discourage illegal parking
Cons- Requires periodic repair and sediment
removal- Doesn’t treat oils- Expensive vs Grass Swale- Maintenance- Chance of breach- Temporary
Grassy / Riprap Swale (dry)Pros
- Simple Installation- Easy Maintenance- Aesthetically Pleasing
Cons - May form rills (grassy)- Higher velocity (grassy)- Less treatment and infiltration than other
methods- Expensive (riprap)
End of Pipe BMPs
End of Pipe “Solutions”Upstream reductions are not enough
Most common designs are:Detention basinRetention basin
Submerged gravel wetland
Goals:Reduce peak flowReduce pollutant runoff http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4908685081_fdcd1f7966_z.jpg
Detention BasinsGood at removing sediment, poor at
removing dissolved pollutants
Detention basin size for our area:
200’ x 100’ x 8’
Treats 100 year, 24-hour storm
Submerged Gravel Wetland
http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/GravelWetlandNutrientCyclingFinalReport3-31-10.pdf
Sedimentation Basin Sizing Settling velocity for sizing Stokes Law:
SCDOT Simplified Stokes:
Vs = 2.81·d2 Vs = 2.81·(0.01mm)2 ≈ 2.81∙10-4 ft/s ≈ 8.565∙10-5 m/s
Qout= c∙i∙A = (0.8)(0.15916̅ in/hr)(4.15 acres
= 0.528433ft3s-1
From SWRCB at 90% effectiveness,
Gravel Wetland Sizing“First flush” = 0.2 in · 4.15 ac 3000 ft≅ 3
Water Quality Volume (WQV) = 4.15 acre-inch 15,000 ft≅ 3
Hydraulic Retention Time ( ) = V / Q
= 4∙V / 4∙Q = 1~2 days
Reduces peak flow of a ten year design storm (3.7” in 6 hours) by ~90%
Wetland dimensions (each cell): L = 110 ft, W = 55 ft
Submerged Gravel Wetland
Basemap: Google Maps; Subsurface drains: Clemson University; Basin and Service Road Drawing: J. Davis
Gravel Wetland Hydraulic Performance
http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/GravelWetlandNutrientCyclingFinalReport3-31-10.pdf
Rational Method for peak discharge
Q = ciA, whereQ = peak discharge volume [cfs]c = runoff coefficienti = rainfall intensity [in/hour]A = area [acres]
Five year design storm
Q = 0.654cfs = 295 GPM
Gravel Wetland Biological Performance
http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/GravelWetlandNutrientCyclingFinalReport3-31-10.pdf
Wetland MaintenanceEvery six months:
Check for complete plant coverage and revegetate as necessary
Ensure cells drain within 24-48 hours
Remove decaying vegetation, litter and debris
Sedimentation forebay - Remove sediment after 12” of accumulation
Gravel treatment cells - Remove sediment after 4” of accumulation
Gravel Wetland vs Detention CostsItem Cost Coverage Total
Grading $ 50,000.00 per acre 0.301 acres $ 15,050.00
Piping $ 23.00 per L-ft 36 L-ft $ 828.00
Pipe Labor $ 25.00 per hour 22 hours $ 550.00
Pumped concrete $ 100.00 per cu. yd. 18 cu. yds. $ 1,800.00
Pump Truck Rental $ 130.00 per hour 8 hours $ 1,040.00
Wetland Materials & Installation
$ 22,300.00 per acre 0.301 acres $ 6,712.30
Total $ 25,980.30
Adjusting for 15% contingency $ ~ 30,000.00
Detention Pond cost $ 40,000.00 per acre 0.5 acres $ ~20,000.00
Basins Design ComparisonDetention Pond Pros
- Reduces peak flows - Slows down velocity of stormwater- Removes some sediments- Lower installation cost
Cons - Doesn’t remove pollutants- Expensive dredge maintenance
Submerged Gravel Wetland Pros
- Reduces peak flows- Slows down the velocity of stormwater- Significantly removes pollutants- Removes sediments
Cons - Higher installation cost- Expensive dredge maintenance
Project Wrap Up
Sustainability Measures ● Economical
○ Installation○ Maintenance
● Ecological○ Improving Stream Health
● Social○ Preserve natural resources
for future generations○ Educational
● Ethical Considerations○ Solving the problem without
damage to downstream
http://cantov.deviantart.com/art/Clemson-University-Still-Water-145243984
Kite Hill Erosion Control- Terraced Hillside
- Cost: $25,000
- Vegetative Covered Hillside - Cost: $27,000
Parking Lot Medians- Vegetative Filter Strip w/ Rain Garden
- $350,000
- Coconut Mat - $30,000
Project Cost Summary McMillan Road Swale
- Grassy Swale- Cost: $6,100
- Riprap Swale- Cost: $11,000
- Check Dams- Cost: $15,000
End of Pipe- Detention Pond
- $20,000
- Submerged Gravel Wetland - $30,000
Total Cost of All Designs = $92,000 ~ $415,000
3 Questions Answered User - Clemson University
1. Is this going to limit where people can park on campus?
2. How much maintenance is required? What does this entail?
3. Will the design be aesthetically pleasing?
Client - Clemson University Facilities, Subcontractor/Developer4. Can the design system elements be implemented at different times?
5. What is the approximate cost of the design and installation of the project?
6. What is the expected lifetime of the structures and systems being proposed?
Designer - Stormwater Project Team7. What regulations must we work within?
8. Is the design system resilient?
9. What funding is available for this project?
Time Line
ReferencesJurries, Dennis, P.E. “Biofilters For Storm Water Discharge Pollution Removal”. Department of Environmental Quality.
State of Oregon. 2003. PDF. <.http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stormwater/docs/nwr/biofilters.pdf> Accessed 7 August 2015.
Mey, Gerald Vander. et. al. “Riparian Corridor Master Plan”. Campus Planning Services. Clemson University. December 2006. PDF. <http://www.clemson.edu/public/hunnicutt/documents/riparian_corridor_master_plan.pdf>
Google Maps. Accessed 13 August 2015.
Ruhlman, Melanie. President, Save Our Saluda. Personal communication. 12 August 2015.
Murphree, Brian Frank, P.E. et. al. MS 4 Outfall Inspections and Evaluation, Clemson University. Project No. 1505. Design South Professionals, Inc. July 2015.
Dorren, Luuk, and Freddy Rey. "A Review of the Effect of Terracing on Erosion." SCAPE: Soil Conseveration and Protection for Europe (n.d.): 97-108. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
Watershed Hydrology and Small Catchments, BE3220. Owino, T, PhD. Clemson University. Spring 2015.
http://www.erosionpollution.com/support-files/coir_geotextiles_specification.pdf
Referenceshttp://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_wetdtnpn.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/pubs_specs_info/unhsc_gravel_wetland_specs_6_09.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/presentations/NJASLA%20subsurface%20gravel%20wetland.pdf
http://sfrc.ifas.ufl.edu/urbanforestry/Resources/PDF%20downloads/Rushton_2001.pdf
State Water Resources Control Board: EPA, California. Attachment D: Sediment Basin Sizing. Draft, 18 March 2008. Online. PDF. Accessed 11 November 2015. <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/draft/draftconst_att_d_sed_basin.pdf>
Jones. Tom. Personal Interview. Fall 2015.
Widomski, Marcin K. "Terracing as a Measure of Soil Erosion Control and Its Effect on Improvement of Infiltration in Eroded Environment." Ed. Danilo Godone. Soil Erosion Issues in Agriculture (2011): 315-34. InTech. Web. 15 Oct. 2015. <http://www.intechopen.com/books/soil-erosion-issues-inagriculture/ terracing-as-a-measure-of-soil-erosion-control-and-its-effect-on-improvement-of-infiltration-in-erod>.
ReferencesPitt, R. Detention Pond Design and Analysis. CE 378 Water Resources Engineering. University of Alabama. April 2004. <http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Class/Water%20Resources%20Engineering/M9c2%20WinTR55%20ponds%20docs.pdf>
Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc. Price List: Reinforced Concrete Pipe. Online. Accessed 18 November 2015. <http://www.ncp-inc.com/price1.html>
TigerDroppings. Thread: “Price per cubic yard for concrete?”. Louisiana State University-community discussion forum. Online. Accessed 18 November 2015. <http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/outdoor/price-per-cubic-yard-for-concrete/40127861/>
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/sangabriel/documents/applicant/afc-cd/AFC_Volume-2/G%20-%20Preliminary%20Detention%20Basin%20Calculations.pdf
Jarrett, A.R. Water Management. Kendall/Hunt Publishing. 1995.
http://nurcar.com/wholesale_catalog.pdf
http://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_sod.html
Sheng, T. Bench Terrace Design Made SImple. Department of Earth Resources. Colorado State University. 2002.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following for all their help, guidance, patience, and contribution to literature:
● Dr. Caye Drapcho
● Dr. Tom Owino
● Barrett Anderson
● Tom Jones
● Tony Putnam
● John Gambrel
● Dr. Cal Sawyer
● Dr. Ellen Vincent
● Dr. Paul Russell
● Melanie Rhulman
● Dr. Abdul Khan
● University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center