Millers creek restoration

Millers Creek Restoration Project

FINAL REPORT January 2015 April 2015

Proposed by The Stream Team

Sam Duerr, Engineer in Training Tyler Hall, Engineer in Training Nadim Bari, Engineer in Training

Hannah Bashore, Engineer in Training Stephanie Rasmussen, Engineer in Training Catherine Librett, Engineer in Training

Date Prepared April 20, 2015

Prepared for:

Aline Cotel, Manager Rob Sulewski, Manager Paul Kominsky, Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….. 1

1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 4

2.0 Design Criteria……………………………………………………………………….... 5

3.0 Design………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

3.1 Island Vegetation………………………………………………………………... 6

3.2 Log Cross Vane………..………………………………………………………... 6

3.3 Rock Wall…………….…………………………………………………………. 7

3.4 Rock Bed…......………..…….………………………………………………….. 8

4.0 Testing Procedures and Results………………………....……………………………... 9

5.0 Assessment Versus Criteria……………………………………………………………. 10

6.0 Additional Benefits…………………………………………………………………….. 11

7.0 Budget…………………………………………………………………………………. 11

8.0 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………. 12

References…………………………………………………………………………………. 12

Appendix A: Sample Calculations

1

Executive Summary Millers Creek is experiencing bank erosion due to excessive runoff from impervious surfaces nearby. This bank erosion is caused by high velocity water during major storms that leads to sediment buildup downstream that poses problems for the Huron River. As a result, there is a need for a remediation design plan that slows water velocity and dissipates the energy that erodes the bank and transports sediment downstream. We, the Stream Team, worked on the section of Millers Creek that is a third of a mile north of the intersection of Huron Parkway and Glazier Way in Ann Arbor, MI. Our restoration design is focused on addressing this erosion while meeting the design criteria that our team deemed necessary to effectively restore the creek. There are five criteria that we set for our design. We want to create a bank stabilization system that will reduce erosion and rebuild the bank. It should also be within a budget of $10,000, durable enough to withstand the conditions of a 100year storm, and require little to no maintenance. In order to address the issue of river bank erosion, our team performed comprehensive site analysis involving measurements of the dimensions of the creek, researched existing solutions to stabilize river banks, developed design objectives, and researched materials to implement into our design. After researching potential solutions, our team developed a multifunctional plan to implement at Millers Creek. We also calculated the appropriate dimensions for our structure, the size of rocks, and an approximation of the total cost of our design. We used a scale model of Millers Creek and our design with a flow table to test the effectiveness of our design in the laboratory. Our design consists of four parts: island vegetation, a log cross vane, a rock wall, and a rock bed. The first part of the design is to introduce Blue Joint Grass to the island upstream of the eroding bank to stabilize the bank and dissipate energy. The second part of our plan is to implement a log cross vane upstream of the eroded bank. The log cross vane directs water away from the bank and ensures the stabilization of the overall system over time. The third part of the design is a rock wall directly in front of the eroding bank. The purpose of this wall is to protect the bank from further erosion and to create a vortex behind it, trapping sediments in the process and rebuilding the eroding bank over time. The last component of our design is a rock bed on the west bank that will dissipate energy directed towards it via the log cross vane. Our design meets all five of our set criteria. Our design reduces erosion and rebuilds the eroding bank. Our cost estimate is $5,506, which is within our budget that we set to be $10,000. In addition, our design is durable enough to withstand the conditions of a 100year storm. Finally,

2

our design requires no maintenance. However, we recommend an annual inspection of the remediation to ensure that everything is working properly. 1.0 Introduction For our restoration project we, The Stream Team, focused on the section of Millers Creek that is a third of a mile north of the intersection of Huron Parkway and Glazier Way in Ann Arbor, MI, as shown in Figure 1. The plan view of this section of Millers Creek is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Plan View of the Region of Millers Creek to Restore

(Google Maps, 2015)

3

Figure 2: Plan View of Target Area The target area experiences high bank erosion resulting in sediment buildup downstream. High water velocity, due to runoff from the impervious surfaces in the surrounding areas, creates a greater force on the bank, causing this erosion. As a result, there is a need for a remediation design plan that slows water velocity and dissipates the energy that could erode the bank and transport sediment downstream. Our design reduces the velocity of the water and hence the force exerted by the water on the eroding bank that our team is focusing on, seen in Figure 3. The design consists of island vegetation, a log cross vane, a rock wall, and a rock bed.

Figure 3: Eroding Bank

4

This report presents our criteria and explains the design and function of the structures we will implement in the stream. It also describes the research and testing we performed, and explains how this testing verifies that our design meets our criteria. In addition, this report describes the budget our team has allotted for our project. 2.0 Design Criteria There are five criteria for our design. The first criterion is to reduce erosion. By reducing erosion, the amount of sediment transport downstream, which is harmful to the Huron River wildlife, is also reduced. The second criterion is to rebuild the bank, thus restoring the riparian habitat. After researching the costs of similar restoration projects, we decided that we wanted the cost of our design to come within a $10,000 budget, which is the third criterion of our design. The fourth criterion is to make our design durable enough to withstand the conditions of a 100year storm. The fifth criterion is it to create a design that requires little to no maintenance. Once our design is implemented, we want the system to work without further intervention. 3.0 Design There are four main components of our design. The purpose of each of these components is to reduce the velocity of the water and to dissipate energy. Figure 4 is a panoramic view that shows the location in which the four components of our design will be implemented in situ. Figure 4: Panoramic View of Design

3.1 Island Vegetation

5

The first part of our design is to introduce vegetation with an extensive root system to the island region upstream of the eroded bank. The function of this vegetation is to slow the velocity of the water before it hits the eroded bank and to stabilize the island. We decided that planting Blue Joint Grass, as seen in Figure 5, is the best option because it is native to Michigan, thrives in wetlands, and has a massive root system (Wynia, p.1), as seen in Figure 6. A plant with a smaller root system could be swept away by the currents in a storm event.

Figure 5: Blue Joint Grass

(en.wikepedia.org)

Figure 6: Blue Joint Grass Root System

(“Musings”)

6

3.2 Log Cross Vane The next element of our design is a log cross vane. The log cross vane will be formed by placing a log in the river at an angle parallel to the angle of our rock wall, approximately 6.8 degrees relative to the eroding bank, so that the water will be directed towards the rock bed in the best way to dissipate energy. Figure 7 shows the plan view of an approximate location and orientation of the log cross vane. This structure has the effect of reducing the speed and power of the water throughout the river except in the middle, to which the flow is directed (“Flow Control Structures,” p. 2). Reducing the velocity of the water and redirecting water flow away from the banks will protect the banks, reduce erosion, and lower sediment loading rates in the Huron River. One important feature of the log cross vane is that it is not a permanent fixture. We anticipate that the log cross vane will decay over time. By the time it decays, the eroded bank should be in better condition because of sediment trapped behind the rock wall. After the log cross vane has decayed, the rock wall will continue to protect and rebuild the bank.

Figure 7: Plan View of Log Cross Vane

3.3 Rock Wall The third part of our design is a rock wall that is placed along the eroded bank. This structure will be composed of 31,200 lbs of limestone rocks varying in diameter of 25 inches contained by chicken wire. The purpose of the rock wall is to further protect the eroding bank and create vortices to trap sediments behind it. In order to accomplish this, the rock wall will have a triangular prism shape that allows the water to form vortices against the eroding bank, as shown in Figure 7. Sediments in the water will collect behind the rock wall, rebuilding the bank. The

7

exact dimensions of the rock wall are shown in Figure 8. We determined through lab testing that this shape and size will be effective in forming vortices in Millers Creek.

Figure 8: Rock Wall

3.4 Rock Bed The fourth component of our design is a rock bed. It involves reinforcing the region across from the rock wall structure by placing 4,665 lbs of limestone rocks, that have a diameter of 612 inches, along the bank. In order to determine the size of the rocks, we had to make some calculations. We discovered that the velocity of the stream is predicted to reach 5 ft/s during the event of a 100year storm (Huron Watershed Council, 2004) . We also found that the gradient of Millers Creek is 52 ft/mile (Huron Watershed Council, 2004). We used these values in our calculations and determined that the rocks in the rock bed must be at least 6 inches in diameter for them to remain stationary (San Diego State University). These rocks will slow down the water velocity and hold the sediment in place, maintaining the stability of the west bank. Figure 9 shows where these rocks will be placed.

Figure 9: Rock Bed

8

4.0 Testing Procedures and Results The velocity of the stream is predicted to reach 5 ft/s during the event of a 100year storm (Huron Watershed Council, 2004) . The gradient of Millers Creek is 52 ft/mile (Huron Watershed Council, 2004). The objective of this section of the report is to explain our testing procedures and explain how the results contribute to our design. We tested our design for Millers Creek using a scale model in the lab. The scale we used was 1 cm to 1 ft, which roughly represented the dimensions of the section of remediation in Miller Creek. We used a styrofoam board to represent the dimensions of the portion of the creek that we focused on. We then used more styrofoam to represent the island, a stick to represent our log cross vane, and a ruler to represent the sharp angle created by our rock wall. We also used red dye to track the flow of the water through our model. The purpose of our model was to test our hypothesis that vortices would from behind the sharp corner of the ruler, which represented the sharp corner of our rock wall in our true design. We let the water flow from the hose represent water flowing along Millers Creek. As we added red dye to the water, we noticed that vortices began to form behind the ruler in our model. As water velocity increased, the number of vortices behind the ruler increased. Even after approximately eight seconds had passed, the red dye remained behind the ruler, as seen in Figure 10. This suggests that our prediction was correct and that sediment should build up and remain behind our rock wall structure, because the sediment is heavier than the dye.

9

Figure 10: Red Dye Accumulation Behind Ruler

As a result of our testing, we concluded that our rock wall would be effective in forming vortices behind it and therefore be effective in rebuilding the severely eroded bank. 5.0 Assessment Versus Criteria Our design meets all five of our criteria. Our design functions to dissipate energy and reduce the velocity of the water flowing through the creek, therefore reducing the severe erosion of the bank. For example, the Blue Joint Grass will reduce the velocity of the water as the water flows over the plants. The log cross vane will direct the water away from the bank, thus reducing erosion. Therefore, we have met the criterion of designing a system that will reduce erosion of the bank. The tests that we have performed indicate that our rock wall structure will form vortices that will rebuild the bank, thus meeting the criterion of rebuilding the bank. Additionally, we estimate that the total cost of our design is approximately $5,506, which is within our budget of 10,000, thus meeting that criterion. In addition, our design will be durable based on our calculations and the materials we have chosen to implement into our design. We calculated that the force of a 100year storm is equivalent to 14,800 N. We also calculated that the weight of our rock wall is 138,689 N. Therefore, since the rock wall structure weighs significantly more than the force of a 100year storm, it will remain intact and hence be durable. In addition, due to the Blue Joint Grass’ immense root system, the plants will be durable and able to withstand the high velocity flow of a 100year storm. Therefore, our design meets the criteria of being durable enough to withstand the conditions of a 100year storm. Due to its durability, our design will also require no maintenance. Once it is implemented, no further intervention will

10

be needed. However, we recommend an annual inspection of the system to ensure that everything is working properly. Therefore, our design meets the final criteria of requiring little to no maintenance. 6.0 Additional Benefits There are two additional benefits to our design. The first is that our design follows two of the Green Principles of Engineering: using renewable materials (principle 12), and implementing inherent nonhazardous materials (principle 1). For example, our design uses renewable materials including a log and Blue Joint Grass. We are also using nonhazardous materials such as rocks. The second benefit was an added environmental bonus: our design incorporates Blue Joint Grass, which is native to Michigan. 7.0 Budget The total cost of our design is $5,506, which is less than our budget of $10,000. After refining our design we were able to come well within this budget while still implementing the design we think is best for Millers Creek. As seen in the Table 1, the 31,200 lbs of rocks needed to fill the rock wall are the most costly part of our design at $4,682. We believe that we could utilize a fallen tree near the creek for the log cross vane, so we did not factor this into our budget. We are also not factoring in the cost of implementation into our total cost because we plan to use volunteers to install the various components of our design. Table 1: Budget

Material Quantity Price per Quantity Cost

Chicken Wire 305 feet $0.29/ft $88

Rocks for Rock Wall 31,200 lbs $0.15/lb $4,682

Rocks for Rock Bed 4,665 lbs $0.15/lb $700

Blue Joint Grass Plants

10 plants $3.60/plant $36

Log 1 log $0 $0

Total Cost $5,506

11

8.0 Conclusions There are four main features of our design: vegetation, a log cross vane, a rock wall, and a rock bed. The function of these features is to reduce the water velocity and dissipate energy. The first part of the design is to introduce Blue Joint Grass in order to reduce water velocity in the island region upstream of the eroding bank. The next part of our plan is a log cross vane structure upstream of the eroded bank. The log cross vane directs water away from the eroding bank, and ensures the stabilization of the overall system. The third part of the design is a rock wall located in front of the eroding bank. The purpose of this wall is to protect the bank from further erosion and to rebuild the bank over time by creating vortices behind it that trap sediments. The last component of our design is a rock bed on the west bank of the target area in order to dissipate energy directed towards it. These four components work together to create a bank stabilization system that meets our set criteria. These criteria are to reduce erosion, rebuild the bank, be within a budget of $10,000, be durable enough to withstand the conditions of a 100year storm, and require little to no maintenance. Based on our results from the laboratory testing and research, our design will dissipate energy and reduce the water velocity of the creek and therefore reduce erosion. Additionally, sediment will be trapped behind our rock wall structure, and therefore rebuild the bank. Moreover, we were able to come within our budget of $10,000 with a total cost of approximately $5,506. Our design also meets the criteria of being durable enough to withstand the conditions of a 100year storm because the rock wall outweighs the force of a 100year storm and the materials that we have chosen to utilize are stable enough to withstand high velocity flow. Lastly, our design is low maintenance. It is made out of durable materials and should therefore be selfsustaining. Appendix A: Sample Calculations References Ayres. Lewis. Norris. May. Millers Creek Watershed Improvement Plan. Retrieved April 5, 2015

from essnpswmpmillerscreekpart1_210568_7.pdf Cross Vanes. Retrieved February, 18, 2015 from

http://www.catskillstreams.org/pdfs/instreamtablepdfs/Crossvanes.pdf

12

Environmental Consulting & Technology Inc. (December, 2013) Management of Millers Creek

Sediment Accumulation Study Report. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from http://www.a2gov.org/departments/systemsplanning/waterresources/Stormwater/storm waterprojects/Documents/Millers%20Creek%20Sediment%20Study/MillersCreekSedim ent_FinalDraft_12%2031%2013.pdf

Google Maps. (2015). Retrieved February 20, 2015 from https://maps.google.com.

Huron River Watershed Council. (April 20, 2004) Millers Creek Watershed Improvement Plan.

Retrieved March 20, 2015 from https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/group/f9f29bdb27524c47b57c6a63c0095e73/ Milers%20Creek%20Information/essnpswmpmillerscreekpart1_210568_7.pdf

Kim, Jaehoon. Tanaka, Barry. Yochum, Steven. Flow Control Structures. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~pierre/ce_old/classes/CE413/PPT%20files/KimTanakaYochum_FlowControlStructures_414.pdf

"Musings." All Things Nuclear and Radioactive. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.usaliberalism.com/All%20Things%20Nuclear%20and%20Radioactive.html>.

San Diego State University. Calculation of initiation of motion using the Shields criterion. Retrieved March 20, 2015 from http://ponce.sdsu.edu/onlineshields.php.

Wynia, Richard L. Bluejoint Reedgrass. Retrieved April 4, 2015 from https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_caca4.pdf.

13

Millers creek restoration

Engineering

Transcript of Millers creek restoration