Lake Columbia Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation

Prepared for:
Lake Columbia Property Owners Association
Prepared by:
Progressive AE
1811 4 Mile Road, NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49525-2442
616/361-2664
January 2008
Project No.: 55810102
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
Prepared for:
Lake Columbia Property Owners Association
Prepared by:
Progressive AE
1811 4 Mile Road, NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49525-2442
616/361-2664
January 2008
Project No.: 55810102
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Dredging Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 2
Dredging Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 2
Field Survey and Sediment Sampling Results .......................................................................................... 4
Dredge Sediment Disposal ...................................................................................................................... 4
Dredging Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................ 7
Goose Creek Sedimentation Survey ......................................................................................................... 8
Storm Drain Outfall Survey .................................................................................................................... 11
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Sediment Testing Procedures
Appendix B – Preliminary Sediment Testing Results
Appendix C – Goose Creek Field Notes
Appendix D - Storm Drain Photographs
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Lake Columbia Dredging Project - Disposal Site Characteristics ....................................... 6
Table 2. Lake Columbia Dredging Project - Estimate of Probable Cost ........................................... 7
Table 3. Lake Columbia - Storm Drain Survey Summary ............................................................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Lake Columbia – Dredge Area .......................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Drag-line (backhoe) Dredging ........................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Hydraulic Dredging ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 4. Dredged Sediment Disposal Cell....................................................................................... 4
Figure 5. Geotextile Tubes ................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 6. Lake Columbia – Potentially Suitable Disposal Site Locations ......................................... 5
Figure 7. Goose Creek Stream Survey............................................................................................. 6
Figure 8. Goose Creek Drainage Area ............................................................................................. 8
Figure 9. Goose Creek...................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 10. Storm Drain Outfalls ...................................................................................................... 10
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
ii
BACKGROUND
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Lake Columbia is an 815-acre lake located in Columbia Township (T. 4S, R. 1E), Jackson County, Michigan.
Progressive AE was retained by the Lake Columbia Property Owners Association (LCPOA) in May of 2007
to conduct a dredging evaluation of the confluence area of Goose Creek and Lake Columbia. This area
is located at the extreme south end of the lake, immediately north of Cement City Road near the Jackson
County and Lenawee County border. This area of the lake has required periodic dredging since the lake
was originally constructed in 1961. The area was last dredged in 1999 when approximately 20,000 cubic
yards of sediment were removed.
In addition to the dredging evaluation, Progressive was retained by the LCPOA to inventory the storm
drains that discharge directly to the lake and to prepare a preliminary maintenance and improvement plan
for the storm water drainage system around Lake Columbia.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
1
DREDGING EVALUATION
DREDGING EVALUATION
Dredging Considerations
Since Lake Columbia was last dredged in 1999, significant sediment accumulation has occurred in Lake
Columbia at the mouth of Goose Creek (Figure 1.) Dredging will be required to effectively improve conditions in this portion of the lake.
Figure 1. Dredge Area
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
2
DREDGING EVALUATION
There are two major dredging methods: Drag-line and hydraulic (Figures
2 and 3). Drag-line dredging involves
excavation using a crane, backhoe, or
similar equipment. The crane is placed
on shore or on a floating barge and excavates material with its "clamshell" or
bucket. Excavated material is placed in
an interim location to drain or "dewater" the dredged material. If a location
is available nearby, dredge spoils can
be placed directly in the final disposal
location. Drag-line dredging is limited to
areas that are within reach of the crane
arm. With hydraulic dredging, excavated
material is pumped in a slurry through a
floating pipeline to the point of disposal.
Most large-scale lake dredging projects
are conducted with a hydraulic dredge.
Hydraulic dredging can be limited by underwater obstructions such as stumps,
logs, rocks, etc.
Figure 2. Dragline (backhoe) Dredging
A primary consideration in a lake dredging project is identifying a suitable location (or locations) for the placement
of dredged material. When a hydraulic
dredge is used, disposal sites are usually constructed by excavating an area
and creating an earthen dike to contain
the dredged slurry (Figure 4). Given the
flocculent nature of the organic sediments found in most lakes and the extended time frame for dredged material
to dewater and consolidate, the disposal
cell must be adequately sized to accommodate the amount of dredged material produced. The disposal cell should
Figure 3. Hydraulic Dredging
be designed to maximize the settling of
solids while allowing excess water to drain. After dredged materials have been deposited and sufficiently
drained and dried, the disposal area may be graded and seeded. Another disposal alternative for hydraulic
dredging is pumping to sealed, permeable, geotextile tubes which are filled with dredged materials and
allowed to dewater by percolation through the geotextile fabric walls (Figure 5). The drier sediments are
retained inside the tube. This method allows for the use of a smaller site but is considerably more expensive
due to the cost of the tubes and the extended time frame waiting for the tubes to dewater (Bernard, 2008).
Pursuant to provisions of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental
Protection Act, PA 451 of 1994, a permit must be acquired from the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) before a dredging project can be initiated. Permit conditions will generally require that the
dredge disposal site be located in an upland location and that steps be taken during the dredging operation to prevent excessive sediment transport to adjacent areas. Dredge spoils are not typically allowed to
be placed in wetland areas. MDEQ has recently developed testing procedures for sediments proposed for
dredging that require non-sandy sediments to be tested for certain heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs). If sediment proposed for dredging is found to
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
3
DREDGING EVALUATION
be contaminated, the MDEQ may require
special disposal requirements or, in extreme cases, that sediments be placed in
a licensed landfill. These requirements can
substantially increase the cost of a dredging project.
Field Survey and Sediment Sampling
Results
On May 16, 2007, staff from Progressive
AE conducted a preliminary evaluation of
the potential dredging area by taking 117
sediment depth measurements. Based
upon these measurements, an estimate of
approximately 11,000 cubic yards of sediment would need to be removed to re-establish the original bottom contours of the
lake in this area. This equates to an average dredging depth of about 1.7 feet.
Figure 4: Dredged sediment disposal cell
Two samples collected from representative
sites within the proposed dredging area
were analyzed according to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
testing requirements (Appendix A). Sieve
analyses indicated that more than five
percent of the potential dredge sediments
were finer than the #200 sieve, and thus,
would require contaminant testing. A representative composite sample was analyzed
for the MDEQ specified contaminants list
using EPA standard methodologies to determine the likelihood that the dredge sediments would have special disposal restrictions. Preliminary sampling results indicate
the sediments were slightly higher than
MDEQ background standards for arsenic,
Figure 5: Geotextile tubes.
barium, and zinc. Thus, disposal restrictions could be a condition of an MDEQ dredging permit. If a dredging project moves forward, a minimum
of six sediment samples would need to be collected from the dredge area and tested according to MDEQ
contaminant testing requirements. However, if a restrictive covenant can be obtained over the dredge disposal area, additional sediment sampling may not be required. Results of the preliminary sediment testing
are included in Appendix B.
Dredge Sediment Disposal
When evaluating the feasibility of a dredging project, locating a suitable disposal site is a major consideration. Assuming 11,000 cubic yards of sediment are dredged from Lake Columbia and the dredge material
is placed in a five-foot-deep holding cell, about 2.5 acres of land would be required for disposal. Several
potential disposal sites were identified within close proximity to the proposed dredging area (Figure 6).
Characteristics of these sites are summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that the LCPOA does not own
some of these sites and additional cost could be incurred to acquire use of these sites.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
4
DREDGING EVALUATION
Hi
op
llt
Ct
N Grand Pointe Dr
White Rd
S Grand Pointe Dr
nn
Ca
es
R
Dr
Davis Dr
gh
Hi
Archwoo
dL
Ferris Dr
ew
Vi
Hayes Rd
ra Ct
ra
ie
iv
Cannes Dr
Karen Ct
r
Ci
LAKE
COLUMBIA
W Princess Dr
1
!
(
Rivie
n
Ct
Cindy Cir
Ka
Decatur Dr
thy
Ln
Somerset Dr
u
So
th
n
er
o
Sh
re
sD
r
Cement City Rd
Victoria Dr
3
!
(
Kelly Rd
4
!
(
2
!
(
Taylor Rd
5
!
(
6
!
(
1 DISPOSAL SITE LOCATIONS
!
(
LAKE COLUMBIA
POTENTIALLY SUITABLE
DISPOSAL SITE LOCATIONS MAP
´
1 inch equals 1,000 feet
JACKSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
Figure 6: Lake Columbia — Potentially Suitable Disposal Site Locations
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
5
DREDGING EVALUATION
Table 1
Lake Columbia Dredging Project
Disposal Site Characteristics
Site Description
Suitability
Cost Implications
Site 1 – Farmland northwest of
Somerset Drive
Meets preliminary requirements
for disposal of dredged materials
Costs in purchasing property or
a temporary construction easement and covenant over the
property
Site 2 – Park and boat launch
owned by LCPOA – Royal
Shores Subdivision
Site is too small for standard settling pond(s) – use of geotextile
tubes would be required
Disposal cost would be higher
due to geotextile tube usage
– possibly some slope issues
Site 3 – Park owned by LCPOA
– Southern Shores Subdivision
Site is too small for standard settling pond(s) – use of geotextile
tubes would be required
Disposal cost would be higher
due to geotextile tube usage
– possibly some slope issues
Site 4 – Farmland east of Kelley
Road
Meets preliminary requirements
for disposal of dredged materials
Cost in purchasing property or
a temporary construction easement and covenant over the
property
Site 5 – Farmland south of Cement City Road, east of Goose
Creek – Earl Robison property
– this site was used as a secondary disposal site in 1999
Meets preliminary requirements
for disposal of dredged materials
– an existing pipe under Cement
City Road may still be viable for
use
Cost in purchasing property or
a temporary construction easement and covenant over the
property – some cost savings
could be realized if pipe under
Cement City Road can be used
Site 6 - Farmland south of Cement City Road, west of Goose
Creek
Meets preliminary requirements
for disposal of dredged materials
Cost in purchasing property or
a temporary construction easement and covenant over the
property
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
6
DREDGING EVALUATION
Dredging Cost Estimate
An estimate of probable costs to dredge 11,000 cubic yards of sediment from Lake Columbia is presented
in Table 2. In formulating this estimate, it was assumed that a dredge material disposal site can be found
in close proximity to the lake and that special disposal restrictions will not be required. If this is the case,
the estimated cost per cubic yard of dredged material would range from $12 to $18. Engineering, permit
acquisition, and construction oversight are estimated at approximately 15 percent of dredging costs. Contingency funds allow for any unforeseen costs and are estimated at 10 percent of project costs.
If a suitable disposal site cannot be secured in close proximity to the proposed dredge area, costs related to
trucking of dredge spoils, or the use of a booster pump and additional pipe to get to the disposal site could
increase dredge costs dramatically.
As an alternative to hydraulic dredging, the possibility of conducting a drawdown of Lake Columbia to facilitate dredging was also evaluated. However, it does not appear that the gate on the dam spillway is operational (SME Consultants, 2000). Therefore, it would not allow the level of Lake Columbia to be lowered. In
addition, a drawdown could pose significant fishery and recreational use impacts which could complicate
MDEQ permit acquisition. Given the likelihood of regulatory and operational hurdles, this option was not
evaluated further.
Table 2
Lake Columbia Dredging Project
Estimate of Probable Cost
Work Element
Dredge 11,000 Cubic Yards
Engineering, Permit Acquisition, Construction
Oversight (15%)
Contingency (10%)
TOTAL
Estimate of Probable Costs
$132,000 - $198,000
$19,800 - $29,700
$13,200 - $19,800
$165,000 - $247,500
GOOSE CREEK SEDIMENTATION
SURVEY
A field survey of Goose Creek was
conducted by staff from Progressive
on August 14, 2007 to identify possible sources of sediment input to Lake
Columbia (Figure 7). The survey
started at the confluence area immediately north of Cement City Road
and continued upstream to just above
the old railroad crossing (Appendix C
and Figure 8). At this point, Goose
Creek traverses a large wetland. In
addition, there are several lakes upstream of these wetlands that likely
prevent the downstream migration
of significant quantities of sediment
(Figure 8). In general, this stretch of
Goose Creek was in good condition
and contained natural meanders, and
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
Figure 7. Goose Creek stream survey
55810102
7
GO
OS
E
CR
EE
K
DREDGING EVALUATION
´
1 inch equals 3,000 feet
LAKE COLUMBIA
GOOSE CREEK DRAINAGE AREA MAP
JACKSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
Figure 8: Goose Creek Drainage Area
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
8
DREDGING EVALUATION
riffle and pool areas (Figure 9).
The only location at which sedimentation
of the stream bed was evident was in the
vicinity of Cement City Road. The source
of sediment is most likely a combination
of road drainage from Cement City Road,
drainage from unpaved side roads and
driveways that drain towards Cement
City Road, and possibly sedimentation
from recent construction activities in the
area.
In light of these observations, the construction of a sand trap in the stream
channel downstream of Cement City
Road might be the best location to catch
sediment before it enters Lake Columbia. If a sediment trap were properly conFigure 9. Goose Creek - typical riffle area.
structed and maintained, the need for
periodic maintenance dredging in Lake Columbia could be reduced.
As with a dredging project, an MDEQ permit to construct a sand trap would be required. Constructing a
sand trap with a long, narrow configuration would help maximize settling efficiency. A sand trap 100 feet
long and 15 fifteen wide excavated to a depth of 2 feet would hold about 100 cubic yards of sediment.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
9
DREDGING EVALUATION
Figure 10: Storm Drain Outfalls
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
10
DREDGING EVALUATION
Storm Drain Outfall Survey
A survey of storm drain outfalls around Lake Columbia was conducted by staff from Progressive AE on August 1, 2007. The initial field survey identified 26 storm drain (SD) outfalls (Figure 9 and Appendix D).
The following is a description of each of the SD outfalls observed, the current condition and functional status of each, and recommendations for improvements, if necessary:
•
SD 1 - A 15-inch diameter smooth interior corrugated high density poly ethylene (HDPE) pipe located
immediately north of the cul-de-sac for Beechmont Drive (Photo 1, Appendix D). The catchment area
drains approximately three acres of residential development and roads through a catch basin (Photo2,
Appendix D). No excess sedimentation was observed at the pipe outfall and the structures appeared
to be in good working condition. No immediate improvements are necessary other than routine inspection and maintenance.
•
SD 2 – A 12-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe located due west of Ivanhoe Drive (Photo 3, Appendix D). The catchment area drains approximately two acres of residential development and roads
through a series of catch basins. No excess sedimentation was observed at the pipe outfall. However,
some sediment was observed near one of the catch basins. This could be an indication of settling in
the vicinity of the catch basin. The settling near the catch basin could be rectified by re-establishing
the proper grades on properly compacted soils.
•
SD 3 – A 15-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe located immediately east of Waverly Court (Photo
4, Appendix D). The catchment area drains approximately 3.5 acres of residential development and
roads through a series of catch basins and culverts. No excess sedimentation was observed at the
pipe outfall. The outfall pipe appeared to be angled in an upward direction (possible from ice movement on the lake). In addition, the upstream end of the culvert was partially crushed. In order to improve the drainage characteristics of the pipe outfall, a portion of the pipe may need to be replaced at
both the upstream and downstream terminal ends (or the entire pipe should be replaced).
•
SD 4 – A 10-inch corrugated plastic pipe located immediately southwest of the Paula Drive cul-de-sac
(Photo 5, Appendix D). The catchment area drains approximately 2.5 acres of residential development
and roads through a series of catch basins. No excess sedimentation was observed at the pipe outfall
and the structures appeared to be in good working condition. No immediate improvements are necessary other than routine inspection and maintenance.
•
SD 5 – A 12-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe located immediately west of the intersection of
Boyce Drive and Hewitt Road (Photo 6, Appendix D). The catchment area for this outfall occupies
approximately 2.5 acres of residential development and roads. The functionality of this outfall is questionable due to its location (approximately 20 feet upstream of the lake) and the fact that the pipe was
approximately 2/3 filled with sediment. A more detailed assessment of this stormwater outfall may be
necessary (under storm conditions) to determine the necessity or effectiveness of the current pipe
configuration.
•
SD 6 – A 10-inch diameter corrugated plastic pipe located just west of the dam and south of the
Imperial Court cul-de-sac (Photo 7, Appendix D). This pipe drains an approximate 1.5 acre area of
residential development, roads, and forested land cover through tree separate catch basins. No excess sedimentation was observed at the pipe outfall and the structures appeared to be in good working condition. No immediate improvements are necessary other than routine inspection and maintenance.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
11
DREDGING EVALUATION
•
SD 7 – A 12-inch diameter corrugated plastic pipe located immediately east of Wesch Road (Photo 8,
Appendix D). The catchment area for this outfall occupies approximately 3 acres of residential development and road drainage from Wesch Road. The outfall pipe was approximately ¼ full of sediment
and a small delta was present immediately downstream of the outfall pipe. It may be necessary to
install a catch basin upstream of the outlet pipe to intercept the flow of sediment to the lake. Periodic
monitoring of the catch basin would be required and a clean-out schedule established.
•
SD 8 – A 10-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe located immediately south of the intersection of
Fletcher Drive and Wesch Road (Photo 9, Appendix D). This catchment area occupies about 2.5 acres
of residential development and both paved and unpaved roadways. The unpaved portion (Fletcher
Drive) is apparently contributing sand to the outfall pipe (Photo 10, Appendix D). It is recommended
that this road either be paved or a catch basin installed upstream of the outlet pipe to intercept this
sediment before it reaches the lake. Periodic monitoring of the catch basin would be required and a
clean-out schedule established.
•
SD 9 – A 12-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe located immediately south of the intersection of
Wesch Road and Castlewood Drive (Photo 11, Appendix D). The catchment area encompasses approximately 3.5 acres of residential development and the road drainage from Wesch Road and a small
portion of Castlewood Drive. Sedimentation is actively occurring at this outfall and a fairly significant
delta of sand and silt has formed below the outfall. Again, it is likely that the source of the sediment
may be the unpaved Fletcher Drive. It is recommended that this road either be paved or a catch basin
installed upstream of the SD 9 outlet pipe to intercept this sediment before it reaches the lake. Periodic monitoring of the catch basin would be required and a clean-out schedule established.
•
SD 10 – A 15-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe located immediately southeast of the intersection of
Golf View Drive and Beal Drive (Photo 12, Appendix D). The catchment area encompasses approximately 10 acres of residential development, roads, woods, and a golf course. No excess sedimentation was observed at the pipe outfall and the structures appeared to be in good working condition. No
immediate improvements are necessary other than routine.
•
SD 11 – A 12-inch concrete pipe located immediately northeast of North Grand Pointe Drive (Photo
13, Appendix D). This outfall drains an approximate one acre area of residential development and
roads. The pipe is ½ buried in sand and the last three foot section has apparently been completely
removed by ice-shearing and is currently not functioning. No apparent sedimentation is occurring at
this site. However, the functional capability of the pipe is questionable due to its decreased capacity
and damage. This site may need to be monitored during storm events to determine if repairs/improvements are necessary.
•
SD 12 – A 12-inch concrete pipe located located immediately southwest of Kingsbury Drive (Photo 14,
Appendix D). This outfall drains an approximate 3 acres of residential development and roads through
a catch basin. The pipe is ½ submerged and some silt was observed near the catch basin which indicates some settling or erosion may have occurred. The settling near the catch basin could be rectified
by re-establishing the proper grades on properly compacted soils.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
12
DREDGING EVALUATION
•
SD 13 – A 12-inch pipe located immediately southeast of the intersection of Holiday Drive and Alconac
Drive (Photo 15, Appendix D). The outfall was partially-plugged with rocks and ready-mix concrete
bags. No apparent sedimentation was observed, however, the restriction caused by the rocks and
ready-mix concrete bags could cause the pipe to back-up during intense storm events which may
result in localized flooding. The catch basin and outfall should be observed during storm events to
gauge the extent of this potential.
•
SD 14 - A 72-inch corrugated metal pipe located under Hayes road which connects Lake Columbia
to an approximate 3 acre pond (Photo 16, Appendix D). The catchment area for this pipe is by far the
largest of those surveyed (approximately 15 acres of residential and agricultural development) and
thus, the expected discharge from this pipe during storm events would be significant. The pipe was
flowing during the survey and a sand and silt delta was evident immediately downgradient of the pipe.
The potential impact of the large drainage area is buffered somewhat by the stormwater detention
currently being provided by the 3-acre pond which is most likely settling out the majority of suspended
sediments prior to discharging into Lake Columbia. Given this factor, it is unlikely that significant sedimentation is occurring from this outfall. However, the extent of the current delta should be periodically
monitored to determine if it is actively growing in size. The pipe itself is in good working condition and
does not currently need repairs.
•
SD 15 – A 12-inch smooth interior corrugated plastic pipe located immediately northeast of the intersection of North Grand Pointe Drive and Littlefield Lane (Photo 17, Appendix D). The catchment area
occupies approximately two acres of residential development and roads. Approximately ½ inch of
sediment was observed in the pipe. This minimal amount of sediment does not appear to warrant any
immediate concern. Routine maintenance should suffice for this outfall.
•
SD 16 – A 12-inch corrugated metal pipe located immediately southeast of the intersection of South
Grand Pointe Drive and Aberdeen (Photo 18, Appendix D). This pipe was almost completely buried in
sediment. This outfall drains an area of approximately 4 acres of roads and residential development.
The current condition could have been caused by excessive sedimentation coming from the catchment area or settling of the pipe subsequent to its installation. This outfall should be observed during a
storm event to determine if excessive sediment is being transported to the lake (which would indicate
the need for a catch basin) or localized flooding is occurring (which would indicate that the pipe has
settled and needs to be replaced over adequately compacted soils).
•
SD 17 – A 12-inch concrete pipe located immediately northeast of Somerset Drive and drains an area
of approximately 1.5 acres of residential development and roads (Photo 19, Appendix D). This pipe
outfall is approximately 2/3 submerged but no apparent indications of excessive sedimentation were
observed. The relatively small drainage area should limit the likelihood of localized flooding which may
be caused by the outfalls submerged status. However, the catch basin should be observed during a
storm event to verify that no localized flooding is occurring.
•
SD 18 – A 12-inch ductile iron pipe located immediately east of Princess Drive East, drains an area
of approximately 2 acres of residential development and roads (Photo 20, Appendix D). No apparent
sedimentation or settling was observed at this pipe outfall. Routine maintenance and inspection procedures should be followed for this outfall.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
13
DREDGING EVALUATION
•
SD 19 – A 12-inch concrete pipe located immediately east of Kathy Lane, drains an area of approximately two acres of residential development and roads (Photo 21, Appendix D). No apparent
sedimentation or settling was observed at this pipe outfall. Routine maintenance and inspection procedures should be followed for this outfall.
•
SD 20 – A 12-inch concrete pipe located immediately northwest of the terminal end of Riviera Drive
cul-de-sac, drains an approximate area of 4 acres of residential development and roads through a
series of catch basins (Photo 22, Appendix D). No apparent sedimentation was observed at the outfall
or at the catch basin located in the cul-de-sac. Inspection and maintenance of the catch basins and
outfall pipe should be implemented on a periodic basis.
•
SD 21 – An 8-inch vitreous clay pipe located north of Riviera Drive (Photo 23, Appendix D), drains an
area of approximately one acre of residential development (the road drainage apparently was being
collected by a pond on the south side of Riviera Drive). No apparent sedimentation was observed at
the pipe outfall which was partially submerged. Routine inspection and maintenance should suffice for
this small outfall.
•
SD 22 – A 12-inch concrete pipe located at the terminal end of a small peninsula that just out north of
Riviera Drive (Photo 24, Appendix D). This outfall drains an approximate area of 1.5 acres of residential development and roads. The pipe outfall was mostly submerged but no apparent sedimentation
was observed. A local resident indicated that some of the drainage to this outfall had been re-routed
to a storm drain outfall into the pond on the south side of Riviera Drive. This would need to be verified
with the Jackson County Road Commission. Routine inspection and maintenance should suffice for
this outfall.
•
SD 23 – A 12-inch corrugated metal pipe located at the confluence of a small intermittent stream which
drains a wetland southeast of Cement City Road (Photo 25, Appendix D). This outfall likely drains a
large area (greater than ten acres). However, given the storage and detention capacity offered by the
upstream wetland, the outfall does not apparently receive significant discharge amounts. Some sedimentation was observed as a delta near the pipe outfall which may indicate that sedimentation does
occur during significant storm events. The seasonal timing of these storm events could also play a
factor as the wetland vegetation may lose some of its filtering capacity during the non-growing season
(i.e., November through March).
•
SD 24 – A 30-inch corrugated metal pipe located south of Nottingham Drive, drains an approximate
12 acre area of residential development, forested, and wetland land cover (Photo 26, Appendix D).
Primarily, this pipe outfall drains a wetland north of Nottingham Drive. Some sedimentation was observed in the pipe outfall and could be from either excess sediment load from the drainage area or
settling of the pipe. This pipe outfall should be observed during storm events to determine the source
of the sediment. Based upon the results of this observance, either a catch basin would need be installed downstream of the wetland (in the case of excess sediment load), or replacement of the pipe
on properly compacted soils (in the case of pipe settling).
•
SD 25 – A 10-inch vitreous clay pipe located immediately southwest of the intersection of Nottingham
Drive and Ambler Drive (Photo 27, Appendix D). This outfall drains an approximate 2 acre area of
roads and residential development. No apparent sedimentation or settling of the pipe was observed.
Routine maintenance and inspection protocols should be implemented for this outfall.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
14
DREDGING EVALUATION
•
SD 26 – A 12-inch concrete pipe located immediately west of the intersection of Hewett Road and
Boyce Drive, drains an area of approximately 2.5 acres of steeply sloping residential development and
roads through a catch basin (Photo 28, Appendix D). No sedimentation was observed at the outfall.
Routine maintenance and inspection protocols should be implemented for the catch basin and pipe
outfall. Periodic cleaning out of the catch basin may be necessary.
A summary of storm drain survey results are provided in Table 3.
Table 3
Lake Columbia
Storm Drain Survey Summary
Estimated Cost
Location
SD 1
Beechmont Dr.
15-inch
Routine maintenance
SD 2
Ivanhoe Dr.
12-inch
Re-set catch basin
$1,500
SD 3
Waverly Ct.
15-inch
Replace pipe
$2,500
SD 4
Paula Dr.
10-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 5
Boyce Dr./Hewett Rd.
12-inch
Observe during storm event
N/A
SD 6
Imperial Ct.
10-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 7
Wesch Rd.
12-inch
Install catch basin
SD 8
Fletcher Dr./Wesch Rd.
10-inch
Pave road or install catch basin
$10,000-$20,000
SD 9
Wesch Rd./Castlewood
12-inch
Pave road or install catch basin
$10,000-$20,000
SD 10
Golf View/Beal Dr.
15-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 11
North Grand Pointe Dr.
12-inch
Observe during storm event
N/A
SD 12
Kingsbury Dr.
12-inch
Re-set catch basin
SD 13
Holiday/Alconac Dr.
12-inch
Observe during storm event
N/A
SD 14
Hayes Rd.
72-inch
Monitor delta expansion
N/A
SD 15
N. Grand Pointe/Littlefield
12-Inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 16
S. Grand Pointe/Aberdeen
12-inch
Observe during storm event
N/A
SD 17
Somerset Dr.
12-inch
Observe during storm event
N/A
SD 18
Princess Dr. East
12-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 19
Kathy Ln.
12-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 20
Riviera Dr. cul-de-sac
12-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 21
Riviera Dr.
8-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 22
Riviera Dr.
12-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 23
Cement City Rd.
12-inch
Install catch basin
SD 24
Nottingham Dr.
30-inch
Observe during storm event
N/A
SD 25
Nottingham/Ambler Dr.
10-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
SD 26
Hewett/Boyce Dr.
12-inch
Routine maintenance
N/A
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
Size
Maintenance/Improvements
SD ID
N/A
$10,000
$1,500
$10,000
55810102
15
DREDGING EVALUATION
References
Bernard, John. Alcona Dredge Company. 2008. Personal communication. Harrisville, Michigan.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Land and Water Management Division. 1999. Part 301
Inland Lakes and Streams Permit No. 98-13-0417 issued May 13, 1999. Jackson County, Michigan.
Progressive AE. 2002. Lake Columbia Water Quality Assessment. Jackson County, Michigan.
SME Consultants. 2000. Safety Inspection Report Lake Columbia Dam No. 00620. Brooklyn, Michigan.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
16
APPENDIX D
Photo 1. SD 1 outfall.
Photo 2. SD 1 drainage area.
Photo 3. SD 2 outfall.
Photo 4. SD 3 near Hawthorn Dr. and Beechmont Dr.
intersection.
Photo 5. SD 4 outfall.
Photo 6. SD 5 outfall.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
D-1
APPENDIX D
Photo 7. SD 6 outfall.
Photo 8. SD 7 outfall
Photo 9. SD 8 outfall.
Photo 10. SD 8 drainage from Fletcher Drive.
Photo 11. SD 9 outfall.
Photo 12. SD 10 outfall.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
D-2
APPENDIX D
Photo 13. SD 11 outfall.
Photo 14. SD 12 outfall.
Photo 15. SD 13 outfall.
Photo 16. SD 14 outfall.
Photo 17. SD 15 outfall.
Photo 18. SD 16 outfall.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
D-3
APPENDIX D
Photo 19. SD 17 outfall.
Photo 20. SD 18 outfall.
Photo 21. SD 19 outfall.
Photo 22. SD 20 outfall.
Photo 23. SD 21 outfall.
Photo 24. SD 22 outfall.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
D-4
APPENDIX D
Photo 25. SD 23 outfall and delta.
Photo 26. SD 24 outfall.
Photo 27. SD 25 outfall.
Photo 28. SD 26 drainage and catch basin.
Lake Columbia
Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation
55810102
D-5