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 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation

January 2008

Project No.: 55810102 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 1 DREDGING EVALUATION

DREDGING EVALUATION

Dredging Considerations

Since Lake Columbia was last dredged in 1999, signifi cant sediment accumulation has occurred in Lake Columbia at the mouth of Goose Creek (Figure 1.) Dredging will be required to effectively improve condi- tions in this portion of the lake.

Figure 1. Dredge Area

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 2 DREDGING EVALUATION

There are two major dredging meth- ods: 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 fl oating barge and ex- cavates material with its "clamshell" or bucket. Excavated material is placed in an interim location to drain or "dewa- ter" the dredged material. If a location is available nearby, dredge spoils can be placed directly in the fi nal 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 fl oating pipeline to the point of disposal. Figure 2. Dragline (backhoe) Dredging Most large-scale lake dredging projects are conducted with a hydraulic dredge. Hydraulic dredging can be limited by un- derwater obstructions such as stumps, logs, rocks, etc.

A primary consideration in a lake dredg- ing project is identifying a suitable lo- cation (or locations) for the placement of dredged material. When a hydraulic dredge is used, disposal sites are usu- ally constructed by excavating an area and creating an earthen dike to contain the dredged slurry (Figure 4). Given the fl occulent nature of the organic sedi- ments found in most lakes and the ex- tended time frame for dredged material to dewater and consolidate, the disposal cell must be adequately sized to accom- modate the amount of dredged mate- rial 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 suffi ciently 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 fi lled 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 opera- tion 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 3 DREDGING EVALUATION be contaminated, the MDEQ may require special disposal requirements or, in ex- treme cases, that sediments be placed in a licensed landfi ll. These requirements can substantially increase the cost of a dredg- ing 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 sedi- ment would need to be removed to re-es- tablish the original bottom contours of the Figure 4: Dredged sediment disposal cell lake in this area. This equates to an aver- age dredging depth of about 1.7 feet.

Two samples collected from representative sites within the proposed dredging area were analyzed according to Michigan De- partment of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) testing requirements (Appendix A). Sieve analyses indicated that more than fi ve percent of the potential dredge sediments were fi ner than the #200 sieve, and thus, would require contaminant testing. A repre- sentative composite sample was analyzed for the MDEQ specifi ed contaminants list using EPA standard methodologies to de- termine the likelihood that the dredge sedi- ments would have special disposal restric- tions. Preliminary sampling results indicate the sediments were slightly higher than MDEQ background standards for arsenic, Figure 5: Geotextile tubes. barium, and zinc. Thus, disposal restric- tions 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 dis- posal 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 consider- ation. Assuming 11,000 cubic yards of sediment are dredged from Lake Columbia and the dredge material is placed in a fi ve-foot-deep holding cell, about 2.5 acres of land would be required for disposal. Several potential disposal sites were identifi ed 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 4 DREDGING EVALUATION

t C p to ill H N Grand Pointe Dr

White Rd

S Grand Pointe Dr C a n ne sC

ir t r C D C

n a

r a e e

R i n r i vier iv a a Ct R n

e K LAKE

s

W

D

P COLUMBIA r

r

i

nc

e

s Davis Dr

d s R

D

s r H e i

y g Ferris Dr a h

H (!1 V Arch ie wood Ln w C t

Cindy Cir (!4 (!2

(!3 d

R

r

D

y

l

l

a i

SomersetDr e

r

K

o

t c

r i n D L s V re y o h h t S a rn r e K h D ut

r So

u

t

a c

e Taylor Rd

Cement City Rd D (!5

(!6

(!1 DISPOSAL SITE LOCATIONS ´ LAKE COLUMBIA 1 inch equals 1,000 feet POTENTIALLY SUITABLE DISPOSAL SITE LOCATIONS MAP JACKSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Figure 6: Lake Columbia — Potentially Suitable Disposal Site Locations

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 5 DREDGING EVALUATION

Table 1 Lake Columbia Dredging Project Disposal Site Characteristics

Site Description Suitability Cost Implications Site 1 – Farmland northwest of Meets preliminary requirements Costs in purchasing property or Somerset Drive for disposal of dredged materials a temporary construction ease- ment and covenant over the property Site 2 – Park and boat launch Site is too small for standard set- Disposal cost would be higher owned by LCPOA – Royal tling pond(s) – use of geotextile due to geotextile tube usage Shores Subdivision tubes would be required – possibly some slope issues Site 3 – Park owned by LCPOA Site is too small for standard set- Disposal cost would be higher – Southern Shores Subdivision tling pond(s) – use of geotextile due to geotextile tube usage tubes would be required – possibly some slope issues Site 4 – Farmland east of Kelley Meets preliminary requirements Cost in purchasing property or Road for disposal of dredged materials a temporary construction ease- ment and covenant over the property Site 5 – Farmland south of Ce- Meets preliminary requirements Cost in purchasing property or ment City Road, east of Goose for disposal of dredged materials a temporary construction ease- Creek – Earl Robison property – an existing pipe under Cement ment and covenant over the – this site was used as a second- City Road may still be viable for property – some cost savings ary disposal site in 1999 use could be realized if pipe under Cement City Road can be used Site 6 - Farmland south of Ce- Meets preliminary requirements Cost in purchasing property or ment City Road, west of Goose for disposal of dredged materials a temporary construction ease- Creek ment and covenant over the property

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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. Con- tingency 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 facili- tate dredging was also evaluated. However, it does not appear that the gate on the dam spillway is opera- tional (SME Consultants, 2000). Therefore, it would not allow the level of Lake Columbia to be lowered. In addition, a drawdown could pose signifi cant fi shery 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 Estimate of Probable Costs Dredge 11,000 Cubic Yards $132,000 - $198,000 Engineering, Permit Acquisition, Construction $19,800 - $29,700 Oversight (15%) Contingency (10%) $13,200 - $19,800 TOTAL $165,000 - $247,500

GOOSE CREEK SEDIMENTATION SURVEY

A fi eld survey of Goose Creek was conducted by staff from Progressive on August 14, 2007 to identify possi- ble sources of sediment input to Lake Columbia (Figure 7). The survey started at the confl uence area im- mediately 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 up- stream of these wetlands that likely prevent the downstream migration of signifi cant quantities of sediment (Figure 8). In general, this stretch of Goose Creek was in good condition Figure 7. Goose Creek stream survey and contained natural meanders, and

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 7 DREDGING EVALUATION

K E E R C

E S O O G

´ 1 inch equals 3,000 feet LAKE COLUMBIA GOOSE CREEK DRAINAGE AREA MAP JACKSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN Figure 8: Goose Creek Drainage Area

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 8 DREDGING EVALUATION riffl e 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 con- struction 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 Colum- bia. If a sediment trap were properly con- structed and maintained, the need for Figure 9. Goose Creek - typical riffl e area. 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 confi guration would help maximize settling effi ciency. A sand trap 100 feet long and 15 fi fteen wide excavated to a depth of 2 feet would hold about 100 cubic yards of sediment.

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 9 DREDGING EVALUATION

Figure 10: Storm Drain Outfalls

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 10 DREDGING EVALUATION

Storm Drain Outfall Survey

A survey of storm drain outfalls around Lake Columbia was conducted by staff from Progressive AE on Au- gust 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 sta- tus 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 in- spection and maintenance.

• SD 2 – A 12-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe located due west of Ivanhoe Drive (Photo 3, Ap- pendix 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 rectifi ed 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 move- ment on the lake). In addition, the upstream end of the culvert was partially crushed. In order to im- prove 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 neces- sary 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 ques- tionable due to its location (approximately 20 feet upstream of the lake) and the fact that the pipe was approximately 2/3 fi lled 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 confi guration.

• 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 ex- cess sedimentation was observed at the pipe outfall and the structures appeared to be in good work- ing condition. No immediate improvements are necessary other than routine inspection and mainte- nance.

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 devel- opment 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 fl ow 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 ap- proximately 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. Peri- odic 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 approxi- mately 10 acres of residential development, roads, woods, and a golf course. No excess sedimenta- tion 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/improve- ments 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 indi- cates 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 sedi- mentation 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 inter- section 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 catch- ment 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 pro- cedures should be followed for this outfall.

Lake Columbia 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 13 DREDGING EVALUATION

• SD 19 – A 12-inch concrete pipe located immediately east of Kathy Lane, drains an area of ap- proximately 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 pro- cedures 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 residen- tial 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 sedi- mentation 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 ob- served 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 in- stalled 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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

SD ID Location Size Maintenance/Improvements Estimated Cost SD 1 Beechmont Dr. 15-inch Routine maintenance N/A 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 $10,000 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 $1,500 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/Littlefi eld 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 $10,000 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation 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 55810102 Dredging and Storm Drain Evaluation D-5