Capstone Design 2017

1. Hunnicutt Creek Stream
Restoration Design
Michael Calfe, Grace Wachowski, Ashley Willis

2. Introduction
● Erosion cutting away hillside
toward McMillan Road
● Downstream sediment yields
stressing pump system
● High water velocity during
storm events
Source: Ashley Willis

3. Source: Google Maps

4. Source: Michael CalfeSource: Michael Calfe

5. Source:
Michael Calfe

6. Goals
● Biological: Maintain and restore native flora and fauna
● Structural: Stabilize the streambed and banks by controlling
the velocity of flow to maintain McMillan Rd.
● Mechanical: Provide access for an excavator to remove
sediment

7. Constraints and Considerations
Constraints
● Location
○ campus residential
area
● Time
○ erosion getting worse
with every storm
● Money
○ Approx. $1 Million per
700 ft
● Weather
● Soil Type
● Skills
Considerations
● Ethical
○ downstream water quality
● Ecological
○ must provide a sustainable habitat
for native wildlife
● Ultimate Use
○ flood control and erosion control
● Safety
○ personal safety during field visits
Source: Grace Wachowski

8. Questions of User, Client, and Designer
● User: Clemson Facilities
○ What maintenance is associated with the design?
○ Are there any safety concerns?
○ How long will it take to reach acceptable levels of water velocity and sediment yields?
● Client: Clemson University
○ How much does the project it cost?
○ How effective or long term will the solution be?
○ Can this area be dual purpose?
● Designer: Capstone Design Team
○ What is the existing flow rate of Hunnicutt Creek for a given storm event?
○ What are the elevations in the stream bed and are they limiting?
○ What remediation technique is the most effective solution?

9. Governing Equations
● Soil Cover Complex Method:
Q = (P - 0.2S)2
/ (P + 0.8S)
Q = Storm Runoff [in]
P = 24-hour rainfall expected for a specific storm return period
S = (1000/CN) - 10
● Manning’s Equation:
Q = V A = (1.486/n) A R2/3
Sf
1/2
Q = Flow Rate, [cfs]
V = Velocity [fps]
A = Flow Area, [ft2
]
n = Manning’s Roughness Coefficient
R = Hydraulic Radius [ft]
Sf
= Channel Slope [ft/ft]

10. Governing Equations
● Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation
Y = 95 (Q qp
)0.56
K LS VM
Y = Single-event downstream sediment yield [ton]
Q = Storm runoff volume [acre-ft]
qp
= Peak discharge [cfs]
K = Soil Erodibility Factor
LS = Slope Length and Steepness Factor
VM = Vegetative Mulch Factor
● The Rational Method for determining peak discharge
qp
= CiA
C = Runoff coefficient
i = Design rainfall intensity [in/hr]
A = Watershed area [acre]

11. Literature Reviews
● US Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Channel Design Checklist
● Stream Restoration Design National Engineering Handbook
○ Threshold Channel Design
○ Two Stage Channel Design
○ Rosgen Geomorphic Channel Design
●
Source: Nat’l Engr. Handbook Ch. 8 & Ch. 11, respectively

12. Rosgen Stream Classifications

13. Hard Data
● Rainfall data from SC DHEC
● Runoff curve numbers and rational method runoff coefficient factor: C = 0.5
● Soil Erodibility Factor - Type B sandy loam soil (USGS website): 0.02-0.69 (used 0.4)
● Maximum permissible velocity for non-colloidal sandy loam soil: 1.75 ft/sec

14. Hard Data
● Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for current conditions (Rosgen G5): 0.038
● Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for channel design conditions
○ Average for rock lined channel: 0.05
○ Rocks, sluggish reaches, deep pools: 0.07
○ Rocks, very weedy reaches, deep pools: 0.1
● Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for designed floodplain (Rosgen E5 - Meadow
Stream): 0.055 - 0.1
● Optimum side slope for trapezoidal channel (z): 1.5:1 - 3.5:1 (H:V)
● Optimum channel bed slope: 0.05% - 0.2%

15. Past Experience
● Classes
○ Hydrology and Geomatics
○ Engr. Systems for Soil Water
Management
○ Ecological Engineering
○ AutoCAD & GIS
○ Basic engineering principles
● Internships
○ Stormwater infrastructure and water
resources
○ Consulting in civil site design
○ Stream restoration and mitigation
Source: Michael Calfe

16. Analysis of
Information -
Watershed
Area of Watershed =
68.89 acres
Project Stream Length =
1108.3 ft

17. Analysis of Information - Curve Number
Land Use Area CN
Houses (1/4
acre)
3.82 75
Impervious 16.98 98
Forest 26.98 66
Shrubs 9.20 67
Grass 11.91 79
Total: 68.89 77

18. Analysis of Information
Pre-Design
● Time of Concentration
● Win TR-55

19. Analysis of Information- Peak Flow Rate
Storm Event [yr] Rainfall Intensity
(i) [in/hr]
Peak Flow Rate
(qp
) [cfs]
2 2.8 96.4
5 3.6 124.0
10 4.3 146.4
25 5.0 172.2
50 5.8 199.8
100 6.2 213.6
qp
= CiA

20. Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph

21. Analysis of Information
Field Observations:
Water AT LEAST 1.5’ deep, 9.5’ wide
with evidence of overflow
A = 14.25 ft2
Pw
= 12.5 ft
V = (1.486/0.038)*(A/Pw
)⅔
* (.02)½
MINIMUM V = 6.04 fps
MINIMUM qp
= AV = (14.25 ft2
)*(6.04 fps)
= 86.17 cfs
Source: Michael Calfe

22. Analysis of Information - Cross Sections

23. Analysis of Information
Cross Sections and Channel Elevation Profile:
Feet [ft]
Elevation[feetMSL]

24. Analysis of Information
Soil Erodibility Tests:
Source: Owino, Lecture 3

25. Analysis of Information - Sediment Loss
Storm Event [years] Pre-Design Y [tons]
2 1024.6
5 1418.0
10 1772.2
25 2243.4
50 2689.0
100 3064.9
Y = 95 (Q qp
)0.56
K LS VM

26. Analysis of Information - TSS Tests
● Estimated sediment loss during observed storm event
Number
Sample
Mass of
Sediment
per 50 mL [g]
Grams per Cubic
Foot of Water
1 0.10 56.64
2 0.10 56.64
3 0.10 56.64
4 0.11 62.30 Source: Grace Wachowski

27. Design Options
Sedimentation Basin Stream Restoration
Source: City of Milwaukee Stormwater Department Source: Michael Calfe

28. Synthesis of Design - HEC RAS Model
HEC-RAS Model
HEC-RAS Model
HEC-RAS Model

29. Synthesis of Design - Settling Ponds
● Slows incoming and outgoing
velocities to zero before
entering new flow regime
○ 30 ft long, 6 ft deep
○ Lining: 8-10” Rip-Rap

30. Synthesis of Design - Stream Channel
● Sinuosity of stream path (Rosgen Type E5) ≥ 1.5
● Shortest path from start of project to finish = 800 ft
Sinuosity = Total Length ÷
Shortest Possible Path
1.5 = x/800 ft
x ≥ 1200 ft

31. Synthesis of Design - Stream Channel
● Stream channels designed for 1-2 year storm events
● Controlling Design Parameters:
○ 2 Year Peak Discharge; qp
= 60.3 cfs
○ Maximum Permissible Velocity for Sandy Loam soil; Vmax
= 1.75 ft/sec
● Variable Design Parameters
○ Channel bed Slope; Sf
○ Manning’s Roughness Coefficient; n
○ Trapezoidal Channel Geometry; base width, flow depth, side slopes
Design Pathway
Find Acceptable
Channel Cross
Sectional Area
Solve System of
Equations for Base
Width and Flow Depth
Repeat System of Equations
for different Channel Slope,
Manning’s n, & Side Slopes

32. Synthesis of Design - Stream Channel
● Design Velocity = 1.25 ft/sec
● qp
= A*V ⇒ 60.3 ft3
/sec = A*(1.25 ft/sec)
● A = 48.24 ft2
● Continued iterative process for different channel
bed slopes, manning’s n, & side slopes

33. Synthesis of Design - Channel & Floodplain
● Channel Specs
○ b = 14.25 ft
○ T = 24.25 ft
○ d = 2.5 ft
○ z = 2:1 (H:V)
● Floodplain Dimensions
○ 143 ft - 10:1 Width ratio with base of
channel
○ Upland slopes no greater than 45∘
(1:1 H:V)
○ n = 0.07 - Rock-Lined,
Sluggish Reaches, Deep
Pools
○ Sf
= 0.15%

34. Synthesis of Design - Sedimentation Basin
● Minimum basin size must control the
runoff from a 25 year storm
● 10 ft deep, 2.57 acre sedimentation
basin

35. Evaluation of Design - Sedimentation Basin
● Fails to address erosion and water
velocity issues
● Large area of land
● Safety concern
○ Deep body of water on
campus
○ Water quality

36. Evaluation of Design - Cut & Fill
64,000 yd3
of CUT
● Average End-Area Method
○ Cross Sectional Area (A) = AFILL
- ACUT
Volume = ∑ ((An
+ An+1
)/2) * Length Between Stations
- About 4,600 truck-loads

37. Evaluation of Design - Stream Restoration
● Weighted Manning’s n (Channel + “Meadow Stream”) = 0.058
QChannel
+ QFloodplain
= QTotal

38. Evaluation of Design - Stream Restoration

39. Erosion Control
● Construction on Site
○ Silt fences around site
○ Sediment tubes in the culverts
● Construction in Stream
○ Rip-Rap and River Rock
○ Jute Mat, Coconut-Straw Mat and Coconut Mat
○ Straw Mat and Coconut-Straw Mat
Top:https://www.amleo.com/straw-coconut-erosion-control-standard-blanket-8ft-x
-113ft-roll/p/SC3000/
Bottom:http://www.southernmulch.com/product-details.php?product_id=CM14

40. Two Phase Planting Plan
Live Cuttings
● American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
● Silky Willow (Salix sericea)
● Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa)
● Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
https://www.ernstseed.com/

41. Two Phase Planting Plan
Shrubs
● False Indigo (Amorpha fructosa)
● Chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia)
● Common Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
http://www.carolinanature.com
http://plants.chaletnursery.com

42. Two Phase Planting Plan
Trees
● American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
● Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
● River Birch (Acer negundo)
● Boxelder (Acer negundo)
● Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor)
● Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)
● Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
http://texastreeplanting.tamu.edu
https://greatplainsnursery.com

43. Post-Construction Flow Rate
● Time of Concentration
● WinTR-55

44. Evaluation of Design - Peak Flow Rate
Storm Event
[yr]
Rainfall
Intensity
Pre-Design (i)
[in/hr]
Rainfall
Intensity
Post-Design (i)
[in/hr]
Peak Flow Rate
Pre-Design (qp
)
[cfs]
Peak Flow Rate
Post-Design (qp
)
[cfs]
2 2.8 1.75 96.4 60.3
5 3.6 2.45 124.0 84.4
10 4.3 2.9 146.4 99.9
25 5.0 3.5 172.2 120.6
50 5.8 3.9 199.8 134.3
100 6.2 4.5 213.6 155.0
qp
= CiA

45. Evaluation of Design - Sediment Loss
Storm Event [years] Pre-Design Y [tons] Post-Design Y [tons]
2 1024.6 3.57
5 1418.0 5.18
10 1772.2 6.48
25 2243.4 8.32
50 2689.0 9.75
100 3064.9 11.60
Y = 95 (Q qp
)0.56
K LS VM

46. Planting Cost
Plant Quantity Cost [$]
Live Cuttings 1000 cuttings $1,300.00
Shrub Seedlings (6-12 in) 900 plants $1,200.00
Tree Seedlings (6-12 in) 350 plants $670.00
Seeding 18 lbs $210.00
Total -- $3,800.00

47. Construction Cost
Design Construction
Construction
Inspection/Management
Low High Low High Low High
Cost Per Linear Foot $48.59 $155.50 $323.95 $518.32 $6.48 $18.14
Cost $66,475 $212,720 $443,164 $709,062 $8,863 $24,817
● Urban Watershed, highly confined channel stabilized in place
● Survey Cost
○ 5% of total unit cost
Low Survey Cost $25,925
High Survey Cost $47,330
● Mobilization Cost
○ 10% of total unit cost
Low Mobilization Cost $51,850
High Mobilization Cost $94,960
● Pump-Around Cost
○ Highly variable
between projects
○ Account for this in
construction cost
Low Cost $596,300
High Cost $1,088,600

48. Rocks and Erosion Control Cost

49. Total Cost
Low Cost High Cost
Planting Cost $3,380 $3,380
Construction Cost $596,300 $1,088,600
Rock and Material Cost $79,290 $166,250
Total Cost $680,000 $1,260,000

50. Sustainability Measures
● Ethical
○ The stream restoration prevents damage to the ecosystem and makes it safer for people who live in
the area.
● Ecological
○ The ecology of the stream will be restored so that the health of the stream will be improved and
more organisms can benefit from a healthy ecosystem and native and beneficial trees and shrubs
will be planted.
● Social
○ The design will improve the societal factor by bettering downstream water quality which flows into
Lake Hartwell, a drinking water source for Clemson and a recreational area.
● Financial
○ The project will decrease the need to dredge sediment which accumulates on Clemson University’s
Campus near the baseball fields which will save money in dredging costs for Clemson University
Facilities.

51. Conclusions
Ethical Considerations
● Labor
● Time of year
○ Weather
○ Loud machinery during school
year
● Protected species in the area
Selection of Design - Stream Restoration
● Controls velocity
● Lowers sedimentation downstream
● Creates a sustainable ecosystem
Do we move forward with this project?
YES

52. Questions Revisited
● User: Clemson Facilities
○ What maintenance is associated with the design?
■ Maintenance to dredge the settling ponds estimated at every 10-15 years
■ Frequent checks during establishment phase
○ Are there any safety concerns?
■ The waterfall at the beginning of the project will still be there
○ How long will it take to reach acceptable levels of water velocity and sediment
yields?
■ Desirable velocity will be attained as soon as the project is finished
■ Lower sediment yields will be attained as soon as the project is finished
and will continue to decrease as the plants & erosion control establish

53. Questions Revisited
● Client: Clemson University
○ How much does the project it cost?
■ Between $700,000 and $1.3 Million
○ How effective or long term will the solution be?
■ Stream restoration projects are designed to last forever
○ Can this area be dual purpose?
■ Yes. Any project on a university can be supplemented with informational
posters describing the design process
■ Also a much more sustainable habitat for native wildlife, especially
aquatic organisms

54. Questions Revisited
● Designer: Capstone Design Team
○ What is the existing flow rate in Hunnicutt Creek for a given storm event?
■ 96.4 cfs for a 2-year storm event
■ 213.6 cfs for a 100-year storm event
○ What are the elevations in the stream bed and are they limiting?
■ Limiting Elevation = 735 ft MSL - elevation of road at the end of the
project
■ Starting elevation after waterfall = 730 ft MSL
○ What remediation technique is the most effective solution?
■ Stream Restoration provides the most long-term and ecologically-sound
solution

55. Timeline

56. Questions?
Teamwork makes the Stream Work!

57. References
Bonham, J., K. Stephenson. 2004. A Cost Analysis of Stream Compensatory Mitigation Projects
in the Southern Appalachian Region. Department of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
Dr. Tom Owino BE 3220 Class Notes
DNR. (2011). South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/lidarstatus.html.
Douglas, S. F., R. R. Copeland, P. C. Klingeman, M. W. Doyle and S. Andrew. 2003. Design for Stream Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 129(8): 575-584.
EcoDuty Dissolvable Stake. Forestry Suppliers. Retrieved from http://www.forestry-suppliers.com/product_pages/products.php?
mi=49731&itemnum=25631&redir=Y.
Ernst Seeds. (2017). Price List. Retrieved from https://www.ernstseed.com/price-list/.
Erosion Control Products. GEI Works. Retrieved from https://www.erosioncontrol-products.com/index.html.

58. References
Erosion Control. A.M. Leonard Horticultural tool and Supply Company. Retrieved from
https://www.amleo.com/Search.aspx?ss=erosion%20control.
Harrell, L.J. 2003. Detention Pond Design and Land Use Planning for Watershed Management. Journal of
Water Resource Planning Management 129(2):98-106
Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office.
Jute Mesh Blanket. Home Depot. Retrieved from https://www.homedepot.com/p/4-ft-x-225-ft-Jute-Mesh-Blanket-17685-1-48/206604901.
Mrs. Kelly (Creswell) Warner. Land Planning Associates Inc. Consultation.
Mr. Nathan Hinkle. Stormwater Department City of Clemson. Consultation.
Pickens Co. (2017). Pickens County GIS Mapping Department. Retrieved from http://pcgis-pickenscosc.opendata.arcgis.com/.
Porcupine Hollow Farm Wholesale & Retail Prices. (2017). Retrieved from
http://porkyfarm.com/hardwood.asp?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgvubs-fk1wIVx1YNCh3kRgpvEAAYAiAAEgLy5vD_BwE.
SCDHEC. (2005). South Carolina DHEC Stormwater Management BMP Handbook. Appendix F. South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control. Retrieved from http://www.scdhec.gov/Environment/WaterQuality/Stormwater/BMPHandbook/.

59. References
SCFC Price List. (2017). South Carolina Forestry Commission Price Guide for Tree Seedlings, Equipment, and Services. Retrieved from
https://www.state.sc.us/forest/refprice.htm.
Stone. Southern Mulch. Retrieved from http://www.southernmulch.com/stone.php.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Stream Restoration Design. National Engineering Handbook. 654(8, 10, 11)
USDA National Resources Conservation Service. 1986. TR-55. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. 2(5, 6, 7)
USDA National Resources Conservation Service. 2017. Soil Bulk Density Moisture/ Aeration. (3) Retrieved from
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053260.pdf
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Soil and Water Conservation. 2004.
The Virginia Stream Restoration & Stabilization Best Management Practices Guide. 1(3): 53-66
Web Soil Survey. (2017). United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

60. Appendices

61. Appendices

62. Appendices

63. Appendices

64. Appendices

65. Appendices

66. Appendices

67. Appendices

68. Appendices

69. Appendices

70. Appendices

71. Appendices

72. Appendices