Suggestions for help with stormwater management?
Hi! I hope I am posting the right place... Back on August 7 and 8 I posted, asking if my weeping spruce needed trimming. We digressed a bit and discussed my yews, the value of 40 year old trees, and stormwater management. One posted suggested I post the stormwater problem.
My problem isn't so much water pooling as it is rivers flowing in a heavy rain. I hope you tree guys and gals may provide a new way to look at the situation. North is at the top of the photo
Streets are city. Highest land is upper right, lowest land is lowest left.
I am not sure about the wind. The most snow is always on the parking lot side of the building with the pool, but the wind blows across the pool from the tree area towards the parking lot. Our parking lot at the top left gets very little wind.
This happens in heavy rain, 8 - 10x annually. Stormwater flows from the multi lane road, turns the corner to a low spot then meets up with overflow from a large flatroofed building, crosses the street and runs down the hill. Some enters the parking lot on top of the macadam. The parking lot is graded to allow water to flow past the building to the storm sewer where the red line ends at the upper left of the photo.
The parking lot is boulder lined, starting at the bottom center of the photo about 1 ft high increasing gradually to 5 ft high at the corner. There is a 5ft wide strip of lawn and a sidewalk between the boulders and the street where the heavy water flows. there are some low spots and holes in this strip. Stormwater does not run over the curb. Day lillies are on top of the rocks, across half the area. I planted a row of arborvitae to try to get some water absorption and root stabilizing. Good or bad?
It is sunny, I added red dragon sedum, blue spruce sedum and liriope in dirt areas within the rocks. Some survived, none thrived. I can see some erosion under the rocks, but assume that some would be expected. No? I have a fluorescent tracing product and black light flashlight to use during a storm at the spot where the 2 sources meet to try to see where the water is running. Useful? The city has told me the the bldg is not in violation.
The stormwater runs in front of the building, so deep it jumps the curb at times, pooling and then running across a swale in front of the building, around the corner, between the pool the the building, down a dry riverbed I made to keep it 10ft from the foundation. The building patios are 4 ft lower than the parking lot. the lawn area between the building and the parking lot is 20ft wide, raised garden near bldg, then swale, then raises to the height of the parking lot.
Any suggestions? Is water running under the curb at street? Or is erosion typical in boulders? or both? will planting help? something instead of arborvitae? If all goes well, we are tapering the macadam at the curb to make it harder for water to jump the curb.
Thank you for reading.
Comments (33)
Dalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoThank you waynedanielson. I will look into those plants - shrubs and increase groundcovers.
On the other side of the telephone pole is the area shown in the above photo. Telephone pole lines up with fire hydrant.Related Discussions
Help managing brush/native grasses in rural CA?
Comments (2)Suggest you google on fire resistant Australian natives. I know many of these species are available in California. You can also find information on how to landscape your property to increase fire resistance and resilience through accessing Australian sites. There's been a lot of work done there with this in mind. You might also consider your water capture systems, your paving, and escape routes, the actual architecture of your home and what it's made of, plus the types of mulch you use. Australia has had some severe bush fires in the last three years or so. The states of Victoria and New South Wales are regularly affected - and put out useful information for home gardeners as a consequence. For reducing your grass - a weed wacker/weed eater can be very useful for steep berms and slopes. You MUST have footwear with non-slip soles, plus ear and eye protection. And a useful second pair of hands wielding a hay rake to bring the material down to the compost heap. Long term - plant up your slope with your fire resistant species and reduce the amount of work you do....See MoreOnsite Stormwater Management
Comments (6)Indiana_th, “My guess is that the engineer purposely dug in a location that they knew would fail the perc. ” That is what I suspected. What annoys me is that he should have asked me if tying into the city storm-water system is what I wanted to do. I agree that it could be cheaper to tie-in if the drainage system needs to be very big but he would have no way of knowing that without doing a proper perc test. Based on my perc test in the front yard (8.5 min/inch) my drainage is actually very good and the stormwater system shouldn’t be very big. I really think he did it to save himself some work. Also he did the test pit in the back yard which is the farthest point possible from the city drain. If I tie into the city, the collection system would be best placed in the front yard anyway to avoid a long drainage line running from the backyard. To do this he will have to redo the test in the front yard anyway. I have plenty of room in the front yard or even side yard for the system. Millworkman, “Only one way to find out, ask the engineer.....” normally I would agree but this guy is so slick (based on other interactions) that he will most likely try to BS me into accepting whatever he did. I think in this case my best bet is to forearm with Houzz expertise before I make that call. Dekeobee, the stormwater to be managed is just the rain from impervious sections (the roof and the driveway). The backyard fill area just needs to drain itself which it is capable on most days but does puddle up in heavy storms. This will be handled with proper grading. As for doing multiple holes I think he was supposed to do several holes until he found a good spot and then do multiple test holes in the area of the proposed Stormtech system. His whole approach/method was so far from the proper EPA method of running a perc test....See MoreNeed suggestions for manageable trees
Comments (24)While I've only visited the UK a couple of times, I think we are looking at two completely distinct gardening cultures and I don't think it's fair to impose one cultural sensibility on the other or even make comparisons. One has more than a millennium of landscape history; the other has a couple hundred years at best. It's apples and oranges!! And I would venture to say that many US gardeners are just as intent on "managing" their landscape as what might be interpreted by this post so that notion is certainly not unique to the UK. Newer developments in this country, especially in more populated areas, result in tiny properties and a "managed landscape" within these restraints is absolutely necessary. Hence all the posts regarding privacy screening with low profile plants, requests for small trees, the development by plant breeders of "dwarf' or "compact" plant varieties better suited to small spaces. Those who have the benefit of gardening on larger properties seem to forget that a large portion of the US gardening population is dealing with less than 10,000 sf, or a common urban/suburban lot size As a garden designer, "managing" landscapes is my primary task. Any time we intentionally plan or design a new garden or renovate an existing garden, we are "managing" the landscape. To take it further, gardening in any intentional form IS managing the environment....See More2017 Logan Labs Test Help (year 2 of soil management)
Comments (25)An excellent analysis and I'm very impressed. As an engineer, I live in the world of assumptions. As long as they’re understood, all is well. However here, I’m making a LOT of assumptions that I don’t understand very well at all, so I’m not too comfortable with my conclusions. That is compounded by the inability to really check the change from last year because of my lack of consistency (I know, I know). After going through the numbers in detail, I now see just how helpful a truly consistent measurement would have been. I'd say that's a pretty accurate description for soil analysis: a bunch of assumptions. This isn't a controlled lab situation and each year's soil sampling and test results can/will very sometimes significantly, so any variable we can control when sampling helps reduce those fluctuations. To try to stay grounded in expertise, I’ve generally just taken morpheuspa’s plan from 2016 and based on RidgeRunner’s ranges and comments, tried to convince myself of whether I could justify using the same 2016 recommendations. So, my thoughts: Why not? It's as good a place to start as any and better than starting from scratch. Assuming M III Phosphorus is what I’m adding with starter fert, bag rate of scotts starter fert (24-25-4) is 0.75 lb/k Phosphorous, or 32.67 lb/ac. I added that 4 times in 2016 for a total of 131 lb/ac of P. Not all of that hung around apparently, and since the B1 section increased by 47lb/ac and the F1 section only increased by 14lb/ac, it appears that the F1 section uses/loses P faster than the B1 section. A couple of clarifications: 1) M III (M3) is the test that was used. It is a cocktail of chemicals that is used to extract nutrients for measurement. In this case the Phosphorous is reported as lbs per acre of P2O5. (Other labs may report it as ppm of elemental Phosphorous). The nice thing about reporting it as P2O5, is that P2O5 is the form of Phosphorous contained in fertilizers. So your assumption is right. 2) Phosphorous moves very slowly (down or otherwise) through the soil and phosphorous binds within days of application and can become unavailable to the plant. In acidic soils it binds to Aluminum and Iron. In high pH soils, it binds with calcium. An assumption: the difference between F1 and B1 may be due in part to the difference in pH between your two soils as reflected in the initial test. If the target is 200, seems like another season of about 4 starter fert applications would make sense, although in the B1 section it seems like I’m cutting it close. Maybe I’ll apply a couple of the apps in that section at 0.5 bag rate? I concur. As an alternative (based on your budget) Milorganite has reconfigured their formula to 5-4-0 from 5-2-0. Now only 10-20% might be organic P, but organic P is "slow" release and would help supply P to your turf better over time. (All of P2O5 is inorganic and although inorganic P is readily available to the turf plant, it also readily binds up. I gave you the 200 range, because you had mentioned that you didn't know what target you had been given last year, 200 is his/a common target for a high maintenance lawn. Some general points of clarification: 1) for every pound of N that a plant uses (not every pound of N that is applied--but USED) the plant needs and uses 1/2 pound of Potassium and 1/4 pound of of Phosphorous. whichever is missing, is the limiting factor. 2)The ranges I gave you are the ones that soil scientist have found within which plants "appear" to do well. They are quantities averaged for soil types and plants. Research has shown that values below the range result in poor performance. That as you approach the low end, additions of that nutrient are more likely to show a visible improvement in the plant and as you approach the high end, additions of the nutrient are much less likely to result in any improvement. Values above the high end are very unlikely to show any improvement and at some point can be detrimental to the plant. (did I say this before?) Bottom line, as you progress with balancing your soil, if you reach a point within the range where you no longer see improvement, you've reached your optimum in regard to any nutrient. My Ca/Mg ratios are roughly in range (F1/B1 5.1/13.1) and slightly up from 2016 (4.7/10.6), so that’s fine, but the Calcium saturation is fairly far off. I’m assuming that this is what is causing my low pH values, but not sure how that’s calculated. Also not sure how to calculate what my expected increase in Mg saturation should be based on the fast acting lime. But since my calcium is clearly low, at a minimum I can add the same calcium (lime) app I did last year (F1: 3lb/k, B1: 1lb/k, spring and fall). The question would be can I increase that app, particularly in the B1 section, and what should the corresponding Mg app be? Since the Ca/Mg ratio is on the low side in F1 maybe I should add less Epsom Salt than I did last year? Say, 1lb/k instead of 2lb/k? Add the same or more in the B1 section to keep that ratio from becoming too large. Say, 2lb/k again. This is when a buffer pH test would help- a lot IMO. If they still have your sample (30 days?) they could run that for about $10 per sample. You are correct that base saturation reflects low pH readings and if you fill up all but 10 to 15% of the cation sites with Ca, Mg. and Potassium and leave the 10-15% to Hydrogen, you should end up with a pH in the 6's. But none of those nutrients neutralize the acidity. For soils, an addition of carbonate will do that. It's better to know how much carbonate/lime (an amount derived from buffer pH testing) is needed to raise pH than to estimate based on total base saturations. BSCR, CEC, lime and differences in lime products, etc. is a bit involved, but I'm happy to clarify any questions you have on them. As it stands now, without a buffer test, as your pH is not really moving and/or dropping and as you want to avoid freeing up any more Aluminum (which can be toxic to the turf in addition to the P issue), you want to raise your pH using lime additions. Your Mg is near sufficient levels, so it shouldn't be an impediment to your turf, however, if you wish to address the base saturation ratio, yes, 1#/k for B1 only of Epsom (considering the difference in sampling and to avoid over shooting) and mixed with the lime. Yes, I'd increase the lime app. As both areas are near the same pH, fast acting lime at 9lbs/k (B1 and F1) would be indicated and even that may not make for much movement in pH on a future test. It should help the available P values to raise. Potassium values seem to be low, and the saturation fell significantly, which, based on morpheuspa’s statements, probably has to do with the Calcium. Common lawn wisdom makes me think I should add in a potassium-rich “winterizer” app in the fall to bump that number. But it again seems like I need to add at least what I added of Potassium Sulfate in 2016 (F1: 3lb/k). However, this time it looks as though adding 3lb/k to the B1 section also might be a good idea. Agree, in fact, I'd suggest increasing to three apps of 3#/k this year. Avoid applying within 2-3 weeks of any lime app. I’ve been sufficiently warned about playing with boron in my lawn to try to improve the number without very specific advice, so I’ll probably just leave that alone this round. That's up to you, based on the soil tests and your previous app,, you could apply 2 tablespoons of Borax per k again to raise values into the optimal range. Your decision. I would have done the jar test, but I came home to a light dusting of snow. Winter isn’t done with us yet, even in S. Carolina. Hope that makes sense. Feel free to ask for any clarifications. Once again, nice job....See MoreDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoThere has been changes that I can't control. All streets are city. We are the lowest elevation.
Dalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years ago
Toronado3800 Zone 6 St Louis
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6) thanked Toronado3800 Zone 6 St LouisDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agowisconsitom
7 years agoDalton the Bengal (Zone 6)
7 years agoteeka0801(7aNoVa)
7 years agohttps://www3.epa.gov/caddis/ssr_urb_is1.html
From the look of your site you are 75% impervious surface (which includes rooftops,parking lotts,streets) which would correspond to the lower right quadrant on this epa chart...55% runoff...your county really needs to address this issue. The runoff is coming from their approval to move forward on all that paved area and they did not properly address the grading and all the other issues involved in making sure water doesn't pool like your photos show. Trust me they will continue to build north of you and the problem will get worse for you.
Dalton the Bengal (Zone 6) thanked teeka0801(7aNoVa)
rhizo_1 (North AL) zone 7