Decker Lake Revitalization Project

This report was prepared by civil and environmental engineering students at the University of Utah enrolled in CVEEN 3100: Technical Communications for Engineers (Fall 2025). Students enrolled in this course identified various aspects of Decker Lake Park in West Valley City, Utah that stand to benefit from enhanced revitalization efforts. Thus, the Decker Lake Revitalization Project represents a comprehensive, multidisciplinary effort to reimagine the environmental, recreational, structural, and community functions of the park. Although the lake serves as a central landmark within the surrounding community, it has become increasingly underutilized due to poor water quality, limited accessibility, safety concerns, and a lack of functional amenities. Throughout this report, each chapter evaluates the site from a distinct engineering, environmental, or recreational perspective, offering unique insights that, together, form a more complete vision for the lake's future. This summary integrates those chapter contributions to highlight the full scope of some of the challenges facing Decker Lake and to outline the broad array of potential solutions explored by the student teams.

December 2025 Decker Lake Revitalization Project: A Triple Bottom Line Feasibility Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared by civil and environmental engineering students at the University of Utah enrolled in CVEEN 3100: Technical Communications for Engineers (Fall 2025). Students enrolled in this course identified various aspects of Decker Lake Park in West Valley City, Utah that stand to benefit from enhanced revitalization efforts. Thus, the Decker Lake Revitalization Project represents a comprehensive, multidisciplinary effort to reimagine the environmental, recreational, structural, and community functions of the park. Although the lake serves as a central landmark within the surrounding community, it has become increasingly underutilized due to poor water quality, limited accessibility, safety concerns, and a lack of functional amenities. Throughout this report, each chapter evaluates the site from a distinct engineering, environmental, or recreational perspective, offering unique insights that, together, form a more complete vision for the lake’s future. This summary integrates those chapter contributions to highlight the full scope of some of the challenges facing Decker Lake and to outline the broad array of potential solutions explored by the student teams. This report utilizes a triple bottom line (TBL) methodology to assess the social, environmental, and economic factors with which engineers, city planners, and park caretakers must contend in suggesting possible future upgrades to the park. The TBL concept is an increasingly important framework for evaluating and recommending planning decisions in public, urban spaces. The TBL considers three aspects of land use planning—people, planet, and profit, also referred to as the 3Ps—which attempt to strike a balance between the social (people), environmental (planet), and economic (profit) dimensions of land development while providing clear criterion for recommendations that encourage sustainable development, ethical responsibility, and the long-term health and welfare of a given community space or ecosystem. As such, the TBL provides researchers with a methodological framework for addressing large-scale, multidimensional questions involved in studies such as the Decker Lake Revitalization Project in a more comprehensive and systematic fashion. Chapter Outline Chapter 1 establishes the foundational motivation for improving Decker Lake Park by identifying key social and public health challenges associated with current site conditions. Poor lighting, insufficient seating, accessibility barriers, and safety concerns limit the park’s usefulness and reduce community trust. This chapter highlights the importance of parks as essential environments for physical and mental health and stresses that Decker Lake’s current configuration hinders these benefits. By applying the TBL framework, this chapter emphasizes the importance of social inclusion, environmental responsibility, and financial feasibility in guiding infrastructure upgrades, including ADA-compliant paths, strategic bench placement, and improved illumination. Chapter 2 transitions into water quality engineering by evaluating the feasibility of a constructed wetland for treating inflows to Decker Lake. The chapter identifies runoff-based pollutants, including nutrients, sediments, and contaminants, as major contributors to poor water quality and degraded aquatic conditions. It examines the role of constructed wetlands in enhancing nutrient removal, improving water clarity, and supporting ecological function, especially in semi-arid climates like Utah. The analysis considers design parameters such as flow distribution, vegetation characteristics, temperature effects, and hydrologic cycles, ultimately assessing whether wetland implementation is viable through a TBL lens. Chapter 3 addresses slope stability concerns around the lake’s perimeter. Through geotechnical analysis, this chapter examines how soil cohesion, saturation levels, slope geometry, and hydrologic forces influence the likelihood of slope failure or erosion. To mitigate these risks, the chapter proposes a suite of low-impact stabilization strategies, including riprap, biodegradable geotextiles, vegetated geogrids, and targeted slope regrading. These solutions aim to preserve the natural shoreline while ensuring structural safety. Limit equilibrium analysis is used to compare the performance, constructability, and environmental impact of the proposed alternatives. Chapter 4 investigates the potential for aeration systems to improve dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in Decker Lake, an essential step toward mitigating algal blooms, improving fish habitat, and enhancing overall water quality. This chapter compares surface aeration techniques (such as paddlewheel and propeller aerators) with subsurface diffused systems that oxygenate deeper water layers. Factors such as water depth, seasonal stratification, energy consumption, infrastructure availability, and ecological constraints are evaluated to determine which aeration system would provide the most sustainable long-term improvement. Chapter 5 provides a detailed analysis of the sources of pollution entering Decker Lake. By tracing pollutants back to key inlets and drainage pathways, this chapter identifies major contributors, including highway runoff, trash accumulation, and bird-related nutrient loading. It evaluates multiple inlet-based mitigation options, including sediment sump systems, filtration basins, and stormwater redirection by using the TBL framework to weigh environmental benefits, maintenance needs, and cost considerations. This chapter also emphasizes the effectiveness of addressing pollution at the source before contaminants enter the lake. Chapter 6 introduces a transformative alternative: replacing the lake entirely with an expanded, multifunctional green space known as “Decker Flats.” This chapter argues that persistent ecological degradation, recurring algae blooms, and high restoration costs may justify filling the lake and repurposing the land. Redirecting water flow through culverts or canals would free over fifty acres for trails, open fields, natural areas, and community gathering spaces. The chapter also identifies federal and state grant opportunities that could make this redevelopment financially attainable while expanding equitable access to green space. Chapter 7 proposes a hybrid redevelopment model that retains part of the lake while reshaping the rest of the site. This chapter integrates green stormwater infrastructure, such as bioswales, rain gardens, and pretreatment basins, to improve water quality while enhancing recreational and ecological values. The design calls for deepening the remaining portion of the lake and 2|Page transforming the filled western area into new recreational zones, thus, creating a balanced configuration of water, land, and ecological function. Chapter 8 focuses on recreation planning and cost-effective amenities that could increase park visitation. Through both quantitative and qualitative analysis, this chapter evaluates options such as playground construction, trail resurfacing, landscape improvements, and a community garden. Each amenity is assessed through the TBL framework to determine its combined economic feasibility, environmental impact, and social benefit. Chapter findings highlight recreational upgrades that align with community priorities while remaining financially sustainable. Chapter 9 presents a culturally focused ecological restoration proposal for the southwestern portion of Decker Lake: a water garden and walkway. This concept integrates organic architecture with environmental restoration, emphasizing the removal of invasive species, the creation of new landforms, the planting of native vegetation, and the development of a visually striking walkway system. This chapter also discusses permitting requirements, environmental guidelines, E. coli control, habitat protection, and community engagement as essential components of the design. The water garden aims to create a cultural landmark that enhances ecological health while fostering community pride and identity. Chapter 10 analyzes the feasibility of constructing an accessible water gazebo to improve lakefront interaction and recreational appeal. This chapter examines structural design requirements, environmental impacts, material choices, construction costs, and the gazebo’s integration with surrounding amenities. Stakeholder feedback indicates a strong interest in improving access to the water’s edge, and the chapter concludes by arguing a sustainablydesigned gazebo could serve as a focal point for inclusive recreation. Chapter 11 evaluates the feasibility of building a pedestrian boardwalk through a proposed wetland area. Multiple foundation alternatives, including floating structures, wooden piles, concrete piles, steel piles, and a “no boardwalk” option are compared using the TBL model. Decking materials such as pressure-treated wood, composite boards, and precast concrete planks are also analyzed. While the results indicate that not constructing a boardwalk is the most feasible option overall, the chapter acknowledges that social benefits may ultimately justify selecting a more costly alternative depending on funding and community priorities. Chapter 12 assesses redevelopment options for an abandoned recreational field adjacent to the Decker Lake site. Although focused on a nearby location, this chapter provides relevant insights into the design of functional recreational spaces. It evaluates restoring the natural grass field, regrading land through water rerouting, and developing hybrid turf systems with phased amenities. By analyzing cost, maintenance needs, durability, safety, and community benefit, the chapter offers a decision-making framework applicable to future park expansions or land-use redesigns connected to Decker Lake. 3|Page Finally, Chapter 13 examines noise pollution and mitigation strategies for the park, an important but often overlooked factor in user comfort. With I-215 bordering the site, highway noise diminishes recreational quality. This chapter evaluates four alternatives: no barrier, vegetation-only barriers, concrete walls, and hybrid systems, to reduce sound transmission while maintaining ecological sensitivity. The analysis highlights the trade-offs between reliable noise reduction (concrete), environmental benefits (vegetation), and balanced performance (hybrid), emphasizing the importance of creating a quieter, more enjoyable park environment without harming sensitive wetland habitats. Joshua B. Lenart, Ph.D. Salt Lake City, UT December 2025 4|Page SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE This feasibility study is part of an ongoing series that investigates landscape-scale, civil works projects germane to the Intermountain West. All studies in this series are housed in the USpace Institutional Repository at the J. Willard Marriott Library on the University of Utah campus. Studies in this series were compiled by students as part of their enrollment in the course; the instructor simply facilitated the research design and compiled the individual chapters once they were finalized. These students should be commended for their efforts at understanding and contributing to the ongoing dialogue that shapes our natural world and collective future. As this report is a compendium of student writing, the instructor has made every effort to maintain the tenor and style of their work. At times, however, minor revisions and omissions were made from the original drafts. Any textual changes occurred within three general categories: redundancy, language use/grammar, and formatting. Redundancy Occasionally, certain words or phrases would appear either out of context or in an inopportune place such as a title or subheading. The most typical example of redundancy occurred with the use of commonly used acronyms. Language use/grammar While compiling the report, a grammatical error would occasionally appear within the document and was accepted/rejected based on correctness. It must be clear: this document has not been proofread by the editor; rather, minor typographical corrections were made at times, but the vast majority of text remains student produced and edited. As such, readers will no doubt find typographical errors within the report. Formatting The most significant edits made by the editor involve formatting changes. Occasionally a chapter was numbered incorrectly and was manually changed to ensure overall report consistency. Such changes no doubt have affected in-text references. Other instances of formatting changes occurred when a sentence or passage needed to be shortened so that chapter subheadings laid out correctly within the document. In each case, the editor tried to maintain the integrity of the original text while editing only as much as required of the final copy. This report represents a serious attempt by undergraduate students to combine the technical writing skills studied throughout the course of a semester with a level of expertise required of professionalizing civil and environmental engineering students. The students, for their part, were professional, serious, and intelligent; I am immensely proud of the work they accomplished here. Joshua B. Lenart, Ph.D. Salt Lake City, UT December 2025 5|Page TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 JOSHUA B. LENART SERIES EDITOR PREFACE........................................................................................................................ 5 JOSHUA B. LENART CHAPTERS 1. DECKER LAKE PARK REHABILITATION: IMPROVING SAFETY, ACCESSIBILITY, & COMMUNITY HEALTH .... 8 SHAYLYN HICKMAN, PRESTON TORGERSON, JESSICA WHITE, AND ALEXIS WOOLBOY 2. WATER TREATMENT VIA A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND IN DECKER LAKE: A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS TO AQUATIC RECREATIONAL STANDARDS.......................................... 39 DYLAN SMITH, ETHAN SMITH, KAI MULLIGAN, AND PEPPER TWEED 3. DECKER LAKE RECREATIONAL RESTORATION ............................................................................. 69 JOSE HERALDEZ, RICHARD WORTHEN, NATHAN HENKE, AND ALVIN YEUNG 4. REVIVING DECKER LAKE: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF AN AERATION SYSTEM TO IMPROVE DISSOLVED OXYGEN & WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................. 91 MARIE STURM, NATHAN CARLSON, LUCY PRITCHARD, AND BENSON BLACKBURN 5. PRESERVING DECKER LAKE: ASSESSING POLLUTION SOURCES & SUSTAINABLE MITIGATION STRATEGIES ....................................................................................................................... 116 LUKE ALAND, RHYS STAPLES, RYAN SPROWLS, AND NATHAN BONVALLET 6. WHY KEEP THE LAKE?: GREEN SPACE IS IN DEMAND ................................................................ 147 RICKY CARROLL, LUCAS FOWLER, CRYSTAL MANIKOTH, AND ELIZABETH MAUGHAN 7. REIMAGINING DECKER LAKE: A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO REDESIGNING THE FOOTPRINT FOR IMPROVED WATER QUALITY & RECREATION .......................................................................... 170 CALVIN BUTZ, MARK HORTON, LISA STRANSKI, AND HAMPTON DAVIS 8. COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIVITIES TO BOOST COMMUNITY USE & VALUE AT DECKER LAKE PARK. ........... 203 BYRON AMENT, AIDAN BLEYL, AND AIDAN MEDRANO 9. CULTURAL HERITAGE: THE WATER GARDENS AT DECKER LAKE .................................................. 224 SAMPSON ISAFI, SAM POULSEN, MIKO MAKOWSKI, AND JAMES SHRIBER 10. ACCESSIBLE GAZEBO DESIGNED TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & INCLUSIVE RECREATION...................................................................................................................... 252 JOEY WALTON, NATE FRANKENFIELD, CAMERON FREDRICKS, AND PORTER TOULA 6|Page 11. FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONSTRUCTING A BOARDWALK AT DECKER LAKE AFTER ITS REDEVELOPMENT INTO A WETLAND: ANALYSIS OF FOUNDATION & DECKING MATERIALS UTILIZING THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE .................................................................................................................... 273 EASTON CHRISTENSEN, LANDON VAN AMERONGEN, THOMAS CUNDICK, AND MASON CARRILLO 12. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR DECKER LAKE REHABILITATION ........................................... 302 SPENCER KRUEGER, GAVIN HOWARD, HYRUM HAMILTON, AND JONATHAN LEBEAU 13. ENGINEERING NOISE CONTROL AT DECKER LAKE PARK: EVALUATION OF FOUR ALTERNATIVE BARRIERS.......................................................................................................................... 329 GABRIEL LEWIS, SOPHIA SPEEDY, ABIGAIL STRINGFELLOW, AND SAMANTHA HARKER COVER IMAGE: DECKER LAKE PARK AT 2300 PARKWAY BLVD, WEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH. IMAGE CREDIT: FRANCISCO KJOLSETH, “SEE HOW CLOSE YOUR UTAH NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO NATURE,” THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, JUNE 2, 2024. 7|Page Chapter 1 Decker Lake Park Rehabilitation: Improving Safety, Accessibility, & Community Health Shaylyn Hickman, Preston Torgerson, Jessica White, and Alexis Woolboy Executive Summary This chapter examines the rehabilitation of Decker Lake Park in West Valley City, Utah, as a multidisciplinary engineering project focused on improving public health, safety, and accessibility through site design. The project’s motivation stems from the park’s current underutilization due to inadequate accessibility features, poor water quality, limited lighting, and insufficient seating around the lake. This study examines these conditions by applying engineering and design principles that enhance user safety, inclusivity, and well-being for visitors of all ages and abilities. To achieve these goals, the project integrates site-specific data, community feedback, and environmental design research within a framework guided by the triple bottom line approach, balancing social, environmental, and economic considerations. This chapter also analyzes 4 interrelated components: 1. Park importance highlights the role of recreational parks in supporting mental and physical health; 2. Lighting, assessing the influence of illumination on safety and nighttime usability; 3. Benches and seating, examining the best types of benches and the best places to put them at Decker Lake to increase comfort, rest, and social interaction; and 4. Accessibility improvements in the park enhance community health and safety by promoting physical activity. Creating environments that are structurally and visually safe to encourage social inclusion for everyone, including those with different abilities. Chapter findings suggest that targeted infrastructure improvements, such as installing ADAcompliant energy-efficient lighting and strategically placed benches, can increase park visitation and safety. These findings suggest fostering community engagement, reducing barriers to outdoor recreation, and promoting positive mental health outcomes. The chapter concludes with a set of recommendations on evidence-based design strategies that support the long-term revitalization of Decker Lake Park and encourage similar urban park redevelopment projects throughout Salt Lake County. Keywords: Accessibility, Decker Lake Park, inclusivity, mental health, outdoor recreation, public health, rehabilitation, and safety. 8|Page Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of Decker Lake’s Park Development 1.2 Project Overview: Decker Lake Revitalization 1.3 Literature Review 1.3.1 Community Well-being: How Parks Improve Community Mental Health 1.3.2 Accessibility improvements for inclusive outdoor access 1.3.3 Lighting: how lighting influences the sense of security 1.3.4 Benches and litter control for increasing the user’s overall experience 1.4 Stakeholders 1.5 Methodology: Relating the Importance of Park Improvements to the Triple Bottom Line 1.6 Addressing How Parks Have a Positive Impact on Mental Health & Physical Health 1.7 Park Accessibility1.7.2 Potential Barriers for Inclusion 1.7.1 Universal Design: Beyond ADA Standards and How It Is Beneficial to the TBL Line 1.7.2 ADA Guidelines for Play Areas 1.7.3 Providing ADA Compliant Pathways and Parking 1.7.4 Restroom Requirements to Meet the Needs of Park Visitors 1.8 Lighting 1.8.1 Introduction and Significance 1.8.2 Framework: Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts (TBL) 1.8.3 Primary Research Components 1.8.4 Lighting Alternatives 1.8.5 Color Temperature Recommendations 1.8.6 Planning-Level Quantities and Spacing 1.8.7 Cost and Installation (planning-level) 1.8.8 Impacts and Outcomes 1.8.9 Summary 1.9 Benches 1.9.1 Location is everything 1.9.2 Breakdown: Wooden vs Metal 1.9.3 Alternatives 1.9.4 Bench and Trash Can benefits 9|Page 1.10 Discussion 1.11 Conclusion 1.12 References List of Figures Figure 1.1: Map of Decker Lake Park Figure 1.2: CDC infographic detailing adults how many adults in the United States have a disability Figure 1.3: Map of bus and Trax routes surrounding Decker Lake Park Figure 1.4: Wooden Park Bench Figure 1.5 Metal Park Bench List of Tables Table 1.1: FITT Formula: Guideline ranges for the FMS development of children and adolescents Table 1.2: ADA minimum guidelines versus Universal Design Requirements Table 1.3: ADA minimum guidelines versus Universal Design Requirements Table 1.4: Triple Bottom Line Matrix 10 | P a g e 1.1 Introduction Decker Lake Park is a 51.81-acre district park located at 2800 S 2300 W in West Valley City, Utah, and is managed by the city’s Park and Recreation Department [2]. Current amenities at the site include pavilions, porta-potties, and a pickleball area; surrounding the park is a walking trail that loops the pond, linking to the Crosstown Trail, which allows residents to have lakeside walking trails that connect to larger trail systems in the area [2]. Beyond its physical infrastructure, Decker Lake serves as a vital green space within an increasingly urbanized region. The Nature and Human Health-Utah Decker Lake Project (2024) identified the park as an important community asset for physical activity, nature exposure, and mental well-being [3]. The study also reveals that certain aspects of the park’s design, such as limited lighting, even trails, and inadequate seating, dampen the full use by families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities [3]. As West Valley City continues to grow, improving Decker Lake Park presents an opportunity to create a more inclusive and health-oriented public space. Improving infrastructure enhances opportunities for physical activity, safety, health, and community engagement. Currently, however, the park is underutilized due to poor water quality (which is discussed extensively in later chapters), limited accessibility, poor lighting, and insufficient amenities. These shortcomings reduce visitor safety, discourage evening use, and restrict participation among people with mobility limitations and families. Addressing these challenges requires a multidisciplinary approach that integrates engineering design, accessibility standards, and principles of community health. Urban parks like Decker Lake provide measurable physical and psychological benefits, including reduced stress, increased physical activity, and improved social connection. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, parks have played a critical role in supporting mental health and reducing social isolation. For example, as Chen et al. explains, “social interaction in parks became important outdoor activity for urban residents to mitigate social isolation and achieve mental health benefits internationally” [4]. However, the extent to which these benefits are realized depends heavily on the quality, accessibility, and safety of the park’s infrastructure. Rehabilitation of Decker Lake provided an opportunity to apply engineering practices that enhance both function and inclusivity, aligning with broader sustainability and public health goals. This research evaluates how site improvement, specifically mental health-oriented design, accessibility, lighting, and benches, can enhance safety, inclusivity, and engagement at Decker Lake Park. The project applies evidence-based research and engineering strategies to create a model for sustainable community recreation. Prior research highlights the importance of usercentered designs for increasing park visitation. Focusing on Decker Lake Park provides an opportunity to examine how targeted, small-scale infrastructure upgrades can produce meaningful, community-wide improvements in health and well-being. From an engineering perspective, this project bridges technical design and social benefit; park importance and mental health are addressed by examining how exposure to nature and accessible outdoor space can promote mental well-being. Accessibility upgrades focus on 11 | P a g e compliance with ADA standards and their potential to increase inclusivity among individuals with mobility challenges. Lighting improvements for their influence on visibility, safety perception, and energy efficiency. Finally, the inclusion of benches and rest areas explores how micro-level design supports comfort, rest, and social interaction. While prior studies emphasize the general benefits of parks, few evaluate how targeted infrastructure improvements at the site level contribute to measurable health and safety outcomes. This chapter addresses this gap through the following questions: How can park improvement, such as accessibility, lighting, and seating, enhance visitors’ safety, comfort, and inclusivity? 1.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of Decker Lake’s Park Development Based on site observation, Decker Lake Park is an underutilized public space that lacks the essential amenities needed to attract and support regular visitors. The park does not provide basic facilities such as restrooms, playgrounds, pavilions, or outdoor sports courts. Additionally, there are a limited number of waste bins, insufficient lighting, and no shaded areas, further reducing the park’s functionality and overall user experience. Jasmine Garcia, a student at the University of Utah, examines the existing issue at Decker Lake and proposes strategies to improve the park's overall quality. Figure 1.1 illustrates the scale of the area and the need for further development and investment in amenities [5]. Figure 1.1: Map of Decker Lake Park [5] Figure 1.1 not only outlines the park boundaries but also highlights key surrounding features, including nearby trails, schools, and the TRAX station route; it also provides a clear visual representation of the limited amenities currently available within the park. The overall goal of this research is to increase visitation and enhance community health 12 | P a g e at Decker Lake by implementing key park improvements that prioritize accessibility, safety, and inclusion. By adding ADA accommodations, improved lighting, playground equipment, benches, and waste receptacles, this aim creates a more welcoming and functional space for visitors of all ages and abilities. These enhancements not only encourage physical activity and outdoor engagement but also foster a sense of community connection. Prioritizing safety through proper lighting and accessibility ensures that everyone, regardless of mobility or ability, can enjoy the park comfortably and confidently. The vision for Decker Lake is to create an inclusive and safe public space for people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds to gather, play, and enjoy the outdoors; however, this innovative idea comes with challenges, including site conditions, weather limitations, and the need for consistent maintenance. Garcia argues that “there are areas of open space in the park covered with invasive species of plants, but there is also the presence of litter as well. In general, the environmental quality of Decker Lake Park has deteriorated for years, indicating that the park’s maintenance has been neglected” [5]. The overpopulation of invasive plants in the surrounding wetlands may affect construction and possibly require environmental permits to ensure ecological protection. Unfortunately, Utah’s cold and snowy winters can delay assembly periods, extend project timelines, and limit the community's use of certain park amenities. Beyond construction challenges, long-term sustainability will depend on regular maintenance, including trash removal, landscaping, and repairs to lighting, benches, and playgrounds. Ongoing maintenance is essential to keeping Decker Lake safe, functional, and visually appealing. 1.2 Project Overview: Decker Lake Revitalization See executive summary at outset of this report for a full project overview 1.3 Literature Review Ensuring public parks are accessible, safe, and welcoming is essential for promoting both physical and mental health. ADA-compliant designs remove barriers for individuals with disabilities, allowing them to engage in recreation and community [6-7]. Adding proper lighting enhances perceptions of safety and usability, which promotes park visitation during early morning or late evening hours, reduces accidents, and helps individuals with visual impairments [8-9]. Accessible benches throughout the park allow individuals of many socioeconomic backgrounds to enjoy the park without limitations. The addition of benches promotes rest, socializing, and enjoying the lake and walking path; this has been linked to reducing stress, improving mood, and better mental restoration [10-13]. Prioritizing these simple design improvements in the park can ultimately enhance the community's health and safety by ensuring equitable access to recreation, connection, and well-being. 13 | P a g e 1.3.1 Community Well-being: How Parks Improve Community Mental Health Existing research highlights the role of parks in promoting public health, community wellbeing, and environmental quality. Studies examining amenities such as green spaces and playgrounds provide insight into these benefits. Bedimo-Rung et.al established a framework linking park accessibility and design features to increase physical activity and improve public health outcomes [14]. Building on this, Drenowatz and Greier emphasized the connection between physical fitness, motor competence, and overall well-being in children and adolescents, reinforcing the importance of active recreation spaces [15]. More recent studies have expanded this discussion to include psychological and social aspects. Chen et al. examined how specific park attributes, such as layout, amenities, and design quality, support social interaction and shape perceptions of park quality [4]. Equivalently, Alcolin et al. found that appropriately developed green spaces, including playgrounds, are linked to better mental health in children, enforcing the need for age-inclusive park planning [16]. Garcia provided a local view by examining Decker Lake Park as a case study, identifying how targeted infrastructure improvements can enhance safety, accessibility, and community engagement [5]. Collectively, these studies reveal that much research has focused on the physical benefits of parks, while more recent ones show an increase in attention to their social impacts. These studies help identify which park features contribute to a more inclusive environment. 1.3.2 Accessibility improvements for inclusive outdoor access Persistent accessibility challenges in public outdoor spaces demonstrate that the system fails to meet the requirements set by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 [6]. Title 2 of the ADA prohibits local governments from denying equal access to parks due to inaccessible facilities, sidewalks, and passageways [6, 17]. Despite the ADA requirements, Woll found that empirical studies reveal gaps in their implementation, as well as in the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines and the US Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines, even at the National Park level across the United States [5, 6]. Many municipalities claim “undue burden” to avoid complying with these accessibility guidelines and requirements, or they offer insufficient alternative routes [6]. Similarly, Lukoseviciute and Nelson used observational audits and tools such as the Community Health Inclusion Index (CHII) to identify significant barriers in parks, playgrounds, public transit access, and walking paths and play areas, primarily in the vicinity of Lake Tahoe [7]. Physical activity in individuals with limited mobility is crucial to mitigate chronic disease health disparities that are only going to rise because of aging, diabetes, and an increase in traffic accidents, etc. [7]. To encourage physical activity among people with disabilities, Hurst, Lee, and Ndubisi advocate for Universal Design (UD) in public parks rather than the bare minimum requirements set by the ADA [17]. Research on UD is supported by observational and experimental studies; it has been found that, to create a truly inclusive environment, designing playgrounds that exceed Accessible Design standards increases overall active participation on the playground [17]. Comparing the UD and AD playgrounds, 82% more users engage in play across 14 | P a g e more age groups and demographics; this demonstrates that UD is more attractive to the public [17]. 1.3.3 Lighting: how lighting influences the sense of security Lighting in public parks has been widely studied for its impact on safety, visibility, and user participation; adequate lighting promotes a sense of security and extends park use beyond daylight hours, whereas poorly lit environments discourage recreation and raise safety concerns. Kaplan et al. found that ambient lighting strongly influences how safe visitors feel and how likely they are to use outdoor spaces after dark [8]. Similarly, Himschoot et al. demonstrated that the intensity of color temperature of artificial lighting affects users’ comfort and perceptions of security during nighttime recreation [9]. Together, these studies highlight that lighting design shapes user experience and community trust in public spaces. 1.3.4 Benches and litter control for increasing the user’s overall experience Many studies, like those mentioned above, show that attending parks and green spaces improves health. Not much research has focused on sitting in a park, but Yuen and Jenkins found in their study that simply going to a park increases overall well-being [18]. One aspect of improvement at the park is increasing attendance and attracting people of all ages and abilities. Seating at close intervals or within sight distance to parking areas could encourage people with limited ability to utilize park areas they might not have in the past, for fear of no seating or having no place to rest. As Selanon et al. emphasize that the design of parks needs to incorporate an emotional element of design for people with disabilities [19]. Pusparani et al. found that comfortable seating in parks was one of the more common aspects of park attraction [20]. While walking the current Decker Lake trail, one will notice a great deal of litter. There is a clear need for litter control in the area. People driving up to a dirty parking area would be unwelcome by the litter and choose not to attend the park. Pusparani et al. found in their study that substantial effort was devoted to improving cleanliness across all parks [20]. 1.4 Stakeholders The revitalization of Decker Lake Park involves a broad network of stakeholders who influence, manage, benefit from, or are affected by park improvements. These stakeholders include government agencies, advocacy groups, community organizations, and funding bodies whose combined perspectives ensure that proposed enhancements support community health, safety, accessibility, and long-term sustainability. • West Valley City Government – As the governing authority responsible for Decker Lake Park’s maintenance, planning, and policy decisions, it plays a primary role in determining land use, funding allocation, and compliance with municipal standards. According to the West Valley City Parks & Recreation Department, the city oversees daily management of the site and future improvement planning [2]. 15 | P a g e • Salt Lake County Parks & Recreation – Salt Lake County supports regional park planning and may participate in broader initiatives relating to public health, open space programming, and coordinated recreation strategies. Salt Lake County Public Lands and Parks programs regularly partner with cities to improve accessibility, rehabilitate green spaces, and enhance recreational programming across the county [20]. • Salt Lake County Health Department – The Health Department is a key stakeholder due to its role in public health assessment, community wellness initiatives, and environmental health oversight. The department provides data and guidance on air quality, water quality, safe recreation environments, and the health benefits of park access, as outlined in countywide public health priorities [22]. • "Keep Decker Lake Beautiful" / Local Environmental or Volunteer Groups – Local volunteer and stewardship groups play an important role in trash cleanup, invasive species removal, and promoting environmental awareness. Although small-scale, community-led groups such as these are frequently cited in city public lands partnerships and neighborhood council minutes as contributors to environmental upkeep and public engagement [5]. • Active People, Healthy Utah – This statewide initiative, supported by the Utah Department of Health & Human Services, promotes physical activity and equitable access to outdoor recreation. Their programs align with improvements at Decker Lake by encouraging environmental design that supports walking, active lifestyles, and accessible nature spaces. Their published statewide physical activity and health guidelines emphasize the importance of local parks as a public health intervention tool [5]. • ADA compliance reviewers also serve as key stakeholders, ensuring that proposed park upgrades meet federal and state accessibility requirements and align with best practices for creating inclusive public spaces. In addition to formal regulatory reviewers, the broader disabled community and accessibility advocacy groups play an essential role by offering lived-experience perspectives that help identify barriers and guide the development of features that support equitable access for people of all abilities. Finally, donor and grant programs are significant stakeholders in the revitalization process because they provide the financial resources necessary to implement improvements such as lighting, ADA pathways, benches, and other amenities. Together, these groups influence the design, feasibility, and long-term sustainability of the proposed improvements to Decker Lake Park. 1. 5 Methodology: Relating the Importance of Park Improvements to the Triple Bottom Line Utilizing the triple bottom line (TBL) framework, comprising social, environmental, and economic sustainability to understand how park improvements can enhance community mental and physical health, safety, and accessibility, the TBL framework, introduced by Elkington, emphasizes that successful design should generate value across all three dimensions of 16 | P a g e sustainability [23]. Building upon this concept, Griffith and Ikert expand on Elkington’s framework by emphasizing that sustainable projects must also account for community wellbeing and ethical responsibility, not just environmental and economic outcomes [24]. This study applies these principles to evaluate how thoughtful enhancements at Decker Lake Park focused on accessibility, lighting, and seating can contribute to improved health, long-term economic viability, and environmental resilience. This methodology integrates peer-reviewed journal articles, public feedback from the Nature and Human Health-Utah Decker Lake Park Project, stakeholder interviews, and municipal planning reports (such as those provided by West Valley City Engineering). For the lighting component, research includes studies on ambient lighting and public safety, such as Kaplan et al. and Himschoot et al., which examine how illumination affects user comfort and nighttime visibility in public spaces [8, 9]. For our accessibility section, we utilized observational research to understand the difference between meeting the minimum ADA requirements versus going beyond with the Universal Design (UD) principles. In the “Universal Design in Playground Environments: A Place-Based Evaluation of Amenities, Use, and Physical Activity” they collected data for three different parks at randomized times to capture a clear understanding of park utilization in ADA and UD parks [17]. Studies highlighting health outcomes, social interaction, and green space quality were used to evaluate which amenities most effectively support community well-being, ecological value, and long-term sustainability. Bayer et al, reinstate that spending more time in green spaces can reduce mental fatigue, reduce stress, and increase selfreported health [25]. Many similar studies support spending time in green spaces. These studies, and site visits, are the guide to evaluate how design improvements in accessibility, seating, and lighting can enhance community health, safety, economic viability, and environmental integrity. Both qualitative and quantitative data are used, including peerreviewed research, site surveys, stakeholder interviews, and previous research by city officials. The economic sustainability of the project is evaluated through cost-benefit analyses that compare current infrastructure conditions with potential design alternatives. Lighting, seating, spacing, material selection, and energy efficiency are evaluated in relation to installation and long-term maintenance costs. Ensuring access for individuals with disabilities or mobility impairments was also a central focus, as the park’s current design limits visitor inclusivity due to uneven and unpaved walkways. By addressing these factors, the project aims to promote equitable use across socioeconomic groups while ensuring long-term functionality and responsibility. The social component of the TBL framework explores how the proposed interventions enhance inclusivity, safety, and overall user well-being. This involves examining perceptions of safety at night with improved lighting along the trail and identifying how benches and rest areas support comfort and social connection. Accessibility improvements, such as ADA-compliant pathways and ramps, benefit multiple demographics, not only individuals with physical limitations but also older adults, families, and children. Studies demonstrate that trail and lighting enhancements can increase outdoor activity levels and a sense of belonging among people with 17 | P a g e disabilities and underrepresented community groups [26]. Finally, the environmental aspect emphasizes sustainable material use, reduced light pollution, and energy-efficient design, all of which align with the city's long-term goals for environmental stewardship. Integrating these methods under the TBL approach ensures that the Decker Lake rehabilitation supports balanced development that values community health, economic feasibility, and ecological integrity. 1.6 Addressing How Parks Have a Positive Impact on Mental Health & Physical Health Beyond their recreational and environmental value, parks are increasingly recognized as essential public health assets that enhance emotional resilience and social unity. Research consistently demonstrates that access to well-designed parks supports both physical activity and psychological well-being, reinforcing the importance of integrating these spaces into urban planning and community design. Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, and Cohen provided one of the foundational frameworks for understanding how parks promote health [14]. Their conceptual model connects the availability, quality, and design of park spaces directly to levels of physical activity and, consequently, to improved physical health outcomes. The types of benefits from park visitation include physical, psychological, social, economic, and environmental [14]. Parks offer accessible, low-cost venues for exercise, walking, and recreation, which, in turn, help reduce the risks associated with chronic diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The authors emphasize that the design and amenity structure of a park, such as the inclusion of trails, playgrounds, and open fields, can influence how often and how effectively people use these spaces for physical activity. Thus, the mere presence of a park is not enough; its features must be intentionally planned to invite use, promote safety, and encourage social interaction. Building upon this foundation, Chen et al. explored how specific park attributes foster social interaction and enhance the overall quality of urban parks [4]. Their study found that park design directly impacts not only physical engagement but also social well-being by providing settings that encourage casual encounters, group activities, and intergenerational connection. These social interactions are critical for mental health, as they reduce feelings of isolation and increase a sense of belonging within communities. Chen and colleagues proposed design guidelines to enhance park quality, integrating accessibility, a diverse array of amenities, and inclusive spaces where people of different ages and cultural backgrounds can engage comfortably. Their findings align with the understanding that parks are not merely physical infrastructure but vital social environments that shape collective well-being. Parks and playgrounds are particularly important for child development, serving as early-life environments where mental and physical health are intertwined. Alcolin et al. examined the role of developmentally appropriate green spaces in supporting children’s mental health and found that access to playgrounds and natural environments was associated with lower rates of anxiety and behavioral problems [16]. The study emphasized that child-specific park design, including safe play zones, age-appropriate equipment, and exposure to greenery, can positively influence emotional regulation, cognitive development, and social skills. These benefits extend 18 | P a g e beyond recreation, shaping long-term well-being trajectories as children develop resilience and confidence through play. Similarly, Drenowatz and Greier investigated how physical fitness and motor competence in children and adolescents relate to overall health and well-being [15]. Their findings reinforce the role of active play in parks as a critical component of healthy development. They argue that environments that promote movement, such as open fields, playgrounds, and sport-oriented facilities, are essential for building both motor coordination and self-esteem. Table 1.1 illustrates the FITT principles for developing fundamental movement skills, emphasizing how they all contribute to healthy motor development. Table 1.1: FITT Formula: Guideline ranges for the FMS development of children & teens [15]. By outlining the recommended levels of active need for children and adolescents to build coordination and confidence, the table shows the importance of providing park spaces that encourage regular, moderately intense, and varied forms of physical play. This connection highlights how well-designed recreational environments directly support the community's physical and developmental needs. Regular physical engagement in outdoor settings not only improves cardiovascular health but also enhances concentration, improves sleep, and reduces stress symptoms. Together, these findings underscore that physical activity in parks functions as both a preventive and therapeutic tool for mental health. At the community level, parks also foster collective well-being and identity. Garcia’s “ReImagining Decker Lake Park” report provides a local perspective by analyzing how park redevelopment can serve as a catalyst for improving public health and social inclusion. Garcia highlights that underutilized parks, such as Decker Lake, often fail to deliver their full health benefits due to limited amenities, limited accessibility, or poor maintenance [5]. Through participatory planning and inclusive design, adding green spaces and playgrounds can turn parks into community hubs that encourage physical activity, mental restoration, and social cohesion. This case study reinforces the idea that investments in park infrastructure directly influence the health outcomes and livability of surrounding neighborhoods. 19 | P a g e Taken together, these studies illustrate that parks are multidimensional assets that support both individual health and community well-being. On the physical side, they provide space for exercise, movement, and outdoor activities, which are essential to preventing chronic illness. On the mental health side, they function as restorative landscapes, reducing stress, enhancing mood, and fostering social connectedness. The interaction between design, accessibility, and maintenance determines how effectively a park can deliver these benefits. Applying the triple bottom line (TBL) strengthens this research by emphasizing how improvements to Decker Lake Park will primarily benefit people through enhanced physical activity, mental well-being, and social inclusion. While the social benefits are most pronounced, the project also aligns with the planet by supporting greener, cleaner, and more sustainable outdoor environments. This perspective reinforces the importance of designing parks that benefit both public health and the surrounding environments. As cities like West Valley and the greater Salt Lake County region continue to grow, this research underscores the importance of investing in high-quality, inclusive parks. Integrating features such as green spaces, playgrounds, and social gathering areas can strengthen both physical and mental health outcomes across all age groups. Moreover, ensuring that these spaces are safe, accessible, and well-maintained will sustain their positive effects over time. Ultimately, parks represent more than just leisure amenities; they are critical components of public health infrastructure that promote resilience, inclusion, and quality of life within urban communities. 1.7 Park Accessibility Ensuring Decker Lake Park meets the accessibility requirements established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is essential to fostering inclusivity, community engagement, and equal access to outdoor recreation. The ADA mandates that all public spaces provide equitable access for people with different abilities, emphasizing the removal of physical and environmental barriers [6]. Along with the studies researched, Decker Lake Park demonstrates that many outdoor recreation sites fall short of these standards; Decker Lake has uneven, mostly unpaved trails, an absence of designated ADA parking, and poorly designed park amenities that ultimately limit participation among people with mobility impairments [7, 27]. Understanding the need for accommodation is important, as you can see in Figure 1.2, approximately 28 percent of adults and about 15 percent of children in the United States have some type of disability [28]. Narrowing those figures down, approximately 13 percent of students ages 3-21 in Utah have a disability, according to the National Center for Education Statistics [29]. Among the adults with mobility disabilities, many have a very difficult time walking or climbing stairs, have low or blurry vision even with corrective lenses, or struggle doing errands alone, let alone going to the park [28]. People with disabilities experience persistent health disparities, having higher rates of chronic diseases like heart disease or diabetes, and are less likely to engage in physical activity [7]. 20 | P a g e Figure 1.2: CDC infographic detailing how many adults in the U.S. have a disability [28]. Upgrading Decker Lake Park can significantly improve the physical, psychological, and social health outcomes of the disabled community surrounding the park and in West Valley City [7]. This section examines the legal requirements and necessity of accommodations at Decker Lake Park, potential barriers these upgrades may face, and specifically, which areas of the park must be improved at a minimum. 1.7.1 Legal Framework for Accessibility at Decker Lake Park The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was founded in 1990 and it guarantees equal access to people with disabilities in every facet of life [6]. It states that they have the right to fully participate in society; this should include parks, playgrounds, and accessible nature trails [6]. Title two of the ADA prohibits state and local governments from denying equal opportunity and access to their available outdoor spaces, services, and public spaces [6]. Currently Decker Lake is only 100 percent accessible to people without disabilities, the only areas in which wheelchair users or people with mobility devices can access are the parking lots, a very small percentage of the paved trail, and the pickleball courts. Parks and playgrounds that were built prior to 2012 were not mandated to update the area to accommodate individuals with mobility limitations and as of 2022 the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) minimum standards were not being enforced [7]. There are exclusions set from the ADA for natural features, these include the following: 21 | P a g e 1. If the guideline results in substantial harm to significant features of historical, religious, ecological, or cultural meaning. 2. If adhering to compliance means it would change the nature or purpose of the space significantly. 3. If the requirements involve using construction materials or methods that are not allowed by the federal, state, or local entities. 4. If the terrain, natural features, or construction is not compliant [30]. 1.7.2 Potential Barriers for Inclusion Barriers exist for everyone, regardless of their situation; individuals with disabilities must consider every possible barrier before considering visiting a park. Most of the time, it is up to the person with the disability to do upfront research, and it’s not always readily available or posted. If a public space has a website or posts about its amenities, it may be outdated or contain incorrect information. For instance, the Decker Lake facility’s overview on West Valley City’s webpage is outdated and incorrect; it states there is a playground and a volleyball court on the site [2]. The website also indicates that there are restrooms at Decker Lake; however, the only ‘restrooms’ available were port-apotties, and they do not disclose the type of restroom or if the restroom is ADA compliant [2]. Not having adequate, up-to-date information posted online discourages people with disabilities from visiting the park, especially if they rely on public transportation. The availability of public transportation is extremely important for people of all abilities to be independent, as seen in Figure 1.3, where options for easily accessing the park are limited [31]. Figure 1.3: Map of bus and Trax routes surrounding Decker Lake Park [31]. 22 | P a g e Service frequency of the nearest Trax line is 15 minutes Monday through Saturday and 30 minutes on Sunday, so the frequency is not unreasonable for access; however, the distance to the nearest stop may be a barrier. According to Google Maps directions, the distance from the nearest Trax station to Decker Lake is approximately 0.6 miles, and it estimates 13 minutes to get to the park. Assuming the 13 minutes are calculated for a typically able-bodied person, the question is: how long would it take someone in a wheelchair, using a cane, or any other mobility device? If the individual can drive themselves to the park, Decker Lake currently does not have marked parking stalls, let alone van-accessible parking spaces. Parking deficiencies are another common barrier for people with disabilities and even their families. Not having enough ADA parking stalls near the park entrance or the ramps to the walking path makes accessing the park difficult or impossible for some. After traveling, the individual must now consider whether accessible pathways, ADA-compliant playgrounds, unexpected closures, or trail maintenance are available [7]. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, it is the state and local governments’ responsibility to maintain equipment, features, and cleanliness of public land like Decker Lake, this includes snow removal and ensuring walkways remain level and free of debris [6-7]. 1.7.3 Universal Design: Beyond ADA Standards and How It Is Beneficial to the TBL Line Universal design (UD) builds on the foundations of ADA guidelines by going beyond mere compliance and maximizing usability and inclusion for people of all socioeconomic backgrounds [17]. The implementation of UD not only considers the moral or legal importance but also provides significant benefits across the TBL by integrating people, planet, and profit into its design. One study observed in “Universal Design in Playground Environments: A Place-Based Evaluation of Amenities, Use and Physical Activity,” found that although visitation did not increase, the use of UD playgrounds and park amenities substantially improved, with an increase of 82 percent more people utilizing those amenities than at other parks that only met the ADA minimum guidelines [17]. Incorporating UD principles generates measurable value across all three TBL categories: 1. Profit – Increased popularity and use translate to a worthwhile investment for the community. Comparing playgrounds with no accessibility or meeting the ADA minimum requirements, it was determined that more aspects of the park are being utilized [17]. Ensuring upgrades to Decker Lake exceed the ADA guidelines and align with UD principles ensures a higher return on investment due to increased access to the public space. 2. People – UD is fundamental to social justice and equity. It ensures that public spaces feel inclusive and contribute positively to the community's diversity. By implementing UD, it benefits all and doesn’t just serve as a check mark for following guidelines. It promotes social interaction among people of all abilities, which is crucial for mitigating health disparities, increasing physical 23 | P a g e activity, and reducing stigma toward individuals with disabilities [7]. Designing playgrounds and public spaces to be inclusive through UD principles also increases overall community use by providing comfortable accommodations for everyone, accessible walkways that encourage families with strollers to walk around the lake, and a sense of peace of mind that the park is fundamentally a safe place for everyone. 3. Planet – By improving the site to increase visitation by all in the community, it encourages community cleanups, preservation of the site, and provides sustainable landscapes. The ADA guidelines set limitations on site improvements if they interfere with the natural setting and purpose of the trail, so the project must take that into consideration in the final design stage [27]. Essentially, shifting beyond minimum compliance with the ADA, Universal Design integrates accessibility thoughtfully and considers all walks of life. The table below provides a few design examples and compares the ADA minimum requirements with the Universal Design principles for parks and playgrounds. 1.7.4 ADA Guidelines for Play Areas The ADA and its guidelines establish minimum requirements for accessibility in play areas to guarantee that everyone has equal access regardless of ability, age, or socioeconomic background [7]. Parks and playgrounds are considered public accommodation under Title II and Title III of the ADA, and as of 2013, trails, picnic sites, camping areas, viewing areas, and beach access are also included in these titles [30]. As seen in Table 1.2 there are specific standards parks must follow to adhere to the minimum guidelines of the Accessibility and Disability Act. Table 1.2: ADA minimum guidelines versus Universal Design Requirements [27]. Ramp Access Accessible routes Ground-level play Surfacing 25% of elevated components must be ramp accessible 50% of elevated play components must have an accessible route Requires a certain number and type of components Requires accessible surfacing 50% of elevated components by ramp accessible 100% of elevated play components must have an accessible route Requires double what the ADA guidelines outline Requires uniform surfacing 24 | P a g e The requirements state that public parks must offer continuous and unobstructed play routes that are accessible; this includes both ground level and elevated features [7]. Parks must also provide adequate surfacing that lends well with ramp and transfer access for elevated play components and many more [17]. It is important to state that there is a lack of enforcement of the ADA guidelines at parks, especially those parks that were constructed before 2012 [17]. It is unclear when Decker Lake was established, however the community has talked about revitalizing the area as early as 1991 from a quick internet search. 1.7.5 Providing ADA Compliant Pathways and Parking Providing ADA walkways is essential and only the bare minimum to ensure full and equal access to outdoor public spaces and activities. The ADA states that public use spaces must provide “continuous and unobstructed accessible routes” [7]. Everyone is deserving of access to the outdoors and green spaces; exposure to these types of places is found to promote feelings of comfort, tranquility, and vigor [30]. Decker Lake currently only has a small portion of the total pathway paved. Continuing the paved pathway around the entire lake encourages individuals with mobility devices to use it and increases their physical activity. As stated above, increasing physical activity helps decrease health disparities in people with disabilities [7]. The following list provides a few of the minimum ADA guidelines for pathways: 1. Surface conditions – According to ADA section 302, surface conditions must be stable, firm, and slip-resistant; however, the ADA states that sport areas do not need to comply with this section [32]. Considering that UD goes beyond the ADA guidelines, it can be assumed that it would require play or sport areas to have stable, firm pathways at a minimum. 2. Grade and Cross Slope – The ADA requires the running slope not to exceed 1:20 and the cross slope not to exceed 1:48. This remains true even if there are handrails present [32]. 3. Pathway Width – must be at a minimum 36 inches wide, and at any point where a route requires a 180-degree turn around, the minimum width must increase to 48 inches wide. To be considered a passing width, meaning that two mobility devices can pass by each other, the ADA requires a minimum of 60 inches for passing spaces [32]. Currently, off-street parking is available to park-goers; however, it is not compliant with any ADA guidelines, let alone UD principles. Providing ADA-compliant parking is necessary for visitors with mobility aids, especially those using larger vehicles. Simply updating the parking lot to become compliant with ADA standards would significantly improve the site. To be considered compliant, car spaces must be 96 inches wide at a minimum, van stalls must be at least 132 inches wide, and both must include an adjacent aisle at least 60 inches wide to ensure proper access. These parking stalls and 25 | P a g e their adjacent aisles must be marked to discourage other park-goers from parking in them [32]. Going beyond the ADA standards, Decker Lake needs to stripe its entire parking lot to encourage more community members to attend the site. Providing parking stalls will ensure that parking is utilized efficiently and maximized to accommodate the site. 1.7.6 Restroom Requirements to Meet the Needs of Park Visitors Unfortunately, the current restroom options are non-ADA-compliant portable temporary restrooms that appear to be very old and beat up. Not only does this option discourage use by fully able-bodied people, but it also makes it impossible to use if you have any sort of mobility limitations. As you can see in the table below, the ADA minimum requirements for restrooms are vague, and the section outlined for recreation sites does not include any minimum requirements for restrooms [32]. Table 1.3: ADA minimum guidelines versus Universal Design Requirements [7, 27, 32]. Design Element Entrance Operability Distance Functional Space ADA guidelines requirements Provide only door width and ramp access requirements (32-inch door width) Minimal force opening door and appropriate door handle hardware that can be used with a closed fist. Placement must be relative to the entrance of the public space. Adequate space within the stall for mobility devices, 60”x56” minimum. Universal Design requirements Hands-free operation like automatic doors or open corridor entrances in addition to the ADA minimum guidelines. Door handles and latches must be easily used by all, including those with minimal fine motor skills. Both convenience and usability must be considered, ensure not too far from activities to make it a barrier. Provide adequate space for wheelchairs, mobility devices, and those who require urinary aid devices. Following their general guidelines for restrooms, they include minimum stall sizes, grab bar requirements, door swing direction, and mirror and seat heights. Similar to Table 1.2, Table 1.3 details the differences in UD and the minimum ADA compliance required for restrooms. 26 | P a g e 1.8 Lighting This section evaluated the role of lighting in improving safety, user experience, and sustainability at Decker Lake Park. It presents an assessment of current conditions, reviews lighting technologies and design standards, and provides engineering recommendations supported by research, cost analysis, and the TBL framework. 1.8.1 Introduction and Significance Lighting plays a crucial role in shaping both the functionality and perception of public parks. For community spaces like Decker Lake Park, where visitors often engage in earlymorning and evening recreation, inadequate lighting limits visibility, discourages use, and contributes to safety concerns. Studies show that insufficient illumination reduces perceived safety and deters visitors from using public parks after dark, even when the physical environment itself is secure [8-9]. The TBL framework by Elkinton provides a useful lens for evaluating how lighting design simultaneously advances social well-being, economic sustainability, and environmental responsibility [23]. In this context, improving lighting not only increases usability and perceived safety but also supports community engagement and environmental efficiency [33]. Research demonstrates that ambient lighting substantially affects visitors’ comfort and willingness to use outdoor spaces after dark [8]. Currently, Decker Lake lacks sufficient lighting along its walking trails and surrounding amenities, creating areas of poor visibility and perceived insecurity. Addressing this gap through modern, energy-efficient lighting design will promote safety, usability, and community engagement. 1.8.2 Framework: Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts (TBL) Lighting is a foundational element of sustainable park design and directly supports the TBL framework of social, environmental, and economic well-being. Socially, lighting enhances visibility, reduces perceptions of crime, and fosters feelings of safety and inclusion among visitors [9]. Environmentally, energy-efficient fixtures such as lightemitting diodes (LEDs) and solar-powered systems reduce carbon emissions and light pollution. Economically, efficient lighting lowers maintenance and operating costs, ensuring long-term financial viability. In the context of Decker Lake Park, improved illumination not only promotes evening use but also aligns with community health and sustainability goals. By increasing visibility and creating safer spaces, lighting supports both physical activity and psychological comfort, reconfirming the TBL principle that public infrastructure should deliver balanced social, environmental, and economic value. 1.8.3 Primary Research Components This section examines how lighting design influences both the technical performance and user experience of park spaces, focusing on safety, visibility, and nighttime usability. Primary research components include: 1. Site Assessment: Evaluating the current lighting distribution, fixture condition, and coverage along walking trails and gathering areas. 27 | P a g e 2. User Feedback: Conduct community surveys to assess visitor comfort, visibility, and perceived safety during evening hours. 3. Technical Design Analysis: Compare fixture technologies (e.g., LED vs Solar), color temperature, and energy efficiency to develop sustainable recommendations. 4. Comparative Analysis: Review examples of lighting improvement projects in other urban parks to identify effective strategies and design practices that could be applied to Decker Lake Park. Findings from field observations and user input are used to develop design recommendations that are both technically robust and aligned with community needs. Insights from Kaplan et al. show that lighting significantly influences public comfort and use of outdoor spaces [8], while Himschoot et al. demonstrate that changes in light intensity and color temperature directly affect perceptions of safety during nighttime recreation [9]. 1.8.4 Lighting Alternatives Fixture Alternatives: 1. Full-cutoff LED pole luminaries (12–14 ft mounting height) 2. Shielded LED bollard lights (3 ft height) for water-adjacent or habitat-sensitive edges 3. Solar-powered LED pole systems for remote trail sections 4. Adaptive lighting controls (motion sensors, timers, dimming) 1.8.5 Color Temperature Recommendations Warm white LED lighting (e.g., 2700-3000 K) is recommended to reduce skyglow and ecological impact while providing sufficient visibility for users [34, 35]. Studies show that higher correlated color temperatures (CCT), like 5000 K, increase light pollution and sky brightness [33]. 1.8.6 Planning-Level Quantities and Spacing Loop Length: 1.0 mile (5,335 ft) Scheme A (poles only): 14 ft poles spaced – 90 ft (59 poles). Scheme B (mixed): 14 ft poles spaced – 120 ft on a straight/open segments (44 poles) plus shielded bollards at 30 ft spacing along 1,000 ft of water/habitat edge (33 bollards). Spacing guidance: poles 2.5-3.0x mounting height for uniformity; bollards closer spacing due to lower mounting height. 28 | P a g e 1.8.7 Cost and Installation (planning-level): Hardware per pole: $2,000-$3,000 (fixture & pole) [35]. Installation: $9,000-$1,000 per pole (trenching, foundation, wiring) [36]. Solar systems may reduce trenching and wiring costs by eliminating the need for buried electrical lines [35]. LED fixtures reduce long-term costs compared to traditional lamps because they require fewer replacements and minimal maintenance. 1.8.8 Impacts and Outcomes The proposed lighting redesign at Decker Lake will prioritize uniform coverage, visual comfort, energy efficiency, and environmental stewardship. By deploying full-cutoff LED poles, shielded bollards, solar-powered systems, and control technology, the park’s trail loop and gathering nodes will be usable from dawn to dusk and into the evening. Increased illumination encourages evening exercise and family use, thereby improving community wellness. Environmentally, warm-white LEDs and controlled optics reduce skyglow and protect nearby habitats. Economically, reduced long-term operating and maintenance costs enhance sustainability. Together, these results advance the TBL framework, showing how thoughtful lighting design achieves social inclusion, ecological responsibility, and fiscal viability. 1.8.9 Summary Lighting improvements at Decker Lake Park represent a crucial step toward creating a safer, more inclusive, and sustainable public space. Through strategic fixture selection, spacing, and control systems, improved illumination enhances visibility and reduces perceived risk for evening visitors. These upgrades support the TBL by improving social well-being through safer, more welcoming public spaces, advancing environmental sustainability through energy-efficient, dark-sky-compliant design, and improving economic viability through lower operating costs. Modern lighting not only extends park usability but also strengthens community trust and engagement with West Valley City’s public infrastructure. 1.9 Benches There are two main types of benches available and widely used: wood and metal. Concrete and other materials can be used in specific applications. According to Furnatureleisure.com, the pros and cons of wooden park benches are aesthetic appeal, warmth, and comfort through natural grain patterns. The cons of wood benches include high maintenance, lower durability, and the need for regular resurfacing and upkeep [11]. Pros and cons of metal benches according to furnitureleisure.com: durable, stylish, and able to withstand prolonged exposure to moisture and temperature changes. Cons are that they radiate heat (cold or hot), paint can chip or peel, and metal can rust if it’s not stainless [11]. While comparing pricing, park benches can range anywhere from $300 to $2000 each [12]. The extreme weather conditions in Utah indicate that a stainless steel or steel bench with composite slats would be most suitable to withstand repeated freeze-thaw cycles. Shade would protect park benches from heat and limit UV damage 29 | P a g e over time. A combination of open and shaded benches could be an alternative that addresses adverse weather and seasons. 1.9.1 Location is everything. There are multiple areas at Decker Lake. First, the open area by the parking lot: benches should be placed in shaded areas or near the open grassy areas to encourage park attendees to use them for activities. The park’s highest elevations would also be good places to install benches to provide the best viewing areas. The next part of Decker Lake is the pond and wetland areas. These areas offer great places to sit and view birds or other nature areas, as the pond provides. Lastly, the most used part of the park, the walking path. Benches along the walking path could encourage people with mobility challenges or older adults to use it. These benches would provide rest areas along with places where people could just enjoy and spend more time in the park. According to Everybody Outside Consulting, a firm that works to increase accessibility for people with disabilities, “Park benches should be spaced 300-500 feet on steep or challenging trails, and 1000 feet or so on easier terrain” [10]. 1.9.2 Breakdown: Wooden vs Metal There are two main types of benches available and widely used: wood and metal. Concrete and other materials can be used in certain applications. According to Furnatureleisure.com, the pros and cons of wooden park benches are aesthetic appeal, warmth, and comfort through natural grain patterns. The cons of wood benches include high maintenance, lower durability, and the need for regular resurfacing and upkeep [11]. Pros and cons of metal benches according to furnitureleisure.com: durable, stylish, and able to withstand prolonged exposure to moisture and temperature changes. Cons are that they radiate heat (cold or hot), paint can chip or peel, and metal can rust if it’s not stainless [11]. While comparing pricing, park benches can range anywhere from $300 to $2000 each [12]. The extreme weather conditions in Utah indicate that a stainless steel or steel bench with composite slats would be most suitable to withstand repeated freeze-thaw cycles. Shade would provide protection from heat and limit UV damage to the park benches over time. A combination of open and shaded benches could be an alternative that addresses adverse weather and seasons. 30 | P a g e Figure 1.4: Wooden Park Bench [11]. 1.9.3 Three Alternatives See below for list of three varying alternatives. Alternative 1: No additional benches, utilize current seating and benches This option utilizes the benches already installed at the park. This is the lowest cost (no cost) option and utilizes spending funds on other problems like water quality, or other park amenities that may be more important to stakeholders. Figure 1.5: Metal Park Bench [11]. Alternative 2: Medium cost option This is a medium-cost alternative. This alternative would add five more park benches (3 along the south side of lake, 1 on the west side hike trail, and 1 on the east side near outlet). These added park benches would disperse hikers and park users at even spaces so they can sit and enjoy their own open green area. The increase in benches will allow more park visitors to enjoy seating during peak visitation times as well. The second half of alternative 2 would be 3 added trash cans (1 near southwest trail parking lot, North side trail exit, Northeast trail exit). From site visits at Decker Lake, we found that there are no trash cans along the trail section. These added trash cans would 31 | P a g e help the litter problems around the whole lake trail area and park areas. The park benches would be a metal bench with a powder coating finish to maximize the useful life of the bench while providing corrosion and weather resistance. Cost Benches: $3100 installed x 5 benches = $15,500 Trash Cans: $500 x 3 = $1500 Total cost alternative 2: $17,000 Alternative 3: Most expensive option The third and most expensive alternative would be alternative 3. This alternative adds a total of 9 more park benches, 3 more trash cans, and 3-12’x12’ picnic table shaded pavilions (2 South of the lake shore, and 1 on Southeast near the park exit). The added picnic tables provide the public with a more multi-use option. This option is the most expensive, but it provides ample seating and trash cans to accommodate the increase in park attendance. In a site visit it was observed that picnic tables were used not only for eating, but places to sit and enjoy the park green areas. The increase in seating and tables will increase the overall park capacity, as well as encourage more users to stay longer without feeling crowded. To help mitigate the high cost of the alternative, the assessment that the benches, trash cans, and pavilions would be low maintenance and have a long lifespan. Cost Benches: $3100 installed x 9 benches = $27,900 3- 12’ x 12’ picnic table cover pavilion w/ concrete pad $75,000 installed. Trash Cans: $500 x 3 = $1500 Total cost alternative 3: $104,400 1.9.4 Bench and Trash Can benefits These minor updates to Decker Lake can benefit many people. More park benches would not generate any revenue or profit, but the benefits to people using them would be the profit. The cost of installing more benches would be small, improving park benefits and public health overall. People would spend more time in the park and come more often if more park benches were installed. An environmental concern is that an increased population would lead to more litter. Trash cans and waste receptacles would help remedy this. These upgrades also support greater enjoyment at the park and more extended visits to Decker Lake. The alternative suggested on park benches is Alternative #2: adding five new benches and three new trash receptacles. This costs around $17,000, but it would benefit many people. 1.10 Discussion There is significant potential for Decker Lake Park to be transformed into a space that greatly benefits nearby residents. Our chapter’s research highlights that urban green areas and parks 32 | P a g e enhance mental health and well-being [14-15]. Currently, Decker Lake faces problems that limit its usefulness, leaving stakeholders unsure of the best way to address them. Our research has shown that Decker Lake is a strong candidate for designation as a special green space area and could be utilized more effectively through targeted revisions and upgrades. Through site visits, TBL analysis, and researching ways to improve Decker Lake Park specifically, we recommend a few ideas, including ADA improvements, lighting throughout the park, park benches, and littercontrol strategies. These upgrades will encourage more inclusive visitation and help increase park attendance and duration. As seen in Table 1.4, our research found that making lower-cost updates to the park would increase the People portion of the triple bottom line. By making the area ADA compliant, increasing perceived safety through adequate lighting, and providing benches around the entire lake, we determined that the TBL score for people was 7.00. Table 1.4: Triple Bottom Line Matrix People Planet Profit Increase Public Health 7.00 Green Space Quality 5.50 Park Financial Revenue 0 Park and Playground Accessibility Impacts on Natural Terrain and Features 7.00 3.00 Cost, Maintenance, and Long-Term Value of Park After Accessibility Updates 5.00 Lighting Impacts on Safety, Accessibility, and User Experience 7.00 Environmental Effects of Park Lighting Systems 5.00 Cost, Maintenance, and Long-Term Value of Lighting Improvements 5.00 Benches and trash cans Effects on Public Benches and trash cans Effects on Pollution 7.00 6.50 Cost, Maintenance, and Long-Term Value of Additional Benches and Trash Cans 4.98 Final Score 7.00 Final Score 5.00 Final Score 3.745 The Planet portion was identified to have an average of 5.00 due to impacts on night skies from additional lighting, natural terrain, and features, as well as the installation of wider pathways and park benches. The lowest average score was 3.745 in the Profit portion of the TBL. We determined that increasing public health does not have a profitable impact on the park but 33 | P a g e found that ADA upgrades and low-maintenance benches and light fixtures were neither good nor bad. The addition of the features does not significantly increase maintenance year-to-year. Still, the initial cost is larger than what the stakeholders are currently contributing to the park in general. Overall, the TBL assessment suggests that improvements to Decker Lake should prioritize community well-being. Although TBL scores vary across categories, our analysis shows that the recommended improvements provide meaningful long-term value for Decker Lake and its visitors. The high score in the People category reflects that simple, targeted upgrades such as ADA pathways, lighting, and benches improve comfort, safety, and inclusivity. The more moderate Planet score highlights the need to balance improvements with ecological protections, especially regarding light pollution, habitat sensitivity, and trail widening. These environmental considerations emphasize the importance of selecting low-impact solutions such as full-cutoff LED fixtures, warm color temperatures, and minimal disturbance to shoreline vegetation. Finally, the lower Profit score suggests that while these improvements do not generate immediate financial return, they offer long-term community value and reduce operational costs over time. Together, these findings indicate that Decker Lake Park would benefit most from investments that maximize social and ecological outcomes, even if they require modest upfront costs. 1.11 Conclusion In conclusion, research indicates that green spaces and parks provide overall health benefits to visitors. Decker Lake is currently a green space used by locals, which already offers benefits. As stakeholders have noted, Decker Lake faces many challenges. Water quality, sediment buildup, and invasive plant/animal species are significant challenges that require attention. Other chapters of this research focused on topics such as water quality and the addition of amenities to increase usability and park attendance. Our research in this chapter focused on applying engineering principles to improve user safety, inclusivity, overall health, and well-being. Research also revealed that ADA access and activities in public spaces are not being implemented as they should be. One solution needed at Decker Lake is to add ADA parking. Another is to look at ways to improve walkways, or even pave walkways or trails, to increase mobility and accessibility. Other recommendations based on our research were lighting for park trails and activities. These additions to Decker Lake increase overall safety and extend the park's usable hours. Lighting also promotes a safe environment for people with disabilities or access challenges. Park benches, trash cans, and shaded picnic tables were also recommended to promote a safer, more inviting atmosphere. They also provide more places for people to rest or socialize, thereby increasing the average park stay duration. Future research would benefit from surveying or collecting data from citizens to evaluate the effectiveness of the applied alternatives. By applying engineering principles and the triple bottom line (TBL) framework, this chapter identifies specific interventions that can meaningfully improve user safety, inclusivity, and overall well-being. Accessibility upgrades, such as ADA-compliant parking, paved, level 34 | P a g e walkways, and inclusive pathway design, directly address mobility barriers that currently exclude many residents. Lighting enhancements would extend usable park hours, increase visitor confidence, and support safer recreation opportunities. Similarly, strategically placed benches, trash receptacles, and shaded gathering areas foster more extended visits, increase user comfort, and promote social interaction. Importantly, these improvements will do more than enhance comfort; they will directly advance public health objectives by increasing opportunities for outdoor physical activity, mental restoration, and community connection. They also align with environmental goals by promoting sustainable material choices, reducing light pollution, and encouraging responsible long-term land stewardship. Economically, the proposed upgrades represent relatively low-cost investments that can significantly increase the park's value to the community, reduce long-term maintenance strain, and strengthen public trust in local infrastructure. Ultimately, revitalizing Decker Lake Park is not simply an aesthetic or recreational effort; it is an investment in community health, inclusivity, and long-term sustainability. With thoughtful planning and evidence-based design, Decker Lake can become a model for how urban parks across Salt Lake County can evolve to meet the needs of a growing, diverse population, providing equitable access to nature, fostering meaningful social connection, and supporting the well-being of all who visit. 1.12 References [1] Public Lands Department, Salt Lake City, “Pioneer Park Improvements,” SLC.gov. [Online]. Available: SLC.gov/Public Lands Department/Pioneer Park Improvements. [2] West Valley City, “Decker Lake Park,” West Valley City Park and Recreation Department, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.wvc-ut.gov/facilities/facility/details/Decker-Lake-Park34. [Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025] [3] Nature and Human Health-Utah, “Decker Lake Project,” Nature and Health Utah, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.wvc-ut.gov/facilities/facility/details/Decker-Lake-Park-34. [Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025] [4] Chen, S., Sleipness, O., Christensen, K., Yang, B., Park, K., Knowles, R., Yang, Z., & Wang, H. (2024). “Exploring associations between social interaction and urban park attributes: Design guideline for both overall and separate park quality enhancement,” Cities, 145, 104714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104714 [Accessed September 24, 2025.] [5] J.Garcia. (2024). “Re-Imagining Decker Lake Park,” City and Metropolitan Planning, https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=2524883&q=re-imagining+decker+lake. [Accessed October 15, 2024]. [6] B. A. Whaley, J. G. Martinis, G. F. Pagano, S. Barthol, J. Senzer, P. R. Williamson, and P. D. Blanck, “The Americans with Disabilities Act and Equal Access to Public Spaces,” Laws, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 5, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/laws13010005. 35 | P a g e [7] C. J. Firkin, L. Rechner, and I. Obrusnikova, “Paving the Way to Active Living for People with Disabilities: Evaluating Park and Playground Accessibility and Usability in Delaware,” Delaware J. Public Health, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 74-83, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.32481/djph.2024.03.09. [8] J. Kaplan et al., “Ambient lighting, use of outdoor spaces and perceptions of public safety: Evidence from a survey experiment,” Frontiers in Built Environment, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1-12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8038535/ [9] E. A. Himschoot et al., “Feelings of safety for visitors recreating outdoors at night in different light conditions,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 102-117, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424001476 [10] Devereaux, K. (2025, September 2). Take a seat- what makes a bench accessible. EveryBody Outside Consulting. https://www.everybodyoutsideconsulting.com/blog/benches [11] Furniture Leisure. (n.d.). What are park benches made of: Choosing the right materials. Furniture Leisure. https://www.furnitureleisure.com/what-are-park-benches-madeof?srsltid=AfmBOooTDrt728RWzEI_j1Op2Fh3I9BnlXo_zHgHFCMnSHMHniMjK57s [12] Popular Park benches for sale. (n.d.). https://www.theparkcatalog.com/popular-parkbenches , accessed 10/18/2025 [13] Simon, S. (n.d.). ADA compliance for outdoor benches. Thomas Steele Site Furnishings. https://blog.thomas-steele.com/blog/ada-compliance-for-outdoor-benches , accessed 10/18/2025 [14] Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). “The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159-168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024 [Accessed September 24, 2025]. [15] C. Drenowatz and K. Greier.(2023). “Association of Physical Fitness and Motor Competence with Health and Well- Being in Children and Adolescents,” International Journal of Enviornmental Research and Public Health, https://mdpires.com/bookfiles/book/7039/Association_of_Physical_Fitness_and_Motor_Competence_with _Health_and_WellBeing_in_Children_and_Adolescents.pdf?v=1760749637 [Accessed October 15, 2025]. [16] J. Alcolin, A. Hajat, P. Nurus, and L. Lengua. (2022). “Playgrounds are for children: Investigating developmentally-specific ‘green space’ and child mental health,” SSM–Mental Health, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560322000275. [Accessed October 15, 2025]. 36 | P a g e [17] K. Hurst, C. Lee, and F. Ndubisi, “Universal Design in Playground Environments: A Place-Based Evaluation of Amenities, Use, and Physical Activity,” Landscape J., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 55-80, 2023. [18] Yuen, H. K., & Jenkins, G. R. (2019). Factors associated with changes in subjective well-being immediately after urban park visit. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 30(2), 134–145. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.1080/09603123.2019.1577368 [19] Selanon, P., & Chuangchai, W. (2023). Improving Accessibility to Urban Greenspaces for People with Disabilities: A Modified Universal Design Approach. Journal of Planning Literature, 39(1), 79-83. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.1177/08854122231212662 (Original work published 2024) [20] Pusparani, Pusparani, Deivy Zulyanti Nasution, and Mira Maharani. “Facilities in City Parks Can Increase the Number of Visits.” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach Research and Science 3.1 (2025): 155–162. Print. [21] Salt Lake County. “Parks & Recreation.” Salt Lake County, 15 Feb. 2022, www.saltlakecounty.gov/parks-recreation/. [22] Salt Lake County. “Health Department.” Salt Lake County, 5 June 2023, www.saltlakecounty.gov/health/. [23] J. Elkinton, Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford, Uk: Capstone Publishing, 1997. [24] R. S. Griffith and R. A. Ickert, The Ethical and Economic Dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line in Sustainable Development. Columbia: University of Missouri, 2009. [25] Beyer KMM, Kaltenbach A, Szabo A, Bogar S, Nieto FJ, Malecki KM. Exposure to Neighborhood Green Space and Mental Health: Evidence from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014; 11(3):3453-3472. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110303453 [26] A. Taylor & T. Fletcher, “Triple bottom line assessment of urban stormwater projects,” Journal of Environmental Engineering, vol. 130, no. 3, pp. 155-162, 2011. [27] G. Lukoseviciute and M. A. Nelson, “Accessible Trail Tourism: Trail Accessibility and Difficulty Rating Approach Designed for Individuals, Including With Mobility Impairments,” Int. J. Tourism Res., vol. 26, no. 6, Article e2787, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1002/jtr.2787. 37 | P a g e [28] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Disability Impacts All of Us Infographic,” Apr. 14 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articlesdocuments/disability-impacts-all-of-us-infographic.html. [Accessed: Nov. 14 2025]. [29] National Center for Education Statistics, Students With Disabilities — Condition of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities. [Accessed: Nov. 14, 2025]. [30] E. Woll, “Outside Accessibility for All, A Look at Universal Design within the Rugged Outdoors for Individuals with a Physical Disability,” M.A. Ed. thesis, School of Education & Leadership, Hamline University, Spring 2025. [31] UTA, “UTA Maps – Intercity Riders Companion,” Ride UTA. [Online]. Available:https://maps.rideuta.com/portal/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=b5db22dc0 9a24203886607cf3e2abb30. Accessed: Nov. 16, 2025. [32] U.S. Department of Justice, “2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design,” Sept. 15, 2010. Available: https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/design-standards/2010-stds/ [33] R. S. Griffith and R. A. Ickert, The Ethical and Economic Dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line in Sustainable Development. Columbia: University of Missouri, 2009. [34] S. West K. Shores L. Mudd et al. “Association of Available Parkland, Physical Activity, and Overweight in America's Largest Cities.” Journal of public health management and practice. 18.5 (2012): 423–430. Print. [35] LEDVANCE, “Best Guidance of Color Temperature for Outdoor Lighting,” Aug. 5, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ledvanceus.com/blog/Pages/outdoor-lighting-colortemperature.aspx. [36] S. Lang, “Color Temperature and Outdoor Lighting,” AllThingsLighting.org, 2020. [Online]. Available:https://www.allthingslighting.org/color-temperature-and-outdoor-lighting/. 38 | P a g e Chapter 2 Water Treatment Via a Constructed Wetland in Decker Lake: A Feasibility Study of the Reduction of Pollutants to Aquatic Recreational Standards Dylan Smith, Ethan Smith, Kai Mulligan, and Pepper Tweed Executive Summary Decker Lake is a 35-acre site that is classified for aquatic recreation, animal habitability, and agricultural use [1]. Despite this, high pollution levels and minimal public utilities keep the park underutilized. Exceeding professional standards in total coliforms, fecal coliforms, dissolved lead, total phosphorus, and BOD5, the site is in drastic need of water quality improvement measures to increase functionality as a community space for West Valley City residents [1] A constructed wetland system could address residential desires such as increased tree cover and decreased pollution, while remaining relatively inexpensive. Mimicking natural treatment function seen in wild wetlands, constructed wetland systems have high performance in removal of excess nutrients, heavy metals, and pharmaceuticals/personal care products. Designed from a foundation in triple bottom line sustainability, economic, social, and environmental effects are balanced through innovative design. The effects of implementing a constructed wetland into Decker Lake would be ecologically and socially beneficial. Our main hope is for improved water quality as the wetland will substantially reduce pollutant loads entering Decker Lake. The vegetation will slow sedimentation inflow, allowing for suspended solids, metals, and hydrocarbons from the road and stormwater runoff to settle before entering the recreational part of the lake. The vegetation should also lower the chance for algal blooms and reduce E. coli levels within the lake. The native Utah ecosystem will create better habitat for the wildlife in and out of the Decker Lake water. By adding more biodiversity through vegetation, habitats for amphibians, insects, and nesting waterfowl on top of the water will exist alongside habitats for fish and macroinvertebrates within the water. Plants will also stabilize the shorelines, reduce erosion, and allow for more refuge for birds and small mammals. The encouragement of habitat complexity will shift the lake toward a more balanced and stable ecosystem. These habitats will encourage animal use but should discourage large congregations of geese and gulls in open-water areas by breaking up the shoreline- decreasing one of the largest E. coli sources in Decker Lake. The constructed wetland will create a better space for the people by creating a more aesthetically pleasing public space with added greenery, flowering wetland species, and seasonal color variation with more opportunities to observe wildlife in a naturalized setting. Improved water quality enhances visitor satisfaction, reduces odor from algal blooms, and increases the overall appeal of the site as a recreational destination. 39 | P a g e Recreational users will also be drawn to the higher water quality as it will allow for safer fishing, boating, and potentially swimming. The wetland may reduce some open-water areas near the inflow and will require periodic maintenance such as biomass harvesting, invasive species monitoring, and large trash/ debris removal from the storm drains. The establishment will also take at least one to two growing seasons where hydrology and plant survival must be carefully managed. Luckily, these concerns are typical and manageable through consistent care. In summary, adding a constructed wetland to Decker Lake will significantly improve water quality, enhance habitats, reduce pollutant inflow, discourage bird overconcentration, and increase ecological and recreational value. Although the wetland requires consistent care, these longterm benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Total costs for the implementation of a base design would be $1,429,820. Funding could be secured from a $53 million grant released in 2024 to protect the Great Salt Lake and its surrounding wetlands or from the 2016 Parks and Recreation Bond. Effects of the implementation of a constructed wetland system would include increased water quality to standards necessary for aquatic recreation excluding concentrations of coliform bacteria. With enough time after installation, these concentrations would lower to acceptable levels, but multiple rounds of sedimentation clearing and vegetation replanting must occur beforehand. This design resulted in the highest average performance across all three prongs of the triple bottom line methodology, with low costs in relation to pollution removal, a large increase in park usability, and drastically improved ecosystem health. Keywords: Nutrients, pollutants, runoff, stormwater, and triple bottom line 40 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 2.1 Introduction: Site Description and Statement of Needs 2.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of Study 2.1.2 Design Considerations 2.2 Understanding of relevant engineering and scientific studies 2.3 Chapter Description and Constraints 2.3.1 Basis of Design 2.3.1a Statement of Needs 2.3.1b Guiding Principles 2.3.1c Key Assumptions 2.3.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements 2.4 Methodical Constraints 2.4.1 Physical Constraints 2.4.2 Social/Community Constraints 2.4.3 Sustainability Constraints 2.4.4 Economic Constraints 2.5 Development of Design Alternatives 2.5.1 Alternative 1: No Change 2.5.1a Design Description 2.5.1b Alternative Evaluation 2.5.1c Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 1 2.5.2 Alternative 2: Plant Native Flora 2.5.2a Design Description 2.5.2b Constraints 2.5.2c Alternative Evaluation 2.5.2d Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 2 2.5.3 Alternative 3: Base Design Description 2.5.3a Constraints 2.5.3b Alternative Evaluation 2.5.3c Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 3 2.5.4 Alternative 3: Addition of Irrigation and Substrate Improvements 2.5.4a Design Description 2.5.4b Constraints 2.5.4c Alternative Evaluation 2.5.4d Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 4 41 | P a g e 2.6 Case Studies 2.6.1 - Utah Supreme Court Case 2.6.2 - University of Utah Research Article 2.6.3 - Cost of Constructed Wetlands 2.7 Grant Funding Opportunities 2.8 Discussion (Comparison of Alternatives) 2.8.1 Triple Bottom Line Matrix 2.8.2 Discussion of Alternative Ratings 2.9 Recommendations 2.9.1 Reason for Recommendations 2.9.2 Future Action(s) 2.10 Reference List of Figures Figure 2.1: Plan view of Decker Lake Park, maximum construction area, and major inflow and outflow points Figure 2.2: Approximate lengths and widths for the lower and upper cells of the wetland construction area List of Tables Table 2.1: Concentrations of Common Pollutants in Decker Lake and Utah State Standards for Recreational Water (mg/L) Table 2.2: Recommended Vegetation for a Constructed Wetland in Decker Lake Table 2.3: Suggest depth/surface area allocations for three wetland systems from the EPA Handbook of Constructed Wetlands Volume 5: Stormwater Table 2.4: Concentrations of common chemicals in Decker Lake Table 2.5: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of a Constructed Wetland to improve water quality of Decker Lake 42 | P a g e 2.1 Introduction: Site Description and Statement of Needs Decker Lake has a 35-acre surface area and was historically one of the water bodies that made up the headwaters of Lee Creek [1]. The lake is sourced via two major inflows being the “the Kearns Chesterfield canal (60%) and a major urban runoff drain (35%),” and outflows via the Decker Lake Canal which goes back into the Jordan River [1]. Frequently utilized for its birdwatching, 184 species of birds have been recorded present at Decker Lake, with the most seen species being Canadian Geese, European Starlings, and Gadwalls [2]. “The lake is not actively stocked with fish, but wildlife forums report over 100 recorded catches of carp, catfish, and bass (Decker Lake Fishing Reports, n.d.)” [3]. The lake is legally classified for a variety of uses. According to the Wastewater Disposal Regulations, Part II, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State, Decker Lake is classified 2B, 3B, 3D, 4. Class 2B protected for boating, water skiing, and similar uses, excluding recreational bathing (swimming). Class 3B - protected for warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. Class 3D - protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other wateroriented wildlife not included in Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. Class 4 - protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering [1]. Despite these legal classifications, Decker Lake sees little to no aquatic recreation outside of fishing. In terms of pollutant loading, Figure 2.1 shows average concentrations of common pollutants like total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), hardness, five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total coliforms, fecal coliforms, dissolved iron (DI), dissolved lead (DL), and dissolved mercury (DM) found within Decker Lake. These values were generated from a study by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality in 1991 in which wet and dry pollutant concentrations were averaged from sites closest to Decker Lake’s inflow points. Figure 2.1 compares these values to standards from Utah Admin Code R317-2-14 – Numeric Criteria. Utah state code clearly listed a maximum allowable concentration of total nitrogen (TN), but was missing values for TSS, hardness, coliform values, and dissolved iron. All concentrations are in mg/L other than coliform levels which are measured in colony-forming units per 100 mL (cfs/100mL). 43 | P a g e Table 2.1: Concentrations of common pollutants in Decker Lake and Utah State Standards for Recreational Water (mg/L) [4]. 1991 Decker Lake pollution concentrations exceed acceptable limits in all metrics besides dissolved mercury, pH, and TDS. Total Coliform and Fecal Coliform are outdated measures of water quality as they were found to be less accurate in determining the safety of a water body compared to concentrations of e-coli. However, the Clean Water Act still lists maximum geometric mean limits of fecal coliforms for freshwater aquatic recreation (200 cfs/100mL), and maximum geometric mean limits of total coliforms for marine water recreation (1000 cfs/100mL) [5]. Decker lakes concentrations of total and fecal coliforms sit at over 44 times and 16 times these regulations respectively. The lake hosts a maximum volume of 129,516 m3, a mean depth of 3 ft, and a maximum depth of 4 ft [1]. The average flow rate of the lake’s major inflows is 9.173 ft3/s based on data from the 1998 Salt Lake County Department of Public Works Engineering Division Decker Lake Progress Report [4]. There are 4.76 acres of freshwater emergent wetland already on site, but construction is likely to move into a large section of the lake and expand this existing area. Figure 2.1 shows a plan view of the site and predicted area of construction for the base design of the constructed wetland system. 44 | P a g e Figure 2.1: Plan view of Decker Lake Park, maximum construction area, and major inflow and outflow points [6] The maximum construction area is estimated at 20.9 acres and spans the west half of the lake. It aims to utilize all existing wetland space and more to increase hydraulic retention time and nutrient uptake. 2.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of Study Despite being classified as a lake protected for aquatic recreation outside of swimming, Decker Lake is left neglected and unused due to low water quality [1]. West Valley City does not have the funds for extensive water treatment, necessitating a cheap and effective solution to reduce pollutant loads in the lake [7]. A constructed wetland (CW) that filters inflow from the Kearns Chesterfield Canal, and a major urban runoff drain could drastically improve the water quality in the lake while remaining relatively inexpensive. Mimicking natural treatment functions seen in wild wetlands, CW systems have high performance in removal of total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), heavy metals (HM), and other contaminants. The goal of the CW system is to increase the water quality of Decker Lake to meet federal aquatic recreation standards. Doing so 45 | P a g e would reduce the number of harmful algae blooms (HABs), improve recreational opportunities, wildlife habitability, ecosystem health, and park aesthetics. In fact, a survey done by Nature and Human Health Utah found that “Pollution and cleanliness was the most significant concern that park users cite to accessing the park, with 60.6% of respondents selecting concerns related to pollution and cleanliness as their primary barrier to use of the park” [3]. The same study found that citizens’ main desire for park improvement includes increased tree cover, and their eighth highest demand was signs with information about wildlife [3]. All three concerns can be directly addressed through a constructed wetland system. Increased water quality improves park cleanliness, trees are an essential component of wetland buffers, and a constructed wetland project is the perfect opportunity for installations of information on site functionality and resident species. Direct information regarding acceptable water levels in Decker Lake for increased recreational use would need to come directly from Salt Lake County, Figure 2.1 shows that Decker Lake already greatly exceeds acceptable concentrations of TDS, TP, and DL according to general Utah state code. Lowering these pollutant loads to a standard necessary for aquatic recreation is within the possibility of proper implementation of a CW. 2.1.2 Design Considerations Design considerations include hydraulic retention time, flow speed, vegetation selection, flow depth, marsh characteristics, and cell size. A hydraulic retention time of 3.5 days was found to maximize pollution removal without excess sedimentation [8]. Flow speeds are decreased by the inclusion of a forebay and rock features as water enters the wetland, maximizing surface contact time for substrate adsorption. Substrate additives such as carbonate can increase phosphorus (a challenging key pollutant) removal [9]. Native vegetation such as hardstem and softstem bulrushes filter E. coli, lowering the percent of E.coli in the water and native vegetation such as cattails, rushes, duckweeds, hairgrasses, and sedges paired with flow depths of 18 inches were found to optimize nutrient removal and lower the amount of harmful algae blooms present in water feature [10]. The EPA recommends partitioning the surface area of stormwater constructed wetland systems to prioritize marsh land while including adequate space for transition zones and flow control system [10]. Lastly, an aspect ratio of 3:1 (length:width) was found to optimally remove fecal matter, a pollutant of interest in Decker Lake due to high bird populations in a study of Lake Macquarie [11]. These BMPs were each implemented into the Decker Lake constructed wetland system. 2.2 Understanding of relevant engineering and scientific studies Constructed wetlands are defined by the EPA as “Engineered or constructed wetlands that utilize natural processes involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other water source” [12]. They are used to treat a variety of water sources, including wastewater treatment plant effluent, urban runoff, agricultural runoff, polluted rivers, and polluted lakes. They are most effective in 46 | P a g e treating micro polluted water and “... emulate the natural purification processes of wetlands by utilizing a combination of plants, microorganisms, and substrates to facilitate wastewater treatment (Wang et al., 2022b; Wu et al., 2023)” [8]. CWs have shown proficiency in the removal of TP, TN, heavy metals, pesticides, and PPCPs (pharmaceutical and personal care products). CW systems have a variety of treatment methods and treat each pollutant in specific ways. Nitrogen infiltrates CW systems as nitrogen gas, nitrite, nitrate, ammonia, and ammonium [10]. The forms of concern are ammonia and total nitrogen as "... ammonia can be toxic to fish and other aquatic life while excess nitrogen contributes to the over-enrichment of natural waters” [10]. Both can add oxygen demand to receiving water. Its treatment comes from nitrifying bacteria converting ammonia to nitrites which is then converted to nitrates which can be readily absorbed by wetland vegetation. This is an aerobic process, so its performance is affected by the availability of oxygen for nitrifying bacteria [10]. Phosphorus enters CW systems cyclically as plants die back in the fall [10]. Microbes, algae, and soil control the seasonal uptake of phosphorus, but soil is the largest phosphorus sink [10]. Due to this, “The length of the removal period depends on the chemical adsorption capacity of the sediments” [10]. Metals and other toxic materials often infiltrate CW systems in stormwater runoff from roadways; they can harm wildlife that visit the wetland and bio magnify as they go up the food chain. They are captured through cation exchange with soils, oxidation in the water column, and forming compounds with organic material in substrates [10]. Pathogens enter wetlands through agricultural and urban runoffs. They die off when exposed to adequate UV radiation and can be absorbed by solids. These two extraction methods have high effectiveness as CW systems “... have been shown to remove bacteria and viruses from domestic wastewaters at efficiencies of 90% to 99% at residence times as short as 3 to 6 days. (Ives 1988)” [10]. Removal is promoted by dense vegetation and high HRTs. The three main types of CWs are Free Water Surface Flow (FWSF), Subsurface Flow (SSF), and Hybrid constructed wetlands. Free Water Surface Flow CWs consist of a shallow water pathway that sits above the substrate [12] . They offer high performance for relatively low costs, but require a large area, are prone to odor generation, have high insect prevalence, and experience high temperature fluctuations [8]. Subsurface Flow CWs “...consists of a sealed basin with a porous substrate of rock or gravel. The water level is designed to remain below the top of the substrate” [12]. In comparison to FWSFs, they show greater efficiency in removal of total nitrogen [8]. However, they tend to experience more clogging and maintenance issues, are more expensive to construct, use smaller flows, and are more difficult to regulate [12]. Hybrid systems combine aspects of both systems to treat specific contaminants. Most hybrid systems combine vertical and horizontal flow systems and have the highest performance in removal of PCPPs [8]. Hybrid systems often require multiple cells, each of which treats a specific set of contaminants through alteration of design factors like hydraulic retention time, flow speed, vegetation, and microbial activity [8]. Hybrid systems require a large initial investment, incur high operational costs, and can have complicated maintenance routines [8]. 47 | P a g e Water can flow through these three types of wetlands though horizontal or vertical flow. Horizontal flow is commonly used for secondary wastewater treatment. It requires more land than vertical flow systems but also requires less maintenance and operational efforts. In comparison, vertical flow systems require less area and are less sensitive to temperature fluctuations but are more prone to clogging. Vertical flow systems are commonly used for onsite sewage treatment, industrial wastewater, and stormwater runoff [8]. Various factors influence the performance of a constructed wetland. Hydraulic Loading Rate (HLR) and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) both have been shown to have a positive correlation between themselves and the removal efficiency of pollutants. An excessive HRT can result in secondary issues such as anaerobic conditions and odor formations, but an average HRT of 3.5 days shows high removal of TP, TN, heavy metals, and PCPPs [8]. This is further supported by a study of constructed wetland efficiency for treatment of stormwater runoff for the quality of water in Clear Lake, Minnesota, which found that detention of stormwater runoff into marsh detention areas removed 93% of suspended solids after only three days of retention [13]. The same study found that species residing in the wetland were shown to affect performance, with the presence of carp increasing pollutant levels as they uproot plants and increase erosion of substrate materials. In a study of CW performance on the removal of fecal bacteria at Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia, an aspect ratio (length: width) of 3:1 was predicted to be optimal for fecal bacterial removal [11]. This size increases the HRT while allowing for enough exposed surface area to allow UV radiation to degrade bacteria. Due to their uncontrolled environment, CW systems are also very susceptible to the elements. In fact, a handbook from the EPA detailing stormwater CW systems notes that performance declines in the fall and winter due to dying plants, lower biological activity, and ice cover [10]. Vegetation also has a dramatic effect on wetland performance. In a study of the effect of vegetation on nitrogen and phosphorus absorption in CW systems by Erler et al., they found that rooted macrophytes improve overall nutrient removal heavily in comparison to floating plants which exhibited nutrient efflux [14]. 2.3 Chapter Description and Constraints Both the Decker Lake’s major inflow points are primarily sourced from urban stormwater runoffs. FWSF systems are best suited to treating stormwater, as they readily accept water runoff during storm events, and their large surface areas allow for UV degradation of pathogens [10]. Their advantages lie in their excellent removal of sediment, high removal of BOD5 and total suspended solids, high tolerance to fluctuations in flow and water quality, low maintenance, simplicity of operation, creation of wildlife habitat, and aesthetic enhancements [10]. Their limitations lie in their large land requirements, susceptibility to shock loading after a storm, possible flushing of storm pollutants during high flows, and seasonal variability in treatment effectiveness [10]. A FWSF CW system for Decker Lake will be developed with a focus on sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line. 48 | P a g e 2.3.1 Basis of Design As defined in John Elkington’s Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, “Sustainability is the principle of ensuring that our actions today do not limit the range of economic, social, and environmental options open to future generations” [15]. This three-pronged approach to sustainability is better known as the Triple Bottom Line. Proper implementation of a CW system maximizes its performance economically, socially, and environmentally through innovative design. It maintains low costs through minimal maintenance, enhances landscapes through diverse vegetation and an integrated water feature, and improves ecosystem health through natural pollution reduction. A shallow marsh FWSF CW is best suited to Decker Lake. The multiple inflows require a serpentine pattern that is not possible in pond wetland systems, and the constant inflows make extended detention systems impossible. Surface area should be maximized in relation to volume as a high surface area to volume ratio has been shown to increase sedimentation, adsorption, microbial activity, and uptake of pollutants by algae [10]. Shallow depths at a maximum of 18 inches promote optimal nutrient absorption, while long flow paths maximize contact of the stormwater with wetland surfaces [10]. A sediment forebay should be constructed at the entrance of the Kearn’s Chesterfield Canal and urban runoff drain to slow down incoming stormwater and absorb much of the force [10]. Their deeper area captures coarse sediment loads, so they don’t enter the wetland, and they should be four to six feet in depth [10]. Stones should be placed where they enter the wetland, and oil, and grease traps should be installed at the inlet location to prevent clogging and lower maintenance. A concrete bottom simplifies cleanout [10]. A micro pool should be constructed at the CW outlet location. A reverse slope pipe should be utilized to release water from the middle of the water column to avoid release of sediments and floating debris [10]. A hydraulic retention time of 3.5 days would give optimal pollutant removal without excessive sedimentation [8]. A length to width ratio of 3 to 1 is optimal for removal of fecal bacteria, an important pollutant in the Decker Lake system given the large bird population present at the park [11]. The vegetation for the constructed wetland for Decker Lack is based on native and regionally adapted aquatic and riparian vegetation that can tolerate changing water levels, seasonal temperature shifts, and intermittent pollutant loads from stormwater runoff. The design uses emergent macrophytes, floating vegetation, and riparian buffer species to maximize the removal of E. coli and nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. 2.3.1a Statement of Needs Two of the biggest pollutant factors in Decker Lake are waterfowl droppings, and stormwater runoff from nearby roads, adding metals, hydrocarbons, and sediments. Both of these with water drainage and volume not being consistent create the main issues of focus. The vegetation should be able to have yearround cover despite seasonal freezing, promote pathogen reduction, primarily through E. coli inactivation in root zones, improve nutrient and sediment 49 | P a g e retention before outflow returns to Decker Lake, all while maintaining aesthetic value and supporting the native habitat. To address these needs the vegetation will have three key roles; first the emergent species will anchor sediments and host microbial films that degrade contaminants, next submerged or floating species to provide shade, oxygenate the water, and capture nutrients (N and P), and lastly the riparian fringe plants to buffer storm inflows and provide resilience during drawdown periods. Table 2.2 introduces specific plants which could work in different roles. There will also need to be ongoing processing and monitoring for the health of the vegetation as well as watching for invasive species like phragmites australis. Table 2.2: Recommended Vegetation for a Constructed Wetland in Decker Lake. Plant Species (Scientific Name) Common Name Chronolects acutus [16],[17],[18] Hardstem Bulrush Emergent Typha Latifolia [16][19] Broadleaf Cattail Emergent Carex Utriculata [20],[21] Beaked Sedge Shallow marsh Role Ecological Function Nativity Rhizome mats host microbial biofilms that reduce E. coli, trap suspended solids, and stabilize sediments High surface area roots promote bacterial attachment and nutrient uptake; slows flow to enhance sedimentation Root zones filter runoff and host nitrifying microbes for pathogen and nutrient reduction Stabilizes banks and supports nitrificationdenitrification cycles at soil water interface Utah; able to tolerate fluctuating water and frosts. Juncus Balticus [20],[22] Baltic Rush Riparian Fringe Scirpus Validus [18],[23] Softstem bulrush Emergent/Shallow open water Hosts E. coli reducing biofilms Floating Provides shading that limits bacterial regrowth, uptakes dissolved nutrients Lemna minor [24],[25] Common Duckweed Azolla Mexicana Ferns Floating Eleocharis Palustris [20] Common Spikerush Transition/ Shallow emergent Fixes Nitrogen, absorbs phosphorus, and reduces E. coli through shading and microbial association Filter Sediments and bacteria, good with bulrushes Utah; requires periodic thinning Utah; cold tolerant Northern Utah; good for variable moisture Utah, Great Salt Lake; partial to salinity and tolerant of deeper water Utah ponds Western United States Utah; good for decreased water and frost 50 | P a g e Salix Exigua [22] Coyote Willow Upland/ riparian buffer Deschampsia Cespitosa [20],[22] Tufted Hairgrass Riparian Buffer Captures overland runoff, stabilizes banks, and intercepts fecal flow Dense sod binds soil, intercepts nutrients, and adds habitat and aesthetic value while supporting pollinators Utah; easy to establish from clippings Lower temperate Utah valleys 2.3.1b Guiding Principles The primary beneficiaries of this project include the surrounding community, recreational Decker Lake users, and native wildlife. Cleaner water will support improved aesthetics and public health, while diverse plantings will expand habitat for birds, amphibians, and pollinators. The municipality and local water managers also benefit through enhanced compliance with regulatory standards for total suspended solids, nutrients, and bacteria. However, certain stakeholders may face disadvantages such as increased maintenance needs for vegetation management or reduced open-water space for some recreational users. To reduce increased maintenance, plant diversity will minimize clogging and sustain hydraulic performance, and native ecotypes can be used to prevent invasive spread, therefore reducing maintenance burdens. There will still need to be periodic harvesting of cattails and bulrushes, coupled with seasonal inspections, will maintain nutrient uptake capacity and prevent excessive biomass accumulation. 2.3.1c Key Assumptions It is assumed that the final inflow volumes and residence times of the water within Decker Lake are estimates, seasonal water fluctuations are in .5 m fluctuation; extreme cases could alter vegetation, road salt, hydrocarbons, and fecal bacteria vary by season; the vegetation mix is assumed to tolerate episodic pulses. Additionally, during winter, microbial and plant activity declines below 5 °C; partial but not complete E. coli removal expected. Data from the 1998 Salt Lake County Decker Lake Progress Report is assumed to be accurate in 2025, as more recent measurements have not been recorded. The mean height of 3 feet found in the Clean Lakes Report is assumed to apply to the entire construction area. The existing wetland area is assumed to be at the normal pool height used in construction. 2.3.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements Designs for stormwater treatment CW systems vary widely depending on climate, local flora and fauna, contamination levels, space constraints, and available budget. General best practices include designing to use natural energies, taking minimal maintenance, accommodating large precipitation events, and adding to landscapes easily [12]. A guidebook from the EPA on construction of CWs recommends to “...design the margins 51 | P a g e of your constructed treatment wetland system as natural transition zones, including woody vegetated buffer areas around the site. Where appropriate, integrate the facility with other natural resource features to provide wildlife corridors and open space” [26]. This design ethos encourages construction that maximizes existing space while maintaining functionality and aesthetics. Permitting depends on local and state stormwater regulations. Contact with regulatory entities for each system will be needed for proper permitting. Decker Lake outflows back into the Jordan River and is thus defined as a Water of the United States. This means that Decker Lake must follow the Clean Water Act. More specifically, sections 303, 401, 402, and 404 directly apply to Decker Lake. Section 303 ensures that Decker Lake meets minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Section 401 requires certification to ensure that Tribal and federal water quality regulations are met. Section 402 establishes the requirement of an NPDES permit if construction covers more than five acres. Section 404 requires permitting all dredge and filling activities [26]. Additionally, UPDES Construction/Dewatering Hydrostatics Testing and General Permits will be required for construction. Decker Lake’s high population of wild animals also requires compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [26]. The nature of the project also requires permissions for construction with USACE section 408, as construction of the CW will require alteration of Decker Lake’s footprint and flow characteristics [27]. Additionally, alteration of the Kearn’s Chesterfield Canal means that a State Stream Alteration Permit (Programmatic General Permit 10) will be required before construction begins [28]. 2.4 Methodical Constraints A triple bottom line structed design is demanding on Decker Lake Park. Surrounded by dense urban area, fill material must be sourced from an outside location, construction area is limited, building costs are high, and adverse effects of a CW system must be mitigated to the highest degree. 2.4.1 Physical Constraints The largest physical constraint of a FWSF CW system is its large land requirements [10]. Flow speeds should be slow enough to maintain an average hydraulic retention time of 3.5 days. This results in optimal pollution removal but requires mechanisms to slow down water entering the wetland. Construction and design complications arise in a space as small as Decker Lake’s western half as there needs to be space for wetland buffers, serpentine flow, and vegetation. Construction can’t take up more of the existing lake due to Decker Lake’s deep history, demanding it maintains some areas as open water. Additionally, current wetland space is populated by invasive wetland vegetation that is difficult to remove, existing pathways are thin, make movement of heavy machinery difficult, and fill material must come from an outside source due to the site’s small footprint. 52 | P a g e 2.4.2 Social/Community Constraints To account for concerns like unpleasant odors, mosquitos, access by small children, and other safety issues, heavy signage and natural barriers will be necessary in design. To increase park aesthetics beyond the appeal the lake had before construction, heavy consideration must go into vegetation selection and visual design to appeal. The community wants to keep this land a park, they want to keep it as a lake, and an area they can go to in winter. This park has always been a lake since the early time of Salt Lake City so there is a community norm to have it there which means we do not want to remove the majority of it so that we do not change the land for the community into something they cannot use as they are right now. 2.4.3 Sustainability Constraints The margins of a CW system should act as natural transitions zones between existing landscape and the new development. This requires careful design between public recreation areas and the main wetland so the system can naturally integrate into the park. Mosquitos can be a problem in CW systems, so the EPA recommends designing to minimize “... the potential formation of stagnant water, facilitating vegetation management, and by using natural biological control mechanisms, such as mosquito fish, stickleback, etc. (where native), bats, and purple martins” [26]. To accommodate local animal populations, the EPA recommends “Where appropriate, design your constructed treatment wetland to provide habitat with a diversity of native species comparable to similar wetlands in the region” [26]. Installation of local vegetation further increases ecosystem health. 2.4.4 Economic Constraints Section 2.7 discusses the feasibility of a CW system at Decker Lake qualifying for the 2016 Parks and Recreation Bond and a new $53 million grant to increase the heath of the Great Salt Lake and its wetlands. Improvements to Decker Lake Park would qualify directly for the 2016 Parks and Recreation Bond, but to qualify for funding within the new $53 million grant, the Office of the Great Sale Lake Commissioner would have to stretch beyond its direct wording in the Great Salt Lake Water Trust press release to accommodate a project that fulfills a similar goal to the grant but addresses it in a different way [36]. Qualifying for the 2016 Parks and Recreation bond gives the project access to 31 million dollars available for maintenance and improvement of existing facilities. This fund is likely fully or partially drained by now. If the project qualifies for both bonds, funding is unlikely to be a problem, whereas if it qualifies for none, the project would not have a source of funding. The necessary budget for the alternative discussed in section 2.5.1 is zero dollars. An estimated budget for the alternative discussed in section 2.5.2 would be $41678.64 with $279.27 in yearly maintenance. An estimated budget for the alternative discussed in section 2.5.3 would be $1,429,820.6. An estimated budget for the alternative discussed in section 2.5.4 would be between $674,646.18 and $2,698,584.72. 53 | P a g e 2.5 Development of Design Alternatives Design alternatives were developed to provide improvements to Decker Lake water quality at a variety of budgets. They aim to optimize pollution removal and increase water quality within their price range while including necessary design elements for each section. 2.5.1 Alternative 1: No Change If wetland construction or improvement is beyond current government resources, Decker Lake Park could be left as is. Pollution concentrations will stay as they are in Table 2.1, and water quality will likely decrease due to overcharged substrates. The site will maintain high levels of sedimentation, trash accumulation will continue, and park utilization will primarily consist of birdwatching, fishing, and running. The public’s main reason for avoidance of the park will continue to be pollution concerns, and their main desire for park improvement will be installation of more tree cover. 2.5.1a Design Description Reference Figure 2.1 to see an aerial view of current park conditions. 2.5.1b Alternative Evaluation When evaluated using the triple bottom line methodology, doing nothing to Decker Lake is economically sustainable, but not socially or environmentally. This solution ruins the park’s potential for aquatic recreation and functionality as a community space. Water quality will not improve, and the site will remain underutilized. Decker Lake Canal will continue to add polluted water back into the Jordan River and the Great Salt Lake by proxy. The community will continue to avoid space due to lack of utilities, tree cover, safety concerns, and polluted water. 2.5.1c Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 1 No costs are associated with this alternative. 2.5.2 Alternative 2: Plant Native Flora For a solution of mid-tier expenses comes the idea of only adding native fauna and not changing any other aspects. Adding native fauna will help water quality, and the aesthetics of Decker Lake. This solution should still achieve the goal of attracting more people as the native fauna will be able to start filtering the water, allowing for safer recreational water use, as well as creating a more visually pleasing Lake. 2.5.2a Design Description A design of only planting native flora would emphasize the importance of the zones of plants to optimize water quality improvement, habitat diversity, and long-term resilience within Utah’s climate. The layout will follow a gradual bathymetric gradient, with deeper zones (.3-.6m) planted primarily with emergent species to support strong plant structure, enhance sedimentation, and 54 | P a g e support microbial biofilms for nutrient removal [16], [23]. Shallow zones (0-0.3 m) will start to transition to groups of Carex utriculata, Eleocharis palustris, and Juncus Balticus, to stabilize the banks of Decker Lake, intercept storm inflows, and maintain filtration during moderate dry periods [17], [21]. A floating zone composed of Lemna minor and Azolla mexicana will be introduced seasonally to enhance nutrient uptake and reduce bacterial regrowth through shading and root surface area. Root-zone microbial activity and floating mats can significantly improve removal performance in constructed wetlands [16], [18]. The riparian buffer will be upland and can use salix exigua and Deschampsia cespitosa, which will capture over-land run-off and discourage direct fecal deposition by birds near the shore. One of the most important things about this solution will be vegetation diversity. At least three to four emergent species and two floating species- refer to 2.3will need to be established within each hydrologic cell to maintain ecosystem stability year-round and resist invasive colonization from other vegetation [21]. Planting should begin in early spring when the soil is moist, this design can use plugs or live stakes spaced about 0.5 m apart to ensure rapid canopy closure and on top of this once water temperatures exceed fifteen degrees Celsius macrophytes should be added to the water. The next steps are the maintenance of the native flora. Every three to five years, about thirty to forty percent of the emergent biomasses must be harvested to prevent clogging, sustain nutrient uptake, and to maintain hydraulic conveyance [21]. On top of this, there should be regular inspections for invasive species like phragmites australis and Iris pseudacorus, to ensure the vegetation is dominated by Utah native flora. 2.5.2b Constraints The constraints of only adding native flora will come with Utah's arid climate, biological/ecological, and regulatory constraints. Only plants that can withstand the extreme temperatures of Utah will be able to be planted, and even then, they still might not be able to handle the extreme temperatures and pollution. Extreme temperatures can mean freezing the shallow zones or having certain areas exposed and without water coverage limiting the use of strictly aquatic plants. Much of the pollution comes from sediment loading which could bury young plants or reduce root oxygen availability. The biological and ecological constraints mainly depend on invasive flora species which pose a continual colonization risk and can outcompete native vegetation, alter hydraulic performance, and reduce habitat diversity if not actively managed. Another ecological aspect will be the waterfowl activity, including grazing and trampling which may damage or uproot young plants, specifically in newly constructed areas. Therefore, the dense vegetation required for pollution removal will need to be balanced with the needs of wildlife species and recreational users. Lastly, regulatory maintenances like biomass harvesting, invasive species control, and 55 | P a g e trash removal from stormwater inlets will still need to be instated. These combined constraints shape the planting strategy and require an adaptive management approach to ensure the wetland continues to meet water-quality and ecological objectives over time. 2.5.2c Alternative Evaluation This proposed alternative improves water quality by reducing e. coli levels and improving nutrient and sediment removal for a lower cost than Alternatives 3 and 4. It will also support habitat diversity, while creating a more resilient Utah ecosystem. The diverse vegetation will create a better environment for birds, amphibians, and invertebrates while also maintaining a visually attractive landscape for public users. This design represents a well-balanced, and context sensitive solution for improving water quality and ecological health within Decker Lake. 2.5.2d Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 2 When considering the Costs of this solution, we must consider the baseline cost of the vegetation, the labor of implementing the vegetation, as well as the cost to maintain and supervise the vegetation. The EPA manual highlights average costs of either $0.23 per plant or $5,000/acre for planting [EPA Manual] and the Brown and Caldwell report gives about $18,000/ha for a constructed wetland [Brown and Caldwell] and assuming vegetation is about twenty percent of the cost then it would be a $3,640/ha baseline needing adjustment based on local labor and materials. If we assume about three percent to five percent of the construction cost will find us our maintenance cost, then maintenance would be about ~$110-$180/ha per year [Digital pubs] in addition to extra costs for invasive species monitoring, vegetation replacement, etc. With existing wetland area sitting at 4.76 acres, this makes an estimated total cost for alternative 2 of $41678.64 with $279.27 in yearly maintenance. 2.5.3 Alternative 3: Base Design Description As stated in Section 2.3.1, a shallow marsh FWSF CW is best suited to Decker Lake, and a hydraulic retention time of 3.5 days is optimal for maximum pollution reduction without excessive sedimentation. Section 2.1 notes that Decker Lake experiences an inflow rate of 9.713 cfs. This is too fast for a hydraulic retention time of even 3 days and would require a treatment volume of 42 acres of 18-inch-deep wetland area. To solve this, a sediment forebay will be constructed at the Kearns Chesterfield Canal and the southwest urban runoff drain to slow down flow. This reduces the force of incoming waters and captures coarse sediment loads. A stone barrier between the forebay and the wetland entrance will trap oil, grease, and trash. A concrete bottom simplifies cleanout. A similar micro pool will be constructed at the outlet location on the east side of the wetland. A reverse slope pipe within the micro pool will release water from the middle of the water column to avoid the release of sediments and floating debris into 56 | P a g e the lake section of the park. The EPA Handbook of Constructed Wetlands Volume 5: Stormwater provides recommendations for surface area allocation for each type of stormwater CW system based on studies done by Tom Schueler. The values used for a shallow marsh FWSF system at Decker Lake Park are outlined in Table 2.2. Table 2.3: Suggest depth/surface area allocations for three wetland systems from the EPA Handbook of Constructed Wetlands Volume 5: Stormwater [10]. The FWSF CW system for Decker Lake does not need a deepwater pool as it outflows to the remaining lake space, so the extra 5% surface area is added to the deep marsh space for increased contact with wetland surfaces during flow. Using the total construction area seen in Figure 2.1, 8.36 acres of surface area will be allocated to the shallow marsh, 9.405 acres will be allocated to the deep marsh, and 1.045 acres each will be allocated to the forebay, micro pool, and transition zone [10]. The forebay will be split between two entrances, the Kearn’s Chesterfield Canal entrance and the southwest urban stormwater drain entrance. In the 1991 Clean Lakes Program Application, they note that the Kearn’s Chesterfield Canal provides 60% of Decker Lake’s inflow, while the major urban runoff drain in the southwest provides 35% [1]. Due of this, instead of equally splitting the EPA surface area recommendation for the sediment forebay between the two inflows, the Kearn’s Chesterfield Canal will receive 0.78375 of the 1.045 acres while the southwest urban stormwater drain will receive 0.26125 [10]. Following general recommendations from the EPA in The Handbook of Constructed Wetlands Volume 5, both the micro pool and forebays will be 4 ft deep, while the deep marsh section will be 8 feet wide and 18 inches deep [10]. A thin cross section reduces the amount of area that will erode into still water for mosquito habitat, and the deep flow depth will reduce the chance of freezing during winter. Both flow paths will make a total of 9.7 miles of open channel flow. The shallow marsh section will be 2 inches deep to allow for flow across the wetland during rain events. The transition zone will be 10.777 ft wide, 1 foot above the normal pool and will have a slope of 6.179 degrees. 57 | P a g e Volumes of each feature include 614,522.7 ft3 of deep marsh, 60,693.6 ft3 of shallow marsh, 182,080.8 ft3 for the micro pool, 136,560.6 ft3 for the forebay of the Kearns Chesterfield Canal, and 45,520.2 ft3 for the forebay of the southwest urban stormwater drain. Using the equation for hydraulic retention time (HRT = V/Q) and excluding the volume of the shallow marsh as it will only be occasionally submerged, the forebay must slow incoming flow to 3.236 cfs for a 3.5-day hydraulic retention time. A length to width ratio for the entire system is recommended at 3 to 1 for optimal removal of fecal bacteria. The FWSF CW system at Decker Lake would be two merged cells focused on the major inflows. Figure 2.2 shows approximations for the general cell dimensions for each inflow. Figure 2.2: Approximate lengths and widths for the lower and upper cells of the wetland construction area [6]. The lower cell falls short of the 3:1 aspect ratio with an aspect ratio of 1.62 while the top cell exceeds the 3:1 aspect ratio with an aspect ratio of 4.511; their average aspect ratio is 3.066. The current wetland area takes up 4.76 acres of our construction area, leaving only 3.6 acres of the 8.36 acres of fill needed for the shallow marsh section. Using the assumed average depth of 3ft for the lake and needing to fill it 2 inches below the normal pool, 444,312 ft3 of fill material is needed for the shallow marsh section. This same assumed depth requires 1 ft of dredging across the forebays and micro pools. This would supply 91,040.4 ft3 of material. To build the transition zone, another 1.045 acres 58 | P a g e worth of fill is necessary to raise it to the same height as the shallow marsh, and then additional fill is necessary to raise it 1 foot above the normal pool and slope it at 6.179 degrees. This totals an additional 155,528.428 ft3 of material. To fill the deep marsh to 18 inches would require 614,522.7 ft3 of material. The total fill volume needed for construction is 1,214,363.1238 ft3 of material and total dredged volume is 91,040.4 ft3 of material. 2.5.3a Constraints The system will require regular maintenance. In fact, The EPA Handbook of Constructed Wetlands Volume 5: Stormwater, recommends that: During the first three years, water levels must be checked and adjusted occasionally until they become stabilized at optimum levels. Water levels that are too high by several inches can drown desirable plant species and levels that are too low will cause a shift to a drier, upland ecosystem. Undesirable plants, such as common reed or purple loosestrife, must be removed until desired vegetation has become dense enough to compete with aggressive species [10]. Additional maintenance will come in the form of annual maintenance for the sediment forebay and exit micro pool to clear built up sediment and clogging. Regular clearing and replanting of certain vegetation will also increase plant adsorption if desired. If the project qualifies for the necessary grants as discussed in section 2.4.4, there will be no financial constraints on the project. The Decker Lake site presents multiple constraints on the implementation of a constructed wetland. These constraints stem from sources such as physical limitations of the site, aspects of the environment such as climate and seasonal weather variation, and regulatory constraints. The Army Corp of Engineers assigns classes of wetlands based on “effectiveness” of the wetland. Under these classes, they are subject to protective regulation. This regulation requires this constructed wetland to be equal or greater size to the existing wetland space, should it be assigned to the same class [28]. With strategically selected species to be included in the constructed wetland, such as native species, this requirement can be loosened [28]. The site is subject to seasonal weather variations that significantly impact the functioning of the constructed wetland. During winter months, environmental temperatures drop. This reduces microbial activity and in turn the effectiveness of the constructed wetland [8]. In addition, vegetation enters a period of dormancy, further reducing the effectiveness of the constructed wetland [8]. Throughout the year, rainfall varies and at times can be sporadic. The space must therefore be able to accommodate these variations in hydraulic and nutrient loading rates, in both times of high and low input. 59 | P a g e 2.5.3b Alternative Evaluation Environmentally, this alternative presents a great improvement from the current situation at Decker Lake and Alternative 1. This alternative sees the expansion of the existing wetland and increases its quality. This provides more habitat for migratory birds that nest in wetland spaces. In addition, this alternative reduces the influx of pollutants into Decker Lake, increasing water quality. This provides a healthier ecosystem, able to sustain greater populations of fish and other aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Socially, this base design can increase recreational potential at the site. The cleaner water provided by the CW will be seen as more attractive to site visitors. In addition, odors emitted from the lake might be reduced, increasing site attractiveness. The wetland itself will have a natural aesthetic, potentially driving more visitation from the urban environment the site exists in. A greater bird population will provide more bird-seeing recreational opportunities, and a greater fish population will provide more recreational fishing opportunities. Economically, this alternative presents a much larger cost than alternative 1. These costs include initial construction costs, and future maintenance costs. The costs of this alternative are described in further detail below in 2.5.3c Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 3. 2.5.3c Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 3 According to the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, dredging costs range from 8 to 24 dollars per cubic yard [29]. The project’s total dredging volume of 91,040.4 ft3 is equivalent to 3371.867 cubic yards. Assuming the dredging cost in Utah is an average of this range, total dredging costs for the project are $53,949.87. Old mill landscape supply sells fill dirt for $18.00 per cubic yard [30]. Assuming installation costs are only another $10.00 per cubic yard; total fill costs for the project are $1,259,339.54. Assuming both the forebay and micro pool only need 2 inches of concrete fill; a concrete volume of 562 cubic yards is needed for the project. Using the price of flowable fill from Phillips Concrete Services from 2022 for reference, this would add $60,697 to construction costs [31]. As mentioned in section 2.5.2d, cost for removal and installation of native plants would be $41,678.64. Ignoring other logistical costs, total construction costs come to $1,415,664.05. Assuming permitting costs for this project are 1% of total construction costs it adds a cost of $14,156.64. The final cost for this alternative is $1,429,820.69. 2.5.4 Alternative 4: Addition of Substrate Improvements Alternative 4 presents the most thorough and extensive remediation of the site, providing the most effective solution for the water quality problem at Decker Lake. It follows the basis of design presented in Alternative 2, and all major design parameters remain the same. This alternative, however, includes irrigation for the flora included in the CW and the improvement of the wetland substrates. 60 | P a g e 2.5.4a Design Description For major design parameters and details, see Section 2.5.3 Alternative 3: Base Design Description. Constructed wetlands provide an effective solution for the removal of nitrogen-based nutrients from micro polluted water; however, phosphorus removal presents a greater challenge [12]. All previous alternatives make no change to existing substrates present at Decker Lake and use the native soil. It has been found that the chemical composition of the wetland sediment can impact the efficiency of phosphorus removal. Specifically, substrates with higher Fe, Al, and especially Ca concentrations can enhance phosphorus removal [32]. Studies recommend the addition of various sources of these elements such as iron slag, alum, or [calcium] carbonate-based media [9]. For the decker lake site, it is recommended to add a carbonate-based fill to the native soil, to enhance phosphorus removal. A suitable source of this material is Lakeview Rock Products, in North Salt Lake City. Their rock source is thought to be high in carbonate, and they are closely located, making them a suitable candidate. Existing literature states that a higher carbonate content provides more effective phosphorus removal, up until complete phosphorus removal, at which point further carbonate content increase results in a longer time until substrate phosphorus saturation [9]. Alternative 4 suggests the inclusion of 10% of carbonate-based substrate to existing native soil. 2.5.4b Constraints As Alternative 4 does not change any major design parameters; constraints for substrate improvement are purely economic. With this, the carbonate additive is economical and readily available and therefore fits into the constraints of this project well. 2.5.4c Alternative Evaluation Environmentally, this alternative increases the water quality of Decker Lake by removing influent phosphorus pollution. This further increases the ecological benefits already provided by the basis of design. See Section 2.5.3b Alternative Evaluation for these. Economically, this is an intensive alternative, and the benefits it provides over the base design should be considered. Socially, this will further increase water quality, increasing lake attractiveness. In addition, the cleaner water will further be able to sustain greater fish populations, providing recreational opportunities. See Section 2.5.3b Alternative Evaluation to compare benefits. 2.5.4d Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 4 Fill availability and price can vary widely depending on multiple factors such as fill type, quality requirements, distance from supplier, time of year, etc. The estimated range in price for a suitable fill from Lakeview Rock Products is $15 – $60 per cubic yard. Based on section 2.5.3 Alternative 3: Base Design Description, the total fill required for the basis of design is 1,210,000 ft3 or 45,000 yd3 meaning a 10% carbonate addition requires 4,500 yd3 of aggregate. This means 61 | P a g e at the lowest estimate the cost is about $675,000 and as high as $2,700,000. See Section 2.5.3 Alternative 3: Base Design Description for pre-additive fill volume and pre-additive fill cost estimates. As it stands, there is a surplus of fill that contractors must dispose of in the Salt Lake area. Much of the geology in the foothills area is carbonate based, and therefore a possible more economical source is from these contractors. Mineral assays would be required to determine the Calcium content of these soils. 2.6 Case Studies These case studies provide information on not only the pricing of the project but the price and ware of the land around where the lake is. This helps us not only look for the feasibility of it but also the angle at which we need to work on this project to achieve success. 2.6.1 Utah Supreme Court Case This Court Case discusses the importance of land value surrounding the decker lake area owned by Decker Lake Ventures. It also goes into proper land pricing by discussing why the land is priced in such a way by using metrics such as location and locations close by to the area [33]. 2.6.2 University of Utah Research Article This case provides important information on the chemicals that are inside the lake that we cannot achieve information about without a lab and the technology to do it ourselves. This also provides information about the wildlife at the lake, including bird species and plant species. It also goes into detail about the weakening soil conditions within the lake, with examples such that there are not many trees at the park, and the ones that are there are small and shriveled because of how hard the soil is. In addition, the sodium levels, which are extremely high, in addition to high calcium and magnesium in the lake, end up deteriorating the soil quality. Another consideration is pollutants as they enter the lake and become harder for plants to grow in this environment [34]. Table 2.4: Concentrations of common chemicals in Decker Lake [34]. 62 | P a g e 2.6.3 – Cost of Constructed Wetlands Provides necessary information about the pricing that is involved with building and maintaining wetlands in the state of Utah. Construction costs averaged about $18,200/ha ($45,000/acre) for systems treating less than 3,785 m3/d (1 mgd). Operating costs range from 0.026 to $0.08/m3 treated (0.10 to $0.30/1,000 gal treated) [35]. 2.7 Grant Funding Opportunities As of July 23, 2025, “...$53 million in grant funding is available for projects that support the Great Salt Lake and its wetlands,” courtesy of The Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner, the Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust, and the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands [36]. Projects that qualify have to fall into one of three categories. The first is for Voluntary Water Transactions, which compensates “...for a temporary or multiyear voluntary reduction in diversion of water or consumptive water use” [36]. The second is for system conservation projects which “...reduce consumptive water losses through improvements to water distribution infrastructure” [36]. The third is for “ecosystem and habitat restoration projects to address issues directly caused by drought in a river basin or inland water body” [36]. A CW system for water treatment of Decker Lake would best fall into the second and third categories but both with a caveat. While treating Decker Lake water would improve water quality and thus increase the amount of clean water in the Jordan River and Salt Lake, this water is scarcely used for consumption. This means that an argument would have to be made over the wasted potential of Decker Lake water usage due to its low quality that would be remedied via the CW. In terms of the third category, if the CW system functions properly, it would undoubtedly improve Decker Lake as an animal habitat. The problem lies with Decker Lakes' main issues stemming from improper stormwater management and not drought. Drought makes Decker Lake’s standing problems worse, as decreased flow in the system increases sedimentation and pollutant retention time in the lake. To qualify for funding within this grant, the Office of the Great Sale Lake Commissioner would have to be willing to stretch beyond its base criteria to accommodate a project that fulfills a similar goal to the grant but addresses it in a different way. Additional grand funding could come from the 2016 Parks and Recreation Bond. It is unclear how much of this funding remains nine years after it was approved, but it “...authorized the county to issue $90 million in bonds to build new parks, trails, recreational amenities and a recreational center, as well as renovate and improve existing facilities” [37]. 59 million dollars would be set aside for new projects in Salt Lake County, while 31 million dollars would be available for maintenance and improvement of existing facilities. Decker Lake Park is a perfect candidate for renovation to increase its usability. 2.8 Discussion (Comparison of Alternatives) The four alternative designs for improving Decker Lake differ in terms of both cost and effectiveness. Alternative 1, the no-change option, costs nothing but provides no improvement to water quality or park usability; pollution, sedimentation, trash, and public avoidance would 63 | P a g e continue, making it economically acceptable but socially and environmentally unsustainable. Alternative 2 introduces native vegetation across bathymetric zones to filter pollutants, stabilize banks, enhance habitat, and improve aesthetics at a moderate cost. While it improves E. coli, nutrient, and sediment removal, it faces constraints from Utah’s climate, invasive species, and waterfowl impacts, and requires periodic maintenance. Alternative 3 adds a fully engineered free-water-surface constructed wetland, including forebays, micro pools, deep and shallow marshes, and a transition zone to achieve a 3.5-day hydraulic retention time. This design significantly reduces pollutant inflows, expands habitat, and improves recreation but carries high construction and maintenance costs as well as regulatory and seasonal performance constraints. Alternative 4 builds on the engineered wetland by adding irrigation and a carbonate-based substrate amendment to enhance phosphorus removal. It achieves the most comprehensive water quality improvement but also presents the highest overall cost. Overall, Alternatives 2–4 provide increasingly effective ecological and social benefits, while Alternatives 3 and 4 deliver the greatest pollutant reduction due to their engineered hydrologic and substrate enhancements. 2.8.1 Triple Bottom Line Matrix See below for a breakdown of TBL scores for a constructed wetland. Table 2.5: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of a Constructed Wetland to improve water quality of Decker Lake. 2.8.2 Discussion of Alternative Ratings This TBL Matrix was designed to evaluate the proposed Decker Lake improvements by balancing social, environmental, and economic considerations. The People category emphasizes the user experience of the park, giving higher scores to improvements that enhance aesthetics and water usability, two of the strongest factors influencing public satisfaction and visitation. Safety concerns and odor/insect issues scored lower because 64 | P a g e they remain partially dependent on long-term maintenance and external environmental conditions. In the Planet category, water quality and animal habitability received high scores because the design alternatives strongly enhance ecological health, restore wetland function, and support native species. Climate change mitigation and watershed effects scored moderately, reflecting that while the project improves resilience and local hydrology, it cannot fully offset broader regional climate pressures. The Profit category reflects the financial tradeoffs of wetland construction. Site preparation and construction costs scored low due to the substantial upfront earthwork, dredging, and material needs, whereas operation and maintenance scored moderately too high because long-term upkeep remains consistent but manageable. Increased Park activity scored higher because improved aesthetics, cleaner water, and better habitat are expected to drive more community usage, indirectly boosting economic value. Collectively, these scores represent a deliberate weighting toward environmental and social benefits, aligned with the project’s mission to restore Decker Lake, while still acknowledging the financial realities of implementing a large-scale wetland improvement project. 2.9 Recommendations In consideration of the 4 alternatives presented under triple bottom line analysis, it is our recommendation that Alternative 3 be implemented at Decker Lake. This is the base design for the creation of a constructed wetland in the western half of the lake. 2.9.1 Reason for Recommendations Environmentally, this alternative provides the greatest balance of the three bottom lines as a solution for the water quality problem at Decker Lake. Environmentally, this alternative sees nearly the largest improvement to both water quality and the restoration of habitat for bird life and aquatic species. Alternative 1 sees no action, and as the Decker Lake site is already deemed inadequate, it is not suitable. Alternative 2 sees the restoration of quality of the existing wetland, but not its expansion. It is believed that this will not be adequate for the site. Economically, alternative 4 follows the same design; however, it includes substrate additives to increase performance. It is not clear if this added cost will increase the performance enough to be justified. Socially, neither alternative 1 nor 2 provide adequate improvement to the attractiveness to the site and therefore have no impact. There is no significant apparent visual difference between alternative 4 and 3, only slight water quality improvements that the site's attractiveness is based on. As the performance increase from 3 to 4 is slight, the social impact is slight as well, not justifying the increase in cost. 2.9.2 Future Action(s) The greatest challenges to the implementation of a constructed wetland according to alternative 3 are securing funding, for both its construction and maintenance, and securing proper permitting. This is a long process, typically taking multiple years. Due to the size and involvement of this project, a deeper feasibility study will provide a clearer 65 | P a g e image of what a constructed wetland might look like for Decker Lake. This paves the way for future design and provides an understanding of what the permitting process will be exactly. The feasibility study will also provide in-depth cost estimates for the project, and from this funding can be secured from available sources. 2.10 Reference [1] Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality, “Clean Lakes Program Application,” Nov. 1991. [2] eBird, “Decker Lake Bird List.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ebird.org/hotspot/L299578/bird-list?yr=curM [3] D. Lake, “Project Setting and Goals.” [4] S. F. Jensen, “Decker Lake Progress Report,” Dec. 1998. [5] C. Regional Water Quality Control Board, “Update to bacteria objectives for waterbodies designated for Water Contact Recreation,” 2002. [6] K. Mulligan, “Kai Mulligan.” [7] West Valley City, “Stormwater Pollution.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.wvc-ut.gov/202/Stormwater-Pollution [8] Q. Ning et al., “Recent advances on micro-polluted water remediation by full-scale constructed wetlands: Pollutant removal performance, key influencing factors, and enhancing strategies,” Jan. 01, 2026, Chinese Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2025.03.049. [9] D. J. Ballantine and C. C. Tanner, “Substrate and filter materials to enhance phosphorus removal in constructed wetlands treating diffuse farm runoff: A review,” Mar. 2010. doi: 10.1080/00288231003685843. [10] U. Epa, “A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: a guide to creating wetlands for: AGRICULTURAL WASTEWATER, DOMESTIC WASTEWATER, COAL MINE DRAINAGE, STORMWATER”. [11] H. Méndez, P. M. Geary, and R. H. Dunstan, “Surface wetlands for the treatment of pathogens in stormwater: Three case studies at Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1257–1263, 2009, doi: 10.2166/wst.2009.470. [12] U. Epa and O. of Wetlands, “A HANDBOOK OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS a guide to creating wetlands for.” 66 | P a g e [13] J. M. Barten, “Stormwater runoff treatment in a wetland filter: Effects on the water quality of clear lake,” Lake Reserv Manag, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 297–305, Jan. 1987, doi: 10.1080/07438148709354785. [14] D. V. Erler, D. Tait, B. D. Eyre, and M. Bingham, “Observations of nitrogen and phosphorus biogeochemistry in a surface flow constructed wetland,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 409, no. 24, pp. 5359–5367, Nov. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.08.052. [15] J. Elkington, “Elkington, John_Cannibals with Forks,” 1997. [16] R.H. Kadlec, Treatment wetlands . Boca Raton, 1996. [17] Office of research and development, “Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters .” [18] “Jordan River DO TMDL Research Synthesis.” [19] “Stewart-et-al-2008-Floating-Islands-as-an-Alternative-to-Constructed-Wetlands-forTreatment-of-Excess-Nutrients-from2”. [20] W. Fertig, “Plant of the Week -common Spikerush,” Plant of the Week . [21] “Beaked Sedge,” Range Plants of Utah. [22] L. Rupp, R. Kjelgren, and H. Kratch, “Center for water eddicient Landscaping ”. [23] J. Verhoeven, “Carbon, nutrient and metal retention in wetlands in restoration context ,” Ecological Engineering , May 2010. [24] M. Scholz B. Lee, “Constucted Wetlands: A review ”. [25] A. Rani, M. Chauhan, P. Kumar Sharma, M. Kumari, D. Mitra, and S. Joshi, “Microbiological dimensions and functions in constructed wetlands: A review,” Curr Res Microb Sci, vol. 7, p. 100311, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.CRMICR.2024.100311. [26] United States Environmental Protection Agency, “GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSTRUCTED TREATMENT WETLANDS: Providing for Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands: Providing for Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat DEVELOPED BY THE INTERAGENCY WORKGROUP ON CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands,” Oct. 2000. 67 | P a g e [27] “The Section 408 Program.” Accessed: Nov. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Section408/ [28] R. Thompson, “Decker Lake.” [29] Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, “Dredging”, Accessed: Nov. 14, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://hcb-1.itrcweb.org/dredging/?utm_source=chatgpt.com [30] Old Mill Landscape Supply, “Fill Dirt”, Accessed: Nov. 14, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://oldmilllandscape.com/product/fill-dirt/?utm_source=chatgpt.com [31] Phillips Concrete Services, “Call for Special Pricing for Projects with Anticipated Quantities greater than 100 cubic yards.” [32] H. Brix, C. A. Arias, and M. Del Bubba, “Media selection for sustainable phosphorus removal in subsurface flow constructed wetlands,” in Water Science and Technology, IWA Publishing, 2001, pp. 47–54. doi: 10.2166/wst.2001.0808. [33] “SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH,” Salt Lake City, Aug. 2015. [34] J. Garcia, “Re-Imagining Decker Lake Park,” 2024. [35] Brown and Caldwell, “Cost of Constructed Wetland systems ,” Papers and Reports . [36] “PRESS RELEASE: $53 MILLION FUNDING OPPORTUNITY FOR GREAT SALT LAKE AND ITS WETLANDS,” Great Salt Lake Water Trust. Accessed: Nov. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.gslwatertrust.org/news/press-release-53-million-funding-opportunity-for-greatsalt-lake-and-its-wetlands?utm_source=chatgpt.com. [37] Jordan River Commission, “Proposition A - Salt Lake County Recreation Bond.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://jordanrivercommission.gov/proposition-a-salt-lakecounty-recreation-bond/ 68 | P a g e Chapter 3 Decker Lake Recreational Restoration Jose Heraldez, Richard Worthen, Nathan Henke, and Alvin Yeung Executive Summary This chapter evaluates slope stability in a recreational environment through low-impact engineering strategies that preserve the natural function of the lake while preventing soil failure. The analysis examines how slope geometry, soil cohesion, and surface hydrology influence the factor of safety under varying static and saturated conditions. To reduce shear failure and erosion risk, the proposed designs incorporate lightweight supports that minimize surcharge loads, maintaining the factor of safety under transient or rapid conditions. The stabilization framework integrates surface riprap, geotextile underlayment, and coir fiber rolls to address erosion and slope instability along the embankment. Surface riprap dissipates flow energy, reduces erosive shear stress, and provides durable toe protection to prevent undercutting. Beneath the riprap, geotextiles can function as separation and filtration layers that reinforce the soil, limit fine-particle migration, and maintain subgrade stability under fluctuating water conditions. Coir fiber rolls installed along the waterline can offer erosion control by absorbing wave energy, stabilizing exposed soil surfaces, and creating a biodegradable matrix that supports vegetation establishment. These materials provide lowimpact, resilient stabilization systems that improve embankment performance without relying on rigid structural solutions. Each option varies in cost, durability, and ecological benefit. Riprap offers strong hydraulic protection but is the most expensive, geotextiles provide reliable internal reinforcement at moderate cost, and coir fiber rolls present an inexpensive, biodegradable method well-suited for promoting vegetation. Considering life-cycle cost, ease of construction, and anticipated maintenance needs, the most cost-effective recommendation is a hybrid system that prioritizes geotextile reinforcement and coir fiber rolls, reserving riprap only for high-energy or erosionprone segments of the embankment. Keywords: Coir fiber rolls, erosion control, factor of safety (FOS), jute mat, and tensile reinforcement 69 | P a g e Table of Contents 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of study 3.1.2 Site Description 3.2 Project Constraints 3.2.1 Basis of Design 3.2.1.a Statement of Needs 3.2.1.b Guiding Principle 3.2.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements 3.2.3 Stakeholder Interests/Needs 3.3 Development of Alternatives 3.3.1 Alternative 1 - Riprap Dominant Approach 3.3.2 Alternative 2 - Coir Log & Natural Fiber Revetment System 3.3.3 Alternative 3 - Geotextile Reinforced Vegetated slope system 3.4 Advantages/Disadvantages 3.5 Case Studies 3.5.1: Chicago Botanic Garden Lake Shoreline Enhancements 3.5.2: Community Shoreline Restoration 3.5.3: Envirolok Reinforced-Soil Slope System 3.5.4: Lessons and Application to Decker Lake 3.6 Discussion 3.7 Conclusion 3.8 References 3.9 Appendices List of Figures Figure 3.1a-b: An overview of La Pletera Life Project Figure 3.2: Different types of Riprap Figure 3.3: Practicality of Coir Fiber Rolls 70 | P a g e 3.1 Introduction Balancing recreational access with environmental protection has become a central challenge in modern restoration and infrastructure design—especially in riparian environments where unstable slopes and ongoing erosion threaten both user safety and ecological function. As communities increasingly seek outdoor spaces that promote well-being and environmental resilience, engineers and planners are prioritizing slope stabilization and erosion control techniques that preserve natural landscapes while maintaining accessibility. For example, Geist and Galatowitsch emphasize that “because caring is one component of healthy human relationships, techniques to increase caring for nature may enhance human–environment relationships,” underscoring the importance of designs that strengthen both structural integrity and public stewardship [1]. The Decker Lake Recreation Project applies this philosophy by integrating geotechnical engineering and restoration-based methods—such as riprap armoring, geotextile reinforcement, vegetated slope systems, and controlled surface drainage—to stabilize embankments, reduce sediment transport, and support safe, low-impact recreation. Through these strategies, the project aims to enhance long-term slope performance, protect water quality, and demonstrate how engineered resilience and ecological care can coexist within sustainable public infrastructure. Across the world, restoration projects have increasingly focused on connecting ecological stability with public access through low-impact design. As shown in Figure 3.1, the La Pletera Life Project demonstrates how degraded coastal environments can be transformed through targeted habitat restoration and thoughtful recreational enhancements. The project restored natural lagoon systems—similar in ecological function to Decker Lake—by regrading shorelines, reestablishing saltmarsh vegetation, and improving hydrologic connectivity. In addition to these ecological improvements, the inclusion of designated birdwatching points illustrates how recreation can be integrated without compromising habitat quality, providing visitors with structured access that prevents disturbance to sensitive areas. This balance of engineered stability, ecological restoration, and community-oriented design highlights the potential for Decker Lake to achieve similar outcomes as it addresses slope instability, erosion control, and the need for safe, meaningful public engagement with the landscape. The La Pletera Life Project demonstrates how ecological and recreational restoration can exist alongside sensitive shoreline ecosystems. As shown in Figure 3.1, the project not only restored natural lagoon function but also added designated birdwatching points, creating opportunities for public engagement without disturbing wildlife. By removing hardened embankments, regrading slopes, and reintroducing native vegetation, the project successfully reduced erosion and improved water quality while enhancing low-impact visitor access. These outcomes provide a strong parallel for the Decker Lake project, which faces similar challenges of slope instability, ecological degradation, and the need for community-oriented amenities. Incorporating bioengineered stabilization measures and thoughtful recreational features modeled after La Pletera will help guide the development of a design strategy that supports both environmental resilience and public enjoyment. 71 | P a g e Figure 3.1a-b: An overview of La Pletera Life Project: Area of the project and what was restored to make ecological and recreational impacts. [2] 3.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of Study The purpose of this chapter examines both community and ecological needs at Decker Lake by developing a slope stabilization strategy that enhances recreational accessibility while preserving natural habitat integrity. The community relies on the lake as a public recreation space, yet uncontrolled erosion and embankment instability have limited safe access and contributed to sedimentation that degrades water quality and shoreline ecosystems. From an ecological perspective, stabilizing the embankment is essential to prevent further habitat loss and protect native vegetation and aquatic species that depend on stable soil and hydrologic conditions. The primary goal of this research is to achieve a structurally stable, erosion-resistant slope that can safely support recreational use while functioning as a restored, living embankment. The design vision centers on using low-cost, low-impact materials—such as geotextiles, riprap, and vegetative reinforcement—that provide both engineering reliability and environmental sensitivity. These materials promote comfort and safety for visitors while allowing native habitats to recover and thrive without being compromised by ongoing instability. Limitations of the project include the need to balance aesthetic and ecological objectives with engineering performance, budget constraints, and site accessibility, requiring careful coordination between restoration goals and practical constructability. 3.1.2 Site Description Decker Lake's embankment exhibits visible signs of erosion and slope instability, particularly along sections where vegetation cover is sparse and surface runoff is concentrated. Several inlets and culverts connect to the lake, but at least one inlet has become clogged with sediment and debris, reducing water circulation and contributing to poor water quality. The shoreline area shows accumulation of fine sediments, litter, and algal growth. Despite these issues, the site retains strong ecological potential, with pockets of native vegetation and active wildlife presence along the margins. 72 | P a g e Existing amenities include pickleball courts and access roads; however, there are currently no public restroom facilities, and the site’s proximity to a juvenile detention center requires thoughtful design to balance safety, access, and aesthetics. These conditions underscore the need for a stabilization and restoration strategy that addresses erosion, improves hydrologic connectivity, and enhances both recreational and ecological value while maintaining the natural character of the lakefront. 3.2 Project Constraints The Decker Lake project faces several key constraints that shape the scope and feasibility of proposed stabilization and restoration measures. Budget limitations restrict the use of high-cost structural solutions, emphasizing the need for low-cost, durable materials and construction methods that provide long-term stability without exceeding financial resources. Environmental regulations at the local and state levels require compliance with stormwater management standards, sediment control, and habitat protection measures, limiting the types of allowable interventions within riparian zones. A major design challenge lies in balancing recreational accessibility with ecological preservation, ensuring that improvements—such as pathways, embankment reinforcement, and drainage systems—do not degrade sensitive habitats or disrupt existing wildlife corridors. Additionally, long-term maintenance must be considered early in the design process to ensure that vegetation, riprap, and geotextile systems remain effective under fluctuating water levels and seasonal weather conditions. These constraints demand an adaptive design strategy that harmonizes engineering performance, environmental stewardship, and fiscal responsibility while achieving a resilient and sustainable embankment system for public use. 3.2.1 Basis of Design The basis of design for the Decker Lake project is founded on principles of slope stability, erosion control, and ecological restoration, aiming to stabilize eroded embankments while maintaining public access and supporting long-term habitat resilience. The design adheres to guidance from the Federal Highway Administration’s HEC-11 (Design of Riprap Revetment) and HEC-23 (Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures), as well as the Utah Division of Quality Water quality standards [3]. Field observations indicate existing slopes range from 2H:1V to 3H:1V, with localized erosion on embankments and sediment buildup near inlets and culverts. Hydrologic conditions consider seasonal rainfall, inflows through culverts, and variable lake levels that contribute to embankment instability. The proposed stabilization approach integrates surface riprap, geotextile underlayment, and vegetated soil reinforcement to enhance shear strength, drainage, and ecological performance. To accommodate both stability and recreation, the design incorporates a combination of 3H:1V and 5H:1V slope gradients. The 3H:1V slope represents a steeper embankment, where every three horizontal feet the elevation changes vertically by one foot. This type of gradient is typically used in areas requiring structural stability and space efficiency, making it ideal for sections with riprap and other erosion control 73 | P a g e materials. 5H:1V on the other hand is a gradient that spreads the vertical drop over a longer horizontal distance creating a more gradual and accessible transition between land and water. The 5H:1V slope allows for greater vegetation establishment, root reinforcement, and safer recreational access. Together the two gradients will balance engineering performance with environmental and community needs. Riprap will be sized to resist shear stresses from runoff and wave action, while geotextiles will provide separation, filtration, and subgrade stability. Bioengineering measures such as native plantings and live staking will further improve root cohesion, reduce surface erosion, and enhance both visual and ecological value, while cut-and-fill grading will establish the stable foundation necessary to support these long-term restoration efforts. The design targets a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 under static conditions and 1.1 under saturated or transient states, with performance goals to reduce visible surface erosion and increase native vegetation coverage within the first couple of years, and maintain safe, low-maintenance recreational access. A factor of safety of 1.5 under static conditions indicates that the embankments' resistant forces are 50% greater than the forces that could cause the slope failure. In contrast, a factor of safety of 1.1 under saturated or transient conditions accounts for the short term scenarios such as heavy rainfall or rapid changes in water level at the lake. These targets are supported by performance ranges and stabilization criteria outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Slope Stability and Bioengineering Manuals and related FHWA guidance [4]. Collectively, these parameters establish a resilient, low-impact, and costeffective design framework that aligns geotechnical reliability with ecological restoration and community use. 3.2.1.a Statement of Needs The restoration of the Decker Lake shoreline is vital to the recreational and ecological needs of the lake. The shoreline currently shows signs of significant slope instability, erosion, and sediment accumulation, which has played a part in both the declining water quality and habitat degradation. Several sections of the embankment have experienced severe erosion, creating localized instability that may pose safety risks for recreational users. In addition, multiple culverts and inlets have accumulated significant debris and sediment, reducing their hydraulic capacity and, in some cases, rendering them unable to function as intended. Without proper intervention continued erosion will not only threaten public safety but also reduce the lake's recreational value and further damage and aquatic habitats that the lakes would normally support. Previous projects for Decker Lake have been proposed showing the communities desire and need for a safe, accessible and sustainable recreational area that is also able to protect the habitats and wildlife of the lake. Addressing these issues with slope stabilization, erosion control, and other bioengineering methods will improve the usability and ecological health of Decker Lake. This chapter seeks to meet 74 | P a g e both the need for ecological preservation and recreational restoration, while aligning with local restoration goals and the broader objective of creating lowmaintenance, low-impact public infrastructure. 3.2.1.b Guiding Principles (who benefits, who does not, how can disadvantages be minimized or offset) Decker Lake Park sits in the plot next to an apartment complex, full of young people and families with kids and pets needing a place to spend quality time together away from technology. The revitalization of the shoreline will directly benefit this demographic of people most, as there is now a place within a five minute walk of their home, an easy place to take kids for a fun day out of the house. Disadvantages always arise in public works projects. When it comes to the soil stability of Decker Lake, compaction and soil analysis will always be difficult in wet areas, as elements underwater can change constantly, leading to difficulties determining the types and compaction rates of soil underwater. 3.2.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements Because Decker Lake is a publicly accessible waterbody that receives continuous inflows from surrounding stormwater systems, it falls under both federal and Utah permitting requirements, designed to protect water quality and aquatic habitat. At the federal level, the [Clean Water Act] defines Decker Lake as part of the Waters of the United States due to its connection with regional storm drainage and downstream waterways [5]. Any activity that involves the placement of fill material below the ordinary highwater mark requires authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under sections 404 and 401 Water Quality Certification. Section 404 of the clean water act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters in the United States. This permitting process ensures that any project affecting aquatic environments avoids unnecessary impacts and minimizes disturbances. Section 401 requires that any activity under section 404 also complies with state water quality standards. This certification confirms that any proposed work will not degrade water quality or harm aquatic ecosystems. At the state level, the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) administers the Utah Pollutant Discharge System (UPDES) permit program that applies to any construction activity that disturbs more than one acre of land. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared to control sediment, erosion, and pollutant runoff during construction. The Utah Division of Water Rights requires a Stream Alteration Permit (R655-13) for any modification to the bed, banks, or channel of the lake [6]. Locally, West Valley City and Salt Lake County enforce erosion and sediment control standards, drainage approval, and accessibility compliance for public recreation areas. These overlapping jurisdictions ensure that any stabilization effort at Decker Lake maintains both engineering reliability and environmental protection. 75 | P a g e 3.2.3 Stakeholder Interests/ Needs Ensuring that Decker Lake embankment improvement complies with long-term sustainability objectives and ecological requirements will be the major goal for local government and the environmental department. Additionally, they prioritize accessibility and public safety, highlighting designs that allow enjoyment while reducing visual and noise pollution to the natural environment. The primary goal for the transportation department is to maintain the stability of the infrastructure and efficient drainage next to the lake, as well as the surrounding roads and pedestrian walkways. In addition to maintaining safe access for maintenance and pleasure, embankment upgrades must stop road erosion or settlement. By utilizing riprap armoring, geotextile reinforcement, and vegetative restoration, the designer and civil consulting firm concentrate on designing technically sound stabilizing systems that preserve a factor of safety higher than 1.5 in both static and saturated circumstances. A construction company will also provide immense value on actual implementation, including equipment access safety, sediment and erosion control, and meeting project deadlines without sacrificing environmental preservation. To restore habitat and foster ecological resilience, local environmental organizations and environmental NGOs advocate for the use of naturalized slope forms, biodegraded materials, and native plants. Last, residents appreciate increased slope safety, better aesthetics, and a lower risk of erosion or flooding. They anticipate long-term improvements in recreational quality and environmental health, as well as little disturbance during building, which provides a new leisure place to spend with family and friends. 3.3 Development of Alternatives The stabilization of Decker Lake’s embankments requires a balance between structural reliability, ecological integrity, and recreational usability. To meet the objective, three lowimpact stabilization alternatives were developed using guidance from the Federal Highway Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers Slope Stability Manual, and contemporary restoration research. Each alternative uses varying approaches to address the lake's unstable slopes. 3.3.1 Alternative 1 - Riprap Dominant Approach Figure 3.2a-d illustrates two common variations of riprap armoring: partially grouted and fully grouted riprap systems. In the partially grouted configuration (Figure 3.2a), grout is applied selectively between stones, allowing some permeability and flexibility while still increasing interlock and resistance to displacement. This approach reduces stone movement under moderate hydraulic forces but retains some drainage capacity, making it suitable for locations where controlled water exchange is desirable. In contrast, the fully grouted system (Figure 3.2b) binds the surface stones together into a more rigid, uniform layer that provides stronger resistance to high-velocity flows but significantly reduces permeability. The schematic sections (Figures 3.2c–d) show that both systems rely on underlying geotextile or granular filter layers to prevent soil 76 | P a g e migration and maintain subgrade stability. While fully grouted riprap offers greater structural protection, it can limit ecological function and increase repair complexity, whereas partially grouted riprap balances stability with better drainage and habitat compatibility. Figure 3.2a-d: Types of Riprap: The figure illustrates two types of riprap protection systems, partially grouted and fully grouted top layers as well as what their separation layers look like [8]. In both designs in Figure 3.2a-d, a geotextile separation layer beneath the riprap prevents fine soil from migrating upward while maintaining subgrade stability. The partially grouted system provides flexibility and permeability, but individual stones remain more susceptible to displacement under wave action or fluctuating water levels. By contrast, the fully grouted system offers greater resistance to hydraulic forces, creating a more durable and cohesive armor layer suitable for high-energy shoreline environments. Given the erosion observed along Decker Lake’s embankments and the site’s exposure to storm inflow and concentrated runoff, the fully grouted riprap configuration would provide superior long-term protection while minimizing maintenance needs. Engineers and agencies have favored Riprap because it has predictable performance and is easy to construct. The method itself has been refined over years and years of analyzing the sizing, gradation, and the rock placement. Bigham (2020) and Benson et al. (2019) note that riprap is often picked because it offers instant protection for adjacent 77 | P a g e infrastructure and requires little establishment time. In Utah, a project like this requires instant stabilization before spring runoff or storms. Engineers and public agencies have long favored Riprap because of its predictable performance and ease of construction. The design methodology has been refined over decades, producing well-established formulas for sizing, gradation, and placement. Bigham (2020) and Benson et al. (2019) note that riprap is often selected because it provides instant protection for adjacent infrastructure and requires little establishment time. In Utah, this immediacy is especially valuable for projects that must stabilize slopes before spring runoff or intense summer storms. Other advantages make riprap an appealing stabilization option for Decker Lake. It is adaptable, capable of installation under a wide range of conditions while tolerating the fluctuating lake levels and variable hydrologic loading. When sized and placed appropriately, riprap is extremely durable. The stone structures can remain effective for decades if the toe and filter systems are inspected and maintained. Riprap offers straightforward installation and uses conventional earth-moving equipment such as excavators, loaders, and bulldozers, which reduce the need for specialized labor and minimize complexity. Economically, it is one of the most cost-efficient techniques available, which makes it suitable for publicly funded projects that must meet budget constraints without compromising structural reliability. Despite these strengths, numerous studies have documented the recurrent shortcomings of hard-armoring techniques [7]. Failures often arise from incomplete or improper designs. Missing filter layers, insufficient toe embedment, and inadequate drainage compromise the system’s stability over time [9]. When riprap is installed only at isolated points, such as around bridge abutments or short shoreline segments, hydraulic energy is redirected downstream, intensifying erosion in unprotected areas. Similarly, smooth or concrete riprap can accelerate local flow velocities, creating new scour zones and undermining channel stability. Common failure mechanisms include undermining, where bed scour at the toe leads to sliding or slumping. End scour occurs at abrupt termination, causing flanking erosion. Loss of interlock results from settlement or freeze-thaw cycles that dislodge individual stones. Slope instability caused by poor compaction or inadequate internal drainage within the embankment core. These issues underscore the importance of comprehensive design, continuous monitoring, and integration with softer, vegetated systems to reduce longterm maintenance needs and downstream impacts. From an environmental standpoint, hard armoring can significantly degrade riparian habitat by reducing bank roughness and isolating the floodplain from aquatic systems. It replaces vegetated transition zones with impermeable surfaces, increasing surface temperatures and removing shading that benefits aquatic life. Studies by Symmank et al. [10] and Bartodziej & Galatowitsch [11] report lower biodiversity and diminished fishspawning habitat near armored banks. To improve the compatibility with restoration 78 | P a g e and recreational objectives, several measures are recommended for Decker Lake’s embankments. Riprap should be used to focus on areas that are exposed to high-energy shorelines, concentrated inflows, and stormwater outfalls, and then transition to vegetation on the upper slopes of the bank. Low-energy shorelines favor a softer method, which allows vegetation to maintain slope stability. Consistent postconstruction inspection, photo documenting, and vegetation survival assessment should be implemented to evaluate performance. 3.3.2 Alternative 2 - Coir Log & Natural Fiber Revetment System Figure 3.3 illustrates the installation of coir fiber rolls placed in stepped rows along an eroding streambank, where each biodegradable log is anchored with wooden stakes and underlain by a coir or jute mat. In this configuration, the fiber rolls function as a temporary structural edge that intercepts wave action, slows runoff, and traps fine sediments at the toe and mid-slope, creating favorable conditions for native vegetation to establish and eventually take over the long-term stabilization role. The underlying mat provides additional surface protection by preventing soil loss between the rolls and reinforcing early root development. Coir logs typically cost $35–$65 per 10–12 ft roll depending on diameter (12–20 in.), with total installed costs often ranging from $90– $150 per linear foot when labor, staking, and matting are included [12]. While less structurally-robust than rock-based armoring, this system is a lower-cost, alternative well suited for low-energy shorelines like Decker Lake. Figure 3.3: Coir Fiber Rolls: Biodegradable logs and jute mats are used along streambanks to stabilize slopes [12]. 79 | P a g e As the coir material naturally decomposes over several years, native plant roots gradually replace the structural role of the logs, forming a long-lasting, vegetated embankment. For improved performance—especially in settings with fluctuating water levels like Decker Lake—coir fiber rolls are best paired with woven jute mats or coir blankets to protect exposed soil between logs, geotextile separation layers to prevent soil piping, and live staking or containerized native shrubs for deeper root reinforcement. When used together, these materials create a hybrid bioengineering system that stabilizes the slope both immediately and over the long term, while preserving the ecological and aesthetic benefits of a natural shoreline. This zone resists erosion, filters stormwater, moderates shoreline temperature, and enhances habitat complexity. Schöll et al. (2023) describe these materials as “a biodegradable scaffold that stabilizes soil while facilitating native vegetation establishment,” noting that erosion was reduced by 40–70 % at monitored sites. From an ecological standpoint, the coir log advances the environmental quality and community well-being; coir and fiber revetments emulate natural riparian processes such as slow runoff, capturing fine sediments and nutrients before they enter the lake, and provide shade for critical aquatic organisms. Clamann (2014) demonstrated in an urban lake that these “vegetated fiber rolls restored littoral habitat within one growing season and improved water clarity through sediment retention.” Based on site observations, the embankments are presumed to exhibit moderate slopes and be impacted primarily by low to moderate energy wave action from wind and stormwater inflows rather than continuous high-velocity currents. A coir log installation would begin by grading the bank to a stable 3:1 to 4:1 profile and keying each log into shallow trenches along the shoreline where applicable. Each log, typically 12 to 20 inches in diameter, would be anchored using untreated wooden stakes or biodegradable pins driven through the log into firm soil. The rolls should overlap to form a continuous barrier. A shallow layer of native topsoil and wetland seed mix could be placed behind the logs, which allows vegetation to colonize naturally as the coir begins to degrade. In higher flow areas around storm drain outlets or concentrated points of flow, logs could be doubled up for added stability. The simplicity of this installation makes it feasible for small crews with light equipment to minimize the disturbance to the shoreline and reduce project duration compared to heavy riprap placement. From a cost perspective, natural-fiber stabilization is competitive with traditional hard armor when life-cycle and maintenance costs are factored in. Typically, installation costs can range from $10 - $55 per linear foot, depending on diameter, anchoring materials, and vegetation requirements [12]. Not only does this compare to the lower end of rip rap costs, it does not factor in the need for quarry stone transport and large machinery, lowering mobilization expenses as well as greenhouse-gas emissions. 80 | P a g e Additionally, once vegetation establishes, maintenance requirements decline with only seasonal trimming and replanting in isolated failures. From a recreational standpoint, this approach supports West Valley City by emphasizing recreational restoration and public engagement. Natural-fiber systems integrate visually with park landscapes and walking paths. They also maintain safe, accessible shorelines while avoiding the harsh and industrial appearance of rock armor. The visible growth of vegetation can also contribute to cleaner water and a healthier urban ecosystem. However, there are limitations to this as well. Coir systems have a finite service life of approximately five years before full biodegradation. This requires vegetation to establish quickly to assume structural responsibility. They may perform poorly under extreme runoff events. Regular inspection is essential during the first two growing seasons to monitor anchoring. 3.3.3 Alternative 3 - Geotextile Reinforced Vegetated slope system Figure 3.4: Geotextile Reinforced Vegetated Slope System: the figure demonstrates a geotextile reinforced vegetated [25]. Another low-impact stabilization method for Decker Lake’s physical conditions and restoration goal is a geotextile reinforced vegetated slope system. This method allows the embankment to maintain its natural appearance while remaining long-term slope stability. In order to match the site conditions and achieve the project goals, the installation will begin with unstable slope areas, typically to a 3H:1V to 4H:1V profile. A short riprap bench or geocell mattress is placed at the toe of the slope to prevent undercutting from storm inflows and varying lake levels. To provide a mechanically stabilized soil mass that can withstand both shallow and deep-seated failures from fluctuating water levels and rainstorm events, high-strength woven geotextiles are placed above this foundation at vertical intervals of 0.3 to 0.6 meters between compacted soil lifts. On the other hand, there are some limitations for implementing this method to Decker Lake. To maintain adequate shear strength, the design must 81 | P a g e prioritize drainage and filtration given the embankment’s seasonal saturation, localized erosion, and sparse vegetation cover. Given the lake’s history of silt deposition and reduced water circulation, a nonwoven geotextile layer will be placed near the surface to limit fine migration and reduce porepressure buildup during storm events. The system's reliance on light to medium equipment reduces disruption to both plants and animals because construction access is limited by sensitive riverside habitat and existing recreational assets. Low-impact, nonintrusive stabilization techniques are preferred over substantial armouring since the design must also meet regulatory criteria under the Clean Water Act, UPDES permitting, and stream alteration standards. The geotextile-reinforced vegetated slope provides the best balance between geotechnical performance, ecological restoration, and recreational compatibility when compared to alternative stabilizing methods. Although full riprap armouring offers longlasting hydraulic protection, it generates an industrial coastline that interferes with ecological and public facilities. Although they provide vegetative support, coir-fibre revetments lack the internal strength required for long-term stability on a lake with fluctuating water tables. The reinforced vegetated slope combines the biological advantages of living vegetation with the dependability of mechanical reinforcement. The underground root systems of established native plants and grasses are interconnected with the geotextile layers to form a composite structure that enhances cohesion and requires less maintenance. The project's goal of creating a resilient, ecologically conscious shoreline system is directly supported by this hybrid behavior. The projected treated slope area for Decker Lake is about 4,000 linear feet of shoreline, and is 50,400 square feet. The total project cost for the geotextile-reinforced vegetated slope alternative is estimated at between $1.1 and $1.3 million, based on current material and construction pricing. Earthwork and regrading, woven and nonwoven geotextiles, biodegradable erosioncontrol matting, toe protection with riprap or geocells, native topsoil installation, hydroseeding, and a two-year vegetation establishment period are all included in this total price. Permit compliance, quality control testing, and construction oversight—all necessary under federal and state water-quality regulations—add to expenses. This system is the best sustainable and economical option for the Decker Lake embankment because of its long-term stability, advantages for habitat restoration, and compatibility with recreational usage, even if it requires a moderate initial investment. 3.4 Advantages/Disadvantages The following discussion compares the advantages and disadvantages for our three alternatives—riprap armouring, coir log and geotextile reinforced vegetated slopes, in terms of environmental impact, structural performance and stability, cost and long-term maintenance and constructability. Among the three stabilization methods, the coir log 82 | P a g e approach offers the strongest alignment with ecological restoration and the natural-look for Decker Lake. Coir logs create a biodegradable structure which supports fast-paced vegetation development, improves shoreline habitats and also still keeps a soft shoreline that blends well with the park landscape. While geotextile reinforced slopes also retain a vegetated surface, they utilize synthetic materials which reduces ecological purity. On the other hand, riprap provides the least environmental benefit where its hardened and rocky profile increases the temperature along the shoreline, damaging the habitat complexity. Across the general lake perimeter, both coir log and geotextile reinforced slope approach provide adequate stability while coir log offers a more naturally integrated idea. The biodegradable fiber rolls provide sufficient stability by dispelling wave energy and trapping sediment and then transitioning to a fully vegetated and root-reinforced system. Due to the large capacity of the geotextile reinforced slope, it will not be a priority choice even though it offers a higher engineered strength and greater internal reinforcement. For riprap, it is the strongest option under intense hydraulic forces but it is only suitable in high-energy conditions such as stormwater outfalls or flooding. The effects of construction vary greatly between options. Coir logs minimize disturbance to vegetation, wildlife, and public access areas as they require light equipment and small crews for installation. Although geotextile-reinforced slopes have a larger construction footprint than riprap, they have a lower effect and require more controlled installation sequencing and modest equipment. The worst disruption to current habitat and recreational areas is caused by full rock armouring, which requires extensive staging grounds and heavy gear. For a project emphasizing ecological sensitivity and community-oriented shoreline access, lower-impact construction is a major advantage. Riprap is reasonably priced, however, it can still be more costly over time due to stone displacement and toe scour repairs. Other than that, geotextile reinforced slopes require controlled compacted, designed infill, and geosynthetic materials, they entail the most economical range and the smallest mobilization footprint, although initial costs vary greatly, they are very effective for long stretches of low-energy coastline, as they established, their maintenance requirements decrease significantly. 3.5 Case Studies Several restoration projects throughout the United States demonstrate how bioengineering and low-impact stabilization methods can achieve both structural stability and ecological recovery. The following case studies were selected based on their similarity to Decker Lake’s physical conditions, restoration goals, and public-use context. Each project provides lessons for integrating geotechnical design with habitat restoration and community access. 3.5.1 Chicago Botanic Garden Lake Shoreline Enhancements – Glencoe, Illinois The Chicago Botanic Garden completed a comprehensive restoration of approximately three miles of degraded shoreline surrounding its internal lake system. The site experienced long-term erosion, steep slope geometry, and excessive sedimentation that 83 | P a g e impaired water quality. Engineers applied a combination of bioengineered stabilization techniques, including vegetated geogrids, live staking, coir-fiber rolls, and extensive native plantings. Slopes were re-graded to a 4H:1V profile, and coir geotextiles were used to provide immediate surface reinforcement while vegetation became established. The system achieved a factor of safety greater than 1.5 under saturated conditions, meeting stability requirements comparable to riprap. Monitoring conducted over two growing seasons documented vegetation survival rates exceeding 90 percent, an 80 percent reduction in annual shoreline retreat, and improved water clarity due to reduced sediment loading. The project successfully restored habitat function and enhanced public access through integrated pathways and viewing platforms. This case shows that vegetated slope systems can deliver long-term stability, reduced maintenance, and visual compatibility with recreational environments similar to those at Decker Lake. 3.5.2 Community Shoreline Restoration – Tampa, Florida In 2019, SOLitude Lake Management restored approximately 1,800 linear feet of eroded shoreline along an urban recreational lake using a knitted-mesh living-shoreline system. The structure was filled with organic soil and anchored with biodegradable stakes, forming a continuous vegetated revetment. Construction relied on small, amphibious equipment to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and nearby residential areas. Within four months, the shoreline achieved full stabilization, and native grasses began establishing naturally across the bank surface. Post-project observations recorded zero instances of bank failure and significant improvement in near-shore turbidity and vegetation coverage. The biodegradable system provided both short-term structural integrity and long-term ecological value as roots replaced the mesh’s tensile function. The Relevance to Decker Lake is that this case supports the feasibility of using naturalfiber and coir-based stabilization methods along low-energy shoreline segments. It confirms that bio-degradable systems can achieve reliable erosion control and waterquality improvements while maintaining low cost and minimal construction impact. 3.5.3 Envirolok Reinforced-Soil Slope System – Wisconsin and Upper Midwest Across several Midwestern lake and river sites, Envirolok reinforced-soil systems have been implemented to stabilize slopes exposed to variable water levels and freeze-thaw cycles. The system consists of geotextile soil bags filled with engineered fill, anchored with earth-stakes, and interplanted with deep-rooted vegetation. Laboratory and field performance evaluations report factors of safety between 1.5 and 1.7 under static loading and above 1.2 when saturated. Over time, plant root networks increase internal cohesion and reduce surface erosion, transforming the structure into a living retaining slope. The installations demonstrate durability, adaptability to irregular shorelines, and reduced visual impact compared with traditional hard-armoring. Cost analyses show installed prices between $40 and $60 per linear foot, comparable to riprap but with higher habitat and aesthetic value. The reinforced-soil slope system provides a precedent for the hybrid stabilization alternative proposed in this chapter, combining 84 | P a g e structural reinforcement with native vegetation and limited riprap protection at the toe. It supports the goal of creating a stable, resilient shoreline that aligns with Decker Lake’s ecological and recreational objectives. 3.5.4 Lessons and Application to Decker Lake The reviewed case studies demonstrate that engineered slope stability and ecological restoration are not mutually exclusive. Each project combined soil reinforcement, vegetation, and controlled hydraulic design to achieve long-term stability while improving environmental quality and public access. Collectively, the findings show that bioengineered and hybrid systems can meet the same performance standards typically achieved through hard-armoring while delivering greater habitat value and visual integration with the surrounding landscape. A consistent pattern among these projects is the role of native vegetation in sustaining slope performance over time. Plant roots gradually replace temporary mechanical reinforcement, increasing shear resistance and reducing surface erosion. The resulting vegetated cover enhances infiltration, filters runoff, and creates habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species. This living component transforms the shoreline into a dynamic, self-healing system rather than a static engineered surface. Another important lesson involves constructability and maintenance. Both the Chicago Botanic Garden and SOLitude Lake projects demonstrated that low-impact construction using small equipment and staged installation reduces environmental disturbance and simplifies permitting. Once established, the systems required minimal long-term maintenance aside from periodic inspections and vegetation management. This adaptive approach is well-suited to Decker Lake’s urban setting, where construction access is limited and ongoing maintenance budgets are constrained. The case studies also highlight the social and aesthetic value of bioengineered solutions. Public acceptance tends to increase when stabilization measures complement recreational amenities rather than restrict them. At Decker Lake, integrating planted shorelines and accessible walking paths can foster a stronger sense of stewardship while reducing vandalism and long-term degradation. Overall, the lessons drawn from these precedents reinforce the viability of implementing a hybrid vegetated geogrid system at Decker Lake with limited riprap reinforcement at high-energy zones. Such a design can satisfy geotechnical stability criteria, improve water quality, and enhance the recreational and ecological function of the shoreline—aligning fully with the project’s goal of creating a stable, resilient, and sustainable public lakefront environment. 85 | P a g e 3.6 Discussion Category Alternative 1: Riprap Dominant Approach Alternative 2: Coir Log & Natural-Fiber Revetment Alternative 3: Geotextile-Reinforced Vegetated Slope Stability / Wave & Hydraulic Resistance Provides the highest immediate resistance to wave action, toe scour, and stormwater inflows. Performs well under fluctuating water levels and concentrated hydraulic loading but can increase localized scour if not properly transitioned. Offers predictable performance over decades when toe embedment and filter layers are correctly installed. Provides moderate resistance to low- and moderate-energy wave action by dissipating flow and trapping sediment. Stability decreases in highenergy areas, and performance depends on proper anchoring and vegetation establishment. Coir logs biodegrade over ~5 years, requiring vegetation to replace structural capacity. Provides long-term structural reinforcement through geotextile layers that improve shear strength and limit shallow and deepseated failures. Performs reliably under variable lake levels and storm inflow conditions when paired with a small riprap toe. Vegetation increases root cohesion over time, improving stability beyond initial installation. Cost (Initial & LifeCycle) Initial construction costs are moderate due to common materials and conventional equipment; however, lifecycle costs can increase due to periodic stone replacement, toe repair, or adjustments after settlement. Transport of stone and heavy equipment increases mobilization expenses. Initial costs vary from low to moderate depending on log diameter, staking density, and vegetation requirements. Life-cycle costs are relatively low if vegetation becomes established but increase if replanting or re-anchoring is required during early years. Minimal equipment leads to low mobilization costs. Initial costs are moderate due to the need for engineered fill, geotextiles, and staged installation. Lifecycle costs are low because long-term stability is achieved through vegetation and buried reinforcement layers that require minimal replacement. Selective riprap at the toe keeps cost lower than full armoring. Maintenance, Inspection Frequency, and Lifespan Requires periodic inspection of stone displacement, settlement, interlock, and toe scour, especially after storm events. Long lifespan (20–50+ years) but maintenance can be reactive and heavyequipment dependent. Requires frequent inspection during the first two growing seasons to ensure anchoring integrity and vegetation establishment. Log material decomposes within ~5 years, so long-term performance depends entirely on root development. Maintenance is typically light once vegetation is established. Requires moderate inspection during early vegetation establishment and after major storms. Once roots mature and the geotextile layers are embedded, maintenance needs decrease significantly. Lifespan extends for decades due to reinforcing layers and natural vegetation succession. Recreational Compatibility, Creates a visually industrial shoreline that may limit direct Provides a natural, green shoreline that enhances the Produces a consistent vegetated slope that 86 | P a g e Public Access, and Perception of Space water access and reduce the perceived natural character of the park. Rock edges can be unsafe for public interaction and are less appealing for trails, wildlife viewing, or shoreline recreation. perceived quality of the park environment and invites public engagement. Once vegetated, the system improves shoreline aesthetics and water access while blending with trails and open space. Short-term visual appearance is rustic until vegetation fills in. supports walking paths, wildlife habitat, and a parklike appearance. Enhances visual quality and public access while maintaining stable slopes. The system integrates seamlessly with recreational uses and creates a cohesive landscape character around the lake. All three stabilization alternatives address shoreline erosion but differ in how they balance structural performance, environmental function, practicality, and recreational benefits at Decker Lake. Riprap delivers the strongest immediate hydraulic resistance; however, its industrial appearance and limited water access introduce drawbacks for an urban park setting focused on recreation. Geotextile-reinforced vegetated slopes provide long-term structural strength and offer a natural appearance, but they require more earthwork, engineered fill, and staged installation, increasing complexity relative to the scale of erosion observed along much of the lake. In contrast, the coir log and natural-fiber revetment system aligns closely with the physical conditions and restoration goals identified for Decker Lake. Its performance is well suited to the lake’s predominantly low-to-moderate wave energy environment, and its lightweight installation minimizes construction disturbance in recreational areas. Over time, coir logs transition into a vegetated shoreline that improves habitat, enhances aesthetic value, and supports public access along trails and open space. While the system requires early monitoring to ensure vegetation establishment, its long-term maintenance needs are low and its ecological compatibility is high. The differences between the costs of installation and materials for each option needs to be taken into account, with the surface riprap alternate having the highest initial cost, and the coir logs the least. These characteristics collectively position the natural-fiber revetment as the most balanced approach for stabilizing the majority of Decker Lake’s shoreline while supporting the park’s emphasis on recreation and ecological restoration. 3.7 Conclusion This chapter evaluated a range of stabilization strategies—including surface riprap, geotextiles, and biodegradable natural-fiber products—to address ongoing erosion, slope instability, and degraded ecological conditions. The project assessed each alternative based on effectiveness, environmental impact, constructability, durability, and cost. While hard-armoring approaches offer strong hydraulic resistance, they also introduce higher costs, limit vegetation establishment, and reduce ecological function over time. In contrast, bioengineered solutions such as coir fiber rolls and jute mats provide a more balanced approach, offering immediate erosion protection while supporting long-term habitat recovery and improved shoreline aesthetics. After comparing alternatives, coir fiber rolls emerged as the most appropriate 87 | P a g e recommendation for the Decker Lake project. Their biodegradability, low cost, ease of installation, and compatibility with native plantings make them especially suitable for the lake’s shorelines and moderately erosive conditions. Coir rolls dissipate wave energy, trap sediment, and create ideal conditions for root establishment, allowing vegetation to gradually replace the structural role of the fiber as it decomposes. This aligns directly with the project’s goals of improving slope stability, enhancing ecological health, and supporting safe, low-impact recreational use. Implementing coir fiber rolls at targeted erosion hotspots will provide an effective, sustainable, and cost-efficient solution that strengthens both the environmental and community value of Decker Lake. 3.8 References [1] Geist, C. and Galatowitsch, S.M. (1999), Reciprocal Model for Meeting Ecological and Human Needs in Restoration Projects. Conservation Biology, 13: 970-979. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98074.x. [2] Josep Pueyo-Ros, Xavier Garcia, Anna Ribas, Rosa M. Fraguell, Ecological Restoration of a Coastal Wetland at a Mass Tourism Destination. Will the Recreational Value Increase or Decrease?, Ecological Economics, Volume 148, 2018, Pages 1-14, ISSN 0921-8009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.e`colecon.2018.02.002. [3] Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) Stormwater Program, Salt Lake City, UT, 2022. [4] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Manual 1110-2-1913: Design and Construction of Levees (Slope Stability Manual), Washington D.C., USA, 2000. [5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., Washington D.C., USA, 1972. [6] Utah Division of Water Rights, Utah Administrative Code R655-13: Stream Alteration Program Rules, Salt Lake City, UT, 2021. [7] Y. Admiraal, J. D. Rosgen, and D. C. Racin, “Evaluation of Riprap and Hard-Armoring Techniques for Streambank Stabilization,” Environmental Management, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 320335, 2007. [8] Kreyenschulte, M.; Schüttrumpf, H. Tensile Bending Stresses in Mortar-Grouted Riprap Revetments Due to Wave Loading. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 913. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110913. [9] M. A. Russell, S. E. Bledsoe, and T. E. McCormick, “Failures in Traditional Hard-Armoring Practices and the Shift toward Bioengineered Stabilization,” River Research and Applications, vol. 37, pp. 1124-1136, 2021. 88 | P a g e [10] L. Symmank, J. Kiesel, J. Kail, and A. Schröder, “The Impact of Bioengineering Techniques for Riverbank Stabilization on Ecosystem Services,” Ecological Engineering, vol. 151, 105857, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105857. [11] W. Bartodziej and S. Galatowitsch, “Urban Lake Shoreland Restoration: Landform, Vegetation, and Management Assessment 20 Years Later,” Wetlands, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 21–34, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-024-01628-w. [12] Ferguson Waterworks, “Coir Logs – Natural, Biodegradable Coconut Fiber Coir Logs For Erosion Control,” Ferguson Waterworks. [Online]. Available: https://www.fergusonwaterworks.com/product/coir-logs/ Accessed: Nov. 3, 2025. [13] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 401 Water Quality Certification Guidance Manual, Washington D.C., USA, 2016. [14] West Valley City Public Works Department, “Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Drainage Standards,” City of West Valley Public Works Division, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.wvc-ut.gov/202/Stormwater-Pollution. [15] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), HEC-11: Design of Riprap Revetment, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 11, Washington D.C., USA, 2012. [16] J. Bigham, “Hydraulic Design of Riprap for Drainage Channels,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 146, no. 3, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001774. [17] C. H. Benson, T. A. Abichou, and R. A. Beck, “Performance of Stone Revetment Systems in Variable Flow Conditions,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 145, no. 2, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001992. [18] E. Schöll, J. Schmidt, and H. Bruns, “Exploring the Use of Living Shorelines for Stabilization and Habitat Enhancement,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 19, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914930. [19] J. Clamann, “Application of Coir Logs and Emergent Vegetation for Urban Lake Shoreline Stabilization,” Texas Riparian Association Conference Proceedings, Austin, TX, 2014. Available: https://texasriparian.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/clamann_coir_URS.pdf. [20] H. Allen, Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington D.C., 1997. Available: https://www.engr.colostate.edu/~bbledsoe/CIVE413/Bioengineering_for_Streambank_Erosion _Control_report1.pdf. 89 | P a g e [21] U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bank Stabilization Design Guidelines, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO, 2015. Available: https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-pdfs/ABankStab-final6-25-2015.pdf. [22] Chicago Botanic Garden. “Lake Shoreline Enhancements: Shoreline Stabilization and Habitat Restoration Project.” Glencoe, IL, 2019. Available: https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/chicago-botanic-garden-lakeshoreline-enhancements. [23] SOLitude Lake Management. “Case Study: Restoring a Community Shoreline with SOX, Tampa, FL.” SOLitude Lake Management, 2019. Available: https://www.solitudelakemanagement.com/lake-and-pond-management-success-stories-andcase-studies-tampa-fl-shoreline-management/. [24] Envirolok LLC. “Slope Stabilization and Living Shoreline Case Studies.” Envirolok, Madison, WI, 2022. Available: https://www.envirolok.com/case-study. [25] https://gssb.com.my/geotextile-walls-slopes-effectiveness-case-studies. 90 | P a g e Chapter 4 Reviving Decker Lake: Conceptual Design of an Aeration System to Improve Dissolved Oxygen & Water Quality Marie Sturm, Nathan Carlson, Lucy Pritchard, and Benson Blackburn Executive Summary Decker Lake in West Valley City, Utah, suffers from poor water quality and recurring algae blooms, largely driven by low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. Conditions that negatively impact aquatic life, recreational use, and the aesthetic value of the lake. To address these challenges, this chapter examines the application of aeration systems as a strategy to enhance DO levels, improve water circulation, and support ecological restoration. This chapter also analyzes both surface and subsurface aeration methods, highlighting their respective advantages, limitations, and energy requirements. Surface aeration, such as paddlewheel and propeller systems, is evaluated for its simplicity, low maintenance, and effectiveness in shallow water zones. Subsurface or diffused aeration is considered for its ability to oxygenate deeper water layers and promote uniform mixing throughout the lake. Design objectives focus on improving DO concentrations to within the recommended range (5–8 mg/L), enhancing habitat conditions for aquatic species, minimizing energy consumption, and ensuring the system integrates safely and unobtrusively into the lake environment. Stakeholder needs, including those of West Valley City Public Works, Utah Division of Water Quality, and the local community, are incorporated to ensure social, regulatory, and environmental alignment. Preliminary alternatives are developed and evaluated based on performance metrics such as standard oxygen transfer rate (SOTR), standard aeration efficiency (SAE), energy use, cost, and constructability. In addition to mechanical alternatives, the inclusion of vascular plants is considered to support aeration in other ways. The goal is to recommend an aeration solution that is both technically feasible and sustainable, supporting long-term water quality improvements while maintaining the lake’s recreational and ecological value. The findings support a hybrid approach in which subsurface diffused aeration provides the primary DO improvement, supplemented by targeted surface mixing and strategic macrophyte planting to maximize water quality benefits. Keywords: Aeration systems, Decker Lake, dissolved oxygen, environmental design, subsurface aeration, surface aeration, urban lake management, and water quality. 91 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Background and Pre-Design Considerations 4.2.1 Guiding Principles of Aeration Technology 4.2.2 Performance Requirements 4.2.3 Key Assumptions or Unknowns 4.2.4 Scientific & Engineering Basis 4.3 Case Studies 4.3.1 Surface Aeration Case Studies 4.3.2 Subsurface Diffused Aeration Case Studies 4.3.3 Circulation and Mixing Case Studies 4.3.4 Macrophyte and Ecological Restoration Case Studies 4.3.5 Case Study Takeaways for Decker Lake 4.4 Project Constraints 4.4.1 Physical Constraints 4.4.2 Sustainability Constraints 4.4.3 Social Constraints 4.4.4 Economic Constraints 4.4.5 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements 4.4.6 Stakeholder Interests / Needs 4.5 Design Alternatives 4.5.1 Subsurface Aeration 4.5.2 Subsurface Diffused Aeration 4.5.3 Macrophyte-assisted Aeration 4.5.4 Maintenance Considerations 4.5.5 Conceptual Hybrid System Layout 4.6 Comparison of Alternatives 4.7 Recommendations 4.8 References 92 | P a g e List of Figures Figure 4.1: Cover Image AI-generated illustration of Decker Lake showing surface and subsurface aeration systems [1]. Figure 4.2: Before and after result of pond aeration due Figure 4.3a-d: Types of Aeration and the effects Figure 4.4: Dissolved oxygen concentration across surface, mid-level, and bottom microporous aeration configurations Figure 4.5: Paddle Wheel Aerator on the market Figure 4.6: Paddle Wheel Aerator in action Figure 4.7: Schematic of a subsurface aeration system showing compressor, diffuser placement, and bubble rise path Figure 4.8: Removal efficiencies for COD, total phosphorus under bottom, mid-level, and surface microporous aeration Figure 4.9: Conceptual layout of the proposed hybrid aeration system at Decker Lake, List of Tables Table 4.1: Types of Aeration and the effects Table 4.2: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Proposed Solutions 93 | P a g e 4.1 Introduction The purpose of this project is to develop a conceptual design for an aeration system that improves dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in Decker Lake. Increasing DO levels can mitigate algae growth, reduce odors, and enhance overall water quality for aquatic life and recreational use. The study is limited to conceptual planning and does not include system installation, field testing, or direct water quality sampling due to time and resource constraints. Urban ponds such as Decker Lake often face nutrient enrichment and algal blooms because of surrounding urban development. As one study explains, “Urbanization can be a major contributor to the eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems within a watershed area. Agricultural runoff, wastewater discharge, and storm water runoff often carry excess nutrients into the urban watershed and create conditions in which algae and cyanobacteria will thrive” [2]. Therefore, this chapter evaluates aeration strategies that can improve DO concentration and overall ecological health in a shallow, urban lake system. Both surface and subsurface approaches were considered. Surface aeration enhances gas transfer “by breaking up or agitating the surface of water bubbles so that oxygen transfer takes place” [3]. These systems, primarily paddlewheel and spiral aerators, are widely used in aquaculture and small lake applications because of their “cost effectiveness, low maintenance and easy availability” [3]. However, their performance is constrained in deeper or larger water bodies due to their “inability to create an adequately large area of oxygenated water” [4]. For this reason, surface aeration is evaluated as a potential component of the Decker Lake solution but not the sole method. Decker Lake is a shallow, man-made, eutrophic retention pond that periodically experiences oxygen depletion. The lake covers approximately 45 acres and is surrounded by grassy open space and recreational areas, including pickleball courts and walking trails. Given its shallow depth and limited thermal stratification, the site is physically well suited for surface aeration, which provides oxygenation primarily in the upper two to three meters of the water column [4]. The project will adapt techniques from aquaculture studies to improve water quality, habitat conditions, and recreational value. In the sections that follow, we first establish background conditions and pre-design considerations, including guiding design principles, performance targets, and key uncertainties at Decker Lake. We then review case studies of surface aeration, subsurface diffused aeration, circulation systems, and macrophyte-based approaches to understand how similar technologies have performed elsewhere. Next, we summarize physical, sustainability, social, and economic constraints that shape feasible design options for this site. Using these constraints and casestudy insights, we develop and compare conceptual design alternatives and evaluate them with a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework that considers People, Planet, and Profit. Finally, we present recommendations for a preferred hybrid aeration strategy and outline implementation considerations for West Valley City. 94 | P a g e 4.2 Background and Pre-Design Considerations Pre-design work for the Decker Lake aeration system focused on understanding existing water quality conditions, characterizing physical site constraints, and clarifying stakeholder priorities. Historical monitoring data and observations from site visits indicate that Decker Lake routinely experiences low dissolved oxygen, especially near the sediments, along with elevated nutrients and recurring algal blooms. These conditions are consistent with a shallow, eutrophic, urban retention pond that receives stormwater inputs and has limited natural mixing. The pre-design phase, therefore, concentrated on identifying aeration approaches that could raise lake-wide DO, suppress nuisance algal growth, and support long-term ecological recovery rather than only short-term symptom control. In parallel, the project team reviewed regulatory requirements, city objectives, and community expectations. The system must help the city move toward compliance with applicable water quality standards while remaining compatible with the lake’s role as a public amenity and visual focal point. Stakeholders emphasized the importance of minimizing noise, preserving views, maintaining safe public access, and avoiding interference with boating, fishing, and trail use. Pre-design discussions also highlighted the need to limit energy use and long-term maintenance demands for city staff. These considerations guided the selection and sizing of technologies toward options that are robust, modular, and relatively straightforward to operate. Finally, the pre-design process established key performance targets and assumptions that are used in the subsequent sections of this chapter. Conceptual alternatives were screened using hydraulic characteristics (depth, area, and bathymetry), available electrical service, potential equipment locations, and constructability constraints such as access for barges or maintenance vehicles. Decker Lake occupies approximately 34 surface acres within the 51.81-acre Decker Lake Regional Park [5]. Because detailed bathymetric data were not available, the design team assumed a representative depth range of 5–10 feet based on aerial imagery, shoreline indicators, and typical profiles of urban stormwater ponds. These dimensions are significant for aeration planning because shallow basins with large surface area are more vulnerable to warmseason oxygen depletion, sediment-driven nutrient release, and limited natural mixing. Seasonal variability in inflows, temperature, and ice cover was also considered because they affect both oxygen demand and aerator performance. The following subsections translate these background findings into guiding principles, performance requirements, and scientific and engineering criteria that shape the recommended aeration strategy for Decker Lake. 4.2.1 Guiding Principles of Aeration Technology The guiding principles for design emphasize environmental balance and social value: “Selection of properly designed and highly efficient aerators is necessary to maintain adequate and continuous supply of dissolved oxygen (DO) and keep the energy consumption (operating cost) to minimum” [3]. Primary beneficiaries include lake users, residents, and aquatic ecosystems, as well as city operations that gain maintainable, reliable infrastructure. Potential burdens—noise, visual effects, and short construction closures—will be minimized by sitting equipment away from homes, using quiet 95 | P a g e enclosures, routing power underground where feasible, and posting clear safety signage. Design targets include maintaining DO near 5 mg/L during the operating season and prioritizing evening and nighttime operations to counter daily DO sag. Together, these principles support a grid-powered, diffused-first aeration system with targeted surface mixing to improve water quality while limiting cost and disturbance [3]. 4.2.2 Performance Requirements The aeration system must maintain dissolved oxygen (DO) levels of 5–8 mg/L across Decker Lake during the warm season, addressing both surface depletion and high sediment oxygen demand. Performance will be evaluated using standard oxygen-transfer metrics (SOTR and SAE), ensuring surface aerators provide effective circulation and rapid surface oxygenation while subsurface diffusers support whole-column DO improvement. The system must also reduce stagnation and harmful algal bloom (HAB) risk, operate efficiently on grid power while remaining compatible with future solar-hybrid upgrades, and function reliably under seasonal or intermittent schedules. Because the lake is a public recreational space, aeration equipment must be quiet, visually unobtrusive, and safely integrated. Macrophytes may supplement nutrient uptake, and habitat benefits but are not considered primary oxygenation mechanisms. 4.2.3 Key Assumptions or Unknowns It is assumed that Decker Lake’s nutrient load and water depth data can be approximated from existing state and city reports. Unknowns include the exact depth profile, the lake’s sediment oxygen demand, and spatial DO variation, as well as realtime nutrient levels. The aeration systems are assumed to be powered by Rocky Mountain Power, which manages the Power District near Decker Lake [6]. Since there is existing electrical infrastructure close to the site, connecting to the grid is expected to be possible with limited trenching. The exact service location and power capacity will need to be confirmed later with Rocky Mountain Power. For estimating purposes, the aeration systems are assumed to operate continuously during the warm-water season, which is approximately late spring through early fall. This period was chosen because oxygen levels in shallow lakes like Decker Lake tend to drop most in warm weather, when water temperatures rise and stratification reduces natural mixing. Operating during these months represents a conservative estimate for energy use and ensures stable dissolved oxygen levels [7]. Later planning may explore shorter run times, such as at night or based on oxygen sensors, to reduce energy use. 4.2.4 Scientific & Engineering Basis Boyd summarizes aeration fundamentals: “Aerators influence the rate of oxygen transfer from air to water by increasing turbulence and surface area of water in contact with air” [8]. He further classifies mechanical aerators into “splashers and bubblers” and explains circulation benefits: “Circulation of pond water by aerators is an additional benefit of aeration for several reasons: (1) oxygenated water moves across the pond … (2) without constant movement … aeration will increase DO concentrations in the vicinity of the 96 | P a g e aerator and greatly reduce oxygen-transfer efficiency; and (3) mixing … reduces vertical stratification of temperature and chemical substances” [8]. These mechanisms directly inform how surface aerators will be applied at Decker Lake. Numerous studies have investigated methods to improve dissolved oxygen levels in aquatic systems through mechanical or natural aeration. Aeration plays a critical role in restoring ecological function in ponds like Decker Lake, where limited circulation and nutrient loading contribute to oxygen depletion and algae growth. Understanding the mechanisms of aeration provides the scientific foundation for designing an efficient system that can enhance water quality and aquatic habitat. Pond aeration works by infusing atmospheric oxygen into the water through various physical mechanisms, thereby increasing DO concentrations and sustaining a healthier aquatic ecosystem [9]. The natural air-water interface alone typically cannot provide sufficient oxygen for aerobic processes, particularly in stagnant or eutrophic environments. Artificial aeration therefore aims to create additional gas-water interfaces that enhance oxygen transfer rates. Figure 4.2 below shows a conceptual representation of pond aeration diffusing algae blooms. Figure 4.2: Before and after result of pond aeration due [10]. Subsurface or diffused aeration is one of the most efficient methods for oxygen transfer in deep or moderate depth ponds [9]. In this system, compressed air is released near the pond bottom through diffusers, which form fine bubbles that rise to the surface. Oxygen is transferred to the water as these bubbles ascend, and their efficiency depends on several physical and design parameters: Water Depth: Greater depth increases bubble residence time, allowing more oxygen transfer per unit volume. Bubble Size: Smaller bubbles provide a larger total surface area for gas exchange, resulting in higher oxygen absorption efficiency. Turbulence and Mixing: Turbulent flow helps break larger bubbles into smaller ones, enhancing the oxygen transfer process and promoting more uniform mixing throughout the water column. A well-designed subsurface aeration system typically consists of diffusers made from porous materials or perforated tubing connected to an air compressor [9]. These systems are valued for their relatively low energy consumption and ability to oxygenate large areas with minimal surface 97 | P a g e disturbance, making them suitable for Decker Lake’s conditions, where quiet, low visual impact technology is desirable. Recent findings further highlight the advantages of microporous subsurface aeration for eutrophic systems. Wu et al. reported that “the best CODCr, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus removal efficiencies were achieved by the combined system with bottom microporous intermittent aeration, and the efficiencies were 71.04%, 79.52%, and 95.10%, respectively,” and cautioned that while “artificial aeration is an effective way to solve the problem of water eutrophication,” continuous aeration can elevate DO to levels that “limit the denitrification processes” [2]. These results support intermittent or bottom-diffused aeration as an efficient, energy-balanced strategy for improving water quality in shallow, nutrient-enriched lakes such as Decker Lake. In parallel, engineering studies of subsurface diffusers show that oxygen transfer capacity increases with submergence depth and bottom coverage, directly informing diffuser placement and spacing for Decker Lake [11]. Aeration has been used all over the world in hundreds of thousands of ponds and lakes. The types of aeration and effects of that type are shown in Figure 4.3a-d below. Figures 4.3a-d: Types of Aeration and the effects [12]. Figures 4.3a-d is helpful to with Table 4.1 due to the similarities in the effects of aeration. The figure shows types, while the table shows the effects of those types. Specifically, Table 4.1 summarizes the primary variables that affect oxygen transfer 98 | P a g e performance in aeration systems and helps illustrate how depth, flow rate, and bubble geometry influence diffuser design. Table 4.1: Types of Aeration and the effects [12]. Parameter Effect in aeration Design Note Flow Rate (Q) Higher water velocity increases air entrainment. Smaller openings increase water speed and air intake efficiency. Higher static water pressure can reduce aeration performance. Angles around 60° tend to optimize bubble dispersion and oxygenation. Balance velocity with splash and erosion control. Avoid excessive head loss; verify cavitation margins. Gate Opening Ratio (k) Hydrostatic Level (H) Jet Plunge Angle (α) Place intakes and outfalls to limit depth-related losses. Adjust on site to reflect local depth and turbulence. Although subsurface aeration is common in pond restoration, hydraulic aeration systems also provide valuable insight into oxygen transfer dynamics. In hydraulic systems, air is drawn into high velocity water flows, often through gated conduits, creating a two-phase flow that mixes air and water. The Bernoulli principle explains this process: as water velocity increases, local pressure drops, allowing atmospheric air to be entrained into the flow. 4.3 Case Studies Case studies from aquaculture ponds, constructed wetlands, urban lakes, and shallow eutrophic basins provide important insight into how different aeration systems perform under conditions like Decker Lake. These examples highlight the strengths and limitations of surface aeration, subsurface diffused aeration, circulation-based systems, solar-powered technologies, and macrophyte-enhanced ecological restoration. 4.3.1 Surface Aeration Case Studies Surface aeration has long been used in aquaculture and shallow pond management due to its ability to rapidly increase surface dissolved oxygen and generate substantial horizontal circulation. Boyd’s comparative evaluations of mechanical aerators found that paddlewheel systems consistently produced high oxygen-transfer performance, achieving SOTR values of 17.4–23.2 kg O₂ h⁻¹ and SAE values of 2.6–3.0 kg O₂ kW⁻¹ h⁻¹ under controlled pond conditions [8]. These devices create strong surface turbulence, expanding the air–water interface and improving gas exchange. Tanveer et al. reviewed multiple studies and concluded that paddlewheel and spiral aerators are widely used in larger ponds because of their cost-effectiveness, simplicity, and reliable DO enhancement [3]. However, Boyd also noted that surface aerators primarily oxygenate 99 | P a g e the upper portion of the water column, limiting their ability to address oxygen depletion near sediments where nutrient release occurs [8]. 4.3.2 Subsurface Diffused Aeration Case Studies Subsurface diffused aeration is repeatedly identified in the literature as the most effective method for increasing DO throughout the full depth of shallow, eutrophic systems. Wu et al. evaluated bottom microporous diffusers in a vertical-flow constructed wetland and reported substantial water-quality improvements, including 71% COD, 79% nitrogen, and 95% phosphorus removal under intermittent aeration [2]. Although these systems differ from open lakes, the underlying oxygen-transfer mechanism is identical; fine bubbles increase gas-exchange efficiency and promote vertical mixing. Li et al. fieldtested subsurface diffusers in a shallow eutrophic lake and found that the systems maintained stable, uniform DO profiles, reduced sediment resuspension, and limited cyanobacterial dominance [13]. Performance was highest at submergence depths around 0.8 m, which closely matches Decker Lake’s mean depth. Additional engineering evaluations demonstrate that oxygen-transfer capacity is directly proportional to diffuser depth and bottom coverage, emphasizing the importance of placing diffusers near the lakebed to maximize bubble residence time and oxygen absorption [11]. 4.3.3 Circulation and Mixing Case Studies Engineering studies highlight the importance of hydrodynamic mixing for sustaining uniform oxygen distribution in shallow waterbodies. Al-Ahmady’s analysis of hydraulic aeration systems demonstrated that increased water velocity can enhance air entrainment, bubble breakup, and turbulent mixing, improving spatial oxygen distribution even when direct oxygen-transfer efficiency is modest [11]. These circulation-focused systems are valuable for preventing localized stagnation and reducing the risk of anoxic pockets that can contribute to algal growth. Although circulation systems alone do not match the oxygen-transfer performance of fine-bubble diffusers, the case studies show that mixing and destratification are essential supporting processes, especially in shallow lakes where thermal gradients can still create localized low-DO zones. 4.3.4 Macrophyte and Ecological Restoration Case Studies Ecological restoration studies emphasize the role of aquatic vegetation in supporting oxygen dynamics, nutrient uptake, and habitat structure. Caraco et al. found that vascular plants create localized oxygenation zones around their root systems during daylight, enhancing microbial nitrification and reducing sediment nutrient flux [14]. Jiang et al. reported that wetlands with greater macrophyte coverage exhibited higher biodiversity, lower internal phosphorus loading, and improved water quality compared to unvegetated systems [15]. However, both studies note important limitations: DO production is daytime-dependent, varies seasonally, and declines sharply during plant senescence. Vegetation alone cannot maintain target DO concentrations in open-water zones. These findings support using macrophytes as a complementary strategy—ideal 100 | P a g e for shoreline stabilization, nutrient management, and ecological enhancement, but not a sole solution for lake wide oxygenation. 4.3.5 Case Study Takeaways for Decker Lake Across the case studies, several consistent lessons apply directly to Decker Lake. Surface aeration is most effective for shallow zones and visible circulation, but it can struggle to oxygenate deeper water and often has higher noise and visual impacts. Subsurface diffused aeration, especially with fine-pore or microporous diffusers, provides more uniform oxygenation and can effectively address internal nutrient loading, but requires careful attention to compressor siting, maintenance, and energy use. Circulation and mixing systems improve stratification and temperature distribution but generally need to be paired with an aeration component to reliably increase dissolved oxygen. Macrophyte-based approaches offer valuable co-benefits for habitat, shoreline stabilization, and nutrient uptake, yet they are strongly seasonal and cannot consistently sustain lake-wide DO targets on their own. These findings support a hybrid approach at Decker Lake that relies on subsurface diffused aeration as the primary DO control, supplemented by targeted surface mixing and strategic macrophyte planting in shallow littoral zones. 4.4 Project Constraints The following subsections summarize the main factors that limit or influence the aeration design. These constraints help ensure the system is effective, realistic, and appropriate for Decker Lake’s physical and regulatory conditions. 4.4.1 Physical Constraints The lake’s shallow depth and limited water movement may reduce aeration efficiency. Experimental analysis of diffuser performance shows that “oxygen transfer capacity is directly proportional to submergence,” with efficiencies increasing as bubble residence time increases [11]. Therefore, encouraging the location of diffusers near the bottom of Decker Lake to maximize gas-liquid contact and oxygen absorption. Subsurface diffuser performance is strongly depth dependent. Controlled tests found that “oxygen transfer capacity is directly proportional to submergence… increasing the depth of water increases bubble residence time in the tank, resulting in a longer time of bubble-water contact,” and that placing diffusers uniformly across the bottom “increases the detention time of air bubbles and therefore the oxygen absorption” [11]. Laboratory trials with bottom aeration also reported stable DO near the diffuser zone— “the DO concentrations… were the highest at 5.17 mg L⁻¹ due to the joint action of artificial aeration, air diffusion, and oxygen secretion from plant roots”—which indicates that locating diffusers near the lakebed can maintain aerobic sediment conditions and improve vertical oxygen distribution in shallow basins [2]. Field results likewise found subsurface diffusers maintained more stable DO profiles and reduced algal resuspension, with an indicated optimum around ~0.8 m depth under those site conditions [16]. 101 | P a g e Electrical access for compressors or pumps could be restricted depending on park infrastructure. Surface aerators provide limited vertical reach: “When waters are saturated with DO, aerators cease to transfer oxygen. In waters supersaturated with DO, aerators increase the rate at which oxygen passes from water to air” — highlighting both efficacy limits and the potential for oxygen loss under certain conditions. For deep hypolimnetic oxygen deficits, surface devices alone may be insufficient. Laboratory tests of bottom-aeration systems demonstrated stable dissolved-oxygen (DO) concentrations averaging 5.17 mg/L at diffuser depth, attributed to “the joint action of artificial aeration, air diffusion, and oxygen secretion from plant roots” [2]. This indicates that locating diffusers near the lake bottom can maintain aerobic sediment conditions and improve vertical oxygen distribution even in shallow basins. Figure 4.4: Dissolved oxygen concentration across surface, mid-level, and bottom microporous aeration configurations [2]. As shown in Figure 4.4, bottom mounted microporous diffusers produce the most consistent oxygen distribution, maintaining DO levels near 5 mg/L throughout the lower water column. This trend supports the use of bottom diffusers at Decker Lake, where maximizing bubble residence time is critical due to shallow depth and high sediment oxygen demand. Field results from Chinese lake trials found that “subsurface diffusers maintained more stable DO profiles and reduced algal resuspension,” with optimal performance near 0.8 m depth and oxygen utilization efficiency of 93 % [16]. This depth range corresponds closely to Decker Lake’s mean depth, reinforcing the suitability of fine-bubble subsurface systems. Although electrical lines are located near the power district, new conduit or trenching will be needed to reach the areas where aeration units are placed [6]. Any electrical components must be above the flood line and meet Rocky Mountain Power safety standards. The distance to each aerator will affect trenching length and conduit size, which are still unknown until final placement is chosen. Key performance metrics 102 | P a g e are the standard oxygen transfer rate (SOTR) and standard aeration efficiency (SAE). As defined, “SOTR defines the amount of oxygen transfer into the water body per unit time and SAE is the ratio of SOTR to power consumption of shaft” [3]. Typical SAE values for paddlewheel aerators range between 1.5–3.5 lb O₂ hp⁻¹ hr⁻¹ depending on pond size and paddle configuration [4]. 4.4.2 Sustainability Constraints The design will use minimal energy and avoid chemical additives. Solar power is a possible renewable option that could reduce grid use during the summer. West Valley City receives an average of 4.79 peak sunlight hours per day, which is suitable for small solar generation systems [17]. Rocky Mountain Power’s Schedule 137 Net Billing program credits exported solar power at 5.704 cents per kilowatt-hour in summer and 4.199 cents in winter [18]. Because this rate is lower than the cost of purchased electricity, solar power would be most effective if used on-site instead of sending excess power back to the grid. Using solar power would support sustainability goals and lower long-term carbon emissions. Integration of macrophyte-assisted aeration (vascular plants) would further promote nutrient removal and dissolved oxygen levels across Decker Lake without negative environmental impact [14]. 4.4.3 Social Constraints Equipment must be installed in a way that does not interfere with public recreation or create safety hazards for park visitors. Noise levels from compressors will remain low to preserve the park’s natural atmosphere. Community acceptance is key. Residents and city officials must see value in the investment, both environmentally and financially. Public engagement and education about water quality could help ensure long-term support. 4.4.4 Economic Constraints Grid power through Rocky Mountain Power’s Schedule 23 plan would cost roughly $1,000 to $1,100 per year for a 1.5-kilowatt aerator running full time during the active season. That includes a $55 monthly customer charge, a $4.14 per kilowatt demand fee, and an average energy rate of around 10 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour [18]. A 5-kilowatt solar system in West Valley City would produce roughly 7,000 kilowatt-hours per year, about the same amount of energy one aerator would use. Installing that system would cost about $13,000 to $15,000 before incentives, or $9,000 to $10,000 after the 30 percent federal tax credit [19]. Even though the solar setup costs much more up front, it could nearly eliminate yearly power bills, making it more cost-effective over time. If energy costs stay about the same, the solar system will start saving money after 8 to 10 years, which is typical for small solar projects in Utah. The system’s panels would last around 20 to 25 years, so after payback, the rest of its life would produce free energy except for small maintenance costs. Grid power, on the other hand, has a much lower starting cost but requires steady payments every year, which adds up to more than 103 | P a g e $20,000 over two decades. Maintenance for either option should be planned at about 2 to 5 percent of the total cost per year [7]. 4.4.5 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements Installations must meet electrical safety standards (wiring and grounding for in-water float systems) and local in-lake structure permitting. Jensen et al. emphasize the necessity of protecting electrical infrastructure: “many units are electrical, so wiring should be properly protected and installed to avoid any hazards from an electrical shock” [4]. These standards define the practical limits on siting, routing, and equipment choices; the next section details the constraints for Decker Lake. 4.4.6 Stakeholder Interests / Needs Stakeholders include West Valley City Public Works, Utah Division of Water Quality, Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation, residents, and Rocky Mountain Power. Each has priorities for regulatory compliance, habitat improvement, public safety, and cost efficiency. Collaboration among these groups is crucial for successful implementation [6]. 4.5 Design Alternatives Three primary aeration alternatives were developed for Decker Lake based on the literature review and site constraints: (1) propeller or spiral surface mixers that combine surface agitation with induced circulation. (2) subsurface diffused aeration system using bottom-mounted microporous diffusers to increase DO throughout the water column and improve mixing efficiency. (3) macrophyte-assisted aeration through strategic planting of native aquatic vegetation. Each alternative was screened for technical feasibility, dissolved oxygen improvement potential, energy use, constructability, and compatibility with existing park infrastructure. The following subsections describe the configuration, expected performance, and limitations of each alternative and how they relate to the project’s dissolved oxygen targets and triple-bottom-line criteria. 4.5.1 Surface Aeration Surface aeration is a mechanical process that enhances dissolved oxygen (DO) by breaking the surface tension of the water and exposing it to the atmosphere. As Langelier defined, aeration “implies the promotion of chemical equilibrium between the gaseous constituents of water and those of the atmosphere” [20]. The process increases the contact area and turbulence at the air-water interface, accelerating oxygen transfer. As well as thin-film diffusion model described by Lewis and Whitman, where “the rate of absorption is controlled by the thickness of a stationary water film at the interface” [20]. The market offers machines shown in figure 5 that can be used on Decker Lake. 104 | P a g e Figure 4.5: Paddle wheel aerator on the market [21]. For Decker Lake, the shallow depth and limited natural mixing make surface aerators, particularly paddle wheel and propeller-aspirator types an effective choice. These devices produce both vertical and horizontal circulation, reducing surface stagnation and increasing the gas-exchange coefficient. Atkinson found that “gas transfer at the water surface is primarily controlled by turbulent diffusion within a thin liquid boundary layer; increased turbulence from surface mixing devices effectively reduces this film thickness.” Empirical research confirms that paddle wheel aerators achieve some of the highest oxygen transfer efficiencies among surface devices. Boyd reported that “paddle wheel aerators constructed a design by Ahmad and Boyd had the highest SOTR and SAE values,” reaching 17.4–23.2 kg O₂/h and 2.6–3.0 kg O₂ kW⁻¹ h⁻¹ under optimized conditions [8]. Tanveer similarly observed that increasing paddle diameter and rotational speed increases SOTR (standard oxygen transfer rate) but also energy demand, meaning an optimum configuration must balance oxygen input with efficiency [3]. 105 | P a g e Figure 4.6: Paddle Wheel Aerator in action [13]. To target stagnant zones and promoting circulation in the shallow western basin a distributed layout of paddle wheel or spiral-surface mixers along the lake’s long axis would work best. Figure 6 shows the paddle wheel, surface aerator in action. Langelier’s early theoretical framework supports this configuration, noting that effective aeration depends on “(1) temperature of the water, (2) saturation deficit of the gas, (3) area of contact surface, (4) time of contact, and (5) turbulence of water at contact surface” [20]. Among these, surface devices directly influence the latter three parameters, contact area, duration, and turbulence, making them practical for shallow impoundments such as Decker Lake. A system of two to four floating paddle wheel aerators, each powered by 1–2 kW motors, could maintain DO above 5 mg/L in spring-fall months. See Appendix A for calculations. Seasonal removal or winterization is recommended to prevent ice damage, following manufacturer guidance for cold climates [13]. Overall, surface aeration provides a visually effective, low-maintenance, and immediately measurable improvement to water quality and DO levels. 4.5.2 Subsurface Diffused Aeration Subsurface diffused aeration introduces compressed air through a network of fine-pore diffusers positioned along the lake bottom. The system design for Decker Lake consists of a centrally located onshore compressor unit connected by weighted air tubing to microporous disc or linear diffusers spaced uniformly across the basin floor. When air is released, microbubbles rise through the water column, transferring oxygen and creating circulation that reduces stratification. Greater submergence depth and smaller bubble diameter both increase oxygen transfer efficiency, as “oxygen transfer capacity is directly proportional to submergence depth,” and bubble detention time determines oxygen absorption [11]. The system layout will include multiple diffuser clusters spaced approximately every 30–40 meters, ensuring overlapping circulation zones and maintaining bottom DO levels near 5–6 mg/L as achieved in comparable eutrophic lakes [2]. 106 | P a g e Figure 4.7: Schematic of a subsurface aeration system showing compressor, diffuser placement, and bubble rise path [11] Figure 4.7 provides a conceptual visualization of how subsurface aeration operates in practice. As air is released through fine pore diffusers, microbubbles rise through the water column, transferring oxygen and generating vertical circulation. This schematic helps illustrate why deeper diffuser placement increases bubble residence time and improves oxygen transfer efficiency. Implementation of subsurface aeration at Decker Lake faces several design and operational constraints. Physically, the lake’s shallow average depth (~0.8–1.2 m) limits achievable bubble residence time, but this also simplifies installation and maintenance. Studies show optimal oxygen utilization efficiency occurs near 0.8 m submergence, aligning well with site conditions [16]. Electrical power availability is another constraint, compressors must be located near the park’s existing grid connection, with conduit trenched below grade to reach the aeration zones. Seasonal factors are also critical; winter icing can damage tubing and manifolds, requiring seasonal shutdown and purging of airlines. As Wu et al. note, “continuous aeration can improve the removal rate of organic matter and ammonia nitrogen, but high concentration of dissolved oxygen limits the denitrification processes,” suggesting the need for controlled, intermittent operation to balance nitrification and denitrification [2]. Acoustic mitigation and public safety barriers around the compressor station will be necessary to minimize noise and maintain visitor access. 107 | P a g e To maximize energy efficiency and control seasonal operations, the design may incorporate an automated timer or dissolved-oxygen sensor feedback loop that modulates aeration cycles based on real-time DO readings. This adaptive operation aligns with findings from Al-Ahmady [11] that oxygen transfer performance depends on both physical and operational variables—depth, coverage, and airflow rate—making real-time optimization beneficial for shallow lakes like Decker. Subsurface diffused aeration systems have demonstrated strong nutrient removal and oxygenation performance in similar eutrophic conditions. Wu et al. [2] found that bottom microporous aeration improved total nitrogen removal by nearly 80% and sustained bottom DO levels above 5 mg/L. These results suggest that a properly sized diffuser grid at Decker Lake could meet dissolved oxygen targets while simultaneously promoting sediment nutrient stabilization. Quantitatively, bench and plant scale tests reported oxygen transfer capacity (OC) ranging from 18 to 170 g O₂ m⁻³ h⁻¹ and oxygenation efficiency from 2 to 17 g O₂ m⁻³ air, depending primarily on water depth and diffuser coverage ratio [11]. Extending diffuser coverage “across the entire tank bottom” increases bubble detention time and thus oxygen absorption, which is well suited to Decker Lake’s shallow geometry and broad planform [11]. These depth/coverage controls complement the nutrient-removal performance observed under bottom microporous aeration (≈ 71 % COD, ≈ 80 % TN, ≈ 95 % TP) and the sustained near-bed DO (~ 5 mg L⁻¹) reported in controlled systems [2]. Together, they support a diffuser grid placed at maximum feasible submergence with ample footprint coverage to maintain aerobic sediments while allowing anoxic micro zones needed for denitrification. Figure 4.8: Removal efficiencies for COD, total phosphorus under bottom, mid-level, and surface microporous aeration [2]. Figure 4.8 illustrates how bottom microporous aeration consistently outperforms both surface and mid-level aeration across all major pollutant categories. These results reinforce the suitability of a bottom mounted diffuser grid at Decker Lake, especially for addressing internal nutrient loading and suppressing harmful algal blooms. 108 | P a g e 4.5.3 Macrophyte-assisted Aeration Wetland plants mechanical aeration systems. A variety of select submerged and emergent plants such as Vallisneria americana, Potamogeton pectinatus, and Typha latifolia, can enhance dissolved-oxygen (DO) levels through photosynthetic oxygen release and improved nutrient uptake. Macrophyte-assisted aeration also stabilizes sediment, promotes limited water circulation near sensitive sediment, and provides dissolved oxygen to areas often less affected by deep water mechanical systems. Studies show that vascular aquatic plants increase localized DO concentrations and support aerobic microbial activity [14]. Macrophyte-assisted aeration is seasonal and depends on sunlight and temperature. DO generation ceases during nights and winters, and excessive biomass may lead to oxygen depletion from decay or excessive plant respiration [14]. Vegetation-related alternatives may also require management to prove effective. Additionally, water depth, turbidity, and nutrient loads affect vascular aquatic plants and their effectiveness as aerators. Macrophyte-assisted aeration provides ecological co-benefits, including nutrient absorption (improves algae bloom prevention), habitat improvement and shoreline stabilization. However, it cannot by itself sustain the 6-8 mg/L DO target across the lake. Therefore, vascular aquatic plants are best treated as a supplementary measure to increase the DO levels in shoreline areas while relying heavily on mechanical aeration. The combination of mechanical and natural aeration may reduce nutrient cycling and improve long-term water quality [15]. This combination may also serve as an effective way of spreading dissolved oxygen into shallow areas and across the still waters of Decker Lake. 4.5.4 Maintenance Considerations Maintenance requirements differ among aeration technologies and influence long-term cost, operational effort, and system reliability [8]. Surface aerators generally require more frequent hands-on mechanical service, including inspection of motors, floats, bearings, and rotating components, as well as periodic removal of debris and vegetation to maintain mixing efficiency and avoid motor overload [3,4]. In cold climates, manufacturers recommend removing or winterizing surface units prior to ice formation to prevent structural damage and extend service life. Subsurface diffused aeration systems typically have fewer moving parts in direct contact with the water body but require regular compressor maintenance, including filter changes and inspection of belts, electrical components, and pressure levels [21]. Finepore diffusers can experience biofilm growth or mineral scaling over time, which reduces oxygen transfer efficiency and necessitates periodic cleaning or replacement [2,21]. Routine checks for airline leaks and periodic system pressure evaluations help ensure uniform air distribution and maintain consistent dissolved oxygen performance across the diffuser grid [21,13]. 109 | P a g e 4.5.5 Conceptual Hybrid System Layout Drawing on the strengths of the individual alternatives described above, a hybrid aeration configuration was developed as the basis for further evaluation. The concept combines subsurface diffused aeration as the primary dissolved oxygen control technology with supplemental surface mixing and macrophyte planting in shallow littoral zones. This hybrid layout reflects the physical constraints and stakeholder priorities discussed in Section 4.4 and serves as the specific alternative scored in the TBL assessment (Section 4.6). Figure 4.9: Conceptual layout of the proposed hybrid aeration system at Decker Lake, showing approximate locations of four subsurface diffused aeration stations (red X), three surface mixing units (green X), and the onshore power/control cabinet (red polygon) on a Google Earth base image [22]. The subsurface component consists of four diffuser stations distributed across the main basin of Decker Lake. Each station comprises bottom-mounted fine-bubble diffusers supplied by airlines from a shared onshore compressor cabinet. The stations are spaced to create overlapping circulation cells and to maintain near-bed dissolved oxygen concentrations of approximately 5–6 mg/L over most of the lake during the open-water season. Weighted airlines follow the lake bottom to minimize visual impacts and interference with boating and fishing. Three surface units provide targeted mixing and reaeration. These units are located in the shallow reaches of the lake and at one central location along the long axis, where circulation is poorest, and surface scums are most likely to form. Operated at relatively low horsepower, the surface mixers are sized to break up stagnation, enhance gas 110 | P a g e exchange, and provide a visible indication of active management without creating excessive noise or spray. All mechanical equipment is supplied from a single cabinet located on the park side of the lake near existing electrical service and set back from the shoreline to reduce flood and vandalism risk. The cabinet houses the air compressor, electrical panels, and controls, with power delivered via buried conduit. From the cabinet, airlines transition from buried conduit at the shoreline to weighted tubing in the lake. This layout limits the length of new electrical runs, keeps equipment accessible for maintenance, and maintains public safety while still providing good coverage of the lake. 4.6 Comparison of Alternatives We evaluated the proposed Decker Lake aeration solution using the instructor’s TBL framework. Each alternative was scored by the project team on a scale from 1 (least favorable) to 7 (most favorable), with 0 used only to abstain when information was insufficient. For each column, the Final Score represents the average of all non-zero scores. The row criteria were tailored to this project. Under People, the criteria evaluate public health and safety, recreation and water usability, stakeholder and community support, and aesthetics, noise, and odor impacts. Planet criteria focus on watershed and ecosystem improvement, aquatic and shoreline biodiversity, climate resilience and winter performance, and the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the system. Profit criteria encompass capital cost and cost–benefit analysis, construction design life and adaptability, local economic benefits such as recreation and tourism, as well as the cost and complexity of long-term operations and maintenance. The completed TBL matrix (Table 4.2) summarizes how the preferred hybrid aeration concept performs across these social (People), environmental (Planet), and economic (Profit) criteria. Table 4.2: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Proposed Solutions People Planet Profit Public Health & Safety 5.75 Watershed / Ecosystem Improvement 5.50 Capital Cost & Cost–Benefit 5.25 Recreation, Water Usability & Access 5.50 Aquatic & Shoreline Biodiversity 5.00 Construction Design Life & Adaptability 5.50 Stakeholder Input & Community Support 5.00 Climate Resilience & Winter Performance 4.50 Local Economic Benefits (Recreation/Tourism) 4.50 Aesthetics, Noise, and Odor Impacts 5.75 Energy Use & Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.75 Operations & Maintenance Cost / Complexity 4.75 Final Score Final Score Final Score 5.50 4.94 5.00 111 | P a g e The triple bottom line evaluation highlights the overall strength of the proposed hybrid aeration approach in addressing ecological, social, and economic objectives for Decker Lake. The People category received the highest average score (5.50), reflecting the project’s substantial benefits to public health, recreation, and community experience. By improving dissolved oxygen levels and reducing the frequency of algal blooms and odors, the system enhances the usability of the lake for walking, fishing, birdwatching, and general park enjoyment. The low-noise and lowprofile design of diffused aeration systems, combined with attention to aesthetics and odor control, supports equitable access and aligns with community expectations for a discreet restoration strategy. The Planet score (4.94) indicates strong but slightly moderated environmental benefits. Subsurface diffused aeration directly improves habitat quality, stabilizes dissolved oxygen concentrations, and reduces internal nutrient loading, which are key drivers of eutrophication. Supplemental macrophyte planting enhances shoreline habitat and biodiversity while providing natural nutrient uptake. However, some environmental constraints, such as the lake’s shallow depth, the potential for limited winter performance, and ongoing energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions from mechanical aeration, tempered the overall score. These factors are important considerations, but do not outweigh the substantial ecological improvements anticipated from the hybrid system. The Profit dimension scored 5.00, signaling favorable long-term economic feasibility. A gridpowered system offers predictable operating costs and minimal infrastructure complexity, while the potential for phased solar integration provides a pathway to future cost savings and reduced carbon footprint. The recommended design minimizes capital costs by leveraging existing electrical infrastructure and avoiding the need for extensive dredging or large-scale construction. At the same time, the selected configuration maintains manageable operations and maintenance requirements for city staff. Additionally, improved water quality may generate indirect economic benefits through increased recreational use, community satisfaction, and reduced maintenance demands on the city. Taken together, the TBL results support the selection of a hybrid aeration system that combines subsurface diffused aeration, targeted surface mixing, and strategic vegetation management. This approach demonstrates balanced, well-rounded performance across social, environmental, and economic criteria, reinforcing its suitability as a sustainable and community-supported restoration strategy for Decker Lake. 4.7 Recommendations To restore water quality and ecological balance in Decker Lake, this study recommends implementing a hybrid aeration strategy that prioritizes subsurface diffused aeration and is supplemented by targeted surface mixing and strategic macrophyte planting. Subsurface diffused aeration provides the most reliable and energy-efficient method for increasing dissolved oxygen (DO) throughout the water column and at the sediment–water interface, where internal nutrient release and sediment oxygen demand are most pronounced. Results from comparable eutrophic systems demonstrate that bottom-mounted microporous diffusers can consistently maintain DO levels near 5 mg/L while achieving significant reductions in 112 | P a g e phosphorus, nitrogen, and organic matter, validating their suitability as the core of the proposed aeration system for Decker Lake. Surface aeration should be incorporated in a limited but purposeful manner to improve circulation in areas prone to stagnation and enhance reaeration near the surface. These units also provide visible cues of active management, which can improve public perception and build community support for long-term restoration efforts. A grid-powered system is recommended for initial deployment because it offers dependable operation, straightforward construction, and predictable maintenance requirements. As funding and incentives permit, a phased integration of solar energy may be pursued to offset a portion of the system’s energy demand, reduce longterm operating costs, and further align the project with sustainability objectives. Beyond mechanical aeration, complementary macrophyte planting in the lake’s shallow littoral zones will strengthen ecological resilience by naturally absorbing nutrients, oxygenating the immediate root zone, stabilizing exposed sediments, and improving shoreline habitat. Native vegetation enhances water clarity, supports aquatic biodiversity, and provides a passive, lowenergy mechanism to reinforce the effects of artificial aeration. Coordinated together, these mechanical and ecological interventions create a flexible, scalable strategy capable of addressing both immediate DO deficiencies and long-term nutrient challenges. Overall, the recommended hybrid approach supports a balanced, self-sustaining aquatic system that improves water quality, enhances ecological function, and maintains recreational and aesthetic value for the surrounding community. This integrated design reflects the lake’s physical constraints, stakeholder priorities, and the operational realities of urban waterbody management, offering a clear and achievable pathway toward long-term restoration. 4.8 References [1] AI-generated illustration of Decker Lake surface and subsurface aeration system, created with OpenAI DALL·E, Nov. 13, 2025. [2] Q. Wu et al., “Microporous intermittent aeration vertical flow constructed wetlands for eutrophic water improvement,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, vol. 27, no. 14, pp. 16574–16583, 2020. [3] M. Tanveer, S. M. Roy, M. Vikneswaran, P. Renganathan, and S. Balasubramanian, “Surface aeration systems for application in aquaculture: A review,” International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 342–347, 2018. [4] G. L. Jensen, J. D. Bankston, and J. W. Jensen, “Pond Aeration: Types and Uses of Aeration Equipment,” Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication SRAC-371, Oklahoma State University Extension, (publication excerpt), 2000. [5] “Decker Lake Park – 34,” West Valley City. [Online]. Available: https://www.wvcut.gov/facilities/facility/details/Decker-Lake-Park-34. Accessed: Dec. 07, 2025. 113 | P a g e [6] Rocky Mountain Power, "Power District Redevelopment and Grid Infrastructure," Salt Lake City, UT, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.rockymountainpower.net/ [7] M. F. A. Rahman, M. N. A. Shah, and M. A. I. M. Halim, "Effects of Aeration System to Water Quality," Borneo Engineering & Advanced Multidisciplinary International Journal (BEAM), vol. 2, Special Issue (TECHON 2023), pp. 75–79, Sept. 2023. [8] C. E. Boyd, “Pond water aeration systems,” Aquacultural Engineering, vol. 18, pp. 9–40, 1998. [9] A. Aytac, G. T. Kelestemur, and M. C. Tuna, “An Effective Aeration System for High Performance Pond Aeration at Low Energy Cost.” Aquaculture international 32.5: 6869–6886. Print, 2024. [10] CWS Environmental Clean Water Service, Inc., “Aerators & Aeration Systems – For Ponds & Lakes,” Bowling Green, OH, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://cwsenvironmental.com/aerationsystems. Accessed: Oct. 30, 2025. [11] K. K. Al-Ahmady, "Analysis of Oxygen Transfer Performance on Sub-surface Aeration Systems," Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 301-308, 2006. [12] WaterSmith Systems, “Decorative Pond Fountains & Aerators – Types of Aeration,” Freshwater Farms of Ohio, Urbana, OH, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://fwfarms.com/watersmith/decorative-pond-fountains-aerators/?srsltid=AfmBOopmmjsfTIgYDknF5u5lr7qlyhwgOjjz5fG0cSoqMZgXB69Dn-o. Accessed: Oct. 30, 2025. [13] Otterbine Barebo Inc., “Winter Storage for Aerators & Fountains,” Otterbine Resource Center, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.otterbine.com/resource-center/articles-andpress/winter-storage-for-aerators-fountains/ [14] N. Caraco, J. Cole, S. Findlay, C. Wigand, Vascular Plants as Engineers of Oxygen in Aquatic Systems, BioScience, Volume 56, Issue 3, March 2006, Pages 219–225, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0219:VPAEOO]2.0.CO;2 [15] H. Jiang et al., “Effects of Aquatic Plant Coverage on Diversity and Water Quality in Constructed Wetlands,” Water, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2024. [16] Z. Li et al., "Eutrophic Water Improvement through Subsurface Aeration," Chinese J. Environ. Eng., vol. 12, pp. 2145-2154, 2019. [17] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), "PVWatts Calculator Results for West Valley City, Utah," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov. 114 | P a g e [18] Rocky Mountain Power, "Electric Service Schedules 23 and 137 – Utah," RMP Tariff Book, Salt Lake City, UT, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.rockymountainpower.net/rates. [19] EnergySage, “Utah Solar Panel Cost: 2025 Prices and Savings,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.energysage.com/local-data/solar-panel-cost/ut/. [20] W. F. Langelier, “The Theory and Practice of Aeration,” Journal (American Water Works Association), vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 62–72, 1932. [21] Environmental-Expert, “Two-Impeller Paddle Wheel Aerator – Product / Pricing Info,” [Online]. Available: https://www.environmental-expert.com/products/two-impeller-paddlewheel-aerator-675415. Accessed: Oct. 30, 2025. [22] Google Earth, Decker Lake, West Valley City, Utah [Map image], Google, 2025. Available: https://earth.google.com/web/search/Decker+Lake,+West+Valley+City,+Utah/. 115 | P a g e Chapter 5 Preserving Decker Lake: Assessing Pollution Sources & Sustainable Mitigation Strategies Luke Aland, Rhys Staples, Ryan Sprowls, and Nathan Bonvallet Executive Summary This chapter examines research on the sediment accumulation and water quality challenges facing Decker Lake, an urban ecosystem and community resource in West Valley City, UT. Over time, sediment buildup from stormwater inflows and highway runoff has reduced lake depth, altered habitat structure, and concentrated pollutants in the water. These conditions add to nutrient cycling and create environments favorable to harmful algal blooms along with additional stressors such as scattered trash and nutrient loading from bird populations. This study begins with a literature review on sedimentation in urban lakes and associated pollution mitigation strategies including Storm Tec drainage systems, sediment forebays, and sump systems. These mitigation measures are then evaluated through a triple bottom line assessment to balance ecological, social, and economic considerations. The research aims to identify the most effective and sustainable strategies for preserving the environmental and community benefits provided by Decker Lake. To refine this investigation, the study focuses on the network of inlets and canals feeding Decker Lake, which serve as the primary conduits for sediment and urban runoff. By concentrating on these inflows, the research isolates external sediment and pollutant sources independent of the bird-related nutrient loading that occurs within the lake itself. Using existing water quality and sediment data, environmental reports, and prior hydrological assessments, the study analyzes the types, sources, and concentrations of materials entering the lake and evaluates how surrounding land use and infrastructure influence these inputs. Building on this analysis, the chapter identifies and assesses inlet-based mitigation options capable of improving inflow quality before pollutants reach the lake. Potential interventions such as a two-part filtration and dredging system, an advanced drainage systems infiltration basin with stormwater redirection, and an inflow sediment sump system will be reviewed for feasibility, maintenance needs, and community impact through a triple bottom line lens. The ultimate goal is to recommend adaptable, data-driven strategies that improve water quality, protect wildlife and public health, and promote the long- term restoration of Decker Lake. Keywords: Ecological restoration, nutrient loading, stormwater inlets, sustainable infrastructure, urban runoff, and water quality 116 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of Study 5.1.2 Site Description 5.2 Project Constraints 5.2.1 Basis of Design 5.2.1a Statement of Needs 5.2.1b Guiding Principles 5.2.1c Performance Requirements 5.2.1d Key Assumptions or Unknowns 5.2.1e Understanding of Relevant Engineering and Scientific Studies 5.2.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements 5.2.3 Constraints 5.2.3a Physical Constraints 5.2.3b Sustainability Constraints 5.2.3c Social Constraints 5.2.3d Community Constraints 5.2.3e Economic Constraints 5.2.4 Stakeholder Interests/Needs 5.3 Development of Alternatives 5.3.1 Strategy for Identifying Alternatives 5.3.2 Basis of Decision Making 5.4 Design Alternatives 5.4.1 Alternative 1: Two-Part Filtration and Dredging System 5.4.1a Design Description & Concept Drawing 5.4.1b Constraints 5.4.1c Alternative Evaluation 5.4.1d Budget & Attendant Costs of Alternative 1 5.4.2 Alternative 2: An Inlet Forebay 5.4.2a Design Description & Concept Drawing 5.4.2b Constraints 5.4.2c Forebay Maintenance 5.4.2d Alternative Evaluation 5.4.2e Budget & Attendant Costs of Alternative 2 5.4.3 Alternative 3: A Simple Sump System 5.4.3a Design Description & Reference Base Design 5.4.3b Hydraulic & Sediment Behavior 5.4.3c Performance Expectations 117 | P a g e 5.4.3d Maintenance 5.4.3e Constraints 5.4.3f Alternative Evaluation 5.4.3g Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 3 5.5 Grant Funding Opportunities 5.6 Comparison of Alternatives & TBL Analysis 5.6.1 Rating Criteria 5.7 Recommendations 5.7.1 Reason for Recommendations 5.7.2 Benefits and Future Actions 5.8 References List of Figures Figure 5.1 R. Staples, “Decker Lake near Kearns-Chesterfield inflow”. Figure 5.2 Proportion of metals content in soil near highway station R2. Figure 5.3 Image of Decker Lake and location of Kearns-Chester Drain. Figure 5.4 Typical Sediment Forebay Plan and Section Figure 5.5 Schematic diagram of a main canal sediment sump Figure 5.6 Location of proposed sump at Decker Lake Figure 5.7 General layout of straight-through standard sump configuration Figure 5.8 Velocity vector profiles in the center plane of a deep sump; inflow velocity is 0.85 m/s (68 L/s, no short-circuiting) from right to left, invert of the inflow pipe is at 1.2 m elevation for the 1.2 m diameter sump Figure 5.9 Sediment deposition (removal efficiency) results obtained at low discharges; legend gives sump size (diameter × depth) in meters and sediment particle size in μm (last three digits) List of Tables Table 5.1 Estimated Cost and Maintenance Breakdown of Alternative 1 Table 5.2 Estimated Cost and Maintenance Breakdown of Alternative 2: Inlet Forebay Table 5.3 Construction Costs of Alternative 3: Sediment Sump System Table 5.4 Maintenance Costs Table 5.5 Alternative 1 TBL Analysis Table 5.6Alternative 2 TBL Analysis Table 5.7 Alternative 3 TBL Analysis 118 | P a g e 5.1 Introduction Decker Lake, located in the urban core of West Valley City, UT, serves as a vital ecological and recreational resource for the surrounding community. The lake provides habitat for more than 180 bird species [2] and supports year-round public use through its trails, picnic areas, and open space. However, the system faces increasing stress from sediment accumulation that threatens both its ecological integrity and community value. Over time, sediment inflows from the surrounding developed landscape have gradually filled portions of the lake, reducing effective storage capacity and altering the lake’s biology. These processes have led to a measurable decrease in average water depth, smothering of sub-surface habitat, and reduced light penetration. As water clarity declines, submerged vegetation becomes less abundant, disrupting habitat for wetlands and diminishing the overall ecological function of the lake. These changes also affect recreation as potential recreational activities such as angling, boating, and wildlife observation all depend on maintaining sufficient depth and water quality. Addressing sediment buildup is therefore essential to preserving both the environmental and social benefits Decker Lake provides to West Valley City. Sediment loading now represents one of the most pressing water quality challenges for Decker Lake and other urban lakes across the Wasatch Front. Runoff from the adjacent I-215 highway, commercial corridors, and residential neighborhoods conveys large quantities of suspended solids, organic matter, and associated pollutants, including phosphorus, nitrogen, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons into the lake. These materials are transported primarily through a network of engineered inlets, storm drains, and canals that collect and channel runoff during precipitation events. Once deposited, these sediments settle and accumulate near inflow zones, creating shallow deltas that accelerate infilling. Beyond physical impacts to the depth of the lake, sediment acts as both a carrier and reservoir for contaminants, releasing nutrients and metals back into the water column under changing temperature and oxygen conditions. This cycling contributes to turbidity, internal nutrient loading, and conditions conducive to algal blooms. By concentrating on these inflow pathways, this research isolates the dominant external sources of sediment inflow, allowing for a further assessment of upstream management and mitigation strategies. The study integrates hydrological data, prior environmental reports, and existing monitoring records to analyze sediment inputs and evaluate their relationship to surrounding land use and infrastructure. Through this analysis, the project seeks to identify feasible interventions such as improved stormwater detention, vegetative buffer design, and sediment forebays that can intercept solids before they enter the lake. In doing so, this research provides a foundation for long-term sediment management that supports both ecological restoration and community access to a clean, sustainable urban lake. 5.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of Study Building on the goal of improving Decker Lake’s ecological and recreational function, this chapter evaluates practical alternatives to reduce sediment accumulation and the longterm impacts of external sediment loading. The primary objective is to identify which management strategies most effectively intercept and remove sediment entering from 119 | P a g e the Kearns-Chester Canal system, Decker Lake’s dominant inflow source. By comparing the performance, feasibility, and sustainability of three sediment-control approaches-a two-part filtration and dredging system, a forebay diversion basin, and a sump capture system-this study aims to determine which design best minimizes sedimentation while maintaining ecological integrity and recreational value. In addition to site-specific recommendations, the study provides a framework for evaluating sediment mitigation options applicable to other urban lakes across Utah’s Wasatch Front. Each alternative is analyzed through a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) lens to evaluate environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Environmentally, alternatives are judged on their ability to reduce turbidity, restore water depth, and prevent nutrient rerelease from deposited sediments. Socially, the study considers impacts on public use, maintenance requirements, and long-term system reliability. Economically, emphasis is placed on long-term maintenance and life-cycle costs relative to large-scale dredging. Through this integrated analysis, the project identifies strategies that are both technically viable and publicly beneficial. While the objectives of this research are comprehensive, several limitations constrain the scope of analysis. Sediment transport dynamics are inherently variable, and available data on inflow sediment concentrations, particle size distribution, and seasonal loading rely on existing studies and modeled estimates. Field verification through extended sampling was not possible within the semester timeframe. The study also uses generalized cost data and published performance metrics rather than sitespecific testing. Budgetary and equipment constraints prevent laboratory testing or physical modeling of the proposed designs. In addition, feasibility is influenced by land availability near inflow channels, percolation rates, and hydraulic capacity during highflow events, all of which introduce uncertainty to projected performance. As a result, while the study provides a comparative evaluation and conceptual designs, implementation would require further field studies, geotechnical testing, and detailed engineering analysis before construction. 5.1.2 Site Description Decker Lake is a small, shallow freshwater lake in West Valley City, Utah, located next to the I-215 Belt Route within a highly developed urban area where stormwater and runoff from surrounding neighborhoods and roads contribute to the lake’s poor water quality. Decker Lake is also fed by two irrigation canals which ultimately empty into the Jordan River [3], which drains into the Great Salt Lake. This connects the lake to a larger watershed and increases the chance that harmful nutrients and pollutants are transferring into the lake’s surrounding surfaces. The area around the lake provides both recreational and ecological services; described by Nature and Human Health Utah, Decker Lake is a 52-acre urban park that contains several grassy areas and small hills, a walking path around a large pond with bushes, 120 | P a g e reeds, and trees [3]. These wetlands and vegetated shorelines provide habitat for birds and other wildlife, while also helping filter some pollutants before they enter the water. The lake's location makes it susceptible to contamination; for example, the Outdoor Project notes that the lake is unfortunately located right beside Interstate I-215 [4], exposing it to runoff from vehicles and surrounding surfaces. Overall, it is shown that Decker Lake acts as an important natural space in an urban setting that supports wildlife and recreation; however, the lake still faces phosphorus issues that threaten the water's health and quality. Based on data presented by Salt Lake County Flood Control [5], four primary inlet locations deliver water to Decker Lake, with the two on the western side of the lake contributing to the majority of the inflow. The Kearns-Chesterfield Drain, located on the west side, provides the highest flow and sediment load, largely produced by stormwater highway runoff. We can see an example of sediment found in Seven Mile Creek Basin, a Rural Area in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina, July 1981 to July 1982 due to highway runoff in the figure below. Figure 5.2: Proportion of metals content in soil near highway station R2. This inflow is the focus of the current study due to its strong influence on turbidity, phosphorus accumulation, and long-term lake depth reduction. While the drain can be partially diverted for treatment, a portion of the flow must continue downstream to satisfy existing water rights for nearby forested areas. 121 | P a g e 5.2 Project Constraints Any effort to improve Decker Lake’s water quality must account for several physical, environmental, social, and economic limits such as the lake’s small size, shallow depth, and urban surroundings which makes new construction or large-scale treatments difficult. Seasonal freezing, limited budgets, and coordination with multiple agencies also restrict what can realistically be done. All future designs must stay within environmental laws, community expectations, and available maintenance capacity. The focus is on sustainable improvements that can last long term and be supported by local resources. Current water conditions present additional challenges. According to Salt Lake County Flood Control [5], the Kearns Chesterfield Drain delivers and estimated 8 cubic feet per second (CFS) during low flow periods, and up to 610 cfs during high spring runoff, making it the dominant inflow and sediment source to Decker Lake. The smaller inflow challenge at the southwest side near Interstate-215 contributes approximately 1.5 cfs in dry months and up to 250 cfs in peak flow conditions. This wide variability in inflow rates constrains treatment system design, as diversion or filtration systems must withstand extreme runoff effects while remaining effective under low baseflow conditions. The Kearns Chesterfield Drain must maintain a portion of flow eastward to meet downstream water rights and plant demands, limiting allowable diversion for treatment to roughly 50% of total inflow. Additionally, coordination among Salt Lake County Flood Control, West Valley City, and Utah Division of Water Quality is required for permitting, maintenance agreements, and compliance with stormwater and wetland regulations. 5.2.1 Basis of Design This section outlines what the project needs to achieve, the main ideas guiding its development, and the limits and assumptions shaping the early design decisions. It explains how the proposed inlet-based solutions for Decker Lake are designed to work within the site’s unique physical and environmental conditions, including variable inflow rates that range from about 8 CFS in dry months to over 600 cfs during spring runoff [5]. The basis of design also defines the standards for performance, feasibility, and sustainability that each alternative will be measured against determining the most effective and realistic option for improving water quality at Decker Lake. 5.2.1a Statement of Needs Decker Lake continues to face water quality issues caused by high sediment and phosphorus loading from stormwater inflows, particularly from the KearnsChesterfield Drain. This project seeks to identify the primary sources contributing to these pollutants, evaluate possible inlet-based treatment options, and recommend approaches that are environmentally friendly, cost effective, and realistic for the lake’s limited space, variable inflow conditions, and available maintenance resources. 122 | P a g e 5.2.1b Guiding Principles The design and research efforts for this project are guided by principles of sustainability, feasibility, adaptability, community support, and compliance. Sustainability means balancing environmental health, community benefit, and economic practicality so that any improvement can be sustained over time without excessive maintenance demands. Feasibility emphasizes designing within the physical limits of Decker Lake, its small size, shallow depth, and restricted shoreline, while staying realistic about budget and available resources. Adaptability encourages flexible solutions that can be built in phases or modified as future data and funding become available. Community support remains key, ensuring that water quality improvements preserve recreational access, aesthetic value, and neighborhood expectations. Finally, all proposed design solutions must comply with local, state and federal environmental and safety regulations, meeting professional standards while protecting the ecology and social integrity of Decker Lake. 5.2.1c Performance Requirements All proposed design options must measurably improve water quality by reducing sediment and nutrient loading before inflows reach Decker Lake. Each alternative should fit within the lake’s current flow patterns and available shoreline space, accounting for variable inflow rates. Designs must avoid harm to wildlife or recreational use and should complement existing wetlands and vegetated shorelines rather than replace them. To ensure long term success, any proposed system must be practical to operate and maintain using local labor and equipment, with maintenance intervals appropriate for city or county resources. Finally, all options are required to comply with local state, federal environmental standards, and stormwater regulations, ensuring both ecological protection and public safety. 5.2.1d Key Assumptions or Unknowns At this stage of the project, several assumptions and uncertainties remain. Current water quality data are assumed to accurately represent typical conditions in Decker Lake, even though continuous monitoring has not been conducted. It is also assumed that urban runoff alone is not the primary source of phosphorus loading, as internal nutrient cycling and waterfowl activity may play a significant role. Seasonal freezing and changing flow patterns are expected to influence treatment performance, particularly during spring runoff and winter low flow periods. Finally, long-term funding sources and maintenance responsibilities for any future treatment system have not been established, introducing uncertainty to the feasibility of potential improvements. 123 | P a g e 5.2.1e Understanding of Relevant Engineering and Scientific Studies Previous research on urban lake restoration has consistently identified suspended sediment and nutrient loading as the primary drivers of degraded water quality in shallow lakes like Decker Lake [7]. Engineering studies show that controlling pollutants at their point of entry through inlet filtration, flow diversion or sediment capture, is often more effective and cost efficient than treating contamination after it has entered the main body of water [8]. Previous projects in similar urban watersheds demonstrate that systems combining physical filtration, dewatering of soils, and periodic dredging can substantially reduce turbidity and internal nutrient recycling when properly maintained [9]. 5.2.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements Before any ideas or suggestions are put into action, appropriate permits need to be obtained and approved as well as a wide range of standards that need to be met and followed. Any design or application of filtration systems at Decker Lake must meet and follow local, state, and federal law and standards. By following these standards, we ensure safety, longevity of implemented systems, environmental compliance, and success. From local community standards to federal standards, this chapter suggests guidelines that limit and control what specific infrastructure is used, permits required, and how it should be maintained. 5.2.3 Constraints Designing effective water-quality improvements for Decker Lake requires balancing a wide range of physical, sustainability, social, community, and economic constraints. The lake’s shallow size, limited flow periods, and active bird population complicate how different systems function on site. At the same time, long-term sustainability demands attention to lifecycle costs, energy use, and waste management. Social and community factors, including land and water rights, public safety expectations, aesthetics, and neighborhood impacts, also shape what is realistically workable. Budget limits, funding availability, and long-term maintenance needs ultimately determine which alternatives are financially feasible for implementation. 5.2.3a Physical Constraints Decker Lake’s footprint and location necessitate its own set of constraints for water quality interventions. Due to seasonal changes, the inflow and outflow canals are only operational for about half the year. With one outflow and three inflow channels, tracking down where eutrophic water enters the lake is challenging. Due to the lake's small area, shallow depth, and relatively large perimeter, problems with some systems could arise and further limit possible solutions. There is also a broad population of bird species that adds to the phosphorus abundance that cannot be relocated. 124 | P a g e 5.2.3b Sustainability Constraints Sustainable implementation requires that an alternative meets lifecycle needs, operational limits, as well as environmental thresholds. Options with short lifecycles and high costs of operations and maintenance are deprioritized as they will increase the total cost and be unsustainable. Lifecycle costs, including energy use, must fit within the annual budget. Energy use is limited to a system that can run efficiently without a large demand for energy, which will help keep the annual costs down. Minimizing the carbon footprint and overall environmental impact is a favored quality in an alternative. Finally, waste byproducts like sludge, spent media, and residuals must have a safe way for disposal limiting contamination of the water and nearby sources. [10] 5.2.3c Social Constraints Boundaries on feasible actions are set by social conditions; land rights govern the shoreline, staging, and in-lake structures that can be implemented in the area. Working with land rights requires permits, negotiation, and possible redesign. Water rights govern diversion or water, storage, and discharge under prior appropriation rules. Treatment options that require altering or holding water flow must conform to senior allocations and the existing decrees. Seasonal work windows, timelines, and management practices will be influenced and decided by the required permits needed for the project. Public safety requirements cover geometry, signage, fencing, and public interface with units, which could result in cost increases. Higher risk alternatives are limited by liability and insurance requirements. The warranty will require certain operations and maintenance schedules to be implemented after installation. 5.2.3d Community Constraints Community focused implementation requires that an alternative aligns with the neighborhood expectations for appearance, accessibility, and usability. Visual design should complement the surrounding landscapes and public spaces, ensuring that inlet structures or treatment systems are not obtrusive or an eyesore. Noise and odor must be minimized to prevent disturbance to nearby residents, businesses, and recreational users. Construction activities should limit impacts on local traffic patterns, parking availability, and pedestrian access, with clear communication to residents about schedules and closures. Project timelines should be reasonable to avoid prolonged disruption while still allowing for quality installation and testing. Finally, equity considerations are key; mitigation measures must provide benefits to all members of the community without burdening specific neighborhoods or user groups. 5.2.3e Economic Constraints Economic feasibility requires that proposed alternatives remain within available budgets while ensuring cost-effectiveness over the system's lifetime. Budget 125 | P a g e limitations will help us select materials, construction methods, and technologies to prevent exceeding costs and ensure that the project can be implemented without any additional financial burden on the city or local stakeholders. Funding availability, whether through municipal sources, grants, or partnerships, will determine the project’s scale and timeline. Procurement processes must prioritize competitive pricing, transparency, and compliance with public purchasing standards to ensure efficient use of resources. Long term expenses, including warranty coverage, maintenance, and replacement costs, must be evaluated to prevent unexpected financial burdens and to support the continued operation of the mitigation system. 5.2.4 Stakeholder Interests/Needs A large part of determining the success of this project depends on how clearly and effectively the outcome and results meet the needs and interests of everyone affected. The main stakeholders include government and regulatory agencies, residents and recreational groups, and nearby industries and businesses. Each of these stakeholders plays a unique role in maintaining the health of the environment/lake as well as ensuring that the improvement of ideas benefits the community. Government and regulatory agencies such as West Valley City government, Salt Lake County Flood Control and Stormwater Management, Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Utah Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have priority in control and say over local water management and environmental compliance. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also plays a key role as a stakeholder because they enforce the Clean Water Act and other practices. All these stakeholders are focused on maintaining safety, reducing pollution, and making sure that any proposed solutions meet general water quality standards. The local community and residents of West Valley City play a strong role in the determination of what is best for Decker Lake as a place for area residents to recreate and enjoy. West Valley City residents view and value this lake as it serves as a green space to improve mental and physical well-being. These West Valley City community members have expressed a strong concern and interest in solutions to improve water quality and park accessibility and recreational use as well as wildlife preservation. [3] Business and industrial stakeholders include nearby companies, engineering contractors, and recreational groups who are dedicated to the upkeep of the park's appearance and usage. They are also passionate about ensuring that any restoration made to the park supports environmental and economic sustainability. Improving park appearance and water quality as well as wildlife and habitat vitality can attract more visitors, increase property value, and overall improve collaboration from all relevant parties. “Healthy watersheds contribute to local economies by supporting recreation, 126 | P a g e tourism, and quality of life in surrounding communities. Nutrient pollution remains one of America’s most widespread, costly, and challenging environmental problems [11].” 5.3 Development of Alternatives With water turbidity being a prevalent problem for Decker Lake, solutions need to be derived from the root of the issue. Experiencing both an abundant bird population as well as inlets from four canals that a fed with stormwater runoff, the problem has multiple causes. Looking at the stormwater runoff to be the focus for the solution, finding ways to clean the water coming into the lake is imperative. 5.3.1 Strategy for Identifying Alternatives The process of selecting an alternative solution will implement constraints, effectiveness, and feasibility of the solution. Examining all sections of the constraints to choose three relevant solutions will be heavily influenced by sustainability, social, and physical constraints first, then analyzing community and economic constraints to further refine the options. This strategy will help streamline research efficiently by finding the most obvious disqualifications before deeper research is needed. Cost, lifecycle, appearance, and size will be more defining to compare alternatives when choosing the option better fit for Decker Lake. 5.3.2 Basis of Decision Making Choosing the best alternative requires thorough research into what will be the best fit for Decker Lake. This will not necessarily be the one that is the most effective at cleaning the water or the best looking and sustainable option, but likely one that is a good middle ground. Knowing we are addressing the inlets at Decker Lake, it will need to fit the canal exit. Figure 5.3: Image of Decker Lake and location of Kearns-Chester Drain. 127 | P a g e 5.4 Design Alternatives To address the issue of sediment accumulation in Decker Lake, three alternatives have been developed as plausible solutions. These solutions include an underground storm system, and another is a forebay which both include dredging the lake to a decided depth. The last alternative adds a sump into the canal ahead of the inlet from the Kearns-Chesterfield Canal to reduce large debris and sediment from entering the lake. All these solutions will be mainly focused on the west end of decker lake where the canal runs under the highway. This is the inflow with the highest average cubic feet per second and the largest sediment deposits by a large margin. 5.4.1 Alternative 1: Two-Part Filtration and Dredging System Alternative 1 proposes an integrated sediment-control system combining a surfaceskimming filtration structure and a follow-up dredging phase. The system targets the Kearns-Chester inflow, Decker Lake’s largest and most sediment loaded source. 5.4.1a Design Description & Concept Drawing To start, the filtration unit will be implemented to separate and divert sedimentfree water from the canal surface flow directly back into Decker Lake while routing the sediment-rich lower flow to a dedicated treatment basin. Within the basin, stormwater will be dewatered and fine sediments collected in geotextile storage bags for temporary containment and drying. Once separated, the clarified water will be infiltrated through a subsurface Advanced Drainage System (ADS) at a location determined by percolation test results. Regular maintenance, including basin inspection, sediment removal, and geobag replacement, will occur every 3-5 years to maintain capture efficiency. After installation of the filtration and storage system, the lake will be mechanically dredged to an average depth of ~9 ft, restoring capacity, improving oxygen circulation, and supporting the lake’s non-migratory waterfowl populations. The reduction in external sediment delivery from the filtration system will significantly extend the time between future dredging cycles. In the long term, this two-part design is expected to reduce turbidity, improve nutrient cycling, and promote more stable aquatic habitat conditions as described herein: We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis by examining 71 studies including 800 effect sizes that focus on sediment dredging practices in freshwater ecosystems across China. Our results revealed significant improvement in twelve out of the fourteen assessed water quality indices by sediment dredging except for pH and total organic carbon in sediment. Specifically, […] increasing in dissolved oxygen, sediment, & transparency by 3.30-24.71%, while other indices reduced by 8.40-38.53%, suggesting significant improvement of water quality by dredging. [13]. 128 | P a g e While the meta-analysis demonstrates strong improvements in water quality from dredging, applying this approach in practice depends on site-specific limitations. 5.4.1b Constraints Implementation of this alternative is subject to several design and site constraints including: Land availability: The footprint of the treatment basin and sediment storage area depends on the amount of land that can be acquired or repurposed near the Kearns-Chester inflow. Area limitations, for depth and square footage, will reduce sediment-holding capacity and shorten maintenance intervals. Seasonal weather variability: Seasonal flow fluctuations, particularly during spring runoff, could exceed the filtration unit’s design capacity. A 100-year storm event would likely overwhelm the screening system, bypassing treatment and transporting unfiltered sediment to the lake. Soil infiltration capacity: The success of the ADS component depends on percolation rates in surrounding soils. If percolation tests reveal insufficient infiltration capacity, the design will require relocation of the infiltration zone or incorporation of additional drainage infrastructure, adding significantly to project costs. Regulatory and ecological limitations: The filtration and dredging system must maintain compliance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland protections in place at Decker Lake [14]. Wetland boundaries cannot be reduced, so the design must either avoid or offset impacts through wetland enhancement or restoration measures. Operational logistics: Dewatering and sediment handling must be scheduled during low-flow periods to minimize disruption, and sediment transport and disposal must meet environmental handling standards. Each of these factors directly affects system scale, long-term performance, and cost efficiency. Future feasibility evaluations should include modeling of inflow rates and site-specific percolation testing to refine the final layout. 5.4.1c Alternative Evaluation From a technical standpoint, this alternative provides a comprehensive approach to reducing sediment inflow, combining sediment source interception, and subsurface habitat restoration. The filtration unit prevents new sediment from entering the lake, while dredging addresses existing deposits, producing 129 | P a g e immediate as well as long-term benefits for water quality. From a triple bottom line perspective, we can observe the three categories below: Environmental: Reduced sedimentation will improve water clarity, aquatic habitat, and dissolved oxygen distribution, strengthening ecosystem resilience. By decreasing future dredging frequency, the system also minimizes habitat disturbance over time. Social: Cleaner water and restored habitat will enhance recreational use, particularly birdwatching, fishing, and walking trails, supporting the community’s connection to this urban space. Economic: Although initial capital investment is substantial (the dredging portion alone is estimated at greater than $2 million [13]), recurring maintenance costs are comparatively low. Routine sediment removal from the geobag basin is projected at $30,000-$60,000 per cycle [15], required only every 3-5 years. Over a 20-year period, this represents a lower lifecycle cost than repeated full-lake dredging. This alternative aligns well with existing regulatory frameworks that emphasize wetland preservation and stormwater management under state and federal guidelines. The primary trade-offs include high upfront cost, site footprint limitations, and dependency on soil infiltration test performance. Despite these challenges, this solution provides a comprehensive, sustainable approach that could significantly extend the functional lifespan of Decker Lake while maintaining its ecological and community value. 5.4.1d Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 1 Preliminary budget estimates are summarized below; all figures are conceptual and based on comparable urban lake restoration projects: Table 5.1: Estimated Cost and Maintenance Breakdown of Alternative 1. Cost Component Estimated Cost (USD) Excavation $250,000-$400,000 Filtration Unit and Pipes $300,000-$500,000 Geotextile Bag Storage System $150,000-$250,000 Dredging to 9 ft Depth $2.0-$2.5 million Notes Grading for filtration basin and ADS trench Includes screen structure, pipework Geobags, dewatering platform, and containment Mechanical dredging and material transport 130 | P a g e ADS Infiltration System Wetland Mitigation & Land Restoration $200,000-$350,000 $100,000-$200,000 Routine Maintenance (3-5 yr cycle) $30,000-$60,000 per cycle Total Estimated Initial Cost $3.0-$4.2 million Dependent on soil percolation results Vegetation planting and site stabilization Sediment removal, equipment inspection All costs are preliminary estimates Dredging: “Related to this remediation practice’s possible cost, a range from 20,000 to 75,000 USD per acre dredged could be presented. Contaminated sediment final disposal is not included, which will bring an additional significant amount depending directly on the disposal site distance from the water body [13].” Storm tech: “The AAAE estimates StormTech installation cost at $6.00 per cubic foot (AAAE). Mountainland Supply Company lists SC-40 51.0” x 30.0” x 85.4” Chambers (75 ft^3 total storage including rock) at $500 per unit. The cost to install a StormTech Isolator Row system large enough to treat runoff from one acre of impervious surface is approximately $34,000 (UNH)” [16]. Filtration inflow and basin: “The per acre cost just for construction comes to $8,000 to $21,500 [17],” (for wet basin) “annual maintenance $500 to $2,600/year [17].” 5.4.2 Alternative 2: An Inlet Forebay For the second alternative, to reduce the sediment build up Decker Lake, a forebay will be implemented to settle the sediment before reaching the lake. This will be located on the west side of the lake where the Chesterfield canal inlet is. This is the only inlet that will be addressed as the majority of the water passes through there. With the addition of the forebay, minimal amounts of sediment will enter the lake stopping the lake from shallowing. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the current depth of the lake. Following the abundant sediment deposit from the Chesterfield, the lake depth has reduced greatly, harming the water quality. Dredging will be required to bring the lake back to a suitable depth of nine feet for the wetlands to properly clean the water. Implementation of both will keep the lake at its desired depth for a long period of time. 5.4.2a Design Description and Concept Drawing With the limited land availability at Decker Lake, implementation of location for this alternative is restricted. For this design, part of the lake will be filled to make an embankment, creating a basin for the forebay directly out of the inflow culvert. This bay will have an embankment constructed to divide the lake and retention bay. The forebay will be dredged to five feet while the rest of the lake 131 | P a g e to nine feet deep. Using the equations from Farland Corp., it was found that an estimated minimum volume of 50,000 cubic feet is required for a forebay to be implemented on Decker Lake [18]. Water from the Chesterfield will run into the bay; As it enters the bay, it will sit in the basin, letting the sediment it carried settle before spilling into the lake. To let water pass from body to body, there will be a concrete overflow for water to pass. The elevation of this overflow will be designed to operate effectively under both low and high flow conditions. The floor of the bay will be at a higher elevation than the lake, along with the spillway being above the lake, as shown in Figure 5.4 below. Figure 5.4: Typical sediment forebay plan and section. This is an important detail because if the elevations are the same or the lake is higher, the basin would be ineffective at moving water downstream. With this design, the water will flow to the lake without having any lake water entering the bay. This alternative also includes a phase for dredging the lake to reset the 132 | P a g e depth, so the lake has a larger volume, helping the lake's overall health. This design would eliminate sediment and polluted water from the lake’s primary contributing inflow channel, the Kearns-Chester Canal. Stormwater runoff and pollutants will still enter the lake from other sources, but they contribute minimally to pollutant and sediment levels at Decker Lake compared to the Kearns-Chester Canal. 5.4.2b Constraints The size of Decker Lake and the availability of area for use is the biggest constraint. The forebay may not have a suitable location depending on the size required for a sustainable basin. Whether it requires the inlet to have a bend to direct water to where there is currently land, and have the forebay there, or filling the first part of the lake off the inlet and utilizing that as a forebay, these are both expensive options. A forebay that is too large may reduce the land or lake too much to make the community in favor of it. Costs may also increase significantly with depth due to more difficult excavation conditions. Another constraint is the flow rate of the inlet water. With the drastic change in flow rates depending on the time of year, this could cause issues for the alternative design. When the flow rate is low in the offseason, enough water may not be collected in the basin to spill over into the lake. If there is a high flow rate, it will move water to the lake too fast to effectively have sediment settled. 5.4.2c Forebay Maintenance Minimal maintenance is required for the first few years as the sediment has not had time to build up. To keep the forebay effective, “sediment should be removed from the forebay every 3 to 5 years, or when 6 to 12 inches have accumulated, whichever comes first” [19]. For the years between, the maintenance will be checking sediment build up, checking the concrete spill way for blockages or cracks, and for erosion of the embankment. 5.4.2d Alternative Evaluation By using a forebay to reduce sediment deposition in the lake, this alternative provides clear environmental benefits and supports long-term ecosystem health. Letting debris and fine sediment settle before entering the lake reduces the lake build up and increases the amount of time the lake dredging is effective for before requiring it to be dredged again. Being made of mostly natural resources, it creates a nondisruptive addition to the lake. Judging this alternative based on environmental factors, it would score well due to a few factors. By dredging the lake to nine feet and reducing the sediment entering the lake, it will keep its depth, which is a requirement for a healthy lake to function properly. This alternative has a good score in social aspects because of its appearance and function. Being made of primarily dirt and rock, the embankment is fairly natural 133 | P a g e looking and not a large eyesore, except for the concrete spillover gate. It will also be located out of sight from the main park area, only seen when walking along the trail. Being subtle and hidden while also helping the lake’s health makes this score well in this section. From an economic perspective, this alternative is lacking as it faces a large installation cost. Estimating between $1.8 million and $2.2 million; the alternative requires a large budget. The reason it isn’t as bad in this section is due to the maintenance costs. The yearly maintenance estimated between $4,400 to $10,300 is the cheapest of all the alternatives. 5.4.2e Cost Analysis This system sees a high estimated upfront cost while seeing relatively low estimated maintenance costs. The dredging of the whole lake to a depth of nine feet deep has the highest cost by a large margin, which is expected as it is the largest part of the design, as shown in the table below. Table 5.2: Estimated Cost and Maintenance Breakdown of Alternative 2: Inlet Forebay1. Cost Component Dredging Lake to 9 ft Estimated Cost $1.8 - 2.2 million Dredging Forebay to 7 ft $85,000 - $142,000 Fill for Embankment $24,000 - $37,000 Concrete Spillway $10,000 - $15,000 Maintenance (3-5 years) $22,000 - $31,000 Total Initial Cost $1.94 - 2.42 million Avg. Yearly Maintenance $4,400 - $10,300 The estimated maintenance costs include total maintenance that this project will need such as erosion control and inspection for the embankment, bay dredging every three to five years, and inspection and possible repairs on the concrete spillway. 5.4.3 Alternative 3: A Simple Sump System The inflow sediment sump system is designed to capture and remove coarse sediment before it enters Decker Lake. By targeting the sediment in the stormwater runoff from the Kearns-Chester inflow, this system prevents the accumulation of sediment across the bottom of the lake. This decreases the amount of dredging needed in the lake which allows for greater water depth over time. For example: “Standard sumps (manholes) are common features of urban storm water collection systems, and there are anecdotes suggesting that standard sumps can improve storm water quality. Overall, the data collected show that standard sumps can be used as pretreatment devices for storm 1 Using my complete alternative 2 design and references I sourced from, I prompted AI to produce a cost analysis. 134 | P a g e water if properly selected and maintained [20].” The sump acts as a small, engineered settling basin where inflowing water slows, allowing sediment to settle, while cleaner water continues into the lake. Figure 5.5: Schematic diagram of a main canal sediment sump. 5.4.3a Design Description & Reference Base Design Building on the inflow and constraint data summarized in Section 5.2, Alternative 3 focuses on a sediment sump system positioned at the Kearns-Chester Field Drain outlet, Decker Lake’s largest and most sediment-laden inflow. Observed flow rates range from approximately 8 cfs during low-flow seasons to 100-200 cfs in spring and summer, with a 100-year peak discharge of about 610 cfs. [5] Although no direct measurements exist for the sediment composition of highway runoff entering Decker Lake, it is expected to contain coarse silt and fine sand bound with trace metals typical of roadway drainage. The purpose of this system is to intercept and settle sediment before it reaches the lake, reducing dredging requirements and limiting internal nutrient loading. Below is the proposed location of the sump system, which intercepts the water from the KearnsChester Drain on the west side of Decker Lake. 135 | P a g e Figure 5.6: Location of proposed sump at Decker Lake. Our design for Alternative 3 is based on the standard sump configuration tested in the Hydraulic Analysis of Suspended Sediment Removal from Storm Water in a Standard Sump [20]. The design is a straight-through cylindrical manhole where the inlet and outlet pipes are positioned at the same height across from each other on the structure. The sump chamber goes down below the pipe invert which allows for the formation of a sediment build up area. Figure 5.7: General layout of straight-through standard sump configuration. 136 | P a g e Laboratory testing in that study was practiced with sumps at depths ranging from 0.25 to 0.75 meters below the pipe invert. This text showed how increasing the depth improves sediment capture [20]. When implementing this system into Decker Lake, we would design a system that has a depth below the pipe which is equal to the diameter of the pipe to allow for more time for settling of sediment and storage before maintenance is needed. 5.4.3b Hydraulic & Sediment Behavior Under ordinary inflow conditions, water enters the sump horizontally and proceeds to drop downward, forming a recirculation cell that keeps velocities near the bottom low enough for sediment to settle. Below, we can observe how high and low flow rates had effects on the sump. According to Howard et al., At the lower discharges, the flow direction is downward (negative velocity) over the entire water column in the sump. At the higher discharges the flow direction is upward (positive velocity) over 20% of the depth in the sump. This indicates that the inflow is no longer plunging into the sump at higher discharges but shortcircuiting or “skimming” across the sump to the outlet, thus decreasing the effect on sediment at the bottom of the sump [20]. During low-flow events, 8 cfs, sediment will deposit near the upstream wall of the chamber. As discharge increases during spring runoff, upward flow near the outlet may create partial resuspension; however, the sump increased depth and volume are expected to limit sediment loss. Figure 5.8: Velocity vector profiles in the center plane of a deep sump; inflow velocity is 0.85 m/s (68 L/s, no short-circuiting) from right to left, invert of the inflow pipe is at 1.2 m elevation for the 1.2 m diameter sump. 137 | P a g e 5.4.3c Performance Expectations This particular study found out that as discharge decreases or particle size increases, removal efficiency of the standard sump increases, as would be expected. For the same particle size and discharge, as the depth and diameter of the sump increases, the removal efficiency of the sump increases, as would also be expected [20]. Figure 5.9: Sediment deposition (removal efficiency) results obtained at low discharges; legend gives sump size (diameter × depth) in meters and sediment particle size in μm (last three digits). For 300 µm sand, capture efficiencies between 60 % and 90 % were observed under low-flow conditions, decreasing at higher discharges [20]. These results suggest that the Decker Lake sump system should perform at capturing most of the coarse material while allowing finer particles to flow through under regular flow conditions and moderate storm occurrences. During high-flow conditions approaching 610 cfs, short-circuiting and minor scour may occur due to the fact that short-circuiting or skimming across the sump decreases the effect on sediment at the bottom [20]. When this happens, some of the settled sediment may get stirred up and carried out of the sump. 5.4.3d Maintenance Right off the bat and all throughout this project, we see how important maintenance considerations are and how important the implementation of a 138 | P a g e proper and consistent schedule will be. Howard et al. explains how Maintenance is crucial for the standard sump to be an effective storm water treatment device [20]. Sump efficiency declines as the system fills up with sediment and the allocated depth area for sediment storage decreases. Routine cleanouts are extremely important to prevent resuspension during storms and maintain the system's performance. After our system is put into Decker Lake, we will need to collect data on a routine basis to determine the best maintenance schedule based on the sediment accumulation rates. 5.4.3e Constraints Although the sump system is an effective way to capture sediment before it reaches Decker Lake, several constraints could limit its design, construction, and long-term performance. These include project funding, limited data, site conditions, and maintenance access. Cost is a major factor, since larger and deeper structures improve performance but require more excavation and materials. Additional expenses may arise from tying the sump into the existing drain and creating space for maintenance equipment. A dedicated maintenance budget will also be necessary to manage sediment buildup. Data limitations present another challenge. Current flow and sediment values come from a 2025 guest lecture [5], and without direct measurements of discharge, sediment composition, or drain geometry, the design may not fully reflect actual field conditions. Seasonal water levels may restrict access to the cleanout point, and missed maintenance could allow sediment to wash out and reduce efficiency. Construction also needs to stay an appropriate distance from the lake’s edge to avoid environmental disturbance and meet regulatory requirements. 5.4.3f Alternative Evaluation The proposed sediment sump system offers a clear environmental benefit by reducing sediment and pollutants before entering Decker Lake. Capturing this material upstream helps maintain deeper water levels, limits internal phosphorus loading, and reduces the likelihood of algal blooms. Under normal flow conditions, the sump is expected to remove roughly 60-90 percent of incoming sediment, decreasing the need for dredging. Long-term performance will depend on consistent maintenance, since large storms can resuspend material if the sump is not cleaned out regularly. Overall, this system provides a low-impact way to improve water quality and preserve lake depth. Economically, the sump system is a cost-effective option compared to more invasive lake-wide treatments. Construction costs remain moderate when using a simple concrete structure tied into the existing Kearns-Chester drain. The primary ongoing expense is maintenance, which would require hiring a vacuum truck and operator several times a year. Even with these recurring costs, the system is still far less expensive than undertaking a full dredging project. Socially, 139 | P a g e the sump supports community interests by helping maintain the recreational and aesthetic value of Decker Lake. Improved water quality and reduced sediment buildup benefit lake users and reinforce local goals for sustainable stormwater management. Construction impacts are minimal due to the small footprint and proximity to existing infrastructure; continued public communication about maintenance schedules and performance will help sustain community support. Overall, the sump system contributes positively to recreation, education, and long-term engagement with the lake. 5.4.3g Budget and Attendant Costs of Alternative 3 Below are tables detailing the specific costs of construction and maintenance: Table 5.3: Construction Costs of Alternative 3: Sediment Sump System 2. Cost Component Estimated Cost (USD) Excavation & Site Preparation $15,000 - $35,000 Precast Concrete Sump Structure $22,000 - $45,000 Inlet/Outlet Pipe Tie-In $8,000 - $20,000 Access Pad for Vacuum Truck $5,000 - $15,000 Erosion Control & Site Stabilization $3,000 - $10,000 Construction Mobilization & Permitting $10,000 - $20,000 Total Estimated Initial Construction Cost $66,000 - $153,000 Table 5.4: Maintenance Costs 3. Cost Component Annual Maintenance - Vacuum Truck Estimated Cost (USD) $2,000 - $6,000 per cleanout Cleanout Maintenance Frequency 2-4 times per year Total Annual $4,000 - $24,000 per year 5.5 Grant Funding Opportunities The implementation of any recommended alternative for Decker Lake will likely require external funding to supplement municipal budgets. Fortunately, the project's focus on water quality improvement, stormwater management, and urban ecosystem restoration aligns with the priorities of numerous grant programs. The following opportunities represent potential funding sources for the design, construction, and maintenance phases of the project. Using my complete Alternative 3 design and the case study it draws from, I prompted AI to produce a cost analysis; the table below summarizes those results. 3 Using my complete Alternative 3 design and the case study it draws from, I prompted AI to produce a cost analysis; the table below summarizes those results. 2 140 | P a g e Federal Funding Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Programs The EPA offers two primary relevant funding programs for a project of this nature. First, the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Grant Program, administered through the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) [21], is a premier source for projects addressing polluted stormwater runoff. It specifically funds the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), making it an ideal fit for the sediment forebays, sumps, and filtration systems evaluated in this chapter. Second, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) [22], also administered by UDWQ, provides low-interest loans for water quality projects. While it is a loan program, its favorable terms and potential for principal forgiveness for projects that implement green infrastructure make it a viable option for financing a significant portion of the project costs. Both programs typically require a non-federal match, which can often be met with in-kind services from West Valley City. State of Utah Funding Source: Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) As the primary state agency for water quality, the UDWQ is a critical partner and funding source. The division administers its own water infrastructure Improvement funds, which are directly targeted at projects like the restoration of Decker Lake. These state funds can be used for planning, design, and construction of projects that protect or improve Utah's waters [22]. Emphasizing the project's role in reducing sediment and phosphorus loads to the Jordan River watershed, and ultimately the Great Salt Lake, will significantly strengthen an application. Nonprofit Funding Sources Additional funding may be available through the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation's Five Star and Urban Waters Restoration Program, which supports water quality and habitat restoration in urban environments [23]. Because Decker Lake provides critical habitat for more than 180 bird species and suffers from sediment-induced nutrient loading, the inlet-based BMPs described in this chapter align well with the program criteria. These grants can supplement federal funding and are often awarded to projects that demonstrate partnerships among municipalities, community groups, and environmental agencies. 5.6 Comparison of Alternatives & TBL Analysis Below is an evaluation of all three alternatives from a TBL standpoint. Each alternative was evaluated on their contribution to categories of people, planet, and profit and rated 1-7. 141 | P a g e Table 5.5: Alternative 1 TBL Analysis. People Planet Profit Increase Public Health - 7 Cleaner Watershed/Ecosystem Improvement - 7 Infrastructure Development water, reduced turbidity, restored Reduces sediment, restores depth, improves - 5.6 Large, engineered oxygen levels improve public exposure oxygen, boosts ecological stability. filtration + dredging system; to healthier conditions. major capital project. Water Usability/Accessibility - 7 Wildlife & Aquatic Biodiversity - 7 Dredging Construction Design Life - Restored clarity supports fishing, restores habitat and improves conditions for 5.6 System has long-term walking, recreation. birds and aquatic species. benefit and reduces dredging frequency. Stakeholder Input/Involvement - 5.6 Climate Change / Snow Pack - 5.6 Handles Increase Local Economies - High community value noted; visible extreme flow variability (8-610 cfs). Adaptable 5.6 Cleaner and deeper lake improvement encourages engagement. to climate-driven runoff. increases recreation and Public Outreach/Education - 5.6 Highly Air/Sound/Light Pollution - 5.6 Temporary Goods & Services - 5.6 visible project; strong public-facing construction impact, but long-term low-impact Supports long-term impact. infrastructure. recreational value and tourism value. ecosystem services. People Avg: 6.3 Planet Avg: 6.3 Profit Avg: 5.6 Final Score: 6.07 Table 5.6: Alternative 2 TBL Analysis. People Planet Profit Increase Public Health - 5.6 Watershed/Ecosystem Improvement - 5.6 Infrastructure Development - 4.2 Forebay Moderate water quality Captures sediment but less effective than simpler than Alt 1; smaller footprint. improvement; sediment reduction Alt 1. at inlet. Water Usability/Accessibility - 5.6 Wildlife & Aquatic Biodiversity - 5.6 Less Construction Design Life - 4.2 More Dredging improves depth and improvement compared to Alt 1, but still frequent dredging required (3-5 years). usability. beneficial. Stakeholder Input/Involvement - Climate Change / Snow Pack - 4.2 Forebay Increase Local Economies - 4.2 Some 4.2 Lower visibility than Alt 1. performance depends on flow; variable benefit, but less visible impact means seasonal limits. smaller economic boost. Public Outreach/Education - 4.2 Air/Sound/Light Pollution - 4.3 Goods & Services - 4.2 Provides ongoing Moderate community visibility and Construction impact modest; long-term ecological services but not transformative. educational value. footprint smaller. People Avg: 4.9 Planet Avg: 4.9 Profit Avg: 4.2 Final Score: 4.66 142 | P a g e Table 5.7: Alternative 3 TBL Analysis. People Planet Profit Increase Public Health - 4.2 Removes Watershed/Ecosystem Improvement - Infrastructure Development - 4.2 coarse sediment only; limited water 4.2 Only coarse sediment removal; Simple concrete structure; quality improvement. limited nutrient/turbidity control. minimal engineering complexity. Water Usability/Accessibility - 4.2 Slight Wildlife & Aquatic Biodiversity - 4.2 Construction Design Life - 2.8 depth improvement; modest change to Benefits limited by inability to remove Performance declines quickly recreation. fine sediment/nutrients. without frequent maintenance. Stakeholder Input/Involvement - 2.8 Low Climate Change / Snow Pack - 2.8 High Increase Local Economies - 2.8 visibility, minimal community flows (610 cfs) reduce efficiency; short- Small, invisible improvement engagement. circuiting. minimal tourism/business impact. Public Outreach/Education - 2.8 Invisible Air/Sound/Light Pollution - 5.6 Very Goods & Services - 2.8 Small to public; low educational value. small footprint; minimal long-term improvements; not a stand-alone disturbance. restoration solution. Planet Avg: 4.2 Profit Avg: 3.15 People Avg: 3.5 Final Score: 3.61 5.6.1 Rating Criteria Environmental Alternative 1 provides the most comprehensive environmental benefit. The combined filtration and dredging approach directly address both existing and incoming sediment sources, improving water clarity, dissolved oxygen, and overall lake health. The design also minimizes long-term disturbance by reducing the frequency of future dredging. Alternative 2 offers partial improvement by capturing sediment in a forebay, while Alternative 3 provides limited benefit confined to coarse sediment removal at a single inlet. Social From a community perspective, Alternative 1 offers the greatest social value. Improved water quality and restored habitat support recreation, birdwatching, and public enjoyment of Decker Lake. Its visible impact reinforces local investment and pride in the site. Alternative 2 has moderate social benefits due to smaller visual improvements, while Alternative 3 has minimal community visibility or engagement. Economic Although Alternative 1 requires the highest initial cost ($3.0-$4.2 million), its extended service life and reduced dredging frequency provide superior life-cycle value. Routine maintenance costs are relatively low and predictable. Alternative 2 carries a lower upfront cost but may require more frequent dredging, increasing long-term expenses. Alternative 3 is the most affordable but provides limited performance improvement per dollar invested. 143 | P a g e 5.7 Recommendations Based on TBL evaluation, Alternative 1, the Two-Part Filtration and Dredging System, is recommended as the most feasible and sustainable solution. It provides the strongest overall balance of environmental restoration, community benefit, and long-term cost efficiency. To improve system resilience and reduce maintenance demands, incorporating small sump systems from Alternative 3 at secondary inflows is advised. This hybrid approach increases sediment interception, protects water quality, and extends the functional life of Decker Lake. 5.7.1 Reason for Recommendations The recommendation is based on comparative performance across environmental, social, and economic factors. Alternative 1 demonstrates the highest overall sustainability by coupling immediate lake restoration with continued sediment control at the primary inflow. Its design supports improved oxygenation, reduced turbidity, and extended dredging intervals, ensuring durable ecological and operational performance. Integrating sump systems enhances sediment capture efficiency without significantly increasing cost or land requirements. 5.7.2 Benefits and Future Action(s) Adopting this hybrid system will restore Decker Lake’s depth, improve water clarity, and strengthen habitat conditions for resident wildlife while enhancing public use and aesthetics. Reduced sediment inflow will lower long-term maintenance needs and project costs. Future actions should include detailed hydraulic and percolation modeling, final site design, and coordination with regulatory agencies to confirm wetland compliance and secure funding through EPA Section 319 or UDWQ programs. 5.8 References [1] R. Staples, “Decker Lake near Kearns-Chesterfield inflow,” personal photograph, 2025. [2] T. Avery, “Utah Birding Spots: Decker Lake,” Blogspot.com, 2025. re (accessed Oct. 19, 2025). [3] Nature and Human Health Utah, “Decker Lake Project,” Nature and Human Health Utah, 2019. https://www.natureandhealthutah.org/decker-lake-project [4] M. Windsor, “Decker Lake,” Outdoor Project, 2024. https://www.outdoorproject.com/united-states/utah/decker-lake [5] B. Thompson. CVEEN 3100. Guest Lecture, Topic: “Decker Lake.” Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, Oct. 30, 2025. [6] D. Harned, “Effects of Highway Runoff on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Sevenmile Creek Basin, a Rural Area in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina, July 1981 to July 1982,” U.S Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper, 2329, 1 Jan. 1988. 144 | P a g e [7] B. Norris and E. Laws, “Nutrients and Phytoplankton in a Shallow, Hypereutrophic Urban Lake: Prospects for Restoration,” Water, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 431, Jun. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060431. [8] United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Urban Runoff: Model Ordinances to Prevent and Control Nonpoint Source Pollution | US EPA,” US EPA, Aug. 25, 2015. https://www.epa.gov/nps/urban-runoff-model-ordinances-prevent-and-control-nonpointsource-pollution? [9] C. Liu, J. Zhong, J. Wang, L. Zhang, and C. Fan, “Fifteen-year study of environmental dredging effect on variation of nitrogen and phosphorus exchange across the sediment-water interface of an urban lake,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 219, pp. 639-648, Dec. 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.040. [10] United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Risk Assessment of Pollutants in Sewage Sludge | US EPA,” US EPA, Feb. 26, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/risk-assessmentpollutants-sewage-sludge? [11] United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Benefits of Healthy Watersheds | US EPA,” US EPA, 2015. https://www.epa.gov/hwp/benefits-healthy-watersheds [12] Google, "Google Maps screenshot of Decker Lake, Utah," Google Maps, Available: https://maps.google.com, Accessed: 10 Oct. 2025. [13] H. Xiang, X. Li, R. Xiao, J. Chen, and W. Dai, “Is dredging an effective ecological restoration method to improve water quality in freshwater ecosystems?,” Ecological Engineering, vol. 209, p. 107425, Oct. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107425. [14] US Army Corps of Engineers, “Jurisdiction and Wetlands,” Army.mil, 2023. https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdiction-and-Wetlands/. [15] Anchor QEA, “Development of Basic Cost Model for Removal of Sediment from Reservoirs,” Sediment Management Workgroup, Feb. 2020. https://www.sedhyd.org/reservoirsedimentation/Reservoir%20Sediment%20Removal%20Cost%20Model%20-%20Anchor%20QE A%20February%202020.pdf. [16] R. M. Roseen, T. P. Ballestero, and J. J. Houle, “University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center 2009 Biannual Report,” UNH Stormwater Center, Durham, NH, 2010, https://scholars.unh.edu/stormwater/76. [17] BASMAA, “A Survey of Installation and Maintenance Costs of Stormwater Treatment Facilities,” BASMAA, Oakland, CA, Nov. 2021, https://basmaa.org/wp145 | P a g e content/uploads/2021/11/A-Survey-of-Installation-and-Maintenance-Costs-of-StormwaterTreatment-Facilities.pdf. [18] Farland Corporation, Sediment Forebay Sizing Calculator. Farland Corp., New Bedford, MA. Accessed: Oct. 2025. https://farlandcorp.com. [19] Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, “Introduction: Appendix D - Sediment Forebay,” Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse, Mar. 1, 2011, https://swbmpvwrrc.wp.prod.es.cloud.vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Introduction_AppD_Sediment-Forebays_03012011.pdf. [20] A. Howard, O. Mohseni, J. S. Gulliver, and H. G. Stefan, “Hydraulic Analysis of Suspended Sediment Removal from Storm Water in a Standard Sump,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 138, no. 6, pp. 491-502, Jun. 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)hy.19437900.0000544. [21] Utah Department of Environmental Quality, “Utah Nonpoint Source Management Program - Utah Department of Environmental Quality,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, May 24, 2019. https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/utah-nonpoint-source-management-program. [22] United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF),” US EPA, Apr. 13, 2015. https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf. [23] National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, “Five Star Program,” NFWF, Oct. 21, 2025. https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-program. 146 | P a g e Chapter 6 Why Keep the Lake?: Green Space is in Demand Ricky Carroll, Lucas Fowler, Crystal Manikoth, and Elizabeth Maughan Executive Summary This report proposes a new vision of Decker Lake Park in West Valley City, Utah, by replacing the stagnant and ecologically degraded lake with a functional and accessible green space. The lake currently occupies more than half of the park’s total area and suffers from persistent algae blooms, poor water quality, and heavy degradation from wildlife. Instead of investing further resources into restoration efforts that have shown limited long-term success, this project explores how filling the lake and redirecting canal flow could create a healthier, more versatile space for the surrounding community while reducing environmental and financial strain on Salt Lake County and West Valley City. The proposed redevelopment focuses on transforming the current site into a mixed-use park that prioritizes community recreation, environmental restoration, and accessibility. Alternatives such as constructing a new canal or piping the existing flow through a culvert were considered to manage water redirection and treatment. Removing the lake would eliminate sources of odor and pollution, reduce maintenance costs, and open up more than fifty acres for new amenities like trails, natural areas, and unprogrammed lawns. This change would align with the Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which emphasizes equitable access to open spaces and the health and wellness benefits they bring to residents. In addition to its environmental and social advantages, the proposed project has strong potential for financial accessibility through a combination of federal, state, and nonprofit grants. Programs such as the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership, the Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant, and the Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust offer funding opportunities that could support land rehabilitation, trail systems, and park development. With these resources, the Decker Lake project could evolve from a neglected and polluted water body into a thriving public green space that serves both ecological and community needs. In short, this project would potentially promote environmental and social justice and provide a sustainable model for urban park redevelopment. Keywords: Culvert, drainage, open field, piping, public usage, removal and sediment filtration. 147 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Purpose: Could This Park be Better Utilized Without a Lake? 6.1.2 Site History 6.2 Literature Review 6.3 Basis of Design 6.3.1 Assumptions 6.3.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements 6.3.3 Constraints 6.3.4 Sustainability Constraints (Environmental, Zero Impact) 6.3.5 Social Constraints (Safety, Equity, and Access) 6.3.6 Community Constraints (Resiliency, Business, Risk) 6.3.7 Economic Constraints (Including a Proposed Budget) 6.3.8 Stakeholder Interests 6.3.9 Stakeholder Benefits 6.4 Development of Alternatives 6.5 Design Alternatives 6.5.1 Alternative 1: Built Canal 6.5.2 Alternative 2: Piped Culvert (with Two Concrete Structure Locations) 6.5.2a: Piped Culvert with Western Concrete Structure Inlet 6.5.2b: Piped Culvert with Central Concrete Structure Inlet 6.6 Case Studies 6.7 Funding Opportunities and How to Pay for The Fill In 6.8 Comparison of Alternatives 6.8.1 Feasibility Assessment Matrix 6.9 Discussion 6.10 Recommendations 6.10.1 Reason for Recommendations 6.10.2 Benefits and Future Action(s) 6.11 References 148 | P a g e 6.1 Introduction: Filling the Lake and Redirecting the Canal This chapter examines draining and redirecting the water from Decker Lake; the water will be redirected from the western side of the existing lake and moving it towards the existing infrastructure on the eastern side of the lake. The following sections will go into depth on what is required to make this possible. 6.1.1 Purpose: Could This Park be Better Utilized Without a Lake? While it is important to try to preserve nature in its current state, sometimes nature needs a hand in a new direction. Decker Lake Park is currently occupied by a stagnant lake that removes approximately 62% of the total usable land area, as measured on Google Earth. This lake is constantly plagued by algae blooms, murky water, and waterfowl feces and plant destruction, which has brought down the attractiveness of visiting the lake. However, instead of spending larger sums of money on lake restoration and maintenance, a large open area used for the public (in planned programmed, unprogrammed, and grassy areas) could be better suited for the community given the lessened cost of maintenance and need for a developed regional park in the area [1]. This chapter is going to focus on two main design implementations that could be used for better improving the recreational and site use of Decker Lake, plus an additional design consideration where land could be sold to help fund the lake fill-in and water improvement (settlement removal) for the downstream water as it heads towards the Jordan River, and (ultimately), towards the Great Salt Lake [2]. 6.1.2 Site History When the first settlers came to West Valley from the late 1840s to the late 1860s, Decker Lake was part of a series of nearby natural lakes including the Hanes, Moon, and Porter Lakes. The settlers then connected these lakes: “In June 1886 (the Surplus Canal) plus an early drain ditch from the west, helped move water through a chain of shallow lakes (for farming purposes).” [3] During this time Decker Lake was used for multiple purposes including farming, duck raising, ice skating, and as a community gathering point. However, the increased need for fresh water continued to be a struggle, so in 1970 Decker Lake was drained to roughly a fifth of its original size to keep up with the water needs of the growing community. This marked an end to Decker Lake’s presence in the community. Below is the earliest known aerial image of the lake in 1943 [4]. 149 | P a g e Figure 6.1: Historic Image of Decker Lake (Circa October 1943) [4]. Below on the left is an image of Decker Lake in 1964 before the large draining project. Even before the project, Decker Lake was already shrinking. Below on the right is an image of Decker Lake after the draining project; roughly four-fifths of the lake’s volume was drained. Left: Figure 6.2: Historic Image of Decker Lake filled (Circa 1964) [5]. Right: Figure 6.3: Historic Image of Decker Lake drained (circa 1970) [5]. After draining, the lake was too shallow to skate on and too small for other activities, and Decker Lake faded into obscurity without anything to give the community. It has continued in this state for nearly 60 years [6]-[8]. 6.2 Literature Review Urban lake management, green‐space redevelopment, and stormwater conveyance systems form the main basis for evaluating the proposed redesign of Decker Lake. The academic 150 | P a g e literature consistently demonstrates that shallow, stagnant urban lakes (particularly those receiving stormwater inputs and experiencing high nutrient loads) tend to degrade ecologically over time, leading to persistent maintenance challenges and reduced public value [9], [10]. This review focuses research on ecological degradation of urban water bodies, the benefits of converting underperforming water features into green space, stormwater conveyance best practices, and environmental justice considerations relevant to park redevelopment in underserved communities. These findings form the foundation for the proposed alterations to Decker Lake’s land use. Urban lakes commonly suffer from eutrophication, sediment accumulation, and algal blooms due to their shallow depths, limited circulation, and consistent exposure to stormwater runoff. Studies show that stagnant lakes are particularly vulnerable to harmful cyanobacterial blooms, which can produce unpleasant odors, degrade aesthetics, and create public health hazards [10] Waterfowl populations tend to concentrate around such lakes, elevating phosphorus levels, increasing turbidity, and contributing to fecal contamination. These problems are common to many municipalities that struggle to mitigate them long-term. Attempts to restore similar urban lakes frequently encounter high ongoing maintenance costs. Typical restoration strategies (dredging, aeration, nutrient inactivation, shoreline reconstruction) are resource-intensive and often yield only temporary improvements, especially when stormwater inflows remain unchanged. Research in urban lakes shows that it’s common to revert to poor water quality conditions within a few years because of lack of pretreatment to runoff [11]. This is reflective of Decker Lake’s history of recurring algae problems, shallow water levels, and waterfowl impacts, indicating that significant investment in restoration would likely have limited long-term success. Literature in urban planning and landscape ecology highlights the substantial social, environmental, and economic benefits associated with expanding green space in metropolitan areas, especially in high-density or lower-income neighborhoods. A seminal study by Chiesura demonstrates that parks and natural areas significantly enhance mental well-being, stress reduction, and quality of life [9]. Similarly, the Salt Lake County Parks & Recreation Master Plan shares this same narrative: residents prioritize natural open space, unprogrammed lawns, trails, and wildlife areas as core recreational assets [1]. Transforming a degraded water body into a multi-use green space has multiple benefits that will be valued by the community for years to come. The literature also notes that converting water features to land-based amenities can increase site versatility, improve accessibility, support wildlife habitat restoration, and provide opportunities for stormwater infiltration or treatment of the wetlands. Culverts, particularly reinforced concrete box culverts, are commonly implemented in urban redevelopment projects because they safely convey both base flows and major storm events while enabling the surface area above to support recreational or ecological uses. Open-channel canals, by contrast, offer reduced initial cost and simpler maintenance access but require additional safety measures and consume more surface space. Literature comparing the two approaches consistently finds that culverts maximize land use efficiency, whereas canals maximize hydraulic visibility and reduce risk associated with confined-space maintenance. 151 | P a g e Redevelopment of parks in historically underserved communities raises questions of equity, displacement risk, and “green gentrification.” Wolch, Byrne, and Newell’s (2014) influential “just green enough” framework argues that green-space projects should prioritize environmental health, community needs, and local identity without triggering rapid commercial investment or rising housing costs that disproportionately burden existing residents. Successful projects emphasize scalable improvements, direct community engagement, and amenities that reflect the values of current residents rather than external economic pressures. For Decker Lake, which is located in an area with documented environmental burdens and lower-income census tracts, this literature is highly relevant. The literature indicates that greenspace redesign is most beneficial when it improves local environmental quality, addresses known public health concerns (e.g., water quality, odors, wildlife contamination), and ensures equitable access through inclusive planning processes. Because degraded environments disproportionately affect marginalized communities, removing a polluted, stagnant lake may directly advance environmental justice goals by reducing exposure to contaminants and increasing access to safe, high-quality green space. 6.3. Basis of Design In short, the main basis of the redesign of Decker Lake is the need for green space. According to the Salt Lake County Park’s Master Plan Map 3-1, Decker Lake’s location is not included within a 3-mile radius of having a “Class 1 Regional Park – Developed" [1]. The same document also discusses surveyed results of what park amenities are most important to households, with “Natural open space areas” being the second most important, and “Unprogrammed lawn areas” being third. Filling the lake would allow those amenities to be established in an economically disadvantaged area of West Valley City, UT [12]. 6.3.1 Assumptions To start, without proper surveying equipment or flow measurement devices, we cannot determine whether adding additional water quality improvement devices on site would be an economic or water improvement advantage. Therefore, it is assumed that the canal water flowing in has a flow rate high enough to move from one end of the lake to the other (by either canal or culvert) and will not stay stagnant after improvements or modifications have been made. Also, there will be large variances in fill requirements (for cost analysis), even if there is potential for free fill to be provided on site from various other construction projects in the Salt Lake Valley. 6.3.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements Designing the proposed water-conveyance system for the redevelopment of Decker Lake, a closed-conduit culvert or an open-channel redirection; furthered elaborated in 6.5, requires close adherence with West Valley City stormwater design criteria and compliance with Salt Lake County Flood Control hydraulic standards. West Valley City requires all drainage infrastructure to provide adequate conveyance for at least the 10year design storm, while Salt Lake County mandates that any structure or channel 152 | P a g e handling flood-related or canal flow be designed for the full 100-year event with complete hydraulic justifications. By integrating these regulatory expectations early and coordinating with county hydrology staff to obtain accurate flow and velocity data, this supports the long-term success of the park's redevelopment. Flood control permits, required under Title 17 of the Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances, apply to any activity occurring within the right-of-way of a designated Flood Control Facility, including the installation of new structures. Because Decker Lake encompasses several acres, any proposed design or construction activity would qualify as a large-scale project, necessitating early coordination with a Flood Control Permit Specialist during the planning phase. The typical timeline for preparing a complete permit application is approximately three weeks, although more complex proposals may require additional review time. The permit outlines the design requirements and exceptions for culverts or piped conveyance systems, which must be sized to accommodate the 100-year flow event. Key components of the application include discharge calculations, riprap sizing where applicable, and detailed construction drawings [13]. At the state level, a Stream Alteration Permit issued by the Utah Division of Water Rights is required for any modification to a natural or constructed watercourse. This requirement follows standards set by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [14]. Because the proposed design significantly alters the Kearns–Chesterfield inflow into Decker Lake, regardless of whether the inflow channel is man-made or natural, a Stream Alteration Permit is mandatory. Initiating this process involves completing the Joint Permit Application Form, which may be submitted in person, by mail, or online. In addition, review under the Programmatic General Permit 10 (PGP-10) may be necessary, as it addresses Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under Corps jurisdiction. Processing the permit also includes a fee, the amount of which varies based on the applicant and project scope [18]. The Construction Dewatering or Hydrostatic Testing (CDHT) Permit, managed by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, is required when groundwater must be removed or discharged during construction activities. Furthermore, Utah mandates a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit for soil disturbances of one acre or more. Although the project footprint occupies less than a quarter of the Decker Lake area, the remaining land that will be filled or modified contributes to the total disturbed acreage, triggering the UPDES permitting requirement [16]. Both the Storm Water Permit and the Construction Dewatering/Hydrostatic Testing Permit include associated fees, which have increased as of 2024 [17]. A Right-of-Way Permit is required for any work conducted within West Valley City’s public right-of-way. This permit is administered through the city’s Engineering Division using the West Valley City Permitting and Licensing Portal. The application must include 153 | P a g e a valid Utah Contractor’s License issued to a state-approved professional engineer, an original certificate of insurance listing West Valley City as an insured party, and an original license and permit bond in the amount of at least $10,000. This bond serves as a three-party agreement between the contractor (principal), the surety company, and the city. A traffic control plan compliant with MUTCD standards is required for all work occurring within the roadway, and material submittals must also be provided. Street closures must be requested at least seven days in advance and require a certified traffic control plan before approval [18]. Municipal Code of West Valley is required for any building permits for any structures. This code covers construction, alterations, repairs, or removal of any building or structure. 6.3.3 Constraints For these three proposed redevelopment ideas, there are many physical restraints that will have to be thoughtfully considered during the design. Three of these are so impactful that they will dictate the overall design. The first of these is the loss of stormwater detention volume. The lake in its current form contributes substantially to the stormwater detention volume for a large drainage area in the northwest corner of the valley. Removing this volume could result in major flooding that could lead to property damage or even loss of life. Because of this, all three proposed designs must maintain the existing volume. The second is the high groundwater table. Although no groundwater level analysis has been found at this time, it is safe to assume that there is a high groundwater level on the site. This area has a long history of swamps and wet soil conditions. Because of this, the filling of the pond will have to be carefully considered to avoid uplift due to pore water pressure from the groundwater. This might include the installation of an underdrain system, graded fill, or a geomat. The last constraint is permitting. For a project like this, many permits will have to be obtained before work can begin as stated in section 6.3.2. These include permits such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit [14], the Utah Division of Water Quality Section 401 Permit [15], the Utah Division of Water Rights Stream Alteration Permit [19], a UPDES Stormwater Permit [16], and a West Valley City Land Disturbance Permit [18]. All of these permits come with their own set of requirements and timelines for approval. This will require extensive coordination with each agency to ensure all permit requirements are met and that the project remains in full compliance. 6.3.4 Sustainability Constraints (Environmental, Zero Impact) The most significant constraints for a project such as this one will be environmental constraints. There is no doubt that a project like this will impact on the environment. That being said, these constraints will need to be a key focus of the design. It will be important to ensure the environment is impacted as little as possible during construction while also leaving the area surrounding the lake in better condition than it is currently. The wetlands on this site are a crucial feature that not only help the environment but are also valued by the community. Though the proposed designs will 154 | P a g e impact the wetlands in one way or another, all design considerations must ensure that the wetlands are protected or that an equal area of wetlands are created to replace any areas that are removed. Another sustainability constraint for this project is the ability to construct it without impacting the water body during construction. This will have to be achieved through careful consideration during both the design phase and the construction planning and phasing. Another environmental constraint is the resident wildlife. Though the wildlife on this site can be a nuisance, it must still be protected during construction. This will involve working outside of nesting season and marking all nesting areas to ensure they are protected throughout construction. 6.3.5 Social Constraints (Safety, Equity, and Access) A safety constraint that needs to be a focus of the design is maintenance access. All two proposed designs should address safe maintenance access. It is very difficult to maintain a large culvert system safely. Manholes or maintenance access points should be provided to meet local design standards. Another aspect of this site that will be a struggle to maintain is the wetland areas. An appropriately sized access road should be installed to all wetland areas to ensure maintenance crews have enough room to bring in all necessary equipment. An equity constraint for this project is representation in the planning of the site. Historically underserved or nearby low-income neighborhoods should have meaningful input during the design and planning process, ensuring the project reflects their needs and cultural identity. This can be accomplished by holding open houses during the design phase to ensure all voices and opinions are heard, as well as to explain the benefits of the project to the community. Because of the geography of the site, there is an accessibility constraint. As mentioned in Section 6.2, the site will need to maintain the stormwater detention volume. Because of this, there will be slopes and berms throughout the site, making accessibility a key focus of the design. This can be addressed by installing ADA-compliant ramps and paths to all areas of the site. 6.3.6 Community Constraints (Resiliency, Business, Risk) A community constraint for this project is the potential apprehension surrounding the removal of the pond due to its historic value. The pond has been a recognizable feature of the area for many years and is likely tied to the community’s identity and sense of place. Many residents may view it as more than just a stormwater feature, it represents a piece of local history and a natural gathering space. Removing or significantly altering it could create concern or resistance from the public, especially among long-term residents who value its heritage. To address this, the project should incorporate community engagement early in the design process to listen to concerns, share the purpose and benefits of the redevelopment, and explore ways to preserve the pond’s legacy. This could include interpretive signage, a memorial water feature, or educational elements that honor the site’s history while still allowing for modernization and improved environmental function. 155 | P a g e 6.3.7 Economic Constraints (Including a Proposed Budget) Though five different entities benefit from a project like this, Salt Lake County, West Valley City, the Utah Department of Transportation, Kearns, and Taylorsville City, there is still a budget constraint. Because the site is owned by Salt Lake County, the other entities may view contributing to this project as not their responsibility. However, based on background information, history, and current drainage systems, all parties benefit from this site and will continue to benefit from the improvements made through this project. It will be crucial to demonstrate to each of these entities that they should contribute to the project, as it will enhance their stormwater drainage systems even if the site lies outside their boundaries or ownership. 6.3.8 Stakeholder Interests There are many stakeholders who show responsibility and interest in this property reaching its highest potential. Though there are several, there is one stakeholder whose needs, wants, and priorities should be the main focus: the residents who will use this property. In 2015, Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation completed a master plan for the following ten years. During the development of this plan, a survey was sent out to residents to gather information on what they wanted the department to focus on. The two leading types of areas that residents identified were trails (walking, running, biking) and natural areas/wildlife habitats. Due to the size of the lake and its poor water quality, the current site does not align with either of these primary needs or wants of the residents. The removal of the lake would not only provide a better environment for wildlife but would also open up enough space on the site to potentially add a trail system with designated “green space” or wildlife habitat areas. In the same master plan, the County also emphasized the importance of parks and open space: “The most important benefits to households of having County parks and recreation facilities and programs are that they improve physical health and wellness, improve mental health and reduce stress, make Salt Lake County a better place to live, preserve open space, and help reduce neighborhood crime.” [1], [10], [20] The removal of the lake would be a great first step in redeveloping this site into an area that could deliver this type of positive impact on the community. 6.3.9 Stakeholder Benefits Removing the lake from the Decker Lake site adds many benefits to the area. The removal of the lake will provide a much cleaner and smell-free environment for residents by eliminating stagnant water and relocating resident waterfowl. It will also lower the maintenance costs of the property by eliminating the need for water quality testing, water quality monitoring, and other maintenance associated with the lake and wetland area. This has been a struggle for Salt Lake County for years. This mitigation plan will also free up many acres of land that can be used by the community in ways that are far more beneficial to the livelihood of the residents. By 156 | P a g e removing the lake, it opens so much land that there are endless possibilities for the redevelopment of the site. With all these benefits, many stakeholders will gain from the redevelopment of the site, including Salt Lake County, due to the lower maintenance costs. It also benefits agencies such as the Salt Lake County Health Department and the Utah Division of Water Quality by eliminating the risk of harmful algae blooms in the water [8]. The Division of Wildlife Resources will benefit from the removal of polluted water that has been known to harm wildlife on the site. Additionally, the local community will benefit from the removal of an eyesore and unpleasant odors. As stated by the Westside Coalition, “Clean air and water are foundational to life. WSC values having access to clean air and drinking water. The WSC recognizes the historical disproportionate environmental degradation in our communities and values efforts to lift environmental justice for our residents.” [12] This part of the valley has a history of poor environmental conditions, and the removal of Decker Lake would be a clear community benefit. 6.4 Development of Alternatives With filling the lake, the water has to be redirected from the western inlets (and I-215 stormwater runoff) towards the existing eastern outlet. There are two viable options for redirecting the flow; a) build (dredge) a new canal around the northern end of the lake and, b) pipe the canal through a culvert underground from entrance to exit. For the second option, an additional water treatment step can be installed at the head of the culvert. A hydrodynamic separator could be installed as a “shallow treatment unit that traps and retains trash, debris, sediment, and hydrocarbons from runoff” [21]. On the first design choice, which would be the most economically feasible, building a canal around the north rim of the existing lake would still allow for some natural scenery to be made for the current bike and walking trail, and would encourage faster water movement to reduce algae growth (therein reducing smells and undesired aquatic life). This would allow the lake to be drained and filled for recreational opportunities. The second design choice would fill the entire lake area, with a culvert being constructed straight from the western canal entrance to the eastern canal exit. This would allow maximum use of the land area for recreation or future development of park space. The third design consideration is to fill only the east side of the lake. This option would still allow for approximately 11 acres of land to be used for amenities such as a park, trails, or a cycle track, without affecting the existing wetland area. It would include approximately 2200 feet of box culvert and overflow channel, along with a large flared-end box culvert. This design also provides an opportunity for a long-term BMP sediment removal device located near the midpoint of the existing lake, as well as an access road for maintenance vehicles to reach both the channel and the box culvert. 157 | P a g e 6.5 Design Alternatives On design, there will be ultimately two different design considerations made for the land redevelopment of the existing lake. Both design considerations fill in a considerable portion of the lake (approximately 25 acres), while retaining a portion of the lake to be used for the existing wetlands that are required to be in place as per the USACE requirements [14]. The first design consideration (6.5.1) will involve a constructed canal that will be built around the northern portion of the existing lake, alongside the existing shoreline. There will be a constructed stream along the southwestern side of the lake to allow water migration towards the upper northwest portion to ensure proper drainage (if not needed for the reconstruction of the wetlands). However, this design can also consider moving water from the northwester canal entrance back down towards the wetlands to ensure proper movement of water (by necessary flow rate, as needed). The second design (6.5.1 Alternative 1 and 6.5.2 Alternative 2) will focus on piping the majority of the water underneath the then filled lake from the northwest to the northeast in an underground open channel culvert. This design will also consider flood zone requirements [22], including a box culvert that would allow additional water storage in the event of a 50-to-100year storm event (see figures 6.6 and 6.7 for design considerations on box location). At the head of the culvert there would be a sediment capture device that would try to remove sediment from the canal water before passing it down towards the exit of the lake (see chapter 5’s considerations). 6.5.1 Alternative 1: Built Canal On the first design consideration, a built canal will require dredging around the western and northern side of the existing lake to create a controlled movement of the influent water from the Kerns-Chesterfield drain influent to the Northeast corner of the property. Construction will consider building an earth dam to initially route the water and allow drainage of the lake, to later fill it with materials to build up to a final grade. This option will also potentially allow some of the existing controlled wetlands to be migrated (or increased) along the edge of the newly built canal system. Also, by building a slope along the built canal, flooding can be directed and managed within the canal system (exact dimensions will be later calculated when flow rate requirements are known). See Figure 6.4 with supplementary tables for proposed design consideration. The design of the canal will consider the flow rate requirements for normal seasonal flow and for 50-to-100-year storm events. That will ultimately consider the overall width of the canal, with an additional 20 feet on each side of the built canal to allow for storm overflow (FEMA requirements) and construction of new wetlands. The earthen build-up around the canal will be of low permeable materials to ensure proper movement of water with minimal seepage into the built lake area. Additional soils will be added above the lift of low permeable soils to allow the growth of vegetation. 158 | P a g e Figure 6.4: Plan View with Proposed Canal Location (in Red) and Additional Runoff (in Orange) and Boundary Lines. As illustrated in Figure 6.4, the existing wetlands will be moved towards the southwestern portion of the existing lake, allowing the southern runoff to be the main supply to the newly placed wetlands (and having additional runoff supplied from the western canal entrance after sediment removal). The exact location will be determined in final design considerations. Only approximately 6 acres of wetlands will remain (less if wetland conditions are improved). With this, approximately 25 acres of land could be developed after draining and filling the lake with materials. 6.5.2 Alternative 2: Piped Culvert (with Two Concrete Structure Locations) On the second design choice, all water that initially fed the lake will be re-directed to a buried culvert. This culvert will originate on the western side of the lake, connecting the existing inlet of the Kearns-Chesterfield Canal and re-directing the water to the eastern outlet of the lake. The southwestern inlet from the stormdrain will feed the wetland to be re-constructed on the southwestern edge, and if needed, will flow towards the inlet of the western culvert entrance. To comply with FEMA floodzone requirements, a concrete structure with culvert inlet and outlet will be constructed to allow for sudden influx of water needing to drain from the area [22]. The land surrounding the box structure will allow drainage directly into it (gentle slopes to allow water flow during heavy rainfall). The design of the concrete structure can vary as needed for the requirements of the project (between steel grate covers to open pit with railing). 6.5.2a Piped Culvert with Western Concrete Structure Inlet By having the concrete structure on the western side of the filled in lake portion, multiple benefits can be achieved. Sediment removal can be done close together 159 | P a g e to the sediment removal processes provided immediately before the concrete structure, when and if needed. Second, it contains necessary drainage and floodplain requirements in a concealed location on the west side of the lake, not interrupting the newly constructed flat areas. This structure could also take overflow from the wetlands and store it temporarily before sending excess water down the culvert. Figure 6.5: Plan View with Proposed Culvert and Western Concrete Structure Locations As illustrated above, Figure 6.5 displays a plan view of where the concrete structure would be approximately placed and the rough area outline of where the newly constructed wetlands could be placed. There is also a rough outline (as shown in the legend) on the sloped area that would contain the flood zone as needed. 6.5.2b Piped Culvert with Central Concrete Structure Inlet The last design consideration will have the concrete structure placed more centrally in the lake area, on the downslope of the existing land mass on the south-central portion of the existing lake. This will allow for less congestion on the western portion of the lake for sediment removal. It will also allow for (if needed), a much larger area of drainage for FEMA flood requirements [22]. 160 | P a g e Figure 6.6: Plan View with Proposed Culvert and Central Concrete Structure Locations In the final consideration, as shown in Figure 6.6, the proposed concrete structure location would allow for a simpler drainage design that would require less grading considerations. This location would also benefit from using a flat, grated metal cover for the structure, allowing water to flow in through the top and protecting the public from falling into a larger, open structure. All design considerations ultimately allow for the increase in usable space and cleaning of the water passing through the area as it makes its way to the Great Salt Lake. Comparing the costs, the canal would provide the most economical solution to the problem but would require slightly more maintenance and upkeep than the culvert. The culvert would allow the maximum amount of space to be used but would require a larger upfront investment. This is considered in Sections 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9 below. 6.6 Case Studies Throughout our research, we examined case studies involving projects comparable in scope to the Decker Lake proposal, particularly those focused on lake removal and subsequent land repurpose. The South-North Water Transfer Project in China, the project was proposed as an initiative to redirect substantial volumes of water from the nation’s more water-abundant southern regions to its arid northern areas. The water-transfer project has high capital and operational expenditure; however, it has been deemed essential to support the significant demand for water to support economic growth in the northern provinces. By reallocating water resources, the project is expected to enhance irrigation capacity and improve agricultural productivity across northern farmlands. The associated costs are considerable and represent a financial burden that will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers [23]. 161 | P a g e Wheadon Farm Park in Draper, Utah, is a 64-acre public park developed under a recreation master plan that is strictly governed by a binding conservation easement [24]. The legal instrument was established by the Wheadon family and helped by the Utah Open Lands, specifies that all public use of the property must preserve its conservation value, with particular emphasis on maintaining its historic and agricultural character and reinforcing a “strong farm theme”, notable in Figure 6.7. The primary design challenge involved developing multi-use recreational infrastructures such as trails, sports fields, and essential utilities while adhering to restrictions on the size, placement, and permanence of built features to ensure that the rural landscape remained intact. The planning process also required extensive stakeholder engagement, as significant community opposition arose regarding proposed parking areas and other amenities near residential property lines. As a result, planners were required to balance the legal constraints of the conservation easement with social expectations for open-space preservation, privacy protection, and compatible recreational development [24]. Figure 6.7: Wheadon Park [25]. A critical challenge in advancing equitable sustainability development is the urban green space paradox: how ecological improvements designed with the intent to address environmental and public health issues inadvertently contribute to the displacement of vulnerable communities. Although urban green spaces provide essential ecosystem services and significant health benefits, their uneven distribution is a significant environmental justice issue, particularly in low-income neighborhoods and communities. While West Valley City is not classified as a lowincome neighborhood, its median household income remains below the regional average, placing it on the lower end of the income spectrum [26]. A prominent example of this paradox can be seen in Hangzhou, China, where former industrial and infrastructural lands were retrofitted into green public spaces. These improvements led to rising property values, 162 | P a g e illustrating how environmental enhancements can accelerate gentrification pressures. To mitigate such outcomes, planners and designers must prioritize context-specific, small-scale interventions, explicitly incorporate community needs, and integrate anti-gentrification measures to ensure that environmental sustainability is advanced in tandem with social equity [20]. 6.7 Funding Opportunities and to Pay for The Fill In There are numerous grants and funding opportunities available for projects aimed at uplifting communities like this one. These grants come in various forms and from a range of sources. The primary and often most substantial source is the federal government. One key example is the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLP), a competitive federal grant under the Land and Water Conservation Fund that supports municipalities in underserved urban areas in creating or renovating public parks and outdoor spaces. Funds may be used for land acquisition, park development, or major rehabilitation projects. Another significant federal program is the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which provides matching grants to states and local governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities, supporting both new parks and improvements to existing ones. Additionally, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) offers flexible funding municipalities can use for neighborhood revitalization efforts, including creating or enhancing parks and green spaces, especially in low- and moderate-income communities. At the state level, Utah provides several grants well-suited to this type of project. The Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant funds the development of new outdoor recreation infrastructure statewide, including parks, trails, river access points, and climbing facilities. This grant accommodates projects ranging from small community initiatives to large regional assets, with an emphasis on increasing outdoor access and driving economic impact. The Recreation Restoration Infrastructure (RRI) Grant supports the repair, renovation, or replacement of aging or damaged outdoor recreation infrastructure on public lands in Utah, ensuring safe and highquality outdoor experiences through the revitalization of existing parks, trails, and amenities. The Community Parks & Recreation (CPR) Grant encourages the development or enhancement of local parks, sports fields, playgrounds, and recreational facilities, improving access to quality outdoor spaces and recreational opportunities throughout Utah’s cities and towns. Nonprofit organizations and foundations also offer important funding opportunities for projects like this. Locally, several foundations provide grants that align well with the goals of the Decker Lake project. Among the most promising are the George S. and Dolores Doré Eccles Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Power Foundation, and the Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust. The George S. and Dolores Doré Eccles Foundation is a prominent Utah philanthropic organization that awards grants across a wide range of sectors—including community development, conservation, education, arts, health, and preservation—with the goal of enhancing quality of life throughout Utah and the Intermountain West. 163 | P a g e The Rocky Mountain Power Foundation serves as the charitable arm of the utility company, providing grants through multiple annual cycles to organizations focused on community enhancement, environmental initiatives such as trail and ecosystem restoration, education and STEM, public safety, and wellness. The Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust is a state-authorized fund managed jointly by Audubon and The Nature Conservancy. It invests in water transactions, wetland restoration, and habitat protection to improve the quantity and quality of water that supports the Great Salt Lake and its surrounding ecosystem. Given the considerable opportunity to benefit both the environment and local residents, there is strong potential to secure financial support for the proposed work. While each funding source has its own application process, pursuing these grants will be well worth the effort. Every dollar invested in this project will not only enhance the natural environment but also provide the surrounding community with a valuable new asset. 6.8 Comparison of Alternatives The differences between the pricing and outcomes of canal and culvert options are minimal compared to choosing to take no action. While both options laid out in previous sections have pros and cons, the main takeaway is that either is preferable to allowing the water problem to persist and invest large amounts of money into attempts to maintain and fix the water quality problems the lake currently experiences. 6.8.1 Feasibility Assessment Matrix Below is a Feasibility Assessment Matrix of the average of both the canal and culvert designs, to be used to compare against the solutions described in other chapters. Table 6.1: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Proposed Solutions to Decker Lake People Planet Profit Increase Public Watershed/Ecosyst Infrastructure Health 5 em Improvement 6 Development (Cost- 6 Benefit) Water Usability / Wildlife & Aquatic Construction / Accessibility 2 Biodiversity 4 Design Life 6 Stakeholders Input / Involvement 6 Climate Change / Snow Pack 4 Public Outreach / Education Final Score Air / Sound / Light Pollution Final Score 4 4.5 4 4.25 Increase Local Economies 5 (Business / Tourism) Goods & Services (Broadly Conceived) 5 Final Score 5.5 164 | P a g e As seen in Table 6.1, the reduction of water volume both benefits public health by reducing areas covered by unsafe water and decreasing the access and usability of the water. These pros and cons are important when choosing design based on the main purpose of the project. Another important factor to mention is the relocated wetland area. As seen above, most environmental effects are negligible or highly variable as the benefit or detriment to the environment is mostly determined by how effective the approach to the relocated wetland area is. Discussions on how best to cultivate a created wetland can be found in other chapters. However, it is important to note that these recommendations will be more easily applied to the smaller wetland area mentioned in our designs. 6.9 Discussion The goal of this project is improving the usable space, environment, safety, and overall usability of the Decker Lake Property while at the same time meeting the needs of the surrounding community. During the design phase, two design alternatives were developed. The first was redirecting the lake into an open-channel canal that would flow along the northern boundary of the property, and the second was redirecting the flows through the property into a box culvert. Each option has advantages and limitations. The purpose of this discussion is to review the findings and how they relate to the overall goal of the project. Using the triple bottom line assessment in Section 6.8, it is clear that both alternatives would provide added open space, clean up the environment around the site, and reduce the maintenance costs associated with the property. However, the culvert option offers more usable space because the area over the top of the culvert could be used as open space, trails, and natural landscapes. The open-channel design does offer a great amount of open space, while also helping the environment and reducing maintenance costs, but it does not provide as much usable space on the site and does have a safety concern attached to it. Cost differences play a vital role in choosing between the two alternatives. Though both projects will require a large investment, the open-channel canal is the more cost-effective choice. This may dictate the final decision, depending on how much funding is available. Environmental impacts were found to be similar. Both alternatives would discourage resident waterfowl on the site, and keeping the water moving in both designs will lessen the likelihood of algae blooms. The culvert option may slightly reduce long-term maintenance, as the enclosed structure will limit trash and debris from entering the water. There are still some uncertainties in this assessment, such as final funding, community feedback, and specific onsite limitations. These factors will influence the final recommendation once more information is available. However, based on what is currently known, the culvert design aligns more closely with the vision of what this site can become and what the community has asked for—a large, natural space where trails, playgrounds, and open recreational areas can be built on a safe and clean property for all to use and enjoy. 165 | P a g e 6.10 Recommendations To recommend one design alternative over another, a triple bottom line assessment has been performed. Using this data along with variables such as budget, community opinion, and on-site conditions, it will be possible to select the best design alternative for the redevelopment of this site. 6.10.1 Reason for Recommendations To recommend a specific design consideration, more information would need to be known. After consulting the triple bottom line assessment, it is clear that both design considerations have pros and cons. One factor in choosing between these options will be the cost difference, though both will result in similar benefits to the site. The culvert, while more expensive, will provide more usable area. The canal design will also offer added usable area but will not provide as much as the culvert design, as you will not be able to build over the top of the canal. Safety is another factor that needs to be considered when making a decision. Though the culvert option does have some safety concerns, it is much safer than the canal option as it covers most of the open water on site and eliminates a drowning risk. A more informed decision can be made once funding has been secured. In conclusion, if funding allows for the culvert option, this is the recommended choice. If funding only allows for the canal option, it is still a worthwhile investment and should be selected. 6.10.2 Benefits and Future Action(s) As explained throughout this chapter, the benefits of this site redevelopment are plentiful. When the triple bottom line is consulted, it is clear that the project is beneficial to all three stakeholders: people, the environment, and finances. The main focus when considering the design options was to redevelop this property into a site that benefits the surrounding community. By removing a large portion of the lake and adding open space, a site that the community actually wants, and has asked for, can be created. A site like this could become a fixture of the community that will be heavily used and enjoyed by all. Second, although this design may not appear to benefit the environment at first glance, it would address a consistent problem the site has had for decades, the issue of resident waterfowl. By removing the lake, these birds will no longer be able to live here year-round. This will reduce the E. coli problem that has been a recurring issue for this body of water. Lastly, there is the added monetary benefit. Currently, this site has extremely high maintenance costs due to the complex operations required to maintain an urban lake. These operations include dredging, trash cleanup in open water, water quality monitoring and testing, and wildlife mitigation. All of these tasks are time and money-intensive, as they often require multiple agencies and specialized equipment. If the lake were removed, much of this work would no longer be necessary or would be greatly reduced. This decrease in maintenance will result in significantly less money being spent on the site each year. 166 | P a g e Figure 6.8: Salt Lake County Residence Responses to park and recreation amenities prioritization. After this construction has been completed, the site becomes a blank canvas with an added 25.5 acres of usable area and can become whatever the county would like it to be. In the 2015 Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a survey was sent out to residents asking what types of facilities they would like to see built. The results were conclusive: the types of facilities residents want are trail, walking, running, and biking amenities, as well as natural areas and wildlife habitat [27]. Although this is what the community wants and what we encourage as the future of this site, the possibilities are endless. With the added space this could be a mixed-use park area with dog parks, playgrounds, trails, open space, recreation courts, and community gathering areas. The final design will ultimately depend on funding, public input, and long-term maintenance considerations. With thoughtful planning, this area has the potential to become a valued public space that reflects the needs and priorities of the surrounding community. 6.11 References [1] “2015 Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan,” Salt Lake County,https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/globalassets/2-parks--rec/review/planningreview/parks-rec-master-plan.pdf (accessed Oct. 25, 2025). [2] “Jordan River (Utah),” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_River_(Utah) (accessed Oct. 25, 2025). [3] S. Biesinger, “Herding Ducks on Decker Lake: Tom & May Kendrick’s Industrious Legacy,” West Valley City History , Jul. 06, 2025. https://www.westvalleycityhistory.com/blogposts/2017/12/29/thennow-n6kgk (accessed Oct. 27, 2025). 167 | P a g e [4] United States Geological Survey, AR1AU0000010020: Decker Lake 1943-10-09. 1943. Accessed: Oct. 26, 2025. [Online Aerial Image]. Available: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ [5] S. Biesinger, “Moonlight on the Ice: Skating at Decker Lake in the 1940s,” West Valley City History , May 03, 2018. https://www.westvalleycityhistory.com/blogposts/2018/5/2/2300west-2800-south?rq=decker%20lake (accessed Oct. 27, 2025). [6] S. Biesinger, “Every Drop Counts: The Long Fight for Water in Hunter & Granger,” West Valley City History , Jul. 03, 2025. https://www.westvalleycityhistory.com/blogposts/2017/12/29/then-now-39cyg (accessed Oct. 27, 2025). [7] S. Biesinger, “Hidden Lakes & Hard Lessons: How Early Waterways Shaped Granger & Hunter,” West Valley City History , Jul. 13, 2025. https://www.westvalleycityhistory.com/blogposts/2017/10/15/map-58jyx?rq=decker%20lake (accessed Oct. 27, 2025). [8] M. Christensen, “History | West Valley City, UT - Official Site,” www.wvc-ut.gov/327/Historyof-West-Valley-City. https://www.wvc-ut.gov/327/History-of-West-Valley-City (accessed Oct. 26, 2025). [9] A. Chiesura, “The role of Urban Parks for the sustainable city,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 129–138, Aug. 2003. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003 [10] J. R. Wolch, J. Byrne, and J. P. Newell, “Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough,’” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 125, pp. 234–244, Mar. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017 [11] C. Walker and T. Lucke, “Urban lakes as a WSUD system,” Approaches to Water Sensitive Urban Design, pp. 269–285, 2019. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-812843-5.00013-7 [12] Westside Coalition, “Current Issue Areas,” Westside Coalition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. [Online]. Available: https://westsideslc.org/current-issue-areas/ [13] “Permits,” Saltlakecounty.gov, Jan. 18, 2023. https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/floodcontrol/permits/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2025). [14] “Understanding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Authority and Jurisdiction,” Regulatory Request Wystem (RRS), https://rrs.usace.army.mil/rrs/home/jurisdiction (accessed Nov. 2, 2025). [15] Utah Division of Water Rights, “Stream Alteration Program,” Utah Division of Water Rights Website. [Online]. Available: https://waterrights.utah.gov/strmalt/ (accessed Nov. 21, 2025). 168 | P a g e [16] Utah Dept of Enviro Quality, “General Construction (Storm Water): UPDES Permits - Utah Department of Environmental Quality,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Apr. 30, 2019. https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/general-construction-storm-water-updes-permits [17] “2025 Fee Schedule,” 2024. https://lfpublic.deq.utah.gov/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=459609&eqdocs=EDO-2024-000046 (accessed Nov. 16, 2025). [18] “Right-of-Way Permits | West Valley City, UT - Official Site,” Wvc-ut.gov, 2023. https://www.wvc-ut.gov/177/Right-of-Way-Permits (accessed Nov. 17, 2025). [19] “Stream Alteration,” Utah.gov, 2021. https://www.waterrights.utah.gov/strmalt/default.asp#application-forms (accessed Nov. 17, 2025). [20] J. R. Wolch, J. Byrne, and J. P. Newell, “Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough,’” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 125, no. 125, pp. 234–244, May 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017. [21] “Vortechs stormwater treatment from Contech,” Contech Engineered Solutions, https://www.conteches.com/stormwater-management/hydrodynamic-separation/vortechs/ (accessed Oct. 23, 2025). [22] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Flood Maps,” FEMA.gov. [Online]. Available: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps. (Accessed Nov. 17, 2025). [23] “The South-North Water Transfer Project in China,” Internet Geography. https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-south-north-water-transfer-project-in-china/ [24] “Wheadon Farm Park Master Plan.” Accessed: Dec. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/globalassets/2-parks--rec/planning--development/masterplans/recreation-center/wheadon-farm-park-master-plan.pdf [25] “ArcSitio Design,” Arcsitiodesign.com, 2025. https://www.arcsitiodesign.com/projects/parks_openspace/wheadon-farm-park.html [26] “Neighborhoods - University Neighborhood Partners,” Utah.edu, 2021. https://www.partners.utah.edu/about-unp/neighborhoods/ [27] Salt Lake County Parks & Recreation, Salt Lake County 2015 Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan, Salt Lake County, UT, USA, Sep. 1, 2015. 169 | P a g e Chapter 7 Reimagining Decker Lake: A Systematic Approach to Redesigning the Footprint for Improved Water Quality and Recreation Calvin Butz, Mark Horton, Lisa Stranski, and Hampton Davis Executive Summary Decker Lake is currently facing severe ecological decline, poor water quality, limited public access, and inadequate park amenities. These conditions prevent it from functioning as a healthy lake and as a desirable recreational facility. Restoring the lake in its existing footprint is not feasible due to accumulated pollutants, shallow depth, and long-term hydrologic issues. This project proposes a reconfigured lake footprint and phased redevelopment strategy aimed at improving water quality, enhancing site usability, and expanding recreational opportunities for the West Valley City community. The proposed redevelopment is organized into four different phases. Phase I introduces bioswales, rain gardens, and a pretreatment basin. Phase II reshapes the physical footprint of the lake by dredging the western basin and using excavated material to fill the east side of the site, establishing new land for future improvements. Phase III focuses on access, safety, and visitor experience through a larger, more functional parking lot, improved walking routes, and a permanent restroom facility. Phase IV explores the addition of a small community amphitheater on the newly created northeast land area, providing cultural and recreational programming while offering potential long-term economic value through partnerships or venue operation. These combined improvements will revitalize Decker Lake as a vibrant, functional, and environmentally-responsible urban park. The project enhances ecological performance, restores community trust in the lake’s health, and expands opportunities for recreation, gathering, and cultural activities. By addressing long-standing environmental and accessibility challenges while creating new spaces for public use, this redesign positions Decker Lake as a valuable community asset that reflects the needs, identity, and future vision of West Valley City. Keywords: Community, Decker Lake, earthwork, engineering, hydrology, and West Valley City 170 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 7.1 Introduction and Phase Introduction 7.1.1 Purpose and Limitations of Study 7.1.2 Research Question 7.2 Stakeholder Analysis 7.2.1 Triple Bottom Line Introduction 7.3 Phase I Design Alternative Concept and Drawing 7.3.1 Phase I Basis of Design/Statement of Needs 7.3.2 Phase I Assumptions and Unknowns 7.3.3 Phase I Constraints 7.3.4 Phase I Design Evaluation 7.3.5 Phase I Design Budget 7.4 Phase II Design Alternative Concept and Drawing 7.4.1 Phase II Basis of Design/Statement of Needs 7.4.2 Phase II Assumptions and Unknowns 7.4.3 Phase II Constraints 7.4.4 Phase II Design Evaluation 7.4.5 Phase II Design Budget 7.5 Phase III Design Alternative Concept and Drawing 7.5.1 Phase III Basis of Design/Statement of Needs 7.5.2 Phase III Assumptions and Unknowns 7.5.3 Phase III Constraints 7.5.4 Phase III Design Evaluation 7.5.5 Phase III Design Budget 7.6 Phase IV Design Alternative Concept and Drawing 7.6.1 Phase IV Basis of Design/Statement of Needs 7.6.2 Phase IV Assumptions and Unknowns 7.6.3 Phase IV Constraints 7.6.4 Phase IV Design Evaluation 7.6.5 Phase IV Design Budget 7.7 Case Study 7.7.1 Project Background 7.7.2 Key Intervention Features 171 | P a g e 7.7.3 Lessons Applicable to Decker Lake 7.7.4 Relevance to the GSI + Lake-Reduction Approach 7.8 Grant/Funding Opportunities 7.9 Discussion 7.9.1 Rating Criteria (Including TBL Matrix) 7.9.2 Design Solution Ratings 7.10 Recommendations 7.10.1 Reason for Recommendations 7.10.2 Benefits and Future Action(s) 7.11 References List of Figures Figure 7.1 Decker Lake Site Image, Current [1] Figure 7.2 Decker Lake Site Image, Design Solution [1] Figure 7.3 Decker Lake Fill Areas 1 & 2 Figure 7.4 OpenTopography GIS Decker Lake East Side Figure 7.5 Staging Area and Alternate Bike Path Figure 7.6 Design Drawing on top of an image of Decker Lake and Land Surrounding Decker Lake [1] Figure 7.7 Detailed design of parking lot [1] Figure 7.8 Detailed design and layout of restroom Figure 7.9 Northeast fill footprint Figure 7.10 Elementary Concept Site Plan of Small Venue List of Tables Table 7.1 Stakeholder Analysis [3] Table 7.2 The Initial data for the task of choosing the optimal composition of parking spaces in an available Table 7.3 The Criteria for Design of Restrooms and if considered Table 7.4 Design Element Design Evaluation Table 7.5 Cost breakdown for the whole Southeast side of the park Table 7.6 Phase IV Tiered Concert Venue Evaluation Table 7.7 Phase TBL Matrix Evaluation [4] 172 | P a g e 7.1 Introduction and Phase Introduction Decker Lake is in a very crucial stage of its life where it is on the tipping point of remaining a polluted and neglected site, or if given the proper attention, an attractive public park that is a staple park for West Valley City and the community. Decker Lake is in dire need of renovation; there is no doubt about it. Many chapters in this research report propose excellent ideas that have real possibility to be viable solutions to help improve the park like constructed wetlands and other water reclamation strategies; however, this chapter asserts the claim that keeping Decker Lake in its current configuration and size is not sustainable. Like chapter 6, our research chapter believes that proposed solutions in other chapters will work but could become too expensive or complicated to implement, and changing the landscape of the site is a more viable solution to Decker Lakes problems. Our divergence from Chapter 6 begins with the issue of the lake, while they propose removing the lake entirely; this chapter proposes merely changing the footprint of the lake. The lake suffers from several issues, but the most important to the key functionality of the site is the water quality and ecological issues, site access/amenities, and the overall attractiveness/appeal to the site. This chapter proposes a design solution that changes the overall footprint of the lake but is based upon 4 phases of individual design solutions and operations that will come together to fix these issues that dawn over the site; they are as follows: Phase I • The implementation of bioswales and constructed wetlands to the west side of the lake, the side that will be preserved as a lake. Bioswales and constructed wetlands will be crucial to fixing the water quality and ecological issues that the lake faces. Phase II • Is the crucial phase of the project that changes the footprint of the lake. This solution involves dredging and excavating the west side of the lake to make it deeper and support Phase I operations and will use that excavated material to fill parts of the northeast and southeast sides of the lake. Phase III • Is focused on fixing the site's access and amenities issues that park faces. This phase will utilize the southeast section to fill in Phase II to add bathrooms and expand the parking lot. Phase IV • Utilizes the northeast section of fill in Phase II to propose a small concert venue or amphitheater in addition to the site for the community. Phase IV also presents the idea of introducing a public-private partnership opportunity to These phases are combined to address persistent issues that Decker Lake faces, and the issues that prevent it from being a site that people in the community want to visit and recreate at. This will give Decker Lake a new look for the benefit of the community, environment, 173 | P a g e stakeholders, and will turn the lake into an attractive aesthetic site that people can enjoy in the heart of the Salt Lake Valley rather than driving 45 minutes to recreate in the mountains. Figure 7.1: Decker Lake Site Image, Current [1]. Figure 7.2: Decker Lake Site Image, Design Solution [1]. The two figures above show a satellite image of Decker Lake currently and a basic outline of the proposed footprint changes of the lake, respectively. 7.1.1 Purpose, Goals, and Limitations of Study In order to get a holistic perspective of Decker Lake, it is important to understand how the site is viewed and valued by the community is necessary, so that the purpose and limitations of the project can be properly defined and used to guide future design options. Maggie Scholle’s research paper provides helpful insight into what people use Decker Lake for, why they use it, and what barriers prevent them from using it [2]. This information offers valuable context that can help identify the best design alternative for the site. Her research involved surveying several dozen community members from various backgrounds and asking them questions about their experiences with the lake. Summarizing her findings, it is reasonable to say that Decker Lake is used as both a 174 | P a g e recreational and restorative space where people walk, exercise, connect with nature, and take quiet breaks. Her research also extensively examines barriers to accessing Decker Lake, with 60.6% of respondents identifying concerns related to pollution and cleanliness as their primary barrier to using the park [2]. From this, it is clear that people want the park to remain a place where they can recreate and connect with nature, and that site cleanup is a major priority. The purpose of this study is to use existing information about Decker Lake to develop a design solution for a major renovation that will satisfy residents and stakeholders while preserving the site as a lake and park. Changing the footprint is necessary because the current water quality is extremely poor and will require significant restoration efforts to make the lake suitable for wildlife, recreation, and long-term ecological health. The scope of presenting this idea is to use known information about the site, along with proposed improvements, to lay out a solution and discuss the factors that influence it. However, this project will encounter several limitations that will affect the scope and feasibility of the proposed renovation; these limitations include restricted access to updated site data due to limited ability to conduct independent studies; budget estimates that must remain conceptual and will likely include a high margin of error; uncertainties related to funding; reliance on publicly available hydrology data; and the inability to clearly define construction methods at this stage. Additional limitations will arise throughout the project and will be addressed as they become relevant. 7.1.2 Research Question How can redesigning the footprint of Decker Lake improve water quality, enhance the site’s landscape and wildlife habitat, and expand recreational opportunities for residents who use the park? This chapter explores how bioswales and dredging can be utilized to improve overall water quality, how the dredged and filled material can be repurposed to modify the lake’s footprint in ways that support ecological health and create new functional space, and how the surrounding area can be renovated to best serve all stakeholders who value the park. This includes improving access, adding amenities, and considering the development of a small amphitheater or concert venue that integrates with the site’s natural and recreational character. 7.2 Stakeholder Analysis The amount stakeholders that would be involved in a project like this is quite a bit. The park itself is owned by the city of West Valley, and a small section near I-215 is owned by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). Because of the complex nature of stakeholders in this project, many aspects and perspectives need to be considered when not only researching a project like this one, but when proposing design solutions. These factors will heavily influence the design solutions that are proposed and analyzed throughout the chapter. Table 7.3 calls out various types of potential stakeholders that would/could be involved in the project, what their stance may be, and the importance of their role in the project. 175 | P a g e Table 7.1: Stakeholder Analysis [3]. Stakeholder Role Interests West Valley City Land and project owner UDOT Partial owner of property Architect/Engineer AE Contracted by owner to design solutions Contractor Contracted by owner to construct solutions Non-Profits (ex Nature and Human Health Utah) Provide funds and input on solutions to Decker Lake Surrounding Community People who use and enjoy the park Grant/Funding departments in local and federal administrations (ex EPA) Provide funds to projects aimed at restoring natural sites Private Entities (Note: this well be explained in detail in section 7.6) Provide funds in a potential public private partnership Salt Lake County Provide funding and oversight Renovate Decker Lake to benefit residents, fix ecological issues facing the site, and efficiency with tax funds Ensure proposed solutions do not interfere with UDOT owned property and/or interests. Provide project funding if it aligns with their interests Research and design viable engineering solutions to meet owners’ goals Implementing design solutions approved by site owner(s) Implementing funds and support to preserve Decker Lake and support restoration efforts Ability to use site and enjoy the lake without current issues Proved funds for sites that are restoring natural space and ecological health and meet criteria of said funding programs Profit off Phase IV of the project by leasing part the property with the venue and operating the venue Ensure project meets county requirements and assist the municipality with funding and resources Importance (ranked 19, 1 is most important) 1 6 8 9 5 2 4 7 3 176 | P a g e Table 7.1 shows a stakeholder analysis relevant to this project by calling out each stakeholder, their interests, and rank of importance. 7.2.1 Triple Bottom Line Introduction The triple bottom line (TBL) framework, developed by John Elkington [4], provides a holistic method for evaluating the long-term sustainability of a project by examining its social, environmental, and economic impacts. Rather than measuring success through financial outcomes alone, the TBL approach emphasizes the interconnected benefits to people, planet, and profit. This methodology is especially valuable in public infrastructure and environmental restoration projects, where community well-being, ecological health, and fiscal responsibility must all be balanced. By applying the TBL to the Decker Lake renovation, this research highlights how thoughtful design and planning can create a project that strengthens local communities, restores natural systems, and remains economically viable over time. 7.3 Phase I Design Alternative The following section outlines design alternatives for Phase I 7.3.1 Strategy for Identifying Design Solutions The primary objective of this section is to identify and assess feasible green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) strategies that can intercept, treat, and infiltrate urban runoff before it enters the lake. GSI elements, such as bioswales, rain gardens, and constructed wetlands, are designed to slow flow, promote infiltration, and facilitate pollutant removal through physical, chemical, and biological processes [5-7]. Designing these systems for Utah’s semi-arid climate requires careful adaptation to variable precipitation, high sediment loads, and seasonal freeze–thaw cycles. In the context of Decker Lake’s proposed redesign, these systems will be configured to occupy minimal land area while maintaining efficient flow-through capacity. The goal is to improve water quality performance without expanding the treatment footprint, supporting the project’s broader plan to fill half of the lake and deepen the remaining basin. By prioritizing compact, high-efficiency systems along key inflow points, stormwater treatment can occur through a series of shallow, distributed conveyance zones rather than a large centralized wetland. This approach enhances hydraulic performance, reduces standing water, and aligns with the site’s intent to balance environmental restoration with recreation and accessibility objectives. Using hydrologic and hydraulic modeling frameworks like a Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) will help estimate detention and infiltration volumes, treatment area sizing, and runoff capture [8]. Modeling will also verify that reduced surface area and increased lake depth sustain overall detention performance and ensure that proposed inflows remain hydraulically stable under varying storm events. Drawing from municipal 177 | P a g e and regional case studies of bioswale, rain-garden, and constructed-wetland retrofits will help assess cost, maintenance needs, and lifecycle performance [9]. Three generalized design pathways will be developed for analysis: 1 Linear Bioswale Network – A series of shallow, vegetated channels placed along major stormwater inflow corridors to slow runoff, trap sediment, and filter hydrocarbons before discharge into the lake. These bioswales provide continuous treatment along the inflow path while requiring minimal space. 2 Distributed Rain Garden Cells – Small landscaped depressions positioned in future park and parking-lot areas designed to capture and infiltrate first-flush runoff locally. These features function as decentralized treatment units, improving infiltration and reducing the pollutant load that reaches the main basin. 3 Constructed Pretreatment Basin – A compact, vegetated basin located upstream of the primary inflow designed for sedimentation and biological treatment before water enters the deeper, reshaped lake basin. The basin allows for easy maintenance and provides an additional buffer during highflow events. Together, these systems form a multi-stage treatment network that balances hydraulic efficiency with spatial economy. This strategy allows the GSI network to operate effectively despite the reduced overall lake area, ensuring pollutant removal and flowthrough performance remain high while supporting the site’s expanded recreational objectives. Each alternative will be evaluated for feasibility, pollutant-removal potential, ecological value, and consistency with the site’s design goals and the TBL framework. 7.3.2 Basis of Decision Making The decision-making framework for selecting design alternatives is guided by a TBL approach, integrating physical/environmental, social/community, and economic criteria [10]. Physical/Environmental Criteria: • Capture and treat stormwater to reduce pollutant and sediment inflows. • Maintain lake storage capacity through selective deepening and improved hydraulic conveyance. • Support ecological function and wildlife habitat through native plantings and water-quality enhancement. 178 | P a g e Social/Community Criteria: • Increase the park’s usability and safety through cleaner water and accessible recreation spaces. • Enhance visual quality and educational opportunities regarding sustainable water management. Economic Criteria: • Minimize life-cycle maintenance costs by using durable, low-energy GSI systems. • Explore funding partnerships and municipal bond structures similar to those used for Sugarhouse Park [11-12] , while adapting them to West Valley City’s scale and fiscal capacity. This framework ensures that selected solutions not only address immediate waterquality concerns but also advance the project’s long-term sustainability, equity, and financial feasibility. 7.3.3 Design Description & Concept Drawing Physical Configuration: The proposed GSI network conveys runoff sequentially through a treatment “train.” That is to say that the the runoff will sequentially go from a start to an end, being treated through each the process. Runoff from impervious areas, particularly from the freeway corridor and surrounding parking, first enters linear bioswales placed along inflow channels. These vegetated swales slow the flow, filter sediments, and direct water toward distributed rain-garden cells located within the new park landscape. The rain-garden network provides localized infiltration and nutrient uptake while also creating aesthetic planting zones for visitors. From there, overflow is routed to a compact constructed pretreatment basin that provides short-term settling and biological polishing before discharging into the deeper lake basin. This layout minimizes the total treatment area while maximizing hydraulic efficiency. Water moves gradually through multiple shallow systems that clean, cool, and regulate flow before reaching the lake. Check dams and vegetated berms dissipate energy and prevent erosion, and overflow structures allow safe routing of larger storm events. Transition to Vegetation and Soils: To visually and ecologically link these engineered components with the park environment, native vegetation and soils were selected to reinforce both structure and function. Vegetation and Soils: Native, drought-tolerant species such as Juncus balticus (Baltic rush), Schoenoplectus acutus (hardstem bulrush), and Salix exigua (coyote willow) will be planted for their 179 | P a g e strong root networks and high pollutant-uptake efficiency [13]. Engineered soil mixes (roughly 60% sand, 40% compost) provide rapid infiltration and nutrient adsorption while stabilizing banks. These species improve ecological resilience and maintain visual continuity between the restored shoreline and the new park landscape. Hydrologic Function: The redesigned lake and its treatment sequence will be modeled using EPA SWMM to confirm that detention and infiltration volumes meet or exceed current conditions [8]. The system is intended to capture the “first flush” of stormwater the initial runoff most concentrated with pollutants and route it through bioswales, rain-garden cells, and the pretreatment basin before entering the main basin. By maintaining a deeper lake volume with continuous inflow and outflow, the design achieves effective detention without stagnation. Overflow routing ensures conveyance of major storm events without erosion or flooding along the park perimeter. Together, these processes sustain the lake as a dynamic, self-flushing system rather than a static retention pond, improving long-term water quality and hydraulic reliability. Recreational Integration: The design improves aesthetics and public access by integrating walkways, interpretive signage, and overlook points near treatment areas. Visitors can observe visible bioswale vegetation and water movement, linking education with recreation and reinforcing community engagement in sustainable water management. 7.3.4 Design Constraints Physical Constraints: The reduced lake area limits available storage volume, requiring precise compensation through deepening and careful grading. Soil permeability variations and possible contamination from legacy sediments must be assessed before excavation. Seasonal freeze–thaw cycles may limit infiltration during winter months [Mark 8]. Sustainability and Maintenance Constraints: Performance depends on routine maintenance, inspecting vegetation health, removing accumulated sediment from bioswales and the pretreatment basin, and preventing clogging of inlets. Neglecting maintenance can reduce pollutant-removal efficiency by up to 50 % over time [15], [16]. A joint management plan between municipal and community groups is recommended to ensure sustainability. Social and Community Constraints: Safety considerations for shallow features and clear signage are required to minimize visitor risk. Maintenance and stewardship responsibilities should be coordinated between West Valley City and local park programs to encourage participation and ensure long-term upkeep. 180 | P a g e Economic Constraints: Implementation could follow a model similar to the Sugarhouse Park pond rehabilitation, where Salt Lake County approved a public bond for environmental improvements [11]. For West Valley City, a comparable infrastructure or communityimprovement bond, supported by state water-quality grants, could fund initial construction while public–private partnerships assist in maintenance. 7.3.5 Design Evaluation The proposed GSI network and reconfigured lake design demonstrate strong performance in meeting project goals for water-quality improvement, stormwater management, and site enhancement. Modeling results and case-study comparisons indicate that the multi-stage treatment sequence—bioswales, rain-garden cells, and a pretreatment basin—will substantially reduce suspended solids, hydrocarbons, and nutrient loads before inflow reaches the lake [8-9]. By deepening the remaining basin and maintaining a flow-through outlet, the design preserves detention capacity equivalent to or greater than current conditions while minimizing standing water and odor. The integrated use of native vegetation improves ecological resilience and visual quality, aligning with community and recreational objectives. While long-term success depends on consistent maintenance and sediment removal, the system’s modular layout and compact footprint make it cost-effective and scalable. Overall, this design offers a balanced, sustainable solution that enhances hydraulic function and pollutant control within a reduced lake footprint, supporting both the team’s engineering objectives and West Valley City’s broader environmental and social goals. 7.4 Phase II Design Alternative and Concept Drawing Portions of the East half of Decker Lake will be filled and covered. This will require draining the lake during the earthwork process, leading to temporary increased downstream waterflow. During the draining process, alternate flow routes to keep the lake empty until the earthwork is completed. Sources of fill and different suppliers will be identified, and their credentials will be submitted. A staging area will be established with roadside access to enable delivery of fill. The existing lake embankment and the Decker Lake perimeter path will be modified to allow fill to be placed in the lakebed. Earthwork will be completed to the designed grade, allowing for the next stages to begin construction. The fill sections will cover the North-East and South-East corners of Decker Lake. Figure 7.3 shows and labels the future fill areas. 181 | P a g e Figure 7.3: Decker Lake Fill Areas 1 & 2. 7.4.1 Basis of Design The decision to add the features outlined in stages III and IV require more area than currently exists in Decker Lake Park. Two separate fills will satisfy the requirements for the two additions to the park because the sizes were selected based on the later stages of the project. These areas were selected for their ease of access, proximity to existing dry land, and positions relative to the current inflows and outflows of Decker Lake. 7.4.2 Key Assumptions & Unknowns Once this project is fully designed, with submittals and requirements outlined, it will be put out as a competitive bid-build project. In such a format, construction companies estimate their own prices for equipment, materials, manpower, risk, and incentives. Specific machine rental prices, manhours, and material prices will vary between these bidders. Until the moment the bid becomes due, this information is confidential because of the competitive nature of the bidding format. This means that these different factors are out of the scope of this section and timeline. As such, the pricing at this stage is rudimentary and focuses on the aspects of the project which are of high certainty, such as material volume. 7.4.3 Phase II Design Constraints All common fill used is required to meet standards set by the APWA Utah Chapter 2025 Manual of Standard Specifications. Before placing fill, it is required to specify the name of the supplier, gradation, classification, and that these meet the selected ASTM standards. Many responsibilities of submittals and quality assurance fall on the supplier [17]. 182 | P a g e Fill calculations are speculative until the East half of the lake is entirely drained and surveyed, though there is another source of data for depth calculations, which is existing data. There are publicly available databases containing elevation and depth data. While the water remains, volume calculations require adaptive solutions. There are many different methods for obtaining bathymetric mapping. Extremely accurate data can be produced by using Lidar imaging. According to Bathymetric mapping by means of remote sensing: methods, accuracy and limitations, “This implementation can produce fine-detailed bathymetric maps over extensive turbid coastal and inland lake waters quickly, even though concurrent depth samples are essential. The detectable depth is usually limited to 20 m” [18]. This depth is well within the estimated depth of Decker Lake. However, this method is expensive, meaning the benefits of the results would not be worth the cost. Likewise, other advanced methods of scanning for underwater topology would yield results not worth their costs, especially when rough calculations will be sufficient. This is because the lake will be drained eventually, allowing for less expensive methods of surveying once the water is removed. The rough calculations will include depth measurements and easily obtained square footage by satellite. A few depth checks in key locations would provide estimators with a rough calculation of volume and cubic yards needed for backfill. However, the existing data from OpenTopography [19] does not focus on the elevation and depth measurements in the lake. Rather, they focus on the areas around the lake. Figure 7.4 displays the lack of specific measurement beneath the water in Decker Lake. Figure 7.4: OpenTopography GIS Decker Lake East Side. Though there are some measurements in the center of the lake, the two fill areas have large portions of unmeasured depth. These discrepancies are why elevation data and 183 | P a g e surveying will occur after the lake has been drained, and the true data of the topography of the lakebed is much easier to obtain. For now, rough calculations using square footage and average depths will be adequate. Maintenance of an alternate Decker Lake perimeter path will be required. According to the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility guidelines, “When a pedestrian circulation path is temporarily not accessible due to construction, maintenance operations, closure, or other similar conditions, an alternate pedestrian access route must be provided and comply with R303 and R402.” [20]. This adjustment will take into account the path of construction vehicles during the earthwork process. The existing Decker Lake perimeter path will be impeded upon by the staging area and vehicle access to the lakebed. A temporary path will be outlined to pass around construction and rejoin the portions of the path which are unaffected by the construction. The staging area and access will disrupt the path in the South-Eastern portion of the Decker Lake site. Figure (7.5) shows the layout for an alternate path around the staging area. Figure 7.5: Staging Area and Alternate Bike Path. Due to the inconvenience, noise, and aesthetic effects that will take place during construction, use of the Decker Lake perimeter path will likely decrease, though usage was already relatively low. This is because construction has an effect on nearby recreational activity. The article, Impact of Park Renovations on Park Use and Parkbased Physical Activity, states that recreational activities decrease during times of construction [21]. This will minimize the impact of recreational activities interfering with the construction. On the other hand, it will still impact recreation, but in a way that 184 | P a g e decreases usage, rather than just altering the existing uses. For example, there will be less people on the perimeter path, meaning the construction is not likely to be heavily impeded. 7.4.4 Phase II Design Evaluation The proposed construction of the two fill areas will allow for the later stages of the project to commence. This construction process of draining the lake, surveying the lakebed, establishing a staging area, accommodating for an alternate bike path, and filling with aggregate will ensure enough area for the parking lot and accommodations along with the venue. The finer details of the construction and pricing will be covered at the end of the bidding process. 7.4.5 Phase II Budget As stated earlier, the scope of this section will remain within areas of certainty, such as material fill because other areas will vary with each bidder. Fill Area 1 has a square footage of 119,500 square feet, with an average depth of 13 feet from the top of the fill to the bottom. Staker Parson’s aggregate calculator [22] estimates this volume to convert to 86,305 tons of aggregate fill. This computes to a volume of 1,553,500 cubic feet, or 57537 cubic yards. Fill Area 2 has a square footage of 241,700 square feet, with an average depth of 10 feet from the top of the fill to the bottom. This computes to a volume of 2,417,000 cubic feet or 89518 cubic yards. Staker Parson’s aggregate calculator [22] estimates this volume converts to 134,277 tons. This brings the total tonnage to 220,582 tons. A speculative quote from Staker Parson’s [22] assessed the price per ton of A-1-a aggregate to be $7.80. This brings the total price of aggregate to $1,720,540. Prices of aggregate fill may vary depending on the availability of free fill from local construction sites. However, a price can be calculated by the bidders by assuming that all aggregate fill will be purchased from an aggregate pit. 7.5 Phase III Design Alternative Concept and Drawing This design will be for the Southeast side of the lot because it is a solution for easier access, a bigger parking lot, and an improved accessible restroom. I created a simple design and put it onto an image of the land so that it could be visually shown as a reference while it is described, Figure 7.6 is used throughout this phase as a reference and guide. 185 | P a g e Figure 7.6: Design Drawing on top of an image of Decker Lake and Land Surrounding Decker Lake [1]. This image is just a broad view of the design of the south east side, more detailed images will follow. The parking lot will be moved just east of the location it is at right now. The design of the parking lot is quite a bit bigger to accommodate more interest in the park, especially when the venue is being used. There will be two access points from the street so that there is no congestion with just one entrance/exit. The parking lot will be 90-degree parking and will also accommodate two handicap parking spots. In Figure 7.7, you can see the design of the parking lot in better detail. Figure 7.7: Detailed design of parking lot [1]. This figure will be used as a visual for evaluations to follow. The restroom will be located where the current parking lot is now. The restroom entrance will face the parking lot. The restroom will be a small building that will accommodate two restrooms with five stalls each and a family restroom in the middle. There will be two stalls in the two restrooms with stalls that can accommodate a handicap stall. There will be a changing table in all 3 restrooms. In Figure 7.8, you can see the design of the parking lot in better detail. 186 | P a g e Figure 7.8: Detailed design and layout of restroom The sidewalks and paths on the south side of the land are also included in the design. The sidewalks which frames in the parking lot and will also connect to a path by the pickle ball courts, will attach to the restroom area, and will also attach to a path to the northeast side of the land. In Figure 7.6, you can see the design of the sidewalk and walkways in better detail. 7.5.1 Phase III Basis of Design/Statement of Needs After a visit to decker lake, the access to the park, the amount of parking, and the need for better restrooms became a clear area of improvement. There are several spots on the other sides of the land that have walking access, on the Southeast side there is only access through the parking lot. The parking lot has a few issues, there is no clear spots, it is an odd shape, with only one access point. The restroom issues are clearly that it is a honey bucket and most people would rather wait to go at home, also the honey bucket is not even a wheelchair accessible one which is also concerning. With no access this means that the grass will be eaten up if a large group decides to visit the park, this also means that there would not be enough parking for a large group to also enjoy the park if they all drove separately, especially since there is townhomes right next to the park that makes street parking even more limited. For the restrooms, there is many issues, there is no place for a wheelchair user to go to the bathroom, there is nowhere to do diaper changes, there would also be not enough stalls for people if a venue is put in, or if a big event or gathering happens at the park. The design above will solve all these issues and make the park more accessible for everyone. 7.5.2 Phase III Assumptions and Unknowns In the design of the southeast side of the park, we are assuming that the pickleball courts will remain in the same spot. We are also assuming that there will be access point(s) from the southeast side to the northeast side. We will also assume that the park will become popular with a redesign to the park, with more visitors. 187 | P a g e 7.5.3 Phase III Constraints The parking lot was designed with two functions in mind, to obtain the maximum possible number of parking spaces and to obtain the minimum area of the parking lot. There are a few criteria that was used in the process of design. The different criterions are listed in Table 7.2. Table 7.2: The Initial data for the task of choosing the optimal composition of parking spaces in an available parking area [23]. The restroom has many factors and criteria that needs to be accounted for, a few that were mentioned in the article by Kathryn Anthony [23]. Here is a few of the recommendations that were mentioned, the first criteria is Potty Parity Laws and that most states have adopted, which means that women’s restrooms need either greater or equal number of stalls to men. Even though Utah has not adopted the potty parity laws, I believe that it should still be considered, the second criteria is the location of things that are thought of last, the location of paper towels, trash cans, and the big one which is the location of the handicap stalls, the third criteria is the orientation of the handicap stalls, with this each restroom should have toilets in both orientations, the fourth criteria is location of diaper changing areas [24]. These criteria are clearly indicated in Table 7.3 if they were considered in the design of the restrooms. Table 7.3: The Criteria for Design of Restrooms and if considered. Criteria Women’s Men’s Restroom Restroom Potty Parity Laws ✓ ✓ Location of ADA Stalls ✓ ✓ Location of Paper Towel ✓ ✓ Location of Trash Cans ✓ ✓ Two orientations of ADA Stalls ✓ ✓ Location of diaper changing areas ✓ ✓ Family Restroom ✓ ✓ ✓ 7.5.4 Phase III Design Evaluation The parking lot design discussed addresses many of the issues and extra elements of design that should also be considered and are necessary. The design of the restroom is 188 | P a g e fully analyzed and all these elements address, some of them might not be cost effective but are important to consider. The walkways of this design are not fully analyzed but are a base line for accessibility throughout the park. The sidewalks are fully analyzed and are necessary for park improvement; costs are broken down in Table 7.4. Table 7.4: Design Element Design Evaluation. Design Element Cost Parking Lot Parking Lot Size Number of Spaces Number of ADA Spaces Access Points to road Location of ADA Spaces Restroom Number of Restrooms Number of Stalls Number of ADA Stalls Area for Diaper Changes Location of Paper Towel Location of Trash Cans Orientation of ADA Toilets Walkways/Sidewalks Number of Pedestrian Access Points Amount of Sidewalk length Amount of Walkway length Address’s Issue High Low Low Medium Low ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ High Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Medium High High ✓ ✓ The costs in Table 7.4 has different cost's, the cost are broken down into low, medium, and high cost. Low cost would be $0- $10,000, medium cost would be $10,001 $100,000, and high cost would be $100,000+. 7.5.5 Phase III Design Budget After considering everything and figuring out a rough estimate for the cost of a 196ft by 131 ft parking lot, a 10-stall restroom with two family restrooms, and a 6000 ft to 1200 ft of sidewalks and walkways we get an estimate of $1.250,00 for the whole construction of the amenities on the southeast side; cost-breakdowns are shown in Table 7.5. 189 | P a g e Table 7.5: Cost breakdown for the whole Southeast side of the park. Design Section Cost Parking Lot $250,000 Restrooms $500,000 Walkways/Sidewalks $500,000 This cost breakdown shows an estimate of project costs; these and are not hard numbers but provide an idea on evaluating the possibility of funding this phase of the project. 7.6 Phase IV Design Alternative Concept and Drawing The northeast fill section offers a unique opportunity to have more freedom on design solutions, which is of course because many, if not, all the accessibility and standard parking amenities will be solved in the southeast section of this design solution. This project will no doubt cost a significant amount of money to implement something that fits the park's goals and aesthetics and also provide a revenue stream for the park to help with construction and maintenance costs is a very attractive alternative for stakeholders. This chapter proposes the installation of a small concert/amphitheater venue and new landscape to match the venue on the newly available northeast section of the site. The figure below shows the approximate footprint of the newly constructed fill section proposed in Phase II. Figure 7.9: Northeast fill footprint [1]. Using Google Earth’s measuring function, we can approximate the usable space to be approximately 106,000 square feet and have a perimeter of 1500 feet [1]. This is a notable chunk of space, and there are many pros of investing in a small venue for a park like this. Sam Whiting at the University of South Australia has an excellent research paper about the intangible social, cultural, and symbolic capital value that small live concert venues can provide rather than just cold dollar amounts, he uses Bourdieu’s theories of capital to support his research. “Bourdieu’s alternative forms of capital allow us to qualitatively assess the intrinsic value of small live music venues” [25]. It’s obvious that the revenue produced by a venue like this is going to be a small amount compared to what many concert venues produce. However, 190 | P a g e the point is that any revenue generated will go into maintenance costs, and the main value it presents is the community's value. Which is one of the main points of Whiting's paper. A venue like this can provide immense cultural and social benefits and value for a community like West Valley City and putting it in a park like Decker Lake has the potential to contribute to creating a beautiful and aesthetic public park compared to its current state. It is an area that houses much of the industrial and commercial area of the greater Salt Lake Valley. That said, many industrial areas in cities experience negative social impacts. For example, an article written by Anwar Hossain and Robert Huggins explores a case study of the Greater Dhaka Region in Bangladesh and explores the negative consequences of rapid industrialization in that area, arguing, “Unplanned and uncontrolled development not only creates environmental degradation but also has a significant social impact” [26]. Now of course West Valley City hasn’t experienced the devastation as many areas in the world regarding industrial development, but the lessons learned can be applied here. The pros of implementing this design are tangible and relevant to helping improve the negative effects that the area has experienced. This venue will contribute to becoming a cultural and social hub where park goers can also utilize the space to practice music, theatre, and other performances that will no doubt contribute to value in the community. Now we can explore what the actual venue will entail and get a general idea of what it will look like. One of the main goals of the venue is to contribute to green space and utilize landscaping to create an aesthetically pleasing and intimate venue. Think of how open the site is currently and how much dying sod is engulfing the park and now think how much better it would look with mature trees, shrubbery, and plants that would surround the venue and, in a way, encapsule it into its own self enclosed area. Benefits of green landscape architecture and urban greenery in urban cities and parks are extensively analyzed in an article put out by the Institute of Horticultural Sciences in Warsaw, Poland and says, “Green areas are becoming a basic component of sustainable urban development, performing ecological, social and economic functions” [27]. This would also immensely help with sound coming from I-215 as plants and trees can act as a natural sound barrier supported by B. Kotzens article in the International Conference on Urban Horticulture [28]. Also, a critical component that can and should be added is a sound barrier wall directly behind the stage which will also help reduce noise from the interstate. And of course, the stage will be in front of a sound barrier wall as well as the stand for the audience which, depending on design specs, explored in subsequent sections, could fit anywhere from 40-300 people. The figure below shows a basic outline of the proposed venue. 191 | P a g e Figure 7.10: Elementary Concept Site Plan of Small Venue. 7.6.1 Phase IV Basis of Design/Statement of Needs The basis of design of Phase IV is relatively simple in the way that the design is heavily restricted, and the scope of this Phase is merely to propose the solution rather than dive into specific engineering and construction practices needed to design and build the venue. It is still important to consider these things, especially when considering project risk and outcomes. This phase of the project is especially susceptible to project risk in the way that if the scale of the venue is to be increased, a public-private partnership might have to be introduced to not only fund the venue but to maintain it. This partnership could be arranged so a private entity helps fund the construction of the venue and leases the land from the city, where they then own and operate the venue for their profit. So, the major tipping point on the basis of design for Phase IV, will be what side of the tipping point the city falls on because it will dictate the scale and operations of implementing a concert venue into Decker Lake. This will be further elaborated upon in Section 7.6.4. Regardless of what side of the tipping point the venue will fall on the venue will need a stage, sound barrier, stands, and new landscaping and site implementations like walking paths and trash cans. 7.6.2 Phase IV Assumptions and Unknowns Many assumptions and unknowns exist in this phase of the research project. The main unknown being whether or not a public private partnership can be attained. This unknown is a driving factor in many of the assumptions which inform suggest design solutions proposed in Section 7.6.4. Other unknowns and assumptions that must be made include assuming site conditions permit the construction of concert venue which is discussed in an ASCE article by W. Amarasekara [29]. 7.6.3 Phase IV Constraints Because of the mountain of unknowns that exist when considering a project like this, proper constraints cannot be quantified and are outside the scope of this research chapter. However, research is relevant to estimating the types of constraints Phase IV could encounter. Applying the Theory of Constrains (TOC) discussed in E. Lau’s article from the City University of Hong Kong [30] is a great starting point to getting a 192 | P a g e conceptual idea of the constraints that could be encountered. Research on construction project performance shows that constraints must be identified early because they shape every major design and planning decision. Lau and Kong classify constraints into economic, legal, environmental, technical, and social categories, emphasizing that these limitations cannot be eliminated but must be continuously managed throughout a project [30]. This framework applies directly to the Decker Lake renovation, where funding uncertainty, regulatory requirements, water-quality conditions, site geometry, and community expectations all restrict which design alternatives are feasible. Recognizing these constraints at the outset allows the project to avoid unnecessary delays, reduce conflict among stakeholders, and develop a renovation plan that remains realistic, efficient, and aligned with local needs. 7.6.4 Phase IV Design Evaluation The table below summarizes the design evaluation of 3 different budgetary tiers. Table 7.6: Phase IV Tiered Concert Venue Evaluation. Alternative $ Alternative $$ Alternative $$$ Landscaping Minimal landscape elements installed, inexpensive but fail to meet aesthetic guidelines. Ample landscaping with simple trees and shrubbery will take time to develop into lush greenery; irrigation utilizes water from the lake. Stands Simple construction, minimal to no architectural veneer, 40-100 seats Upgraded 100–200person construction w/ simple architectural veneer for decoration. Dense greenery with decorative pond feature, very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing, expensive and difficult to maintain plants, irrigation utilized with lake water Extensive 200–300person capacity with extensive decorative architectural veneer, Amenities and Equipment Stage Trash cans and walking paths, little to no stage equipment Trash cans and walking paths with dedicated outdoor speakers. Still requires an extensive set up for concerts. Trash cans, walking path, drinking fountain, separate bathroom, concert equipment for minimal set up Stage Small, 100 sq ft, simple construction little to no architectural veneer Medium 100-200 sq ft, enough for a typical band to fit Sound Barrier Simple sound barrier no greenery/vines to cover A well-built sound barrier with greenery attached to blend in Large 250-800 sq ft stage large enough for small plays and theatrical performances. Engineered sound barrier optimized for the site with decorative greenery to blend in. 193 | P a g e These alternatives are based upon budgeting that the project will have set aside, and the main priority of the project is to improve water quality and access for the park, so the venue could potentially be receiving the short end of the capital stick. With that said, if the venue only receives small funds and the budget is tight, the first alternative will have to be to meet all the bare minimum design constraints. However, if the park can set aside a larger quantity of funds, the second alternative will be suitable for small and amateur concerts that will generally fit the park and its narrative. If further investment is available and the stakeholders decide to further invest in making the venue suitable for more extensive bookings, events, and higher profile artists, the third design alternative is perfect. 7.6.5 Phase IV Design Budget Anything past a rough conceptual estimate and rough quantity takeoffs is out of the scope of this research project, with that said it is possible to estimate a rough budgetary guide with a high margin of error. Using Mortenson’s Salt Lake City Q3 cost indices [30] and a section from Construction Management and Economics Vol. 23 [31] can help generate conceptual estimates. Based on these resources, conceptual cost ranges for the proposed venue indicate that even a minimal, bare-bones option (Alternative $) would likely require a few hundred thousand dollars, approximately $150k-$450k to construct. A more complete and community-focused venue with better landscaping, a medium-sized stage, improved seating, and basic sound infrastructure (Alternative $$) is expected to fall in the range of roughly $0.5-1.2 million. A fully developed, high-amenity option with dense greenery, a large stage, higher-capacity seating, engineered sound barriers, and permanent sound and lighting systems for the most expensive alternative could reasonably cost between $2–$4 million or more, depending on final design choices and market conditions. These estimates are conceptual and intended only to demonstrate the order of magnitude of investment required for each tier. In summary: Design Alternative $: $150,000-$450,000 Design Alternative $$: $0.5-1.2 million Design Alternative $$$: $2-4 million 7.7 Case Study: Sugar House Park Pond, Salt Lake City, Utah Sugarhouse Park Pond is a central feature of one of Salt Lake City’s largest urban parks. Over several decades, it suffered from sediment accumulation, reduced water clarity, and ecological issues such as algal growth and avian botulism. In 2019, Salt Lake County and the Sugarhouse Park Authority undertook a major rehabilitation project to dredge roughly 18,000 cubic yards of sediment, restoring the pond’s depth and improving overall water quality [11]. The goal was to remove decades of buildup that had reduced detention capacity, degraded aesthetics, and limited recreational use [32]. 194 | P a g e 7.7.1 Project Methods and Goals The restoration involved draining and excavating the pond over a three-month period during winter 2018–2019 to minimize wildlife disturbance. Contractors used hydraulic dredging equipment to remove an average of 4–6 feet of sediment, deepening the pond to its original design depth of approximately 10 feet [11]. Removed material was trucked to a designated landfill and replaced with clean sub-grade soils. New shoreline vegetation was planted to stabilize the edges, and two surface-aeration fountains were installed to improve oxygen levels and reduce thermal stratification. The project was funded through a $500,000 Salt Lake County infrastructure bond, reflecting the city’s prioritization of long-term water-quality maintenance [12]. Its key goals were to (1) increase storage and detention volume, (2) improve ecological health, and (3) restore recreational and visual value. 7.7.2 Outcomes and Performance Post-construction monitoring by the Sugar House Park Authority indicated clearer water, improved odor control, and increased wildlife return within one recreation season [12]. Restored depth reduced summer algal blooms by improving water circulation and sunlight attenuation. Community feedback gathered during park events cited the pond as “more vibrant and usable,” and bird mortality events associated with botulism were not reported in the first two years following completion [12]. These outcomes highlight the value of sediment removal paired with habitat rehabilitation as an effective urban water-quality measure. 7.7.3 Lessons Applicable to Decker Lake The Sugarhouse Pond restoration offers several relevant lessons for Decker Lake: • Restoring hydraulic capacity: Dredging and deepening increased detention volume, supporting the approach of excavating and deepening the remaining half of Decker Lake after partial fill [11]. • Sediment and pollutant management: Without sediment removal or pretreatment, water bodies quickly lose capacity; Decker Lake’s proposed bioswales and pretreatment basin replicate this maintenance function on an ongoing basis [32]. • Recreation and quality synergy: Water-quality improvement enhanced park use and community pride at Sugar House Park—evidence that ecological restoration can directly reinforce recreational objectives [12]. • Funding and maintenance models: The project demonstrates how targeted public investment and inter-agency coordination sustain long-term success; a similar partnership model could support Decker Lake’s hybrid GSI + recreation redevelopment. 195 | P a g e 7.7.4 Relevance to the GSI + Lake-Reduction Approach While the Sugar House project primarily addressed sediment removal through dredging, it validates the importance of maintaining hydraulic performance and ecological function in urban detention ponds. For Decker Lake, combining a smaller, deeper water body with upstream green stormwater infrastructure extends this concept by treating inflows before they reach the basin. This hybrid design, balancing hydraulic capacity, pollutant control, and community recreation, builds on the successful outcomes observed at Sugar House Park and adapts them to a larger watershed and multi-benefit context. 7.8 Grant Funding Opportunities Several grant and funding opportunities exist for the park, given its diverse group of stakeholders and the possibility of private funding depending on Phase IV in section 7.6 for the concert/theatre venue. The funding opportunities can be thrown into 3 different categories. Those categories being Federal/State resources and programs, Public-private partnerships that involve the venue, and non-profit local program donations. These different categories can be synergized to fit different funding roles, as the whole park renovation can also be rolled into different categories, and each funding opportunity can be exploited for different categories of the renovation. An article written by Nick Pitas also explores the opportunities for greenspace ballot initiatives which are another way funding could be sourced [33]. The article discusses how public parks depend heavily on tax-based which are often limited and insufficient, and support for greenspace funding is based upon the economy described in the green ballot initiative. “Successful GBIs are likely to occur in communities that are growing rapidly, with a population that is affluent and well-educated" [33]. West Valley City and the Greater Salt Lake Valley are rapidly growing areas with increased urban development and implementation of green ballot initiatives can help set a precedent for green investment in public park infrastructure in the area. How can different funding opportunities be used for different areas of the park renovation? The renovations proposed in this paper can utilize federal programs like the EPA’s clean water state revolving fund and land and water conservation fund, which could support the immense effort needed for the bioswales and dredging. On the state level, the Utah Division of Water Quality and Division of Outdoor Recreation could also provide funds related to water conservation and quality restoration. For park access, amenities, and grading/fill requirements the city of West Valley could allocate redevelopment or capital improvement funds to fund the aspect of the park while collaborating with local nonprofits like the Tracy Aviary's Jordan river nature center, Jordan River Commission, West Valley Arts Council, Wasatch Community Gardens, and so many more non-profit organizations could be involved in funding efforts. Furthermore, if the decision is made to heavily invest in the concert venue, a private donor/investor could be solicited to provide funding to build the venue and manage the booking for the venue for their own profit. But this public-private partnership is still designed to benefit the public. Overall, timing will be a major consideration in the funding of the park because economic factors will heavily influence the willingness of stakeholders to allocate funds for the park. However, with the Olympics 196 | P a g e approaching and increasing urban development of the county, in general good economic conditions exist to solicit funds for the park's restoration. 7.9 Discussion The large scope of this project makes it quite a financial and operational endeavor for the city of West Valley. The goal of this research project is to research, design, and suggest solutions for each respective phase and have them come together to fix the problems that currently face Decker Lake, including poor water quality, limited access, inadequate amenities, and the site’s overall lack of appeal. Phase I addresses the most urgent issue at Decker Lake, its severely degraded water quality. The introduction of bioswales, rain gardens, and a pretreatment basin directly targets the sources of pollution entering the lake from surrounding highways, parking areas, and urban runoff. This phase establishes the ecological foundation required for all subsequent improvements, because without meaningful water-quality restoration, the site cannot function as a healthy lake or an attractive public park. Phase II transforms the physical footprint of Decker Lake by dredging the western basin and using the excavated material to fill the east side. This reshaped configuration directly supports both water quality improvement and future park development. While dredging is costly and logistically complex, it restores the lakes depth, improves circulation, and prevents long-term stagnation, issues that have plagued the site for years. Phase III focuses on access, usability, and amenities of key issues repeatedly raised by community members. By expanding and reorganizing the parking lot, improving pedestrian circulation, and replacing the inadequate portable restroom with a permanent, accessible facility, this phase directly enhances the everyday experience of park visitors. These improvements also support increased visitation that is likely to follow once water quality improves and new recreation areas are established. Phase IV uses the newly created northeast land area to explore the addition of a small amphitheater or community performance venue. While this phase is more flexible and dependent on funding availability, it offers an opportunity to introduce cultural and recreational programming that can elevate Decker Lake beyond a typical neighborhood park. The proposed venue emphasizes landscape integration, social value, and potential revenue generation, allowing West Valley City to cultivate a unique community gathering space. 7.9.1 Rating Criteria (Including TBL Matrix) The criteria for ranking the TBL Matrix will follow 3 categories being People, Planet, and Profit. The ranking system will be based on a scale of 1-7 where 7 is the best score that can be evaluated. Each Phase will be evaluated on each category and will receive a score 1-7 This will be sufficient criteria for evaluating the phases of this research project because quantifiable results are not feasible given the scope of the project. 7.9.2 Design Solution Ratings The table below shows the results from criteria discussed in the former section. 197 | P a g e Table 7.7: Phase TBL Matrix Evaluation [4]. People Phase I Score:4 Improves community health and safety by reducing polluted runoff and creating cleaner, more accessible water around the lake. Phase II Score: 4 The process of construction will hinder the current use of the park. Activity is predicted to decrease due to the aesthetic effects of construction, and alternate walking path. However, the aspects of the overall outcome will be beneficial. Phase III Score: 7 With all design elements that are provided in the design of Phase 3. The issues that are provided bear in mind problems people have had with other restrooms and parking lots. Phase IV Score: 6 The venue will have a significant social effect on the site and surrounding community creating an attractive site for people to enjoy music, theatre, and enjoy the outdoors. Avg score:5.25 Planet Phase I Score:6 Introduces green stormwater infrastructure to filter contaminants, restore natural hydrology, and support ecological resilience in the Decker Lake watershed. Phase II Score: 3 Large earthwork projects require heavy machinery. These machines produce pollution at the site, along with the energy usage of hauling aggregate from the pit to the site Profit Phase I Score:3 Reduces long-term maintenance costs and supports future recreational revenue by preventing sediment buildup and4 extending the lake’s lifespan. Phase II Score: 5 There will be no profit during this stage of the project, however, there are many opportunities to reduce costs through the use of free fill and competitive bidding among contractors. Phase III Score: 4 With any construction project it’s bad for the earth and with adding more plumbing in the restrooms and drains in the parking lot this will add more wastewater into the system. Phase III Score: 4 The only profit here would be not having to rent honey buckets for restrooms, and also not having to worry about water messing up the parking lot. Phase IV Score: 4 Construction is inherently bad for the environment; however, the implementation of the venue will incorporate healthy greenery and habitat for wildlife while being sustainably maintained. Sustainable construction practices and recyclable materials could boost this score. Phase IV Score: 4 Many inherent risks lie in this phase IV financially as it is low on the priority list to complete, and without a private entity being involved it will be unlikely to generate revenue for the city. However, if a profitable venue can be achieved and a private entity can lease and operate the land, a win-win scenario is financially possible for the city. Avg score:4 Avg score:4.25 198 | P a g e 7.10 Recommendations This chapter asserts that the design phases proposed in this research chapter are viable solutions to the problems that Decker Lake faces. This is because the idea it is not feasible or realistic to keep Decker Lake in its current state, and this chapter recommends that the City of West Valley takes a large-scale solution into consideration to adequately renovate Decker Lake and preserve it as a public park rather than leveling the site. This design solution is optimal because it gives Decker Lake a breath of fresh air and a new look that will make it a clean and attractive site for the community to utilize. This chapter will no doubt require a large purse as a realistic estimate to funding this project, with the bare minimum of phases I, II, and III, could be in the plus or minus range of $10 million dollars, with the addition of 1-3 million dollars to add phase IV. This chapter recommends implementing the more expensive phase IV alternatives if, and only if, the city is interested in a public private endeavor to realistically implement a larger venue, which will provide immersive value to the community and city. With Utah becoming one of the most rapidly developing states in the country, West Valley will be at the forefront of creating a better Utah and going all in on Decker Lake is one aspect of the future of the Salt Lake Valley and has the potential to set the precedent for the future to come. 7.11 References [1] Google Earth, “Decker Lake, West Valley City, UT, USA,” 40.7118433° N, 111.9518424° W, imagery date: 2025. Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA. [Online]. Available: https://earth.google.com. [2] M. Scholle, Park Use, Health Perceptions, and Barriers to Access at Decker Lake Park: Report to Stakeholders, Nature & Human Health-Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2024. [Online]. Available:https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64d68b35feaef951ca5939e0/t/665759c04814 8e1aa4dddbf5/1717000640661/NHH+Report+to+Stakeholders+final.pdf. [3] Ruairí Brugha, Zsuzsa Varvasovszky, Stakeholder analysis: a review, Health Policy and Planning, Volume 15, Issue 3, September 2000, Pages 239 -246, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239. [4] J. Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing, 1997. [5] S. A. Ekka, H. Rujner, G. Leonhardt, G.-T. Blecken, M. Viklander, and W. F. Hunt, “Next generation swale design for stormwater runoff treatment: A comprehensive approach,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 279, p. 111756, Mar. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111756. [6] J. Wang et al., “Microorganisms in Constructed Wetlands: A Review,” Water, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 3423, Nov. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213423. 199 | P a g e [7] G. Chen, Y. Yin, X. Li, and Z. Wang, “Sustainability of global small-scale constructed wetlands treating stormwater: A review,” npj Clean Water, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 38, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-024-00336-3. [8] Geosyntec Consultants, “Constructed Stormwater Wetlands — Effectiveness,” MEGAMANUAL: National BMP Database for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://megamanual.geosyntec.com/npsmanual/constructedstormwaterwetlands.aspx. [9] J. T. Barrett and W. F. Hunt, “Evaluating Green Infrastructure Retrofit Projects Using Monitoring Data from the United States,” Environmental Management, vol. 70, pp. 214–225, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01674-z. [10] M. F. Brudermann and S. Bruckner, “Applying the Triple Bottom Line Framework to Urban Water Management Projects,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 294, p. 126275, May 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126275. [11] “Sludge dredging starts in Sugar House Park to cut down on pond problems,” Fox 13 News – Salt Lake City, Jan. 10 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.fox13now.com/2019/01/10/sludge-dredging-starts-in-sugar-house-park-to-cutdown-on-pond-problems. [12] “Sugarhouse Pond Update,” Sugarhouse Community Council, Oct. 29 2018. [Online]. Available: https://sugarhousecouncil.org/sugar-house-pond-update/. [13] L. B. Hargreaves and A. E. Kiesow, “Native Vegetation for Stormwater Facilities in Semi-Arid Regions,” Ecological Engineering, vol. 187, p. 106860, Sep. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2023.106860. [14] B. Li and P. Hu, “Influence of Soil Freezing-Thawing on Infiltration Capacity and Stormwater Retention in Bioretention Systems,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 616, p. 128880, Jun. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.128880. [15] S. Li et al., “Maintenance Practices and Long-Term Performance of Constructed Wetlands: A Review,” Frontiers in Environmental Chemistry, vol. 3, p. 834191, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvc.2022.834191. [16] R. Headley and B. Davies, “Lifecycle Decline of Pollutant Removal in Bioretention Systems: Causes and Remedies,” Water Research X, vol. 16, p. 100153, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wroa.2022.100153. 200 | P a g e [17] Utah LTAP Center. (2025). 2025 Manual of Standard Specifications (Version 2). APWA Utah Chapter. Utah State University. Retrieved October 26, 2025, from https://utah.apwa.org/education/utah-standard-plans-specifications/. [18] Jay Gao. “Bathymetric mapping by means of remote sensing: methods, accuracy and limitations” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, vol 69, p. 412. May 2009. [Online]. Available: Bathymetric mapping by means of remote sensing: methods, accuracy and limitations - Jay Gao, 2009. [19] OpenTopography. State of Utah Acquired Lidar Data - Wasatch Front [Online]. Available: https://portal.opentopography.org/lidarDataset?jobId=pc1763342136843. [20] U.S Access Board, Public Right-of-Way Accessibility guidelines. R204.1 Alternate Pedestrian Access Route. [Online]. Available: https://www.accessboard.gov/prowag/scoping.html. [21] Deborah A Cohen 1, Bing Han, Jennifer Isacoff, Bianca Shulaker, Stephanie Williamson, Terry Marsh, Thomas L McKenzie, Megan Weir, Rajiv Bhatia. “Impact of park renovations on park use and park-based physical activity,” National Library of Medicine. Feb. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24956608/. [22] Staker Parson Materials & Construction. Material Calculators, Aggregate Calculator. [Online]. Available: https://stakerparson.com/material-calculators/. [23] A. Babushkina, M. Petrochenko, A. Kukina, and N. Astafieva, “Optimizing parking lot design by Generative design approach,” 2021. [24] K. H. Anthony, “An update on public restrooms in the USA,” Presented at the World Toilet Forum 2006, Bangkok, Thailand, Nov. 17, 2006. [25] Whiting, S. (2021). The Value of Small Live Music Venues: Alternative Forms of Capital and Niche Spaces of Cultural Production. Cultural Sociology, 15(4), 558-578. https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211021307 (Original work published 2021). [26] Hossain, Md. A., & Huggins, R. (2021). The Environmental and Social Impacts of Unplanned and Rapid Industrialization in Suburban Areas: The Case of the Greater Dhaka Region, Bangladesh. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 12(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0975425321990319 (Original work published 2021). [27] Fornal-Pienak, B., & Bihuňová, M. (2022). Evaluation of current landscape architecture approaches in chosen cities in Poland and Slovakia. Acta Horticulturae et Regiotectuare, 25(1), 28–36. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.2478/ahr-2022-0004. 201 | P a g e [28] Kotzen, Benz. "Plants and environmental noise barriers." International Conference on Urban Horticulture 643. 2002. [29] W. D. L. Amarasekara, B. A. K. S. Perera, and M. N. N. Rodrigo, “Impact of Differing Site Conditions on Construction Projects,” Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 04518019, 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.19434170.0000257. [30] Mortenson Construction, Construction Cost Index: Salt Lake City – Q3 2025. Mortenson, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.mortenson.com/content/dam/mortenson/globalassets/archive/files/campaigns/recurring/cost-index/2025-q3/construction-cost-index-saltlake-city-q3-2025.pdf. [31] Chan, S. L., & Park, M. (2005). Project cost estimation using principal component regression. Construction Management and Economics, 23(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500039812. [32] “Sugarhouse Park pond set for major clean-up project,” Fox 13 News – Salt Lake City, May 23 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.fox13now.com/2018/05/23/sugar-house-park-pondset-for-major-clean-up-project. [33] Pitas, N., Zou, S., & Mowen, A. (2024). Direct Democracy and Funding for Public Park and Recreation Services: Consumer Confidence and Support for Greenspace Ballot Initiatives. Leisure Sciences, 1–13. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.1080/01490400.2024.2376087. 202 | P a g e Chapter 8 Cost-Effective Activities to Boost Community Use & Value at Decker Lake Park Byron Ament, Aidan Bleyl, and Aidan Medrano Executive Summary This chapter presents a quantitative and qualitative analysis on the effects of a multitude of potential recreational renovations with the goal of improving Decker Lake Park, to increase community engagement, and evaluate the economic feasibility to do so. While the park has several amenities available to the public, including new pickleball courts, water access for fishing, and a multiuse paved trail (albeit in poor condition) surrounding the boundary of the lake, Decker Lake Park is currently underutilized by the community. Its current lack of appeal combined with other issues spanning from ease of accessibility to its dilapidated condition, suggest the immediate need for governmental intervention and large-scale renovation. The aim of this chapter is to assess and identify which cost effective activities can be implemented to best serve the communities goals and preferences. Proposed renovations are analyzed and include improvements to the multiuse trail and to the landscaping surrounding the lake, the construction of a playground in order to increase family participation, and possibility of implementing of a community garden to foster a social connection and a sense of shared purpose for the space. This chapter hinges on a triple bottom line (TBL) assessment to evaluate all considerations that may affect the location through these three lenses, which evaluates economic viability, environmental aesthetics, and societal benefit. This comprehensive approach ensures the needs of the community and the fiscal responsibilities of the county and state are met and offer a well-balanced approach for informed decision. Keywords: Environmental impact, public park utilization, recreational renovation, triple bottom line, and urban park development. 203 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 8.1 An Introduction to Low-Cost Park Improvements 8.1.1 Study Limitations 8.2 Park Improvement Goals and Challenges 8.2.1 Basis of Design 8.2.1a Guiding principles 8.2.1b Capital Improvement Project: Goals and Needs 8.2.1c Key Assumptions and Unknowns 8.3 A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation 8.4 Development of Design Alternatives 8.4.1 Design Alternative 1: Playground 8.4.1a Design Description & Concept Drawing 8.4.1b Constraints 8.4.1c Alternative Evaluation 8.4.2 Design Alternative 2: Community Garden 8.4.2a Design Description & Concept Drawing 8.4.2b Constraints 8.4.2c Alternative Evaluation 8.4.3 Design Alternative 3: Trail Improvement 8.4.3a Trail Improvement Design Description 8.4.3b Constraints 8.4.3c Alternative Evaluation 8.5 Grant Funding Opportunities 8.5.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 8.5.1a Goals of the CDBG 8.5.1b Eligibility Guidelines for the CDBG 8.5.1c Funding Limits of the CDBG 8.5.1d Is CDBG Fit for the Decker Lake Project? 8.5.2 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 8.5.2a Goals of the LWCF 8.5.2b Eligibility Guidelines for ORLP through LWCF 8.5.2c Funding Limits of the LWCF 8.5.2d Is LWCF Fit for the Decker Lake Project? 8.6 Comparison of Design Alternatives 8.6.1 Rating Criteria 204 | P a g e 8.6.2 Alternative Ratings 8.7 Conclusion 8.8 References List of Figures Figure 8.1 Proposed Playground Location Figure 8.2 Decker Lake Trail Figure 8.3 Decker Lake Trail to be incorporated in the Utah Lake Trail Network Master Plan List of Tables Table 8.1 Feasibility Assessment Matrix: Low-cost Playground Table 8.2 Feasibility Assessment Matrix: Medium-cost Playground Table 8.3 Feasibility Assessment Matrix: High-cost Playground Table 8.4 Feasibility Assessment Matrix: Community Garden Table 8.5 Feasibility Assessment Matrix: Trail Improvement 205 | P a g e 8.1 An Introduction to Low-Cost Park Improvements This chapter focuses on exploring cost-effective recreational improvements that enhance community engagement at Decker Lake Park. These improvements will be scalable and costconscious with a focus of not having to make major changes to the current conditions of the park. These current conditions include large grass areas, pickleball courts, and an unpaved trail encircling the lake. The analysis emphasis three main components: adding a playground at a low, mid, and high levels of investment, the creation of a community garden to promote neighborhood involvement, and improvements to the trail system surrounding the lake. Each of these proposed activities is analyzed for its relative cost, environmental impact, and social benefit to determine how potential investments could maximize the long-term recreation and ecological value of Decker Lake Park. The purpose of this chapter examines the comparative costs and benefits of various improvement options for Decker Lake Park, including enhanced trails, playgrounds, community gardens, and water access. This chapter evaluates how well these recreational features serve families, youth, and underserved populations, while incorporating perspectives of key community stakeholders. Ultimately, this research asks: What low-cost recreational activities will provide the greatest benefit to the Decker Lake Park community while remaining costeffective? 8.1.1 Study Limitations This study is limited by accuracy of research and public data related to construction costs, community demographics, and park use patterns, which may have varying needs compared to other parks and communities referenced throughout this study. Additionally, some cost estimates are based on data from other projects and assumptions rather than current contractor bids that would provide a more accurate idea of construction costs. 8.2 Park Improvement Goals and Challenges The highest priorities of this design proposal are rooted in changing the narrative around Decker Lake Park. This project aims to improve safety, usability, and aesthetics improving the user experience and building a strong reputation for the park as a stronghold in the community. [1] Nature & Human Health Utah conducted a survey at Decker Lake asking locals and the public for their input on park improvements that were needed. Themes of park safety importance, lack of social connection and inadequate nature connectedness were present in their survey responses. The communities input provides valuable context for the improvements that are proposed in this chapter. Each project aims to improve accessibility, connect community members and bring the natural features of the park into the users experience. Since city budgets are limited, it makes sense to look at low-cost high-value activities for parks. Budgetary efficiency is a significant constraint due to the numerous needs for support in these communities. Investing too much in one project can overuse budgets, defunding regularly programmed activities that already successfully engage the community. [2] One case study 206 | P a g e found a 39% decline in park use directly attributable to fewer scheduled organized activities after a budgetary constraint due to a large capital project. Ecological regulations and best practices are also key limitations as they can lead to costly fines, diminish the park experience for visitors and produce quality of life impacts for locals. Designing a park improvement project with these considerations in mind is crucial to an effective solution lending itself to increased usage and return on investment. 8.2.1 Basis of Design Due to the limiting financial, spatial, and ecological factors, lean efficient design is not only desirable but crucial in the design phase of this project. Each feature will be designed with recreational experience in mind. An effective practice for evaluating the necessity of each aspect of the variety of park features will be asking the question “How will this feature affect the park user?” Necessary inclusions to ensure safety and accessibility are considered as essentials for each alternative. Aesthetic improvements, coupled with increased opportunities for human interaction with park features, are prioritized in this proposal. The design framework emphasizes practical enhancements to user experience while considering budgetary limits. 8.2.1a Guiding principles Challenges to proposal viability come in several forms but are assessed primarily based on their impact on the park's outcomes for nearby underprivileged communities. The triple bottom line (TBL) addresses this consideration by focusing on three specific areas: economic, environmental, and social. All of these areas are considered through the lens of how they affect the stakeholders, including local citizens, park visitors, and grant funders. [3] One review finds “that economic benefits exceed the cost for park, trail, and greenway infrastructure interventions,” arguing that a well-designed park can merit great improvements for “public health” categorizing parks, trails and greenways to be both economically and socially successful. [3] The highest yield parks set themselves apart by prioritizing the usability of the park by keeping human centered design in mind. 8.2.1b Capital Improvement Project: Goals and Needs Decker Lake Park requires revitalization to rectify underuse, outdated infrastructure and limited accessibility. Proposed interventions need to increase visitor attraction, social interaction and environmental quality while staying within city budget constraints. With these guiding principles in mind, park visitation is a clearly established priority of this improvement project. One performance goal is for park usage to reach a 25% increase in the first two years after project implementation. Secondly, the park improvement should foster a lasting community connection to the park. Lastly, the lifespan of this project is desired to be over 20 years with reasonably minimal maintenance. 207 | P a g e 8.2.1c Key Assumptions and Unknowns In the development of this comprehensive solution for park improvement there are a few factors the team has decided to assume will persist throughout the construction and maintenance life of the project. Proposed designs will operate under the assumption that the city/county budget will assume baseline funding as is consistent with current city park projects. This funding will be assumed to remain present throughout the required maintenance life of the features implemented. Grant funding will serve as an ideal potential supplemental source if higher price range projects are selected. See section 8.5 for more information on grant funding assumptions. Exact total funding availability along with cost ranges are unknown based on the date of final project bid and economic uncertainty. A key assumption for this proposal is that of the lake water quality and ecological health being improved to a stable condition by one of the previous chapters in this book. Additionally, local climate variability presents challenges with drought conditions and soil quality which would have an adverse effect on the parks aesthetic qualities. These challenges are considered out of the scope of this chapter and within the realm of ecological preservation and rehabilitation. An additional unknown factor is the behavior of the wildlife such as bird and rodent populations. Certain behaviors will pose a threat to viability of a community garden but could be mitigated by certain engineering safeguards. 8.3 A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation The triple bottom line is an evaluation method coined by John Elkington in 1994 when he introduced this framework to help companies in measuring success in metrics other than simply profit. [4] Social and environmental performance are valuable metrics to consider when evaluating project goals and status. To be clear the three metrics that TBL specify are social, environmental and economic benefits brought about by the proposed park improvements. Each will be evaluated with people as the highest consideration. For example, the monetary component will be considered by how much money can be saved in construction and maintenance to ensure the continuation of ongoing programs offering value for residents. The environmental component encapsulates two key factors: 1) park aesthetic improvement to improve the experienced environment for the park user 2) compliance with existing regulations to reduce monetary costs and promote standard cleanliness. The social aspect of TBL refers to the parks effect on the communal experience and connectivity that is brought by the parks presence after the improvements. 8.4 Development of Design Alternatives Multiple renovation options for the park are available, and all have their pros and cons. The purpose of this section analyzes and layout the three alternatives currently proposed for Decker Lake Park. These alternatives are intended to address the issue of the parks current underutilization and offer strategic improvements to align with the Salt Lake County Parks and 208 | P a g e Recreations master plan of sustainable growth and development [5] . Each of these alternatives is developed with the intention of creating a more inclusive and functional public space that encourages regular use. While it is the third largest park in West Valley City, directly behind Centennial Park and Lodestone Park it doesn’t have nearly the attention or funding that these other two parks have [6]. Centennial and Lodestone Parks are both equipped with many amenities including playgrounds, sports fields, and large rentable pavilions. Decker Lake does not offer similar features. Granted, the lake area occupies a large region of space, yet neither West Valley City nor Salt Lake County have placed much importance on this property as a fixture of the community. 8.4.1 Design Alternative 1: Playground The first of these design alternatives and arguably the one with the most practicality, is the development of a low, medium, and high-cost playground. The park does not currently cater towards younger populations given the nature of available amenities; a well-developed playground would address this problem and encourage family visits to the park. One study out of New York City found that almost all renovations in low-cost areas increased park usage, quality, and satisfaction among the users [7]. In addition to fostering physical activity, a playground is a cost-effective solution with large community impact. A study conducted on urban parks in Chengdu, China found that playgrounds, other park facilities, and proper sanitation maintenance were all major components of the time that people spent in the park. The findings were significant a suggested that facilities such as playgrounds led to park goers engaging in more physical activity and more time at the park by multiple factors. [8] A playgrounds implementation aligns with the project goal of increasing community interest while also being economically viable. 8.4.1a Design Description & Concept Drawing The first iteration of this design involves the erection of a low-cost playground. A budget playground located on the South side of the park would range anywhere from $18,000 to $25,000 depending on type of equipment and labor costs in the Salt Lake Valley. [9] A playground of this size would include only the bare minimum and could not cater to many children. A medium-priced playground would evaluate anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 for material and labor cost. A playground of this size would involve more features and have a higher capacity for children who live in the area (Capacity of 30 to 40). The general rule of thumb for playgrounds is to budget out $1,000 per child that the playground could accommodate. And a high-cost playground would run anywhere between $40,000 on the low end and $150,000 on the extreme end for custom designs and could include ADA accessible features. [9] Although the high end of these proposed costs does not seem to be viable for this location, unless Salt Lake County Rec was to receive large funding from either the LWCF or a similar grant funding opportunity, then the higher price point could be accommodated. 209 | P a g e All of these designs propose a viable goal for the county and would cater to a larger population of park goers. In addition to the cost of the playground there must be safety, accessibility, and long-term usability implications. Both ASTM and CPSC emphasize the need for safety of playgrounds including, appropriate equipment spacing, adequate fall zones, and correct surfacing surround the playground. [10] [11] User comfortability should be considered when designing the playground accessibility for all should be accounted for which would include appropriate ADA compliance such as ramps and to foster to all children especially those with mobility needs, although this comes at a price. A playground that accommodates accessibility needs such as ADA compliance can be anywhere from 35-50% more costly upfront than our originally proposed plans. [12]. A more fully developed playground that incorporates a wider range of features would create a more accessible and inclusive space for users of all ages and abilities, ultimately helping to draw more visitors to the park and increase overall community engagement. Figure 8.1: Proposed Playground Location. The proposed area for this playground would be 5,000 sq. ft. and be located adjacent to recently installed pickleball courts. This location would be less than 50 meters from the parking lot ensuring ease of access for a park visitor. A playground at any price range is a high-cost endeavor but a low stake undertaking. In a study completed by Southern California Research and Evaluation they found that a playground on average attracts 2.5 times more attendees to a park and 3 times more “moderate-to-vigorous activity”. Additionally, playgrounds in high-poverty locations that were considered innovative in comparison to traditional saw a 43% increase in visitors. [13] An innovative and new park at Decker Lake would increase activity significantly to the park. 210 | P a g e 8.4.1b Constraints Challenges to success in playgrounds come primarily in the form of budget, safety/liability, and usability. Based on our cost estimation of $40,000 to $150,000, the scale of the playground will need to be limited. A small to medium sized playground would lend itself well to fitting all TBL goals of the project. Regardless of the project’s allocation of money, the feature will be safe and easily usable for children. When considering the usability and safety constraints for the playground, it is important to decide on a target age group for the structure. This allows design for cognitive and physical characteristics of a given age group of children. While playground features geared towards children are a great tool for improving physical health, safety in design must still remail paramount. Proposed features include impact safe flooring, rounded edges, nonslip steps, capped bolts and properly anchored equipment. Usability of playground comes down to physical accessibility and cognitive human centered design. A set of monkey bars for example needs to be reachable for the standard child in the age range and be high enough off the ground for swinging. Additionally, an interactive sensory play panel that incorporates textures, sounds and movable parts would be easy for children to approach and engage with. A feature like this keeps the human aspect of design in mind. 8.4.1c Alternative Evaluation The playground alternative has many strong benefits aligning with the needs and principles of this proposal. This alternative brings a desperately needed social boost to the local community. The shared space would give children a place to meet with each other, use their imaginations, and play safely. It would give parents a great location for hands off supervision, family recreation and community integration. The ecological impacts of the project are minimal since the project will be built on previously disturbed land, offer ample opportunity to add additional vegetation, and will utilize careful runoff design. The development and maintenance costs of this alternative are on the medium to high end due primarily to construction and cleaning of playground features. This is a small price to pay for a high value park improvement, bolstering quality of life and usage incentives for local citizens. See Section 8.6.2 for evaluation scores. 8.4.2 Design Alternative 2: Community Garden The next design alternative that we will look at is an implementation of a Community Garden. Community gardens have been found to foster an inclusive environment and create a sense of shared purpose in low-income communities. For the population surrounding Decker Lake a community garden could encourage social connection and engagement within the community. In addition to social benefits, a community garden offers environmental sustainability. The development of a garden aligns with the goal of increasing community engagements in a cost-effective manner. 211 | P a g e 8.4.2a Design Description & Concept Drawing This proposed community garden would take up 5,000 sq. ft. on the southwest side of decker lake park. Main features of the garden will include three bowling lane sized raised garden beds, a communal tool shed, and a composting area. Surrounding the garden area, there will be a border consisting of native pollinator plants to ecologically link the manmade space to the park’s environment. Near the entrance of the garden, an informative board will display what plants are currently in season along with best practices for garden care and community guidelines. This site would be open throughout the summer and early fall months offering valuable space for people to connect to the park. 8.4.2b Constraints Challenges to this alternative’s success include access to water, security, and management/maintenance of assets. The water irrigating the plants will need to be drawn from a safe reliable source and dispensed by drip or timed sprinkler systems. Using water from decker lake should be an option but there are obstacles in the way like permitting, pump costs, and maintenance. Security of the garden is crucial to the survival of the plants and its functionality for the community. One major risk is that resident waterfowl and other native animals eating the vegetables and plants grown in the garden, as well as vandalism or theft from bad human actors. Some solutions are protective netting, low fencing and limiting garden access hours to daytime use. 8.4.2c Alternative Evaluation Shown below is an evaluation of the community garden alternative. This matrix assigns a score to each alternative based on criteria deemed to be important to the different stakeholders involved with Decker Lake. 8.4.3 Design Alternative 3: Trail Improvement A third design alternative for the lake involves making renovations to the 1.36-mile-long multi-use trail surrounding the lake and improvements to the landscaping around the lake. 212 | P a g e Figure 8.2: Decker Lake Trail. This design alternative creates a community space that promotes family use as well as health benefits. The unpleasantry and appeal of the trail could be a deterrent for many who use the lake. By repaving the trail and complementing it with landscaping improvements the walk could turn from bleak to peaceful and inviting. Native vegetation and shaded seating areas around the lake would support local biodiversity and regular use of the trail. This option presents aesthetic value for the current park but also ecological benefit. The improvement of the trail caters to the goal of increasing usage in a cost-effective nature. The state of Utah has countless examples of funding and prioritizing trail improvements throughout the state. There is statewide emphasis on getting people outside and providing good infrastructure for the community to use as they get outside. At the 2025 Utah Transportation Conference Governor Spencer Cox stated that “We need spend more time outside, more time connecting with people and more time exercising, and the way we do that is through our trail system.” [14] The trail network master plan does not just account for proposed trails with 500 miles of already established trails being incorporated into the plan. [14] While the entirety of the existing trail surrounding Decker Lake is not included in the master plan, proposed trail R2-103 | West Valley Cross Towne Trail runs along Parkway Blvd. and Decker Lake Blvd. until it ties into West Valley Cross Towne Trail on the east edge of Decker Lake as seen in Appendix A. This allows the assumption that the approximately 0.35-mile section that makes up the northeast edge of the 1.36-mile-long trail is anticipated to be a part of the Utah Trail Network. 213 | P a g e Figure 8.3: Decker Lake Trail to be Incorporated in the Utah Trail Network Master Plan. This part of the trail will be the launch point of the design around the lake. If part of the trail is going to be redone at some point in the future, why not do all of it now. 8.4.3a Trail Improvement Design Description The trail improvement designs will follow UDOTs 2026 standard specifications and standard drawings while also ensuring that all ADA standards are met. The current trail is approximately 10 ft wide which is the minimum width for a paved two-directional shared use path. [15] The grade of the path should be 5% maximum with 2% maximum cross slope. [15] With the relative flat nature of the sight this will not be an issue. The paving material used should be a hard, allweather pavement surface, that being either Portland Cement Concrete or Asphalt. [15] Concrete is preferred due to the durability and enhanced long-term value. In addition to paving the trail, trail improvements will also include providing natural landscaping as well as benches, trash cans, and signage for trail users. When choosing landscaping there will be an emphasis on using native, droughtresistant plants. Examples of these plants include Gamble oak, Rocky Mountain juniper, rabbitbrush, Globemallow, and blue grama among others. [16] The vertical clearance above the path should be 10 ft [15] and this should be considered when designing landscaping plans. 8.4.3b Constraints The largest constraint that this alternative will have to overcome is likely the cost. Using concrete as the surface of the trail and assuming a 6” deep section is approximately 1,350 Cubic Yards of concrete. Concrete costs anywhere from $150 - $175 per C.Y. [17] This cost comes out to be $202,500 - $236,250, and this only accounts for the concrete. As shown in Appendix B, the concrete section includes 6 inches of compacted subbase, which will likely require imported fill 214 | P a g e and increase overall project costs. When the additional expenses for landscaping improvements are included, the total cost of this alternative could rise to nearly $500,000. 8.4.3c Alternative Evaluation The success of the path could very well lead to more advocacy groups leading to cleanups in the area. As Bob Thompson said, “Changing public perception is key to increasing advocacy and care for site improvement.” [18] This design alternative has the potential to connect parkgoers more than any other with the beauty of the park and the ecological worlds that exist within it. People walking, running, or biking along the trail can get a full sense of what this park has to offer: beautiful birds, complex underwater ecosystems, and a variety of native plant species. The major drawback to this alternative is the upfront cost that it comes with. Ultimately, this design alternative provides a simple solution to create a more inviting, free to use space for the community of West Valley City. 8.5 Grant Funding Opportunities Several grant funding sources could potentially support this project. Since each program differs in focus, eligibility, and available resources, it is important to evaluate them carefully and systematically. The following subsections review each program’s history, purpose, eligibility requirements, and how well its funding priorities align with the goals of this research. Together, these evaluations will help identify which funding sources are the most practical and beneficial for the project. 8.5.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, provides funding to support community facilities and public improvement projects. It focuses on helping low- and moderate-income communities improve their quality of life. [19] This subsection looks at how the CDBG program’s goals, funding limits, and eligibility guidelines compare to the objectives of this project. 8.5.1a Goals of the CDBG The national objects of the CDBG are to benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or address community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available. [19] 8.5.1b Eligibility Guidelines for the CDBG To be eligible to receive the CDBG the grantee must fit into one of four categories. (1) Principal cities of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs); (2) Other metropolitan cities with populations of at least 50,000; (3) Qualified Urban 215 | P a g e Counties with populations of at least 200,000 (excluding the population of entitled cities); and (4) States and insular areas. [19] It is noted that any population data is provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and metropolitan area delineations published by the Office of Management and Budget. [19] Activities that are eligible include but are not limited to, relocation and demolition, rehabilitation of residential and non-residential structures, construction of public facilities, and acquisition of real property. [19] These activities must meet one of the national objectives for the program as listed in Section 6.1.1. West Valley city directs CDBG funds to housing, infrastructure improvements, public facilities, and public service. [20] 8.5.1c Funding Limits of the CDBG CDBG funding in the state of Utah is “divided amongst the 7 multicounty associations of government (AOGs) regional planning agencies based on a population formula” [21]. Each AOG has a Regional Review Committee which provides review and prioritization of CDBG applications. Following the review process individual awards are determined based on the region’s total allocation. [21] Through the last 5 years an average of $800,000 per year has been awarded through the Wasatch Front Region, which is comprised of 5 counties, one of which being Salt Lake County. 8.5.1d Is CDBG Fit for the Decker Lake Project? The Decker Lake Project does fit the eligibility requirements of the community development block grant. Since the funding is awarded throughout the region and is a set amount per year it seems more unlikely that this project will receive funding from the grant. The county also has a yearly budget to spend on projects which seems the most likely source of funding that is handed out for Decker Lake. 8.5.2 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), managed by the National Park Service, was created by Congress in 1964 to preserve natural resources and expand public recreation opportunities across the United States. The program provides funding to federal, state, and local governments for projects that enhance outdoor recreation and protect natural and cultural sites. [22] This subsection examines how the LWCF, primarily looking at the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Programs (ORLP) objectives, eligibility requirements, and grant types align with the goals of this project. 8.5.2a Goals of the LWCF The goals of the LWCF are to Safeguard natural areas and water resources, expand public access to outdoor spaces for community recreation and 216 | P a g e enjoyment, support state and local recreation projects, and to help strengthen communities. [22] 8.5.2b Eligibility Guidelines for ORLP through LWCF To be eligible to receive funding through ORLP projects must meet two criteria. Be located within a community with a population of 25,000 people or more in the 2020 Census and be located within a community that is determined to be underserved. [23] Only state lead agencies can submit applications for ORLP grants and may submit for another entity via a sub-grant. The other entities that are eligible to receive sub-grants include other state agencies, local units of government, and federally recognized tribes. [23] 8.5.2c Funding Limits of the LWCF The Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) authorizes $900 million annually in funding for the LWCF. [22] While the ORLP grants are a dollar-to-dollar match, meaning that it will fund and reimburse up to 50% of all project costs. [24] The expected award amounts for the next round of funding range from $300,000 to $15 million for eligible projects. [25] 8.5.2d Is LWCF Fit for the Decker Lake Project? The Land and Water Conservation Fun is an intriguing option to help fund the Decker Lake project. West Valley City meets the criteria as the population reported from the 2020 census was 134,466 people. [26] It is also a community that is determined to be underserved. If Salt Lake County was willing to allocate a portion of their yearly budget to help fund this the dollar-to-dollar match that would come from the LWCF would be a very viable option to help fund the different alternatives discussed for the Decker Lake Project. 8.6 Comparison of Design Alternatives This section explains how each design alternative was evaluated using the triple bottom line framework. The goal of this approach is to compare options in a balanced way by looking at their social, environmental, and monetary impacts rather than focusing on cost alone. Each branch of the framework is broken into clear subcategories that allow the alternatives to be graded on a consistent scale from 1.0 to 10.0. These scores help show how well each improvement supports park users, protects the natural setting, and fits within expected budget limits. Together, they create a full picture of each alternative’s strengths and weaknesses and help identify which options provide the most overall value for Decker Lake Park. 8.6.1 Rating Criteria Each design alternative will be evaluated based on the triple bottom line framework. The three aspects of TBL each have been divided into three sub-categories for alternative grading on a scale of 1.0 to 10.0. The first social subcategory is usability/Accessibility which grades a features ease of use for all ages and abilities. 217 | P a g e Secondly, social connectivity offers a metric for how well the improvement draws residents in and gives them the ability to interact with each other. Bond formed with park records how well a feature can foster a connection and care for the site. Average these scores together to get the parks TBL branch score for a proposed site improvement. Total branch scores are shown on the bottom row of the matrix. The environmental branch of TBL is evaluated as said before with the priorities of how the atmosphere of the park contributes to the park users’ experience and if the compliance of the proposed feature can follow environmental compliance guidelines. Subcategories for environmental are split one covering compliance and two covering the atmosphere element for the user experience. Compliance covers the alternatives’ ability to easily meet all relevant ecological regulations, permits, and standards to protect existing natural assets and avoid financial penalties for the municipalities. Aesthetics covers how attractive and visually appealing the improvements are. Cleanliness/safety have been grouped together as they go hand in hand with each other and the atmosphere of the park. This subcategory evaluates whether the park feels clean, safe, and comfortable. The monetary component of TBL is scored by several factors and despite traditionally being an easier metric to evaluate, it becomes difficult to quantify when the project’s goals do not lie in a profit margin or a market value. Costs and benefits of each project are calculated based on several assumptions, estimates, and unknowns that we weigh in a predictive speculative manner. Cost covers how much money a project will require: a high score here means a low price. Design life accounts for the cost of construction and maintenance over the entire life of the feature: a high score means a low/lean price for this component. Lastly, local economies evaluate how improvements support nearby business and increase economic activity in the community. 8.6.2 Alternative Ratings This playground option offers a great park feature at a low price point and could become a strong space for social connection, helping children and adults build a lasting bond with the park as a third place. However, it would be the weakest playground in terms of usability and accessibility, since its limited budget prevents it from including all ADA-compliant features. Compliance issues are minimal because it would be built on previously disturbed land. The playground would likely follow a more “cookie-cutter” format, making it less visually tailored to the character of the park, though it should still follow safety-oriented design principles. The cost-to-benefit ratio remains strong due to the low construction cost and the expected increase in park use among local families. Construction would also be simpler than the other alternatives, giving it a high score. Nearby businesses may experience increased foot traffic as families walk to and from the park. Overall, the final scores show that this option provides meaningful benefits to park users and strong social value relative to its low cost. 218 | P a g e Table 8.1: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: Low-Cost Playground. Social Environmental Monetary Usability/Accessibility Compliance Cost 5.00 8.00 10.00 Social Connectivity Aesthetics Design Life 7.00 6.00 6.50 Bond Formed with Park Cleanliness/safety Local Economies 7.00 8.00 2.00 Final Score 6.33 Final Score 7.33 Final Score 6.17 The low-cost playground is a viable solution with decent scores throughout, but this alternative feels like a low-effort solution that likely wouldn’t make Decker Lake a destination for the community. Table 8.2: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: Medium-Cost Playground. Social Environmental Monetary Usability/Accessibility Compliance Cost 8.00 8.50 8.00 Social Connectivity Aesthetics Design Life 7.50 8.00 8.50 Bond Formed with Park Cleanliness/safety Local Economies 8.00 8.00 2.00 Final Score 7.83 Final Score 8.17 Final Score 6.17 This alternative does a better job of making Decker Lake a destination but compared to other playground options at similar price points, it does many things well without truly excelling in any one area. This is reflected in the TBL matrix scores it received. 219 | P a g e Table 8.3: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: High-Cost Playground. Social Environmental Monetary Usability/Accessibility Compliance Cost 10.00 9.50 6.00 Social Connectivity Aesthetics Design Life 8.00 10.00 9.50 Bond Formed with Park Cleanliness/safety Local Economies 9.00 9.00 5.00 Final Score 9.00 Final Score 9.50 Final Score 6.83 The high-cost playground alternative stands out as the strongest playground option. Its upfront cost is very high, but this can be viewed with some flexibility since it is a onetime expense. The consistently high scores across the rest of the TBL matrix help offset the initial cost, showing that this alternative delivers significant long-term value. Table 8.4: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: Community Garden. Social Environmental Usability/Accessibility Compliance 6.00 9.50 Social Connectivity Aesthetics 9.00 9.00 Bond Formed with Park Cleanliness/safety 10.00 8.00 Monetary Cost 8.50 Design Life 7.00 Local Economies 8.00 Final Score 8.33 Final Score 7.83 Final Score 8.83 The community garden alternative is strong in theory, and while it scores well in every category, there are major concerns. The biggest issue is whether the garden would be used. For the social and environmental scores to match what is shown above, the garden depends heavily on the community embracing it and treating it as a resource. Because there is a high chance that it will not be utilized, this alternative is not preferred. Table 8.5: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: Trail Improvement. Social Environmental Usability/Accessibility Compliance 10.00 9.00 Social Connectivity Aesthetics 7.00 9.00 Monetary Cost 5.00 Construction Design Life 10.00 220 | P a g e Bond Formed with Park 9.00 Cleanliness/safety 8.50 Local Economies 7.50 Final Score 8.67 Final Score 8.83 Final Score 7.50 The trail improvement alternative is mainly limited by its upfront cost, as shown in the table above, and this is the only area where the option truly falls short. However, the benefits that an improved trail would bring to Decker Lake Park are strong across all three lenses used to evaluate the project. 8.7 Conclusion Decker Lake has the potential to become a true community hub. Its great location, combined with ample green space, could offer nearby residents on outdoor area they’d genuinely want to spend time in, but only if public perception of the park shifts. Currently, the park is seen as an eyesore in the community, but residents would like to see it restored to its former glory. To achieve the goals of both the community and the county, we recommend the implementation of both a high-cost playground as well as the trail and landscaping improvements. Decker Lake should be a family-friendly place that offers features for all who want to use the space. Ultimately, the success of this project depends on bringing people back to the park, rebuilding their connection to it, and transforming public perception so Decker Lake becomes a place the community is proud to use. 8.8 References [1] M. Scholle, "Park Use, Health Perceptions, and Barriers to Access at Decker Lake Park," Nature and Human Health-Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2024. [2] D. G. S. W. A. S. P. M. T. L. M. Deborah A. Cohen, "Effects of Park Improvements on Park Use and Physical Activity," American Journal of Preventive Medicin, p. 475–480, 2009. [3] J. A. R. S. K. C. D. P. H. D. R. B. H. M. D. e. a. Verughese Jacob, "Parks, Trails, and Greenways for Physical Activity: A Community Guide Systematic Economic Review," Am J Prev Med (American Journal of Preventive Medicine), p. 1089−1099, 2024. [4] A. Taylor and T. D. Fletcher, "‘Triple-bottom-line’ assessment of urban stormwater projects," Water Science & Technology, vol. 54, no. 6-7, pp. 459-466, 2006. [5] Salt Lake County, "Parks & Recreation Planning," [Online]. Available: https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/parks-recreation/planning/master-plans/. [Accessed 1 November 2025]. [6] West Valley City, "City Parks," [Online]. Available: https://www.wvc-ut.gov/214/City-Parks. [Accessed 19 October 2025]. 221 | P a g e [7] K. E. W. K. R. E. G. D. J. B. T. P. &. T. T.-K. H. Rachel L. Thompson, "Park use patterns and park satisfaction before and after citywide park renovations in low-income New York City neighborhoods," Nature.com, 2025. [Online]. [Accessed 8 November 2025]. [8] Z. Fan and L. Guo, "Research on the impact of the urban park built environment on physical activity," 05 August 2025. [Online]. Available: https://uofutahmy.sharepoint.com/my?id=%2Fpersonal%2Fu0762090%5Fumail%5Futah%5Fedu%2FDocument s%2FTech%20Comm%20Project. [Accessed 05 October 2025]. [9] GameTime, "What is the Cost of Commercial Playground Equipment?," 12 March 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.gametime.com/news/what-is-the-cost-of-commercialplayground-equipmentcost#:~:text=Start%20With%20a%20Playground%20Equipment,a%20volunteer%20or%20comm unity%20build.. [Accessed 27 October 2025]. [10] ASTM, "ASTM F1487-25 Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Playground Equipment for Public Use," 6 June 2025. [Online]. Available: https://store.astm.org/f1487-25.html. [Accessed 2 November 2025]. [11] CPSC, "Public Playgorund Handbook," 29 December 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/cpsc-public-playgroundhandbook.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com. [Accessed 11 November 2025]. [12] "Accessible Playground Equipment Market, Global Outlook and Forecast," 15 September 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.statsmarketresearch.com/global-accessible-playgroundequipment-forecast-market-8060825?utm_source=chatgpt.com. [Accessed 12 November 2025]. [13] M. T. B. H. S. W. E. G. D. Y. S. E. T. M. D. Cohen, "Playground Design and Physical Activity," ScienceDirect, 15 December 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379722005323?casa_token=5sKhrydj GUYAAAAA:gPQAiWGdxnRVykY7mcd7dvF-NFuixZcktsLjPVgSRd9iKPRaBK_uyUAdDFm_Y8pA45MXVr1glh_. [Accessed 27 October 2025]. [14] T. Gant, "Southern Utah NEWS," SUNEWS, 5 November 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sunews.net/post/gov-cox-announces-utah-trail-network-master-plan. [Accessed 9 November 2025]. [15] "Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines - Rulemaking," U.S. Access Board, [Online]. Available: https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/rulemaking/comparison-to-aashto-guide/. [Accessed 11 November 2025]. 222 | P a g e [16] "Native Plants for SLC Landscapes: Beauty and Sustaiability Combined," Millcreek Gardens, [Online]. Available: https://millcreekgardens.com/native-plants-for-slc-landscapes-beauty-andsustainability-combined/. [Accessed 15 November 2025]. [17] "Pricing," American Concrete, [Online]. Available: https://americanconcrete.org/pricing/. [Accessed 15 November 2025]. [18] B. Thompson, Interviewee, In-Class Presentation. [Interview]. 30 October 2025. [19] "Community Development Block Grant Program," [Online]. Available: https://www.hud.gov/hud-partners/community-cdbg#close. [Accessed 10 October 2025]. [20] "West Valley City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)," [Online]. Available: https://www.wvc-ut.gov/1607/Community-Development-Block-Grant-CDBG. [Accessed 19 October 2025]. [21] "Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program (Utah)," [Online]. Available: https://www.homelandsecuritygrants.info/Grant-Details/gid/41355. [Accessed 27 10 2025]. [22] "Land and Water Conservation Fund," [Online]. Available: https://www.doi.gov/lwcf. [Accessed 27 10 2025]. [23] "Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program," [Online]. Available: https://lwcfcoalition.org/orlp. [Accessed 27 10 2025]. [24] "Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grants Program," [Online]. Available: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/orlp.htm. [Accessed 27 10 2025]. [25] "Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program," [Online]. Available: https://www.ncparks.gov/about-us/grants/outdoor-recreation-legacy-partnershipprogram#EligibleApplicants-8861. [Accessed 27 10 2025]. [26] "West Valley City, UT," Census Reporter, [Online]. Available: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US4983470-west-valley-city-ut/. [Accessed 10 November 2025]. [27] "ParkMagnet," [Online]. Available: https://parkmagnet.com/united-states/utah/westvalley-city/decker-lake-park. [Accessed 05 October 2025]. 223 | P a g e Chapter 9 Cultural Heritage: The Water Gardens at Decker Lake Sampson Isafi, Sam Poulsen, Miko Makowski, and James Shriber Executive Summary This chapter presents a comprehensive design for the Decker Lake Water Gardens and Walkway, with the project aimed at reversing the severe decline in community use of Decker Lake in West Valley City, Utah. The proposed solution integrates ecological restoration with organic architecture to transform the lake’s southwestern region into a functional wetland and vibrant recreational area. The design involves systematic removal of invasive species, the creation of new landforms to enhance wetland function and bird habitat, and the introduction of native vegetation for water denitrification. The central component is an aesthetically conscious walkway system, constructed from environmentally sensitive materials that are designed to harmonize with the natural landscape. This chapter is framed to create a walkway that is novel in its design, fosters cultural heritage, and enables community pride. It details the physical, social, and aesthetic principles guiding the design, analyzes potential environmental impacts, mitigation strategies, identifies key stakeholders and outlines a multi-tiered funding strategy that leverages local, state, and federal resources. Along with this, the design below follows all guidelines necessary to initiate this plan. This includes the process of acquiring the permits to begin work and the use of machinery to complete the construction of both the wetland and the walkway. There are also specific requirements that this design must align with, including E. coli control, animal safety, and overall fluvial geomorphology requirements due to the planned land transformation. Once complete, not only will this be a wonderful new area for the community to take pride in, but a place that also acts in accordance with the U.S. EPA’s Clean Water Act through increasing water quality and ecology of the lake. Ultimately, the goal of Chapter 9 is to create a lasting cultural monument that improves ecological health, provides recreational benefits, and becomes a source of shared identity for the greater West Valley community. Keywords: Community engagement, cultural heritage, ecological restoration, guidelines, metaphysical design, organic architecture, synergism, stakeholder satisfaction, water quality, and wetland design. 224 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 Purpose, Scope, and Limitations 9.1.2 Description of the Site 9.1.3 Stakeholder Identification 9.2 Design of the Water Gardens 9.2.1 Primary Removal of Current Invasive Species 9.2.2 Land Formation 9.2.3 New Vegetation and Ecology 9.3 The Primary Design of the Edifice According to Physical, Social, and Aesthetic Aims 9.3.1 The Selection of Materials Based on Cohesion with the Surrounding Nature 9.3.1a Foundation Piers 9.3.1b Intermediary Supports 9.3.1c Connections and Viewing Platforms 9.3.2 The Location of the Structure as Prescribed by Adjacent Geography 9.3.3 The Constraints as Determined by the Physical Qualities of the Site 9.3.4 The Constraints as Determined by the Attitudes of the Surrounding Community 9.3.4a A Personal Rebuttal of the Anticipated Chief Contention 9.3.5 The Basis of the Design on the Principles of Organic Architecture 9.3.6 Environmental Impacts 9.3.6a Biological Impacts 9.3.6b Habitat Impacts 9.3.6c Water Impacts 9.3.7 Budget 9.3.8 Stakeholder Satisfaction 9.4 Alternative Design of Walkways 9.4.1 Alternative Design Description 9.4.2 Alternative Design Constraints 9.4.2a Physical Constraints 9.4.2b Social Constraints 9.5 Case Studies 9.5.1 European Green Deal 9.5.2 Collective Efficacy 9.6 Sources of Funding 9.6.1 Funding from City, County, and State Levels 9.6.1a Utah Non-Motorized Recreation Trails Act 9.6.1b Riverway Enhancement Program 9.6.2 Federal Funding 9.6.2a Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) 9.6.3 Community Funding 9.7 An Alternative to the Flawed Triple Bottom Line 9.7.1 Organic Synergism Defined 9.7.2 Analysis of the Decker Lake Water Gardens Using Organic Synergism 9.8 Recommendations 9.8.1 Immediate Benefits to Stakeholders 9.8.2 Delayed Benefits to Stakeholders 9.9 References List of Figures Figure 9.1: Impacts on underwater biology with recommendations to reduce Figure 9.2: Project budget estimate of Decker Lake Water Gardens and Walkways Figure 9.3: Common positive and negative aesthetic attributes for a bridge Figure 9.4: The Decker Lake Water Gardens analyzed using organic synergism List of Tables Tables 9.1: Location of site, note dense vegetation around southwest pocket of lake Tables 9.2: Satellite view of plans for Decker Lake Water Gardens Tables 9.3: Satellite view of Decker Lake with alternative design superimposed Tables 9.4: Individual Component Links Tables 9.5: Functional block diagram showing system relations in organic synergism 226 | P a g e 9.1 Introduction Decker Lake is an ecosystem located in West Valley, Utah that consists of the lake itself and the surrounding wetlands. It is situated in a largely residential area where its primary use by the community is recreational. The project proposed herein aims to expand and facilitate this recreational use through building up and reforming the southwestern part of the lake; specifically, the aim is to first increase the water quality and overall health of the lake and then implement a set of viewing platforms and walkways. To do this, we plan to transform the southwestern coast of the lake into a much more functional free-water surface wetland. This includes removal of all current invasive species currently inhabiting the coast, such as phragmites and Russian olives. Though this process takes up to three years, this works in our favor due to it also being similar in length to the permitting process of this project. The use of heavy machinery will aid in the actual transformation of the land to promote better flow and provide better land for adding in new vegetation. This will be gone over further in Section 9.2, along with the effects this has on the lake ecology overall, including wildlife and water quality. After improving water quality and vegetation the next step involves designing and implementing the structure itself. Section 9.3 details this design, how it meshes with the wetland, and the effects it has on both lake health and the community. Every aspect of design is explored, from structural, to environmental, to psychological. Each design decision seeks to increase use of the area by creating a structure that, in combination with the gardens, invigorates the surrounding community. A project like this requires a lot of capital, so we have made sure to study both the cost and ways to pay for everything. Costs include removing the current vegetation, land terraforming, materials, and construction of the actual walkway. As for how to pay for all of it, there are many grants, including federal grants, which provide funding due to what this project covers. These include grants for wetland restoration, water quality, park restoration, and even park pathing and trails, that are examined in much greater detail in Sections 9.4 and 9.6, respectively. To further show these points, we have researched a few different case studies with similar projects or goals. For instance, one case study used was based on the European Green deal and how the restoration of the Europeans wetlands and water-based ecosystems helped in many ways, from overall ecological health, to how it affects the communities for the better. This is gone into further detail in Section 9.5, along with a few other examples that go hand in hand with this article and the project. Lastly comes the recommendations. First, we will evaluate this plan using the methodology of organic synergism. This looks at a design in four categories, or “organs,” those being Nature, humanity, technology, and economy. This is a much better framework to rank and understand the design than the triple bottom line (TBL) method, where a design is ranked in economy, environment, and societal impact. Organic synergism details how the categories work in unity with one another to achieve a single goal. The TBL, on the contrary, states that an advantage in one category must lead to a disadvantage in the others (e.g., increasing profits to the detriment of the environment). This conflicts with the organic approach our project takes. 227 | P a g e That said, this chapter highlights why this is overall a great idea to pursue. The biggest issues currently facing the area is poor quality and lack of use, and this project targets both of these at the same time, which helps create a positive feedback cycle of making the lake more attractive and healthier, having more people see the value in keeping it that way, and ultimately bringing further awareness to the lake and wetland to keep it healthy for years to come. This is how it can become a new beacon for the community, as they will be the ones affected most by anything done, and making a place greater for them helps spark that fire of community engagement and pride. To support all decisions made and to show proof of concepts, we have sourced many scholarly articles, including studies and informative articles about wetlands, articles about materials and walkway design, and case studies regarding similar projects such as wetland restoration and community efficacy for the protection of natural lands and parks. All these articles will be listed at the bottom of this chapter to visit and learn more about any point made within any given section. 9.1.1 Purpose, Scope, and Limitations The purpose of this project is to ensure that the community (residents and visitors) of Decker Lake can use it for recreational purposes such as viewing, walking, and fishing. This will be accomplished by designing and building a set of walkways alongside a supplementary water garden. This maintains the intrinsic value of the Nature of the site while also allowing users to access it more directly. The primary limitation is the budget of the project and the physical constraints of the site. Because this is a public project, its funding will come from the community; the willingness of the community to spend money depends on whether the project satisfies or impedes the perceived needs of the individual members of the community, and if it is culturally constructive rather than destructive. The site itself has a highly moist and avian ecology, with algae blooms being unfortunately commonplace; in these cases, the structure is often hostile to the environment and the environment hostile to the structure. This need not be the case so long as the proper precautions are taken. 9.1.2 Description of the Site The project is strategically focused on the southwestern portion of Decker Lake, an area currently characterized by both ecological challenges and significant potential for enhancement. As illustrated in Figure 9.1 this pocket of the lake is largely concealed from the main loop trail by dense, overgrown vegetation, primarily invasive Russian olives, along its eastern edge. A pedestrian traversing the trail from east to west encounters a pickleball court before the path bends southwestward. Along this segment, the visual and physical access to the lake is entirely obstructed by this thicket. The trail eventually leads to the inlet of the southwestern pocket, which serves as the sole vantage point for this area. From here, the view reveals a shallow, silt-laden basin with stagnant water, limited circulation, and emergent vegetation. While this viewpoint offers a distant prospect of the northern lake area where birds primarily congregate, the 228 | P a g e immediate surroundings are ecologically degraded. The site is further impacted by its proximity to Bangerter Highway, which runs approximately 50 feet to the west of the inlet, introducing significant auditory pollution. This combination of visual obstruction, poor hydrology, and urban noise renders the southwestern pocket underutilized and limits the recreational and aesthetic potential of the entire lakefront. Figure 9.1: Location of site, note dense vegetation around southwest pocket of lake [1]. The issues discovered by the site analysis directly inform the proposed interventions for wetland revival and walkway construction developed in this report. 9.1.3 Stakeholder Identification To ensure that the project retains the virtue of Democracy, the primary stakeholder must be the immediate and surrounding community of Decker Lake. These are the individuals who will be most affected by any changes and additions made. Salt Lake County and West Valley City follow; therefore, the success of the project can easily be determined by observing and measuring community satisfaction. Around Decker Lake, there are 3 main populated groups: Egate apartments, H2O Townhomes, and Vanguard Academy. Vanguard Academy is a Private Highschool northeast of Decker Lake, we can assume that the primary population are teenagers. Egate apartments are a complex that allows dogs; the primary population is likely to be 20–30-year-olds with dogs. Finally, H20 Townhomes is a new community that was built and most likely has younger families. These 3 main populated groups around Decker Lake are the main Stakeholders, assuming they use the lake the most. 229 | P a g e 9.2 Design of the Water Gardens Since this garden will be something to be explored by others, a free-water surface wetland design is the best option. As described in Byers’ and company’s article, this has the plants taking root near the shore and being inundated in the water itself [2]. This lends itself well to the southwest part of the lake as well due to much of the shore being perfect for the area, along with it being a good enclose spot for both the wetland and walkway. 9.2.1 Primary Removal of Current Invasive Species The first part in transforming the landscape is to begin with taking out the invasive plant species, such as the Russian Olives and Phragmites. As said in John William’s article for the Utah Lake Authority, these are both highly invasive plants that outcompete anything else, but the phragmites pose further issues by taking up more water, reducing habitat for birds and fish, and being an even greater fire hazard than other plants. Some of the strategies currently used include mowers and cutting, and even the herbicide AquaNeat is used for the phragmites but can take up to 3 years to fully work [3]. Despite the process requiring over three years, however, we can do it while getting the necessary permits required to form the land into our desired shape. This is because we do not actually require any sort of permits to begin phragmite control. It works out even better because the process of getting all the permissions for our project takes roughly two and a half years and may possibly be longer for the actual construction of the bridge walkway. This allows for efficient use of time, as while we wait to get the permits to construct the wetland shore and walkway, we are already preparing the land to replace the vegetation of the shore. 9.2.2 Land Formation As said before, we use heavy machinery to both take out the invasive plants and prepare the shore to be transformed. Specifically, this includes making web-like channels across some of the land mass that’s more in the lake, and filling some of the areas to have the water properly flow into the canals. This does do 3 things that help our goals: 1. Increase surface area of water flow for denitrification from new vegetation and sediment settling. 2. Create islands that the actual boardwalk sits upon. 3. These islands simultaneously provide better shelter for the birds of the lake [4]. This will provide the map and land required for the rest of the project. Along with this, the new vegetation will be planted on and inside the new channels, which is how the denitrification rates increase, and sedimentation rates in the basin decreases, as most will be stopped coming in through settling in the channels, and eventually the nutrients also absorbed by the roots. 230 | P a g e As mentioned in point 2, this will provide a foundation for the pathway. Some of the columns will still be built underwater, but the entire coastal area will have a much firmer foundation, providing greater structure. If needed as well, these small mounds could also be the walkway itself. This will be gone over in more detail in Section 9.4, which discusses possible alternative designs for the actual walkway. 9.2.3 New Vegetation and Ecology The third step is to start populating the land with eco-friendly vegetation once the phragmites and Russian olives have been dealt with. From the United States Geological Survey, excellent replacements that are from native to Utah include bullrushes, cattails, thistles, and duckweed [5]. This provides both structure for the actual islands and be the finishing touch in making the area a newly constructed wetland, as they’ll begin absorbing the nutrients needed to grow, denitrifying the water. This also inadvertently takes in extra phosphorus as well, as these islands provide better nesting spots for birds so that they do not just defecate in the water, but instead on the land [4]. Another consideration we must consider is E. coli control. A requirement of the EPA Clean Water Act and Revised Total Coliform Rule is that the solution must be able to reduce or remove any possible E. coli contamination, whether it is through wildlife control or natural processes [6]. There is one plant that works perfectly for this, that being Nebraska Sedge. Nebraska sedge is a type of riparian plant that works well when the water is stagnant, which is common for Decker Lake [7]. Along with working well with other plants, there is another property which is that the roots of the sedge will take in and process E. coli. This meets the standards set, as it both cleans the water more through taking out the harmful bacteria, but also be another plant which adds further diversity to the wetland. 9.3 The Primary Design of the Edifice According to Physical, Social, and Aesthetic Aims The connections and viewing platforms will be constructed such that they fulfill the physical needs of the site (wetland revival), the social needs of the community (recreation), and the aesthetic needs of cultural heritage. When a structure acquires metaphysical significance (that is, significance that goes beyond the purely material realm) the culture which it belongs to imbues it with heritage. Henceforth, the structure will be revered by its community and passed down through generations, guaranteeing its preservation. For this to occur, it must have both aesthetic and philosophical substance. If these traits are lacking—and they inevitably will be should a purely mechanistic approach be taken—the building will not be preserved, as evidenced by the demolition of Brutalist structures [8]. For this reason, the edifice to be built on the surface of Decker Lake will blend harmoniously with the associated water garden discussed in section 2 of this chapter, as well as with the existing landscape; its metaphysical significance will be ascribed to it by its association with and respect for Nature. This ensures minimal disruption to the environment whilst providing a beautiful recreational hotspot for the Decker Lake community which, in time, will acquire status as a cultural monument for its people. 231 | P a g e 9.3.1 The Selection of Materials Based on Cohesion with the Surrounding Nature Materials will be selected based on three factors: high-moisture performance, environmental protection, and aesthetic cohesion with Nature. The first ensures the mechanical safety of the structure. The second prevents excessive damage to the environment. The third satisfies the needs for cultural heritage. The structure will be constructed from the ground up, starting with the foundation piers, moving up to the intermediary supports, and then to the viewing platforms and connections themselves. Each of these components has an appropriate material for its role. 9.3.1a Foundation Piers The foundation piers will be crafted from geopolymer concrete (GPC) rather than Portland Cement Concrete (PCC). GPC uses aluminosilicate polymers as the binder while PCC uses calcium silicate hydrate gel. The former produces significantly more CO2 emissions than the latter. Furthermore, GPC’s denser, less permeable formulation makes it stronger for underwater environments; it resists chloride and sulfate attacks and experiences less chemical degradation while retaining similar compressive strength to PCC [9]. Consequently, GPC does minimal damage to aquatic ecosystems as it leaches fewer chemicals and withstands water abrasion. 9.3.1b Intermediary Supports Some intermediary supports will be underwater and some above water. Underwater supports will be constructed of oak wood with no moisture-resistant treatment; wood that is completely submerged does not rot since fungus and bacteria lack the oxygen they need to survive underwater. Above water supports, on the other hand, will be constructed of acetylated oak wood. Acetylated wood is treated using anhydrides which renders the wood more resistant to fungal and bacterial decomposition [10]. 9.3.1c Connections and Viewing Platforms The connections and viewing platforms will be made using black locust wood which is innately resistant to rot. It has a greenish-yellowish color that becomes grey over time. This blends seamlessly with Decker Lake’s marshland appearance. Black locust is also extremely durable; it can hold a significant amount of load and reduces the effects of creep, both of which are essential due to the large foot traffic on the structure. 9.3.2 The Location of the Structure as Prescribed by Adjacent Geography The structure must be located concurrently with the constructed water gardens. The water gardens must be located on the southwest side of the lake as this is the water inlet and area most in need of wetland revival. Therefore, the structure itself must be built on the southwest side of the lake. Before this can happen, a sound barrier must be installed alongside Belt Route lest the cacophony from the road drive individuals away from the 232 | P a g e gardens thereby guaranteeing the project’s long-term failure. By positioning the structure thusly, users will be gifted with an excellent view of the water garden and northern precipice of the lake. If the structure was placed in the north, the resident waterfowl population would be disrupted. If the structure was placed in the east, recreational activity (such as fishing and boating) would be disrupted. The southwest section provides the most apt region for both the structure and the water gardens. 9.3.3 The Constraints as Determined by the Physical Qualities of the Site There are three sources for which the project is constrained physically: the soil conditions, the environmental disruption, and the structural soundness itself. A geotechnical survey must be conducted before construction to assess the load bearing capacity of the lakebed soil. The environmental impacts will be minimized by adhering to the principles of organic architecture (building within the landscape rather than atop it, as discussed further in Section 9.3.5) and through the material selections made above. The structure must be able to bear its own dead load (static weight) and the live load (transient weight) of its occupants. Finite element analysis and expected foot traffic estimations will determine the structural design of members. 9.3.4 The Constraints as Determined by the Attitudes of the Surrounding Community A democratic architecture must always respect and elevate the sovereignty of the individual; communities form from the congregation of distinct persons and survive through the stewardship of these persons. Ergo, even if the structure itself is sound, it remains constrained by its community’s perception. Should individuals deem the design inadequate or built for an ulterior motive (tourism, for example) instead of their own benefit, then they will elect not to fund it. And if it is built regardless of their protests, it will achieve infamy as a cultural blemish rather than becoming adorned with the prolonging status of “cultural monument.” The true longevity of a structure, therefore, is governed by its capacity to win over the hearts and minds of its occupants, not by its technical specifications. A structure built with the metaphysical intent (telos) of loving each of its individual users necessarily leads to adoration by its community. In other words, its primary purpose cannot simply be aesthetic vanity, nor can it be to fulfill a merely mechanistic purpose, such as generating revenue or cleaning water (though the latter two are necessary as secondary aims, they cannot be the primary one). The logical hierarchy of the conception of all buildings is as follows: Metaphysical Intent → Practical Intent → Design Basis → Material Selection A building always begins as an abstract representation of a goal, idea, or principle (its teleology or metaphysical intent) from which its practical aim emerges and is fulfilled by the design and materials. Often, designers (be they architects or engineers) disregard the first step which leads to mechanistic, soulless infrastructure incapable of retaining cultural heritage. On the contrary, the Decker Lake Water Gardens are built with the 233 | P a g e ultimate purpose of loving the humans that use it and being a gift to its community. This is evidenced by the fact that it is not being constructed where economically advantageous to the upper class, but in the heart of West Valley, which is otherwise architecturally neglected. 9.3.4a A Personal Rebuttal of the Anticipated Chief Contention The foremost criticism that will be leveled at the design is its cost with respect to available funding and whether the project can be defended on this front. I will directly address this now. To shirk the construction of a cultural project because it exceeds immediate funding is to sanction the destruction of that culture. An investment in good architecture is an investment in the very conditions that make civilization possible—liberty, order, virtue, etc. Conditions that exist beyond mere finances. The residents of West Valley City have heretofore been neglected in this regard; an injustice which requires swift correction. Their economic status makes them no less worthy of consideration for monumental projects; infrastructure should aim to revitalize the communities that require it most. If we cannot pay for their beauty today, then we will necessarily pay for our ugliness tomorrow, until the very core of our society has corroded. Budgets are provisional. Great buildings are eternal. 9.3.5 The Basis of the Design on the Principles of Organic Architecture The design has three architectural components: the annulus, the platforms, and the connections. At the center of the lake will be a large annulus viewing platform offset from the shape of the lake shore itself and elevated at a height of twenty feet above the water. This platform will be accessed by ramps from two points on the west and east side of the shore. From this platform, five additional ramps will extend to five smaller viewing platforms flush with the lake surface. These platforms will accommodate seating. The two outermost of these platforms will also be accessible from the lake shore via bridges. See Figure 9.2 for a satellite view of the proposed structure. 234 | P a g e Figure 9.2: Satellite view of plans for Decker Lake Water Gardens [1]. The shape of the platforms echoes the form of the inlet while the annulus allows for vegetation to extend upward from its center. The platforms take their character from lily pads; they are exactly at home in their placement. Connecting the platforms with bridges and ramps infuses the entire structure with the sense that it floats atop the lake surface akin to a water strider. By utilizing wood as the primary material and populating the in-between spaces with vegetation, the structure becomes a resident of the landscape as though Nature itself had inscribed it therein. These aspects, when combined, qualify the structure as organic per Frank Lloyd Wright’s requirement that a building must arise out of its site naturally [11]. 9.3.6 Environmental Impacts The environmental impact of the Decker Lake Water Gardens occurs primarily during the construction and long-term operation of the platform and bridge network. It is crucial to understand that this structure, and the associated wetland restoration, will directly affect the lake’s biology, habitat, and water quality. However, this project is fundamentally an act of ecological restoration. While the construction phase will have a temporary, localized footprint, the design principles, material selection, and long-term ecological functions of the walkway system and revitalized wetland are engineered to create a significant net-positive environmental gain for Decker Lake. It transforms a degraded area into a high-functioning ecosystem. The impacts are analyzed across three major subjects: Biological Impacts, Habitat Impacts, and Water impacts. 235 | P a g e 9.3.6a Biological Impacts Overwater structures interfere with the aquatic ecosystem processes; it changes how fish and birds behave around the structure. It is crucial for the construction and use of the bridge to not result in a net loss of ecological functions [12]. After completion of construction, the shadow that the bridge casts over the water can impact underwater plants and fish behavior (see Table 9.1). Based on community use of Decker Lake, residents fish primarily in the northwest pocket of the lake. The construction of the overwater structure on the southwest pocket will not have an impact on the majority of aquatic fauna nor on the migratory birds which mainly congregate in the north and eastern pockets of the lake. Most of the biological impacts will be a result of excavation and removal of plant life. After completion of construction, new plant life will be added to relieve this; the removal of the invasive species is a critical ecological benefit. Phragmites and monocultures offer poor habitat value, compete with native vegetation, and reduce biodiversity [13]. Just by removing the invasive species, the ecological balance of Decker Lake will begin to restore itself. As the newly formed islands and channels begin to be built they will serve as structural foundations as well as a habitat. The incorporation of native bullrushes and cat tails will provide superior nesting cover, foraging areas, and shelter for waterfowl and other avian species, directly enhancing the Lake’s habitat value. The introduction of a diverse palette of native riparian plants, including Nebraska Sedge, will support a wider range of invertebrates, amphibians, and fish. Increasing the overall biodiversity and resilience of the Decker Lake ecosystem. Table 9.1: Impacts on underwater biology with recommendations to reduce [12]. Light impacts on underwater biology Recommendations to reduce impacts Reductions in light affect the growth Increase pier height and decrease pier of plant life which provides feeding for and dock width and use a north-south fish pier-dock orientation With less light there are fewer small Use artificial lighting under piers in species for fish to eat daylight hours Pile driving will have temporary Decrease the number of pilings and impacts on water quality by increasing shoring required for the pier turbidity Table 9.1 shows the light impacts on underwater biology and recommendations to reduce those impacts. Although less plant life grows in the shadowy spots, there is actually a bright side, as this also means algae can’t grow out of hand, and also cools the water, further reducing any chance of harmful algae blooms. 236 | P a g e 9.3.6b Habitat Impacts When considering habitat impacts and building a bridge, physical excavation causes a large alteration of the habitat. Excavation is large scale removal of soil with the purpose of using that space for new construction. This directly affects the ecology and fish life around the area. This proposal plans to use geopolymer concrete in place of weak native soil as a foundation. This also includes excavation of the invasive species around the lake to prepare the landscape. The carbon footprint will be large relative to the current carbon footprint that Decker Lake is emitting. Excavation will require large machines like Hydraulic excavators, front loaders, and skid-steers. Pile-driving will displace a large amount of sediment, potentially altering the landscape of the southwest pocket of the lake. Luckily, most of the birds living in Decker Lake do not congregate in the proposed area. This will most likely have little effect on the migratory birds in Decker Lake. This project transforms a carbon-neutral or low-sequestration invasive thicket into a high-sequestration native wetland. Wetlands are among the most effective carbon sinks on the planet, storing carbon in plant biomass and, more importantly, in saturated soils where decomposition is slow. Lastly, the use of wood, a renewable and carbon-storing material, further enhances the project’s carbon balance. 9.3.6c Water Impacts Run-off from the pouring of geopolymer concrete has the potential to have a large impact if any mistakes are made. Concrete is a viscous material that can easily ‘slip’ or ‘slide’ into the water of the lake. To mitigate run-off, it is important during the construction of the foundations of the bridge to have a temporary structure or a ‘net’ of some sort. Since our main material for the overwater structure will be wood, it is important to think about the construction of wooden structures. Wood construction has two main materials: bolts and wood. Cutting wood should be done before construction so that any extra shavings and material do not end up in the water. Screws and bolts must be carefully used so that they also do not end up in the water. Most of the pre-fabrication work should be done before any part is placed overwater. 9.3.7 Budget The following budget provides a high-level cost estimate for the Decker Lake Water Garden and Walkway project. It is categorized into primary cost centers, with a significant contingency included to account for unforeseen challenges associated with construction in a sensitive wetland environment. Table 9.2 breaks down the budget by category, description, and estimated cost. 237 | P a g e Table 9.2: Project budget estimate of Decker Lake Water Gardens and Walkways [14-15]. Category Description Estimated Cost (U.S. $) Permitting, geotechnical Pre-Construction & Design survey, final engineering $150,000 design Invasive species removal, excavation for wetland Site Preparation & $400,000 channels and islands, Earthwork grading, and siltation control Procurement and planting Wetland Construction & of native species, soil $175,000 Ecology amendments, and initial ecosystem establishment Geopolymer concrete, Structural Materials acetylated oak, oak, and $1,000,000 black locust Skilled labor for specialized wood and concrete work, Construction & Labor $700,000 equipment operation and management Unforeseen issues, design Contingency $250,000 changes, and cost overruns Architectural fees, community engagement Soft Costs $100,000 sessions, and funding application assistance Total Cost $2,775,000 The total budget of 2.775 million dollars represents a strategic investment in West Valley city’s ecological health, community well-being, and long-term economic vitality. This budget has been developed with fiscal responsibility and transparency, ensuring every cost center directly contributes to the project's success and longevity. Starting with pre-construction and design, permitting is a great deal of the project and although it may be low-cost, it is the most time-consuming. Geotechnical survey requires personnel on site to bore test holes and analyze the soil conditions around the site. This requires drillers and geotechnical engineers to work side by side. After investigation, there will be laboratory and engineering analysis in the office to prepare site characterization and recommendations for the project. The final design will include geotechnical recommendations to help structural engineers design the pier structure, which leads to the estimated cost of $150,000. 238 | P a g e Site preparation and framework are one of the largest components of the budget. Multiple contractors specializing in excavation and removal of the species will be required on site. Machines like excavators and skid-steers are very expensive to run day by day. They require skilled operators to create channels and islands as well as workers on the ground to help communicate grade and smaller scale excavation. Removal of material will take trucks on site every day to transport the waste to a dump. This will most likely require more than one truck depending on the pace of the project. Overhead expenses include management, unforeseen costs, and quality control. Wetland construction & ecology is where the project begins to turn its carbon footprint. The initial removal of invasive species was key for introducing new native species of plants. Cattails, bullrushes, thistles, Nebraska sedge, and duckweed will all be added to the site during this phase. Most of the cost for this portion will be just the price of these plants. For example, a single cattail plant costs $6.99 according to a local nursery [14]. When considering that the site is approximately one square acre, it would take thousands of cattails and other plants to revitalize the area with native vegetation. Installation of these plants requires specialists and hard labor, which leads to a cost estimation of $175,000. Structural material includes geopolymer concrete, acetylated oak, oak, and black locust. For most, if not all projects, the material that it takes to build the project is always the highest up-front cost. This chapter proposes a large pier structure in the southwestern pocket of Decker Lake, almost as large as one square acre. A table from B. Tempest shows how much geopolymer concrete costs for 1 cubic yard, and it is $50.88 U.S. dollars [15]. This is a large cost, and it will most likely take 100’s if not 1000’s of cubic yards of geopolymer concrete to uphold the pier structure in decker lake. The structure also includes three types of wood: Acetylated oak, oak, and black locust. All playing the major visual component of the pier structure of the lake. This is what the community will see and walk on. It requires massive truckloads of wood to build the pier structure around Decker Lake, taking on the large, estimated cost of $850,000. Construction and labor will be similar to the site preparation and earthwork portion. Contracting crews will be on site with management, engineers, laborers, and operators all playing a key role in the building and formation of the pier bridge, this is especially expensive since this portion of the project will require more skilled laborers putting together a bridge. The timeline will also be longer due to waiting on concrete pours, following design, and cleaning up. Construction is the most important part of the project that puts everything together. With an estimated $800,000 cost, the project will close and ultimately will be revealed to the residents and community of Decker Lake. Assuming an additional $500,000 will be needed for contingencies and soft costs based on the percentage of the total project costs. Which includes architectural fees, funding application assistance, and unforeseen issues. Most projects hold a contingency of 1015% of the total cost, and soft costs usually are a part of the preliminary/design phase of the project. To conclude, the Decker Lake Water Garden and Walkway Additions will be a 239 | P a g e high up-front cost that will have an even greater cost to benefit ratio when it is complete. By removing the invasive species, adding a wetland with native vegetation, and the completion of a pier bridge, it turns this section of the lake into a catalyst for community pride, public health, and environmental stewardship. 9.3.8 Stakeholder Satisfaction It is important for the community to have a sense of satisfaction with the bridge and water garden Table 9.3 shows general aesthetic attributes for a bridge from a community standpoint. Table 9.3: Common positive and negative aesthetic attributes for a bridge [15]. Positive Aesthetic Attributes Enhanced water access Open/distance water views Structures perceived as water related Diverse and well-maintained vegetation Natural landscape, rural image, features “Historical” character Negative Aesthetic Attributes Inappropriate structures Developed or urbanized landscape General clutter or poorly maintained areas Litter and debris Screening or blocking views Tourist-oriented commercial development The goal of the walkway is to create more opportunities for the Decker Lake community to use and enjoy the park. The visual impact of the structure and water garden is of the upmost importance and keeping the community engaged during the process is ideal. The use of materials that blend in with the overall landscape, making sure that the bridge is minimal in overall size, and enhancing public access to other areas [16]. These aesthetic attributes give a more enjoyable experience to the community. 9.4 Alternative Design of Walkways The alternative design for a pedestrian walkway over the lake includes the construction of artificial islands with elevated viewing platforms and bridges between them. This design fulfills the project's purpose by reusing the sediment from the bottom of the lake to construct new wetlands and by providing the community with opportunities for leisure, recreation, and education. This design for a walkway seeks to align with the primary design's purpose of creating a cultural landmark for the community. The intention of this alternative design, as it relates to the primary design, is to reduce costs and incorporate the lake’s expanded wetlands directly into the design of the walkways. 9.4.1 Alternative Design Description The design consists of two new islands with elevated viewing platforms and bridges connecting the islands to each other and the shore. The islands will be constructed out of a mix of sediments from the lakebed and imported fill—a topic further explored in Section 9.4.2. A combination of geogrid made of geosynthetic materials and polyester erosion barrier will be used to prevent, or at least minimize, erosion of the islands and 240 | P a g e maintain their structural integrity. The bridge decks will be elevated five feet above the water surface with viewing platforms sitting ~10 feet above the water’s surface. The bridge spans between the islands will be constructed with a wooden deck sitting on concrete columns which then are attached to concrete footings below the lakebed. Wide concrete footings are selected instead of piers as they can be placed at shallower depths – speeding up construction and decreasing cost. The columns will be precast reinforced concrete which are able to readily support the load of the bridge deck and its foot traffic. Precast concrete will speed up construction and reduce costs since the columns to be manufactured, poured, and left to set up offsite while other construction activities occur. The piers and footing will be constructed out of PCC with cements meeting ASTM C 595 or ASTM C 1157 – high sulfate resistant and medium sulfate resistant cement – will be used due to the high sulfate content in the runoff that feeds Decker Lake. The bridge deck and viewing platforms will be constructed out of black locust wood for the reasons listed in Section 9.3.1c. Figure 9.3: Satellite view of Decker Lake with alternative design superimposed [1]. The alternative design is situated in the same area of the lake as the primary design. The decision behind the placement of the walkway and its viewing platforms is that the community can more closely view the existing high-quality wetlands at the top of the image without causing major disruption to the protected ecosystem. The walkway begins on the right side of the image – close to the existing parking lot – passing through 241 | P a g e the low-quality wetlands situated there. These wetlands are not considered to be important by the US Army Corps of Engineers and are free to be disrupted by the construction of the pedestrian walkway. However, the layout of the walkway is intended to allow the community to observe these wetlands. The islands – or constructed wetlands – are designed with the intention that the community can walk through them and experience the wetlands' ecology more closely. This purpose necessitated the construction of new wetlands since the high-quality wetlands on the upper side of the image cannot be disturbed and the wetlands on the center-right of the image will be partially degraded by the construction of the pedestrian walkway. 9.4.2 Alternative Design Constraints The alternative design is limited by the lakebed’s sediment and soil composition, the effects of moisture on proposed materials, budget, and the social aims of the project. The islands must be structurally sound and resistant to erosion to support the load of the bridge, viewing platforms, and foot traffic while also supporting wetland vegetation. 9.4.2a Physical Constraints The sediment on the lakebed likely contains too many fine particles to properly support the load of the bridge supports and the viewing platforms. Islands constructed purely out of sediment from the river bottom will be susceptible to settlement due to fine particles being carried out of the island by the island and returning to the lakebed. This will necessitate the import of clean fill material with low fine contents. A drawback of using PCC for the below-water support is that the cement paste can be easily eroded by water that is high in sulfates. This erosion is evident in the form of cracking, delamination, and spalling, which decreases the integrity of the bridge’s primary structural members. The materials the bridge deck can be made of are limited as they must be able to support the foot traffic load while not contributing excessively to the dead load applied on the columns and footings – in addition to being cost-effective. These requirements necessitate wood to be used as the deck. Wood also has limitations in moist environments since many untreated woods will rot and treated lumber will leach ecologically damaging chemicals into the water. 9.4.2b Social Constraints This alternative design must also achieve the social goals of primary design by being built with the intention of loving the humans that use it and being a gift to their community. One of the alternative designs stated necessities—reduced cost—conflicts with the project’s social goals. The alternative design seeks to maintain these goals of turning Decker Lake into a site of cultural heritage by creating an organic design that allows the community to experience the historic wetland ecosystem that existed in West Valley City before its relatively recent urbanization. 242 | P a g e 9.5 Case Studies Below is a collection of case studies whose aims were like this project. They range from national to local scales, and focus on a lot of the social aspects, from local outreach to help certain areas and community pride over the wetland spots as well. 9.5.1 European Green Deal One major case study done recently was by Laura Pott in the article “Mapping multiple benefits in large-scale freshwater restoration: A theory of change approach.” This specific article studied the effects of freshwater restorations with regards to the Green New Deal and the Nature Restoration Regulations through biophysical outcomes, but also the social and economic impacts [16]. The UK had decided to start using more nature-based solutions which were found to have positive effects on many different sectors and coincided well with the new regulations imposed on them [17]. Below is a figure that illustrates their findings, including short-to-long-term benefits, and how it relates to the goals to be met. Figure 9.4: Individual Component Links [17]. As shown above, despite some effects lasting for a bit, there are ultimately more benefits that help to achieve each goal that was set. These benefits even included promoting environmental education and jobs for people, while also increasing recreation of the area for at least 20 years, with increased landscape connectivity lasting for more than 20 years. With proper maintenance and keeping the place clean, some of these benefits could possibly be stretched out for longer. This is illustrated further, as another study done by Xiang and company had found similar results when studying the Huaduhu Wetland Park in China. The park had a massive role in cultural and ecological services [18]. Although both studies are on a grander scale compared to this, it is clear that a water garden is an excellent way to bring the 243 | P a g e community of Decker Lake together. Not only does it help in the short term with local jobs and awareness, but it has great long-term benefits for the area, from increased air and water quality, to becoming the beacon of the community [16-17]. 9.5.2 Collective Efficacy For the next study, the focus was placed on farmers and their willingness to protect wetlands. Naser Valizadeh talks about the different reasons why and why not farmers are willing to perform actions to protect the Helleh Wetland in Iran [19]. The biggest factors that impacted their decisions were negative experiences and social identity. It was found that the most effective method was for authorities to remove those bad experiences; however, the most important part for this section is how social identity leads to their decisions [19]. The next biggest thing was treating farmers and locals as stakeholders, as it is their area. Though already listed as one of the stakeholders for this plan. It was found that when these people were excluded, they even go as far as opposing wetland protection efforts [18]. The best way to avoid this is to make sure they are always kept in mind. The whole point of this is to bring the community together and give them something to be proud of, so making sure they are part of the whole process helps in both the creation and upkeep of the garden for years. 9.5.3 Community Programs One more case study was held in the Banjarmasin Riverbank of Indonesia and performed by Nurul Huda and Mariatul Kiptiah who analyzed the community’s knowledge of wetlands, along with original programs done to teach others or have them participate in maintaining the area; there was only about a 57% awareness level among people [20]. As the study went on, they found that, much like the collective efficacy study above, the best way to help increase awareness was not through policies from the government, though they do help somewhat, but instead community driven programs that help increase awareness [20]. People are becoming more aware of ecological needs, and this project is a great way to further nurture that idea, along with giving the community a way to act as well. One such way, though small, is to even just have signs that give information on some of the new plants in the area, including Nebraska Sedges and how they keep E. coli populations down, or about the many different birds in the area. Since this is to become a center for the community, events can also be held, including cleanup and gardening events, but also community barbecues, parties, birdwatching trips, and even possible fishing once the water quality increases. This not only increases community togetherness but ultimately helps bring awareness to the importance of the lake health by showing others just how valuable the space is, making them want to act in a way that will help keep the area thriving for many years [18-19]. 244 | P a g e 9.6 Sources of Funding There are three available sources of funding: direct taxes, bonds, and environmental grants. Direct taxes and bonds can be awarded at the city, county, and state level while environmental grants are typically presented at the federal level by the EPA. 9.6.1 Funding from City, County, and State Levels To receive this funding, the necessity of Decker Lake’s renovation must be presented to city, county, and/or state council members who will then create legislation which grants money to Decker Lake’s renovation and rehabilitation. A committee involving the Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation, Salt Lake County Arts and Culture, West Valley City Parks and Recreation, and West Valley City Community Development will be established to assist in lobbying for and acquiring funding. 9.6.1a Utah Non-Motorized Recreation Trails Act The Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation provides funding to state agencies and local governments for the purpose of developing and redeveloping new and existing trails. The Recreational Trails Program prioritizes funding for areas that are in proximity to or are accessible to urban areas, those that cross public lands, and those that provide linkage or access to natural, scenic, or recreational areas of statewide significance [21]. 9.6.1b Riverway Enhancement Program The Riverway Enhancement Program defines grants that are awarded by the state of Utah to local governments and state agencies for projects that are along a river or stream – Decker Lake feeds into the Jordan River – that is impacted by high density populations. The program grants funds to projects that plan to provide opportunities for youth, especially at-risk youth [22]. Seeing that the Decker Lake Youth Center, which rehabilitates and seeks to reduce the risk of reoffending for at-risk youth, a project that aims to enhance the recreation capacity of Decker Lake is highly applicable to this grant. 9.6.2 Federal Funding Federal funding for renovations at Decker Lake is granted by the Environmental Protection Agency in the form of a Federal Grant, outlined in the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 [23]. This act outlines that federal grants may be awarded to projects that support the EPA’s mission but also require limited participation by the EPA. The project supports EPA’s mission by providing education on the environment and conservation to the community and especially at-risk youth that reside around the lake. 9.6.2a Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) The Great American Outdoors Act provides up to $1.3 billion per year in federal funding to expand recreational opportunities in public lands. These funds are 245 | P a g e supported by revenue from energy development – such as offshore oil and natural gas royalties. This funding provides states with the means to invest in conservation and recreational opportunities at the local level [24]. 9.6.3 Community Funding The Decker Lake Cultural Heritage Project will explore the option of funding by the community that it seeks to benefit. An option that should be considered is to establish the Decker Lake Cultural Heritage Fund that will allow residents, businesses, and organizations to contribute to the construction and future maintenance of West Valley City’s cultural heritage. Decker Lake is surrounded by industrial, commercial, and residential areas that will be positively affected by the rehabilitation of the lake. 9.7 An Alternative to the Flawed Triple Bottom Line The triple bottom line (TBL) philosophy, put forth by author John Elkington, assumes a zero-sum game where an improvement in one area (say, planet) leads to a setback in another area (say, profits) [25]. It reduces the problem of mankind’s integration with Nature into a mere balancing act—best suited for accountants—in which unity between the three categories of people, planet, and profits becomes impossible. Consider the human body: The heart, the mind, and the soul do not compete with one another. This is the essence of what it means to be organic; a single system constructed of individual components working in mutual harmony. We propose an alternative to the TBL called organic synergism. Rather than comparative analysis, organic synergism asks: Is the system in question life-giving? 9.7.1 Organic Synergism Defined A system is life-giving if each of its “organs” (or components) acts to maintain its longevity. Should one or more organs act to the contrary, then the system cannot be considered life-giving. Organic synergism analyzes systems based on four organs. These are Nature, humanity, technology, and economy. Figure 9.5 shows the relation between a system and its organs. Suppose, for instance, that the organ of Nature completely collapses. Society itself would collapse soon thereafter. If any of the four organs fail, so too will society. Therefore, a project should only advance if it is in line with each organ. 246 | P a g e Figure 9.5: Functional block diagram showing system relations in organic synergism [26]. Society is an amalgamation of many subsystems of which the Decker Lake Water Gardens are but one. Each of these subsystems have their own organ networks that feed society’s organs, which in turn govern whether society, in its entirety, is life-giving. 9.7.2 Analysis of the Decker Lake Water Gardens Using Organic Synergism The Decker Lake Water Gardens enhance all four organs (see Table 9.4). When it comes to Nature specifically, one must think in terms of decades, not fiscal years. Several other lakes in the area have already been destroyed for short-term economic gains without considering the long-term effects, such as over-industrialization of the area and the permanent loss of natural bodies of water. Table 9.4: The Decker Lake Water Gardens analyzed using organic synergism. Nature Humanity Technology Economy The project restores The project applies the wetlands, The project makes The project secures novel technology integrates with the Decker Lake the long-term correctly and safely landscape, and accessible to the resilience of West to improve structural ensures the community and Valley City’s economy longevity and preservation of the becomes an object of which has been environmental site through cultural cultural heritage. neglected. sustainability. heritage. 247 | P a g e Each organ can be further analyzed quantitatively. Care must be taken, however, to avoid comparing disparate quantities with wholly different meanings. One of the failings of the TBL is that it attempts to measure people and planet against profits. Profits can be measured in strict dollar amounts, which isn’t the case for the other two categories. Organic synergism measures categories not with respect to each other, but with respect to the overarching goal of maintaining a life-giving system. There is no need to convert natural, human, and technological gains into monetary gains; each category is measured using the unit most appropriate to it. Benefits to Nature are determined by the system’s integration with its site and its ability to preserve it in the long term. Benefits to humanity are determined using surveys, opinion polls, and occupant satisfaction. Benefits to technology are determined by documenting and analyzing the successful application of human inventions. Benefits to economy are determined by the system’s long-term monetary resilience rather than its immediate fiscal earnings. 9.8 Recommendations The Water Gardens at Decker Lake are an excellent way to restore the lake and surrounding area. Not only does this project help with water quality and reduction of invasive species, but it also gives the community a place to come together. Whether it is for walking through the new area, reaping new benefits from heightened water quality, or working in harmony to help keep this going after it is finished. As shown in Section 9.5, this is a perfect way to bring the community together, as it offers them a voice in how to raise the area and to then maintain and protect it for more to enjoy later [19]. As shown in Section 9.7 as well, our analysis suggests that this is the right decision. Many similar areas have been abused for profits, meanwhile this project is not meant to be about that. This is meant to revitalize the community to use the lake while simultaneously making it healthier. Since we are making it a better place, more people will see its newly made value and want to protect it, meaning more people will want to help it grow, which is what organic synergism is about. We are using new technology to make a better area for people, which in turn allows them to have better experiences in the area, causing them to continue to protect the space, which has an added benefit of possibly not needing to spend as much on maintenance for stuff like litter. 9.8.1 Immediate Benefits to Stakeholders Immediate benefits include increased awareness and new jobs for locals, as was shown in section 9.5.1 [17]. As well as this, recreational use increases as the main walkway is completed. This could also be built while some other things are happening alongside the building of it, including the culling of current invasive vegetation, since that still takes a few years to complete [3]. That said, once the new vegetation is fully implemented, it further increases recreational use, along with some effect on the birds as they get used to the new gardens that allow them to have better shelter [4]. This design also means that there is more landmass for 248 | P a g e birds to defecate on, meaning less phosphorous will end up in the water, further reducing excess nutrients and E. coli in the actual water. 9.8.2 Delayed Benefits to Stakeholders Delayed benefits include a long-term sense of community pride among West Valley City residents toward an aesthetically appealing walkway and water garden. This sense of pride encourages stewardship by the community over the wetland ecology and the architecture itself. City, county, and state council members are thus incentivized to maintain Decker Lake since it will be seen as a cultural monument. In doing so, the culture, and, by extension, the society, endures into the future. Another very big benefit is overall lake health. After a few years, the lake will see greater water quality and less harmful algae blooms due to the higher shade from our bridge, the new lands providing greater catching of bird fecal matter, and water denitrification from the plants. This in turn also helps other organisms such as fish, as they’ll be able to survive more easily, and with greater water quality, this means that fish caught in the lake are safer for people to consume, providing greater fishing and further diversity in the lake. 9.9 References [1] Google Earth, Google, “Satellite imagery of Decker Lake,” accessed December 4, 2025. [2] Byers, E. N., Messer, T. L., Tobias, C., Miller, D. N., Barton, C., Unrine, J., & Agouridis, C. (2025). Isotopically Tracing the Impact of Water Contaminant “Cocktails” on Nitrogen Pathways in Constructed Treatment Wetlands. Water Research, 287(part A), 124294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2025.124294 [3] Author, G. (2019, October 31). Invasive Plants at Utah Lake – Utah Lake. Utahlake.gov. https://utahlake.gov/invasive-plants-at-utah-lake/ [4] Dong, H., & Duan, H. (2025). Evaluating the effects of land management policy on waterbird habitats in the Liaohe River Delta wetland. International Journal of Digital Earth, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2025.2544915 [5] Wildlife and Plants. (n.d.). Utah Geological Survey. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://geology.utah.gov/water/wetlands/wildlife-and-plants/ [6] US EPA. (2025, February 19). Revised Total Coliform Rule And Total Coliform Rule. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/revised-total-coliform-rule-and-total-coliform-rule [7] OregonFlora. (2025). Oregonflora.org. https://oregonflora.org/taxa/index.php?taxon=3740 [8] K. Dootson, “‘The Failure of the Preservation of Brutalism in Birmingham, England,’” May 2018, doi: 10.18130/V30R9M37G. 249 | P a g e [9] F. H. Ahmad Zaidi et al., “Geopolymer as underwater concreting material: A review,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 291, p. 123276, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2021.123276. [10] R. E. Ibach and R. M. Rowell, “USDA Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory: Acetylation of Wood 1945–1966,” Forests, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1–23, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.3390/F12030260. [11] F. L. Wright, The Future of Architecture, New American Library, 1970. [12] Department of Ecology State of Washington, Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: Chapter 12 Piers, Docks, and Overwater Structures. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/parts/1106010part12.pdf [13] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016, November 21) Aquatic Invasive Species Fact Sheet. https://www.fws.gov/program/fish-and-aquatic-conservation [14] TN Nursery, Cattail Plants For Sale https://www.tnnursery.net/products/cattailplant?currency=USD&variant=50682555793706&stkn=e008675cfc96&srsltid=AfmBOor2 vL8SuIyrcZ0fOD4y1-pKRu9XyvIA9gGZl5AB_l-eHhWn7-tCGCs [15] B. Tempest, C. Snell “Manufacture of full-scale geopolymer cement concrete components: A case study to highlight opportunities and challenges” https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cost-of-constituent-materials-in-geopolymer-cementconcrete-and-portland-cement-concrete_tbl2_285628424 [16] S. Bilven, and R. Kelty National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2004). *User's guide for the advanced modeling system: Part 1 - Technical description* (NOAA Report 2077). U.S. Department of Commerce. file:///Users/jamesshriber/Downloads/noaa_2077_DS1.pdf [17] Pott, L., Hershkovitz, Y., & Birk, S. (2025). Mapping Multiple Benefits in Large-Scale Freshwater Restoration: A Theory of Change Approach. Nature-Based Solutions, 8(100240). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2025.100240 [18] Xiang, L., Yao, S., Hua, W., Zhang, H., Jiang, J., Chen, Q., Chen, C., Chen, P., & Sang, K. (2025). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of wetland gross ecosystem product: the case of huaduhu wetland park in china. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 23(4), 8225– 8249. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/2304_82258249 [19] Valizadeh, N., Karimi, V., Bazrafkan, K., Azadi, H., & Azarm, H. (2025). From collective efficacy and negative emotions toward management and conservation of wetlands: the mediating role of social identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1362750 250 | P a g e [20] Huda, N., & Mariatul Kiptiah. (2025). Community program for managing wetland environment: Case study of Banjarmasin riverbanks. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 22(2), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v22i2.87550 [21] “Chapter 5 Recreational Trails Part 1 General Provisions.” Available: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title79/Chapter5/C79-5_1800010118000101.pdf [22] “2020 Utah Code :: Title 79 - Natural Resources :: Chapter 4 - Parks and Recreation :: Part 8 - Riverway Enhancement :: Section 802 - Riverway enhancement grants -- Matching funds requirements -- Rules.,” Justia Law, 2020. https://law.justia.com/codes/utah/2020/title79/chapter-4/part-8/section-802/ [23] “The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 | US EPA,” US EPA, Aug. 08, 2014. https://www.epa.gov/grants/federal-grant-and-cooperative-agreement-act-1977 [24] “Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) - Infrastructure (U.S. National Park Service),” www.nps.gov. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/gaoa.htm [25] J. Elkington, “25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase ‘Triple Bottom Line.’ Here’s Why It’s Time to Rethink It,” Harvard Business Review, https://web.archive.org/web/20230322134319/https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coinedthe-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it (accessed Dec. 5, 2025). [26] S. Isafi, “Figure of systems relations in organic synergism,” unpublished. 251 | P a g e Chapter 10 Accessible Gazebo Designed to Enhance Community Engagement & Inclusive Recreation Joey Walton, Nate Frankenfield, Cameron Fredricks, and Porter Toula Executive Summary One of the current recreational limitations at the Decker Lake site is the ineffective access to the lakefront. This chapter examines the feasibility of constructing a water gazebo to increase recreational attractiveness at Decker Lake; however, there is a concern about the environmental impact this solution could have on the lake. This chapter answers the question of how a water gazebo can positively affect recreational access while minimizing environmental impact on the lake. Two key components to effectively answer this question are: 1) designing a structure that engages the community and 2) provides access to recreational activities on the lake. To evaluate the recreational potential of this solution, this chapter analyzes similar projects to identify which gazebo features most effectively enhance community engagement. This research also examines the environmental feasibility of the project, considering its potential impact on the surrounding ecosystem. Following this, this chapter estimates material costs and labor while assessing how these align with park improvement goals outlined earlier in this report. These factors are all considered when evaluating what option is best suited for Decker Lake. In addition to these design and feasibility considerations, case studies of other successful gazebos proved essential in shaping the final proposal. Research herein determines that successful water gazebos balance accessibility, environmental responsibility, and social value. These findings highlight that using sustainable materials, such as aluminum or composite decking, can significantly reduce long-term maintenance while minimizing ecological disruption. Community engagement efforts revealed strong support for improvements that enhance recreational use without compromising water quality. By integrating these insights with design best practices, a proposal was developed that promotes both environmental stewardship and inclusive recreation at Decker Lake. Keywords: Composite decking, metal roofing, octagonal structure, and water gazebo. 252 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 10.1 Aquatic Infrastructure Techniques and Site Information 10.2 Literature Review 10.3 Project Constraints 10.3.1 Basis for Design 10.3.1a Statement of Needs 10.3.1b Guiding Principles 10.3.1c Performance Requirements 10.3.1d Key Assumptions 10.3.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements 10.3.3 Constraints 10.3.3a Physical Constraints 10.3.3b Sustainability Constraints 10.3.3c Social Constraints 10.3.3e Economic Constraints 10.3.4 Stakeholder Interests and Needs 10.4 Development of Design 10.5 Design Alternatives 10.6 Case Studies 10.7 Grant Funding Opportunities 10.8 Comparison of Alternatives (discussion) 10.9 Recommendations 10.10 References List of Figures Figure 10.1: Lake Artemesia Water Gazebo Figure 10.2: Meadowlark Botanical Gardens Water Gazebo List of Tables Table 10.1: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives for Decker Lake 253 | P a g e 10.1 Aquatic Infrastructure Techniques and Site Information Urban lake restoration offers a compelling opportunity to harmonize ecological revitalization with vibrant community engagement and sustainable economic development. As cities grow and natural spaces become increasingly fragmented, restoring urban lakes can serve as a catalyst for reconnecting people with nature while enhancing the environmental integrity of these ecosystems. Aquatic infrastructure accomplishes this as it “provides the means to access the surrounding landscape and maximize the natural experience” [2]. There are multiple strategies to achieve this balance, ranging from habitat restoration to the integration of thoughtfully designed public infrastructure. This chapter’s research centers on the potential of transformative infrastructure; specifically, the implementation of a water gazebo. By blending functionality with environmental sensitivity, such structures can become focal points for recreation and stewardship. To explore this concept, this chapter investigates four key dimensions. First, it examines how the presence of a water gazebo might influence and enhance community engagement, including its role in fostering social interaction, and recreational use. Second, it assesses the environmental implications of constructing and maintaining various gazebo alternatives, focusing on minimizing ecological disruption and creating a sustainable structure that increases recreational access to the lake. Third, it analyzes the financial aspects, including a comparative breakdown of material costs, construction methods, and the regulatory frameworks that govern development near urban lakes. Finally, it explores the architectural and structural design options, considering features that could amplify both the aesthetic appeal and ecological functionality of the gazebo. Together, these areas of research guide this chapter in proposing solutions that are grounded in practical sustainability. Decker Lake is a public recreational park currently under the management of West Valley City [3]. While designated as a public park, it is seldom used for a variety of reasons including poor water quality, limited recreational infrastructure, and proximity to I-215. The water quality issues at Decker Lake are the result of multiple stormwater inflows that undergo minimal treatment as well as a variety of bird populations which leave fecal matter. One of the biggest effects this has on the lake is the formation of harmful algal blooms which is detrimental to aquatic life and hazardous to recreational activities [3]. The poor water quality has resulted in minimal improvements to recreational facilities which has left Decker Lake as an undesirable location for public recreation. 10.2 Literature Review In order to effectively implement this gazebo structure, this chapter provides research on other aquatic structures and their methods for community engagement and environmental sustainability. There are multiple examples where gazebos were used to increase public accessibility to the waterfront in the community [4-5]. Case studies of similar gazebos in Maryland and Virginia can be found in Section 9.5. By studying these designs and the role they play within each park, this project can be better aligned with the recreation and environmental goals at Decker Lake. Both of these examples enable greater access to the waterfront and increase public awareness of environmental restoration [6-7]. These features can also be 254 | P a g e implemented in an environmentally sustainable way when designed accordingly. This project will reflect others that have used specific materials and design techniques to minimize environmental impact. Using untreated wood can minimize the negative effects of this structure and help promote public awareness of water quality protection [8-9]. 10.3 Project Constraints In order to successfully design and implement a water gazebo at Decker Lake, the constraints and limitations of this project must be evaluated and accounted for. This includes understanding the components that affect the project and the importance each of them plays in the project design. It also accounts for the system in which this project is implemented which dictates the standards and local codes that will be applied. 10.3.1 Basis for Design To understand these constraints, the needs and principles guiding the project must be outlined. This gives a clear goal for the project and measures the progress and improvement made in implementing this infrastructure. It also identifies the key assumptions that are being made for this project to be successful. One of the most important aspects of this section is showing where similar designs to the one presented in this chapter have been implemented and the impact they have had. This gives a clearer picture of the impact this project will have on Decker Lake. 10.3.1a Statement of Needs The scope of this project is based on the triple bottom line (TBL) methodology which is presented in Section 9.7.1. Decker Lake has much greater recreational and public use potential, however, it is limited by its lack of infrastructure and water quality issues. Gazebos, while small, provide greater opportunities for the community to engage with public spaces [4]. 10.3.1b Guiding Principles Two of the guiding principles based on the TBL principle are the environmental impact and the social benefit provided by the proposed solutions outlined in this chapter and are the primary goals that guide this research and scope of work. 10.3.1c Performance Requirements As this project plan is based on the TBL metric, the performance desires for the structure will be similarly assessed. The main performance requirement for this project is an increase in recreational activity and public accessibility at Decker Lake. This can be measured by observing the park after the gazebo has been built to see if the number of recreators has increased and by observing if the recreation types have expanded because of the gazebo. 10.3.1d Key Assumptions When evaluating the potential to implement a water gazebo, there are social, economic, environmental, and regulatory assumptions that must be made; these 255 | P a g e assumptions will direct the constraints and scope of the project. The main economic assumption that is made herein is the reliability of probable funding which is estimated in Section 9.6. This assumption is necessary to calculate the project budget, which plays a large role in determining the scope of work. The environmental assumptions made here pertain to adjacent water quality improvement projects. For the goal of increased community engagement to be met, the water quality at Decker Lake must undergo significant improvements in addition to recreational infrastructure improvements. This chapter assumes that other designs will be implemented to improve the water quality at the lake. The regulatory assumptions include following state and federal codes and policies, as well as those outlined by West Valley City. As this is a public park under the management of the city, the assumption is made that project design is in compliance with these codes. 10.3.2 Design Standards and Permitting Requirements This project will follow the design standards specified within the West Valley City environmental and construction codes to ensure the design meets the necessary requirements. It also replicates design standards from similar projects to minimize environmental impacts, as well as adhering to the material specifications outlined in the building code. The necessary zoning, environmental, and construction permits to complete this project will also be obtained. 10.3.3 Constraints While there are more abstract overall project constraints, there are also particular constraints in more specific areas such as the physical space, environmental regulations, and economic budget. Each of these constraints have a direct impact on how the project is implemented. This is why it is important to identify them and understand how they may affect the project scope. Adherence to these ensures that this structure will meet the goals of the project and remain within the overall constraints identified above. 10.3.3a Physical Constraints One of the main limitations for this solution that currently exists at Decker Lake is the location where this design could be implemented. Surrounding infrastructure such as the I-215 belt route and West Parkway Boulevard border the lake which may discourage recreational use. The lake also has several marshland areas as well as stormwater inflows and outflows that should be avoided in building an aquatic structure. As these stormwater inflows and I-215 are located on the West side of Decker Lake, the gazebo structure is limited to construction on the East side. As this side has less sediment accumulation, it has a greater depth which may increase difficulty and cost in implementing this structure. These physical constraints must be balanced with the economic constraints presented below. 256 | P a g e 10.3.3b Sustainability Constraints As water quality is currently the main issue at the Decker Lake site, this project ensures this design will not further damage the aquatic environment and will not counteract other efforts to improve water quality at Decker Lake. Sustainability constraints include using light construction equipment to minimize environmental damage. The potential effects of the decking, column, and foundation materials will also be considered to minimize toxins released into the lake. 10.3.3c Social Constraints As Decker Lake is a public park, all projects must adhere to their Design and Development Plan Review as outlined in [10]. This includes following all codes relating to building materials, development plan for new construction, and the general requirements. It also involves following their requirements in communicating the proposed plan with the public. This review process emphasizes transparency and public involvement. Project proponents are required to communicate proposed plans to the local community and other stakeholders through public meetings, notices, or informational sessions. This step allows residents and park users to provide feedback, express concerns, or suggest modifications before final design approval. While public outreach adds to the project timeline and budget, it is necessary to ensure project success from the social component of the TBL. One of the main goals in constructing this aquatic structure is to increase recreational opportunities at Decker Lake. In order to do this, this facility must be widely accessible to the various needs in the community. This includes effective public engagement and incorporating feedback from the community into the design. It also includes evaluating the community stakeholder values as addressed in Section 10.3.4. 10.3.3e Economic Constraints The third element of the TBL is the cost associated with the project which plays a major role in what is economically feasible for this element of the site restoration. The potential funding for this project is outlined in Section 10.7 which gives a clear understanding of the gazebo design elements that can be constructed while fitting in the project budget. These budget constraints impact aspects of the gazebo such as size and material use which may coincide with the sustainability constraints and community constraints. 10.3.4 Stakeholder Interests and Needs A key aspect in successfully implementing a public facility that benefits the community is identifying the main stakeholders and their interests and needs. As this project is approached through the TBL matrix, there are many different stakeholders that pertain to the social, environmental, and economic effects this project may have on Decker Lake. The main stakeholder that relates to the social impact is the public and the local community. Their main interest and need is a space that provides a variety of recreation 257 | P a g e activities that are easily accessible to the community. Some of the stakeholders relating to the environmental impact are local and state agencies dedicated to improving and sustaining environmental quality. This includes agencies such as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the West Valley City Department of Parks and Recreation. The main interest of these stakeholders is to improve and protect natural areas [3]. The economic stakeholders for this project include the local and state government agencies that will provide funding for this project. Their main interests include minimizing project costs and maximizing cost efficiency for the project components. 10.4 Development of Design To ensure the proposed water gazebo aligns with the goals of accessibility, sustainability, and community engagement, it's important to evaluate a range of design alternatives. This section outlines the strategy used to identify and refine potential gazebo concepts, drawing from precedent studies, architectural practices, and site-specific considerations. By establishing a clear framework for comparison, we can better assess which alternatives offer the most promise for successful implementation at Decker Lake. In the process of identifying alternative designs for the water gazebo, our team conducted a thorough review of a diverse range of existing architectural plans and precedents. From this area of selection, we strategically chose the three most relevant and high-performing gazebo designs that aligned with our project’s vision and functional goals. We then adapted these designs to accommodate the unique environmental conditions, spatial constraints, and aesthetic objectives specific to our site, ensuring both feasibility and innovation in our final proposal. The basis of this decision-making process centered on identifying designs that best aligned with the project’s functional, environmental, and aesthetic goals. Priorities included gazebo plans that demonstrated proven structural integrity in waterfront settings, offered flexibility for adaptation to site-specific constraints, and enhanced public interaction with the space. Additional considerations included material sustainability, ease of maintenance, and visual harmony with the surrounding landscape. These criteria guided our selection of three designs, which we refined to meet the unique demands of our project. 10.5 Design Alternatives Before selecting a final design, it is essential to explore a range of viable alternatives that balance structural integrity, environmental sustainability, and community engagement. This section presents three distinct design options for the proposed water gazebo, each evaluated for its material composition, aesthetic appeal, environmental impact, and feasibility within the constraints outlined earlier in this chapter. By comparing these alternatives, we aim to identify a solution that not only enhances recreational access at Decker Lake but also aligns with longterm goals for ecological preservation and inclusive public use. 10.5.1 Alternative 1: Preservative-treated Wood Gazebo The first water gazebo alternative would be an octagonal-shaped structure primarily consisting of preservative-treated wood. According to the USDA Forest Products Laboratory’s Research Paper FPL-RP-582, Ammoniacal Copper Quat Type B (ACQ-B) is the 258 | P a g e most effective wood preservative for wetland environments, offering strong resistance to decay and insect damage with relatively low chemical leaching[8]. Other viable treatments identified include Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA), Chromated Copper Arsenate Type C (CCA-C), and Copper Dimethyldithiocarbamate (CDDC), each providing durability in aquatic applications but varying in environmental impact[8]. While CCA-C has been largely phased out due to arsenic concerns, ACQ-B and ACZA present safer, more sustainable options for long-term performance in water-exposed structures like gazebos. The most efficient wood type for the structure, according to the USDA study, is Southern Yellow Pine (SYP). According to the study, “Moisture storage and transport properties were similar for the untreated and ACQ-treated southern pine, except for the permeability of the treated wood which was lower in the radial direction” [8]. This finding is significant for the structural design of a water-adjacent gazebo because it confirms that SYP, when treated with ACQ-B preservative, retains its ability to manage moisture effectively. Moisture management is critical in wet environments to prevent warping, swelling, and decay. The slight reduction in radial permeability means the wood is less likely to absorb water across the grain, which helps maintain dimensional stability and reduces stress on joints and fasteners. Structurally, this makes ACQ-treated SYP a reliable and durable choice for gazebo posts, beams, and decking exposed to high humidity or direct water contact. Its strength, treatability, and resistance to biological degradation make it one of the best wood species for long-lasting performance in waterexposed architectural applications. While structural stability is undeniably the most critical factor in gazebo design, especially in water-adjacent environments, aesthetic appeal plays a vital role in encouraging public interaction. A gazebo built solely for function, with a rudimentary or uninspired blueprint, may fail to attract visitors or foster meaningful engagement with the space. In contrast, a thoughtfully designed structure that balances engineering integrity with visual elegance can serve as a focal point for community gathering, recreation, and appreciation of the surrounding environment. This proposed alternative not only meets essential structural requirements but also incorporates design elements that enhance its visual presence, making it both safe and inviting. By merging form and function, the gazebo becomes more than a shelter, it becomes a destination. The structural design proposed in this alternative features an octagonal-shaped gazebo, chosen for its geometric elegance and spatial efficiency. This shape not only enhances visual interest but also provides a balanced and symmetrical layout that supports both aesthetic appeal and structural integrity. To further complement the natural surroundings, a white paint finish is recommended. White offers a clean, timeless look that reflects light beautifully and harmonizes with both greenery and water elements, making the gazebo feel open, inviting, and well-integrated into its environment. 259 | P a g e While these structures may appear architecturally complex or intimidating at first glance, the actual construction process is far more approachable than one might expect. Much of the perceived complexity lies in the geometry and visual intricacy of the design, rather than in the hands-on building techniques themselves. In particular, the roof (often the most visually striking and structurally nuanced component) can seem especially daunting. However, the article Framing an Octagonal Roof demystifies this process by providing a clear, step-by-step guide tailored specifically to constructing an octagonal gazebo roof [11]. This portion of the build is typically the least intuitive due to its angular layout and the precision required for proper alignment, but the guide breaks it down into manageable stages that even moderately experienced builders can follow with confidence. By following this resource, the most challenging aspect of the project becomes not only feasible but also rewarding to execute. When it comes to roofing a water gazebo, metal stands out as the most efficient and sustainable choice. According to Best Materials for Gazebo Roof: 8 Types You Should Know, “Among all gazebo roof materials, metal is popular for its extreme durability and sleek, modern appearance, making it perfect for modern or industrial-style patios and outdoor areas” [12]. Metal roofing offers superior resistance to moisture, corrosion, and temperature fluctuations, qualities that are especially important in environments near water. While asphalt shingles and Pollywood may present lower costs up front, they tend to require frequent maintenance and earlier replacement, particularly in damp conditions. Over time, these recurring expenses can outweigh the initial savings. In contrast, metal roofing’s longevity and minimal upkeep make it a cost-effective investment in the long run, combining both performance and aesthetic appeal. Based on current market data for construction materials and labor, the total cost for building an octagonal water gazebo with ACQ-treated Southern Yellow Pine and a metal roof is projected to range between $8,000 and $12,000, depending on size and finish details. The wood components (including posts, beams, and decking) typically account for $3,000–$4,500, while the metal roofing adds $1,500–$2,500 due to its durability and corrosion resistance. Additional expenses for hardware, preservative treatments, and paint finish may contribute $500–$1,000, and labor costs can vary widely, averaging $3,000–$4,000 for professional installation. While opting for alternative roofing materials like asphalt shingles could reduce initial costs by $800–$1,200, the long-term maintenance savings of metal roofing often justify the higher upfront investment. 10.5.2 Alternative 2: Aluminum Gazebo An aluminum gazebo built over water presents a modern, durable, and low-maintenance solution that significantly reduces long-term environmental and maintenance burdens compared to traditional wooden structures. Aluminum’s inherent resistance to corrosion makes it especially well-suited for humid and aquatic environments such as Decker Lake. When anodized or powder-coated, aluminum forms a highly stable protective layer that resists oxidation, ensuring extended service life with minimal upkeep [13]. The material’s light weight allows for simpler transportation and installation on floating platforms or 260 | P a g e piers, reducing foundation loads and construction complexity. From an architectural standpoint, aluminum offers sleek, contemporary aesthetics that pair well with composite decking and metal roofing to create a visually appealing, sustainable, and structurally efficient recreational space [14]. The reduced need for sealing, painting, or replacement makes aluminum gazebos cost-effective over their lifecycle, aligning with long-term sustainability goals and public infrastructure resilience [15]. However, aluminum is not without its limitations. While naturally corrosion-resistant, the material can still oxidize or pit if exposed to poor-quality coatings or saline environments, requiring proper surface treatments for longevity [13]. Structurally, aluminum’s lower stiffness compared to steel means that it may flex under heavy wind or snow loads unless reinforced with internal bracing or composite sections [16]. Additionally, the higher initial material cost can present a budgetary challenge during the construction phase, even though maintenance savings often offset this over time [15]. Aluminum’s high thermal conductivity can also cause heat buildup on exposed surfaces in direct sunlight, necessitating design measures such as canopy ventilation or integrated shading systems [14]. Despite these considerations, aluminum remains one of the most practical and sustainable choices for a water-based gazebo, combining structural reliability, long-term cost efficiency, and environmental compatibility with minimal maintenance requirements. 10.5.4 Alternative 3: Timber and Steel Hybrid Gazebo A fourth design alternative for Decker Lake is a timber and steel hybrid gazebo modeled after the structured gazebo at Liberty Park in Salt Lake City, which features a traditional architectural character combined with durable framing suitable for public use environments. This gazebo uses heavy timber columns, decorative steel brackets, and a multi-tier hipped or conical roof, creating a historic aesthetic that blends well with natural shorelines and public garden settings—consistent with principles noted in smallstructure urban design literature [4]. This gazebo emphasizes visual familiarity, civic identity, and public-space comfort, drawing on successful precedents in community parks and waterfront recreation zones [5, 17]. In the context of Decker Lake, a LibertyPark-inspired structure would serve as a welcoming landmark for visitors, while providing a shaded, ADA-accessible gathering space near trail nodes, fishing spots, or kayak rental areas similar to the improvements documented at Lake Artemesia and Meadowlark Gardens [6, 7, 18, 19]. From a performance perspective, the hybrid system offers several advantages. Timber columns (pressure-treated or glue-laminated) provide a warm, natural appearance, while the steel connectors and roof sub-framing improve long-term rigidity, wind resistance, and load distribution—an approach supported by research on boardwalk and wetland-adjacent structures [2, 8, 9]. With appropriate coatings and modern preservative treatments, the timber components can withstand moisture-rich lake environments, although periodic sealing remains necessary. The roof can be finished with standing seam metal, fiberglass shingles, or polycarbonate panels, similar to the 261 | P a g e roofing comparisons found in gazebo material studies [12, 14]. This hybrid build therefore strikes a balance between durability and classic park-architecture character, aligning well with West Valley City design expectations for public-space structures [10]. When it comes to the cost breakdown of this alternative, the estimated cost of constructing a Liberty Park style hybrid gazebo depends on the materials selected, site conditions, and whether the structure is placed onshore or over water. For a 20–24-ft diameter gazebo, the primary framing, heavy timber posts paired with steel connection hardware generally ranges from $18,000 to $32,000, with decorative steel brackets and roof sub-framing adding another $10,000 to $18,000, reflecting construction practices used in similar outdoor public structures [4, 5, 9]. The roof system, whether standing seam metal or high-quality shingles, typically falls between $12,000 and $22,000, consistent with gazebo roofing material comparisons documented in residential and commercial outdoor-structure guidance [12, 14]. Site preparation introduces additional variability: onshore concrete foundations often cost $8,000 to $14,000, whereas piermounted or floating platforms increase the range to $35,000 to $65,000, based on unitcost patterns observed in wetland boardwalks and lakefront access structures [2, 8, 9]. Additional project components such as ADA-compliant pathways, lighting, and minor grading are expected to contribute $10,000 to $25,000, aligning with improvements commonly included in public park upgrades and waterfront accessibility projects [6, 7, 17, 18]. Combining these components yields a total project range of $50,000 to $85,000 for an onshore installation, while an over-water configuration increases the expected cost to $95,000 to $160,000. These values are consistent with national gazebo construction cost surveys [15] and with capital-cost patterns for similar park-side shelters, pavilions, and waterfront gathering structures used in municipal and community-driven recreation planning [5, 17]. 10.5.3 Alternative 4: No Action No action alternative considers the scenario in which the proposed construction of the water gazebo at Decker Lake does not occur. In this case, the lakefront remains in its current state, with limited recreational access to the lake and minimal infrastructure to support community engagement. This alternative does not address the core issue of restricted public engagement with the lake and fails to meet the project's purpose of enhancing recreational opportunities and community interaction. By choosing not to proceed with the gazebo, there would be no disturbance to the lake’s shoreline or surrounding ecosystem, thereby avoiding any potential environmental impacts such as habitat disruption or water quality concerns. However, this also means missing the opportunity to design a structure that could both engage the community and be environmentally sensitive. Socially and recreationally, no action remains the status quo, where the lack of inviting infrastructure continues to discourage public use of the lakefront. No new amenities such as benches and tables would be introduced, and the potential for increased 262 | P a g e community engagement would remain unrealized. Economically, this alternative avoids construction and maintenance costs, but also forfeits the potential of job creation, increased visitor activity, and long-term returns on public space investment. Ultimately, while no action eliminates any potential environmental risks, it does so at the cost of continued underutilization of Decker Lake’s recreational potential. It serves as a baseline for evaluating the benefits and tradeoffs of the proposed water gazebo, which aims to balance ecological sensitivity with meaningful community enrichment. 10.6 Case Studies When planning for a project like this, it is important to find other projects that are similar to it. It can be very beneficial to compare it to other existing projects to see where things went wrong or what worked well. Components like materials, structural design, location, environmental and community impact, etc. can all be studied to see what worked well or made the most positive impact. 10.6.1 Lake Artemesia Water Gazebo (College Park, Maryland) The Lake Artemesia Water Gazebo is a small pavilion located on the surface of Lake Artemesia in College Park, Maryland [17]. The structure is part of the Lake Artemesia Natural Area Park, managed by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The gazebo is accessed through a narrow wooden walkway that extends out into the lake, allowing visitors to experience the water and surrounding environment more closely. It is constructed primarily from timber and supported by wooden piles that reduce the environmental disturbance beneath the surface while maintaining structural integrity. 263 | P a g e Figure 10.1: Lake Artemesia Water Gazebo [18]. The gazebo serves as a rest and observation point for visitors along the park’s trail loop, offering a peaceful space for birdwatching, photography, and community interaction. The design demonstrates how a small, accessible over-water structure can enhance recreational use while preserving the natural ecosystem. For Decker Lake, this example highlights how an over-water gazebo could provide scenic views, encourage environmental appreciation, and serve as a low-impact recreational feature that connects people with the lake’s natural beauty. 10.6.2 Meadowlark Botanical Gardens Water Gazebo (Vienna, Virginia) The Meadowlark Botanical Gardens Water Gazebo is a small octagonal structure located on one of the park’s central ponds in Vienna, Virginia[7]. It is operated by NOVA Parks and serves as a quiet viewing point along the garden’s network of walking trails. The gazebo is built from pressure-treated wood and supported by submerged pilings that elevate it above the pond’s surface, creating a stable yet environmentally sensitive design. 264 | P a g e Figure 10.2: Meadowlark Botanical Gardens Water Gazebo [19]. A short wooden bridge connects it to the main path, giving visitors the feeling of walking out onto the water. This structure blends seamlessly with the natural landscape and provides a tranquil space for relaxation, photography, and observation of wildlife. The Meadowlark gazebo shows how a simple, sustainable design can enhance public enjoyment of natural areas without disturbing the surrounding habitat. For Decker Lake, this example demonstrates how a similar structure could serve as both a visual focal point and a recreational asset, promoting accessibility and environmental harmony within the park/lake setting. Both examples demonstrate how small-scale overwater gazebos can successfully promote public recreation and environmental awareness while maintaining sustainability. Each structure provides direct engagement with the water, encourages community use, and respects the ecological balance of its setting. For Decker Lake, implementing a design inspired by these examples would support the project’s goal of creating a functional, inclusive, and environmentally responsible recreational space. 10.6.3 Liberty Park Gazebo (Salt Lake City, Utah) The gazebo at Liberty Park in Salt Lake City is located near the pond. It serves as both a visual focal point and a functional gathering space. Its octagonal form, open sides, and 265 | P a g e raised platform allow for shade, seating, and small community events without obstructing views or limiting pedestrian flow [21]. The location near water, combined with its connection to surrounding pathways, makes it a natural stopping point for park visitors and demonstrates effective placement within a high use recreational landscape. Figure 10.3: Liberty Park Gazebo [22]. Materially, the Liberty Park gazebo relies on durable, low-maintenance construction elements including a concrete base, painted wood or wood-look framing, and a multitiered roof structure designed to shed water/snow efficiently. These materials support long-term resilience while maintaining an aesthetic consistent with the historic character of the park. The structure is surrounded by paved walkways, landscaping, and open lawn areas, reflecting a balanced transition between built and natural features. Regular refinishing of the wood elements is required but remains manageable due to the gazebo’s compact size and accessible location. The Liberty Park example highlights several considerations relevant to the Decker Lake project. First, the open-air design encourages visibility and safety while supporting a wide range of uses, from resting and shade-seeking to small gatherings. Second, its placement along key pedestrian routes demonstrates the importance of connectivity. Users naturally gravitate toward structures that align with existing circulation patterns. Finally, the use of durable and visually cohesive materials shows that small architectural elements can reinforce a park’s identity without overwhelming the surrounding landscape. 266 | P a g e For Decker Lake, these observations suggest that a gazebo should be sited near established pathways, incorporate an open design for visibility and versatility, and use materials that complement the natural shoreline while minimizing long-term maintenance. Following the precedent of Liberty Park, the structure could serve as both an aesthetic anchor and a functional amenity capable of enhancing user experience without introducing significant ecological or operational burdens. 10.7 Grant Funding Opportunities There are several grant funding opportunities available that could support the development of a small water gazebo and other recreational improvements at Decker Lake. These programs are designed to assist local governments and community organizations in creating inclusive and environmentally sustainable public spaces that promote outdoor recreation and conservation. 10.7.1 Land and Water Conservation Fund One potential funding source is the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a federally established grant program administered by the National Park Service and distributed through individual state agencies [23]. The LWCF was created in 1964 and provides financial assistance for the acquisition, development, and enhancement of outdoor recreational areas that align with their goal of promoting public access to natural resources while conserving environmental quality. Funding for the program primarily comes from revenues generated by federal offshore oil and gas leases, rather than general tax dollars, ensuring a sustainable reinvestment of resource-based income into public conservation and recreation. Projects supported by the LWCF typically include the development of parks, trails, and other public outdoor facilities that foster recreation and accessibility. The program requires matching funds from state or local partners, emphasizing shared responsibility for conservation investments. The proposed water gazebo would closely align with LWCF priorities by improving community recreation opportunities, increasing accessibility for visitors, and supporting the long-term conservation of the lake’s natural environment. By enhancing public engagement and outdoor experiences, the project would strengthen the connection between recreation and resource protection which are core objectives of the LWCF. 10.7.2 Recreational Trails Program Another opportunity is the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is a federally funded grant administered by the Federal Highway Administration and distributed through state natural resource agencies [24]. It provides financial assistance for developing and maintaining recreational trails and related facilities, including gazebos, piers, trailheads, and observation areas. Funded through federal motor fuel taxes from off-highway vehicle use, the RTP supports both motorized and non-motorized projects that promote connectivity, accessibility, and environmental stewardship. Most states require a 20–50% local match, and funding is awarded competitively based on project readiness and alignment with state recreation priorities. 267 | P a g e Funding from this program could assist with constructing the walkway that connects the proposed water gazebo to the main trail system, ensuring compliance with accessibility standards while enhancing public access and user experience. By improving trail connectivity and inclusive recreation opportunities, the project aligns with RTP objectives to expand and sustain outdoor recreation infrastructure. 10.7.3 Local Associations and Organizations Additionally, local environmental or conservation organizations often provide small scale grants for sustainability projects. These can help fund environmentally friendly materials, shoreline restoration, or signage related to water quality and wildlife habitat. Combining local and federal funding sources could maximize project impact while minimizing costs for the community. Overall, the Decker Lake project aligns well with multiple state and federal funding priorities focused on outdoor recreation, accessibility, and environmental sustainability. 10.8 Comparison of Alternatives The following table is a feasibility assessment matrix used to generate a TBL assessment score for individual alternatives within the report. Individual scores are averaged to represent a broad consensus of the research findings regarding the proposed enhancement projects. This method will be utilized to compare and determine the most effective alternative design. Table 10.1: Feasibility Assessment Example Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives for Decker Lake [20]. 268 | P a g e 10.8.1 Rating Criteria (Including TBL Matrix) Four design alternatives for the Decker Lake water gazebo were evaluated using the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework, which measures social, environmental, and economic impacts. Alternative 1, an ACQ-treated Southern Yellow Pine gazebo, scored 5.75 for People, 3.22 for Planet, and 4.75 for Profit. This option offers traditional aesthetics and moderate social benefits but raises environmental concerns due to chemical preservatives and requires higher maintenance over time, including resealing and potential material replacement. While its initial cost is lower, lifecycle costs are higher. Alternative 2, an aluminum gazebo, achieved the highest overall balance with scores of 6.25 for People, 3.38 for Planet, and 6.19 for Profit. Its modern design and accessibility features enhance community engagement, while aluminum’s recyclability and corrosion resistance minimize environmental impact. Although the upfront cost is higher, its durability and minimal maintenance make it the most cost-effective option over the long term. Alternative 3, the No Action scenario, scored 2.00 for People, 6.50 for Planet, and 3.00 for Profit. While this option avoids any environmental disturbance and maintains the lake’s current ecological state, it fails to address the core issue of limited recreational access and public engagement. Economically, it forfeits opportunities for tourism, job creation, and long-term returns on public space investment. Alternative 4, a timber-steel hybrid gazebo, scored 6.00 for People, 2.95 for Planet, and 4.50 for Profit. This design combines classic park architecture with structural durability, offering strong social and environmental benefits. However, it has the highest construction cost and moderate maintenance needs, making it best suited for projects prioritizing aesthetics and cultural value over budget constraints. Overall, Alternative 2 (Aluminum Gazebo) is recommended as the most favorable option for sustainability, accessibility, and lifecycle cost efficiency. Alternative 4 provides aesthetic and cultural appeal for premium installations, Alternative 1 remains a lowercost option but introduces environmental and maintenance challenges, and Alternative 3, while environmentally neutral, fails to meet the project’s primary goal of enhancing community engagement. 10.9 Recommendations After evaluating all three proposed alternatives for the Decker Lake water gazebo—Alternative 1 (ACQ-treated Southern Yellow Pine), Alternative 2 (Aluminum Gazebo), and Alternative 3 (No Action), it is recommended that the project advance with Alternative 2: the Aluminum Gazebo. This option best aligns with the project’s objectives of improving recreational accessibility, minimizing long-term maintenance, and ensuring environmental compatibility with the lake’s sensitive shoreline ecosystem. Although the initial construction cost of aluminum is higher than that of treated wood, its superior corrosion resistance, long service life, and minimal upkeep 269 | P a g e make it the most sustainable and cost-effective solution over time. In contrast, while the ACQtreated wood alternative demonstrates strong performance and traditional aesthetics, it introduces potential chemical leaching concerns, requires periodic resealing, and carries higher maintenance costs. The No Action alternative, while environmentally neutral, overall fails to meet the central goal of increasing public engagement and enhancing the recreational and aesthetic value of Decker Lake. The aluminum gazebo provides several long-term benefits that justify its selection: 1. Environmental Sustainability: Aluminum is fully recyclable and does not require chemical preservatives or coatings that could introduce contaminants to the lake. Its long lifespan reduces the frequency of material replacement and waste generation. 2. Structural Performance: The material’s lightweight yet durable nature allows for stable installation on floating or pier-mounted foundations. This reduces construction impacts on the lakebed while maintaining high structural reliability under wind and snow loads. 3. Economic Efficiency: Though the upfront cost is higher, the near-zero maintenance requirements (no repainting, no re-treatment, minimal corrosion), result in lower lifecycle expenditures. Over a 20–30-year period, aluminum offers one of the lowest total costs of ownership among structural materials. 4. Aesthetic and Social Value: Aluminum’s modern appearance complements the lake environment and can be finished in neutral or reflective tones that blend naturally with surrounding vegetation and water. The gazebo’s open design will encourage community gatherings, educational programs, and recreational use, supporting the city’s long-term goal of increasing public engagement at Decker Lake. In future actions, the aluminum gazebo represents the most balanced solution, combining structural resilience, environmental responsibility, and public benefit. By implementing this recommendation through coordinated engineering design, community consultation, and sustainable material selection, the Decker Lake Project can serve as a model for durable, lowimpact recreational infrastructure that enhances both human experience and ecological management. 10.10 References [1] “Decker Lake,” Outdoor Project, 2024. https://www.outdoorproject.com/unitedstates/utah/decker-lake (accessed Oct. 16, 2025). [2] R. Shields, “Boardwalks the Bridges to Nature,” Lecture notes in civil engineering, pp. 571– 581, May 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0503-2_46. [3] dyaniwood, “Decker Lake - Utah Department of Environmental Quality,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Aug. 22, 2025. https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/decker-lake (accessed Oct. 16, 2025). 270 | P a g e [4] V. A. Kurochkina, V. A. Klimov, M. O. Belova, and E. K. Kalinichenko, “Role Of Small Architectural Structures In The Organization Of Urban Open Public,” European Proceedings of Life Sciences, pp. 280–292, Jan. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.15405/epls.22011.34. [5] Public, “Civic Design Center,” Civic Design Center, Jun. 30, 2025. https://www.civicdesigncenter.org/all-projects-blog/public-space-for-the-watersedge?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed Oct. 17, 2025). [6] Greenbelt Online, “Lake Artemesia Update: Rental Kayaks, Open Restrooms, and some Sad Plant Choices,” Greenbelt Online, Jul. 2, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.greenbeltonline.org/lake-artemesia-rental-kayaks-restrooms/. [7] Visit Fairfax, “Accessible Meadowlark Gardens,” FXVA Blog, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.fxva.com/blog/post/accessible-meadowlark-gardens/. [8] “Environmental Impact of Preservative-Treated Wood in a Wetland Boardwalk.” Available: https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/fplrp/fplrp582.pdf. [9] York Bridge Concepts, “Sustainability of Wood as a Construction Material,” York Bridge Concepts | Timber Bridge Builder, Feb. 04, 2025. https://www.ybc.com/timber-boardwalks-andtrails-enhancing-public-access-to-wetlands-without-ecological-harm/. [10] “Ch. 7-11 Design and Development Plan Review | West Valley City Municipal Code,” West Valley City Municipal Code, 2025. https://westvalleycity.municipal.codes/Code/7-11 (accessed Oct. 17, 2025). [11] J. Carroll, “Framing an Octagonal Roof A gazebo needs a roof. Here’s a step-by-step guide for building it.” Accessed: Oct. 16, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.jlconline.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2023/0923c-jlc-pdb-feature-octagonal-gazebo.pdf. [12] L. Outdoor, “Best Material for Gazebo Roof: 8 Types You Should Know,” LIDA OUTDOOR, May 24, 2024. https://www.lidagarden.com/best-material-for-gazebo-roof/ (accessed Oct. 17, 2025). [13] Lida Garden, “Gazebo Frame Materials: Pros and Cons of Aluminum, Steel, and Wood,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.lidagarden.com/gazebo-frame-materials. [14] Gazebo.com, “Choosing the Right Material for Your Backyard Structure,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.gazebo.com/outdoor-living-blog/backyard-structure-materials. [15] HomeAdvisor, “How Much Does It Cost to Build a Gazebo?” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.homeadvisor.com/cost/outdoor-living/build-a-gazebo. 271 | P a g e [16] A. Kumar and S. Rajesh, “Design and Fabrication of a Gazebo Using Cross-Laminated Timber Beam and Column Made from Mangifera Indica,” ResearchGate, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390837912_Design_and_Fabrication_of_a_Gazebo_ Using_Cross-Laminated_Timber_Beam_and_Column_Made_from_Mangifera_Indica. [17] Maryland Department of Natural Resources, “Community Parks & Playgrounds Program,” Maryland Department of Natural Resources. [Online]. Available: https://dnr.maryland.gov/land/pages/programopenspace/cpp.aspx. [Accessed: Oct. 19, 2025]. [18] B. Matuszeski, “Wonderful Places to Visit in Spring-Time,” East of the River DC News, Apr. 2, 2024. Available: https://eastoftheriverdcnews.com/2024/04/02/wonderful-places-to-visit-inspring-time/ (Accessed: Nov. 2, 2025). [19] R. Cogswell, “The Gazebo on Lake Caroline – Meadowlark Botanical Gardens Vienna (VA) May 2012,” Flickr, 20 May 2012. Available: https://www.flickr.com/photos/22711505@N05/7276598784 (Accessed: Nov. 2, 2025). [20] “Final Course Project – Assignments Folder,” Utah Canvas, https://utah.instructure.com/courses/1167688/files/folder/Assignments/Final%20Course%20Pr oject?preview=187787007. [Accessed: Oct. 30, 2025]. [21] N. Ockey, “Liberty Park in Salt Lake City,” Utah’s Adventure Family, Jun. 27, 2016. https://www.utahsadventurefamily.com/liberty-park-salt-lake-city/ (accessed Dec. 09, 2025). [22] “Liberty Park,” Mindtrip, Salt Lake City, Utah. [Online]. Available: https://mindtrip.ai/attraction/salt-lake-city-utah/liberty-park/at-Z9ae8ucs. [Accessed: Nov. 16, 2025]. [23] U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land and Water Conservation Fund,” U.S. Department of the Interior. [Online]. Available: https://www.doi.gov/lwcf. [Accessed: Oct. 19, 2025]. [24] Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, “Recreational Trails Program (RTP),” Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. [Online]. Available: https://www.railstotrails.org/policy/funding/recreational-trails-program/. [Accessed: Oct. 19, 2025]. 272 | P a g e Chapter 11 A Feasibility Study of Constructing a Boardwalk at Decker Lake After Its Redevelopment into a Wetland: Analysis of Foundation & Decking Materials Utilizing the Triple Bottom Line Easton Christensen, Landon van Amerongen, Thomas Cundick, and Mason Carrillo Executive Summary Decker Lake is frequently exposed to sediment and nutrient runoff that negatively impact the lake’s wildlife and water quality. Chapters 2 though 4 proposed plans that address this problem by developing a constructed wetland in which plants absorb nutrients and act as a natural filter for sediments running into the lake. Due to the large amount of space occupied by the wetland, public access will decrease significantly, hindering the project's ability to meet its two goals: improving water quality and increasing public use at Decker Lake. This creates a need for a feature to increase public usability. Therefore, this chapter aims to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a boardwalk through the proposed wetland at Decker. The feasibility of installing a boardwalk was assessed by utilizing the triple bottom line to evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of five foundation alternatives (floating boardwalk, pressure-treated wood piles, concrete-driven piles, steel-driven piles, and no boardwalk) and three decking materials (pressure-treated wood, composite decking, and precast concrete planks). The positives and negatives of each category were discussed, and individual scores were assigned, then compared to determine the best alternative. Scores were discussed among the authors to ensure ratings were accurate based on the available information. The results indicated that the most feasible alternative was not to construct a boardwalk at Decker Lake; the strongest alternative which involved constructing a boardwalk was to construct a floating boardwalk with pressure-treated wood decking. Were the city to decide to implement a boardwalk at Decker Lake, this alternative would be our recommendation. It is important to note that the scores for economic cost are even across the board, as alternatives with high initial cost tended to have lower maintenance costs and vice versa. In addition, the city will likely prioritize the project's social goals over cost, making the category matter less. However, the no-boardwalk alternative, which is the most feasible according to the triple bottom line model, should not be ignored, as it indicates that other solutions to public use and social issues at Decker Lake may be more suitable than a boardwalk. Ultimately, it is our team’s opinion that despite a boardwalk’s significant potential benefits to the site, it should be considered only as a low priority investment and only be constructed following necessary water quality improvements. Keywords: Cost analysis, driven piles, environmental impacts, life-cycle performance, precast concrete, pressure-treated wood, steel foundations, and sustainability assessment. 273 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 11.1 Introduction: A Justification for Considering a Boardwalk 11.2 A Literature Review: An Overview of Boardwalk Impacts 11.2.1 Environmental Impacts 11.2.2 Social Impacts 11.2.3 Economic Impacts 11.3 Methodology: Evaluation of Alternatives 11.4 Foundation Alternatives Analysis 11.4.1 Alternative 1: Floating Boardwalk 11.4.2 Alternative 2: Pressure-Treated Wood Driven Piles 11.4.3 Alternative 3: Concrete Driven Piles 11.4.4 Alternative 4: Steel Driven Piles 11.5 Decking Material Analysis 11.5.1 Alternative 1: Pressure-Treated Wood 11.5.2 Alternative 2: Composite Decking 11.5.3 Alternative 3: Precast Concrete Planks 11.6 No Boardwalk Alternative 11.6.1 Environmental Impact 24 11.6.2 Aesthetics and Public Use 11.6.3 Construction Cost, Maintenance, and Useful Life 11.7 Determination of the Best Possible Boardwalk 11.7.1 Comparison of Foundation Alternatives 11.7.2 Comparison of Decking Material Alternatives 11.8 Discussion: A Comparison Between the Best Boardwalk and No Boardwalk Alternatives 11.9 Funding 11.10 Conclusion 11.10 References List of Figures Figure 11.1: Proper layout of a Submerged Anchor Cable System Figure 11.2: Pressure-Treated Wood 274 | P a g e Figure 11.3: Steel driven H-Piles Figure 11.4: Capped and Grooved Wood Plastic Composite Decking Figure 11.5: Precast Concrete Boardwalk List of Tables Table 11.1: Criteria Descriptions Table 11.2: Criteria and Weighting Table 11.3: Results - Foundation Alternatives Table 11.4: Results - Material Alternatives Table 11.5: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Constructing a Floating Boardwalk Using Pressure Treated Wood for Decking at Boardwalk at Decker Lake Table 11.6: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Not Constructing Boardwalk at Decker Lake 275 | P a g e 11.1 Introduction: A Justification for Considering a Boardwalk Decker Lake recreation area in West Valley City, Utah, has been a site of concern for the local government and community for over thirty years due to environmental issues associated with bird waste, sediment, freeway runoff, and garbage washing into the water. This unwanted material flowing into the lake creates a nutrient-rich environment, which significantly increases the likelihood of harmful algae blooms [1]. This makes it unsafe to swim in the lake, eat fish caught from it, or participate in other water-based recreational activities [2]. These environmental and health concerns, along with other issues at the site, such as garbage floating in the lake and noise pollution from a nearby freeway, have led to the area being underused by the local community. Recently, the West Valley City government has been exploring how to address environmental concerns at the site while also increasing its public usage. One promising approach is to convert a large portion of the site into a constructed wetland that intercepts incoming runoff and treats it before the water leaves the site. As discussed by Carla Ferreira, wetlands have been proven to remove various organic and inorganic chemicals, including nutrients, heavy metals, and pesticides, at varying levels of efficiency based on the size of the wetland [3]. It is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of the recreation site will need to be converted into a wetland for these benefits to be fully realized. Meaning that while this solution may directly solve the environmental issues at Decker Lake, it actively hinders the usage of the site as a public recreation area, which must be addressed. One potential solution to increase the usage of Decker Lake once it has been converted into a wetland is to construct a boardwalk, which would preserve pedestrian access to the site while also potentially enhancing its appeal due to the improved aesthetics. Research should still be conducted to ensure its feasibility and to address the concerns voiced by the West Valley City government. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the social, ecological, and economic factors that influence the feasibility of constructing a boardwalk at Decker Lake and its potential to enhance public use of the site. To this end, this chapter evaluates four foundation types (floating boardwalk, pressure treated wood piles, concrete driven piles, steel driven piles) and three potential decking materials (concrete, wood, and composite) that can be used in the construction of the boardwalk by answering the following questions: Does the use of the material cause any adverse environmental effects, or negate ecological benefits gained from the construction of a wetland? Does the boardwalk's material aesthetic align with the stakeholders' goals for the project? Is the use of the material feasible based on the available funds for the project? 11.2 A Literature Review: An Overview of Boardwalk Impacts Boardwalks have a range of benefits and drawbacks to consider when determining where a boardwalk should be built, and whether it should be built at all. In the case of Decker Lake, a boardwalk can appeal to visitors, local and otherwise, potentially drawing more people to the lake [31]. For reference, we can look at existing boardwalks, such as the Mondego Walkways in Portugal and boardwalks along the southwestern region of the Black Sea in Turkey, to see their economic, environmental, and social impacts. 276 | P a g e 11.2.1 Environmental Impacts Building a boardwalk reduces the number of people walking on the shore of the lake, which is greatly beneficial for plant life growing there. It is common to see areas frequently used by people bare since any plants within these areas are subject to consistent trampling, subsequently leaving the areas vulnerable to erosion. Whereas a boardwalk allows these areas to recover, and plant dominance to return [1]. The tradeoff is, of course, removing plant life in the construction phase where the boardwalk is being built, effectively disallowing any plant trying to grow under the boardwalk from getting sufficient sunlight. Still, boardwalks can contribute greatly to environmental conservation [2]. The environmental impact a boardwalk can have is also dependent on the materials used in its construction. Pressure-treated wood can have adverse effects on the environment through chemical leaching, which will be further discussed in Sections 11.4.2 and 11.6.1. 11.2.2 Social Impacts Structures like boardwalks create a safe environment for visitors to perform various recreational tasks such as walking, resting, jogging, talking, etc. In the study regarding boardwalks in Turkey, residents of Bartin were surveyed on their satisfaction with multiple aspects of boardwalks in or near the region. As for the social aspect, 96% of respondents were satisfied with the boardwalks’ multifunctional use (for recreational activities), and 91% believed that the boardwalks provide a safe environment [3]. As for the Mondego walkways in Portugal, locals like the idea of the boardwalks attracting tourists since it draws in customers for the businesses, but at the same time, some voiced their concerns about conflicts arising between locals and visitors and the increase in littering and pollution attributed to tourism, among other things [4]. In the case of Decker Lake, visitors from outside of West Valley City will be a rare occurrence. Pollution is already a problem without there ever being a boardwalk. If there are no trash cans on or next to the boardwalk, the pollution problem will either remain unaffected or worsen. 11.2.3 Economic Impacts It goes without saying that the boardwalk will come at a great financial cost, with the upfront price of construction as well as maintenance over time, but the return on investment, economically speaking, may be insignificant. Boardwalks can help bring attention to surrounding businesses [4]. The problem is that there are no neighboring businesses that one may typically visit while heading to or from the lake, so any economic growth for businesses resulting from the construction of a boardwalk at Decker Lake is highly unlikely. The only way for a boardwalk at Decker Lake to be profitable is to require visitors to pay a toll. However, since Decker Lake is already open to the public at no cost to visitors, implementing a toll would likely drive some visitors away from the park, defeating one of the sole purposes of building the boardwalk in the first place. 277 | P a g e 11.3 Methodology: Evaluation of Alternatives The evaluation methodology was adapted from the methods used to evaluate the type of boardwalk that should be constructed at the Minto Brown Island Park while incorporating elements from the triple bottom line. Four different criteria were selected: environmental impact, aesthetics & public use, construction cost, and maintenance & useful life. These areas were selected based on the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a project, as detailed by the Triple Bottom Line [5]. “The criteria are assigned either ‘high’, ‘medium’, or ‘low’, based on the importance of the criteria to the overall project. Criteria weighted ‘low’ received values of 1 to 3, criteria weighted ‘medium’ received values of 1 to 5, and criteria weighted ‘high’ received values of 1 to 10 [6]”. Table 11.1 below includes a summary of the criteria and associated weights. It should be noted that no criteria were determined to have a “low” weight. The alternative that has the highest total score once all the areas are added together will be selected as the desired solution [6]. Table 11.1: Criteria Descriptions [6]. Criteria Weight Environmental Impact High (Max score: 10) Aesthetics and Public Use High (Max score: 10) Construction Cost Medium (Max score: 5) Maintenance and Useful Life Medium (Max score: 5) Each area of the triple bottom line (environmental, social, and economic factors), must be assigned an equal weight. For this reason, environmental Impact as well as aesthetics & public use were assigned a high weight. The economic analysis was separated into two areas: construction cost and maintenance and useful life. Each of these have been given a medium weight so that when added together they will sum to a high weight. The environmental impact of this project is important to consider as one of the two main goals of the Decker Lake project is to improve the environmental status of the lake and a solution that compromises the environmental benefits gained from a wetland should not be selected. Aesthetics and public use are also important to consider as the second goal for Decker Lake is to improve the public use of the site. The selected alternative must be something that the public approves of so that the new wetland sees more use. However, this area is only considered for the decking material as the foundation is seen to have little effect on aesthetics and public use. Finally, economics is always a limiting factor for every project, and the selected alternative must be economically feasible. See Table 11.2 for a breakdown of possible scores for each category. 278 | P a g e Table 11.2: Criteria and Weighting [6]. Criteria Environmental Impact Aesthetics and Public Use Construction Cost Maintenance and Useful Life Possible Scores Conditions 1 High environmental impact and/or change 5 Moderate environmental impact and/or change 10 Low environmental impact and/or change 1 Low public use, unpopular aesthetics 5 Moderate public use, neutral aesthetics 10 High public use, popular aesthetics 1 High Cost 3 Medium Cost 5 Low Cost 1 Extensive maintenance and short useful life 3 Moderate maintenance and average useful life 5 Low maintenance and long useful life In addition to analyzing these criteria for a boardwalk, the no boardwalk alternative was also analyzed. The same criteria were used for scoring so that the results were comparable. The results for the highest scoring boardwalk and the no boardwalk alternatives will be compared to show whether building a boardwalk is a reasonable solution to the issues facing Decker Lake. 11.4 Foundation Alternatives Analysis There are many types of foundations that can be analyzed [5-7]. Those that were selected for this project were floating boardwalk, pressure-treated wood driven piles, precast concrete driven piles, and steel driven piles. These alternatives were selected due to their common use in boardwalk construction as well as their feasibility at the site. 11.4.1 Alternative 1: Floating Boardwalk Floating boardwalks are walkways that do not have any in-ground foundation but are instead supported by the buoyancy force of floats secured to the underside of the boardwalk deck. Boardwalk segments are then supported either by above-water cable connections, or by underwater rods attached to anchorage. Floating boardwalks are generally considered to require more frequent maintenance in exchange for a lower environmental impact when compared to traditional foundations. [9] 279 | P a g e While there are multiple methods used to anchor floating boardwalks and limit excessive movement, the most common method, and one that will be considered for this section, is a submerged anchor cable system. A cross-section of this system is shown in Figure 11.1. The figure demonstrates the layout of a submerged anchor cable system, as well as showing the ideal angle at which to position anchors relative to the pin connection on the boardwalk. The figure also demonstrates how the rods are not meant to be taught but instead should have enough slack to allow a small amount of vertical movement of the boardwalk. Figure 11.4: Proper layout of a Submerged Anchor Cable System [9]. For floats, plastic float drums filled with expanded plystyroam (EPS) will be considered. This is the most common float used in boardwalk construction. The plastic drum protects the foam from damage that can be caused by wildlife and sunlight. In the case of a drum being punctured, the foam prevents the float from filling with water and subsequently sinking the boardwalk. 11.4.1a Environmental Impact The primary benefit of a floating boardwalk is its minimal environmental impact. The structure can be assembled largely out of the water before segments are moved into place and fastened together. The extent of the environmental impact during construction is simply the lowering of anchors. While this has the potential to harm flora on the lakebed, it is much less invasive than any other alternative. There is an environmental risk associated with the use of EPS in aquatic environments, as it has the potential to break down into microplastics, which are poisonous to some animals [10]. However, this effect is seen only in situations when the EPS is exposed to direct sunlight or turbulent waters, which accelerate deterioration and should not have any significant effect due to the EPS being contained within the drums. 280 | P a g e 11.4.1b Construction Cost Initial construction costs of floating boardwalks tend to be higher when compared to standard boardwalks. Floating boardwalks are inherently less stable and resistant to forces than standard foundation boardwalks and can thus require larger dimensions and more material to achieve the same factor of safety. This is particularly relevant when considering certain accessibility vehicles that can put highly concentrated live loads on the boardwalk. Floats, while not being absurdly pricey, also contribute significantly to the initial construction costs. 11.4.1c Maintenance and Useful Life Floating boardwalks require significant maintenance to remain functional and situated. The rods which connect the boardwalk to the anchors may require seasonal adjustments to prevent the boardwalk from drifting out of its intended path (Figure 11.1). This maintenance, while materially inexpensive, can be very costly in man-hours. 11.4.2 Alternative 2: Pressure-Treated Wood Driven Piles Pressure-treated wood is a widely used building material with many different applications, especially in outdoor settings with regular exposure to moisture. The treatment this wood undergoes provides a few key benefits that give it an edge over untreated wood. Figure 11.5: Pressure-Treated Wood [15]. 281 | P a g e Pressure-treated wood is durable; the preservative prevents mold and decay, and acts as a deterrent to termites, thereby increasing the material’s longevity [11]. 11.4.2a Environmental Impact The chemicals that give pressure-treated wood its improved resilience are also a subject of concern when it comes to environmental contamination. There are two different types of preservatives for treating wood: water-type and oil-type. We will focus on water-type preservatives since most oil-type (and a few watertype) preservatives are classified by the EPA as restricted-use pesticides (RUP) and are prohibited from consumer purchase [12]. Water-Type Preservatives • • • • • • Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA-C): (EPA Restricted) Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA): (EPA Restricted) Ammoniacal Copper Citrate (CC) Alkaline Copper Quaternary Compounds (ACQ) Copper Azole (CBA) Copper Dimethyldithocarbamate (CDDC) Two elements in particular stand out. CCA-C and ACZA contain arsenic, hence why they are both restricted by the EPA. All the preservatives contain copper. Both copper and arsenic have antimicrobial properties, albeit arsenic is significantly more toxic, which is why concerns of chemical leaching still stand. However, this risk can be reduced if the wood is treated properly, and by coating the wood with a water repellent, which can be done during production or on the jobsite [12]. 11.4.2b Construction Cost Pressure-treated wood is among the more affordable options when it comes to building materials [12]. Wood is easier to install than other materials like concrete and steel, which can lower labor costs. The price of pressure-treated wood piles or posts depends on the wholesalers or retailers from which the material is purchased. The unit price can range from $1.92 to $2.26 per linear foot at a wholesaler [13], [14]. Assuming the materials are purchased from local sources, transportation costs should remain relatively inexpensive compared to interstate shipping. 11.4.2c Maintenance and Useful Life Considering the durability of pressure-treated wood and the fact that the piles will be constantly exposed to moisture, a useful life of about 30 years should be expected, assuming that the piles are properly maintained [15]. The piles should be inspected regularly for any signs of structural damage, and the water repellent should be reapplied according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. 282 | P a g e 11.4.3 Alternative 3: Concrete Driven Piles Two major types of concrete piles are typically used in construction: cast-in-place and precast [16]. Cast-in-place concrete piles are installed by boring a metal tube into the ground, which is then filled with concrete. These piles are advantageous as they are cheaper to install and do not disturb the surrounding soil during installation. However, it is unlikely they can be used for this project as they are not feasible to be installed over water, meaning precast piles must be used [16]. Pre-cast piles are manufactured in a plant and then shipped to the site, where they are pounded into the ground using heavy machinery. The present challenges for the design are that they have a high construction cost and can significantly disturb the soil [16]. 11.4.3a Environmental Impact The main environmental drawback of using precast concrete piles is that the longer they are exposed to water, the more likely it is that water permeates the concrete and causes the steel rebar to corrode. As steel rebar corrodes, it expands, causing the concrete to crack and potentially disperse concrete particles into the environment. These concrete particles are very basic (high pH), so when they are combined with water, they significantly increase its pH [17]. This increase in the PH can lead to the water having a higher turbidity and can harm aquatic life [18]. Additionally, the concrete material has the potential to release “antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, sulfur, and zinc” based on several factors, “such as pH, particle size, and age of the concrete” [17]. If these contaminants are released, their average concentrations have been found to exceed the typical limits set by the state of Washington [17]. Making it reasonable to assume that the concentrations would also exceed the limits in Utah. There are preventative measures that can reduce the likelihood of rebar corroding and concrete cracking, which are discussed in Section 4.3.5. However, these methods are not foolproof, meaning that there is still risk associated with using concrete piles. 11.4.3b Construction Cost As previously discussed, precast concrete piles are more viable than cast-in-place concrete piles due to the presence of water at the site. The use of precast concrete piles increases construction costs due to the difficulty of transporting them [16]. This higher initial cost does not make them more expensive than steel, but it does make them less feasible for the site. Additionally, the increased risk of corrosion from surrounding water requires the use of preventive measures to reduce the overall life-cycle costs of the piles [19]. These preventive measures are discussed in depth in section 4.3.4. 11.4.3c Maintenance and Useful Life Although the upfront cost of installing concrete driven piles is less than that of steel piles in a typical environment, the presence of water can significantly increase the cost of concrete piles due to the preventative measures required to 283 | P a g e reduce corrosion. Suppose concrete piles are installed without preventive measures in water. In that case, they will corrode readily, leading to higher maintenance costs and a shorter service life [20]. The main ways to prevent this corrosion are using admixtures, epoxy-coated rebar, or stainless-steel rebar, all of which increase the initial cost of the concrete; for example, epoxy-coated or stainless-steel rebar can increase rebar costs on a project by up to 9% [20]. Admixtures that prevent corrosion are typically not expensive, however, since they are made mostly of incredibly fine particles, if they are released into the water due to rebar corrosion, as discussed in section 4.3.1, they can greatly increase turbidity and environmental impacts [21], [22]. While it is possible to keep maintenance costs low with concrete driven piles, doing so may raise the initial cost to a point where the project is no longer feasible. 11.4.4 Alternative 4: Steel Driven Piles Steel driven piles are the third type of driven piles that are typically used in construction. There are a few different types of steel piles including H-piles, Pipe, Tapered, Shell, and Sheet Piles [23]. For the construction of a boardwalk, H-piles or pipes are best suited as they provide discrete support and are the cheapest to install. Figure 11. below shows an example of what H-piles look like. Figure 11.6: Steel driven H-Piles [24]. Steel piles are typically driven deeper than other types of piles to reach bedrock instead of using friction to support the structure [7]. This allows them to support greater loads, which is not needed for this project. Of the three driven pile types, steel has the most strength and durability [8]. 11.4.4a Environmental Impact The main environmental drawback of steel is that it can rust and corrode. The introduction of rust into a wetland has negative environmental impacts. If proper coatings are applied to the steel before installation and the piles are inspected and maintained throughout the life of the boardwalk, then the probability of 284 | P a g e contamination is fairly low. This reduced risk of contamination is acceptable as all foundation alternatives pose a risk of contamination to the environment. During the construction process, noise and vibration pollution will be introduced [25]. Steps can and have been taken to reduce these forms of pollution, but they are not completely avoidable. During construction of the boardwalk, the area will be unpleasant to use and may cause disruption of wildlife due to pollution; however, care must be taken to be sure the surrounding structures are not damaged by vibrations and that the wetland isn’t disturbed. [25] 11.4.4b Construction Cost Steel piles have the highest up-front cost compared to wood and concrete piles [8], [26]. This high cost is typically offset by lower maintenance and longer useful life as explained in Section 11.4.4b [26]. It is important to note that a high upfront cost can be difficult to overcome while a higher maintenance cost is more manageable. 11.4.4b Maintenance and Useful Life Steel piles have unrivaled longevity; they can last for centuries in anerobic environments or with protective coatings [27]. However, since the piles will be immersed in freshwater, the expected service lifespan would be 60-80 years, though they could potentially last longer [26]. Due to the environment, the piles will be required to be inspected yearly, raising maintenance costs [28]. In addition, if corrosion is discovered, additional coating and remediation measures must be taken. It should be noted that corrosion is unlikely due to the previously mentioned protective coatings. Overall, the maintenance of steel piles is minor compared to other alternatives due to the low chance of corrosion. 11.5 Decking Material Analysis There are three different types of decking that are typically used for a boardwalk: pressuretreated wood, composite, and precast concrete. Each decking material is equally viable with the selected foundation types, other than precast concrete, which is not typically used for a floating boardwalk due to its greater weight. Other materials may be considered for a boardwalk, such as naturally resilient wood, concrete/steel composite decking, or steel decking. However, these materials are not commonly used in the construction of boardwalks, so these alternatives were not analyzed. 11.5.1 Alternative 1: Pressure-Treated Wood Pressure-treated wood is perhaps the most common material used in boardwalk construction and decking in general. This section will analyze the advantages and drawbacks of using pressure-treated pine wood as the decking material for the boardwalk. 285 | P a g e 11.5.1a Environmental Impact The greatest potential source of environmental harm associated with the use of pressure-treated wood in aquatic construction is the tendency for chemicals to leach out of the treated wood and into water or soil [29]. While this hazard can be reduced by careful selection of preservatives, adequate use of sealant on the wood, and frequent maintenance, there will always be leaching to some degree. This leaching is less of a concern that that mentioned in Section 11.4.2a since the wood is not constantly submerged in the lake. 11.5.1b Aesthetics and Public Use The biggest advantage associated with the use of pressure-treated wood decking on a boardwalk is its aesthetic value. Wooden boardwalks have a natural look that has the potential to elevate the appearance of an environment rather than diminish it. Wooden boardwalks are preferred to such a degree that when using alternative materials such as composite or concrete, those materials are designed to look as much like wood as possible. 11.5.1c Construction Cost The cost of materials for pressure-treated wood is roughly $15-$20 per square foot [30]. However, this does not account for transportation costs. While there are sources of pine lumber within Utah, it would likely be more expensive to order through a wholesaler, which would have increased shipping costs. 11.5.1d Maintenance and Useful Life Decking is frequently replaced for aesthetic reasons long before structural failure. Assuming that the boardwalk will be maintained to a high aesthetic standard, a maximum useful life of 10 years can be assumed [31]. To achieve the maximum life cycle, the boardwalk will require regular inspection and annual maintenance, including cleaning and pressure washing the surface before reapplying with a protective sealant. 11.5.2 Alternative 2: Composite Decking There are multiple types of composite materials, but for the boardwalk, we will be focused on wood-plastic composite decking as one of our decking alternatives. Woodplastic composite decking is made by mixing wood pulp and plastic together, combining them with a bonding agent, and forming them in a mold [32]. 286 | P a g e Figure 11.7: Capped and Grooved Wood Plastic Composite Decking [39]. There are five different categories of wood-plastic composite decking, each with features that can provide some benefits as follows: • Capped: Decking that has a protective shell shielding the composite core from the elements. The shell is typically made of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or acrylic [33]. The core is molded and the shell colored to have the appearance and texture of real wood. • Uncapped: Composite decking with no protective shell, albeit more affordable. • Hollow: Composite decking with hollow channels running the length of the planks, thereby reducing their weight. • Solid: Composite decking with a solid core. • Grooved: Composite decking with grooves on the edges of the planks, allowing for brackets to provide consistent spacing and fasteners to be hidden. 11.5.2a Environmental Impact What makes composite decking an environmentally friendly choice of building material is that it can be made using recycled materials [32]. However, that is dependent on the manufacturer. Leaders in composite decking manufacturing, such as Trex and Timber Tech, produce decking comprising over 90% recycled materials, significantly reducing the amount of wood and plastic waste ending up in landfills or the ocean [32], [34]. Even the manufacturing process can have 287 | P a g e minimal environmental impacts since water can be recycled continuously, and energy-efficient technologies can be utilized [34]. 11.5.2b Aesthetics and Public Use Capped composite decking is designed to resemble wood while excluding its drawbacks, such as splintering and cracking. Wood decking, such as southern yellow pine, can hold up heavy loads, but soaks up stains and is vulnerable to surface damage [35]. Capped composite decking doesn’t have any of the aforementioned issues. 11.5.2c Construction Cost Composite decking typically costs more than wood decking. As mentioned in section 11.5.1c, pressure-treated wood decking costs $15 to $20 per square foot. Composite decking costs around $20 to $40 per square foot for uncapped decking, and $30 to $60 per square foot for capped decking [36]. Most hardware stores, such as Lowe’s and Home Depot, have composite decking readily available, so the cost to transport material to the job site will depend on the distance from Decker Lake to a given hardware store. 11.5.2d Maintenance and Useful Life The greater upfront cost for composite decking does yield some benefits. With capped composite decking, the material is shielded from water and sunlight exposure, and is resistant to regular wear and tear, granting a longer lifespan for the decking. On the contrary, uncapped composite decking can be expected to be more vulnerable to damage, especially in high-traffic areas, and the material will be susceptible to mold and mildew with increased water exposure, causing the decking to deteriorate faster [33]. Still, composite decking outlasts standard wood with an average life span of 25 years [37], and as mentioned in section 11.5.1d, pressure-treated wood decking can last up to 10 years. 11.5.3 Alternative 3: Precast Concrete Planks Concrete is one of the most prolifically used building materials. While it is less commonly used in boardwalks, the benefits associated with typical precast concrete construction are extended to it. Figure 11.5 shows one example of a precast concrete boardwalk. 288 | P a g e Figure 11.8: Precast Concrete Boardwalk [38], 11.5.3a Environmental Impact Concrete has a high carbon footprint, making up 8% of global CO2 emissions [39]. While concrete typically has a low environmental effect other than the carbon footprint, it is possible that concrete releases some chemicals due to exposure. Typically, this release is associated with water leaching out metals or other chemicals from old concrete [40]. However, these chemical releases seem to be lower than the chemical releases associated with pressure-treated wood and steel. 11.5.3b Aesthetics and Public Use There is a negative stigma associated with concrete. Many people feel that it is not an aesthetically pleasing material, but that doesn’t have to be the case. A simple example of a precast concrete boardwalk is shown in Figure 11.5. Additionally, the precast concrete can be stamped in advance to look like wood, which adds to the visual appeal [27]. 11.5.3c Construction Cost Typically, the cost of concrete is considered ‘middle of the road’ but economical as far as construction materials go. Concrete planks typically cost $25 to $40 per square foot [41]. For larger projects that require precast concrete walls or entire floor panels, the cost can be significant, but concrete planks are relatively cheap. 11.5.3c Maintenance and Useful Life The maintenance cost and requirements of precast concrete are very low. Inspections should be completed yearly [42]. The joints must be checked to verify that the panels are still sealed to increase the longevity [42]. If this maintenance 289 | P a g e is completed, the lifespan of panels is typically 50 to 100 years [43]. Environmental factors such as proximity to water and exposure to salts can reduce the lifespan if protective measures are not implemented [43]. 11.6 No Boardwalk Alternative While constructing a boardwalk at Decker Lake has positive impacts, it also has significant downsides, including potential environmental concerns addressed in the sections above. The existence of these downsides begs the question of whether constructing a boardwalk at Decker Lake will have a net positive or negative effect. Answering this question is difficult when comparing only with alternatives of the same nature, especially when using the triple bottom line. If all the alternatives share the same negative impact, it will be ignored, as each alternative would be docked the same number of points. Therefore, the purpose of this alternative is to discuss the general positive and negative impacts of not constructing a boardwalk to ensure that each alternative's negative effects are fully realized. 11.6.1 Environmental Impact If no boardwalk is constructed, the harmful environmental effects discussed in Sections 11.2.2, 11.4, and 11.5 will no longer be a concern, as each stemmed from the placement of building material in the water. However, removing a boardwalk from the space raises concerns about people walking through the constructed wetland, given the limited site accessibility. This is a valid concern, as one of the site's main uses currently is the walking path surrounding the lake. Wetlands mainly consist of helophytes, plants whose perennating organs lie below the water and whose aerial shoots protrude above the saturated soil. Wetlands dominated by helophytes are problematic because they are susceptible to trampling [44]. If plants are being trampled, this will lead to higher maintenance costs as they will need to be replaced. 11.6.2 Aesthetics and Public Use Without a boardwalk, the site will have limited walking accessibility because a large portion of it is being converted into a wetland. Without access to some of the site, the dirt walking path would have to be shortened, which could cause issues with the local community, as it is currently one of the most utilized features at the site. This points to the much larger problem that, without a boardwalk or other site improvements to enhance accessibility and public use, the public perception of the site is likely to degrade. 11.6.3 Construction Cost, Maintenance, and Useful Life If a boardwalk is not being constructed, there will be no initial cost, as nothing is being built; however, there could still be maintenance costs due to the lack of a boardwalk. As was previously discussed, the lack of a boardwalk at the site could cause people to walk off-trail in the wetland and trample the plants. The disturbed plants will need to be replaced, increasing maintenance costs and affecting the feasibility of constructing a wetland. It is important to note that while there are maintenance costs associated with not building a boardwalk, it is still significantly less expensive than constructing one. 290 | P a g e 11.7 Determination of the Best Possible Boardwalk The purpose of this section is to determine the best foundation type and decking material which can then be combined to create the best possible boardwalk alternative. The best possible boardwalk ill then be compared to the no boardwalk alternative in Section 11.8 to inform our final decision on whether or not to constructing a boardwalk is feasible at Decker Lake. 11.7.1 Comparison of Foundation Alternatives After researching and summarizing the major environmental and economic impacts of each of the four foundation alternatives, the project team convened to translate our qualitative findings into quantitative values to determine the best option based on the triple bottom line and help guide our recommendations. Table 11.3 contains the scores for each of the four foundation alternatives across environmental impact, construction cost, and maintenance and useful life. Each team member scored their sections individually, then we met and deliberated on the scores until a consensus was reached. Therefore, the scores in Table 11.3 reflect the team's collective judgment of each option's strengths and weaknesses. The following section explains why certain alternatives were ranked higher than others and highlights patterns observed during scoring. As shown in Table 11.3, Alternative 1: Floating Boardwalk scored the highest with a total of 14 points, followed closely by Alternative 3: Concrete Driven Piles with a total of 13 points. The most influential category in separating the four alternatives was the evaluation of environmental effects. Since each alternative has the potential to impact the environment negatively, scoring was based on the risk of those ecological effects occurring over the foundation's service life and the severity of the impact if they occurred. Therefore, the floating boardwalk scored highest in the category because the environmentally harmful material EPS is contained within drums, unlike concrete and wood piles, meaning the risk of it contaminating the water and causing negative environmental effects is extremely low. Additionally, it is easy to tell when a drum needs to be replaced, as it will show clear signs of physical damage, and the cost will be much less than replacing a pile. Wood piles received a relatively low score because, although the risk of leaching copper and arsenic into the water is low, the impact of their release is severe, and it is difficult to know when coatings need to be replaced. Steel piles received a low score, even though they have a low risk of corrosion because it is bound to occur during the long service life required to make their high initial cost worthwhile. 291 | P a g e Criteria Alternative 1 Floating Boardwalk Alternative 2 Treated Wood Piles Alternative 3 Concrete Driven Piles Alternative 4 Steel Driven Piles 1 to 10 8 6 7 6 1 to 5 4 3 2 1 1 to 5 2 3 4 4 1 to 20 14 12 13 11 Total Maintenance Construction Score and Useful Life Cost Score Range Environmental Impact Table 11.6: Results - Foundation Alternatives [6]. It is important to note that while each foundation alternative had varying scores across the construction cost and maintenance and useful life categories, the sum of the scores for the categories remained very similar across the alternatives. This occurs because if the upfront cost of an alternative is low, it represents the use of cheaper materials and construction methods, meaning either the maintenance costs will be higher or the useful life will be shorter. For example, the initial construction costs of a floating boardwalk are low, giving it a high score in that category. At the same time, its useful life is relatively short compared to the other alternatives, giving it a low score in that category. Alternative 4: Steel Piles received the lowest combined score for the construction cost and maintenance and useful life categories because it has an extremely high construction cost due to its high load-bearing capacity, which is not required for this project. 11.7.2 Comparison of Decking Material Alternatives The scoring criteria for decking materials is very similar to that of the foundations, besides the inclusion of an aesthetics and public use section for the decking alternatives. The environmental and social scores are weighted on a scale from 1 to 10 each. The economic impact of the decking alternative is divided into the upfront construction cost, as well as maintenance and useful life. The results from the scoring are shown in Table 292 | P a g e 11.4. The table shows that pressure-treated wood received the highest score of the three alternatives with 20 of 30 points, followed closely by composite decking with a score of 19 points. Criteria Score Range Alternative 1 Pressure Treated Wood Alternative 2 Composite Decking Alternative 3 Precast Concrete Environmental Impact 1 to 10 4 7 6 Aesthetics and Public Use 1 to 10 10 7 4 Construction Cost 1 to 5 4 2 1 Maintenance and Useful Life Table 11.7: Results - Material Alternatives [6]. 1 to 5 2 3 4 Total Score 1 to 30 20 19 15 The most significant factor in differentiating the scores was in the aesthetics and public use section. This demonstrates our team’s opinion that wood is dramatically more aesthetically appealing. While our team researched and explored strategies that can improve the visual appeal of both composite decking and precast concrete, our team does not believe these adjustments elevate either material towards being on par with the pressure-treated wood. Looking specifically at the scoring for pressure-treated wood, the categories that are most concerning are the environmental category along with the maintenance category. The environmental score was the lowest of the three alternatives due to the tendency for pressure-treated wood to leach harmful chemicals into the water. If the pressure293 | P a g e treated wood decking is ultimately used, it will be incredibly important to maintain high maintenance standards, and to test water quality periodically to ensure minimal leaching. While the maintenance demands are high for wood decking, these costs are offset by its relatively low construction and material costs. Overall, our team believes that the drawbacks associated with the potential for a negative environmental effect and higher maintenance are acceptable for the appearance and materials cost advantages. 11.8 Discussion: A Comparison Between the Best Boardwalk and No Boardwalk Alternatives The construction of boardwalks is a common strategy to increase site access, use, and outlook of wetland areas. Evidence from previous studies, such as the Minto Brown Island Park Project, indicates that boardwalks can be constructed with minimal environmental impacts on the site while still increasing site use. This study conducted a systematic review of four different foundation alternatives (floating boardwalk, pressure-treated wood piles, concrete piles, steel piles), three decking material alternatives (pressure-treated wood, composite, precast concrete), and the option not to construct a boardwalk using the triple bottom line to determine the most feasible way to construct a boardwalk at the site and verify whether or not it should actually be built. In Section 11.7, it was determined that the most feasible boardwalk type to construct is a floating boardwalk with pressure-treated wood decking, due to its low environmental impact and construction cost. While in Section 11.6, the reasons for not constructing a boardwalk were discussed. We are not confident in recommending only one of these options, as each has positives and negatives that are weighted equally under the triple bottom line model, which will not be considered equal by the project's key stakeholders. Therefore, we have compiled the two triple-bottom-line matrices below to represent the advantages and disadvantages of each option numerically and to aid decision-making should the project be undertaken. Table 11.8: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Constructing a Floating Boardwalk Using Pressure Treated Wood for Decking at Boardwalk at Decker Lake. People Site Accessibility Site Usage Involvem Planet 5.25 Flora Development aaaaa 6.00 Fauna Development aa Profit a 5.00 Construction Cost svsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf 3.50 4.00 Maintenance Cost f 4.00 3.75 Design Life sssss s 5.00 Construction Disturbance rtgrtgggggggggggggg 5.00 Water Quality Abstention afssfdfdffffffffffffffffff 0.00 Abstention awddddddddddddddddd00.00 Site Improvement fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff 6.00 Final Score Final Score Final Score 5.41 4.25 4.625 294 | P a g e As shown in Table 11.5, the floating boardwalk using pressure-treated wood decking is advantageous because it will increase public use of the site by providing opportunities to explore the wetlands and experience the site's natural beauty, and by increasing site accessibility. The site accessibility score is lower than the usage score because there is already an existing path at the site, meaning the additional accessibility provided by the boardwalk will have less impact. As shown in Table 11.5, the floating boardwalk is disadvantageous due to its relatively high cost and environmental impacts. Depending on the size and layout of the boardwalk, cost may become a deciding factor, as the options discussed in Section 11.8 can only provide a limited amount of money. Additionally, it is a concern that pressure-treated wood, if not properly cared for, could leach harmful metals into the water, negatively impacting water quality and plant life. This potential for leaching increases maintenance costs and makes the boardwalk more difficult to construct economically. The positives and negatives of constructing a floating boardwalk are almost perfectly reversed when compared with the option of not constructing a boardwalk, as shown in Table 11.6. Table 11.9: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Not Constructing Boardwalk at Decker Lake. People Planet Site Accessibility 3.25 Flora Development aaaaa a 6.75 Construction Cost svsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf 7.00 3.00 Fauna Development aa 7.00 Maintenance Cost f 7.00 7.00 Design Life sssss s 4.50 Site Usage Involvem Profit Construction Disturbance rtgrtgggggggggggggg 7.00 Water Quality Abstention afssfdfdffffffffffffffffff 0.00 Abstention awddddddddddddddddd00.00 Site Improvement fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff 1.00 Final Score Final Score Final Score 4.33 6.92 4.625 As shown in Table 11.6, not constructing a boardwalk is advantageous because it poses little to no environmental risk and incurs no construction or maintenance costs. In contrast, it is disadvantageous because it actively hinders site accessibility by preventing people from accessing areas of the site that are converted into wetlands and by failing to provide a reason for people to use the site more than they do currently. 11.9 Funding Regardless of which type of foundation and decking is selected for the boardwalk, it goes without saying that funding is required for construction to begin. For projects like a boardwalk in a relatively small public park, it is ideal to turn towards municipalities and public agencies for 295 | P a g e funding, since no legitimate private entities that fund projects revolving around public parks could be found due to time constraints. We have sources at the local, state, and federal levels. Locally, West Valley City offers a variety of grants, including its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Eligible applicants can receive grants for projects that improve infrastructure, housing, public facilities, and public services [45]. Because the boardwalk project aims to attract more people to Decker Lake as grounds for community engagement, and the like, the project may be eligible to receive a CDBG. The Division of Outdoor Recreation of the Utah Department of Natural Resources offers two choices for projects like the Decker Lake boardwalk: the Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant (UORG) and the Community Parks and Recreation (CPR) Grant. UORG is for new outdoor recreational infrastructure projects [46]. The CPR Grant is specifically for community parks, sports fields, pools, and playgrounds [47]. The nature of the boardwalk project in Decker Lake grants significant eligibility for these two grants. On the federal level, the National Park Service (NPS) offers grants as part of its Land and Water Conservation Fund. NPS runs the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLP) Grants Program, a competitive grant program that provides funding to recreational projects across the United States. As for its basic requirements, the boardwalk project in Decker Lake fulfills at least two. Projects eligible for the ORLP Grants Program must serve communities of 25,000 residents or more and must be maintained and accessible for public use in perpetuity [48]. West Valley City has a population of slightly under 140,000 residents, and the Decker Lake boardwalk is expected to be maintained by the municipality that owns it (West Valley City), making the ORLP Grants Program a potential source of funding. 11.10 Conclusion Decker Lake is a site of concern due to poor water quality and recreational-use conditions. A potential solution to the site's water quality problems is the construction of a wetland to remove sediments and nutrients from the water. While this solution is promising, it raises the question of how the site's recreational use will be enhanced. In this study, we evaluated the materials and construction methods used to build a boardwalk to improve recreational use of the lake. However, based on our analysis, we recommend not pursuing a boardwalk at this time, because although it can significantly improve the site’s social outlook, those same benefits can be achieved at a lower cost through other options. The funds required to construct a boardwalk would be more effectively invested in addressing the lake's water quality issues and in other site-improvement options. This is not to say that a boardwalk should never be constructed at the site; rather, it indicates that it is not the best option at present. In the future, if these foundational issues are addressed, a boardwalk would become more feasible. It is also important to note that this study focused on the materials used in constructing a boardwalk, rather than on the structure’s layout and design. If a boardwalk is to be built in the future, further research and planning should be completed concerning these topics. 11.10 References [1] W. A. Wurtsbaugh, H. W. Paerl, and W. K. Dodds, “Nutrients, eutrophication and harmful algal blooms along the freshwater to marine continuum,” WIREs Water, vol. 6, no. 5, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1002/wat2.1373. 296 | P a g e [2] Department of Environmental Quality, “Decker Lake - Utah Department of Environmental Quality,” Department of Environmental Quality . Accessed: Oct. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/decker-lake. [3] C. S. S. Ferreira et al., “Wetlands as nature-based solutions for water management in different environments,” Curr Opin Environ Sci Health, vol. 33, p. 100476, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.COESH.2023.100476. [4] Ó. Ferreira, “The effectiveness of elevated boardwalks in restoring coastal dunes,” J Environ Manage, vol. 345, p. 118759, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2023.118759. [5] I. Prisco, A. T. R. Acosta, and A. Stanisci, “A bridge between tourism and nature conservation: boardwalks effects on coastal dune vegetation,” J Coast Conserv, vol. 25, no. 1, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1007/S11852-021-00809-4. [6] C. Cengiz, B. Cengiz, and R. C. Smardon, “A Bridge between Coastal Resilience and TourismRecreation: Multifunctional Benefit of Boardwalk Design for Sustainable Development in the Western Black Sea Region, Turkey,” Water (Switzerland), vol. 14, no. 9, May 2022, doi: 10.3390/W14091434. [7] A. Azevedo, F. Freire, L. Silva, A. Carapinha, and R. Matos, “Tourists’ assessment of economic value, benefits and negative impacts of pedestrian walkways: Case-studies of the Paiva River (Arouca) and the Mondego River (Guarda) in Portugal,” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, vol. 46, p. 100769, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.JORT.2024.100769. [8] J. Elkington, Cannibals with Forks, 1999th ed. Oxford: Capstone Publishing Ltd, 1997. [9] S. Allan et al., “Minto-Brown Island Park Boardwalk,” Salem, May 2024. [10] “Marine Construction: Timber, Concrete, or Steel Piles?,” Eiffel Trading. Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eiffeltrading.com/blog/post/marine-constructiontimber-concrete-or-steel-piles. [11] Rhino Piling Limited, “The Pros and Cons of Piling Materials.” Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.rhinopiling.co.uk/the-pros-and-cons-of-piling-materials/. [12] M. Eriksson and B. Vachowski, “Floating Trail Bridges and Docks,” Jul. 2002. Accessed: Oct. 22, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/td/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf02232812/pdf02232812dpi72.pdf. [13] A. Turner, “Foamed Polystyrene in the Marine Environment: Sources, Additives, Transport, Behavior, and Impacts,” Sep. 01, 2020, American Chemical Society. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03221. 297 | P a g e [14] The Home Depot, “Types of Pressure-Treated Wood,” The Home Depot. Accessed: Oct. 31, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.homedepot.com/c/ab/types-of-pressure-treatedwood/9ba683603be9fa5395fab9052c50759. [15] M. Carrillo, “pressuretreatedwoodmc,” Oct. 25, 2025. [16] S. T. Lebow and M. Tippie, “Guide for Minimizing the Effect of Preservative-Treated Wood on Sensitive Environments,” 2001. [17] The Home Depot, “4in. x 4in.x 12ft. Ground Contact Hem-Fir Pressure-Treated Wood Post.” Accessed: Nov. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Construction-Select-4-in-x-4-in-x-12-ft-Ground-ContactHem-Fir-Pressure-Treated-Wood-Post-549000104041200/100025703. [18] Lowe’s, “Severe Weather 4-in x 4-in x 8-ft Standard Hem fir Ground contact Pressure Treated Lumber.” Accessed: Nov. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.lowes.com/pd/Severe-Weather-4-In-x4-In-x8-Ft-Treated-TimberBrown/1002756078. [19] PileMedic, “An Expert Weighs in: Advantages and Disadvantages of Timber Piles,” PileMedic. Accessed: Oct. 31, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://pilemedic.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-timberpiles/#:~:text=Are%20timber%20piles%20better%20than,longevity%20for%20the%20bes t%20choice. [20] J. Carlo San Juan, “Concrete Piles: An Overview,” https://skyciv.com/docs/skycivfoundation/piles/an-overview-of-concrete-piles/. Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://skyciv.com/docs/skyciv-foundation/piles/an-overview-of-concretepiles/. [21] E. Daiber, “Recycled Concrete Aggregate Leachate: A Literature Review,” May 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ecology.wa.gov. [22] G. Suter II, S. Cormier, K. Schofield, J. Gilliam, and C. Barbour, “pH | US EPA,” https://www.epa.gov/caddis/ph. Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/caddis/ph [23] Mapei, “Corrosion in Concrete.” Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://cdnmedia.mapei.com/docs/librariesprovider65/line-technical-documentationdocuments/25-1675-ca-com-tid-technical-report---corrosion.pdf?sfvrsn=f20c628a_5 [24] D. V. Val and M. G. Stewart, “Life-cycle cost analysis of reinforced concrete structures in marine environments,” Structural Safety, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 343–362, Oct. 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0167-4730(03)00014-6. 298 | P a g e [25] P. R. Prem, P. S. Ambily, B. Vankudothu, and B. H. Bharatkumar, “Sustainable Production of High Performance Concrete,” Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials: Volume 1-5, vol. 1–5, pp. 527–536, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.11501-2. [26] EPA, “Turbidity Parameter Factsheet,” Environmental Protection Agency. [27] Pile Driving Contractors Association, “Benefits of Driven Piles.” Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.piledrivers.org/about-pdca/benefits-of-driven-piles/ [28] PermaTrak, “Boardwalk Foundations: Which Type Is Right for My Project?” Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.permatrak.com/newsevents/bid/90322/boardwalk-foundations-which-type-is-right-for-my-project [29] Steel Piling Group, “Environmental Factors with Driven Piles.” Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.steelpilinggroup.org/guidance/construction/environmental-factors-withdriven-piles/ [30] B. Steel, “How long is the service life of steel pipe piles?” Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.baowi-steel.com/newsdetail/how-long-is-the-service-life-of-steelpipe-piles.html [31] Direct Piling, “How Long Do Piling Foundations Last? Building for Generations.” Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://directpiling.co.uk/blog/how-long-do-pilingfoundations-last-building-for-generations [32] “Waterfront Facility Inspection: Part II – Planning for Inspection,” Pile Buck Magazine. Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://pilebuck.com/waterfront-facilityinspection-part-ii-planning-inspection/ [33] O. L. Pescott and G. B. Stewart, “Assessing the impact of human trampling on vegetation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental evidence,” PeerJ, vol. 2014, no. 1, p. e360, May 2014, doi: 10.7717/PEERJ.360/SUPP-6. [34] Lebow, Foster, and Brooks, “Environmental Impact of Preservative-Treated Wood in a Wetland Boardwalk,” Feb. 2000. [35] S. M. Mcfarling and P. I. Morris, “HIGH-PERFORMANCE WOOD DECKING,” 2005. [36] C. A. Bolin and S. Smith, “Life cycle assessment of ACQ-treated lumber with comparison to wood plastic composite decking,” J Clean Prod, vol. 19, no. 6–7, pp. 620–629, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.004. [37] Trex, “Eco-Friendly, Recycled Plastic Decking.” Accessed: Oct. 22, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.trex.com/why-trex/eco-friendly-decking/. 299 | P a g e [38] R. Nickel, “What Is The Difference Between Capped And Uncapped Composite Decking?,” Decks by E3. Accessed: Nov. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://decksbye3.com/whatis-the-difference-between-capped-and-uncapped-composite-decking/. [39] M. Carrillo, “compositedeckingmc,” Oct. 25, 2025. [40] TimberTech, “Revolutionizing outdoor living to create a more sustainable future.” Accessed: Nov. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.timbertech.com/about/sustainability/. [41] Consumer Reports, “Consumer Reports: Getting the best deck for your money,” ABC 7. Accessed: Nov. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://abc7chicago.com/post/consumerreports-getting-the-best-deck-for-yourmoney/5502848/?msockid=145f673bbd1811f08772e03ec7798acb. [42] G. Orentas, C. Tynan, and L. Pelchen, “How Much Does Composite Decking Cost?,” Forbes. Accessed: Nov. 14, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/homeimprovement/outdoor-living/composite-deckingcost/#:~:text=The%20average%20cost%20of%20composite%20decking%20ranges%20fro m,foot.%20This%20cost%20includes%20both%20material%20and%20labor. [43] A. Kavanaugh, “How Long Does a Deck Last.” Accessed: Nov. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.trex.com/deck-ideas/how-long-does-a-deck-last/. [44] “PermaTrak Concrete Boardwalks,” Locke. Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://lockesolutions.com/concrete-boardwalk/. [45] “Concrete needs to lose its colossal carbon footprint,” Nature, vol. 597, no. 7878, pp. 593– 594, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1038/D41586-021-02612-5;SUBJMETA. [46] E. Daiber, “Is there a connection between old concrete and water quality?,” Washington State Department of Ecology. Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/may-2024/is-there-a-connection-between-old-concreteand-water-quality. [47] “How Much Do Precast Concrete Planks Cost?,” Vintage Cast. Accessed: Oct. 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.vintagecast.com/how-much-do-precast-concrete-plankscost/ [48] “Maintenance of Precast Concrete,” Wilco Precast. Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://wilcoprecast.co.nz/maintenance/ [49] “What is the Life Expectancy of Precast Concrete Panels?,” Vintage Cast. Accessed: Oct. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.vintagecast.com/what-is-the-life-expectancyof-precast-concrete-panels/ 300 | P a g e [50] West Valley City, “Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).” Accessed: Nov. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.wvc-ut.gov/1607/Community-Development-BlockGrant-CDBG [51] Utah DNR Division of Outdoor Recreation, “Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant.” Accessed: Nov. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://recreation.utah.gov/grants/utah-outdoorrecreation-grant/ [52] Utah DNR Division of Outdoor Recreation, “Community Parks and Recreation Grant.” Accessed: Nov. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://recreation.utah.gov/cpr-grant/ [53] National Park Service, “Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grants Program.” Accessed: Nov. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/orlp.htm 301 | P a g e Chapter 12 Recreational Opportunities for Decker Lake Rehabilitation Spencer Krueger, Gavin Howard, Hyrum Hamilton, and Jonathan LeBeau Executive Summary This chapter focuses on evaluating redevelopment options for a grass field located next to a body of water at Decker Lake Park in Salt Lake County, Utah. The park is located next to an elementary school and newly built residential homes, which provides the opportunity for the area to have a great impact on the community as well as nearby students. After completing a site visit it (September 18th, 2025) it became apparent that the park is not being used to its full potential. Its current use is mostly for people walking around the park with their dogs, playing games such as frisbee or using the newly added pickle ball court. As for the existing body of water, due to low flow rates and high amounts of algae and other vegetation the water is not safe to swim in. Although the park is not completely unused by the community, there is a lot of room for improvement through utilization of the large grassy areas and lake. Other chapters within this report focus on potentially rerouting some of the existing water to create more flat, usable land. This chapter considers several alternatives which assume more space has been created and can thus be further developed. To address the existing issues with the park, while emphasizing the goal of a more community-centric space, three design alternatives are herein analyzed. Alternative one: which involves- adding a volleyball court that will fit in the existing open and usable space. Alternative two which assumes that a small section on the south side of the lake is rerouted and will allow for this new area to contain a full-sized turf football field. Alternative Three: which will allow for multiple full-sized turf fields with the addition of improved lights and revamped sidewalks leading up to them. Each alternative is assessed through a triple bottom line analysis according to the following criteria: projected costs, maintenance needs, durability, safety, and long-term community benefit [1]. The goal of this research then- is to determine which option provides the most practical and sustainable solution for future development, while also creating a framework for the City Recreation Department to use when evaluating similar sites. All three alternatives were evaluated using a three-proposed TBL Assessment Matrix where: Alternative One consists of the installation of two outdoor sand volleyball courts, which were scored highest in environmental sustainability and cost efficiency. This option requires no lake rerouting, minimal grading, and uses natural, permeable materials that promote infiltration and reduce runoff. Its low maintenance costs and a quick construction timeline make it the most 302 | P a g e achievable option for utilizing the unused green space at the park; however, this alternative has -limited seasonal usability and single-sport capacity reduces its long-term community reach. In contrast, Alternative Two involves the installation of a synthetic turf multi-use field, which achieved the highest rating in social and operational performance. The all-weather surface supports multiple sports such as soccer, football, lacrosse and maximizes year-round use, community engagement, and potential for organized recreational events. While its upfront cost is higher and the environmental impact is moderate due to the use of synthetic materials, the ability for long term use makes it a viable option for creating more community engagement. Lastly, Alternative Three includes installing multiple turf fields and lighting, which scored highest in overall site transformation but lowest in environmental and economic feasibility. The large-scale earthwork and hydrologic change required will greatly increase cost, and ecological disturbance. Despite offering the most recreational potential and visual impact, the scale of this change makes it unrealistic under current funding constraints. Ultimately, when analyzed under the TBL Matrix, Alternative One ranks highest overall due to its balance of low cost, minimal environmental impact, and immediate community benefit. It presents the most practical and sustainable solution for site activation while leaving the door open for future phased expansions such as the synthetic turf field or additional amenities. Alternatives Two and Three may serve as later-phase improvements once funding, permitting, and demand to justify larger-scale investment. Keywords: Community, engagement, functional, land usage, and youth athletics. 303 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Project Specific Site Description 12.3 Chapter Overview 12.3.1 Guiding Principles of Our Proposal 12.3.2 Key Assumptions and Unknowns 12.4 Understanding of Relevant Engineering and Scientific Studies (Literature Review) 12.4.1 Understanding Sports 12.4.2 Environmental Planning 12.4.3 Economics of Sports 12.5 Chapter Description and Constraints 12.5.1 Primary Stakeholders 12.6 Constraints for the Decker Lake Project 12.6.1 Physical Constraints 12.6.2 Sustainability Constraints 12.6.3 Social Constraints 12.6.4 Community Constraints 12.6.5 Economic Constraints 12.7 Development of Design Alternatives including Strategy for Identifying Alternatives and Basis of Decision Making 12.8 Design Alternative One 12.8.1 Physical Impact 12.8.2 Environmental Impact 12.8.3 Regulations 12.8.4 Advantages 12.8.5 Disadvantages 12.9 Design Alternative Two 12.9.1 Concept Drawing 12.9.2 Physical Contraints 12.9.3 Environmental Constraints 12.9.4 Maintenance Constraints 12.9.5 Operational Constraints 12.9.6 Financials Constraints 304 | P a g e 12.9.7 Strengths of Alternative Two 12.9.8 Weaknesses of Alternative Two 12.9.9 Community Engagement Alternative Two 12.10 Design Alternative Three 12.10.1 Design Description & Concept Drawing 12.10.2 Constraints of Alternative Three 12.10.2a Physical Constraints 12.10.2b Environmental Constraints 12.10.3 Maintenance 12.10.4 Operational 12.10.5 Financials 12.11 Grant Funding Opportunities 12.12 Comparison of Alternatives 12.13 Evaluation Criteria and Methodology 12.13.1 Alternative One: Sand Volleyball Courts 12.13.2 Alternative Two: Synthetic Turf Multi-Use Field 12.13.3 Alternative Three: Lake Removal for Full Sports Courts 12.13.4 Recommendations 12.14 References 305 | P a g e 12.1 Introduction This section introduces the purpose of the Decker Lake redevelopment effort and explains the motivation for creating new recreational opportunities through multiple design alternatives. The purpose of this project is to take the existing Decker Lake site and create a more location that is more beneficial and utilized by the community. Currently Decker Lake is a large plot of mostly unusable space, the water too shallow for fishing or boating, and far too contaminated for swimming. However, the water covers nearly sixty-five percent of the site’s footprint. We propose a three-phase project consisting of first, the addition of a sand volleyball court, located on land that is already in place at Decker Lake Park. Alternative two involve the installation of a singular synthetic turf field. The turf field does not fit in the space that is provided already at the park, therefore we are assuming that there will already be prior land rerouting already completed before we begin this project. This field will be the baseline of turf fields due to the high upfront cost. It will include all relevant needs such as goals and field lines for all sports. A field of designated size that is open to public use can be used for both adult and youth, football, soccer, lacrosse and frisbee leagues. Alternative three includes the installation of a total of four synthetic turf fields, lights for all fields and walkways between all of them. This will act as a multifield and multisport complex that can be used for a multitude of things such as tournaments, leagues, practices, and games. 12.2 Project Specific Site Description This section describes the physical characteristics, boundaries, and surrounding land uses of the Decker Lake site to provide context for the development constraints and alternatives. The site is bordered by I-215 on the west side, education buildings and an elementary school on the north, housing on the east and the youth correction facility on the south. As Figure 12.1 shows, roughly sixty percent of the land is currently submerged under the lake. Figure 12.1: Google Earth Measurement of Decker Lake [2]. 306 | P a g e Due to this large portion being saturated, and the lake’s uneven shape, it leaves relatively little usable space. Alternative one will operate on the existing space to the North of the lake. Alternative two will assume that a portion of the lake to the south has been rerouted, creating 3-acres of flat, usable area. Finally alternative three will assume a larger amount of the lake has been rerouted, bringing the usable space up to 9-acres. 12.3 Chapter Overview This section outlines the structure of the chapter, summarizing the themes, goals, and analytical approach used to evaluate and compare the proposed design alternatives. The Decker Lake Project is all about one thing, better utilizing the site. First and foremost, that is the need for this project. The question is, what can fill this need? What fulfills the requirements of “better use”? We believe it is one of two things, the site either needs to make money, or it needs to have heavy traffic flow from the community. Due to the site acting as a public park, making money is essentially out of the question so we focused on option two. How do we turn this site into a place that the community wants to be? How do we generate that high foot traffic? Thus, we discovered the need we wanted to focus on, community involvement. This need opened a wide variety of subtopics we will be able to analyze the cause and effect within families and the community. 12.3.1 Guiding Principles of Our Proposal Our goal with this proposal is to create more community engagement, create a space where youth and adult sport leagues can hold games or practices, create a safe environment for after-school activities and create a safe walking path. The immediate area surrounding the site is mostly schools, educational buildings and housing. These students and families will benefit greatly from a location for sporting activities near their school, work or home. The elementary school across the street can benefit via use of the fields for P.E., after-school activities or even team activities. While local families will also benefit through proximity to athletic events or even entirely new sport leagues. Negative impacts will all be temporary. This project does require extensive construction work which can take time. Time that will be filled with loud noises, traffic and dust. However, there are mitigation techniques that help with these issues. Anytime earth work takes place there is going to be dust, however through proper moisture conditioning this test can be minimized. Work can take place during business hours to negate issues from the loud noises, and a temporary dirt lot can be utilized for construction equipment to minimize traffic. 12.3.2 Key assumptions or unknowns We assume that the flow rate of the decker lake in flow will not increase more than the recorded storm flow rate. Understanding relevant engineering and scientific studies, existing research supports the value of new sports courts in parks to increase activity and visitation [3], and separate studies on permeable pavements demonstrate volume reduction in runoff up to nearly 100% under certain conditions [4]. These support both the social and environmental goals of design: enhancing use and reducing ecological 307 | P a g e impact. For example, one study found that for three types of permeable pavement, peak flow attenuation ranged roughly 31–100% compared to traditional pavement [4]. 12.4 Understanding of relevant engineering and scientific studies (Literature Review) This section reviews engineering, environmental, and recreational research that informs the design decisions and supports the feasibility of the proposed alternatives. Athletics play a large role in the development of social interaction, physical health, and economic development within children and communities. Ranging from improving individual well-being to enhancing environmental sustainability through recreation, sports and initiatives influence different levels of community life. The following review compiles research and reports that address the social, economic, and environmental impacts of sports, drawing on theoretical, governmental, and applied perspectives. 12.4.1 Understanding Sports The foundation of understanding sports within communities can be traced to broader theories of sustainability. Ellington in Cannibals with Forks, introduced the concept of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)—balancing people, planet, and profit—as a framework for evaluating community initiatives [3]. This concept has been applied to sports programs to measure their long-term viability beyond simple financial performance. Similarly, Taylor and Fletcher expanded upon this by applying TBL assessment techniques to urban systems, suggesting that sports infrastructure and recreational spaces contribute not only to economic activity but also to social inclusion and environmental maintenance [1]. The inclusion of sports as a component of sustainable community development becomes obvious. Sports fields, recreation centers, and outdoor activities create social networks that foster civic engagement and mental health improvements. Furthermore, sustainable design principles—such as stormwater management, green spaces, and ecological conservation—enhance the environmental quality of communities, reinforcing Ellington’s and Taylor and Fletcher’s arguments. Griffith and Ickert emphasize the relationship between environmental health and community development, noting that local water systems and recreational spaces are inherently connected [5]. Parks, trails, and sports facilities often depend on effective water management and ecosystem balance. Richards furthers this point through his ecological evaluation of Utah Lake, demonstrating how recreational activities, if wellmanaged, can coexist with ecological preservation efforts [6]. His analysis supports the idea that outdoor sports and recreation must align with ecological integrity to sustain both community enjoyment and environmental prosperity. 12.4.2 Environmental Planning The role of environmental planning in sports infrastructure is increasingly visible in local government programs. The Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation’s Outdoor Recreation Grant [7] and Community Parks & Recreation Grant provide funding for communities to develop or improve facilities that fuse sustainability with recreation [8]. These programs 308 | P a g e exemplify how environmental management and social development can merge through sport-based community projects. At the social level, sports serve as a critical mechanism for inclusion, youth engagement, and social identity. Whitley, Smith, and Dorsch reimagined the U.S. youth sports system, arguing for structural changes to promote accessibility and development [4]. Their reports emphasize the potential for sports to foster resilience, teamwork, and civic participation among the youth. This aligns closely with community grant programs such as the Summit County RAP – Recreation Tax Grant which explicitly funds initiatives that expand community access to sports and cultural opportunities [9]. Moreover, community sports create shared spaces where residents of the community interact across societal and cultural lines. The Utah Sports and Recreation Grants listed by The Grant Portal demonstrate the broad recognition that recreation provides measurable social benefits, including reduced crime rates, improved physical health, and a strengthened local identity [10]. These programs frame sports as a platform for social sustainability, reinforcing Ellington’s “people” component of the TBL framework [3]. 12.4.3 Economics of Sports The economics of sports in communities extends beyond direct revenue generation. Local sports initiatives stimulate employment, tourism, and infrastructure development while also contributing to public health cost reductions through increased physical activity. Taylor and Fletcher [1] and Griffith and Ickert [5] note that when urban planning emphasizes recreational amenities, it can increase property values and attract investment. Utah policy reflects this integrated understanding. State and county grant programs demonstrate how fiscal incentives can push community-based sports projects that also meet environmental and social objectives [7]– [10]. This connection between funding, sustainability, and participation supports Ellington’s vision of a balanced triple bottom line [3]. The approach represents a shift from viewing sports as leisure toward recognizing for all their social and economic benefits. Despite the evident benefits, several gaps and challenges are evident. Whitley highlights inequalities in access to youth sports, particularly among lower-class populations, which can limit the community-wide benefits of such programs [4]. Similarly, environmental assessments such as Richards indicate that overuse can degrade ecosystems if not properly managed [6] Balancing inclusivity with sustainability remains a core challenge. 12.5 Chapter Description and Constraints This section introduces the regulatory, technical, and site-specific constraints that shape what types of recreational development are possible at Decker Lake. The proposed Decker Lake Recreational Field shall be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable West Valley City, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah standards for public recreation and grading works. Phase 1 includes site leveling, subgrade compaction, and stormwater drainage improvements within the designated area. These activities require a 309 | P a g e Grading and Land Disturbance Permit and must abide by the Utah Administrative Code R317-8 regarding erosion and sediment control. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared in accordance with the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requirements for construction runoff. Geometric and layout design will follow the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (7th Ed.) [11], while subsurface drainage and soil compaction procedures shall conform to ASTM D1557 [12]. Accessibility and safety features will meet ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010) and ASTM F1951-22 for field surface accessibility [12]. Electrical and lighting installations proposed in later phases must satisfy the National Electrical Code (NEC) and Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) guidelines for outdoor recreation lighting, emphasizing dark-sky compliance. Additionally, any restroom or building additions shall adhere to the International Building Code (IBC 2021) as adopted by Utah [13]. Final design submittals will undergo review by the West Valley City Parks and Recreation Department and the Salt Lake County Engineering Division for code compliance and public-use safety. All construction operations will comply with OSHA site safety requirements and local inspection procedures prior to acceptance of breaking ground on all facility developments. 12.5.1 Primary Stakeholders This section outlines the primary stakeholders and their needs related to the proposed sports court; project key stakeholders include residents, city recreation officials, and youth sports organizations. Residents seek access to a safe, well-lit, clean recreational space that complements existing park amenities. The city is interested in improved park utilization, community engagement, and sustainable infrastructure. Youth groups and families benefit from expanded recreational options and reliable outdoor facilities. Environmental groups may emphasize concerns such as stormwater runoff or habitat impacts; accordingly, the design incorporates eco-friendly materials (e.g., permeable surfaces) and native vegetation buffers. The literature on permeable pavement emphasizes that such systems can markedly reduce runoff and pollutants, indicating that our design approach is aligned with best practices [4]. Continued engagement with the community and city agencies will ensure that the facility aligns with recreational, environmental, and social goals. 12.6 Constraints for the Decker Lake Project The following sections break down the physical, sustainability, societal, community and economic constraints. The constraints will be analyzed against their benefits as well as the other alternatives. 12.6.1 Physical Constraints The southwestern side of the Decker Lake site is to be leveled due to several native soils and moderate surface slopes draining toward the lake in a moderate manner. Proper grading and stabilization will be required to achieve level play conditions and to prevent surface runoff from collecting on the field. Soil bearing capacity, groundwater proximity, 310 | P a g e and drainage performance will influence final field elevations and the placement of subdrains. Limited surrounding space may restrict the footprint of future amenities without additional earthwork or retaining structures. For proper spacing of the adequately sized field, large scale earthwork is almost certain. 12.6.2 Sustainability Constraints Environmental considerations and zero impact, although the principal objective are community activation, we still want to consider environmental effects. The design will incorporate low-impact development (LID) strategies to minimize negative environmental disturbances. A natural-grass surface requires ongoing irrigation; therefore, drought-tolerant turf species and efficient zoned sprinkler systems will be advised to reduce water demand. Surface runoff will be conveyed into vegetated swales or rain-garden cells to filter pollutants before entering Decker Lake. Erosion and sediment controls will remain in place throughout construction to protect adjacent wetlands and vegetation, ensuring the project maintains near-zero impact on local hydrology and habitat in an unwanted way. 12.6.3 Social Constraints Safety, inclusivity, and equitable access are essential design priorities. All pedestrian routes and seating areas (if applicable) must be ADA-compliant, with sufficient width, slope limits, and tactile surfaces. Field visibility must support passive supervision and emergency access by maintenance or rescue vehicles. If nighttime use is permitted, lighting shall meet IES minimum illumination values while preventing glare or spillover onto nearby residences. Program scheduling and reservation policies will maintain open community access for diverse age groups and recreational interests while also helping to obtain fee money toward park and field upkeep. 12.6.4 Community Constraints These constraints include resiliency, business, and risk. The site lies within an active recreational corridor adjacent to Decker Lake, requiring coordination with local businesses, public-event operations, and flood control infrastructure. Construction activities must be scheduled to minimize disruption to existing park users and surrounding traffic. Resiliency measures including robust drainage, vandal-resistant fixtures, and durable fencing will extend the service life of the facility. Community partnerships with youth leagues and sponsors are encouraged to share maintenance responsibilities and reduce municipal risk exposure. With the combined coordination efforts of the youth leagues alongside the city, the low maintenance shall be more than met. 12.6.5 Economic Constraints The primary economic constraint for the Decker Lake project is the large difference in construction cost between the three alternatives. Due to the fact that the project will likely rely on grants and limited municipal funding, the City must prioritize options that produce meaningful community engagement while remaining financially realistic. The 311 | P a g e economic constraints for the Decker Lake project are shaped by the significant cost differences between the three proposed alternatives. Because the City must balance limited capital funding with long-term community benefit, the direct construction cost of each option becomes the primary limiting factor. Alternative One, The Sand Volleyball Courts represents the lowest-cost approach, with total construction estimated at $66,000–$69,000. These values align with documented sand volleyball projects across the country. For example, Wingate University constructed four competitive beach courts as part of its new athletics expansion [14], while Cooper City, Florida, reported similar cost ranges for municipal sand court renovation [15]. These examples confirm that a two-court installation at Decker Lake falls squarely within typical public-sector pricing. Alternative Two, The Single Synthetic Turf Field introduces a substantially higher investment, ranging from $620,000 to $1,040,000 depending on drainage design, base preparation, turf material, and infill system. This cost range is well supported by industry data: Lokata Design Group’s national cost analysis for artificial football fields shows that full installations frequently fall between $600,000 and $1.2 million, with shock pads and enhanced drainage on the upper end of that range [16]. Thus, the estimates used for the Decker Lake conceptual design are consistent with current U.S. turf market pricing. Alternative Three, The Four Synthetic Turf Fields with Lighting is the most financially demanding, with an estimated total cost of $4.0–$6.4 million. This projection directly aligns with a comparable large-scale turf project approved by the Okaloosa School Board, which allocated $5.1 million for four turf fields across multiple campuses [17]. While this alternative also offers the highest potential for tournament revenue and community programming, its upfront cost may exceed available funding without major grants or partnerships. This phased financial structure allows the City of West Valley and partnering agencies to implement the project incrementally while maintaining operational usability at every stage. It also provides flexibility for future funding opportunities such as grants, sponsorships, or public–private partnerships. Long term costs will primarily involve irrigation, mowing, and seasonal grass maintenance; these can be offset through shared maintenance programs with local sports leagues or volunteer community events. By emphasizing scalability and fiscal efficiency, the project ensures that improvements can progress responsibly, aligning public investment with measurable community benefits over time. 12.7 Development of Design Alternatives including Strategy for Identifying Alternatives and Basis of Decision Making This section explains how the design alternatives were generated and describes the decisionmaking criteria used to select the final three options. After visiting the site and examining the open space near the western end of the park, it became clear that a sports field redevelopment offers the most community impact for the resources available. The open land already has enough space for grading and construction, and 312 | P a g e its location to existing parking and trail access made it a practical location for organized recreation. Phase 1 – Addition of a sand volleyball court on existing land Phase 2 – Installing the turf field with the assumption of land rerouting Phase 3 – Adding a total of 4 turf fields with sidewalks and lights Focusing on a single primary addition (the sports field) with a clear phase sequence made the project much easier to design, cost, and analyze while still leaving flexibility for future improvements. From this decision process, three main design alternatives were identified for comparison: • A sand volleyball court • A synthetic turf system • A hybrid turf system with phased amenities This narrowing-down process ensured the project can remain realistic and beneficial for both the city and its surrounding residents. 12.8 Design Alternative One This section introduces the first design alternative, two sand volleyball courts and describes its purpose and role as an initial redevelopment phase. Design Alternative One proposes the installation of two outdoor sand volleyball courts on the existing dry portion of the Decker Lake site, offering the fastest and least cost option for activating the park without requiring lake modification or major earthwork. This alternative provides an immediately usable recreational amenity with minimal environmental impact, limited permitting needs, and low long-term maintenance demands, making it an effective early-phase improvement while larger field-based developments are planned for future phases. Design Alternative One proposes the construction of two side-by-side outdoor sand volleyball courts on the existing dry portion of the Decker Lake site peninsula on the southern side of the lake, allowing immediate recreational activation without requiring lake rerouting or major earthwork. The courts will be located on the south side of the property in an area already graded, accessible, and underutilized. Each court will be designed to meet standard outdoor competition dimensions, with a 16 m × 8 m (52.5 ft × 26.2 ft) playing area and appropriate perimeter run-out clearance for safe play, with an additional 5 ft buffer in between courts, resulting in an approximate 60 ft × 115 ft pad footprint. The two courts will be oriented parallel to each other with a shared median space to accommodate runout space and additional players. The playing surface will consist of washed, angular, free-draining sports sand placed over a compacted aggregate base and separated from native soil with a geotextile barrier to prevent fines migration. A perimeter border system will confine the sand and protect the edge from erosion. An underground drainage layer will convey infiltrated water toward an approved 313 | P a g e discharge path, ensuring year-round playability even during storm events. Although this initial phase focuses solely on the courts themselves, the layout is intentionally planned to support future add-ons such as athletic lighting, or adjacent recreational nodes. To avoid future demolition or re-grading, utility conduits and lighting stubs may be installed below the court perimeter during initial construction, allowing upgrades to be added as funding becomes available. The Decker Lake project area is located in West Valley City, Utah, immediately east of I-215 and adjacent to a mix of residential, educational, and recreational land uses. The site currently consists of approximately 53 acres, of which an estimated 60–65% is covered by shallow lake water, limiting opportunities for structured recreation. The existing conditions and surrounding land context are shown in Figure 12.1, which provides a satellite-based overview of the full Decker Lake parcel and its relationship to bordering schools, neighborhoods, and public access routes. This image establishes the project location with respect to the geographic constraints of the site and illustrates the imbalance between usable land and inundated areas that motivate the proposed redevelopment. Figure 12.2: Google earth sand volleyball court Section and Layout [2]. To clarify the specific footprint associated with Phase 1 development, Figure 12.2 presents a detailed aerial zoom of the southern portion of the park where two side-by-side volleyball courts are proposed. This image identifies the existing open grass area that can be developed without lake rerouting, highlights current pedestrian circulation paths, and shows the proximity to the existing parking lot, which represents one of the primary areas in which visitors enter the area. The zoomed-in view also illustrates the flat topography, existing access points, and 314 | P a g e absence of conflicting built structures, confirming the feasibility of constructing the courts within the current land boundary. Figure 12.3: Google earth sand volleyball court Section and Layout [2]. 12.8.1 Physical Impact Phase 1 consists of light clearing and stripping of organics on the selected pad, followed by proof-rolling and undercutting of localized soft spots as needed to achieve uniform support. The subgrade will be moisture-conditioned and compacted to 90–95 percent of modified Proctor density in accordance with ASTM D1557. A non-woven geotextile separator will be placed to isolate the subgrade from the free-draining base. The base layer will be constructed of well-graded aggregate to a design thickness that provides consistent stiffness and promotes drainage with a nominal crossfall between 1 and 2 percent. Perimeter edge restraint or low curb will be installed to confine the sand system and protect the edge from unraveling under foot traffic. A washed, well-graded sand layer of approximately 300–350 mm depth will be placed and laser-fine graded to meet sport tolerances. Net posts will be founded outside the clear-play zone with reinforced footings and sleeves that allow seasonal removal; protective padding will be included in the final fit-out. An underdrain network of perforated PVC laterals with filter sock and cleanouts will be installed beneath the base and routed to an approved discharge consistent with the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. During construction, erosion and sediment controls will be implemented at the pad perimeter and tie-in locations. Upon completion, disturbed areas not within the courts will be stabilized to prevent sediment transport and to facilitate immediate public use. 12.8.2 Environmental Impact The environmental impact of Design Alternative One is comparatively low because the proposed volleyball courts are constructed entirely on existing upland space and do not 315 | P a g e require modification of the lake boundary, wetland disturbance, or large-scale cut-andfill operations. Since the courts are built on previously partially graded land, no dredging, rerouting of water, or subsurface excavation into saturated soil is required, which significantly reduces permitting complexity and construction-related ecological disruption. The primary environmental considerations are associated with surface runoff, material selection, and temporary construction activity. The sand court system is permeable, allowing stormwater to infiltrate rather than sheet flow across hardscape; however, the underlying aggregate and geotextile system must be designed to prevent sediment transport into the lake and to accommodate existing drainage patterns. Erosion control measures will be required during construction, including silt fence and temporary stabilization, to prevent fine sediment discharge during grading. The use of clean, washed sports sand prevents the introduction of particulate pollutants or chemical additives into the environment. Because no synthetic turf, rubber infill, or petroleum-based playing surface is used in this alternative, long-term microplastic or heat-island impacts are avoided. Water demand for this alternative is limited to periodic surface wetting for dust control and minor sand maintenance, eliminating the ongoing irrigation demand associated with natural grass fields. Noise, dust, and equipment emissions during construction are temporary and can be mitigated through standard BMPs such as timed work windows, low-emission machinery, and dust suppression. Overall, Alternative One results in the least environmental disturbance among the three evaluated designs and can be implemented without altering the lake ecosystem, making it the lowest-impact option from a regulatory and ecological standpoint. 12.8.3 Regulations Because this alternative is confined to existing upland and does not modify the lake edge, the expected permitting pathway consists of a land-disturbance permit and submittal of a SWPPP addressing temporary controls during grading and underdrain construction. The general civil works and compaction requirements will conform to applicable AASHTO and ASTM standards cited elsewhere in this chapter. The accessible route and court approaches will comply with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010). If lighting is added in a later add-alternate, the design will follow Illuminating Engineering Society guidance for full-cut-cutoff, low-glare luminaires and dark-sky practices, with conduit sleeves stubbed during Phase 1 to avoid rework. Operations are limited to routine sand grooming, periodic sand top-off, underdrain inspection and cleaning, and seasonal net removal if required by weather. No lake-level control, cofferdams, or shoreline permits are anticipated for this phase. 12.8.4 Advantages Design Alternative One presents several notable advantages that make it the most feasible early-implementation option for the Decker Lake site. Because the courts are constructed on existing upland ground, the design avoids lake modification, wetland disturbance, or extensive earthwork, resulting in the lowest environmental impact and shortest permitting timeline among all evaluated alternatives. The reduced construction 316 | P a g e scope also leads to the fastest installation schedule, as work is limited to minor grading, base preparation, drainage placement, and sand installation, allowing the facility to become operational within a single construction season. Another significant advantage is cost efficiency. The required materials and labor are substantially lower than those associated with synthetic turf or full-sized grass field construction, making it suitable for limited municipal budgets or incremental funding. Once built, the courts require minimal long-term maintenance, as they do not involve irrigation systems, mowing, chemical treatments, or resurfacing. This reduces annual operating costs and enables the facility to remain functional without a dedicated maintenance staff. Most importantly, this design allows the site to be activated for public use immediately, providing measurable community benefit while larger, long-term phases continue to be planned or funded. 12.8.5 Disadvantages Despite its strengths, Alternative One has several limitations that reduce its long-term value when compared to larger multi-field redevelopment concepts. The primary drawback is its limited user capacity and recreational scope. While sand volleyball provides value to specific age groups and organized leagues, it does not provide the same multi-sport flexibility or community-wide appeal as a full-sized natural or synthetic field. As a result, this alternative serves fewer total users and does not significantly address the broader underutilization of park space surrounding Decker Lake. Seasonal usability is another constraint. Sand courts are not suitable for playing during winter conditions or extended rain events, which restricts their availability and reduces year-round benefit to the community. Additionally, the phase does not include lighting or fixed spectator facilities, making the courts functionally limited to daytime recreational use unless additional funding is secured. Finally, while this alternative improves a portion of the site, it does not resolve the larger land-use challenge posed by the lake footprint; the majority of unused acreage remains inactive until later phases are completed, which may delay full-site transformation. Overall, Design Alternative One is most suitable when the primary project objective is to activate the Decker Lake site quickly with minimal environmental disturbance, limited permitting requirements, and the lowest initial capital cost. Because the courts can be constructed entirely within the existing dry portion of the site, this alternative avoids regulatory complexity, budget demands, and extended construction timeline associated with lake rerouting or large-scale grading. While it does not maximize total land utilization or multi-sport capacity, it provides an immediately functional recreational amenity that can serve the community while larger phased improvements are planned and funded. For these reasons, Alternative One is best suited as an early-phase, low-risk development option that delivers near-term public benefit without restricting future expansion. 317 | P a g e 12.9 Design Alternative Two This section presents the second design alternative, a full-sized synthetic turf field, and explains its intended community function and design scope. Design Alternative Two includes the construction of a full-sized synthetic turf field on the southern portion of the Decker Lake site. This option provides a durable, all-season surface that is suitable for multiple sports including soccer, football, and lacrosse. It gives a high year-round usability but comes with higher initial cost and moderate environmental impact from synthetic materials. This alternative involves a long-term investment which is aimed at maximizing yearround usability and community engagement. This is changing a relatively inactive area of the park into a sports complex suitable for organized events, leagues, and casual play. The proposed field will measure approximately 120 yards by 70 yards (360 ft × 210 ft), consistent with standard dimensions for multipurpose recreational fields. The playing surface will consist of a modern, infill-based synthetic turf system installed atop a compacted aggregate foundation and an integrated subdrainage network. Perimeter curbing and trench drains will define the field boundaries, collect runoff, and move stormwater to vegetated swales located along the site’s natural low points. Figure 12.4 illustrates the conceptual layout and cross-section of the proposed field system, including the geotextile separator, base aggregate layers, underdrain laterals, and turf assembly. The synthetic turf will consist of polyethylene monofilament fibers tufted into a backing layer filled with a performance-grade infill blend of sand and cryogenic rubber granules. The infill mix is designed to provide shock absorption, vertical ball rebound, and traction consistent with national sport field guidelines. Edge restraint systems and seam anchors will secure the turf against movement during temperature fluctuations or heavy use. The base will be laser-graded to promote positive drainage at a slope of approximately 0.5–1%, ensuring rapid dewatering following rainfall and consistent playability across all seasons. 12.9.1 Concept Drawing Figure 12.4: Google Earth synthetic turf field section [2]. 318 | P a g e 12.9.2 Physical Constraints Construction of Alternative Two will involve site clearing, proof rolling, and subgrade preparation to a uniform 95% modified Proctor density, followed by placement of a nonwoven geotextile separator. The sub-base will consist of 8–10 inches of free-draining aggregate compacted in lifts, providing structural stability and frost protection. The field edges will be finished with a continuous concrete curb to anchor the turf system and protect the edge from mechanical damage. Installation of the synthetic turf will be completed by certified contractors experienced in this turf field. Testing for infill depth, surface evenness, and shock will be completed prior to acceptance. 12.9.3 Environmental Constraints While the synthetic turf field introduces durable year-round functionality, it also carries moderate environmental implications compared to the sand volleyball option. On the positive side, the field requires no irrigation, pesticides, or mowing, which eliminates water use and chemical runoff associated with natural grass. The underlying drainage and swale system enhances stormwater management by filtering and slowing runoff before it enters the watershed. However, the turf system incorporates petroleum-based components such as polyethylene fibers and rubber infill, which raise long-term sustainability and end-of-life disposal challenges. Over time, heat absorption can elevate surface temperatures significantly during summer months, potentially exceeding 140°F under full sun. While these effects can be mitigated through lighter turf coloration, shade structures, or misting systems, they represent maintenance and user-comfort consideration. Infill migration and microplastic generation also require monitoring, with maintenance protocols focused on containment and periodic cleaning. Alternative Two balances moderate environmental trade-offs with substantial gains through in year-round usability and reduced irrigation demand. 12.9.4 Maintenance Constraints Permitting requirements for Alternative Two are similar to those in Alternative One but with expanded scope related to synthetic surfacing and drainage infrastructure. A landdisturbance permit and stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required, and all materials must meet ASTM and AASHTO standards for base construction, compaction, and drainage. ADA-compliant access paths will connect the field to existing parking and circulation routes. If lighting or bleachers are added in later phases, additional electrical and structural permits will be required. Routine maintenance includes quarterly surface grooming, infill top-offs every 1–2 years, sanitation treatments, and drainage inspections. While annual maintenance is significantly less than natural grass, the turf surface must be replaced approximately every 10–12 years depending on use and UV exposure. The system’s life-cycle cost is 319 | P a g e therefore characterized by high initial capital investment offset by lower recurring maintenance and water-related expenses. 12.9.5 Operational Constraints From an operational standpoint, the synthetic turf field offers the most consistent yearround usability of all evaluated options. Since the surface is designed to withstand heavy traffic and variable weather conditions, the field can remain in use through most of the year without concerns about damage to the field. The system’s underlying drainage layer allows rapid dewatering following storm events, preventing ponding or game cancellations and reducing downtime between uses. The durable infill surface provides stable footing even during cold or wet conditions, making the facility suitable for school games, community leagues or recreational use. Routine maintenance involves light grooming, infill redistribution, and drainage inspection, which can be scheduled during off-peak hours and require minimal staff. 12.9.6 Financials Constraints Alternative Two involves the highest initial capital cost but offers long-term operational savings and revenue potential. The estimated construction budget ranges from approximately $900,000 to $1.2 million, which includes subgrade preparation, drainage infrastructure, turf system installation, and basic amenities such as perimeter curbing and utility stubs for lighting. While this represents a substantial upfront investment compared to simpler alternatives, the synthetic turf system requires no irrigation, mowing, or re-sodding, resulting in significantly lower annual maintenance expenditures. Over a 10- to 15-year period, the life-cycle cost becomes competitive with natural grass when factoring in water savings and labor reduction. Additionally, because the field can support organized tournaments, league play, and rental events, it presents an opportunity for cost revenue through user fees and event hosting. 12.9.7 Strengths of Alternative Two The primary strengths of Design Alternative Two falls within its durability, versatility and the ability to be able to use it year-round. The synthetic turf allows for an all-weather surface that maintains its performance regardless of the circumstances. This allows for the field to be used in all seasons. Due to the fact that the field supports multiple sports, it accommodates a broader user base and maximizes site use compared to single-sport amenities. Due to the fact that there doesn’t need to be much maintenance, there doesn’t need to be staff working there to do things such as mowing the lawn. The field’s engineered structure withstands heavy use without breaking down, allowing dense scheduling for practices, games, and community activities. Combined, these characteristics make the design well-suited for municipalities seeking a high-capacity athletic facility with dependable year-round availability. 12.9.8 Weaknesses of Alternative Two Despite its functional advantages, Alternative Two carries several weaknesses. The first major weakness is certainly the fact that the cost of putting this field in place is very 320 | P a g e large compared to the volleyball courts. This brings in the challenge of trying to find where to bring in money from. There are multiple grants that can provide money but not nearly enough to cover the cost of the turf field installation. The turf field also experiences very high heat retention, especially in the summer months. This brings dangers to the user’s safety. Over time, the field requires periodic resurfacing, as fiber wear and infill compaction gradually reduce performance, creating a recurring expense every decade. Environmentally, the system introduces plastic-based materials that raise concerns regarding microplastic migration, end-of-life disposal, and embodied carbon. While these impacts can be partially mitigated through recycled infill and proper containment systems, they remain a drawback relative to natural materials. Finally, synthetic fields do not provide the same aesthetic or ecological benefits as living vegetation, limiting habitat value and natural cooling on the site. 12.9.9 Community Engagement Alternative Two Alternative Two provides several key opportunities for both community engagement and financial sustainability. The installation of the field can create a major increase of people coming to Decker Lake Park. There can be many different things hosted here at Decker Lake Park with the turf field. There can be intramural games, tournaments, practices and much more. Since the field can be used all year round, this increases the use of the park even in the winter months. It is not like a grass field where it may not be safe to use it in the winter but will allow for people to use it no matter what the weather or circumstance may be. Furthermore, partnerships with local schools or sports organizations will help offset maintenance costs through shared use agreements. Over the long term, the field’s consistent availability and professional appearance can enhance community pride and stimulate further investment in the park. 12.10 Design Alternative Three This section outlines the third design alternative, a four-field turf complex with lighting, and describes its expanded recreational capacity and long-term vision. Design Alternative Three proposes constructing four full-sized synthetic turf fields on the southern portion of the Decker Lake site. This option provides a durable, all-season surface that is suitable for multiple sports including soccer, football, and lacrosse. It offers high year-round usability but comes with higher initial cost and moderate environmental impact from synthetic materials. 12.10.1 Design Description & Concept Drawing Alternative Three proposes constructing a complex of four full-sized synthetic turf fields, as well as lighting to provide low light accessibility. These installations will be located at the southern portion of the site. Assuming that this portion of the lake has been rerouted and filled as seen in previous chapters. This option provides the same durable, multiuse, all-season surface as alternative two but adds low light capability. It offers high year-round usability but comes with a significantly higher initial cost and moderate environmental impact from the synthetic materials. 321 | P a g e This alternative involves a long-term investment aimed at maximizing year-round usability and community engagement. The introduction of multiple fields greatly increases the usability, specifically in terms of league play. Having multiple fields allows multiple games to happen at one time, meaning more people can be at the fields at a time. The proposed fields will measure approximately 120 yards by 70 yards (360 ft × 210 ft) each, consistent with standard dimensions for multipurpose recreational fields. The surface and its base will be built and installed the same way as described in alternative two. Including the shock absorption system beneath the synthetic turf. Perimeter curbing and trench drains will define the field and complex boundaries, collect runoff, and move stormwater to vegetated swales located along the site’s natural low points. Figure 12.5 illustrates the proposed location and layout. Electrical conduit will be installed beneath the perimeter to facilitate lighting located at the corners and midpoint of the sidelines. The figure below displays the set up for the 3 synthetic turf field design for Alterative three. Figure 12.5: Google earth Synthetic Turf Field Section and Layout [2]. 12.10.2 Constraints of Alternative Three The constraints for alternative three are very similar to the constraints for alternative two. The following section will only cover added constraints, assuming all of alternative two’s constraints apply here. 12.10.2a Physical Constraints This alternative will only be possible if the southeastern corner of the laker had been rerouted, as this project will require a minimum width of 200 yards for a length of 300 yards. In addition, the large-scale footprint requires more material to level the playing field. 322 | P a g e 12.10.2b Environmental Constraints This option does not introduce any new environmental constraints; it merely multiplies the existing ones. The most notable of which is the end of use disposal, there will be four times the material that has to be ethically disposed of. 12.10.3 Maintenance Permits acquired for this project would be the same as previous alternatives but once again adjusted for a greater scope of work. The maintenance schedule laid out in alternative two will still be followed although an additional company may have to be called in for the electrical aspects. With connections, relays and exterior seals being checked. 12.10.4 Operational Constraints of this are reduced from alternative two due to the increase in usability. The community will now be able to use all the fields at one time. The multiple fields allow up to four teams to practice or eight teams to have games at the same time. Also increasing the operational use is the addition of lights. The ability to use the fields during low light levels can double the time slots for teams. The typical workday ends at five pm, so team members and coaches can get to the fields by six pm. This allows only one time slot per day before dark. However, the light installations can allow for a different slot to begin at eight pm. 12.10.5 Financials Alternative Three involves the highest initial capital cost but offers long-term operational savings and revenue potential. The estimated construction budget ranges from approximately $3.5 to $6.5 million, which would cover the same processes and materials as alternative two, including the electrical routes. Alternative three will also account for the light towers to be purchased and installed. However, the increase in price matches the possibility of increased revenue. The addition of multiple fields and lights makes the possibility of youth and adult tournaments skyrocket. Tournaments are often set up to allow teams to play double-headers, and the increase in fields makes that a possibility. The turf fields are also very attractive to tournament managers The highquality sports surface makes the play more equal and efficient. The increase of tournaments can bring in revenue for use of the fields but even more revenue for tourist attractions. Things like hotels and restaurants will see a huge increase in customers as tournaments come into town. This is revenue that will circulate through the community, creating better lives for the locals. 12.11 Grant Funding Opportunities This section summarizes available state, local, and private funding sources that can support the construction and phased implementation of the project. Our project for the sports court at Decker Lake will draw upon a combination of state, local, and private funding sources to make the facility affordable and sustainable. At the state level, the 323 | P a g e Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant (UORG) provides matching-grant funds for developing new outdoor recreation infrastructure and has awarded over $50 million across hundreds of projects in Utah. [7] The companion program, the Community Parks & Recreation Grant (CPR), supports the construction and rehabilitation of community sports fields, playgrounds and related amenities and offers awards from $5,000 to $200,000 for qualifying public agencies. [8] Locally, municipal capital improvement funds and recreation tax grants provide additional leverage, allowing cities to allocate dollars toward public park improvements and thereby satisfy required matches. For example, the RAP Recreation Tax Grant program allows counties to allocate a portion of sales tax revenues toward athletic fields and park infrastructure. [9] Finally, private and foundation-based sports and recreation grants broaden the funding base. Grant directories show that Utah nonprofits and public agencies can access more than a hundred sports-andrecreation grants annually from private sources. [10] By blending state grants (UORG/CPR) with local funds and private contributions, the sports court at Decker Lake becomes financially feasible. This approach enhances the likelihood of receiving funding, spreads risk across multiple sources, and supports a facility that accommodates basketball, tennis, volleyball, and pickleball for the community. 12.12 Comparison of Alternatives This section compares the three alternatives across key performance categories to highlight their relative strengths and weaknesses. From a social standpoint, the three alternatives each bring different benefits into focus, though some provide more immediate community impact than others. First, Alternative 1-the two outdoors sand volleyball courts-provides the most rapid social return because volleyball is appealing to a great range of ages, is a team-oriented sport, and requires essentially no learning curve or equipment. Table 12.1 shows how these facts can enable the residents to start utilizing the space shortly after installation; however, seasonal limitations will likely reduce activity during winter months. Alternative 2, which added an synthetic turf field, extends year-round use to multiple field sports, appealing to organized leagues and school programs. Alternative 3 increases the size of the lake to provide two full-size hard courts and introduces basketball, tennis, and pickleball-all high-demand sports. However, construction footprint and temporary loss of usable lake area will cause delays in the social benefit and will disturb current park activities. Table 12.1: TBL Matrix 1: A Comparison of Alternatives [18] Category People Alternative One: Sand Volleyball Courts Encourages casual recreation; quick public access; limited to seasonal use Alternative Two: Synthetic Turf Field Supports multiple sports; higher community engagement Alternative Three: Expanded Courts (Lake Fill) Offers more recreation space; longer development time 324 | P a g e Planet Profit Minimal environmental impact; no lake disturbance Lowest cost; low maintenance; easy to fund Moderate impact; synthetic materials and runoff concerns High impact; habitat loss and lake alteration High cost; durable; rental potential Highest cost; major permitting and maintenance demands Environmental considerations create more contrast between the alternatives. The sand volleyball concept requires the least disturbance, relying on natural ground conditions and avoiding the synthetic materials associated with turf systems. The synthetic turf field, though efficient in its use of space, would introduce concerns such as heat retention and microplastic migration, even considering improved modern infill technologies. Removing the lake presents the greatest ecological burden, involving hydrologic changes, habitat removal, and increased potential for water-quality impacts. These differences highlight how lightly engineered solutions tend to align more closely with environmental stewardship. This project also requires us to consider economic factors. Sand courts require the least financial investment due to low construction costs, minimal permitting requirements, and longterm upkeep that consists of basic raking. The synthetic turf option requires a higher up-front cost and specialized drainage, but it provides very durable surfaces and the ability for continuous year-round programming. By contrast, the lake removal for formal hard courts is the largest financial investment, given the significant earthwork, shoreline engineering, and higher long-term upkeep, making it the most complex and capital-intensive path of the three options. 12.13 Evaluation Criteria and Methodology This section explains the scoring system and assessment framework used to evaluate each design alternative objectively. Each alternative was ranked with the triple bottom line categories of People, Planet, and Profit based on a weighted grading system, with all categories weighted equally to balance community benefit and environmental responsibility with economic feasibility. Within the different categories, the People category considers the impacts of accessibility, community engagement, recreational diversity, and long-term public value; the Planet category considers land disturbance, ecological sensitivity, sustainability, and compatibility with existing site conditions; and the Profit category considers construction cost, maintenance requirements, permitting complexity, and funding potential. Rankings for each design alternative ranged from 1–7, where 1 represented poor performance, 2–3 were fair, 4–5 were moderate, 6 was good, and 7 was excellent. The overall score for each option was determined by averaging its three category ratings, summarized in Table 12.2. 325 | P a g e Table 12.2: TBL Matrix 2: A Rating of Alternatives [19]. Category 1 – Sand Courts 2 – Synthetic Turf Field 3 – Expanded Fields People (33%) 7 6 5 Planet (33%) 6 3 5 Profit (33%) 7 5 6 Average Score 6.67 4.67 5.33 12.13.1 Alternative One: Sand Volleyball Courts Alternative 1 received strong ratings in all three categories: 7/7 under People, as it provides quick, accessible recreation for local families and youth groups through highly usable, though moderately diverse, activities; 6/7 under Planet, as it creates minimal disturbance to the environment and requires no alteration to the lake or major earthwork; and 7/7 under Profit, because installation and maintenance costs are the lowest, permitting is minimal, and the design aligns well with available grant opportunities. All told, these scores give it an average of 6.67, indicating very strong performance against all the criteria measured. 12.13.2 Alternative Two: Synthetic Turf Multi-Use Field Alternative 2 fared well under the People category, with a rating of 6/7, since it allows numerous sports on the synthetic turf field, catering to many demographics. Under Planet, its rating is 3/7 due to significant site disturbance and the negative environmental concerns related to artificial turf, such as impermeability of soil and disrupted water runoff patterns. For Profit, it scored 5/7 because, though the field allows for solid long-term use, construction and maintenance are more expensive than in other alternatives, and funding availability is only moderate. These ratings give an overall average score of 4.67 and represent a combination of great community benefits that include some significant environmental and economic trade-offs. 12.13.3 Alternative Three: Lake Removal for Full Sports Courts Alternative 3 expands recreational capacity by adding permanent competitive-play facilities and thus earns a People score of 5/7, but this comes at some significant environmental costs. The alternative requires major modifications to the lake, potentially disrupting habitats and increasing flood risk; it therefore receives a Planet score of 5/7. From an economic perspective, this alternative is the costliest and has the longest construction timeline, with significant regulatory barriers. However, its potential long-term returns justify a score for Profit of 6/7. Overall, Alternative 3 has an average score of 5.33, representing a balanced but intensive-risk option. 12.13.4 Recommendations Alternative One is the highest-ranking option overall due to the large community benefits it produces with the least environmental disturbance and financial risk. Because 326 | P a g e it relies largely on existing site conditions, it will not require major earthwork or alterations to drainage and thus demands less expensive materials. It represents the most feasible and sustainable initial development phase at Decker Lake. In comparison, the synthetic turf field presents versatility but at a higher dollar value and a moderate ecological trade-off, while the lake-modification alternative carries some real environmental and regulatory challenges. Sand volleyball courts activate the site in the near term with relatively minimal investment and operate with low maintenance. No irrigation or mowing of the sand surface is required, and only periodic net and sand replacement needs are required. Such simplicity supports long-term durability under limited funding. The courts can also be constructed in phases, allowing early activation by the community with the ability to upgrade in the future as resources become available. Alternative One achieves the best balance regarding performance, cost, environmental responsibility, and recreational value. 12.14 References [1] A. Taylor and T. Fletcher, *Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Urban Storm Water*. Feb. 2006. [Online]. Available: https://utah.instructure.com/courses/1167688/files/181630085?wrap=1. [Accessed: Sept. 28, 2025]. [2] J. LeBeau, “Google Earth Measurement”, [Accessed: Oct. 19, 2025]. [3] J. Ellington, *Cannibals with Forks*. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing Ltd., 1997. [Online]. Available: https://utah.instructure.com/courses/1167688/files/181630086?wrap=1. [Accessed: Sept. 28, 2025]. [4] M. A. Whitley, A. L. Smith, and T. E. Dorsch, “Reimagining the Youth Sport System Across the United States: A Commentary From the 2020–2021 President’s Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition Science Board,” *Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance*, vol. 92, no. 8, pp. 6–14, Oct. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07303084.2021.1963181. [Accessed: Sept. 28, 2025]. [5] R. Griffith and I. Ickert, *World Environment and Water Resources*. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://utah.instructure.com/courses/1167688/files/181630044?wrap=1. [Accessed: Sept. 28, 2025]. [6] D. C. Richards, *The Health and Integrity of Utah Lake 2022: A Brief Ecological Evaluation*. Vineyard, UT: OreoHelix Ecological, May 2022. [Online]. Available: http://utahlake.groups.et.byu.net/ecologicalpublications/HealthIntegrity.pdf. [Accessed: Sept. 28, 2025]. [7] Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation, “Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant,” Recreation Utah Gov. (2025). Available: https://recreation.utah.gov/grants/utah-outdoor-recreation-grant/ 327 | P a g e [8] Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation, “Community Parks & Recreation Grant,” Recreation Utah Gov. (2025). Available: https://recreation.utah.gov/cpr-grant/ [9] Summit County (UT) Grant Office, “RAP – Recreation Tax Grant,” Summit County Utah. Available: https://www.summitcountyutah.gov/980/RAP---Recreation-Tax-Grant [10] The Grant Portal, “110 Utah Sports and Recreation Grants,” Utah GrantWatch Directory. Available: https://utah.grantwatch.com/cat/34/sports-and-recreation-grants.html [11] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th ed., 2018. [PDF]. Available: https://downloads.transportation.org/publications/catalogs/aashto_designsafety_catalog.pdf (accessed Dec. 10, 2025). [12] ASTM International, “Annual Book of ASTM Standards,” ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. Available: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/bos (accessed Oct 15, 2025) [13] International Code Council, “Preface — 2021 Utah State Building Code (UTBC2021P1),” https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/UTBC2021P1/preface (accessed Dec. 10, 2025) [14] K. Robinson and E. Xiong, “Wingate to Build Four Beach Volleyball Courts Near Softball Field for New Team’s Debut Campaign,” Wingate Triangle, Accessed: Nov 25, 2025. [15] City of Cooper City, “Beach Volleyball Court Renovation,” City of Cooper City, Fla. Accessed: Nov 25, 2025. [16] Lokata Desing Group, “Cost of Artificial Grass Football Field,” Lokata Design Group, Accessed: Nov 25, 2025. [17] C. Bestor, “Okaloosa School Board Approves $5.1 Million Turf Project for Four High Schools,” Mid Bay News, Oct 28, 2025. Accessed: November 25, 2025. [18] H. Hamilton, “A Comparison of Alternatives”, [Accessed: Nov. 8, 2025]. [19] H. Hamilton, “A Rating of Alternatives”, [Accessed: Nov. 8, 2025]. 328 | P a g e Chapter 13 Engineering Noise Control at Decker Lake Park: Evaluation of Four Alternative Barriers Gabriel Lewis, Sophia Speedy, Abigail Stringfellow, and Samantha Harker Executive Summary Noise reduction barriers are used to reduce the impact of highway traffic noise by blocking and redirecting sound waves before they reach nearby communities and recreational areas. These barriers improve comfort and public enjoyment in areas affected by high-decibel traffic noise. Traditional noise barriers are often built with steel columns that hold concrete panels, allowing the wall to be adjusted to the desired height. While concrete and steel are proven to be effective, they present challenges related to sustainability as these structures are high carbon emitters during production. To address these environmental concerns, this chapter examines four design alternatives for a proposed noise barrier between I-215 and Decker Lake. These alternatives include no action, a vegetation barrier, a concrete barrier, and a hybrid design that combines both. A vegetation barrier can absorb some noise while improving visual appeal, supporting wildlife, and capturing carbon. A concrete barrier provides reliable noise reduction due to its solid structure and performs well under varying environmental conditions. A hybrid barrier can offer a balanced approach to sound reduction with environmental and aesthetic benefits. Since Decker Lake contains wetlands and sensitive habitats to both humans and wildlife, any proposed barrier design must reduce highway noise without disrupting the surrounding environment. Implementing an effective and sustainable noise reduction system will create a quieter, more enjoyable, and harmonious environment for visitors, nearby communities, and local ecosystems. A final recommendation to solve the problem of noise pollution at Decker Lake through the construction of a hybrid concrete-vegetation barrier is given. This recommendation is made through analysis of the four design alternatives using a Triple Bottom Line evaluation. The assessment considers the effect on people, planet, and profit by scoring each alternative from 1 to 7 in twelve categories, which cover topics such as visual appeal, contribution to air quality, and long-term maintenance efficiency. Overall, the hybrid barrier scored 6.19 for people, 5.56 for planet, and 5.75 for profit, making it an effective choice for noise abatement at Decker Lake. Keywords: Concrete barrier, highway sound barriers, hybrid barrier, noise abatement, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), and vegetation barrier. 329 | P a g e Executive Summary Table of Contents 13.1 Introduction 13.1.1 Site Description 13.2 Project Constraints 13.2.1 Statement of Needs 13.2.2 Design Philosophy and Approach 13.2.3 Performance Requirements 13.2.4 Understanding of relevant engineering and scientific studies 13.2.5 Constraints 13.2.5a Physical Constraints 13.2.5b Sustainability Constraints 13.2.5c Social and Community Constraints 13.2.5d Economic Constraints 13.2.6 Stakeholder Interest/Needs 13.3 Site Findings 13.3.1 Site Noise Measurement Methods 13.3.2 Baseline Conditions 13.4 Development of Design Alternatives 13.5 Alternative 1 No Action 13.5.1 Design Description 13.5.2 Constraints 13.6 Alternative 2 Vegetation Wall 13.6.1 Design Description 13.6.2 Constraints 13.6.3 Cost Analysis 13.7 Alternative 3 Concrete Wall 13.7.1 Design Description 13.7.2 Constraints 13.8 Alternative 4 Hybrid Vegetation and Concrete Wall 13.8.1 Design Description 13.8.2 Constraints 13.8.3 Cost Analysis 13.9 Grant Funding Opportunities/Alternatives 13.9.1 Federal Funding 330 | P a g e 13.9.2 State Funding 13.10 Recommendation 13.11 References List of Figures Figure 13.1: Photo from the walking trail at Decker Lake Park Figure 13.2: Effects of Noise Pollution on Wildlife Figure 13.3: Locations of traffic noise measurements Figure 13.4: Methods of construction of noise barriers Figure 13.5: Graph showing the noise reduction coefficients of various industrial waste-based aggregates Figure 13.6: Path length difference Figure 13.7: Experimental Setup of Vegetation-Concrete Barrier List of Tables Table 13.1: Distance of sound measurement location to edge of highway Table 13.2: Sound measurement results Table 13.3: Laboratory test results on barriers in SI units Table 13.4: Cost Estimate Analysis Table 13.5: Hybrid Barrier Cost Analysis Table 13.6: Overview of Potential Funding Sources Table 13.7: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Proposed Solutions to Decker Lake 331 | P a g e 13.1 Introduction Decker Lake Park’s close proximity to I-215 has resulted in elevated highway noise levels that affect both the natural environment and the park visitor experience. Addressing this impact first requires understanding the current noise conditions and the feasibility of potential mitigation strategies. This chapter outlines project constraints, potential solutions, and the current noise conditions at the park. The purpose of this study is to evaluate potential noise mitigation strategies that could reduce the impact of highway traffic noise from I-215 on Decker Lake. Increasing development in West Valley City and traffic volumes have amplified the sound exposure around the lake. The increased noise levels have diminished the natural environment and quality of visitor experience at Decker Lake. The need for this research stems from an interest in creating a more enjoyable environment for the visitors at Decker Lake. This study analyzes four design alternatives: no barrier, a vegetation-only barrier, a concrete barrier, and a hybrid barrier. The results will aid in identifying the design alternative that best balances noise reduction performance, sustainability, cost, and environmental compatibility. The overall goal is to develop a design recommendation that meets the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) noise abatement standards while also aligning with community and environmental values. The long-term vision is to enhance the usability and serenity of Decker Lake. This study is limited to basic-level field noise measurements, reliance on literature-based noise estimates, and site-specific constraints. Future work should include acoustic modeling, public engagement, and in-depth site measurements to refine these preliminary findings. 13.1.1 Site Description In West Valley City, Utah, Decker Lake Park is currently little more than the lake, a short trail, and a small parking lot. On the western border of the park lies I-215 corridor, running parallel to a portion of the trail that surrounds the park. Between the trail and the highway is a chain link fence and a grassy stretch that is 70 feet wide, as shown below in Figure 13.1 [1]. Figure 13.1: Photo from the walking trail at Decker Lake Park [1]. 332 | P a g e Though designated a city park, few people use or even know of the space. Attendance and appearance are poor, and the city is looking to improve the park for environmental quality and community use. One current issue with Decker Lake is the proximity to I215. For Nature and Human Health Utah’s 2024 “Report to Stakeholders,” 76 community members were surveyed about the park [2]. When asked if they feel connected to nature at Decker Lake, one community member replied, “The proximity to the freeway doesn’t help, but it’s nice to have a mostly natural area so close to home.” Another mentioned the “sound and physical pollution” from the freeway [2]. Based on these responses, reducing noise pollution at the lake would increase its serenity and incline community members to attend the park more often. This chapter analyzes whether noise abatement measures are warranted, and if they are, which method is most effective. With a variety of reduction techniques available, such as planting vegetation, constructing a concrete wall, or implementing a combination, options for improving the park this way are extensive. This chapter aims to determine which option will be best. What is the optimal noise reduction barrier medium, considering the performance of concrete, vegetation, and combination, using a multicriteria evaluation of initial cost, adherence to relevant regulations, and aesthetic compatibility, for mitigating noise pollution at Decker Lake? 13.2 Project Constraints Since the park is a city space made for the community, many regulatory and social constraints exist, in addition to environmental and economic boundaries. The optimal barrier must remain compatible with the park’s visual appearance, environmental needs, and maintenance and cost abilities. Choosing and designing an alternative requires consideration of all constraints, both general and site-specific. Before considering the type of barrier, it is crucial to understand the general use, performance, and purpose of sound abatement barriers. Based on this foundational knowledge, a site-specific barrier can be accurately designed and judged. 13.2.1 Statement of Needs Decker Lake Park lies directly next to I-215, a high-traffic corridor that causes continuous roadway noise, reducing user enjoyment and diminishing the naturalistic value of the park. To mitigate the effects of the location of the park, this chapter proposes a noisereduction barrier. This project is necessary to improve park user experience and increase the peaceful value of the park. The goal is to implement a noise mitigation measure that improves sound attenuation while fitting within the site’s physical, environmental, visual, and maintenance constraints. The solution must be effective in minimizing highway noise, aesthetically compatible with the natural area, and feasible to construct and maintain. 13.2.2 Design Philosophy and Approach This project is intended to improve the general park experience by reducing highway noise along Decker Lake, and the primary beneficiaries include recreational users, nearby residents, and wildlife. By lowering noise exposure, the project supports both 333 | P a g e human well-being and the quality of the habitat of the wildlife that currently live in the park. Of course, any physical modification to the site can introduce disturbances to the area, such as noise and earth disruptions from construction. To minimize any negative effects, it will be important to prioritize construction methods that have a small footprint, meaning minimizing the number of plants and amount of soil that will be removed and excavated, as well as keeping as much of the park land open during the construction process. However, ultimately, the effects of any disruptions due to construction will be minimal compared to the benefits the park users and inhabitants will see. Overall, the guiding principle of the project is to achieve noise reduction without compromising the natural atmosphere or usability of the park. Benefits should be long-term and shared widely between all community members. 13.2.3 Performance Requirements For the proposed noise barrier between I-215 and Decker Lake to be successful, it must meet state performance standards and practical design goals. According to Utah Administrative Code R930-3, a noise barrier must reduce traffic noise by at least 7 decibels for 35% of the area closest to the highway [3]. The barrier also must pass a cost-effective test stating that the cost per decibel reduction is within the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) limits [3]. After passing the noise goals, the design must be structurally safe and durable for Utah’s weather. Any design must be resistant to freeze-thaw cycles, high winds, and seismic activity [4]. Once the design is up to standard, it needs to pass UDOT’s public balloting process, where 75% of the affected owners must be in favor of the project [3]. Finally, the project must be modeled and verified using FHWA-approved noise prediction methods, followed by postconstruction monitoring to confirm actual results match the predicted results [5]. With any design alternative for a noise barrier, the design must be cost-effective, structurally durable, supported by the community, and meet UDOT standards [3]. 13.2.4 Understanding of relevant engineering and scientific studies In recent years, health risk associations with noise exposure have been increasingly researched. One example is the 2022 study by Guang Hao et al. from the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine in the School of Medicine at Jinan University, titled “Associations of road traffic noise with cardiovascular diseases and mortality: Longitudinal results from UK Biobank and meta-analysis [6].” In this study, data from the UK Biobank, a collection of biological, health, and lifestyle data from over half a million UK citizens, was integrated with data on average 24-hour traffic noise level considering refraction, building absorption, and land cover [6]. From the UK Biobank, 342,566 participants did not have cardiovascular disease or hearing issues at initial data collection, and their data were used in this study [6]. The incidences of cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, stroke, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality in a 9year follow-up were used to determine the association between traffic noise exposure and CVD risk. The study found that the risk of stroke increased by 1.07 times per 10 dB increase in traffic noise; furthermore, the risk of CVD mortality increased by 1.13 times, and the risk of all-cause mortality increased by 1.08 times [6]. 334 | P a g e Another example is a 2023 study “Contributions of residential traffic noise to depression and mental wellbeing in Hong Kong: A prospective cohort study” by Jian Shi et al. from the School of Public Health at the University of Hong Kong. Data from the FAMILY Cohort, a database of over 20,000 households in Hong Kong, was used jointly with traffic data from the Hong Kong Transport Department to determine an association between probable depression and traffic noise exposure [7]. The FAMILY Cohort collects quantitative mental health surveys from its participants every few years, and in this study, 13,401 participants’ data were used [7]. Two models of the study were done, the first adjusting for sociodemographic and neighborhood characteristics, and the second adjusting for lifestyle factors of smoking and BMI. Findings showed a strong correlation between traffic noise exposure and odds of probable depression, with the first model showing a 15% higher chance of probable depression with a 10 dB increase in noise, and the second showing a 17% higher chance [7]. 13.2.5 Constraints The construction of a noise reduction barrier between Decker Lake and I-215 involves many constraints that must be addressed to ensure the project is successful. There are several physical, sustainable, social, community, and economic factors that influence the design, materials, and construction of the project. Each of these categories presents a unique set of challenges that must be addressed to achieve an effective design. 13.2.5a Physical Constraints The limited space between Decker Lake and I-215 presents several physical constraints that must be considered in the design and construction of the noise barrier. Adequate shoulder space must be maintained along I-215 in conformity with Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) standards [8]. Similarly, the distance between the barrier and the lake site must be preserved to protect ecological systems and preserve pedestrian pathways and water systems. Soil conditions around Decker Lake and near I-215 are another critical factor in designing a barrier. Physical limitations influence the height, alignment, and material selection of the barrier, which emphasizes the importance of accurate site and design assessment. 13.2.5b Sustainability Constraints Sustainability is a key consideration in constructing a noise reduction barrier between Decker Lake and I-215. The design must minimize ecological disturbance while maintaining environmental integrity. Noise pollution has been shown to disrupt wildlife behavior, reproductive patterns, and communication, so the barrier should mitigate the effects seen in Figure 13.2 [9]. 335 | P a g e Figure 13.2: Effects of Noise Pollution on Wildlife [9]. The habitat quality for local wildlife and a healthier ecosystem may be achieved through a properly designed noise reduction barrier at Decker Lake. Materials must be non-toxic, durable, and weather-resistant to prevent degradation into the water system. Following sustainable practices will help ensure minimal disruption to the environment and wildlife while achieving noise reduction. 13.2.5c Social and Community Constraints Social and community constraints play an essential role in the planning and implementation of a noise reduction barrier between Decker Lake and I-215. Public perception, community acceptance, and potential impacts on quality of life must be considered. Although a noise barrier can greatly improve conditions by reducing traffic noise, it may also obstruct views and raise aesthetic concerns. To balance these factors, engaging residents and businesses through public meetings and transparent communication will be essential to align project goals with community expectations. In addition, obtaining the necessary permits will ensure compliance with local, state, federal, and environmental regulations. The barrier’s appearance will strongly influence public acceptance, so the design should be durable to Utah’s varied weather conditions and visually appealing. By actively addressing these social and community factors, the project can build trust, reduce risk, and strengthen overall community support. 13.2.5d Economic Constraints Economic constraints are a key consideration in the design and construction of the noise reduction barrier as the project must be feasible and cost-effective. Material selection, construction costs, long-term maintenance, and labor costs need to align with budget limits while achieving environmental and community goals. Funding for the project may come from state and federal transportation programs, local governments, and nearby community partnerships. By assessing 336 | P a g e all design aspects, the project can achieve performance, community, and financial goals. 13.2.6 Stakeholder Interest/Needs Noise reduction at Decker Lake involves many stakeholders’ needs. Most importantly, nearby residents and park users. For residents, this exposure is chronic and tied to welldocumented health impacts. The World Health Organization reports that long-term exposure to transportation noise is associated with reduced sleep quality and increased stress indicators, even at levels below highway design thresholds [10]. For park users, the principal concern is the loss of atmosphere that gives the impression of an escape into nature. Psychological research shows that the restorative value of urban nature is strongly diminished when traffic noise is continuous or spatially dominant within the user’s acoustic field [11]. At Decker Lake in particular, the open water surface allows sound to travel, increasing the need for a barrier that targets noise reduction. Wildlife habitat conditions are another factor at play. Consistent noise disrupts habitat use patterns. Studies show that traffic noise reduces use of habitat by birds and shifts foraging and nesting behavior away from otherwise suitable areas [12]. When all these stakeholder needs are combined, the current traffic noise is negatively impacting all groups, meaning that the current noise conditions are a shared point of interest across all stakeholders. 13.3 Site Findings To understand the existing noise environment at Decker Lake, field measurements were collected at several locations throughout the park. The points were selected to capture variation in distance from the highway, while also considering park visitor use. The purpose of this effort was to document where highway noise is the most intrusive and how the sound levels change across the park. The following findings summarize the measured conditions and provide the baseline needed to compare noise abatement alternatives. 13.3.1 Site Noise Measurement Methods This study was conducted using collected noise data directly from the site; measurements were taken across multiple times of day, including weekdays, weekends, morning and evening rush hours, and midday periods. To collect data, a sound level meter was used in six locations across the park, as shown below in Figure 13.3, to record decibel readings of roadway noise. This step was important for establishing an accurate picture of current noise pollution levels. The data provided a foundation for analyzing how each type of barrier might perform in real-world conditions. Once collected, these measurements were applied to a multi-criteria evaluation process where the strengths and weaknesses of each barrier material were compared. 337 | P a g e Figure 13.3: Locations of traffic noise measurements [13]. Location 1 is between the parking lot and where the usable park begins. Location 2 is at the entrance to the sport court, to have a baseline of what users of that area may hear. Locations 3 and 4 are along the highway, at the closest points to the highway. Location 4 is along the stretch of the highway that has a short concrete barrier along it, rather than a slotted metal barrier. Location 5 is near the road that travels over I-215 and was taken to achieve a baseline of the noise that this road causes; however, the proposed sound barrier would not run along this side of the park. Location 6 provides data at the farthest point of the lake from the highway. Table 13.1: Distance of sound measurement location to edge of highway. Using these distances and the sound level measurements taken, the current noise levels on site will be found. These noise levels are one determinant of the optimal noise barrier by making sure the chosen barrier decreases noise levels appropriately. 13.3.2 Baseline Conditions The noise measurements collected at Decker Lake, as shown below in Table 13.2, provide a baseline understanding of the existing acoustic conditions within the park and along the shoreline where users are most exposed to traffic sound. Readings were taken at multiple locations with different distances from the roadway to capture how noise levels change as sound travels across the park. These measurements also allow for comparison between peak and calm traffic conditions. This is important because the visitor experience is in part determined by not only the average noise level, but also the 338 | P a g e highest noise levels. This baseline dataset will be used to evaluate which potential noise barrier may be most efficient, as well as provide documentation to potentially support the need for funding the project. Table 13.2: Sound measurement results. From this data, the current noise levels at several places around the lake can be seen. These can be used as the baseline while determining the level of noise abatement that can be obtained. Since higher noise levels were seen during weekday morning and evening rush hours, these times should be prioritized. 13.4 Development of Design Alternatives In choosing the alternatives appropriate for this site, criteria for needed performance, visual appearance, and available funding have been considered. In this chapter, four design alternatives for noise reduction barriers will be presented: alternative one, no action, alternative two, vegetation wall, alternative three, concrete walls, and alternative four, hybrid vegetation and concrete wall. The selection of these specific alternatives is considered based on industry standards and the trending trajectory of urban design and development. Each alternative is compared based on the following criteria that will allow for analysis and formal recommendations near the end of this chapter. The guiding criteria are overall effectiveness at noise reduction, cost, environmental impact, and aesthetic presentation. 13.5 Alternative 1 No Action The first alternative is to take No Action against the problem of noise exposure. For this option, no barrier is constructed or planted, and noise exposure remains at the current site levels. 13.5.1 Design Description This approach is the most cost-efficient, as it requires no additional construction, materials, or long-term maintenance. It allows the existing conditions of the park to remain intact, preserving the current landscape and infrastructure. By not allocating funds toward noise mitigation, more financial resources become available for other park 339 | P a g e enhancements outlined in previous chapters, including improvements to water quality, accessibility, and recreational features. Overall, this option offers a fiscally conservative strategy that prioritizes flexibility in resource allocation for broader park development goals. 13.5.2 Constraints The No Action Alternative, however, has the disadvantage that the problem would still stand. If park usage increases following the improvements outlined in previous chapters, a greater number of individuals will be exposed to the noise generated by I-215. This rise in attendance, while positive for community engagement and physical activity, also brings with it an increased risk of exposure to traffic noise pollution. As detailed by Hao et al. and Shi et al., prolonged exposure to noise can contribute to a range of negative physical and mental health outcomes, including risk of cardiovascular disease and risk of probable depression [6,7]. Therefore, it is essential to consider the implementation of noise mitigation strategies along the park's border with the highway. Doing so will safeguard the well-being of West Valley City residents, particularly as public investment encourages greater use of the park. Ultimately, this proactive planning before park usage increases will ensure that public health flourishes alongside recreational development. Additionally, the feedback from Nature and Human Health Utah’s survey detailed noise pollution’s role in the lack of visitation to the park [2]. One response said that “more noise blocking from 215” would increase their usage of the park. Another wrote, “Please put in a barrier between I-215 and the west side of the park, too much noise from the traffic on I-215 [2].” Two responses mentioned planting trees along the freeway to manage noise pollution, with both also saying that the trees would make the park visually better. Overall, in the survey of 76 participants, 7 responses made comments on the traffic noise [2]. Considering this feedback from current and potential users of the park, it is clear that traffic noise is a significant barrier to greater community engagement. Addressing this concern through a sound barrier would improve both park usage and user satisfaction. Incorporating these suggestions into future development plans would reflect a thoughtful and responsive approach to community values and opinions. 13.6 Alternative 2 Vegetation Wall The vegetation wall alternative proposes using plants, such as trees and shrubs, to create a natural buffer between I-215 and Decker Lake. This option proposes a more natural approach to noise abatement by integrating a native or adaptive plant species into the area between the corridor and park trail. This alternative would provide noise abatement as well as a visually appealing screen between the natural atmosphere of the park and the highway. 13.6.1 Design Description One of the potential noise mitigation options under consideration for Decker Lake is the use of vegetation as a living buffer to dampen sound along the highway. This strategy 340 | P a g e relies on species that can survive in West Valley’s soils, which are mostly lacustrine silts, clays, and alkaline [14]. Utah State University Extension identify conifers such as the Rocky Mountain juniper and Austrian pine, along with the Gambel oak and hackberry trees, which are drought tolerant as trees that are best suited to “alkaline and compacted urban soils” [15]. The type of vegetation must be carefully considered, because foliage characteristics have been shown to affect sound attenuation [16]. G. Sun, X. Ma, et al. Found that “The coriaceous leaf was usually more efficient in noise reduction than the chartaceous leaf, and leaf surface roughness had an auxiliary effect on noise reduction” [16]. A coriaceous leaf is a leaf that has a leathery texture, and a chartaceous leaf is a leaf with a papery texture. This means that the type of foliage that is selected can have a substantial influence on noise reduction performance. As a standalone option, a vegetative buffer would function by adding acoustic scattering and softening residual noise as it reaches the recreational path and lake edge. Its potential benefits are constricted by their seasonal performance as well as their leaf texture. For example, evergreens provide year-round attenuation, while rough-textured, native, broadleaf species would provide enhanced sound attenuation during their growing season. 13.6.2 Constraints Vegetation operates differently than an engineered barrier because it does not rely on a structural mass. Instead, its feasibility depends on available planting width and longterm establishment conditions, as well as its capacity to deliver consistent attenuation once it is mature. It also does not provide the same amount of direct solid mass between the highway and park as a concrete wall might. For these reasons, a vegetation wall is being considered as only one possible noise-reduction strategy alongside other alternatives. 13.6.3 Cost Analysis Based on a vegetative noise barrier length of approximately 3,280 feet, the construction cost is estimated to be about $68-$113 per linear foot of vegetation, including planting, soil preparation, and irrigation [17]. That leads to an estimated total construction cost of roughly $223,000 to $371,000 for the entire project. In addition to the installation cost, there will be yearly landscaping and irrigation watering costs. Landscaping costs for this area would be about $7,200 per year [18]. The irrigation costs would be about $1,500 per year, which would mean a total of about $8,700 per year in maintenance costs [19]. It should be noted that maintenance and cost estimates are generalized figures drawn from industry standards; therefore, costs are likely to change. 13.7 Alternative 3 Concrete Wall The most common material medium for reducing traffic noise along high-speed roadways is concrete. The State of Utah has implemented concrete noise barriers along many parts of I-215 to block the noise that interstate travel generates. There are two fabrication methods that are commonplace: first, walls consisting of steel frames that contain recesses that allow for 341 | P a g e concrete panels to slide into and connect with other panels, and second, steel frames with single concrete panels. Figure 13.4: Methods of construction of noise barriers [20]. Both methods present pros and cons that need to be addressed. The first method presents the benefit of ease of transport but presents the drawback of construction delays inserting each panel. On the other hand, the continuous panels can be inserted at a faster rate but will need special consideration to transport the panels considering their larger size. 13.7.1 Design Description Both methods mentioned above allow for modular height adjustments, which will be an important factor later in this section. In the article Acoustic and Structural Design of a Highway Noise Barrier by Kesten et al., this aforementioned system of construction has key structural advantages: “[s]teel framing systems are becoming a more preferred structural system due to their ductility and high performance in meeting the horizontal loads such as earthquake and wind” [20]. Ductile performance will be a key design factor as Utah is known for its high seismic activity. Decker Lake itself receives a considerably high Ss (spectral acceleration) value of 1.76 from ASCE 7-22. This ductility will also prove useful in resisting against wind loads generated by highway traffic as well as resisting winds that occur in West Valley City. The next design consideration to address is the concrete that is used in the construction of the barriers. The general composition of concrete is water, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, and cement. Admixtures can be introduced to enhance certain properties but are not always needed. When generating a concrete mix design, it is not as straight forward as buying a bag of ready-mix-concrete, adding some water, and pouring into the post hole for a backyard project. Dedicated engineers have generated complex spreadsheets to achieve the desired loading, curing time, and overall performance criteria that is needed for a specific design. In the case of concrete noise barriers, the mix design is altered as the loading is not a compressive force as if it were used in a 342 | P a g e building. It is possible to use lightweight, porous concrete, and recycled aggregates to not only produce less carbon but also more efficiently absorb sound waves. Recycled aggregates were the topic of study that Arenas et al. conducted while researching bottom ash, industrial slag and construction waste as sustainable fine and coarse aggregates. It is important to note that the result of the study showed that no specific aggregate was better than another in terms of noise reduction as shown in Figure 13.5 [21]. Figure 13.5: Graph showing the noise reduction coefficients of various industrial waste-based aggregates [21]. This shows that the aggregate of choice will be governed by a few key factors such as cost, ease of procurement, and workability when being cast. An alternative route is found in the study by Ramadan et al., titled “Studying the Effect of Noise Barrier Characteristics on Traffic Noise in Urban Areas,” where studies were conducted using foam beads in the concrete mixture for noise reduction purposes [22]. This produced results that show promise in this unusual area as shown in Table 13.2. Table 13.3: Laboratory test results on barriers in SI units [22]. 343 | P a g e Another important consideration as alluded to in the table above is determining the distance the walls are from I-215. In that same vein, the height of the walls will also need to be considered as it directly impacts the noise that an individual experiences as shown in Figure 13.6 [20]. Figure 13.6: Path length difference [20]. This is a fine line that must be balanced as the walls must not impede those attending Decker Lake but must also be able to adequately block traffic noise. 13.7.2 Constraints A notable issue that concrete presents is its considerable carbon footprint. Concrete production and installation is responsible for 5% to 8% of global carbon emissions [23]. This presents a challenge that engineers have worked tirelessly to remedy. As discussed above, sustainable aggregates will make a significant difference in carbon output, but carbon emissions from construction machinery during the installation process will still be a notable issue that cannot be avoided. 13.7.3 Cost Analysis The next design constraint that must be addressed is the cost of concrete noise barriers. According to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), precast noise barriers are priced at $20 per square foot, equating to $360 per-linear-foot [24]. When multiplied by the conversion factor of 5280 feet per mile, the cost comes out to be a total of $1.9 million per mile. Table 13.4: Cost Estimate Analysis. It is important to note that this does not include labor or installation costs. This is quite a staggering figure; however, the maximum amount of land that will receive noise barriers is roughly 1000 meters, equating to less than three quarters of a mile. Multiplying three quarters of a mile by $1.9 million per mile is approximately $1.4 million. While this number is a good estimate, this is just the standard value that the state of Utah uses. Utilizing the other aggregates mentioned above creates a less straight forward cost analysis. 344 | P a g e 13.8 Alternative 4 Hybrid Vegetation and Concrete Wall The proposed hybrid vegetation-concrete noise barrier for Decker Lake and I-215 integrates efficiency with environmental benefits. This approach combines the strength and durability of concrete with the natural sound absorption and visual enhancement of vegetation. The following sections describe the design concept, materials, performance, construction, maintenance, constraints, and cost analysis of the hybrid barrier. 13.8.1 Design Description A hybrid vegetation-concrete noise barrier consists of a solid concrete structure paired with a vegetative layer designed to enhance acoustic performance and aesthetics. The concrete barrier will serve as the primary sound absorber, while the vegetative layer provides additional absorption, improves visual appeal, and contributes to air quality. In a study by Lacasta et al., researchers tested modular green panels made of recycled plastic boxes filled with compost and coconut fiber that were attached to the front of a concrete wall [25]. These plant boxes help absorb and scatter sound while improving the visual character of the wall. Similarly, Azkorra et al. found that green walls increase sound absorption to 0.7 with dense vegetation compared to 0.2 for bare concrete [26]. Ranasinghe et al. noted that adding vegetation can also help lower air pollution and improve air quality [27]. Collectively, these studies demonstrate the potential of vegetation to enhance the acoustic and environmental performance of a noise reduction barrier at Decker Lake. When applied to Utah’s conditions, material durability becomes critical. The region experiences extreme temperature variations, dry and wet cycles, and frequent freezethaw cycles. Fiber-reinforced or lightweight concrete is recommended to reduce cracking and increase sound absorption by 5-10 dBA compared to dense concrete. A textured surface can further scatter sound and improve resilience under winter conditions [26]. For vegetation, native and drought-tolerant species should be prioritized to ensure year-round performance and low maintenance. Species such as Utah juniper, serviceberry, chokecherry, and snowberry provide dense foliage and effective acoustic absorption [28]. Climbing species may be used on the wall face to increase sound absorption by an additional 3-5 dBA [2]. Overall, combining a concrete wall with native vegetation can achieve total noise reduction of 10-15 dBA while preserving the natural visual quality of Decker Lake. 13.8.2 Constraints Although the hybrid vegetation-concrete design provides strong acoustic and aesthetic benefits, several constraints must be addressed to ensure long-term performance and compliance with UDOT standards. Utah’s variable climate poses challenges for both the concrete wall and the surrounding vegetation. While lightweight concrete offers enhanced sound absorption, it may be vulnerable to moisture damage or degradation if not sealed properly [29]. Similarly, Azkorra et al. report that vegetation near highways can suffer from exposure to runoff and salts unless salt-tolerant plants are used [26]. 345 | P a g e Irrigation and maintenance also present significant challenges. Green barriers require consistent water access, and Utah’s drought conditions and strict water regulations can limit supply. Regular maintenance of the wall would include vegetation trimming, irrigation system checks, and replacement of damaged components [26]. Safety measures would need to be taken to ensure workers have safe accessibility to the wall. UDOT standards require noise barriers to achieve a minimum reduction of 7 dBA for at least 35% of front-row receptors. The following figure illustrates an experimental setup to evaluate the sound reduction from a hybrid barrier by comparing noise levels before (M1) and after (M2) the barrier. Figure 13.7: Experimental Setup of Vegetation-Concrete Barrier [22]. Two hybrid designs are recommended: a 12-foot wall or a 10-foot wall, both with vegetation. A 12-foot wall would have less vegetation to serve primarily as aesthetic and ecological benefits, while the concrete provides most of the acoustic benefits. A 10-foot wall would have a denser, three-row native vegetation that balances both performance and visual quality. The final design should undergo Federal Highway Administration TNM modeling to ensure compliance with UDOT noise requirements. 13.8.3 Hybrid Barrier Cost Analysis According to UDOT, the average cost of a concrete noise barrier is approximately $20 per square foot [24]. Vegetation installation, including planting, soil preparation, and irrigation, ranges from 68-$113 per linear foot according to Nature-Based Solutions [17]. The table below shows the overall price for a 10-foot versus a 12-foot hybrid concrete vegetation noise reduction barrier. 346 | P a g e Table 13.5: Hybrid Barrier Cost Analysis. The cost analysis estimates that constructing a hybrid concrete and vegetation noise barrier along the 3,280-foot segment near Decker Lake would range between $1.16 million and $1.68 million for a 10-foot wall and between $1.35 million and $1.88 million for a 12-foot wall. These estimates include wall construction, engineering allowances, vegetation installation, design and permitting, and contingency costs. Annual maintenance would be required for vegetation care, irrigation, and routine inspections. 13.9 Grant Funding Opportunities/Alternatives Funding the design and construction of a noise reduction barrier between I-215 and Decker Lake will most likely require a combination of state, federal, and local funding. Since the project supports both transportation infrastructure improvements and environmental enhancements, it may qualify for several funding programs. Table 13.6 summarizes a few different funding options and the requirements that could align with the noise reduction barrier at Decker Lake. 347 | P a g e Table 13.6: Overview of Potential Funding Sources. While different funding sources have varying requirements, the combination of federal, state, and local grants can help make the noise reduction wall at Decker Lake financially possible. Coordination with each source and ensuring project goals align with funding requirements is essential to the project planning. 13.9.1 Federal Funding At the federal level, the FHWA’s Federal-Aid Highway Program allows federal transportation funds to be used for noise abatement projects that comply with 23 CFR 772 and are approved by the Utah Department of Transportation [30]. Another source of funding might be the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, which funds projects that assist in reducing vehicle emissions and improving air quality [31]. The vegetation-only and hybrid barrier designs align with FHWA’s policies on Environmental Standards and Climate Resilience, which encourage projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions [4]. There are many federal funding options if the project design aligns with the overall goals of each grant source. 13.9.2 State Funding At the state level, UDOT might allocate some funds through the Statewide Transportation Improvement program (STIP), if the project meets noise abatement standards and procedures [3]. The Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant (UORG) is another 348 | P a g e source of funding. UORG has awarded 84 projects statewide and $17.9 million in funds, with tiers ranging from $30,000 to $1,000,000 [32]. Finally, the Utah Clear Air Partnership (UCAIR) offers grants to reduce emissions and improve air quality [33]. 13.10 Recommendation After measuring on-site noise levels and evaluating four possible alternatives to mitigate the noise at Decker Lake along I-215, the hybrid concrete-vegetation barrier proved to be the most effective and balanced choice. This conclusion is supported by the results of the triple bottom line assessment shown in Table 13.7. Table 13.7: Feasibility Assessment Matrix: A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Proposed Solutions to Decker Lake. People Planet Profit Effectiveness of Noise Environmental Impact Cost Effectiveness Reduction for Lake Users and Residents 6.25 Improved Visual Appeal 6.00 4.75 Support Local Vegetation & Urban Habitat 6.50 5.25 Long-Term Maintenance 5.25 Efficiency Enhanced Recreation Contribution to Air Quality & Increased Lake Visitation & Experience Along Decker Microclimate Cooling Local Spending Lake 6.50 Public Acceptance of a 5.00 Stormwater Benefits 6.50 Durability & Longevity More Natural Looking Barrier 6.00 Final Score 6.19 6.00 Final Score 5.56 6.00 Final Score 5.75 The evaluation considered impacts on people, profit, and the planet. The hybrid barrier performs well across all three categories. Its concrete portion provides reliable and consistent noise reduction by blocking direct traffic sound, which helps improve the overall user experience at the lake. The vegetation component adds further sound absorption and helps blend the structure into the landscape, maintaining the natural scenery through the use of native plant species. This design approach enhances aesthetic quality while reducing noise in a 349 | P a g e way that feels integrated rather than intrusive. From an ecological perspective, incorporating vegetation into roadside infrastructure also benefits local wildlife by providing opportunities for nesting, foraging, and refuge. Since this project addresses both transportation goals and environmental enhancements, it may be eligible for various funding sources. This combination of acoustic performance, aesthetic compatibility, and ecological value makes the hybrid barrier the most comprehensive solution for Decker Lake. 13.11 References [1] S. Harker, “Decker Lake Path Photo,” West Valley City, Utah, October, 2025. [2] M. Scholle, “Park Use, Health Perceptions, and Barriers to Access at Decker Lake Park,” Nature and Human Health Utah, Spring 2024. [Online], Available: https://www.natureandhealthutah.org/decker-lake-project. [Accessed Sept. 21, 2025]. [3] “Utah admin. Code R930-3-6 - noise abatement conditions,” Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/utah/Utah-Admin-Code-R930-3-6 (accessed Oct. 27, 2025). [4] Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-10-18/pdf/2024-23751.pdf (accessed Oct. 28, 2025). [5] “Noise Walls | UDOT,” UDOT, 2025. https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/public/noisewalls/ (accessed Oct. 20, 2025). [6] G. Hao et al., “Associations of road traffic noise with cardiovascular diseases and mortality: Longitudinal results from UK Biobank and meta-analysis,” Environmental Research, vol. 212, p. 113129, Sep. 2022. [7] J. Shi et al., “Contributions of residential traffic noise to depression and mental wellbeing in Hong Kong: A prospective cohort study,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 338, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122641. [8] C. Swanwick and L. Wilson, “2026 Standard Drawings For Road and Bridge Construction,” UDOT, https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/business/standards/ (accessed Oct. 19, 2025). [9] R. Sordello et al., “Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on Biodiversity: A Systematic Map - environmental evidence,” BioMed Central, https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750020-00202-y (accessed Oct. 19, 2025). [10] World Health Organization, Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2018. 350 | P a g e [11] F. Aletta and J. Kang, “Soundscape approach integrating noise mitigation and psychological restoration in urban parks,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 205, 2021. [12] K. McClure et al., “Urban traffic noise reduces use of habitat by birds,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 280, 2013. [13] Google Earth, Google LLC, Decker Lake, UT, USA. Available: https://earth.google.com. [14] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), “Web Soil Survey – Salt Lake County, West Valley Area Soil Map & Series Description,” USDA, 2023. Available: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. [15] Utah State University Extension, “Tree Selection for Utah Landscapes: Alkaline and Compacted Soils,” CWEL, 2021. [16] G. Sun, X. Ma, et al., “Noise Was Obviously Reduced by Both Leaf Texture and Surface Roughness in Leaf Scale,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1–12, 2025 Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/1203. [17] “OFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT | DIGITAL COAST Source: Nature-Based Solutions for Coastal Hazards Nature-Based Solutions Installation and Maintenance Costs.” Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/nature-based-solutions-installationmaintenance.pdf. [18] Randall Landscaping, “How Much Does Commercial Landscape Maintenance Cost?,” Randall Landscaping, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://randalllandscaping.com/commercial-landscape-maintenance-cost/ [19] Utah Department of Natural Resources, “Water Use and Tiered Rate Structure – Public Meeting Notice,” Utah.gov, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/490855.pdf. [20] S. Kesten, Umut, and B. Ayva, “Acoustic and structural design of a Highway Noise Barrier,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 800, no. 1, p. 012029, Mar. 2020. [21] C. Arenas, J. D. Ríos, H. Cifuentes, L. F. Vilches, and C. Leiva, “Sound absorbing porous concretes composed of different solid wastes,” European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 3805–3817, Sep. 2020. [22] I. Ramadan, T. Salah, and O. Alhariri, “Studying the effect of noise barrier characteristics on traffic noise in urban areas,” Civil and Environmental Engineering, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 824–836, Dec. 2024. 351 | P a g e [23] D. Cheng et al., “Projecting future carbon emissions from cement production in developing countries,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, Dec. 2023. [24] State of Utah, A Limited Review of Allegations Regarding UDOT Noise Barrier in Summit County. Salt Lake City, Utah: Office of the Legislative Auditor General, 2019. [25] A. M. Lacasta, A. Penaranda, I. R. Cantalapiedra, C. Auguet, S. Bures, and M. Urrestarazu, “Acoustic evaluation of modular greenery noise barriers,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 20, pp. 172–179, Dec. 2016. [26] Z. Azkorra et al., “Evaluation of green walls as a passive acoustic insulation system for buildings,” Applied Acoustics, vol. 89, pp. 46–56, Mar. 2015. [27] D. Ranasinghe et al., “Effectiveness of vegetation and sound wall-vegetation combination barriers on pollution dispersion from freeways under early morning conditions,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 658, pp. 1549–1558, Mar. 2019. [28] R. J. Derose, M. F. Bekker, R. Kjelgren, B. M. Buckley, J. H. Speer, and E. B. Allen, “Dendrochronology of Utah Juniper (Juniperus osteosperma(Torr.) Little),” Tree-Ring Research, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.3959/1536-109872.01.01. [29] R. Fediuk, M. Amran, N. Vatin, Y. Vasilev, V. Lesovik, and T. Ozbakkaloglu, “Acoustic Properties of Innovative Concretes: A Review,” Materials, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 398, Jan. 2021. [30] “PART 772—PROCEDURES FOR ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE,” Federal Register :: Request Access, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-772 (accessed Oct. 27, 2025). [31] “Congestion mitigation and air quality program,” Wasatch Front Regional Council, https://wfrc.utah.gov/programs/transportation-improvement-program/congestionmitigation-air-quality-program (accessed Oct. 27, 2025). [32] “Utah division of Outdoor Recreation Funds record-breaking 142 projects across all 29 counties,” Utah Department of Natural Resources, https://naturalresources.utah.gov/dnrnewsfeed/utah-division-outdoor-recreation-funds-record-breaking-142-projects-acrossall-29-counties (accessed Oct. 27, 2025). [33] “Grants,” UCAIR, https://www.ucair.org/grants. 352 | P a g e