Preliminary Report:

Problem Definition

Water Quality:

The Canadian border crossing site is located in an industrial area which

is also connected two major highways. This means that chemical spills

can be expected in addition to that surrounding industrial building are

of a later generation and they are made with toxic chemicals such as

asbestos, lead and PCB’s. During a rainfall, theses chemicals can make

their way into the leachate and contaminate the water system i.e: the

Detroit River. This will ultimately endanger the ecosystem and

drinking water source.

Sediment Control:

Water is a highly abrasive medium and with enough time, water will

shape any material to its movement. Water abrasion of roads and

earth under the roads can compromise the structural integrity of any

driving surface. Earth abrasion can create pot-hole, earth vacancies

and landslides. For the safety of drivers these large driving surfaces

cannot afford to be structurally compromised, secondly it is also

important to mitigate the cost of repairing damaged driving surfaces.

In addition to this, it is important to note that, storm water from the

North and the East sides of the site may contain large amounts of
sediments during the construction stage. This sediment laden runoff

can cause sewers to be filled with sediment and destroy fish habitat in

the river.

Road Safety:

The border crossing area is intended to be used as a high traffic area

for vehicles of all sizes, it is imperative that storm water be properly

drained such that driving surfaces are un-slippery safe condition to

drive on. In addition to that, we want to make sure that during a heavy

100 year rainfall, water is properly diverted from driving surfaces and

vehicle submersion in water is unlikely.

Quantity:

According to the 2003 Ministry of the Environment Guideline, there is a

quantity requirement. Meaning that the post development storm water

management facilities of the site must accommodate the runoff of up

to a 100year storm.
2 Stormwater Design Criteria

2.1 Stormwater Management

The Ministry of Natural Resource (MNR) and the Ministry of

Environment (MOE) have both published specific criteria regarding

water quality and flood flow control. For this project, Level 1 protection

would be provided for water quality. It is to be designed based on a

100-year design flow and be controlled for all storm events up to and

including the 100-year return period.

The Canadian Plaza consists mostly of asphalt pavement and building

rooftops. The principle concern for large sites with a high

imperviousness and vehicular traffic is providing stormwater treatment

for frequent vehicular pollutants (oil, gasoline, coolant, etc), roadside

grit and garbage (gravel, sand, and cigarette butts), infrequent

pollutant spills, and controlling increase of overland runoff to the

receiving watercourses. Enhance Quality treatment will also be

required in accordance to the MOE document “ Stormwater

Management Planning and Design Guidelines”, date 2003, which states

removal of a minimum of 80% total suspended solids (TSS), as well as

quantity control to the 100-year storm, where appropriate.

2.2 Fish Habitat

The report entitled “Practical Alternatives Evaluation Working Paper,

Natural Heritage” dated July 2007, was conducted to determine

potential impacts on vegetation, wildlife, and fish habitat, as well as

fishery habitat classification. Information on fish habitat for the

receiving watercourses is integrated with the design of stormwater

management facilities, as adequate stormwater quality treatment from

the proposed development will be required for watercourses with

sensitive fishery habitat. From this report, Detroit River is classified as

coldwater fish habitat.

3 Methodology
In order to properly assess the potential use of various alternative

drainage systems, the following aspects should be considered:

1) Compatibility with physical site characteristics;

2) Compatibility with planning objectives and ease of integration

within the road right of way;

3) Ability to meet stormwater management objectives;

4) Economics; and

5) Public acceptance / safety.

6) Site elevation

There are two approaches used for stormwater management in this

project:

i) Urban Drainage System Selection Tool (UDSST)

ii) Mass Balance Approach

3.1 Urban Drainage System Selection Tool (UDSST)

This tool is developed by J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc. It is a

Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet application for development of different

solutions relating to stormwater management. The tool helps to

determine which types of alternative drainage features could be used

within a site and to compare potential conceptual drainage systems. It

is also used to calculate the quantities of materials needed to build a

proposed drainage system based on drainage area and

imperviousness. This is achieved through the use of the 6 detailed

tables:

• Table A – Site Characteristics

• Table B – Development Characteristics

• Table C – Identification of Compatible Features

• Table CD – Stormwater Management Objectives

• Table D – Comparison of SWM Function Potentials

• Table E – Comparison of Conceptual Drainage Systems

The step by step procedure can be visualized by a flowchart (see

Figure 3-1).

Table A – Site Characteristic

It is used to eliminate specific drainage features which are

incompatible with the local site characteristics

Table B – Development Characteristics

It is used to eliminate options which are incompatible with exisiting or

potential development characteristics.

Table C – Identification of Compatible Features

It is used to summarize the results obtained from Tables A and B, and

to identify which drainage features could be incorporate in a

conceptual system

Table CD – Stormwater Management Objectives

It is used to summarize the stormwater management objectives and

target performance for the drainage system being considered. It is

also used to assign variable priorities to the various SWM objectives

which are to be met.

Table D – Comparison of SWM Functions

It was prepared as a reference and provides an indication of how well a

particular drainage feature can respond to a particular SWM objective.

SWM objectives were divided into 5 groups:

i) Groundwater recharge

ii) Erosion control

iii) Quality control

iv) Flood control

v) Thermal reduction

The water quality control objective was further divided into 4

subgroups:

i) Sediment removal

ii) Nutrient removal

 iii) Bacterial die-off

iv) Oil and grease removal.

Table E – Comparison of Conceptual Drainage Systems

It is used to describe and evaluate possible conceptual drainage

systems. The evaluation is based on potential SWM performance,

specific design objectives and costs.

3.2 Mass Balance Approach

A material balance approach will be used to address the drainage

problem of the storm water management system. This approach can

be defined as an application of the law of conservation of mass.

(Kooijman, 2005) By accounting for material entering and leaving a

system, mass flows can be identified which might have been unknown,

or difficult to measure. (Kooijman, 2005) In this case, the mass

conservation inputs will be considering the maximum rainfall expected

during a 100 year storm. A 100 year storm is 75mm/h of rain for 35

minutes. The output of the system will consider pond discharge into

the Detroit River.

Manning’s Equation:

The Manning’s equation will be applied to determine the Dimension,

Slope and Water level of various channels projected to be designed in

the technical report. The Manning’s equation is expressed as follows.

Q=1n*AR23S0.5

Where Q is the Channels flow n is the roughness coefficient, A is the cross

sectional area of the channel, R is the Hydraulic radius and S is the slope.

Rational Method:

Rational Method will be employed to determine the pre development flow

and post development flow of runoff landing on the site. The design of

the major storm water management structures including the Pond and

the Drainage Channels will be based on the Rational Equation’s Outputs.

The rational equation is expressed as follows.

Q=CiA

Where Q is the expected storm flow, C is the runoff coefficient, i is the

rainfall intensity and A is the Drainage area. This Equation will be

discussed more in detail in the technical report.

Storm-water Management Structure placement:

 To address the water quality problem installation of an oil/grit

separator at each entry point of the pond. The oil/grit separator will

have a size to accommodate the maximum in-flow rate of its

respective drainage pipe. In addition to that, stones will be placed at

the bottom of all the drainage channels to carry out some preliminary

grit removal work.

We will also place water flow control structures which will regulate the

inflow and outflow of the pond and other sites around the project. To

address the sediment control problem, we will place large rocks and

shrubbery in strategic locations such that it protects the site from

erosion and makes the site appears environmentally aesthetic.

4 Data Collection
The data information was gathered from MNR, DRIC draft

environmental assessment reports and discussion with Morrison

Hershfield engineers. These data were used to develop alternatives in

the UDSST.

The subsurface conditions in the Windsor area are characterized by

flat-lying soils including:

 • Native deposits of sand and silt

• Extensive deposits of clayey silt to silty clay beneath the sand

• Bedrock is encountered at depths of 20 to 35 metres.

Beneath the existing pavement structures, topsoil and / or surficial fill

materials, granular materials consisting of sand and gravel, sands and

silty sands were identified at a depth of approximately 0.3 metres

below existing ground surface. Groundwater levels are expected to be

located about 2 to 3 metres below ground surface in the clayey silt and

silty clay materials. The silty clay, clayey silt, sand and gravel and

sands are considered to be slightly erodible and the silty sands are

considered to be moderately erodible.

5 Stormwater Management Plan
The Canadian Plaza is approximately 53 ha, consisting primary of

pavement and commercial buildings. The proposed Highway 401

enters from the east, with the roadway to the new bridge extending to

the north. The stormwater management for the Plaza will require

quality, quantity and erosion controls for the peak flows from the Plaza,

as increase in impervious area will increase the overall peak flows from

the site, as well as the overall pollutant loading. This would lead to

erosion issues downstream of the site, as well as impacts to the

ecological condition of the Detroit River.

5.1 System Selection Tool Approach

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 consists of wet ponds, oil and grit separators, greenbelts

and backyard swales and shallow storm sewers with sump pumps. The

storm sewers with sump pumps can be designed to provide adequate

on-site flood control and possibly off-site flood control if the major

system is retained on the street and catch basins are equipped with

inlet control devices. If the sump pumps discharge to a grass surface

area, some groundwater recharge may be achieved. The storm sewers

can also provide some thermal impact reduction. The oil and grit
separators (O&Gs) are devices which cannot be used by them to create

a drainage system. Usually their use is combined with the use of

conventional storm sewers. O&Gs are large manhole structures

consisting of separate chambers (usually 3) through which stormwater

travels in order to remove coarse sediments, oils and other floatable

pollutants. O&Gs can provide some quality control. The only real site

constraint in using O&Gs is with the depth of the drainage outlet which

has to be sufficiently deep to accommodate the device’s physical

requirements. Wet pond is a type of end-of-pipe SWM facilities which

can be considered for drainage areas of at least 5.0 ha. When properly

constructed they can provide adequate erosion and water quality

control benefits, and possibly some offsite flood control. Based on the

UDSST, the system compliance of alternative 1 is 81% and the overall

score as per SWM priorities is 16.91. The total estimated cost of this

system is $2,620,847.90. (See Table 5-1)

Alternative 2

Instead of wet pond in alternative 1, alternative 2 use dry pond. The

system compliance of this alternative is 78% and the overall score as

per SWM priorities is 16.36. The total estimated cost of this system is

$2,557,484.58. (See Table 5-2)

The preferred stormwater management plan, based on the cost

analysis and system compliance, would be associated with Alternative

 1. Since there is expected quality of inflowing stormwater on site, so

the use of dry ponds is prevented. Although the cost of alternative 2 is

lower than alternative 1, but the cost over the overall score of the

systems is $156, 360.63, higher than $154, 969.72 in alternative 1.

(See Table 5-3)

5.2 Mass Balance Approach

Pond Size:

The first challenge is determining the amount of water the site will

experience during a 100 year storm. From Windsor statistics the

storm thickness of a 100 year storm is 75mm/h for 35minutes. The

site area will roughly cover a 53 ha.total Rainfall volume is 231875m3

since pond cannot be lower than 2 m. Total pond area is 115938m2.

Drainage:

One of the most important aspects of this project will be the design of

the drainage channels to divert the storm water efficiently into the

site pond. The first part of this methodology will be to use gravity to

our advantage and design the flow system to coincide with the way

water would naturally flow. From the following conceptual diagram of

the site there are 4 major sides covering the site. The East and North

side of the border crossing are the Entry-Exit point of Windsor and
Detroit respectively. The West side of the crossing is the Detroit River.

The south side is bordered by a large rock drainage swale. From

discussion with the project engineer, the North and East slopes will

point towards the plaza after final grading, this means that when it

rains, the water from surrounding area will flow towards the plaza. It

is imperative that catch basins and drainage channels are placed

properly on the site such that water is diverted as efficiently as

possible into the pond. The following drawing is a conceptual view of

the project sloping and drainage system.

From drawing we see the pond is taking-in water from the East and

North sides of the site by means of channeling and gravity. The pond

will be taking in all the water mostly from the large rock swale and

the smaller diversion channels spread across the site area.

Channel design:

The next challenge is to determine the type of drainage inlets based

on site location. Since the Asphalt area is quite large. Standard catch

basins will be too small to handle the inflow of a 100 year storm.

Placing curb on this site will also work inefficiently to divert the

rainwater because given a 22cm rainfall thickness of a 100year storm

(assuming no absorption) the curb would have to be a minimum of

22cm to hold the rainfall, it would make the roads dangerous to drive

on because vehicles could be submerged in water.

There are two conceptual designs of drainage channels which will

appropriately mitigate the drainage problems mentioned above, one

will be the channel design of asphalted surfaces the other will be the

channel design of non-asphalted surfaces. For asphalted surfaces we

propose the following conceptual design is it intended to be placed

under the asphalt driving surfaces. It will be designed with the

structural capacity to hold the largest of vehicles and it will also be

very efficient in diverting the rainwater off the roads. In addition to

that, the rock at the bottom of the channel will be used to treat the

grit before water enters the Oil/Grit chambers.

The next diagram will show the cross section of a storm water

channel of non-asphalted surfaces it works similarly to the one above

except it is exposed to open air and has a bottom rubber liner to

protect the channel from water erosion.

Oil/Grit Chambers:
 Before storm water is introduced into the pond oil grit separators will

be placed, which will carry out the bulk of the grit and oil removal

work. An oil and grit separator will help the pond be environmentally

friendly and in prove the quality of water that will eventually be

discharged into the Detroit River. The Oil/ Grit separators will be

design to handle the maximum flow arising from a 5 year storm. The

following diagram will illustrate how the oil grit separator works.

(Mississippi U, 2004)

The next diagram is a conceptual outline of water diversion process for the
entire project.

Assessement of Alternatives
Alternative 2 addresses the water quality and Sediment control aspect of the
border crossing site satisfactorily. The oil grit chamber will success fully
remove most oil contaminants during a 5 year storm, assuming that the
Oil/Grit chamber is designed to sustain the flow of a 5 year storm. Ideally a
small water treatment plant would be Ideal to remove all the contaminants;
however a treatment plant would be too expensive to build and operate so it
is unfeasible. So in terms of treating storm water this is the most feasible
alternative. In addition to that, when storm water is ponded, some of the
toxins are captivated by the pond life. So less contaminant can reach the
Detroit River.
As mentioned above in the alternative development section of
alternative 2, a lot of the grit removal is carried out by the rocks at the
bottom of the drainage channels. In addition to that toxins will be captivated
by the vegetation that will eventually grow on the channel’s rocks. These
organisms will remove some toxins and BOD’s from the storm water.

Alternative 2 also mitigates the drainage because all drainage channels are
highly permeable, erosion proof and large enough to handle a high capacity
of water. By mitigating the drainage problems of the site, roads are safe to
drive on during even a 100 year storm.

The negative aspect of alternative 2 is that there will be drainage channel

scattered throughout the site which may make the site look un-aesthetic.
However site aesthetics can be easily changed by planting tree and other
greeneries along these channels to make them look more natural.

Alternative 1 is also a satisfactory alternative because it effectively

addresses all problems mentioned in the introduction. The Urban Drainage
Selection Tools Program is intended to be used as a guide line for
hydrological engineers working on storm water systems. The outputs of this
program are storm water management solutions relevant for the given
project. After inputting all the correct values into the program we found that
Oil/Grit Chambers, Green Belts, Back yard swales, a wet pond and a sump
pumps would address most storm water management problems. The water
quality aspects of the project are addressed with the Oil/Grit separators. The
drainage problems are addressed with the backyard swales, sump pumps,
wet pond and large catch basins. The sediment control and aesthetic
problems associated with this project are addressed by the green belt,
backyard drainage swales and Grit chambers.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Alternative 1 and alternative 2 are very similar. This is a favorable outcome
because the two alternatives where developed independent of each other, it
reinforces the sites requirements. The similarities of the Alternative 1 and 2
are that a pond, Oil/Grit chambers, Open swales and a green belt are site
requirements. The difference being that alternative 2 recommends
gravitational movement of water as opposed to alternative 1’s sump pump
solution. In this case we will go with alternative 2 because no power will be
required to move the storm water as opposed to alternative 2 which requires
a sump pump. Alternative 2 suggests a permeable continuous grid to be the
entry point of water whereas alternative 1 suggests large manhole catch
basins to be the entry point of storm water. Alternative 2 is a better
alternative because the steel grid has a larger permeable surface area to
take in the water. In conclusion alternative 2 works best to address the storm
management problems of this project. In addition to that Alternative 2 is also
slightly less expensive than alternative 1.

References
Archaeological Service Inc., 2008, Draft Practical Alternatives Evaluation
Working Paper - Archaeology, April 2008, Available Online:
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/Archaeology/WEB_Practical
AltsWP_Archaeology_April2008-reporttextonly.pdf

Environment Canada,1987, Remedial Action Plan – Detroit River, 1987,

Available Online: http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?
lang=En&n=3B1C62BD-1

Golder Associates Ltd., 2008, Pavement Engineering for Planning Report

Area of Continued Analysis-Detroit River International Crossing
(Updated Draft), March 14, 2008, Available Online:
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/Pavement/WEB_PracticalAlt
sWP_Pavement_March2008-report&apps.pdf

J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc., 1997, Evaluation of Roadside Ditches and
Other Related Stormwater Management Practices – Final Report, April
1997

Kooijman, B., 2005, Mass balance, October 1, 2005, Retrieved on November

21, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_balance

LGL Ltd., 2008, Draft Practical Alternatives Evaluation Working Paper –

Natural Heritage, April 2008, Available Online:
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/Natural/WEB_PracticalAltsW
P_Natural_April2008-report&apps.pdf

Ministry of Environment, 2003, Stormwater Management Planning and

Design Guidelines, 2003, Available Online:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4329eindex.htm

Mississippi State University, 2004, OIL/GRIT SEPARATOR, November 5, 2004,

Retrieved on November 21, 2008,
http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-
BMPs/pdf/water/quality/oilgritseparator.pdf

Reid, D. W, 2003, South Windsor CT, February 5, 2003, Retrieved on

November 22, 2008,
http://www.southwindsor.org/pages/SWindsorCT_Wetlands/2003/S00153
F7F?textPage=1
Study, D. R., 2008, Detroit River Internationnal Crossing Study, November
12, 2008 Retrieved on November 22, 2008,
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/reports_canada.asp

URS Canada Inc., 2008, Draft Environmental Assessment Report, November

2008, Available Online: http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/11-
12-08/DraftEA_combined_withapps.pdf