ToC & Appendice

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 34

Table of Content

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Background ………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………………. 2
2. Site Description …………… ……………………………………………………………….. 3
2.1 Existing Land Use and Vegetation .…………………………………….………. 4
2.2 Existing Soil and Groundwater Condition .………………………………….. 5
2.3 Topography and Surface Water Drainage …………………………………… 6
2.3.1 Preliminary Drainage Area ……………………………………………………. 6
3. Stormwater Management Design Overview ………..…………………………. 10
3.1 Problem Definition ………………………….. ……………………………………… 10
3.2 Considerations …………… …………………………………………………………… 11
4. Main Channel Design …………………………………………………………………… 13
4.1 Main Drainage Area A ………………………………………………………….…… 13
4.2 Main Channel Design …………………………………………………………….…. 15
4.3 A Runoff Routing Drainage Area A ………………………………………….…. 17
4.4 Channel Design using Manning’s Equation ………………………………… 18
4.5 Main Drainage Swale Conclusion …………………………………………….. 23
5. End of Pipe Extended Detention Facilities ……………………..……………… 24
5.1 Water Quantity Control ……………………………………………………………. 25
5.1.1 Runoff Computation ………………………………………………………….… 25
5.1.2 Drainage Area ……………………………………………………………………… 25
5.1.3 Runoff Coefficient ………………………………………………………………. 26

i
5.1.4 Rainfall Intensity and Time of Concentration ……………………….. 28
5.1.5 Design Details of Proposed Pond …………………………………………. 31
5.1.6 Flow Diversion Structure …………………………………………………….. 34
5.1.7 Outlet Design ……………………………………………………………………… 35
5.2 Water Quality Control . ……………………………………………………………. 36
5.2.1 Design Criteria ……………………………………………………………………. 36
5.3 Other Considerations …….. ………………………………………………………. 39
6. Secondary Drainage Channels ….. …………………………………………………. 40
6.1 Existing Profiles of Secondary Channels ………………….………………… 42
6.1.1 Minor Drainage Swale MinDS …………………….……………………….. 42
6.1.2 Major Drainage Swale MajDS …………………….……………………….. 43
6.1.3 Minor Drainage Culvert MajDS …………………….……………………... 44
6.1.4 Major and Minor Drainage Swale MMDS …………………………….. 45
6.2 Secondary Drainage Channels Design Constraints …………………….. 46
6.3 Design using Manning’s Equation …………………………………………….. 48
6.4 Secondary Drainage Conclusion ……………………………………………….. 53
7. Conclusions and Recommendations …………………………………………….. 54
References

ii
LIST OF TALBES
Table 2.1 Runoff Coefficient for Use in the Rational Method

Table 5.1 Drainage Areas, Land Covers and Runoff Coefficients for Post-development

Table 5.2 Summary of Quantity Volume and Peak Flows

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Plaza Site Outlined

Figure 2.2 Outlined drainage area based on rough contour outline

Figure 2.3 Existing flow path of water

Figure 2.4 Divided Drainage Areas

Figure 4.1 Channel and pond configuration

Figure 4.2 Existing main channel elevation profile

Figure 4a A Post Development Drainage Pattern For Drainage Area A

Figure 4.3 Swale

Figure 4.4 Post Development Swale Elevations

Figure 4.5 Main Drainage Swale Cross sectional Dimensions in Meters

Figure 5.1 Layout of the Canadian Plaza

Figure 5.2 Velocities for upland method of estimating tc

Figure 5.3 Intensity Duration-Frequency Curve (IDF Curves) - City of Windsor

Figure 5.4 Layout of the ponds and channels

Figure 5.5 Cross-Section of Overflow Swale – to Quantity Pond

Figure 5.6a Cross-Section of Flow Diversion Structure

Figure 5.6b Plan view of Flow Diversion Structure

iii
Figure 5.7 Outlet Design

Figure 5.8 Cross-Section of Overflow Swale- to Quality Pond

Figure 6.1 Secondary Drainage Channels Layout

Figure 6.2 Secondary Drainage Channel Outline

Figure 6.3 Pre existing elevation profile of Line P6-P5-P4-P3-P2, MinDS

Figure 6.4 Pre existing elevation profile of Line P6-P7-P8-P9-P10-P11, MajDS

Figure 6.5 Pre existing elevation profile of Line P2-P7, MajDC

Figure 6.6 Pre existing elevation profile of Line P1-P2, MMDS

Figure 6.7 Elevation Profile For P11-P10-P9-P8-P7-P2-P1.

Figure 6.8 MinDS cross section

Figure 6.9 Post Development MinDS Elevation Profile

Figure 6.10 MajDS cross section

Figure 6.11 Post Development MajDS Elevation Profile

Figure 6.12 MajDC cross section

Figure 6.13 Post Development MajDC Elevation Profile

Figure 6.14 MMDS cross section

Figure 6.15 Post Development MMDS Elevation Profile

LIST OF APPENDICE
Appendix 1 Water Level Calculations for Channels using Manning’s Equation

Appendix 2 Rational Method SWM Calculations

Appendix 3 Preliminary Report

iv
References

Archaeological Service Inc., 2008, Draft Practical Alternatives Evaluation Working Paper -
Archaeology, April 2008, Available Online:
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/Archaeology/WEB_PracticalAltsWP_Archae
ology_April2008-reporttextonly.pdf

Atlas of Canada, 2008, Toporama – Topographic Map, Retrieved on March 16, 2009,
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map

Atmospheric Environment Service of Canada, 2008, IDF Curves of City of Windsor, Retrieved on
March 5, 2009

City of Windsor, 2008, Sewer Atlas, Retrieved on March 16, 2009,


http://www.citywindsor.ca/documents/GIS/SewerAtlas/AtlasSewersIndexPage.pdf

DRIC, 2008, Map - Technically and Environmentally Preferred Alternative U.S. Plaza - Crossing
X10(B) - Canadian Plaza B1 - Windsor Essex Parkway, Retrieved on March 18, 2009,
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/DRIC_PlazaCrossPlaza_TEPA-Web.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_PracticalAltsWP_Pavemen
t_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_PracticalAltsWP_Natural_Ap
ril2008-report&apps.pdf

v
Mays, Larry, 2005, Water Resources Engineering, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Printed in United
States

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/S00153F7F?
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

vi
APPENDIX 1
-

Water Level Calculations

vii
Section 4
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MainDS using Manning’s equation:

Q 9.3305
n 0.03
Bw 7
Z 2.5
0.0012
So 5

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8

-9

viii
Water level calculation for 5year storm of MainDS using Manning’s equation:

Q 4.4675
N 0
Bw 7
Z 2
So 0
5

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

Section 5

ix
Water level calculation for 5 year storm of Overflow Swale to Quality Pond using Manning’s
equation:

Q 4.4675
n 0.03
Bw 5
Z 2
So 0.0025

7
Channel to Quality Pond
6

3
Y - axis

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

-1

-2

-3
Water Level (m)

water level for 5 year = 0.656m depth

x
Water level calculation for 100 year storm of Overflow Swale to Quantity Pond using
Manning’s equation:

Q 4.863
n 0.03
Bw 7
Z 2.5
So 0.005

*note: Q = Qpost100 - Qpost5

7
Channel to Quantity Pond
6

3
Y - axis

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

-1

-2

-3
Water Level (m)

water level for 100 year = 0.4675m depth

xi
Section 6
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MMDS using Manning’s equation:

Q 7.6628
n 0.03
Bw 8.5
Z 2.5
So 0.00125

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-2

-4

-6

-8

xii
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MMDS using Manning’s equation:

Q 2.3107
n 0.03
Bw 6
Z 2.5
So 0.00125

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-1
-2
-3

xiii
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MajDS using Manning’s equation:

Q 5.3521
n 0.03
Bw 6
Z 2.5
So 0.00125

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

xiv
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MajDC using Manning’s equation:

Q 5.3521
n 0.017
Bw 6
Z 2.5
So 0.00125

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-1

-2

-3

xv
APPENDIX 2
-

Rational Method SWM Calculations

xvi
Storage Detention Calculations
m2
External Area Approximate 95956
Plaze Area 543000
Total Drainage Area 638956
Length (m) 1776
General Fall (m) 6

Runoff Coefficient (C) 5 year 100 year


Concrete/Roof 0.8 0.97
Asphalt 0.77 0.95
Landscape Area 0.34 0.47

Tc = L / 3600*V

L = ft V = ft/sTc = hr

L = 1776 m = 1776 × 3.28 = 5825.28 ft Tc = 0.588 hr = 35.3 mins

V = 2.75 ft/s (for paved area)

From IDF curve

Intensit
y
Return period (mm/hr)
5 years 46
100 years 75

Q = C × i × A / 360

i = mm/hr A = ha

Pre-Development Peak Flows


Return Period Area Coefficient (C) Peak Flows (m3/s)
5 yrs 63.8956 0.34 2.7759
100 yrs 63.8956 0.47 6.2564

xvii
Post-Development Peak Flows
Peak Flows
Return Period Area Coefficient (C) (m3/s)
5 yrs Landscape 33.2244 0.34
Paved area 29.0083 0.77
Concrete 1.6629 0.8
total 63.8956 0.5472 4.4675

100 yrs Landscape 33.2244 0.47


Paved area 29.0083 0.95
Concrete 1.6629 0.97
63.8956 0.7009 9.3305

Qpost > Qpre Storage Detention Require

Srequired = 0.5(Qpost × Tbase) – 0.5 (Qpre × Tbase)

Flow

Post-development
Peak Flow, Qpost

Storage
Pre-development
Required,
S

Time
Tbase = 2tc or 2.67 tc

Tbase = 2.67 × 35.3 = 94.3 mins = 94.3 × 60 = 5655.82 s

xviii
Sreq5 = 4783.6521 m3  5 yr post released at 5 yr pre

Sreq100 = 8693.129m3  100 yr post released at 100 yr pre

Therefore, the maximum storage required is 8693.129m3.

Quality Control Storage Calculations

Enhanced Protection - 80% Suspended Solids Removal

For 85% impervious  250 m3/ha includes 40 m3/ha for active storage

Active Storage = 40 × 63.8956 = 2555.824 m3

Permanent Pool = (250 – 40) × 63.8956 = 13418.08 m 3

Total Storage = 2555.82 + 13418.08 = 15973.9 m3

Area of the quality pond = 9127.943 m2 for 1.75m depth

Permanent Depth = 1.47m

Active Depth = 0.28m

xix
Outlet Pipe for Quality Pond

The detention time for the quality pond must be equal or greater than 24 hours.

Vactive
1 ≥ 24 hours
Qp@ max dep th
2

1 π 1
Qpre = × y2 × ( y)2/3 × S1/2
0.013 2 2

Vactive = 2555.824 m3 24 hrs = 86400 s y = 0.124 m  d = 248.5mm

Qpre = 2.7759 m3/s S = 1% = 0.01 use 250mm

Therefore, the drainage pipe from quality to quantity is 250 mm diameter

xx
APPENDIX 3
-

Preliminary Report

xxi
1 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

1.1 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

xxii
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

xxiii
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.

xxiv
1.2 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.

2
1 ( )S 0.5

Q= ∗A R 3
n

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.

xxv
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.

xxvi
2 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.

2.1 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 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

xxvii
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)

xxviii
2.2 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 115938m 2.

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.

xxix
Smaller Diversion Channels

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

xxx
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.

Grit Filter Stones

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.

Rubber Lining

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.

xxxi
(Mississippi U, 2004)

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

Water Control Outlets

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

xxxii
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,

xxxiii
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.

xxxiv

You might also like