1.

Introduction
1.1 Background

Windsor is the one of the most important border crossing between

Canada and the United States. More than 16 million cars, trucks and

buses travel through the city each year, representing approximately

33 per cent of Canada-United States truck trade. In 2001 alone, this

two-way merchandise trade totaled at over $140 billion. Windsor's

economy is intricately linked with the international border crossing. As

Canadian and American trade and tourism increase through the years,

projected traffic volume is also predicted to increase. This has made it

apparent to government and commercial officials that there is a need

for an additional border crossing which will have the capacity to

handle the projected traffic volume. The privately owned Ambassador

Bridge currently spans across the Detroit River and links up Detroit

and Windsor traffic through the international border crossing facilities

on each side of the bridge. One of the main concerns associated to

Ambassador Bridge border crossing is that an urban road system links

up with the Ambassador Bridge as opposed to a Highways System.

This means that before a driver can reach the border crossing they

need to cross several street lights within the city core. This causes

large traffic jams and impede on the overall traffic ease of the city.

This is why the new border crossing is intended to be directly linked to

1
the Canadian and American highway systems, such that traffic flow

within Detroit and Windsor is much more feasible.

The Detroit River International Crossing Project (DRIC) is a large

scale interdisciplinary engineering project currently valued at over one

billion dollars. Construction of the New Detroit-Windsor border

crossing is intended to begin in late 2009. This border crossing will be

built in stages such that the traffic flow matches the facility capacity.

Once the preliminary design is complete, the project will be ready for

a construction bid. The border crossing is intended to be built as a

showcase of leading edge innovation in: water resource engineering,

traffic engineering, environmental engineering, energy efficiency,

logistics and security.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to develop the design of a storm water

management system for the projected Windsor Detroit International

Border Crossing Plaza site. This report will contain two parts: Firstly, a

preliminary report developing and selecting alternatives identifying

the hydrological challenges of this project. Secondly, a detailed design

report dealing with the hydrological challenges of the preliminary

report .In addition to that the technical report should follow best

management practices (BMPs) meeting regulated design standards

2
outlined in the 2003 Ministry of the Environment storm water

management guideline.

1.3 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

The approaches used for stormwater management in this project

are:

i) Urban Drainage System Selection Tool (UDSST)

ii) Rational Method (see Section 5)

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

3
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 (See Appendix 3):

• 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 1-1).

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

4
 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:

5
 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.

Figure 1-1 – Flow Chart of UDSST

6
1.4 Preliminary Conclusions

Based on the results from UDSST and the site conditions, the

solutions retained were storage SWMP’s and oil/grit separators. The

storage SWMP’s will provide quality treatment, erosion control and

quantity control. Storage SWMP’s will be utilized to match existing

peak flow conditions to the receiving watercourses in an effort to

emulate existing conditions within the watersheds. Oil/grit separators

will provide quality treatment at the upstream areas.

7
 2. Site Description

The western edge of the proposed site runs along the Detroit River.

The most Southern East point is located at the intersection of Ojbway

Parkway and Broadway Street. The site measures 54.3 ha. By

looking at geotechnical samples and grade pictures of surrounding

site, the pre-existing site terrain inclines towards the South Eastern

edge of the proposed site. At the same time, it is fairly flat; the rough

elevation difference over 1.45km is 3.5 m.

Morrison Hershfield provided design drawings which outlined the

proposed site borders and area. The calculations and design

specifications were based on those drawings. The map below was

8
obtained from Google EarthTM.

Figure 2-1 - Plaza Site Outlined

9
2.1 Existing Land Use and Vegetation

The 54.3 hectare area to be used for the proposed Canadian Plaza

is currently a mixture of surfaces including grass and asphalt however,

the percentage of the paved road/asphalt is very small when

compared to the landscape area/grass; this report has taken a

conservative approach and assumed that the entire existing area is

cultivated land. The resulting runoff coefficients for the existing

condition are C = 0.34 and 0.47 for 5 year & 100 year storm event

respectively (see Table 2-1).

2.2 Existing Soil and Groundwater Condition

The data information was gathered from MNR, DRIC draft

environmental assessment reports and geological map of Toronto-

Windsor area from Geological Survey of Canada.

Table 2-1 – Runoff Coefficient for Use in the Rational Method

Character of
Return Period (years)
Surface

Undeveloped 5 100

Cultivated land
0.34 0.47
Flat, 0 – 2%

Developed

Asphaltic 0.77 0.95

Concrete/Roof 0.80 0.97

Grass Areas -Poor 0.34 0.47

10
 condition

Flat, 0 – 2%
Source: Water Resources Engineering by Larry Mays 2005

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 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.

2.3 Topography and Surface Water Drainage

Preliminary Drainage Area

According to industry standards and property law; when a new

structure is built on an undeveloped site, it is critical that the new

11
development does not cause excess rainwater to fall into neighboring

properties and cause them flood damage. The proposed site is built

on a relatively undeveloped site. The construction of the border

crossing plaza without a storm water management system would

definitely cause excess storm water to flow to neighboring sites. There

would be an excess of storm water after construction because the run

off coefficient for the soil would increase. The runoff coefficient of

asphalt is 0.90, this means that during a typical storm, 10% of the

water on the asphalt will be absorbed by the ground, 90% of the water

would need to be diverted elsewhere. Therefore, the post

development coefficient will be higher than the pre-development

coefficient. More water will need to be routed properly.

Figure 2-1 is an elevation map outlining a rough contour of the

Border crossing plaza site and its surrounding area. This map was

obtained from The Atlas of Canada website. The drainage area

outlined on Figure 2-2 is based on the natural flow path of water and

existence of previously built storm water structures. To illustrate, if a

piece of neighboring land has a slope facing the border crossing site,

it will be considered part of the total drainage area. However, if a

neighboring storm water management pond exists in front of the area

with a slope facing the border crossing plaza site, the land will not be

considered part of the drainage area. In addition to that, if there is a

piece of neighboring land that is connected to a piece of land which

12
will lead into the border crossing plaza area, it will be considered part

of the drainage area.

Figure 2-3 outlines the sub-drainage areas and their drainage

directions. These areas are determined based on the flow path of

rainwater. Figure 2-3 also outlines the existing flow path of water

with arrows. The runoff from total drainage area will naturally flow into

the Detroit River.

Figure 2-2 - Outlined drainage area based on rough contour outline

Source: The Atlas of Canada – Topographical Map

13
 Figure 2-3 - Existing flow path of water

The objective of this project is to create a storm water management

system with 5 and up to 100 year storm capacity. Runoff will need to

be routed properly according to where it lands relative to the border

crossing plaza site. Figure 2-4 outlines how the drainage areas will

be divided.

Main Drainage Area A

14
 This area is the most important drainage area of this project. The

rainwater that lands on this area will need to be processed for quality

and quantity volumes from 5 year up to a 100 year storm. As

discussed in the Preliminary report, this area (68.9 ha) will include a

main channel which will divert all runoff into the main ponds.

Figure 2-4 - Divided Drainage Areas

Secondary Drainage Area B and C

These secondary areas represent the drainage areas outside the

project area. The Runoff from these areas will simply need to be

diverted into the Detroit River as Quality requirements do not apply.

15
 3. Stormwater Management Design

Overview

3.1 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 built with older generation construction

materials 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.

16
 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 and safe

enough 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.

3.2 Considerations

The Canadian Plaza is approximately 54.3 ha, consisting primarily of

pavement and commercial buildings. Stormwater management for

the Plaza requires quality, quantity and erosion controls for runoff

flows from the Plaza, as the increase in impervious area will increase

the overall peak flows from the site, as well as the overall pollutant

loading. This will lead to erosion issues downstream, as well as

impact the ecological condition of the Detroit River.

The principle concern for large sites with a high imperiousness and

vehicular traffic is providing stormwater treatment for frequent

vehicular pollutants (oil, gasoline, coolant, etc), roadside grit and

17
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, Level 1 protection which states

removal of a minimum of 80% total suspended solids (TSS). It is to be

designed based on a 100-year design flow and be controlled for all

storm events up to and including 100-year storm event.

Based on the results and the site conditions, the solutions retained

were storage SWMP’s and oil/grit separators. The storage SWMP’s will

provide quality treatment, erosion control and quantity control.

Storage SWMP’s will be utilized to match existing peak flow conditions

to the receiving watercourses in an effort to emulate existing

conditions within the watersheds. Oil/grit separators will provide

quality treatment at the upstream areas.

The stormwater management plan consists of creating a two-cell

facility in the green spaces south of the proposed plaza and a linear

open channel feature. These green spaces can be converted to

stormwater management facilities utilizing the existing drain to

connect the facilities, discharging to the Detroit River via an outlet

channel. The pond system provides closer outlets for the sewer

system, lowering the overall grading requirements of the Plaza. The

linear feature would be designed such that there would always be an

18
open portion to ensure that there is no restriction to the conveyance

of flow from one pond to the other. The pond system would control

the release rate to the Detroit River. In the event of a contaminant

spill with the Plaza, a shut off valve or alternative damming procedure

will be required within the pond.

19
 4. Main Channel Design

This section will include the technical design of the major storm

water management structures built within the border crossing plaza

site. The design portion will be split into two parts the design of

stormwater management system within the Main Drainage Area A and

the design of the stormwater management structures outside the

plaza area: Secondary Drainage Area B and C.

4.1 Main Drainage Area A

Pond and Main Channel Positioning

From the conceptual report, the Best Management Practice (BMP)

of storm water management system would include ponds and a large

channel leading up to the pond.

The quality and quantity pond would be located at the most western

edge of proposed site as shown on Figure 4-1 because:

1. Construction contingencies only allow the wet pond to be

located at the western edge of the site

2. Water has a much shorter distance to flow into the Detroit

River if there is a larger than expected storm that occurs.

3. Post development slope will lead water towards pond

20
The main storm water channel leading up to the pond will be placed

along the southern edge of the site. The channel will be in this

configuration because:

Figure 4-1 - Channel and pond configuration

1. The channel will be at the bottom of the site slope in such a

way that excess rainwater is forced to flow towards channel

and does not pool in critical traffic areas

2. It will run along the greatest length of the site, catching a

majority of the excess rainwater.

21
 3. The border crossing plaza has the greatest free space

allocation along the southern edge of the site.

4.2 Main Channel Design

Pre-development conditions:

Based on site elevation provided by the city of Windsor, it is

obvious to see that the site is highly flat. The existing elevation

difference between the highest and lowest part of the channel is

2.72m over a 1110m span. The MOE 2003 storm water management

guideline outlines that grass swales are ideal storm water

management structures for flat terrain. Thus the main channel leading

up to the pond will be a grassed swale. Grass swales also work

effectively in the quality processing of runoff.

The length of the swale was determined based on a preliminary

drawing provided by Morrison Hershfield. This length extends from the

swale entrance to the projected pond entrance along the southern

edge of the site. The elevation data was obtained from the City of

Windsor official website.

Design Constraints

The design constraints of the proposed site are mainly the flatness

and ground water table elevation. Figure 4-2 describes the design

22
constraints of the channel. The highest elevation at the eastern swale

entrance is 178.72m. The current ground level of the pond entrance is

176.53 m. This point is highly important, as it will determine the level

profile
Figure 4 -2 - Existing main channel elevation

at which the Main Swale will enter the pond. The Detroit River Website

measured that the highest water level of the ground water table to be

3m below ground level. Through shear optimization and coordination a

2.25m

23
4.3 Runoff Routing Drainage Area A

The Main Drainage Channel is designed to route all of the runoff

from Drainage Area A into the Wet/Dry ponds designed in Section 5.

This section will roughly describe the post development runoff pattern.

As seen from Figure 2-4 in Section 2, runoff from Drainage area B

and C will flow into Main Drainage Area A. However because there will

be secondary drainage channels routing all excess runoff from

drainage area B and C directly into the Detroit River, the excess runoff

will not need to be considered in this section.

Figure 4-3 outlines the projected Drainage pattern for Drainage

Area A. The routing will be accomplished by sloping the land in the

direction of the Main Drainage Swale. This terrain will force runoff

landing on drainage area A to flow towards the main drainage swale.

24
 Figure 4-3 - Post Development Drainage Pattern For Drainage Area

4.4 Channel Design using Manning’s equation

Now that the elevation profile for the main swale is known, a swale

height can be determined based on the designed constraints outlined

in Section 4.2. By looking at Figure 4-2 the height available for

between the swale floor at the pond entrance and the ground level of

the most eastern point of the swale is 2.98m. The MOE also states

that a one foot clearance between the 100 year water elevation of the

swale and the ground level above the swale is required. Thus, the

swale design requires that the sum of the 100 year water level of the

swale and the elevation difference due to the channel slope not

exceed 2.675m. Through optimization of the manning’s equation

described below it was found that the swale would not exceed 1m in

depth for a 100 year storm and that the optimal slope is 0.125%.

The Manning’s equation is industry recognized and will be used to

determine the water level of our channel for a 100 year storm. The

water elevation is a key parameter of determining the main swale

cross-sectional dimensions. The equation is as follows:

V=1n*R23*S0.5 

25
 By multiplying both sides by the area of the channel the modified

Manning’s equation is:

Q=1n*AR23S0.5 

Where n = the roughness coefficient. For grass channels, n

= 0.03

A = the cross sectional area of the channel

R = the Hydraulic radius and S is the slope

Q = 100 year Post Development flow m3/s. For the

proposed site area it is 9.3305 m3/s

V = Mean Runoff Velocity m3/s

S = Channel Slope, after optimization the best slope to

use given the site constraints is 0.125%. This is a very

minor slope however given the water table depth, site

elevation and resulted channel depth this value is the

most optimal.

MOE 2003 STMWTR Guideline specifies that the swale will need a

trapezoidal form thus area is defined as:

A=(B+Zy)y 

26
Where

B = the Base of the swale, 6m. However due to the fact

that the site is very flat 7m were used as the base of the

swale.

Z = the horizontal distance per meter of the side slope,

2.5m

y = the height and water level of the trapezoid for a 100

year storm it is the unknown that will be solving for.

R - Hydraulic radius for a trapezoid defined as:

R=(B+Zyy/(B+2*y1+Z20.5)^(23) 

Now that all values are defined, solve for y in the following

equation:

0=B+ZyyB+ZyyB+2*y1+Z20.523-Q*n/S0.5 

Due to the fact that many channels were designed in this project,

a manning’s equation worksheet on Excel to solve for Y was

created. The 100 year Main Drainage Swale Depth is

YMDS=1.00m.

For a 5 year storm, Q=4.4675m3/s was used

Y5MDS=0.67m

27
 For a 100 year storm, Q=9.3305m3/s was used

Y100MDS=1.00m

Now that the water level is found, Figure 4-5 outlines the

profile view of the section.

Foot
6m
2.5:1m
Unknown:
Base
Clearance
Side
(MOE
Y
Slope
2003)

Figure 4-4 – Swale Design Outline

4.5 Main Drainage Swale Conclusion

In conclusion, according design Section 4, The Main Drainage

Swale has a 5 year and a 100 year storm rainfall capacity. All excess

28
rain rater from Drainage Area A will be routed towards the Main

Drainage Channel by natural slope gravity. The runoff flowing in the

Main Drainage Swale will lead into the Wet/Dry pond designed in

Section 5.

29
 Figure 4-5 – Post Development Swale Elevation
Figure 4-6 - Main Drainage Swale Cross sectional Dimensions in
5. End of Pipe Extended Detention
Facilities

Meters

(Quantity and Quality Control)

Overview

A two-cell facility which separates water quality and erosion control

from quantity control will be discussed in this section. The quality

30
control cell was designed as an artificial wet pond, and the quantity

control cell was designed as a dry detention area to receive flows only

when quality pond filled.

The design criteria for the facility were:

• Quantity/Flood Control

The Essex County Conservation Authority requires post-

development peak flows to be controlled to pre-development

levels for the lands draining to the facility for 5 to 100 year

design storm events. Detention must therefore be provided for

any increase in post-development run-off. In addition,

supplementary flood control storage was incorporated to

ensure peak flows further downstream in the Detroit River

remained at pre-development levels.

• Erosion Control

24 hour detention for the runoff from a 25 mm storm was

incorporated.

• Water Quality

Storage was based on the 2003 SWMP Manual requirements

for enhanced protection including 40 m3/ha of active storage.

31
 This active storage was in addition to that provided for flood

and erosion control.

10

20

30

40

50

5.1

5.1 Water Quantity Control

The following subsections cover flow calculations pertaining to the

design of the systems. Detailed calculations were enclosed in the

Appendix 2

5.1.1 Runoff Computation

Rational method was used in determining for the peak flows of both

pre-development and post-development along with storage volume.

Qpeak = C*i*A /360 

Where Q = Peak Flow (m3 /s)

A = Drainage Area (ha)

32
 i = Average rainfall intensity (mm/hr) for a duration

equal to the time of concentration for a particular storm

frequency.

C = Runoff coefficient (see Table 5.1)

5.1.2 Drainage Area

The drainage area to be used in the design should include all those

areas which will reasonable or naturally drain to the storm system.

The area term in the Rational Method formula represents the total

area tributary under consideration. For this proposed site, the

drainage area is 63.8965 ha (please refer to main drainage area in

Figure 2-4).

5.1.3 Runoff Coefficient

As noted in Section 2.1, the runoff coefficients used to determine

pre-developed flows are C = 0.34 for 5 year event, and C = 0.47 for

100 year event. For the post-development conditions, as depicted in

Figure 5-1, approximately 29 ha of proposed site will be covered in

asphalt, with a further 1.7 ha of building area. The remaining 33.2 ha

of the site is proposed to be landscaped area. The proposed site has a

composite runoff coefficient value of 0.5472 for 5 year and 0.7009 for

100 year (please refer to calculation in Appendix 2) and has an

increase runoff potential compared to existing conditions. The final

33
drainage area breakdown for the post-development condition, along

with their coefficients is shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 – Drainage Areas, Land Covers and Runoff Coefficients

for Post-development

Runoff Coefficient
Description Area (m2) Area (ha)
5 year 100 year

Building 16629 1.6629 0.8 0.97

Paved Area 290083 29.0083 0.77 0.95

Landscape 332244 33.2244 0.34 0.47

34
35
 Crossing Study Website
Figure 5 -1 – Layout of the Canadian Plaza
5.1.4 Rainfall Intensity and Time of Concentration

Under the requirement of City of Windsor, 5 year and up to 100

year storm events are needed to be taken into account. Time of

concentration is the time required for flow to reach the pond from the

most remote part of the drainage area. Upland method was used for

Source: Detroit River International

determining the time of concentration. As stated in the “Water

Resources Engineering” by Larry Mays 2005, upland method is based

on defining the time of concentration as a ratio of the hydraulic flow

length to the velocity.

Tc = L / (3600 * V)

36
 Where Tc = time of concentration (hrs)

L = hydraulic flow length (ft)

V = velocity (ft/s)

The velocity can be estimated by knowing the land use and the slope

(see Figure 5-2). From the figure, the velocity is estimated to be

2.75 ft/s for the paved area and 0.5 % slope.

The rainfall intensity can be estimated from intensity duration-

frequency curve (IDF curve) with specified time of concentration. The

IDF curve used for this project was obtained from Atmospheric

Environment Service of Canada (See Figure. 5-3). The time of

concentration calculated as 35.3 minutes, the rainfall intensity which

corresponding to this time is 46 mm/hr and 75 mm/hr for 5 year and

100 year storm event respectively.

37
Figure 5.2 – Velocities for upland method of estimating tc
Source: U.S Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service 1986

38
Figure 5.3 – Intensity Duration-Frequency Curve (IDF Curves)
- City of Windsor

39
 Source: Environment Canada – Atmospheric Environment
Services

40

4.1

5.1.5 Design Details of Proposed Pond

The proposed quantity control pond is indicated on Figure 5-4.

The tributary area of the pond will be 63.9 hectares of which 33.2

hectares will be covered by grass. Drainage will enter the pond via a

12m × 9m × 1.5m flow diversion structure (see Section 5.1.6) and

via an overland flow swale (see Figure 5-5). The outfall from the

channel to the pond shall be modified to prevent erosion by use of

large rip-rap placed over filter cloth. Outlet control will be provided

by means of a 5.25 m width × 0.4 m height weir placed within the

embankment. The pond bottom will be graded at 0.23% to reduce the

possibility of ponding during low flow run-off events. The pond invert

(175.2m) at the outlet is above the level of the local water table

(173.5 m), and the side slope gradient has been reduced to 4:1 to

ensure slope stability during water level fluctuations. Inlet areas

should be protected to reduce erosion. The 2 m pool benches are

important for safety reasons and establishment of emergent

vegetation.

The proposed pond was calculated into the 5 and 100 year post-

development and the results were compared to pre-development peak

40
flows. The pre-developed flows are 2.7759 m3/s and 6.2564 m3/s for 5

year and 100 year storm events respectively with an existing runoff

coefficient of 0.34 for 5 year and 0.47 for 100 year storm events and a

time of concentration of 35.3 minutes. The post-development flows

are 4.4675 m3/s and 9.3305 m3/s for 5 year and 100 year storm events

respectively with calculated post-development composite runoff

coefficient of 0.5472 for 5 year and 0.7009 for 100 year storm events

and a time of concentration of 35.3 minutes. Calculations were

41
42
 43
Figure 5-4 – Layout of the ponds and channels
Figure 5-5 – Cross-Section of Overflow Swale – to Quantity Pond
enclosed in the Appendix 2. Table 5.2 shows the design

parameters and Table 5.3 provides a summary of flows and storage

volumes.

The maximum water level during the 1:100 storm event will be

approximately 176.5m. Maximum water depth will therefore be 1.3

m. The detention storage is

Table 5.2 – Design Parameters

Pre-development Post-development
Items
5 yr 100 yr 5 yr 100 yr

Area (ha) 63.8956 63.8956 63.8956 63.8956

Runoff
0.34 0.47 0.5472 0.7009
Coefficient

The design events used in the analysis were as follows:

• 5 Year City of Windsor Storm
• 100 Year City of Windsor Storm

Time of Concentration: 35.3 minutes

Table 5.3 – Summary of Quantity Volume and Peak Flows

44
 Peak Flows (m3/s)
Storm
Storage Volume (m3) Pre- Post-
Events
development development

5 yr 4783.6521 2.7759 4.4675

100 yr 8693.129 6.2564 9.3305

8693.13 m3. Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix 2. An

emergency overland outlet from the pond to the adjacent Detroit

River will be available at the downstream end of the pond at an invert

of 175.2 m. Existing topography at this location will direct pond

overflow to the Detroit River.

5.1.6 Flow Diversion Structure

A flow splitter or flow diversion structure was used to direct the first

fraction of runoff (commonly called the “first flush”) into the quality

pond, while bypassing excess flows from 100 year event around the

facility into a bypass channel. The bypass then enters to a

detention/quantity pond.

Runoff water is conveyed to the quality pond via the main open

channel. Once the main open channel reaches its 5 year water

capacity, water backs up in the channel and into the flow splitter

itself. When the water level reaches the bypass elevation, stormwater

begins to bypass to the overflow swale and enters to the quantity

45
pond. The bypass is created and controlled by a weir in the flow

splitter structure.

Bypass Elevation – the elevation of the bypass weir dictates the

maximum elevation of the water in the channel. Therefore, the

bypass elevation is set to equal to the design water elevation (which is

5 year storm event – 176.42m). Using this method, the flow will only

start to bypass the weir once the channel has conveyed the design

runoff volume. (see Figure 5-6a & 5-6b)

46
Figure 5-6a – Plan View of Flow Diversion Structure

Figure 5-6b – Cross-Section of Flow Diversion

Structure

47
5.2 Water Quality Control

Design Criteria

As indicated on Figure 5-4, the proposed development will

discharge into Detroit River. 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.

Design criteria for water quality control features are included in

“Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual

2003” from Ministry of Environment. This manual presents a method

for determining the level of water quality. Level 1 protection is the

most stringent and involves the highest degree of stormwater quality

control, while Level 4 is least stringent. Due to the presence of a cold

water fishery, stormwater quality features for this project were

designed using the Level 1 criteria.

48
 Based on the above information, and with reference to Table 3.2 in

the “Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual

2003”, the following criteria apply:

• 210 m3/ha of permanent storage (dead storage)

• 40 m3/ha of active storage (live storage)

All storm runoff should be conveyed through an oil/grit separator

(OGS) prior to discharge into the stormwater systems to remove

suspended solids and oils. The detailed design of OGS will not be

discussed in the report.

Like the quantity pond, the drainage will enter the pond via a 12m

× 9m × 1.5m flow diversion structure and via an overland flow swale

(see Figure 5-8). The outfall from the channel to the pond shall be

modified to prevent erosion by use of large rip-rap placed over filter

cloth. Outlet control will be provided by means of 250mm diameter

pipe to quantity pond. The pond bottom will also be graded at 0.23%

to reduce the possibility of ponding during low flow run-off events.

The pond invert at the outlet is 173.9 and the side slope gradient has

been reduced to 4:1 to ensure slope stability during water level

fluctuations. Inlet areas should be protected to reduce erosion.

The maximum water level during the 5 year storm event will be

approximately 175.7m. Maximum water depth will therefore be 1.75

m. The active storage is 2555.824 m3. The permanent pool level is

49
at 175.42m and its storage is 13418.08 m3. Detailed calculations can

be found in Appendix 2.

Quality Pond
Figure 5–8 – Cross-Section of Overflow Swale- to

50
 Figure 5.9 – Cross-Section of Quality and Quantity Ponds

5.3 Other Considerations

• The end-of-pipe facility should be designed with a sediment

forebay to improve pollutant removal by trapping larger

particles near the inlet of the pond. It is important for

maintenance and longevity of a stormwater treatment pond.

The sediment forebay sizing must be done in accordance with

MOE’s guideline 2003 and it should be constructed with a

maintenance access route to permit future monitoring and

maintenance as well as provide access in the event of an

emergency. The forebay should be 1-2m deep to minimize the

51
 potential for re-suspension and to prevent the conveyance of re-

suspended material to the pond outlet. The forebay dimensions

should be selected to provide maximum dispersion of the inflow

to the pond, thereby reducing velocities in the cell.

• Oil/grit Separators (pre-treatment controls) can pre-treat the

road runoff prior to discharge to the channel by removing

sediments. This, in turn, will minimize any long-term

deterioration of the pond function.

• A landscaping plan for a stormwater pond and its buffer should

be prepared to indicate how aquatic and terrestrial areas will be

vegetatively stabilized and established. Wherever possible,

wetland plants should be encourage in a pond design, either

along the aquatic bench, the safety bench and side slopes or

within shallow areas of the pool itself

52
 6 Secondary Drainage Channels

Figure 2-2 and 2-3 demonstrates there is a considerable amount

of runoff draining around the border crossing plaza site due to the pre

existing drainage pattern discussed in Section 2.3. By official

standards and law, new construction cannot interfere with the natural

flow pattern of neighboring sites. Although runoff must pass through

the border crossing site, the runoff does not need to be processed and

meet provincial quality standards.

This design section will consider all runoff predicted to enter the site

from Secondary Drainage Areas B and C, refer to Figure 2-4. Figure

6-1 is an illustrative diagram of the secondary drainage channels and

swales of the site which will route the runoff for up to a 100 year

storm directly into the Detroit River.

53
Figure 6-1 - Secondary Drainage Channels Layout

There will be 4 secondary drainage channel designs:

1. The Minor Drainage Swale represented by P6-P5-P4-P3-P2 will

route runoff from Secondary Drainage Area B into Major and

Minor Drainage Swale MMDS.

2. The Major Drainage Swale represented by P6-P7-P8-P9-P10-

P11 will route runoff from Secondary Drainage Area C into the

Major Drainage Culvert MajDC.

3. The Major Drainage Culvert represented by P2-P7 will route

runoff from MajDS into the Major and Minor Drainage Swale

MMDS. The culvert will be placed under ground such that it

54
 does not mix with the runoff expected to land on the main

border crossing plaza site. The culvert will be underground and

incased with cement with a 25 cm thickness.

4. The Major and Minor Drainage Swale represented by P1-P2 will

route runoff from MajDC and MinDS into the Detroit River.

Figure 6-2 - Secondary Drainage Channel Outline

6.1 Existing Profiles of Secondary Channels

6.1.1 Minor Drainage Swale MinDS:

The line representing P6-P5-P4-P3-P2 will collect the water from

Secondary Drainage Area B and route it to point P2. Figure 6-3 is pre

55
existing elevation profile of Line P6-P5-P4-P3-P2. This line will

represent the Minor Drainage Swale MinDS

Figure 6-3 - Pre existing elevation profile of Line P6-P5-P4-P3-P2, MinDS

6.1.2 Major Drainage Swale MajDS:

The line representing P6-P7 will collect the water from Secondary

Drainage Area C and route it to point P7 which is the entrance of the

56
major drainage culvert MajDC. In addition to that, the line

representing P7-P8-P9-P10-P11 will collect the water from Secondary

Drainage Area B and route it to point P7 which is the entrance of the

major drainage culvert MajDC as well. Figure 6.4 the pre existing

elevation profile of Line P6-P7-P8-P9-P10-P11 which will represent the

57
Major Drainage Swale MajDS.

58
 Figure 6-4 - Pre existing elevation profile of Line P6-P7-P8-P9-P10-P11,
MajD

6.1.3 Major Drainage Culvert MajDC:

The line representing P2-P7 will collect the water from MajDS and

route it to point P2 which is the entrance of the Major and Minor

Drainage Swale MMDS. Figure 6.5 is pre existing elevation profile of

Line P2-P7 which will represent the Major Drainage Culvert MajDC.

59
Figure 6.5 - Pre existing elevation profile of Line P2-P7, MajDC

60
 Figure 6-6 - Pre existing elevation profile of Line P1-P2, MMDS

6.1.4 Major and Minor Drainage Swale MMDS:

The line representing P1-P2 will collect the water from MinDS and

MajDC and route it directly into the Detroit River. Figure 6-6 is the

pre existing elevation profile of Line P1-P2 which will represent the

Major and Minor Drainage Swale MMDS.

6.2 Secondary Drainage Channels Design Constraints

As described in the Main Channel Design, the Border crossing plaza

area is very flat. Elevation is a primary design consideration. In the

61
main channel design section 4.2.1 the Ground Water Table was the

elevation constraint, however for the secondary drainage channels,

the Detroit River water level is the design constraint. The channel floor

must be higher than the highest Detroit water elevation. The highest

water level report of the Detroit River is 175.00m. Thus the channel

floor cannot be lower than 175.00m.

The manning equation parameters will be determined based the

River Water Level and slope elevation difference. The design begins

by looking at the longest path runoff will have to travel before

reaching the river. By investigating Figure 6-1 that path is obviously

P11-P10-P9-P8-P7-P2-P1. By combining the elevation profile of MMDS,

MajDC and MajDS. Figure 6-7 displays the P11-P10-P9-P8-P7-P2-P1

elevation profile.

Figure 6-7 clearly outlines there is a 3.30 meter difference

between the highest and the lowest point of the Secondary Drainage

Channels. In design it is important to consider that any swale design

must have a minimum of a 30.5cm clearance. We will also use a

0.125% slope as the Main Channel Design used this slope. The

62
 Figure 6.7 - Elevation Profile For P11-P10-P9-P8-P7-P2-P1.

elevation difference due to the slope at 0.125% is 2.16m. Thus the

remaining elevation availability for the 100 year storm water level in

the swales and culvert is 83.25cm. The 0.125% slope was obtained by

optimization using the manning equation excel worksheet displayed in

the Appendix 1.

6.3 Secondary Drainage Channels Design using

Manning’s equation

The following section will explain the inputs of the Manning’s

equation

Minor Drainage Swale (MinDS):

63
 The MinDS will route all the excess rainwater from Minor Secondary

Drainage area to MMDS at point P2. The Minor Secondary drainage

area was determined to be 77642m2, with 15695m2 paved with

concrete (C=0.95) and 619500m2 with grass (C=0.47). The intensity

of a 100 year storm is 75mm/h for 35 minutes. By using Rational

method (Q=CiA) the resulting flow is 2.3107m3/s. by using approached

outlined in Section 4 inputs in the Manning’s equation are as follows:

Q=2.3107m3/s, n=0.03, S=0.125%,Z=2.5m, B=6m. After applying

Manning’s formula, we solve for y=0.50m. Figure 6-8 outlines the

MinDS cross section and Figure 6-9 is the Post Development MinDS

Elevation Profile.

Figure 6-8 - MinDS cross section

64
 Figure 6-9 - Post Development MinDS Elevation Profile

Major Drainage Swale (MajDS):

The MajDS will route all the excess rainwater from Major Secondary

Drainage area to MMDS, P7. The Major Secondary drainage area was

determined to be 434983m2, with 109285m2 paved with concrete

(C=0.95) and 325698m2 with grass (C=0.47). The intensity of a 100

year storm is 75mm/h for 35 minutes. By using Rational method

(Q=CiA) the resulting flow is 5.3521m3/s. by using approached

outlined in Section 4 inputs in the Manning’s equation are as follows:

Q=5.3521m3/s, n=0.03, S=0.125%,Z=2.5m, B=6m. After applying

Manning’s formula, we solve for y=0.79m

Figure 6-10 outlines the MajDS cross section and Figure 6-11

outlines the Post Development MajDS Elevation Profile.

65
 Figure 6-10 - MajDS cross section

Figure 6-11 -Post Development MajDS Elevation Profile

Major Drainage Culvert (MajDC)

The Culvert will route all the excess rainwater from MajDS to the

MMDS. The culvert will be designed to go underneath the border

crossing plaza’s roads and buildings it will be incased in reinforced

concrete with strength able to sustain the weight of the largest truck

66
multiplied by a safety factor of 3. The culvert will be trapezoidal as all

of our other channels are trapezoidal: The inputs of the Manning’s

equation are as follows:

Figure 6-12 - MajDC cross section

Figure 6-13- Post Development MajDC Elevation Profile

Q=5.3521m3/s, n=0.017 (for Sewer Concrete), S=0.125%, Z=2.5m,

B=6m. After applying Manning’s formula, we solve for y=0.52m.

67
Figure 6-12 outlines the MajDC cross section and Figure 6-13

Outlines the Post Development MajDC Elevation Profile.

Major and Minor Drainage Swale (MMDS)

The Swale will route all the excess rainwater from surrounding sites,

P2, to the Detroit River. The flow value is simply the sum of the 100

peak flow for MinDS and the MajDS which is Q=7.6628m3/s. The

culvert will be trapezoidal as all of our other channels are trapezoidal:

The rest of the inputs of the Manning’s equation are as follows:

n=0.03 (for Grass), =0.125%,Z=2.5m, B=8.5m (minimum width given

elevation constraints). After applying Manning’s formula, we solve for

y=0.68m. Figure 6-14 outlines the MMDS cross section and Figure

6-15 Outlines the Post Development MMDS Elevation Profile.

Figure 6-14- MMDS cross section

68
 Figure 6-15 - Post Development MMDS Elevation Profile

6.4 Secondary Drainage Conclusion

In conclusion, according design Section 6, the secondary storm

water channels system has a 100 years rainfall capacity. All excess

rain rater from surrounding areas B and C will be routed into the

Detroit River by natural slope gravity. According to profile drawings:

Figure 6-9, Figure 6-11, Figure 6-13, Figure 6-15 earth filling is

minimized.

69
 7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This report adheres to municipal, provincial and federal regulations,

such that the development of this site will not result in adverse effects

to the downstream conveyance systems. The implementation of the

proposed conceptual SWM strategy and measures outlined in this

report will ensure that the natural habitat of the area is not disturbed

in the long term and that the sediment transported on site does not

leave the site but rather is contained within the downstream

conveyance systems.

70