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 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

 outlined in the 2003 Ministry of the Environment storm water

management guideline.

1.3 Preliminary Report Overview

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

will be based on those drawings. The map below was obtained from

Google EarthTM.
Figure 2.1 - Plaza Site Outlined

2.1 Existing Land Use and Vegetation

Since the percentage of the paved road is very small when compared to

the landscape area, the resulting runoff coefficient for the existing
 condition is assumed to be cultivated land. So C = 0.34 and 0.47 for 5

year & 100 year storm event respectively.

2.2 Existing Soil and Groundwater Condition

Fennie

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 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 3.03 is an elevation map outlining a rough contour of the Border

crossing plaza site and its surrounding area. This map was obtained from

The National Resources Canada website. The drainage area outlined on

figure 3.03 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 will lead into the border

crossing plaza area, it will be considered part of the drainage area.

 Figure 2.03: Outlined drainage area based on rough contour outline

Figure 3.04 outlines smaller drainage areas. These areas are determined

based on the flow path of rainwater. Figure 3.04 also outlines the existing

flow path of water with arrows. By following Figure 3.04 we see that

water from total drainage area will naturally flow into the Detroit River.
Figure 2.04: Existing flow path of water
The objective of this project is to create a storm water management

system with a 100 year storm capacity. Water will need to be routed

properly according to where it lands relative to the border crossing plaza

site. Figure 3.05 outlines how the drainage areas will be divided:

Figure 2.05: Divided Drainage Areas

Main Drainage Area A: 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 for up to a 100 year storm. As

discussed in the Preliminary report, this area will include a main channel
 which will divert all rain water into the main wet ponds. The ponds the

runoff will go to will depend onthe rainfall intensity.

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.

3 Stormwater Management Design

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.

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 the peak 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 Canadian Plaza consists mostly of asphalt pavement and building

rooftops. 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 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 for the

catchment area. 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 to the upstream catchment areas.

The stormwater management plan consists of creating two ponds in

the green spaces south of the proposed plaza and a linear open

channel/wetland 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

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.

5 Design

5.1 Site Overview:

This section will include the technical design of the major storm water

management structures built within the border crossing plaza site. The

design portion be split into two parts the design of Storm water management

system within the Main Drainage Area A and the design of the storm water

management structures outside the plaza area: Secondary Drainage Area B

and C.

5.2 Main Drainage Area A:

Pond and Main Channel Positioning

From the conceptual report, the BMP’s of our 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 5.02 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

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:

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.

3. The border crossing plaza has the greatest free space allocation along

the southern edge of the site

Figure 5.02: Channel and pond configuration
5.2 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 our 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 corporation

website.

5.2.1 Design Constraints:

The design constraints of the proposed site are mainly the flatness and

ground water table elevation. Figure 5.05 describes the design constraints of

the channel. The highest elevation at the eastern swale entrance is 178.72m.

The current ground level of the pond entrance is 176.00m. This point is

highly important, as it will determine the level 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. The MOE

guideline also states that the storm water management pond must be built

0.50m above the ground water table to prevent ground water intrusion.

Therefore the lowest point of the wet pond is 173.50m. Through shear

optimization and coordination a 2.25m allowance is required for the pond

design. Thus the channel floor cannot be lower than 175.75m. The Main

Drainage Swale and Wet Pond design will be based upon the constraints

outlined above.
Figure 5.05: Existing main channel elevation profile

5.3 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

5.2.1. By looking at Figure 5.05 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=kn*R23*S0.5

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

Manning’s equation is:

Q=1.49n*AR23S0.5

Where n is the roughness coefficient, A is the cross sectional area of the

channel, R is the Hydraulic radius and S is the slope.

Q: 100 year Post Development flow m3/s. For our site area it is

9.3305m3/s

n: Mays Water Resources Engineering defines n = 0.03 for grass

channels

A: MOE 2003 STMWTR Guideline specifies that the swale will need a

trapezoidal form thus area is defined as:

A=(B+Zy)y

B is defined as the Base of the swale. MOE 2003 STMWTR Guideline

specifies 6m. However due to the fact that the site is very flat we will use

a swale base of 7m

Z is defined as the horizontal distance per meter of the side slope MOE

2003 STMWTR Guideline specifies 2.5m

y is the height and water level of the trapezoid for a 100 year storm it is

the unknown we are solving for

 Foot Clearance

Unknown: Y

2.5:1m Side
Slope
6m Base (MOE
2003)

Figure 3.06 swale

R:Hydraulic radius for a trapezoid defined as:

R=(B+Zyy/(B+2*y1+Z20.5)^(23)

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.

Now that all values are defined we solve for y in the following equation:

0=B+ZyyB+ZyyB+2*y1+Z20.523-Q*n/(1.49*S0.5)

Due to the fact we will be designing many channel in this project we have

created a manning’s equation worksheet on Excel to solve for Y. The 100

year Main Drainage Swale Depth is YMDS=1.00m

For a 5 year storm we use Q=4.4675m3/s

Y5MDS=0.67m

Now that the water level is found, figure 3.07 outlines the profile view of

the section

Figure 3.07: Post Development Swale Profile

 Figure 3.08: Main Drainage Swale Cross sectional Dimensions in Meters

Section 6.00 Secondary Drainage Channels:

Figure 3.04 and 3.05 demonstrates there is a considerable amount of runoff

that will find itself draining unto the border crossing plaza site due to the pre
existing drainage pattern discussed in Section 2.3 . By official standards and
law, the natural flow pattern of neighboring sites cannot be interfered with.
However, even though the water must pass through the bordercrossing site,
the runoff does not need to be processed to meet provincial quality
standards as opposed to the runoff landing on the border crossing plaza site
which do.

This design section will consider all runoff predicted to enter the site from
Secondary Drainage Areas B and C, refer to Figure 2.05. Figure 6.09 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.

There will be 4 channels which will need to be designed:

-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.

-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.

-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 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.

-The Major and Minor Drainage Swale represented by P1-P2 will route runoff
from MajDC and MinDS into the Detroit River.

Figure 6.09 Secondary Drainage Channel Layout

Figure 6.091 Will outline this Drainage pattern more clearly

Figure 6.091: Secondary Drainage Channel Outline

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 6.10 is pre existing elevation
profile of Line P6-P5-P4-P3-P2. This line will represent the Minor Drainage
Swale MinDS
Figure 6.10: Pre existing elevation profile of Line P6-P5-P4-P3-P2, MinDS

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 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 [Link] 6.11
is the pre existing elevation profile of Line P6-P7-P8-P9-P10-P11 which will
represent the Major Drainage Swale MajDS.

Figure 6.11: Pre existing elevation profile of Line P6-P7-P8-P9-P10-P11, MajDS

 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 3.12 is the pre existing elevation profile of Line P2-P7 which will
represent the Major Drainage Culvert MajDC.

Figure 3.12: Pre existing elevation profile of Line P2-P7, MajDC

 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 3.13 is the pre existing elevation
profile of Line P1-P2 which will represent the Major and Minor Drainage Swale
MMDS.

Figure 3.13: Pre existing elevation profile of Line P1-P2, MMDS

Section6.2 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 main channel
design section 5.2.1 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 3.09 that path is obviously P11-P10-P9-P8-P7-P2-P1. By
combining the elevation profile of MMDS, MajDC and MajDS. Figure 3.14
Displays the P11-P10-P9-P8-P7-P2-P1 elevation profile.
Figure 3.14 Elevation Profile For P11-P10-P9-P8-P7-P2-P1.

Figure 3.14 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 similarly to the Main
Channel Design. The 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 [Link] 0.125% slope was
obtained by optimization using the manning equation excel worksheet.
Displayed in the appendix.

Section 6.3 Secondary Drainage Channel

design using Manning’s equation

The following section will explain the inputs of the Manning’s equation
3. 06.01 Minor Drainage Swale (MinDS):

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 3. 05.03 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 3.11 outlines the MinDS cross section

Figure 3.11: MinDS cross section

3. 06.02 Major Drainage Swale (MajDS):

The MajDS will route all the excess rainwater from Major Secondary Drainage area
to MMDS, [Link] 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 Rationnal
method (Q=CiA) the resulting flow is 5.3521m3/s. by using approached outlined in
Section 3. 05.03 inputs in the Mannings 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 3.12 outlines the MajDS cross section

Figure 3.11: MajDS cross section

3. 06.03 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 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: 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
Figure 3.12 outlines the MajDC cross section

Figure 3.12: MajDC cross section

3. 06.04 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) , S=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 3.13 outlines the MMDS cross section

Figure 3.13: MMDS cross section

3.07 Post Development Storm Water routing

In Figure 3.10 we see that the total drainage area has been split into 3

main areas: Our site are, The Major Secondary Drainage Area and the

Minor Secondary Drainage.

Using rational method we have found that the

4 Stormwater Management Ponds

10

20

30

40

4.1

4.2 Water Quantity Control

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

where Q - the peak flow (m3/s)

C - runoff coefficient

i - intensity of rainfalls (mm/hr)

A - the drainage area (ha)

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 (see Figure X).

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

FigureX, 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 X) and has an increase

runoff potential compared to existing conditions. The final drainage

area breakdown for the post-development condition, along with their

coefficients is shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – 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

Source: Water Resources Engineering by Larry Mays 2005

The rainfall intensity and time of concentration were determined from

intensity duration-frequency curve (IDF curve).

 Under the requirement of City of Windsor, 5-year and 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. 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)

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 Fig. 3.1 in appendix 1.)

Not finish yet

4.3 Water Quantity Control

4.3.1Design Criteria

The Esssex County Conservation Authority requires that post-

development peak flows from the proposed development will not

exceed their pre-development levels for rainfall events up to and

 including the 1:100 year return period storm. Detention must

therefore be provided for any increase in post-development run-off.

The rational method was used in the determining pre- and post-

development flows along with storage volumes. Calculations are

enclosed in Appendix x. Table 3.3.1 provides a summary of flows and

storage volumes.

40

4.1

4.2Design Details of Proposed Pond

The proposed quantity control pond is indicated on Drawing X.

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

hectares will be undeveloped. Drainage will enter the pond via a

900mm diameter piped splitter storm sewer and via an overland flow

swale. Outlet control will be provided by means of a 650mm orifice

placed within the 875mm outlet pipe. The pond bottom will be graded

at 0.50% to reduce the possibility of ponding during low flow run-off

events. The pond invert (174.7 m) 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.

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

development and the results were compared to pre-development peak

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 mins. 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 mins.

Table 3.3.1 – Summary of Quantity Volume and Peak Flows

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 mins

 Summary
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

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

approximately 175.4 m. Maximum water depth will therefore be 2.05

m. The detention storage is 8693.13 m3. Detailed calculation can be

found in Appendix 1. 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 174.3 m. Existing topography at this location

will direct pond overflow to the Detroit River.

4 Water Quality Control

4.1Design Criteria

As indicated on Drawing X, 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.

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 prior

to discharge into the storm sewer system to remove suspended solids

and oils. (see Appendix X for sizing chart)

Appendix

Data Collection

The data information was gathered from MNR, DRIC draft environmental

assessment reports and discussion with Morrison Hershfield engineers.

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.

Qpre = Cpre * I * A

Qpost = Cpost * I * A

S = 0.5(Qpost * Tbase) – 0.5 (Qpre* Tbase)

 Flow

Post-
development
Peak Flow, Qpost

Storage
Pre-
Required,
development
S
Peak Flow, Qpre

Time
Tbase = 2tc or 2.67 tc

Pre-development (100 years)

Area : 52.97 ha
Coefficient: 0.5 (assumption)
Tc : 10 mins
Intensity: 161.5 mm/hr
Qpre100 = 1/360 * 52.97 * 0.5 * 161.5 = 11.88 m3 /sec
Post-development (100 years)
Area Coefficient
Commercial Buildings: 1.66 ha 0.95
Paved Area: 33.67 ha 0.90
Landscape Area: 17.64 ha 0.25

Coefficient got from Water Resources Engineering by L. Mays

Cpost = (1.66 * 0.95) + (33.67 * 0.90) + (17.64 * 0.25)
52.97
= 0.6851
Qpost100 = 1/360 * 52.97 * 0.6851 * 161.5 = 16.28 m3/sec

5 years storm

Area : 52.97 ha
Coefficient: 0.5 (assumption)
Tc : 10 mins
Intensity: 102.8 mm/hr
Qpre5 = 1/360 * 52.97 * 0.5 * 102.8 = 7.563 m3 /sec
Qpost5= 1/360 * 52.97 * 0.6851 * 102.8 = 10.363 m3/sec

Orifice
Qo = c * A * sqrt(2 * g * H)
The smallest diameter orifice to ensure that clogging does not occur in a
stormwater system is 75 mm. The preferred minimum orifice size is 100mm where
the effects of freezing are a concern. 5 year storm was used to control the size of
the orifice. Therefore,
Qo = Qpre5

Pond Design
Water table: 3 m below surface
Length to width ratio: 4 to 1
Permanent Pool Depth: Max. depth 2.5m mean depth: 1 – 2 m
Active Storage Depth: Water Quality and erosion control max 1.0m total
2m

Figure 5.03: Ground water table is at 173.00m. The MOE 2003 guideline
specifies that a 0.50m clearance is required between the ground water table
and the pond floor. The pond floor is thus at an elevation of 173.50m. The
175.00m elevation was determined as the lowest channel floor elevation since
the pond water surface must be lower than the swale floor. The predevelopment
ground elevations the pond is [Link] current ground conditions at the
swale entrance is 178.72m

In this design section we will consider the runoff predicted to enter our site from
neighboring lands. Figure 3.04 and 3.05 demonstrate that there is a considerable
amount of runoff that will find itself onto our site due to the pre existing drainage
pattern. Because we cannot interfere with the natural drainage pattern this area
and so we must let the water pass through our site. However there are no quality
requirements, meaning that water does not need to be processed by us to meet
provincial quality standards. So we will simply route the water flow from
surrounding sites directly into the Detroit River because we have assumed that it is
the neighbor’s responsibility to process their own water for quality.

In Figure 3.10 we see that the total drainage area has been split into 3 main areas:
The Plaza site area, The Major Secondary Drainage Area and the Minor Secondary
Drainage. Ultimately the water from outlined secondary drainage area will be routed
directly into the river through the large Major and Minor Drainage Swale (MMDS).
The Minor Drainage Swale (MinDS) will have a slope of 0.20% and lead directly in to
the MMDS. The Major Drainage Swale (MajDS) will have two design components the
design of the grassed Major Drainage Swale leading up to the Major which will have
a 0.02% slope towards the culvert entrance, and the Major Drainage Culvert
(MajDC) which will lead directly into the [Link] design of the following 4 channels
we are using a 100year peak flos as the guiding design parameter.