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

1|Page
 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|Page
outlined in the 2003 Ministry of the Environment storm water

management guideline.

3|Page
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.

4|Page
Figure 2.1 - Plaza Site Outlined

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).

5|Page
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

6|Page
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

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.

7|Page
2.3 Topography and Surface Water Drainage

2.3.1 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 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

8|Page
 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 2.2 - Outlined drainage area based on rough contour outline

9|Page
 Figure 2.3 outlines smaller drainage areas. These areas are

determined based on the flow path of rainwater. Figure 2.3 also

outlines the existing flow path of water with arrows. By following

Figure 2.3, the water from total drainage area will naturally flow into

the Detroit River.

Figure 2.3 - Existing flow path of water

10 | P a g e
 The objective of this project is to create a storm water management

system with 5 and up to 100 year storm capacity. Water 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:

Figure 2.4 - 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 5 year up to a 100 year storm. As discussed in

the Preliminary report, this area (68.9 ha) will include a main channel

11 | P a g e
 which will divert all rain water into the main ponds. The ponds the runoff

will go to will depend on the 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 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

12 | P a g e
 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

13 | P a g e
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. 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

14 | P a g e
watersheds. Oil/grit separators will provide quality treatment to the

upstream areas.

The stormwater management plan consists of creating two ponds 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 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.

15 | P a g e
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

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

16 | P a g e
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

17 | P a g e
Figure 4.1 - Channel and pond configuration

18 | P a g e
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 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 at which the Main

19 | P a g e
profile
Figure 4.2 - Existing main channel elevation
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 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.

4.3 A Runoff Routing Drainage Area A

20 | P a g e
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. From

Figure 2.4 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 4a - A outline 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.

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

21 | P a g e
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=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

22 | P a g e
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 the proposed 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
23 | P a g Slope
e
6m Base (MOE
2003)
Figure 4.3 - 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, 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 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

Now that the water level is found, Figure 4.4 outlines the profile view of

the section

24 | P a g e
 25 | P a g e
Figure 4.5- Main Drainage Swale Cross sectional Dimensions in Meters
Figure 4.4 – Post Development Swale Elevation
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 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.

26 | P a g e
5 End of Pipe Extended Detention Facilities
(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 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

27 | P a g e
 Storage was based on the 2003 SWMP Manual requirements for

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

active storage was in addition to that provided for flood and

erosion control.

10

20

30

40

50

5.1

5.2 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)

28 | P a g e
 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

29 | P a g e
potential compared to existing conditions. The final 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

30 | P a g e
31 | P a g e
 Figure 5.1 – Layout of the Canadian Plaza
Source: Detroit River International Crossing Study Website
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

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)

Where Tc = time of concentration (hrs)

32 | P a g e
 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.

33 | P a g e
 Figure 5.2 – Velocities for upland method of estimating tc
Source: U.S Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
1986

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.

34 | P a g e
 Figure 5.3 – Intensity Duration-Frequency Curve (IDF Curves) - City
of Windsor
Source: Environment Canada – Atmospheric Environment Services

40

4.1

35 | P a g e
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 undeveloped. 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 (see Section

5.1.7). 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

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

36 | P a g e
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

enclosed in the Appendix 2. Table 5.2 provides a summary of flows

Items Pre-development Post-development

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

Design Parameters

The design events used in the analysis were as follows:

Time of Concentration: 35.3 minutes

37 | P a g e
 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

Summary

Table 5.2 – Summary of Quantity Volume and Peak Flows

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 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.

Figure 5.4 – Layout of the ponds and channels

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

38 | P a g e
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 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 5.6)

39 | P a g e
5.1.7 Outlet Design

40 | P a g e
1.1 Water Quality Control

5.2.1 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.

41 | P a g e
 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 at

42 | P a g e
 175.42m and its storage is 13418.08 m3. Detailed calculations can be

found in Appendix 2.

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

43 | P a g e
1.1 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

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

44 | P a g e
45 | P a g e
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.

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.

46 | P a g e
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 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 6.1 - Secondary Drainage Channels Layout

47 | P a g e
 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

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

the Minor Drainage Swale MinDS

48 | P a g e
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

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

49 | P a g e
culvert MajDC as well. Figure 6.4 the pre existing elevation profile of

Line P6-P7-P8-P9-P10-P11 which will represent the Major Drainage Swale

50 | P a g e
MajDS.

51 | P a g e
 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.

52 | P a g e
 Figure 6.5 - Pre existing elevation profile of Line P2-P7, MajDC

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.

53 | P a g e
 Figure 6.6 - Pre existing elevation profile of Line P1-P2, 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 main

channel design section 4.2.1 the Ground Water Table was the elevation

54 | P a g e
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 - Elevation Profile For P11-P10-P9-P8-P7-P2-P1.

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

55 | P a g e
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 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.

56 | P a g e
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):

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

Figure 6.8 - MinDS cross section

57 | P a g e
Figure 6.9 is the Post Development MinDS Elevation Profile

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

58 | P a g e
Figure 6.10 outlines the MajDS cross section:

Figure 6.10 - MajDS cross section

Figure 6.11 outlines the Post Development MajDS Elevation Profile

Figure 6.11 -Post Development MajDS Elevation Profile

59 | P a g e
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 6.12 outlines the MajDC cross section

Figure 6.12 - MajDC cross section

Figure 6.13 Outlines the Post Development MajDC Elevation Profile

60 | P a g e
 Figure 6.13- 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

61 | P a g e
 Figure 6.14- MMDS cross section

Figure 6.15 Outlines the Post Development MMDS Elevation Profile

Figure 6.15 - Post Development MMDS Elevation Profile

6.4 Secondary Drainage Conclusion

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

62 | P a g e
 natural slope gravity. According to profile drawings: Figure 6.9, Figure

6.11, Figure 6.13, Figure 6.15 earth filling is minimized.

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.

63 | P a g e