Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

ENNR 425 : NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING PROJECT

APPLICATIONS AND TREATMENT EFFICIENCY OF AN URBAN STORMWATER INFILTRATION BASIN

Ben Neil Pasco Third Professional Year A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the BE (Hons) Degree in Natural Resources Engineering Supervisor: David Painter Date Submitted: 10 October 2005

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

Executive Summary
Global efforts to reduce the harmful impacts of human activities on the natural environment are increasingly leading to changes in management practices rather than disposal. Urban stormwater management is an area of increasing importance as we seek to minimise the effects of contaminants such as heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons on receiving water bodies. Infiltration basins provide a useful method by which stormwater can be treated by filtration through surface soils and discharged to groundwater. This provides a way of managing the stormwater at source as well as replenishing groundwater aquifers. This project aimed to better understand and evaluate the treatment efficiency of such an infiltration basin and summarise the factors influencing this treatment efficiency. Samples taken at several locations within an infiltration basin located in a new Christchurch subdivision showed that stormwater did contain heavy metals, suspended solids and nitrogen based nutrients. Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in any samples indicating they are not yet present on surfaces within the catchment. Treatment levels of various contaminants ranged from 89 % removal for nitrite-N to 0 % for lead and dissolved zinc. Levels of faecal coliforms and dissolved lead were found in the underdrain of the basin in higher concentrations than the incident stormwater. This points to possible contamination of the water upon entering the basin or discrepancies in the sampling methods. Generally nutrients were successfully removed while heavy metals appeared les so, however, this will have been influenced by the low concentrations concerned and the relatively low amount of data obtained due to time and funding constraints. Groundwater samples show that there appear to be no adverse effects being imposed on groundwater by stormwater infiltration through the infiltration basin. Levels of heavy metals and other contaminants remain consistent with results of previous testing. The infiltration rate of the basin was measure using two methods. The first of these was the widely used double ring infiltrometer test which indicated an infiltration rate of approximately 50 mm/hr. The second test involved flooding the entire basin and indicated a much slower average rate of 18 mm/hr. There may be physical problems with the basin leading to this difference or the double ring infiltrometer test may be greatly overestimating the true infiltration rate.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 2.0 Introduction Literature Review 2.1 Nature of Stormwater 2.2 Treatment Efficiency 2.3 Conclusions From Literature Review Design and Construction 3.1 Site Suitability 3.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework 3.1.2 Physical Characteristics 3.2 Stormwater Modelling 3.2.1 Design Rainfall Event 3.2.2 Runoff 3.3 Site Investigations 3.4 Basin Design 3.4.1 Basic Layout Options 3.4.2 Basin Sizing 3.4.3 Underdrain System 3.4.4 Soakage Chambers 3.5 Aesthetic Considerations Project Scope and Previous Studies 4.1 Site Description and Layout 4.2 Previous Site tests Methodology 5.1 Infiltration Testing 5.1.1 Double Ring Infiltration Testing Method 5.1.2 Flooded Basin 5.2 Water Analysis 5.2.1 Sampling Program 5.2.2 Sampling Locations 5.2.3 Sampling Timing 5.2.4 Laboratory Analysis Methods Results 6.1 Infiltration Testing 6.1.1 Double ring infiltrometer 6.1.2 Flooded basin 6.2 Water Samples 6.2.1 Sampling Conditions 6.2.2 Faecal Coliforms and E. coli 6.2.3 Nutrients, Metals and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Discussion 7.1 Incident Stormwater 7.2 Treatment by Infiltration 7.3 Effects on Groundwater 7.4 Infiltration Rate Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgements References Appendix 5 6 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 12 12 12 14 14 14 16 17 17 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 32 32

3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0 9.0 10.0

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

APPENDICES: A B C Resource Consent Details for CRC981968 Results of ECan Laboratory analysis for Faecal Coliforms and E. coli bacteria

Results and methods for Hill Laboratories analysis of stormwater and groundwater samples

LIST OF TABLES 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Pollutant level ranges found in urban rainfall and stormwater runoff (Colwill, 1984; Strecker et al, 1990) Observed sources for Toxic Organics found in urban stormwater (Pitt et al. 1996) Stormwater contaminant levels at selected New Zealand Sites (Christchurch (N.Z.). City Council., 2003) Groundwater contamination Potential for Selected Stormwater Pollutants (Pitt et al, 1996) Runoff coefficients for selected urban surfaces Soil description at basin site (Brough and Eastman, 2005) Results of water sampling in Kirkwood infiltration basin carried out on 15 February after approximately 12 mm rainfall (Brough and Eastman, 2005) Water Analysis to be carried out at all sampling locations for Kirkwood infiltration basin Location of double ring infiltrometer test set-ups Results of infiltration measurements with Basin 1 and Basin 2 completely flooded Faecal Coliform and E. coli analysis results Results of water analysis carried out on samples taken from the Kirkwood subdivision infiltration basin on 19/09/05 and 20/09/05 Contaminant levels entering and discharging from basin 2 with the percent removed by soil filtration (Petroleum hydrocarbons have been omitted since all concentrations were below detection limits)

LIST OF FIGURES: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 Dimensionless Triangular unit hydrograph (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1986) Basic Infiltration Basin Design used for Kirkwood subdivision infiltration basin (Brough and Eastman, 2005) Infiltration basin layout with storm flow splitter (CCC, 2003) Soakage Chamber discharging overflow and underdrain stormwater directly to groundwater (CCC, 2003) Location of Kirkwood Subdivision, Halswell, Christchurch, New Zealand (source: TopoMap), Design plan for the Kirkwood Subdivision infiltration basin (Brough and Eastman, 2005) Twin ring infiltrometer test setup Basin 2 in dry state during infiltration testing (left) and inundated following storm on 19 September 2005 Sample locations for basins 1 and 2 and the monitoring bore Infiltration rates measured using twin ring infiltrometers A and B in basin 1 and C and D in basin 2 (05/09/05) Variations in infiltration rate measured in both basins after manually flooding on 28 September 2005

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The use of infiltration techniques is an increasingly common method of managing urban stormwater. Infiltration basins (or soakage basins) temporarily store stormwater until it infiltrates into the groundwater below through the bottom and sides of the basin (ASCE UWRRC, 1992). Infiltration systems offer a cost-effective and sustainable method of stormwater treatment and disposal for a range of catchment sizes and attributes. Water can pass at a pre-determined rate through a designed filter bed to remove contaminants (CCC, 2003) by exploiting the physical, chemical and biological powers of soil to trap, attenuate and transform pollutants before they enter aquifers or streams (Ferguson, 1994). This type of system can only be used in areas with certain geological features but are a useful way of replenishing depleted groundwater aquifers and relieving surface water systems. Despite the increasing use of this disposal method there is very little information on the characteristics of stormwater as it passes through the soils of the basin. Nearly all investigations on infiltration basins to date are based on pollutant residues retained in the soils. Past estimations on treatment efficiency have been based on this information together with estimates of incoming pollutant quantities. The aim of this study is to analyse the properties of the stormwater entering the basin and draining out the bottom, as well as look at groundwater to identify any possible impacts. Also important in the determination of treatment capabilities is the rate at which water infiltrates through the soils. Two methods for determining the ultimate infiltration rate were carried out and compared in this study. The infiltration rate that is finally measured is what will determine the ability of the soils to filter out contaminants from the stormwater. The infiltration basin utilised in this study receives stormwater from roads, paved areas, roofs and gardens in the partially completed Kirkwood subdivision, Halswell, Christchurch. Stormwater was sampled as it entered the basin and as it exited the underdrainage system to determine the treatment efficiency of the basin soils.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

2.0 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW Nature of Stormwater

Urban stormwater, as its name suggests, is water derived from a current or recent rainfall event which originates from an urban catchment. This can include all or some of the surfaces of roads and motorways, footpaths, car parks and other paved surfaces, roofs, gardens and grassed areas of insufficient permeability. The nature of contaminants in a particular stormwater will vary depending on the surface types from which the stormwater originates. Stormwater derived mainly from roads and other paved surfaces can contain detectable and at times significant amounts of total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and heavy metals (Gnecco et al., 2004; Pitt et al., 1996; Colwill, 1984). The main heavy metals found in stormwater are dissolved forms of Cu, Pb and Zn (Gnecco et al., 2004) mainly derived from vehicle brakes and tyres. Other metals that are frequently found in urban stormwater are Cd, Cr and Ni (Pitt et al., 1996). Table 2.1 summarises the pollutants identified in British research (as cited in Bettess, 1996) as being commonly found in urban stormwater. Table 2.1: Pollutant level ranges found in urban rainfall and stormwater runoff (Colwill 1984; Strecker et al., 1990)
Pollutant Electrical Conductivity (S/cm) Total Solids (mg/l) Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) Total Volatile Solids (mg/l) Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Oil/Hydrocarbons (mg/l) COD (mg/l) Chloride (mg/l) Bromide (mg/l) Total lead (g/l) Total zinc (g/l) Total cadmium (g/l) Total copper (g/l) Total chromium (g/l) Total nickel (g/l) Total organic carbon (mg/l) Nitrate and nitrite (mg/l) Total nitrogen (mg/l) Total phosphorus (mg/l) BOD (mg/l) Rainfall 8 - 80 18 - 24 2 - 13 2.5 - 32 1 - 11 0.024 - 10.4 0.02 - 4.9 0.013 - 0.056 0.06 - 0.48 0.023 - 0.08 1 - 18 0.01 - 5.0 0.5 - 9.9 0.001 - 0.35 1 - 15 Urban (I) 6 - 20 000 145 - 21 640 66 - 3 050 12 - 1 600 12 - 1 500 2 - 11 300 0 - 400 5 - 3 100 4 - 17 000 0.02 - 6.0 10 - 14 500 1 000 - 15 000 2 - 400 7 - 2 500 18 - 270 20 - 15 000 5 - 120 0.3 - 6.9 0.2 - 14 0.3 - 4.4 25 - 700

Toxic pollutants, mainly derived from fuels and some pesticides (Pitt et al., 1996), are also a common contaminant in urban stormwater. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are readily adsorbed to suspended particles and biota (Pitt et al., 1996) and therefore filtration through a soil media by infiltration of stormwater generally provides an effective form of treatment. Most organics identified in stormwater flows were associated with the suspended

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

solids in the wastewater (Pitt et al., 1996). Because of the lack of information on the solids removal efficiency of infiltration basins it is difficult to determine the effect these contaminated suspended solids may have on receiving watersheds. Table 2.2 gives the levels and detection frequencies for some organics commonly found in urban stormwater. Table 2.2: Observed sources for Toxic Organics found in urban stormwater (Pitt et al, 1996)
Toxicant benzo (a) anthracene benzo (b) fluoranthene benzo (k) fluoranthere benzo (a) pyrene fluoranthene napthalene phenanthrene pyrene chlordane butyl benzyl phthalate bis (2-chloroethyl) ether bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether 1,3-dichlorobenzene Maximum (g/L) 60 226 221 300 128 296 69 102 2.2 128 204 217 120 Detection Frequency (%) 12 17 17 17 23 13 10 19 13 12 14 14 23 Significant Sources petrol, wood preservative petrol, motor oils petrol, bitumen, oils asphalt, petrol, oils oils, petrol, wood preservative coal tar, petrol, insecticides oils, petrol, coal tar oils, petrol, bitumen, coal tar, wood preservative insecticide plasticizer fumigant, solvents, insecticides, paints pesticides pesticides

Nutrients in the form of total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate and nitrite also appear in stormwater samples, although generally not in significant levels when there are no agricultural practices being carried out within the catchment. Contaminants associated with human and other animal waste are also commonly monitored and identified. These include Faecal Coliforms and Escherichia coli which are most commonly sourced back to faulty sewer tanks and lines, or direct contamination by animal waste. There are limited data available on stormwater contamination levels in New Zealand, and more specifically Christchurch. The Christchurch City Council Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide cites the following values (Table 2.3) for some pollutants in selected major drains. Table 2.3: Stormwater contaminant levels at selected New Zealand Sites (CCC, 2003)
Site Pakuranga (Residential) Riccarton Main Drain (residential) Milnes Drain (flat rural/residential) Wigram Detention Basin (mixed) Suspended Cadmium Sediments (g/m ) 62 128 101
3

Copper (mg/m ) 15 14
3

Lead (mg/m ) 33
3

Zinc (mg/m ) 444 400 200 412

3

Total Total Nitrogen Phosphorus (mg/m ) 1000 1800 3

(mg/m ) 0.056 1.3

(mg/m ) 250 400 -

These values compare well with those from the international data, although it is noted that they tend to be at the lower end of the scale. This is likely because the NZ data reported are for residential and rural areas whereas the international data may be for more highly developed residential areas and industrial zones. There will also be indescrepencies between the data sets in relation to the area of roadway or motorway compared to the area of straight residential (buildings and green areas) acting as a catchment for the stormwater.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

2.2 Treatment Efficiency

There are currently very few data available on the performance of swale-type systems (of which an infiltration basin is an example) in general, and only limited data are available elsewhere (CCC, 2003). Most research that has been conducted to date on the treatment abilities of infiltration basins is based on comparisons between the incoming volumes of contaminants, from tests of stormwater, and levels of pollutants remaining in the bed sediments and soils. Complicating this are the wide fluctuations in incoming pollutant levels and the relatively unknown behaviour of many contaminants once they adhere to the soil particles. {Dechesne et al., 2004} found that Input data (event mean concentrations), calibrating data (simulation of particle settling) and pollutant mass estimation (infiltration basin) encounter great uncertainties and lead to questionable pollution retention performance assessment. {Datry et al., 2004; Datry et al., 2003} present one of the few relevant experiments on pore water in an infiltration basin and groundwater at various levels below the basin. Heavy metals and hydrocarbons were either not detected or below reference concentrations in groundwater and aquifer sediments indicating that they remained adsorbed onto stormwater sediments stored in the infiltration bed (Datry et al., 2004). Tests on pore water also found very little contamination despite high concentrations in the basin sediments (Datry et al., 2003). In all it is considered that nearly all metals are filtered, or otherwise sorbed, in the surface layers of soils in infiltrating devices when using surface infiltration (Pitt et al., 1999). The main forms of pollution identified were elevated levels of phosphates and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) (Datry et al., 2004; Datry et al., 2003). This is most likely due to mineralization of organic sediments and the resulting anoxic conditions (Datry et al., 2003). Table 2.4: Groundwater contamination Potential for Selected Stormwater Pollutants (Pitt et al., 1996)
Compounds Nitrates 1,3-dichlorobenzene benzo (a) anthracene bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate flouroanthene pyrene nickel cadmium chromium lead zinc Abundance in Stormwater low/moderate high moderate moderate high high high low moderate moderate high Contamination 1 potential low/moderate low moderate moderate moderate moderate low low low/moderate low low

Nutrients Organics

Metals

Groundwater testing of this type has a major deficiency in that it is difficult to accurately route the stormwater sample from source, through the basin and into the groundwater being tested. Contaminants found in the groundwater samples may be derived from other zones of infiltration, which may be providing more or less filtration than the basin in question. To accurately determine the efficiency of the infiltration media it would be desirable to sample the water as it exited the bottom to the filter layer, and before it mixed with other groundwater sources. This form of analysis could possibly provide a more accurate measure of the degree of treatment that infiltration media can provide and any shortfalls of the system.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

2.3 Conclusions from Literature Review

Research on stormwater and its effects on infiltration devices has shown that significant amounts of contaminants are retained in surface soils, suggesting efficient treatment is taking place. Heavy metals and organics would appear to be well treated thanks to their tendency to adhere to, or be sorbed onto, suspended solids which are removed by physical filtering processes in the soils. Despite this encouraging information there is a lack of data derived from water into and out of an infiltration basin or similar media. This lack of reliable data leads to some uncertainty on the actual removal efficiency of the soils in infiltration basins, swales and similar devices. The aim of the present paper is to outline methods for evaluating the treatment efficiency of a newly installed infiltration basin for residential stormwater. Results of a preliminary testing program will be presented and discussed with comparisons drawn with current estimates of contaminant removal efficiencies. 3.0 3.1 3.1.1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Site Suitability Legal Requirements

Regulatory requirements for infiltration basins are only recently starting to appear in local government regulations, mainly as a result of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the associated resource consent application process. Regulations and restrictions are primarily concerned with achieving adequate treatment of contaminated stormwater prior to it entering groundwater systems, while maintaining a sufficient infiltration rate to discharge the stormwater. This will include a minimum separation and soil thickness between the surface of the basin and the groundwater (at a pre-determined maximum level) as well as guidelines for acceptable infiltration rates. Some reasonable conditions for infiltration basins can be seen in a recent Resource Consent (CRC981968, Appendix 1) granted to the Christchurch City Council (CCC). The Consent specified that the infiltration rate (as measured by the double ring infiltrometer test) shall not exceed 50 mm/hr. Other requirements specify acceptable contaminant levels in the soils and water discharged from the basin. There may also be some requirement regarding the treatment of the first flush stormwater, which occurs at the beginning of the rainfall event and is generally more highly contaminated as it washes the impermeable surfaces. 3.1.2 Physical Characteristics

The CCC Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide (CCC, 2003) outlines the following basic criteria for a suitable infiltration basin (soakage basin) location: Not located at former landfill sites Further than 800 m up gradient and 200 m in all other directions from shallow public reticulated water supply wells Co-located with sub-surface soakage system for clean roof water Located in the middle to lower part of any sub-catchment Gravel strata within 5 m of ground surface and a water table deeper than 1 m. Site slope of 5 % or less Good access for future maintenance

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

3.2 3.2.1 Stormwater Modelling Design Rainfall event

10

There are several parameters of importance when determining the expected runoff flow into the basin. Of primary importance is the estimation of the design rainfall event and its intensity. The High Intensity Rainfall Design System (HIRDS) available from the (NZ) National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research (NIWA) is a good program to provide estimates of rainfall depths for a specified storm event. General practice is to select a design storm, for example a storm with a 2% annual exceedance probability (AEP), or 1 in 50 year event, associated with a certain duration (usually a 24 hour storm is used for urban stormwater design). Values for these parameters can be obtained from various meteorological data sources such as NIWA. Once a quantity of rain for the storm is found the resulting runoff and discharge flow must be calculated to allow basin sizing. 3.2.2 Runoff

The Rational method for peak discharge (Eqn. 1) is one way to calculate the flow into the basin from the catchment.

Q=

CiA 3.6 10 6

(1)

Q represents the peak discharge (m3/s), C is the runoff coefficient as in Table 3.1, i is the rainfall intensity (mm/hr) and A is area in m2 (of that particular surface type). Table 3.1: Runoff coefficients for selected urban surfaces.
Runoff Coefficients 0.70 to 0.95 0.75 to 0.95 0.05 to 0.1 0.10 to 0.15 0.15 to 0.20 0.13 to 0.17 0.18 to 0.22 0.25 to 0.35

Character of Surface Asphalt and Concrete Roofs Lawns, Sandy Soil Flat (2% slope) Average (2 - 7%) Steep (>7%) Lawns, Heavy Soil Flat (2% slope) Average (2 - 7%) Steep (>7%)

The calculated rates of water flow into the basin will be used later in conjunction with infiltration rates to determine the basin size required to contain the storm flow. Runoff hydrographs are an advance on the Rational method, giving the delay and flow of the peak runoff discharge. Figure 3.1 shows the triangular unit hydrograph used to determine the fate of inflow to a more accurate degree.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

11

1.2 1 0.8 Q/QP 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 t/tp 2 2.5 3

Figure 3.1: Dimensionless Triangular unit hydrograph (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1986). The following parameters are used in calculations of the runoff hydrograph tc = time of concentration (longest time for water to traverse basin) tr = unit excess-rainfall duration (should not exceed two-tenths of tc) tp = time to peak discharge Qp = peak discharge

t p = 0.5t r + 0.6t c

(2)

Hence an estimation of tc will allow a value of tr to be defined and tp can be calculated. The peak discharge is found using Eqn 3.

Qp =

Where Qp = peak discharge (m3/s) C = unit conversion (1.67 when units in brackets below used) D = unit depth of excess rainfall (cm) A = drainage area (ha) tb = time base = 2.67tp (mins) Once values for time to peak and peak flow are determined the hydrograph in Figure 3.1 can be redrawn with dimensions included. In many cases values given for maxima in different sources will conflict, thus it is important to verify values are close between more than one source and it may then be appropriate to adopt the most conservative value.

2CDA tb

(3)

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

3.3 Site Investigations

12

The primary aim of site investigations is to determine the ability of the local soils, gravels and groundwater system to infiltrate stormwater to the required specifications. Surface infiltration basins are ideally suited to free draining gravels which are common on the Canterbury Plains. In other locations however this type of design may be unsuitable due to an impermeable layer (fine silts, clay or rock) and an infiltration well or some other method may instead need to be used. Infiltration characteristics can be determined by : Geological logging of test pits Permeability testing of aquifer In-situ testing (predominantly by double ring infiltrometer method) Detailed geological logging and analysis Installation and testing of trial infiltration chambers.

Records of groundwater levels from wells in the area should also be analysed to ensure adequate infiltration distance will always be achieved (generally greater than 1 m). Investigations for the Kirkwood subdivision infiltration basin included permeability testing of the underlying aquifer and excavation of a test pit to allow soil profiling. There was also infiltration testing carried out on both top-soils and sub-soils. These investigations showed that infiltration rates in the soils was not sufficient to provide enough discharge so sand was mixed with the topsoil to increase the permeability. An underdrain system (Section 3.4.3) was also included in the design to allow water to by-pass the low permeability sub-soils. 3.4 3.4.1 Basin Design Basic Layout Options

The design of infiltration basins does vary between organisations and countries; however, the basic principles remain the same. The first step in all cases is to determine appropriate parameters for the expected infiltration rate (whether this is natural or engineered with soil amendments). Next is to find an appropriate basin size, which will depend on the amount of rainfall in the area and the catchment size. There may also be restrictions placed on the size by site constraints (buildings, roads etc.). Usually enough storage is provided (often required by consent conditions or equivalent rules) for the first flush in a significant storm event (further constraints may be imposed by the resource consent conditions as discussed in Section 3.1.1). After this capacity is reached there is either the option of secondary storage or some form of overflow system into a river or straight to groundwater. Ideally the overflow system will be designed such that the more highly contaminated first flush water in the basin remains there, while the cleaner incoming stormwater is allowed to overflow directly to a receiving environment. There are several methods used to achieve this with the first being direct overflow into a soakage chamber as in Figure 3.2. Another commonly used method is a flow splitter, as illustrated in Figure 3.3. The flow splitter ensures the cleaner stormwater from later in the storm flows directly to the overflow chamber rather than the more contaminated first flush waters.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

13

Figure 3.2: Basic Infiltration Basin Design used for Kirkwood subdivision infiltration basin (Brough and Eastman, 2005)

Figure 3.3: Infiltration basin layout with storm flow splitter (CCC, 2003)

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

14

A major consideration during the design stage is the infiltration rate used in water storage capacity calculations. Double ring infiltrometers provide the most common method of measuring the infiltration rate, despite some research suggesting that they may overestimate the true infiltration rate by as much as 40% (Center for Environmental Research Information (U.S.), 1984). Often an upper limit is set for the infiltration rate (as defined by the double ring infiltration test) to ensure adequate filtration and treatment time. The Christchurch City Council Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide (CCC, 2003) recommends 50 mm/hour as a maximum infiltration rate and 20 mm/hr is commonly adopted as the minimum rate. This minimum rate will be the value used in calculations for basin sizing so that the flood storage will be provided even at the lowest limits of infiltration. In most cases infiltration basins are constructed with an engineered soil lining to ensure controlled percolation rates. The permeability of underlying strata however is dictated by natural conditions. Amendments to surface soils may simply be addition of sand or gypsum to slightly increase the porosity of the soil structure. Clogging will occur over time due to introduction of sediment to the basin and consequently infiltration rates in the basin should be checked every few years (frequency of tests will depend on estimated sediment inflow rates). 3.4.2 Basin Sizing

The first step in determining an appropriate basin size is to calculate the first flush volume.
Aeff = im% A (ha) Aeff im % A Effective first flush runoff area (ha) Effective impervious area (% catchment) Catchment area (ha)

The first flush volume is determined assuming a first flush rainfall depth. The CCC Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide recommends 25 mm be used (should not be less than 15 mm)
Vff = 10Aeffdff (m ) Vff dff First flush volume (m ) first flush rainfall (mm)
3 3

Once all the governing criteria (mainly first flush volume and inflow rate) have been determined or specified, an appropriate basin size can be calculated. This is most easily carried out using a spreadsheet method to allow easy modification of shape, depth, side slopes and infiltration rates. A water balance of water inflow less water outflow allows the user to size the basin to contain the design storm event. Theoretically if a storm occurs which is greater than the design storm then the excess water will simply be discharged via the rapid overflow system. In reality the basin size calculated is often constructed larger than required to allow for silt build up over time which will slow the infiltration rate. In some cases it is also recognised that the 25 mm of rainfall defined as the first flush will include nearly all the rainfall from all events. {Brough and Eastman, 2005} 91% of rainfall at Christchurch Airport occurs in events of less than 25 mm or the first 25 mm of a larger event so that only 9 % of the total rainfall would be discharged via the rapid overflow system.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

3.4.3 Underdrain System

15

An underdrain system is not always required in an infiltration basin but it is a good management practice to provide more reliable infiltration rates, especially as the basin may begin to clog over time. The underdrain flow rate, Qud, is assumed to be the same as the basin floor infiltration rate, Qif (conservative assumption that all flow is intercepted by underdrains), which is related to the area of infiltration, Aif, and the infiltration rate, f, by: Qud = Qif = Aiff (m3/s) (4)

In most cases the underdrains are a perforated or slotted polythene pipe wrapped in filter fabric. It is common practice to allow greater capacity in these pipes than normal pipe flow would suggest to allow some clogging over time. 3.4.4 Soakage Chamber

A soakage chamber allows rapid infiltration of water exiting the underdrains of the basin or discharge of excess storm flows. The size or number of soakage chambers required will be related to the underdrain flow (if there is sufficient live storage above the first flush storage volume) or the direct inflow rate (in the case of rapid pour-over). {CCC, 2003} gives the following equations for determining the number of chambers required; (5) # Chambers = Qud / (Qcc)
# Chambers = QD / (Qcc) Qcc QD = = = capacity reduction factor (typically assume 0.3) 3 Single Chamber infiltration rate (m /s) 3 direct inflow (m /s)

(6)

Soakage chambers are constructed with a steel casing protruding into underlying freedraining gravels (Figure 3.4). The design is similar to that of a normal groundwater extraction well, only water is discharged through it rather than extracted.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

16

Figure 3.4: Soakage Chamber to discharge overflow and underdrain stormwater directly to ground water (CCC, 2003) 3.5 Aesthetic Considerations

Vegetation of the infiltration basin is not only required to make it look attractive but also to prevent erosion and aid filtration of contaminants from the stormwater. Grass is the most suitable form of vegetation as it can withstand periodic flooding and inevitable foot traffic. Additional planting of native grasses and small shrubs will also serve to improve the aesthetic properties of the basin. Planting of trees and large shrubs is sometimes discouraged as roots may break up the soil profile creating preferred flow-paths for infiltrating water, thus compromising the filtering ability of the surface soils. The basins can be constructed in any shape to increase their appeal or to fit with site constraints. It is important however to have a uniformly flat base to promote uniform infiltration rather than a concentration of ponding at low points which could lead to a concentration of contaminants in these areas.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

4.0 4.1 PROJECT SCOPE AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Site Description and Layout

17

The infiltration basin featured in this paper is located in the new Kirkwood subdivision in Halswell, Christchurch, New Zealand (Figure 4.1). The area is located in the Upper Heathcote catchment for which the Christchurch City Council (CCC) was granted a resource consent (CRC981968, Appendix A) to discharge stormwater and contaminants to land. Several conditions of this consent require monitoring of the infiltration devices for contamination and effectiveness. Kirkwood infiltration basin is the first such basin in this area and as such is subject to extra monitoring requirements which have been included in the scope of this report. Some additional information not required by the resource consent, but considered useful for further understanding of the basin performance is also included.

Figure 4.1: Location of Kirkwood Subdivision, Halswell, Christchurch, New Zealand (source: Topo Map)

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

18

Figure 4.2: Design plan for the Kirkwood Subdivision infiltration basin (Brough and Eastman, 2005) Soils on the site are mainly silts with some sands and clays at deeper levels. Table 4.1 gives the findings of soil profiling of the site. Table 4.1: Soil description at basin site (Brough and Eastman, 2005)
Depth 0 - 0.3 m 0.3 - 0.8 m 0.8 - 1.3 m 1.3 - 1.5 m Soil Description SILT (top soil). Dark brown, dry, firm. SILT with minor SAND. Light brown slightly speckled orange, firm, moist. SILTY SAND. Light brown lightly speckled orange, firm, moist. SILTY CLAY. Brownish grey mottled orange, firm, moist

4.2

Previous Site Tests

Two infiltration tests were carried out in the Kirkwood subdivision infiltration basin in November, 2004. The results of these tests indicated some variation with ultimate infiltration rates of 48 mm/hr (basin 1) and 100 mm/hour (basin 2). It should be noted that it is difficult to draw reliable conclusions from these limited and inconsistent data, and more tests should be carried out to verify these findings. As required by condition 11 of the resource consent (CRC981968), sampling of the groundwater immediately downstream of the basin, and stormwater being discharged into the basin was sampled in February and March 2005. The results of these analyses are presented in (Brough and Eastman, 2005) and in Table 4.2 below.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

19

Table 4.2: Results of water sampling in Kirkwood infiltration basin carried out on 15 February after approximately 12 mm rainfall (Brough and Eastman, 2005)
Determinand (g/m unless stated) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Kjoldahl Nitrogen Nitrate N (NO3 ) Copper (total) Copper (dissolved) Zinc (total) Zinc (dissolved) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Faecal Coliforms (CFU/100 mL) Escherichia Coli (MPN/100 mL)
3

Groundwater Before rain 1290 2.4 0.014 0.026 0.001 0.12 0.024 <0.2 16 10 After rain 1200 3.1 0.0358 0.0012 0.164 0.018 <0.2 <9 10

Stormwater in sump prior to discharge to basin 11 1.2 0.0042 0.0032 0.01 0.009 <0.2 680 580

5.0 5.1

METHODOLOGY Infiltration Testing

Infiltration tests were carried out on the basin on 5 September 2005 to validate tests already carried out on the basin in November 2004. All tests were carried out using double ring infiltrometers. 5.1.1 Double Ring Infiltration Testing

This test is used to determine the infiltration rate of water into soils. Two rings are carefully driven into the ground and filled with water to achieve the flow shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Double ring infiltrometer test setup The principle behind the double ring infiltration test is that water from the outer ring will infiltrate vertically down, and also out to the surrounding soils. This means that water from the inner ring can only infiltrate straight down, giving an accurate infiltration rate. Water

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

levels in the inner ring were recorded over a three-hour time period.

20

Figure 5.2 shows the positions of the double ring infiltrometers used in the tests on 5 September 2005 in basin 2. 5.1.2 Flooded Basin

Further infiltration testing was carried out on the basin by manually flooding it and measuring the rate at which the water level decreased. This exercise was carried out to provide a more accurate value for the infiltration rate and also to verify (or otherwise) the results of the double ring infiltrometer method. This verification may be applicable to situations outside the scope of this study also.

Figure 5.2: Basin 2 in dry state during infiltration testing (left) and inundated following a storm on 19 September 2005 5.2 5.2.1 Water Analysis Sampling Program

The resource consent (CRC981968) for the infiltration basin sets out a number of tests that are required to assess the health and safety of the facility and its surrounds. In addition to the required analysis a number of parameters and an extra location were analysed during sampling to provide a more complete picture of the processes occurring within the soils of the basin and the incoming stormwater. Table 5.1 provides a summary of the analyses that were carried out. These parameters were decided upon in consultation between Pattle Delamore Partners and the Christchurch City Council (CCC). Water samples (excluding Faecal Coliforms and E. Coli) were analysed by Hill Laboratories who are NZS/ISO/IEC 17025 (1999) accredited. The samples for Faecal Coliforms and E. coli were analysed by Environment Canterbury.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

21

Table 5.1: Water analyses carried out at all sampling locations for Kirkwood infiltration basin
Stormwater Underdrainage Groundwater (well) Consent Additional Consent Additional Consent Additional Req. Info. Req. Info. Req. Info.

Suspended Solids Zinc (total) Zinc (dissolved) Copper (total) Copper (dissolved) Lead (total) Lead (dissolved) Total Kjoldahl Nitrogen Nitrate N (NO3 ) Nitrite N (NO2 ) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Faecal Coliforms Escherichia coli
-1

5.2.2

Sampling Locations

There are two partially separate sections in the basin (Figure 2.2.2) which allowed two sets of samples to be collected. Due to budget constraints only limited sampling could be undertaken so that duplicate samples were only taken for one of the sections and only a single round of sampling was possible. Sampling of the stormwater was carried out at three locations in each of the two systems. These locations were the discharge points (where stormwater enters the basin), the underdrainage outlets (located in the overflow chamber of the north-east section and in a separate soakage chamber with a man-hole cover in the south-west system), and groundwater from the monitoring bore. Since the groundwater from the bore is relevant for both sections of the basin, only two rather than three samples were taken. To ensure there is no atmospheric or storage contamination of the volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, a single field blank (SA13) and trip blank (SA12) were added to the analysed samples.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

22

Figure 5.3: Sample locations for basins 1 and 2 and the monitoring bore. 5.2.3 Sampling timing

To ensure a true measure of the treatment efficiency of the infiltration media, sampling was timed in such a way as to sample the same body of water as it passed through the system. The first samples (SA1, SA11, SA2) were be collected at the discharge points during the first flush flow of the rainstorm (when contaminant concentrations are highest). This was approximately 90 minutes into the rain event. The second group of samples from the underdrainage outlets were collected approximately 7 hours after the first set of samples. This delay should allow the stormwater to drain 400 mm (approximate depth to underdrainage) at a rate of 60 mm/hr (estimated from infiltration testing). Sampling from the monitoring bore was carried out the following day to allow time for the stormwater to travel the distance between the overflow soak pits to the monitoring well. 5.2.4 Laboratory Analysis Methods

Samples for E. coli and Faecal Coliforms were analysed by ECan Laboratory, 70 Gloucester St, Christchurch. E. coli were tested using the APHA 9223 (20 Ed) Colilert Kit method. Faecal Coliforms were tested by the APHA 9222 (20 Ed) Resuscitation, MF method. The analysis methods used by Hill Laboratories are included in their summary, included in Appendix 2.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

6.0 6.1 6.1.1 RESULTS Infiltration Testing Twin Ring Infiltrometers

23

Figure 6.1: Location of double ring infiltrometer test set-ups Results from the testing carried out on 05 September 2005 are plotted in figure 6.1. Infiltration rates at sites A and B in basin 1, and site C in basin 2 are as expected, with final rates between 48 and 68 mm/hour. Site D in basin 2 however, returned an infiltration rate of only 6mm/hour which is well below to consent requirement of 20mm/hour. This test site was hand excavated to look for possible reasons for the low rate. Nothing outstanding was identified and it was concluded that the slow infiltration rate was likely due to a slightly thicker than intended layer of silt in that location. This phenomenon is most probably due to inadequate mixing of the in-situ soils and the sand that was added to increase infiltration rates. This would have happened during the construction phase and is difficult to completely prevent.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

24

Infiltration rates 05-09-2005

180

160

140

Infiltration Rate (mm/hour)

120 A B C D

100

80

60

40

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Elapsed Time (mins) 120 140 160 180 200

Figure 6.2: Infiltration rates measured using twin ring infiltrometers A and B in basin 1 and C and D in basin 2 (05/09/05) 6.1.2 Flooded Basin

In order to confirm the results of the twin ring infiltrometer testing and to further indicate the infiltration rate of the basin, the basin was flooded via fire hydrants. Because this method of testing incorporates the entire basin rather than a small representative point it should provide a more accurate reading for the overall infiltration rate. The rate of infiltration was measured in 15 minute intervals for 2.5 hours (table 6.1). The average infiltration rates for basin 1 and basin 2 were 18.4 and 20.8 mm/hour consecutively. These rates differ significantly from most of the rates given by the twin ring infiltrometer method. Table 6.1: Results of infiltration measurements with Basin 1 and Basin 2 completely flooded.
Time 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 Basin 1 Basin 2 Infiltration Infiltration rate (mm/hr) Depth (mm) rate (mm/hr) Depth (mm) 184 254 28 179 20 247 173 24 242 20 168 20 236 24 164 16 231 20 160 16 225 24 155 20 220 20 150 20 215 20 146 16 210 20 142 16 206 16 138 16 202 16 Mean Rate 18.4 20.8

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

25

Figure 6.3: Variations in infiltration rate measured in both basins after manually flooding on 28 September 2005 Fluctuations in infiltration rate in Figure 6.3 are a reflection of only a 1 mm reading difference in the water level over the 15-minute period and are likely due to human error rather than a changing rate. The expected results would show a high initial rate which converges to an asymptote at the ultimate infiltration rate, which in this case is around 16 mm/hr. 6.2 6.2.1 Water Samples Sampling Conditions

The first samples (SA1, SA11, SA2) were taken around 4 am on the 19/09/2005 after approximately 4 mm of rain as snow was beginning to fall. The second group of samples (SB2) was taken at 10 am on the 19/09/2005 with an approximately 30 mm covering of snow (Figure 6.4). It is expected that the effect of the snow on the stormwater at both stages was very minimal as first flush stormwater should still have been occurring as expected during the first round of sampling and the snow should have had little impact on the subsequent water entering the underdrain.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

26

Figure 6.4: Kirkwood Infiltration basin at time of second round of samples (SB2), 10 am 19/09/2005. As an indication of the rainfall (as rain and snow) received at the Kirkwood infiltration basin on the day of sampling, data for Aidanfield subdivision have been obtained (Figure 6.5). Aidanfield is approximately 1 km North-East of Kirkwood Subdivision, hence very little variation in rainfall between the two sites would be expected.
40 35 30 Rainfall (mm) 25 20 15 10 5 0 00:00:00 -5

Rainfall in 15 min Interval Total accumulated rainfall

04:48:00

09:36:00

14:24:00 Time

19:12:00

00:00:00

04:48:00

Figure 6.5: Rainfall received at Aidanfield Subdivision on 19 September 2005 Samples could not be obtained from the underdrainage system of Basin 1 as there was no visible flow into the soakage chamber. This may have been due to blockage of the underdrain system, incorrect construction or location of outlet, or permeable materials allowing water to bypass the drains. 6.2.2 Faecal Coliforms and E coli

Results for Faecal Coliforms and E. coli bacteria were received from ECan Laboratories (Report No. 2501540) on the 20th September 2005. Results are given in Table 6.2. As

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

27

expected the highest recordings were found in Sample SA1 and the replicate SA11. These samples were obtained from the incoming stormwater from the more developed side of the subdivision. Samples SA2, SC1 and SC11 returned concentrations of Faecal Coliforms below the level of detection for the testing methods. Table 6.2: Faecal Coliform and E coli analysis results
Sample Name E coli (MPN/100ml) Faecal Coliforms (CFU/100ml) SA1 62 100 SA11 84 150 SA2 13 <9 SB2 11 27 SC1 11 <9 SC11 4 <9

6.2.3

Nutrients, Metals and Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Results of water analyses carried out by Hill Laboratories were received on the 28th September 2005. Table 6.3 summarises these results. The results as received from Hills Laboratories are attached as Appendix C. Table 6.3: Results of water analyses carried out on samples taken from the Kirkwood subdivision infiltration basin on 19/09/05 and 20/09/05.
TSS (g/m ) 3 TKN (g/m ) 3 Total N (g/m ) 3 Nitrate-N (g/m ) 3 Nitrite-N (g/m ) Metals 3 Dissolved Copper (g/m ) 3 Total Copper (g/m ) 3 Dissolved Lead (g/m ) 3 Total Lead (g/m ) 3 Dissolved Zinc (g/m ) 3 Total Zinc (g/m ) Petroleum Hydrocarbons C7-C9 C10-C14 C15-C36 Total
3

SA1 23 0.6 0.239 0.235 0.004

SA11 22 0.6 0.222 0.217 0.005

SA2 35 2.1 1.23 0.468 0.765

SB2 18 0.9 0.466 0.363 0.083

SC1 143 0.8 0.177 0.16 0.017

SC11 404 0.7 0.245 0.229 0.016

SA12 -

SA13 -

0.0016 0.003 0.0001 0.0026 0.01 0.025

0.0016 0.0028 0.0001 0.0023 0.01 0.023

0.0037 0.005 0.0001 0.0025 0.005 0.026

0.0026 0.0039 0.0006 0.0025 0.005 0.011

0.0015 0.005 <0.0001 0.0078 0.031 0.048

0.0008 0.0029 <0.0001 0.0048 0.014 0.018

<0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2

<0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2

<0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2

<0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2

<0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2

<0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2

<0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2

<0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2

The most useful data in determining the treatment efficiency of the basin are the samples taken from basin 2 before and after infiltration. By comparing these results the removal rates for each contaminant can be calculated. Table 6.4 gives the results of this analysis.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

28

Table 6.4: Contaminant levels entering and discharging from basin 2 with the percent removed by soil filtration (Petroleum hydrocarbons have been omitted since all concentrations were below detection limits)
Faecal Coliforms (CFU/100 mL) E. Coli (MPN/100 mL) TSS (g/m ) 3 TKN (g/m ) 3 Total N (g/m ) 3 Nitrate-N (g/m ) 3 Nitrite-N (g/m ) Metals 3 Dissolved Copper (g/m ) 3 Total Copper (g/m ) 3 Dissolved Lead (g/m ) 3 Total Lead (g/m ) 3 Dissolved Zinc (g/m ) 3 Total Zinc (g/m )
3

SA2 <9 13 35 2.1 1.23 0.468 0.765 0.0037 0.005 0.0001 0.0025 0.005 0.026

SB2 27 11 18 0.9 0.466 0.363 0.083 0.0026 0.0039 0.0006 0.0025 0.005 0.011

% removed -200.0 15.4 48.6 57.1 62.1 22.4 89.2 29.7 22.0 -500.0 0.0 0.0 57.7

Average (SC1, SC11) <9 7.5 273.5 0.75 0.211 0.1945 0.0165 0.00115 0.00395 <0.0001 0.0063 0.0225 0.033

7.0 7.1

DISCUSSION Incident Stormwater

Contaminants and their concentrations within the incident stormwater have a considerable effect on the ability of the infiltration basin to discharge uncontaminated water. Levels of contaminants were measured during this study and reported as samples SA1, SA11 and SA2 (note that SA11 is a replicate of SA1). TSS, total lead, total zinc and total nitrogen were all less concentrated in samples SA1, SA11 and SA2 than the average values given for New Zealand sites (Table 2.3). This is most likely a reflection on the nature of the new and partially undeveloped subdivision which forms the catchment for the Kirkwood infiltration basin. It is likely that with further development in future years, promoting increased road traffic and a higher population density, the levels of contaminants will also increase. There are several points of interest in reference to these results: 1 The intensity of rainfall occurring just prior to sampling has a great effect on contaminant levels since it will dictate the stormwater flow and hence ability to carry suspended solids and contaminants. The timing of the sampling with reference to the start of the storm and first flush contaminants also causes variations in contaminant levels. Sampling on 19-Sept-2005 was carried out after around 4 mm rainfall and around 1.5 hours after rain began. The intensity also has a major bearing on the levels of contaminants entrained by the stormwater. Heavier, more intense rain has a greater ability to wash sediment and contaminants from surfaces and is therefore usually greater concentrations of contaminants. For this reason it is very difficult to draw conclusions or comparisons from different field data sets. To create a more complete picture it would be necessary to take samples continually during the early stages of a rainstorm to create a profile of contaminant inflow.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

29

Land use changes will also affect concentrations of some contaminants originating from the catchment. Kirkwood subdivision is not yet fully developed with construction of housing presently occurring. Some areas of garden or lawn are yet to be fully developed, although this may be offset by the fact that some sections are still fully grassed and untouched. As the land becomes more urbanised the levels of stock grazing will reduce, this may explain the large drop in faecal bacteria between previous sampling on 15-Feb-2005 and sampling during this study. Total suspended solids, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Nitrate and Nitrite concentrations found in Sample SA2 are significantly higher that those found in samples SA1 and SA11. This may be explained by the fact that stormwater into basin 1 (SA1 and SA11) originates from the more developed side of the subdivision while a large proportion of stormwater into basin 2 is derived from undeveloped or partially developed land. The partially developed, disturbed land may be a source of small sediments which become suspended in the stormwater. The Catchment for basin 1 is also larger which may serve to dilute contaminants to a greater degree than for basin 2. Concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were all below the level of detection for the test methods. The non detection of these contaminants is a reflection on the low density of the catchment, and in particular the low use, low speed road through the subdivision. Stormwater sampled in other studies is often derived from denser areas of settlement and more frequently used roads such as motorways.

In order to create a more complete picture of contaminants occurring in stormwater for this catchment it would be necessary to take repeat samples over several storm events. Because of the time constraints associated with this study samples could only be taken during one storm event, and budget limitations meant that only one round of sampling from each location during that storm was viable. It should be noted that the consent conditions require only one set of sampling and therefore the timing of this sample is crucial to the levels of contaminants that will be present in the stormwater. 7.2 Treatment by Infiltration

The main aim of this study was to identify the ability of an infiltration basin to treat stormwater by filtration processes. This was to be achieved by sampling water at several locations at various stages of the process. A major setback to this aim resulted however when it was discovered that basin 1 was not operating as expected. This meant that only a single sample of water from the underdrain of basin 2 could be taken and analysed, resulting in a fairly unreliable set of data. Despite this it is useful to look at contaminant concentrations entering the basin and exiting the basin through the underdrain (Table 6.4). These data show the ability of the soils in the infiltration basin to remove suspended solids and contaminants. It would be highly beneficial to take repeat samples during a storm and over a number of storm events. To achieve this it may be necessary to lower the number of parameters being tested (to lower costs) and allow a longer time period for sampling (to allow more than one storm). 1. With the exception of Faecal Coliforms and dissolved lead, all contaminants that were tested for show lower or equal contaminant concentrations from the basin underdrain (SB2) compared to the incoming stormwater (SA2). This observation is both desired and expected.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

30

2. Total nitrogen was removed to a high degree (90 % for Nitrite-N) which is encouraging given the reasonably high incident concentrations (when compared to other Christchurch data, Table 2.3). 3. The most unexpected result is the rise in Faecal Coliforms concentration between the incoming stormwater of basin 2 (SA2) and the underdrain flow (SB2). This may point to different bodies of water being sampled. That is sample SA2 may have been taken from relatively uncontaminated stormwater post first flush, while SB2 was a sample from first flush waters. Another possibility is that the faecal bacteria entered the stormwater after it entered the basin. This could be from bird (ducks were present) or animal waste within the basin. This latter possibility is unlikely given the volumes of water involved. It should also be noted that the concentrations of Faecal Coliforms and E. coli in both samples are very low. Results from previous tests (Table 4.2) indicated Faecal Coliforms at 680 CFU/100 mL and E. coli at 580 MPN/100 mL which far exceed all results recorded in this study. This difference may be explained in part by the different methods used to obtain the samples. Where samples for this study were taken from water as it exited the underdrain, samples for previous tests were taken from still water in the sump (which was open and exposed to direct contamination) prior to discharge to the soakage chamber (and groundwater). 4. Because of the unexpected low rate of infiltration found in this basin it is possible that a higher degree of filtration and hence treatment is occurring than would otherwise be expected. 7.3 Effects on Groundwater 1. Most contaminants were recorded at lower levels in the groundwater samples. Those that were at higher concentrations in groundwater were Total lead (SC1 and SC11), dissolved and total zinc (SC1, SC11). This points to higher background concentrations in the groundwater and makes determining the effect of the infiltration groundwater very difficult. 2. TSS concentrations were considerably higher in the groundwater samples. This is because the groundwater was obtained from a monitoring bore which does not have a screen system in place. Previous samples taken from the bore before and after a rain event give TSS concentrations of 1290 g/m3 and 1200 g/m3 consecutively, indicating no relation between suspended solids in the stormwater and in groundwater. Thus there will potentially never be a way to determine if stormwater discharge is having an adverse effect on TSS concentrations. 3. To properly determine any effects on the groundwater beneath the basin it would be necessary to sample the groundwater upstream of the infiltration basin. It would also be desirable to sample the same water so that the sample would need to be taken around 24 hrs before the rain event and 48 hrs before downstream groundwater was sampled. In this way the actual impact of the infiltration basin could be determined. 7.4 Infiltration Rate

The measurement of infiltration rate could be considered an aside to the aims of this study. However, it should be pointed out that the rate at which the stormwater moves through the soil will have a considerable effect on the level of treatment achieved by filtration and adsorption processes. It is because of this relationship that a specified infiltration rate (or range) is often specified as a resource consent condition. It is necessary to have an

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

31

infiltration rate below 50 mm/hour so that adequate treatment is achieved. In contrast to this however, it is desirable to have the infiltration rate as high as possible to allow sufficient infiltration over the area during a storm event. Therefore infiltration basins are usually constructed with an infiltration rate near the upper limits, which also allows some silting up of the basin to occur over time. It is general practice to use the double ring infiltrometer test to determine ultimate infiltration rates for soils. Previous research suggests infiltrometer tests can overestimate the ultimate infiltration rate by as much as 40 % which may cause problems with under-performing infiltration basins. Data from this study agree that the infiltrometer results far exceed the true rate. Three measurements for basin 1 have been reported here with wide-ranging results of 52, 64 and 100 mm/hr for the ultimate infiltration rate. The rate measured over the whole basin was far less at 16 mm/hr. Infiltrometer results from basin 2 were 48, 48, and 6 mm/hr which are closer to the whole basin rate of 16 mm/hr. Although there is the one infiltrometer rate here that is below the whole basin rate it would be considered an outlier since it is so much less than all of the other five results. These results suggest that there is excess lateral flow occurring during the double ring infiltrometer tests. This means that the water level in the inner ring is not infiltrating straight down as intended, and instead has a significant flow outwards. The results would further suggest that the upper soils are reasonably permeable (since infiltrometers drop so rapidly) but that at some point below the surface there is a less permeable barrier. During whole basin infiltration testing the flow exiting the basin 2 underdrain was observed to be fairly low given that if the basin was 15 m by 15 m and the infiltration rate was 50 mm/hr, one would expect 3.125 L/s from the underdrain. This again points to a restriction somewhere within the system. Analysis of infiltrometer test results alone would further suggest that the infiltration rate of basin 1 was higher than that of basin 2. The whole basin test refutes this however, indicating that both basins have the same ultimate infiltration rate of 16 mm/hr. During the testing surface water was not connected between the two basins as the join between them was not breached at any stage. It may be possible however that there was movement of water between the two basins beneath the surface. If this was the case the two infiltration rates would in fact be one infiltration rate as the basins would be no longer independent of one another. To test this it would be necessary to install piezometers to measure pressure and hence flow between the two basins. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Data collected during this study were limited but do agree with the general belief that stormwater treatment by infiltration through an infiltration basin achieves an acceptable discharge. With the exception of dissolved lead and Faecal Coliforms all analysed contaminants were detected at a lower concentration after water stormwater passed through the infiltration basin. Analysis of groundwater shows that the infiltration basin still seems to be imparting no adverse effect on the groundwater. If it was desired to investigate this further sampling would need to be carried out up-gradient of the infiltration basin as well as down-gradient. The main concern this study has highlighted is the ability of the double ring infiltrometer test method to accurately determine infiltration rates within an infiltration basin. The infiltration rate for this basin was measured to be approximately 20 mm/hr while the infiltrometer test gave results in excess of 50 mm/hr. The basin was sized using the minimum infiltration rate of 20 mm/hr so should still contain the design storm, however this means there is no

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

32

allowance for silt build-up over time and the basin is already at its lower consent limit. In regard to this I would recommend further testing, possibly on other sites, to see whether this error is due to the double ring infiltrometer method or an unaccounted for feature of this infiltration basin. The section of the Kirkwood infiltration basin nearest Dunbars Rd (Basin 1) should be checked to determine the outlet of underdrain water exiting the basin. This will allow more comprehensive data to be collected on the treatment efficiency of the infiltration basin. Repeat sampling of incident stormwater and water from the underdrains would provide immensely useful data on treatment efficiency. These results would serve to reinforce or dispute data obtained during this study.

9.0

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge Andrew Brough and staff at Pattle Delamore Partners who have provided invaluable technical advice and made equipment available throughout this project. Also Roy Eastman (City Solutions) who arranged funding for this project and associated laboratory analysis and was also involved in setting out the scope of the study.

10.0

REFERENCES

ASCE UWRRC (1992). Design and construction of urban stormwater management systems, American Society of Civil Engineers. Urban Water Resources Research Council., and Water Environment Federation. Water Environment Federation, New York, N.Y. Alexandria, VA. Bettess, R. (1996). "Infiltration drainage - Manual of good practice." 156, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London. Brough, A. K., and Eastman, R. (2005). "An Experience of Designing and Installing an Infiltration Basin in Christchurch." Report to Christchurch City Council, Pattle Delamore Partners, Christchurch, N.Z. Center for Environmental Research Information (U.S.). (1984). Process design manual for land treatment of municipal wastewater : supplement on rapid infiltration and overland flow, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio. CCC (2003). Waterways, wetlands and drainage guide, Christchurch City Council, Christchurch, N.Z. Colwill, D. M. (1984). "water quality of motorway runoff." Supplementary Report 823, Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

September 2005

Treatment Efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin

33

Datry, T., Malard, F., and Gibert, J. (2004). "Dynamics of solutes and dissolved oxygen in shallow urban groundwater below a stormwater infiltration basin." Science of The Total Environment, 329(1-3), 215-229. Datry, T., Malard, F., Vitry, L., Hervant, F., and Gibert, J. (2003). "Solute dynamics in the bed sediments of a stormwater infiltration basin." Journal of Hydrology, 273(1-4), 217-233. Dechesne, M., Barraud, S., and Bardin, J.-P. (2004). "Indicators for hydraulic and pollution retention assessment of stormwater infiltration basins." Journal of Environmental Management, 71(4), 371-380. Ferguson, B. K. (1994). Stormwater infiltration, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. Gnecco, I., Berretta, C., Lanza, L. G., and La Barbera, P. (2004). "Storm water pollution in the urban environment of Genoa, Italy." Atmospheric Research, In Press, Corrected Proof. Pitt, R., Clark, S., and Field, R. (1999). "Groundwater contamination potential from stormwater infiltration practices." Urban Water, 1(3), 217-236. Pitt, R., Clark, S., Parmer, K., and Field, R. (1996). Groundwater contamination from stormwater infiltration, Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Mich. Strecker, E. W. (1990). "The US Federal Highways Administration recieving water impact methedology." The Science of The Total Environment, 93, 489-498. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). June 1986.

September 2005