Geotextiles: they arent just for silt fences anymore

Andrea Welker, PhD, PE1 , Christine Fiori, PhD, PE2 , and Joseph Martin, PhD, PE3
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster
Ave., Villanova, PA, 19085, 610-519-4959 (v), 610-519-6754 (f), andrea.welker@villanova.edu
2
Del E. Webb School of Construction, Arizona State University, PO Box 870204, Tempe, AZ
85287, 480-727-3110 (v), 480-965-1769 (f), christine.fiori@asu.edu
3
Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, 3141
Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, 215-895-2363 (v), 215-895-1363 (f), martinjp@drexel.edu

Abstract
The increasing awareness of the detrimental effects of nonpoint source pollution requires
new solutions that can be implemented on a variety of construction sites. The current emphasis
on controlling only sediment through the use of silt fences may cause many sites to be
noncompliant with their permits. Previous research indicates that sediment from construction
sites is accompanied by a host of other contaminants which all impact aquatic life. These
contaminants must be treated if we are to maintain the integrity of nearby streams during
construction. A novel approach using geotextiles as a media on which to grow bacteria and treat
stormwater on site is described. This approach will treat not only the suspended solids, but the
dissolved contaminants in the runoff. This idea is based on what was initially identified as a
problem, the biological clogging of geotextiles at landfills. This phenomenon was studied and
described by in 1994 by Koerner, et al. and in 1996 by Corcoran and Bhatia. Two proof-of-
concept studies conducted at Drexel University will be discussed in this paper. These proof-of-
concept studies indicate that geotextiles will support bacterial growth that is effective in
removing some contaminants from stormwater.

Introduction
The construction industry is a significant contributor to the economy of the United States, by
most estimates it generates about $879 billion dollars in annual revenue (NIST 1998, US Census
Bureau 2000) and directly employs approximately 7 million people (US Census Bureau 2002,
US Department of Labor 2002). The construction industry creates the physical infrastructure for
the nation that forms the foundation of the economic activity and other essential activities in our
lives. By some estimates, the structures produced by the construction industry represent over
62% of the nations wealth (NIST 1999, NIBS 1996). Therefore, continuing improvements in the
efficiency and productivity of the United States construction industry can have significant impact
on the national economy. However, the deleterious impact construction has on the surrounding
environment is well documented (e.g. Tan and Thirumurthi 1978; Shields and Sanders 1986; and
Barrett, et al. 1995). Storm water runoff from construction sites is a primary concern because of
the degradation this runoff can cause to nearby streams through increases in sediment loads and
pollutant concentrations. During a short period of time, construction sites can contribute more
sediment to streams than can be deposited naturally during several decades (Goldstein 2002).
The control of storm water runoff from construction sites is regulated by the Phase I and Phase II
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. Phase I was

1
promulgated by the US EPA in 1990 and covered large construction activities disturbing 5 or
more acres. Phase II, which became effective in March 2003, requires operators of small
construction activities that disturb 1 to 5 acres to implement programs and practices to control
polluted storm water runoff. To meet the requirements of these rules, contractors need novel
storm water best management practices or BMPs that are easy to install, inexpensive, and
effective.
Current BMPs implemented for nonpoint source pollution control, such as those at
construction sites, have had questionable success and few are implemented during the planning
or construction phase of projects. In a 1994 report, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection noted, Historically, land use planners have not adequately utilized the municipal land
use laws for addressing storm water and nonpoint source pollution management. This has
resulted in the need to impose BMPs after land uses have already become established because
the initial planning failed to consider the environmental impacts of such development. Such after
the fact installation of BMPs has limited value on a project site because the BMPs are often
unable to effectively manage the significant levels of pollution that land development tends to
generate. (Kunz 2001) The ease of installation and cost effectiveness of these BMPs are
especially important because they are temporary. In addition, these novel BMPs should be
flexible enough to treat the storm water as it varies over time and become permanent, if desired.
Geotextiles are currently used extensively as a means to control sediment runoff from
construction sites, but the pollutants migrating from these sites are more than just sediments.

Impacts of construction on surface waters

Initially, the US EPA focused their efforts on point source pollution as a result of the Clean
Water Act, which was passed in 1972. However, nonpoint source pollution is also a major
contributor to the degradation of our nations waterways. Sediment runoff rates from
construction sites are 10 to 20 times greater than those of agriculture land and 1,000 to 2,000
times greater than forest lands (USEPA 2000, Goldstein 2002). Consequently, the damage to
streams from sedimentation can occur very quickly. Construction site discharges affect 6% of
impaired rivers, 11% of impaired lake acres, and 11% of impaired estuaries (USDA 2000).
Although control of erosion and sedimentation is the primary concern at construction sites, it is
not the only factor harming the surrounding environment. Impacts of development also include
an increase in peak stream flow during storm events, decrease in base flow, and an increase in
contaminants. Moreover, it is likely that these effects are exacerbated during construction
because vegetation is removed and the speed and quantity of runoff increases.
The pollutants typically found in the storm water runoff from construction sites are (USEPA
2000):
Sediment
Solid and sanitary wastes
Phosphorous and nitrogen
Pesticides
Petroleum products
Concrete truck wash out
Construction chemicals such as solvents and acids
Construction debris

2
 Shields and Sanders (1986) monitored water quality data from the Yellow Creek in northeast
Mississippi both before and during construction of the Divide Cut of the Tennessee- Tombigbee
Waterway. They reported an increase of 50% to 100% for the mean values of specific
conductance, turbidity, color, COD, total alkalinity, hardness, ammonia, phosphorus, sulfate,
iron, lead, and manganese during construction. The estimated daily loadings of total metals,
nutrients, and dissolved solids all increased during construction as did the temperature of the
Yellow Creek. These researchers also found that total organic nitrogen, phosphorus, iron,
manganese, and zinc significantly correlated with turbidity during construction. While the
control of sediment is highlighted by this work, it also shows that further treatment of the
dissolved constituents would improve the quality of the receiving waters. In recent runoff water
quality studies conducted by the City of Portland, data indicated that most of the current
construction pollution control standards implemented on sites are not effective. Runoff from the
selected construction sites exceeded the standards for turbidity, total suspended solids, and total
metals (Kunz 2001). Research contradicting these findings was reported by Muscara, et al.
(1997). These researchers studied a highway construction site in Houston, Texas and found
little to no effect of construction on the receiving water. It is not clear, however, if these
researchers were catching the runoff from the site at the beginning of a storm event. Contaminant
levels are typically highest during the first inch of rainfall; hence it is important to sample the
first flush when assessing runoff quality.
These results support the need for future data collection to determine if construction
significantly reduces the infiltration rates of water and contributes more than just sediment to the
overall water quality problem. Increases in nutrient loading leads to lower oxygen levels in
receiving waters. The increase in peak stream flows and the decrease in base flows that
accompany development are related issues because as runoff increases, infiltration decreases.
This leads to changes in stream temperature, a reduction in dry-weather flows, and an increase in
flooding. Flooding can lead to scour and erosion problems downstream. Consequently, if the
velocity of the water leaving the construction site is not controlled, stream bank erosion will
cause further sediment loading to the water.
Pennsylvania is developing at a rate of 109,000 acres per year, while Arizona is developing
at a rate of 22,760 acres per year (USDA 2000). New residential construction throughout the
United States is continuing to rise. The new residential construction start statistics released on
September 17, 2003 indicate an increase of 11.7% from August 2002 (US Census Bureau 2003
and US HUD 2003). These increased rates of development highlight the importance of properly
controlling construction storm water runoff.

Current Measures and Novel Technologies to Control Construction Impacts

Erosion and sediment control plans are an accepted part of construction planning nationwide.
In Pennsylvania, for example, all earth disturbances greater than 5,000 square feet are required to
develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan. In 2000, Los Angeles adopted
regulations requiring the control of runoff from the first of rain falling in a 24- hour period.
For very small sites, controlling erosion and sediment using existing techniques such as
mulching and the installation of silt fences may be adequate. For many of the sites requiring
NPDES permits, this may not be enough to be in compliance with the regulations, which require
not only sediment control, but control of any pollutants on the site via the storm water pollution
prevention plan (SW3P).

3
 Researchers at the University of Cincinnati developed a method for filtering heavy metals
from storm water running off interstate highways. They collected runoff by digging a trench
along the highway, lining it with a geotextile, filled it with sand, and capped the trench with
porous pavement. The researchers found that the trench removed heavy metals with overall
efficiencies of 82-97%, reducing the risk of heavy metal contamination of nearby soil and water
sources. The key advantage of this method is that it can remove heavy metals that are dissolved
as well as particulate matter (Environmental Science and Technology 1998).
In Washington, Comings, et al. (2000) investigated the effectiveness of two wet detention
ponds to determine how effectively they remove pollutants from storm water runoff, specifically
phosphorous. In the experiment, one of the ponds was constructed to obtain flow attenuation and
water-quality treatment and the other was designed to improve water quality only. Pollutant
removal efficiencies were found to be better in the pond that was designed for improving water
quality alone. The results of the experiment showed pollutant removals varied between one fifth
and one half for phosphorous and were over one half for total suspended solids and most of the
analyzed metals (Comings, et al. 2000). These ponds, though effective, require land that may not
be available in the confines of most urban construction and development sites and if it is
available, the cost is at a premium.
The city of Dalton, Georgia utilized a straw erosion control blanket manufactured by the
Chickamauga, Georgia based SI Geosolutions company to solve its NPDES permit violations. In
2001, two construction sites were found to be in violation of the standards, despite the fact that
the sites were utilizing the BMPs suggested installing silt fencing around the borders of the
property and placing straw bales around the storm drainage system to filter the runoff. The
temporary blanket, which eventually biodegrades, was successful in controlling the silt- laden
runoff from the construction site (Reagin 2002). This technology contains the sediment and does
not address the mediation of other harmful contaminants that are commonly present in
construction site runoff.
In Jacksonville, Florida, Camp Dresser and McKee developed a sediment removal box based
on the design concept of the traditional three-chamber oil/grit separator. The baffle box uses
gravitational settling of suspended solids to achieve pollutant removal from stormwater. These
baffle boxes are an economic alternative to retention ponds and can also be installed as a retrofit
to residential and commercial areas (Chavez and Cunningham 2002). While baffle boxes are
accepted BMPs, widespread use to control runoff during the construction process has not been
widely utilized. To date, these boxes have been used as end-of-pipe technologies.
Another innovative material that is in a fledgling state of development is compost material.
This product, tested extensively in Washington has proven to be an effective material for both
filtration and erosion protection. In an article in BioCylce, Goldstein (2002) states that compost
is the best suited material for compliance with Phase II permitting requirements, despite the fact
that it is not listed as a BMP in the guidelines.
Post-construction BMPs are becoming more common as the focus of storm water
management changes to include not just removing the storm water from the site, but on what
impact that discharged water will have on the watershed. Structural post-construction BMPs
include infiltration trenches, porous pavement, and constructed wetlands. All of these BMPs
attempt to solve the problems described earlier: reduction of peak stream flows, increase of base
flows, and reduction of contaminants reaching the nearby streams. The goals of construction
BMPs are the same, however, the techniques must be different to account for the high sediment
loads, space considerations, and the temporary nature of the installation. With these issues in

4
mind, new BMPs must be adaptive and easy to install if they are to be accepted in the industry.
The increasing awareness of the detrimental effects of nonpoint source pollution requires new
solutions that can be implemented on a variety of construction sites. The current emphasis on
controlling only sediment may cause many sites to be noncompliant with their permits. Previous
research indicates that sediment from construction sites is accompanied by a host of other
contaminants which all impact aquatic life. These contaminants must be treated if we are to
maintain the integrity of nearby streams during construction. Silt fences are common to
construction sites and contractors are familiar with their installation and the materials used in
their construction. Geotextiles are the current material of choice for silt fence construction. A
novel approach using geotextiles as a media on which to grow bacteria and treat the storm water
on site is a possible solution to this problem. This approach will treat not only the suspended
solids, but the dissolved contaminants.

Geotextiles as a Medium for Biological Growth

The concept of utilizing geotextiles as a medium for biological growth is based on what was
initially identified as a problem, the biological clogging of geotextiles at landfills. This
phenomenon was studied and described by Koerner, et al. (1994) and Corcoran and Bhatia
(1996). Proof-of-concept studies conducted at Drexel University by Dr. Andrea Welker under
the supervision of Dr. Joseph Martin indicated that geotextiles will support bacterial growth that
is effective in removing some contaminants from storm water. The research performed answered
the following questions:
Which geotextile types attract microorganisms and support their growth?
What degree of treatment can be obtained?
Column and tank tests were performed to answer these questions. A schematic of the column
test is shown as Figure 1, while Figure 2 is a schematic of the tank test. The major difference
between these two experiments is that the column tests studied the treatment obtained by flowing
water through the geotextile and the tank tests studied the treatment obtained by flowing water
past the geotextiles in a baffle system.

Air Pump Peristaltic Pump

125 cm Peristaltic Pump

Treated Effluent
PWD Primary Effluent Tank
5 cm Gravel
GT-1
15 cm Gravel
GT-2 GT-2
25 cm Sand Sand

4 in 4 in

Figure 1. Schematic of column test apparatus

5
 Peristaltic Pump

Treated effluent

PWD Air Pump

primary
effuent
Geotextile
Glass Strip
Air Bubbler

Figure 2. Schematic of tank test apparatus

The water used in these studies was primary effluent from the Philadelphia Water
Department Southeast Water Pollution Control Facility (SEWPCF). This is an intermediate
treatment product that has undergone settle-able solids sedimentation, but not any biological
processes that remove suspended and dissolved organics. Depending on weather conditions, the
SEWPCF also treats combined (sanitary and urban runoff) sewage. The service or tributary area
includes Center City, Philadelphia, dense residential areas, and industrial districts producing
effluents that are pretreated to reduce organic loading or remove toxins. Hence, the study also
implies the feasibility of using geotextiles to treat non-point pollution sources.
Bacterial growth was best sustained on nonwoven needle punched geotextiles. These
geotextiles also maintained their hydraulic conductivity during the column tests. A scanning
electron microscope photograph of the bio-film on a nonwoven geotextile is shown in Figure 3.
This figure shows a complex, extremely open structure between relatively widely spaced fibers.
The floc is plate-shaped and has grown in layers.

The total suspended solids (TSS) of the

Figure 3. Scanning electron microscope
photograph of biofilm on a nonwoven geotextile
water entering the column and the tanks
varied between 32 mg/l and 72 mg/l and the
BOD5 varied between 32 mg/l to 79 mg/l.
The hydraulic loading rate for the column
was varied between 9 and 106 gallons per
day per square foot of baffle surface area
(gpd/ft2 ). As expected, the lower flow rates
were more effective; the higher flow rates
decreased the level of contaminant removal
and increased clogging of the geotextile.
Another finding of the column studies was
that the bacteria colonized the geotextiles
rapidly. Significant decreases in TSS were
observed with reductions varying between
66% and 97%, while BOD5 was reduced
between 64% and 98%.

6
 Each 20 gallon tank had fifteen ten- inch-square geotextile baffles, providing a baffle area:
reactor volume ratio of 7.8 ft2 /ft3 . Baffles were installed at 2 inch spaces with the same 2 inch
clearance from one tank wall and from the bottom, to provide a uniform channel width and also
to clear the bubble diffuser and sludge accumulation zone. This provided a total path length of
approximately 15 feet. The test loading rate was 1.0 gpd/ft2 , resulting in a single tank hydraulic
retention time of 22 hours and a velocity of 3.4 x 10-5 ft/sec through the channels. Nearly 100%
removal of TSS and BOD5 was achieved in the tank experiments.

Future Work
The column and tank studies proved that bacteria will rapidly colonize nonwoven needle
punched geotextiles and furthermore, that this bacteria will improve water quality. Future
research should focus upon the design and implementation of systems utilizing these findings.
The authors are currently developing a research program to evaluate the potential use of these
biologically enhanced geotextiles for stormwater treatment. In the authors opinion, to begin
development of new BMPs research must focus on the following areas
Obtain information on contaminants in construction storm water runoff
Partner with geotextile manufacturers to develop prototype on-site geotextile
treatment systems
Perform laboratory and field studies on the prototypes

Once the types of pollutants from construction sites are identified through sample collection and
laboratory analysis, prototypes to capture and treat these pollutants that utilizes geotextiles as a
bacterial growth medium must be developed. A conceptual drawing of a system where the storm
water flows through the geotextile is shown in Figure 4. This infiltration BMP would treat storm
water both during and after construction. A Siltsack (Figure 5), sold by ACF Environmental,
should be placed in the storm water inlet during construction to aid in the removal of the
sediment. This product is easily removed and discarded when it is full of sediment. The
geotextiles in the infiltration bed are easily accessible for rapid changing via the access hole
when they become clogged.

Access hole
Storm water inlet
Weir

Sediment Gravel
To storm sewer Geotextile
Sand
Geotextile
Siltsack
(during
construction) Infiltration

Figure 4. Infiltration BMP utilizing geotextiles as bacterial growth medium

7
 Two other systems proposed by the authors modify existing products sold by ACF
Environmental. ACF Environmental is interested in this research and has indicated that they
would be willing to help with development. Both products will be modified by sewing baffles
into the products. The first is the Siltsack (Figure 5). The modified Siltsack could be either a
temporary or permanent BMP, which would be discarded when full or clogged. A conceptual
drawing of the baffling system is shown in Figure 6. A disadvantage of this product as a
permanent BMP would be the need to discard and replace the product as it became clogged. The
second product is the Dirtbag (Figure 7), which is a temporary BMP used to filter water that is
pumped for dewatering. This product is discarded when water no longer passes through it at a
reasonable rate. It is anticipated that the installation of baffles (Figure 8) will enhance the ability
of this BMP to improve water quality. An advantage of modifying these existing products is that
contractors are already familiar with their installation and use, which should aid in their
acceptance.

Figure 6. Conceptual drawing of

Figure 5. Photograph of Siltsack with baffles
Siltsack (courtesy of ACF
Environmental)

Figure 7. Photograph of Dirtbag Figure 8. Conceptual drawing of

(courtesy of ACF Environmental) Dirtbag with baffles

8
Conclusions
Construction contributes significantly to the United States economy; however, construction
is also responsible for the degradation of nearby waterways. Both Phase I and II of the NPDES
stormwater program ha ve been promulgated by the US EPA. These regulations, which require
development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, now cover all construction sites
disturbing more than one acre. Currently, these plans focus on the control of sediment; however,
other contaminants such as heavy metals and nutrients have also been detected in the stormwater
exiting construction sites. Furthermore, sediment controls do nothing to mitigate the effect of
increased peak flows after a storm event.
Stricter NPDES permitting requirements require innovative water management practices at
construction sites. These innovative products must be easy to install, inexpensive, and flexible
enough to treat water whose quality changes over time. BMPs take advantage of what was once
considered a problem: the growth of bacteria on geotextiles. Previous studies indicate that
bacteria rapidly colonize nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles. These previous studies also
indicate that significant reductions in TSS and BOD5 can be obtained by water flowing through
and passed these colonized geotextiles. The use of geotextiles in this manner will enable the
traditional silt fence to become a water treatment option, that is easy to install, inexpensive, and
effective in minimizing the impact on nearby surface waters.

References

Barrett, M.E., Malina, J.F., Charbeneau, R.J., and Ward, G.H. (1995). Water Quality Impacts of
Highway Construction and Operation. Water Resources Engineering, Proceedings of the First
International Conference held in San Antonio, TX, August 14-18, 1995, pp. 1844-1848.

Environmental Science and Technology (1998) Trench Captures Highway Runoff Metals.
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 7, p. 175A.

Comings, K.J., Booth, D.B., Horner, Richard R. (2000) Storm Water Pollutant Removal by
Two Wet Ponds in Bellevue, Washington. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 126,
No. 4, pp. 321-30.

Chavez, M.F., Cunningham, J.C. (2002) Enhancing Stormwater Management with Sediment
Removal Boxes. Public Works, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 38-41.

Goldstein, N. (2002) Compost and Storm Water Management-Tapping the Potential. Biocycle,
Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 33-38.

Herdin, K.M. and Welker, A.L. (2002). "Evaluation of Equivalent Diameter Formulations for
Prefabricated Vertical Drains Based on Flow Rates." Proceedings of the 10th Annual Great
Lakes Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Conference, Toledo, OH, pp. 209-216.

9
Koerner, G.R., Koerner, R.M., and Martin, J.P. (1994) Design of Landfill Leachate-Collection
Filters. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 10, pp. 1792-1803.

Kunz, D. (2001) Testing Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Prevention.
Biocycle, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 39-40.

Muscara, J.P., Roberts, D.J., Wang, K.H., and Cleveland, T.G. (1997) Typical Pollutants
Leaving a Highway Construction Site in the Houston Area, and the Effectiveness of Slected
Temporary Sediment Controls. Aesthetics in the Constructed Environment, Proceedings of the
24th Annual Water Resources Planning and Manageme nt Conference, pp.246-251.

Reagin, M. (2002) Blanket Helps City Meet NPDES Requirements. American City and
County, Vol. 117, No. 6, pp. 16-18.

Shields, F.D. and Sanders, T.G. (1986) Water Quality Effects of Excavation and Diversion.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 2, pp. 211-228.

Tan, K-H and Thirumurthi, D. (1978) Highway Construction Impact on Water-Supply Lakes.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, Vol. 104, No. 5, pp. 997-1011.

US Census Bureau and US HUD(2003) New Residential Construction in August 2003,

Washington, DC.

USDA (2000) 1997 National Resources Inventory. US Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Rev. Dec. 1999.

US Department of Labor (2002) Industry Employment Report, Washington, DC., 2000.

USEPA (2000) Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum
Control Measure. Fact Sheet 2.6, 833-F-00-008, 3 p.

10