See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230172092

Potential groundwater impacts from civil-engineering works

Article  in  Water and Environment Journal · July 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-6593.2003.tb00433.x

CITATIONS READS
3 12,563

2 authors, including:

Rick Brassington
Newcastle University
58 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Horizontal wells: their construction and operation in shallow aquifers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rick Brassington on 22 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER Civil-engineering construction works often have a significant impact on

IMPACTS FROM CIVIL- groundwater conditions. Such an impact can range from the derogation
of water sources by dewatering works, to the creation of barriers and

ENGINEERING WORKS pathways for groundwater flow formed by foundations or ground-

M. Preene. BEng, PhD. CEng. FICE, CGeol. FGS (Member)* and R.
Brassington. BSc, MSc, CEng. MICE, CGeol. FGS (Fellow)**
improvement processes. In some cases, not all these impacts are iden-
tified early enough during the planning and design process.
This paper describes the full range of potential groundwater impacts
which can result from construction activities. The effects are grouped
into five rational categories as an aid to initial assessment. The need for
accurate baseline groundwater environmental data is set out, and
recommendations are made for the planning of monitoring programmes.

* Associate, Amp Wafer,Leeds, UK.

** Consultant Hydrogeologist, Warrington, UK.

INTRODUCTION
It is well established that civil-engineering projects can impact on the
groundwater environment during construction and in the longer term. The
potential for some effects, such as the derogation of existing groundwater
sources during construction, are usually taken into consideration. Other
changes, such as the creation of flow pathways by pipeline or foundation
construction, are often not identified early in the planning process"'.
Groundwater can be viewed either as (i) a resource worth protecting and
managing or (ii) a problem requiring a solution during below-ground
works. Water-resource managers and hydrogeologists approach ground-
water primarily from the resource point of view, while construction engi-
neers have traditionally viewed the presence of groundwater as an incon-
venience or problem, to be solved by suitable construction expedients.
Engineers adopt methods to mitigate the effect of groundwater, and
this might include temporaty dewatering pumping or the construction of a
physical cut-off wall into the aquifeP. Some large structures (basements,
road or rail cuttings) below the water table might be equipped with per-
manent groundwater drainage systems to prevent flooding, and lower the
water table in the immediate vicinity with consequential impacts which
are not always fully appreciated.

GROUNDWATER AS A RESOURCE
Groundwater is an important resource for beneficial use and for its inter-
action with the wider environment. In England, 33% of the public water
supply is obtained from groundwater, in Wales 8%, in Scotland 5% and
in Northern Ireland 8% 13). These figures hide considerable local varia-
tions and, in addition, groundwater is relied upon for domestic water
supply from private springs and boreholes - even in regions which have
a low groundwater usage.
Changes in groundwater levels or quality can have a detrimental envi-
ronmental impact and, in the UK, groundwater-protection policies have
been adopted by the Environment Agency'4' and Scottish Environment
Protection Agencyo' to prevent:

(i) Over-abstraction of aquifers;

(ii) Derogation of individual sources;
(iii) Damage to environmental features which depend upon groundwater
levels; and
(iv) Unacceptable risk of pollution of groundwater from point and diffuse

1
I H E JOURNAL V17 N1 IMARCH 2003 59
 sources. This includes delineation of source protection zones (SPZs)
around individual groundwater-abstraction sources, within which
polluting activities are strictly controlled or prohibited.
GROUNDWATER IMPACT FROM CONSTRUCTION WORKS
A range of temporary and permanent impacts on the groundwater envi-
ronment can result from civil-engineering works. There is no compre-
hensive summary of these potential effects in the literature, although
Powersi6' described so-called 'unwanted side effects' of temporary
dewatering, and Thompson eta!') reviewed groundwater impacts from
mineral extraction. The five major potential groundwater impacts from
civil-engineering works, categorised by Preene and Brassington'", are
summarised in Table 1 and described below. Each site and project
must be assessed individually taking into account (a) the nature of the
works, (b) the presence and vulnerability of aquifers, and (c) the prox-
imity and sensitivity of nearby water sources.
Category 1(a). Temporary Abstraction
Construction in permeable strata below the groundwater level requires
temporary groundwater control to allow work to be completed in dry and
stable conditions. The methods include pumping from sumps, wells or
wellpoints. Under current UK practice these are unregulated abstractions,
with no mechanism for formal consenting by the environmental regula-
tors, but their impacts might include:
(a) Ground settlement;
(b) Depletion of groundwater-dependent features;
(c) Effects on water levels and water quality in the aquifer as a whole; and
(d) Derogation of individual borehole or spring sources.
Ground settlement
Ground settlement occurs whenever the groundwater level is lowered
by abstraction. However, for most sites in the UK, settlement from dewa-
tering abstraction is so small that no distortion or damage is apparent in
nearby buildings. Ground settlement which is large enough to cause dam-
age is most likely to occur at sites where a significant thickness of soft
alluvial soils is underlain by permeable strata which require dewatering.

Table 1. Impacts on groundwater conditions from civil-engineering works

Category Potential impact Duration Relevant construction activities

1. Abstraction Ground settlement. Temporary Dewatering of excavations and tunnels
Derogation of individual sources. using wells and sumps.
Effect on aquifer, groundwater levels. Drainage of shallow excavations or
Effect on aquifer, groundwater quality. waterlogged land by gravity flow.
Depletion of groundwater-dependent Permanent Permanent drainage of basements,
features. tunnels, road and rail cuttings from
pumping and from gravity flow.
2. Pathways for Risk of pollution from near-surface Temporary Vertical pathways created by site
groundwater flow activities. investigation and dewatering boreholes,
Change in groundwater levels and quality. open excavations, etc.
Horizontal pathways created by trenches,
tunnels and excavations.
Permanent Vertical pathways created by inadequate
backfilling and sealing of site
investigation, dewatering boreholes,
excavations and permanent foundations,
etc.
Horizontal pathways created by trenches,
tunnels and excavations.
3. Barriers to Change in groundwater levels and quality. Temporary Barriers created by temporary or
groundwater flow removable physical cut-off walls such as
sheet-piles or artificial ground freezing.
Permanent Barriers created by permanent physical
cut-off walls or groups of piles or by linear
constructions such as tunnels and
pipelines.
Barriers created by reduction in aquifer
hydraulic conductivity (e.g. by grouting or
compaction).
4. Discharge to Discharge of polluting substances from Temporary Leakage and runoff from construction
groundwaters construction activities. activities (e.g. fuelling of plant).
Artificial recharge (if used as part of the
dewatering works).
Per ma nent Leakage and runoff from permanent
structures.
Discharge via drainage soakaways.
5. Discharge to Effect on surface waters due to discharge Temporary Discharge from dewatering systems.
surface waters water chemistry, temperature or sediment Permanent Discharge from permanent drainage
load. systems.

I
THE JOURNAL vi7 ~i I
MARCH 2003 60
Depletion of groundwater-dependent features
The degradation of groundwater-dependent features caused by
abstraction for water supply is an issue which is widely recognised in
water-resource ~Ianning'~'. However, Acreman et a P noted that, in some
cases, impacts which are believed to be linked to abstraction could be due
to other factors such as changes in land drainage, river channelisation
and climate change. Archaeological remains might also be dependent on
stable groundwater levels, and there have been cases of degradation
associated with large-scale dewatering works(").
For most construction projects, it is likely that dewatering abstraction
will be short term and small in volume, avoiding significant effects on
surface features unless they are immediately adjacent to the dewatering
works. If significant impacts are predicted, possible mitigation measures
include (Fig. 1):
(i) The installation of a groundwater cut-off barrier (although the cut-
off wall might affect groundwater flow - see Category 2); and
(ii) Artificial recharge of groundwater or surface water(121.The temper-
ature, chemistry and sediment content of the water must be assessed to
sets ot baseline water quality are needed to allow the risk of the impact
to be assessed.
Derogation of individual borebole or spring source
Construction projects which are planned near water-supply boreholes
fall within the SPZs, and the regulator can be expected to recognise the
risk of derogation at the planning stage. In contrast, small private bore-
hole or spring sources, including domestic abstractions which are exempt
from licensing, do not have defined SPZs and might be overlooked during
investigation and planning. Many such sources exploit shallow drift
aquifers and are likely to be vulnerable to yield reduction caused by Iow-
ered groundwater levels for the duration of dewatering works (Fig. 2). If
affected, such sources might require temporary replacement by tanker,
bottled water or modifications to the borehole or spring source.
Lowering of groundwater level
will Cause reduction in
yield of boiehale waler source
Oriainal aroundwater
" I

ievel

ensure that this will not cause an adverse impact. .:. .

Borehole with
Excavation . , . .. . . . . submersible
works cause .. . .
. .
" pump
iowerw of Grollndwatet depewkrli feature
yiuuiidwarer
level , \ Original groundwater level
. . . . . , . I . , .,
. . Lowered groundwater
'
. .
, . . . . ..
.'
. , .
Groundwaler levels lowered , . . .
., by excavation . . . . , ' ; . . . .
/-. . . . -., . . .
a1 Effect on borehole

a) Depletion due to lowering of groundwater levels

Original groundwater
Lowering of groundwater level
caused by excavation works
Groundwater cut-off wall Groundwater dependent feature

, .. . .
. .
. . . . .. . . .. .
b) Cut-off wall used to mitigate impact

A panion of the dewatering discharge Water level In the feature IS b) Effect on spring
IS piped to the fealure
\ maintained by arliflc~alrecharge
a1 ground level

Fig 2. Derogation o f groundwater resources

Category 1(b). Permanent Abstraction

c) Artiliclal recharge used to mitigate impact
fig 1. Depletion of groundwater - dependent features
Effects on water levels and water quality in aquifer
Only large long-term temporary dewatering systems are likely to have
a significant effect on regional groundwater resources. Because many
dewatering operations are carried out in low to moderate permeability
strata (classified as non-aquifers in terms of their potential for supply),
such regional effects are rare. Examples include effects on public supply
sources which are vulnerable to saline
There have also been concerns that prolonged dewatering abstractions
might affect aquifer water quality by drawing in contaminated water from
nearby sites. This includes (a) lateral migration of leachate beneath non-
engineered landfills, and (b) vertical downward migration of pollutants
from current or historic industrial activity. In such cases, extensive data-
It is not universally realised that many structures and engineered fea-
tures extending below groundwater level involve some form of permanent
drainage system which are effectively long-term abstractions. For base-
ments and tunnels a pumping system might be involved, or for road and
rail cuttings the discharge may be by gravity flow where the topography
allows.
Drainage systems for discrete structures such as basements are
unlikely to have more than a local effect on groundwater levels. In con-
trast, more extensive structures such as tunnels, pipelines and deep road
and rail cuttings with associated drainage might have a greater impact.
Their linear extent can allow them to intercept and discharge consider-
able groundwater flow which could derogate borehole and spring sup-
plies or impact on groundwater-dependent features (Fig. 3). These
effects are usually slow and many could go unrecognised as the conse-
quence of poorly designed drainage works. Such effects can be avoided
by designing the structure to be watertight without the need for ground-
water drainage. If this cannot be undertaken, replacement or upgraded

1
THE JOURNAL V 1 7 N1 I M A R C H 2003 61

water supplies might be required, together with compensation flows to
groundwater-dependent features.
Groundwater level
\
Impermeable bedrock
The hill forms an aquifer from which groundwler issues at springs A and B
a) Flow to springs prior to construction
Reduced catchment
for smnO A . Road cuttinq with
Impermeable bedrock
Trench d r a m rnstalledto keep the road cutting dry form additional
discharge points for groundwater This causes a lowering of
groundwater level and reduced flow from springs
b) Reduced flow to springs following construction
Fig 3. Groundwater abstractions from road cutting
Category 2. Pathways for Groundwater Flow
Some types of engineering construction form informal groundwater flow
paths. Some might be temporary (i.e. investigation and dewatering bore-
holes) and can be sealed on completion, while others form a permanent
part of a structure. Examples of permanent pathways include the granular
bedding of pipelines (which may allow horizontal flow) or some types of pil-
ing or ground-improvement processes (which can form vertical pathways).
Open excavations such as road or rail cuttings with their associated
drainage works can form flowpaths to divert groundwater. The consequen-
tial impacts of these pathways include (Fig. 4):
(a) Loss of yield when horizontal pathways divert water away from
springs or boreholes;
(b) Increased risk of aquifer pollution from surface activities when,
for example, the confining bed is punctured by the work, and the
near surface strata have been contaminated by historic or ongoing
pollution;
(c) Changes in groundwater quality if conduits are formed between dif-
ferent aquifer units. For example, poorly sealed investigation bore-
holes could allow mixing of fresh and saline water in aquifers, or
polluted groundwater at shallow depth might flow into deeper
aquifers; and
(d) An uncontrolled artesian discharge through an inadequately sealed
site investigation or dewatering borehole
Potential pathway formed by
Regional groundwater
flow
pipeline intercepts flow and
diverts it Flow along
Catchment for
reduced
Plan view 01 original condillon Plan view following c~n~truction
01 pipeline
a) Diversion of flow from groundwater source
Perched water table Water migrates along
in Made Ground borehole or pile
Conlaminated
Made Ground
< - - 1 -
Clay
Reduced catchment
lor spring B
b) Vertical pathways leading to change in groundwater quality
Fig 4. Pathways for groundwater flow
An awareness of such potential impacts is important when designing
site investigations or dewatering schemes. For example, all site-investi-
gation boreholes and dewatering boreholes must be adequately sealed
on completion. Similarly, dewatering boreholes should not
be screened in more than one aquifer unit and should have grout seals
at suitable levels to prevent the gravel pack acting as a pathway for ver-
tical flow.
Deep structures such as shafts or basements should be designed to
limit the potential for vertical-flow paths, for example, by using raft
foundations in preference to piles which might puncture low-permeabil-
ity layers"41.Horizontal structures such as pipelines should have low-per-
meability barriers or anti-seepage collars (also known as 'stanks') at
regular intervals along their route.
Category 3. Barriers to Groundwater Flow
Where extensive heavy-duty foundations are installed into aquifers
which are shallow or are of limited thickness, the concrete walls or
groups of piles might interrupt horizontal groundwater flow, causing a
damming effect (Fig. 5). Groundwater levels can rise on the upstream
side of the structure and be lowered on the downstream side. These
effects might not be significant unless large structures penetrate signif-
icant aquifer horizons. It is rare that sufficient groundwater monitoring
is carried out to allow these effects to be quantified; Bartoni1'' recorded
groundwater-level rises of 0.2-0.8 m upstream from a structure which
penetrated a valley gravel aquifer. Such barriers divert the groundwater
flow around the sides of the structure and can reduce the supply to
groundwater sources, or cause flooding of adjacent basements.
An appreciation of the above impacts would enable the designer to
consider the use of raft foundations or limiting the depth of piles or cut-
off walls to reduce aquifer penetration. Any continuous impermeable cut-
off walls used for groundwater control during construction could be
designed so as not to form a permanent barrier to groundwater flow when
I
THE JOURNAL/ V17 N1 MARCH 2003 6 2
 Groundwater levels ;ategory 5. uiscnarge to surrace waters
raised up-gradient
Abstractions for temporary dewatering or from longer-term drainage
ichemes generate a discharge need. Potential detrimental impacts on
he receiving water body include:
i) Erosion of the banks to watercourses by poorly arranged discharges,
which might also block or change the flow pattern as scoured mate-
rial is re-deposited downstream. This can be reduced by the use of
Impermeable bedrock ' ' r\/ gabion baskets, geotextile mattresses or straw bales to dissipate
Groundwater levels the energy of the water at the point of discharge;
lowered down-gradlent
ii) Suspended solids in the discharge water are highly visible and are
a) Deep foundations
also harmful to aquatic plant, fish and insect life. Any abstraction
system should have adequate filters to avoid suspended solids in
Group of large structures
the discharge water;
r-l /' jii) Oil and petroleum products might appear in the discharge as a result
of spills or leaks from plant, vehicles or storage areas. These are
often light, non-aqueous liquids and appear as floating films or lay-
ers on the surface of lagoons or watercourses, and can be present
in solution. Water may have to be passed through proprietary inter-
ceptors - the oil products being disposed of separately; and
Large numbers of closely spaced plles may reduce the effective cross sectional
:iv) Water which is abstracted from or near a contaminated site might
area of a shallow aquifer and act as a reslrictlon to groundwater flow require treatment prior to discharge1lG)',and the cost of long-term
b ) Groups of piles treatment could be a major constraint on the feasibility of a con-
struction project.
Fig 5. Barriers to groundwater flow
MONITORING OF IMPACTS
Category 4.Discharge to Groundwaters Monitoring is an essential part of managing groundwater impacts from
Construction activities have the potential to create discharges to construction projects and can include (a) groundwater levels in wells and
groundwaters, with the risk of pollution and degradation of groundwater boreholes, (b) surface-water levels in wetlands and streams, (c) flow
quality. Common examples include leakages and spills of fuels and lubri- from springs and watercourses, and (d) water-quality parameters in
cants, runoff from operations such as concrete placement, and surface- springs or boreholes. The availability of simple, cheap and reliable data-
water runoff from topsoil removal and excavation. The pollution risk can logging systems enable a continuous record to be made, and has largely
be reduced by the adoption of good practices, following guidance from obviated the need for manual measurements.
environmental regulators. Streetly("' has pointed out the difficulties of establishing a true
The risk of pollution is increased if groundwater pathways (Category baseline against which to assess impacts such as changes in
2) are associated with the works (Fig. 6). Open excavations often form a groundwater level. Typically, groundwater levels vary in the short term
ready pathway for inadvertent discharges to groundwater. Good site (barometric changes, rainfall, abstraction, etc.) and in the longer term
practice should include prohibiting refuelling of plant (and storage of (variations in recharge and, ultimately perhaps, climate change), and
fuels) in or near excavations, and surface-water drainage should be this creates problems of data interpretation. Possible solutions include
arranged to reduce the risk of spills or runoff entering the excavation. the installation of 'control' monitoring points beyond the area which is
influenced by the project. Alternatively, records from bodies such as the
Open excavalions may
Environment Agency could perform this function and extend the records
Uncapped boreholes
can allow spills or allow spills or run off
10 rapidly reach the
for the site.
run-off l o reach
the aquiier
, Spills1 Run-off , The monitoring system should be designed to measure anticipated
\
effects, and observations should be taken in areas where no impacts are
expected, in order to verify the conceptual understanding of the
hydrogeology of the site.

Impermeable bedrock
Fig 6. Potentially polluting discharges to groundwater
Structures with deep basements or below-ground spaces can also
provide a long-term potential for discharges into the aquifer. If the
structure is not watertight and penetrates confining beds, leaks,
spillages or surface water may be able to percolate more freely into
groundwater. Individually, such leakages can be small, but their
combined effect can lead to significant regional groundwater
contamination.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Civil-engineering works penetrating aquifers can create significant
impacts on the groundwater environment. In most cases, simple
mitigation measures are possible. However, the design of such
measures require the potential impacts to be identified at an early
stage in the project, which (in many instances) Is not carried out.
2. The five principal groundwater impacts need to be assessed at an
early stage of a scheme. The assessment should take into account
the nature of the works, the presence and vulnerability of aquifers,
and the proximity and sensitivity of nearby water sources. The proj-
ect design can be varied, and mitigation measures can be adopted,
if necessary.

1
THE JOURNAL V17 N 1 ( M A R C H 2003 63
3. Monitoring appropriate parameters such as groundwater levels is
an essential part of managing potential impacts. Natural variations
in groundwater levels can make it difficult to establish notionally
'undisturbed' baseline conditions against which to assess impacts.
Monitoring programmes should be designed to determine baseline
conditions for areas which will be unaffected and for the time before
the impact commenced.
REFERENCES
(1) BRASSINGTON, F. C. The inter-relationship between changes in
groundwater conditions and civil engineering construction.
Groundwater in Engineering Geology. (Cripps, J. C., Bell, F. G. and
Culshaw, M. G. Eds.). Geological Society, Engineering Geology
Special Publication No. 3, p47. London. 1986.
(2) CASHMAN, P. M. AND PREENE, M. Groundwater Lowering in
Construction:A Practical Guide. Spon, London. 2001.
(3) ROBINS, N. S., PEACH, D. W., MCCONVEY, P., BALL, D. F. AND
DOCHARTAIGH, 6. E. 6. Groundwater source and resource protection
- policy evolution in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ire la lid, Protecting Groundwater. Environment Agency, Nat iona I
Groundwater and Contaminated Land Centre Project NC/OO/lO,
p322. Solihull. 2001.
(4) ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. Policy and Practice for the Protection of
Groundwater. (2nd Edn.) The Stationery Office, London. 1998.
(5) SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY. Groundwater
Protection Policy for Scotland. Policy No. 19. SEPA, Stirling. 1997.
(6) POWERS, J. P. Dewatering - Avoiding its Uunwanted Side Effects.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 1985.
(7) THOMPSON, A., EASTON, P. H., HINE, P. D. AND HUXLEY, C. L.
Reducing the Effects of Surface Mineral Workings on the Water
Environment: A Guide to Good Practice. Symonds Travers Morgan,
East Grinstead. 1998.
View publication stats
(8) PREENE, M. AND BRASSINGTON, F. C. The inter-relationship between
civil engineering works and groundwater protection. protecting
Groundwater. Environment Agency, National Groundwater and
Contaminated Land Centre Project NC/00/10, p313. Solihull. 2001.
(9) CUNNINGHAM, R. The groundwater ecosystem link: the case for wet-
lands. Protecting Groundwater. Environment Agency, National
Groundwater and Contaminated Land Centre Project NC/00/10,
Solihull, supplementary papers. 2001.
(10) ACREMAN, M. C., ADAMS, B., BIRCHALL, P. AND CONNORTON, B.
Does groundwater abstraction cause degradation of rivers and
wetlands? J. Ch. lnstn. Waf. & Envir. Mangt., 2000, 14, (31, 200.
(11) FRENCH, C. AND TAYLOR, M. Desiccation and destruction: the
immediate effects of de-watering at Etton, Cambridgeshire. Oxford
J. Archaeology, 1985,4, (2), 139.
(12) CLIFF, M. I. AND SMART, P. C. The use of recharge trenches to main-
tain groundwater levels. Quart. J. Eng. Geol., 1998, 31, 137.
(13) LUNNISS, R. C. Medway Tunnel - planning and contract adminis-
tration. Proc. lnstn. Civ. Engrs., Transport, 2000, 141, February, 1.
(14) WESTCOll, F. J., LEAN, C. M. 6. AND CUNNINGHAM, M. L. Piling and
Penetrative Ground lmprovement Methods on Land A ffected by
C o f f t ~ ~ ; f f ~Guidance
~ ; o n ~ on P ~ ~ ~ ~ Pt ;~oof~f e c ~Environment
jo~,
Agency, National Groundwater and Contaminated Land Centre
Report NC/99/73, Solihull. 2001.
(15) BARTON, M. E. The Bargate Centre, Southampton: engineering geo-
logical and geohydrological aspects of the excavation for basement
construct ion. €ng. Geology of Construction. (Edd leston, M., Waltha II,
S., Cripps, J. C. and Culshaw, M. G. Eds.). Geological Society
Engineering Geology Special Publication 10, p67. London. 1995.
(16) NYER, E. K. Groundwater Treatment Technology. (2nd Edn.) Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 1992.
(17) STREETLY, M. Dewatering and environmental monitoring for the
extractive industry. Quart J. Eng. Geol., 1998, 31, 125.
THE JOURNAL/ V17 N 1 / M A R C H 2003 60