W A TER SEN SI TI V E URBA N D ESI GN TECH N I CA L GUI D EL I N ES FO R W ESTERN SYD N EY

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

7 November 2003
Draft Prepared by: Supported by:

Document Management Version
Final Draft Revised Final Draft

Manager
URS Australia UPRCT

Date
7 October 2003 7 November 2003

Contents

1

Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Background What is WSUD Proponent of the Technical Guidelines Purpose and Use of the Technical Guidelines Australian Runoff Quality Document Structure 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-3 1-4 1-4

2

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney ---------------------- 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Climate Geology and Soils Groundwater/Salinity Stormwater Management Objectives 2.4.1 Objectives for New Developments 2.4.2 Construction Phase 2.4.3 Post-Construction Phase 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-6

3

WSUD Measures and Application ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 WSUD Measures Relationship between WSUD Measures Description of WSUD Measures and Implementation Issues 3.3.1 Vegetated Swales 3.3.2 Vegetated Filter Strips 3.3.3 Sand Filters 3.3.4 Bioretention Systems 3.3.5 Permeable Pavement 3.3.6 Infiltration Trenches 3.3.7 Infiltration Basins 3.3.8 Rainwater Tanks 3.3.9 Landscape Developments 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-9 3-12 3-15 3-18 3-20

4

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide -------------------------------------------------------------- 4-1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 WSUD Planning Process Applicability and Function of WSUD Measures WSUD Selection and Treatment Train Incorporation of WSUD Measures in Streetscapes 4-1 4-2 4-4 4-5

5

WSUD Design Specification --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Introduction Design Process Design Specification DS1 – Vegetated Swales Design Specification DS2 – Vegetated Filter Strips Design Specification DS3 – Sand Filters Design Specification DS4 – Bioretention Systems Design Specification DS5 – Permeable Pavements Design Specification DS6 – Infiltration Trenches Design Specification DS7 – Infiltration Basins 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-10 5-15 5-20 5-28 5-33 5-38

i

Contents

5.10 Design Specification DS8 – Rainwater Tanks 5.11 Design Specification DS9 - Landscape Developments 6

5-43 5-49

WSUD Operation and Maintenance ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 Introduction Vegetated Swales Vegetated Filter Strips Sand Filters Bioretention Systems Permeable Pavements Infiltration Trenches Infiltration Basins Rainwater Tanks Landscape Developments 6-1 6-2 6-4 6-6 6-8 6-10 6-12 6-14 6-16 6-18

7

Life Cycle Costs for WSUD Measures-------------------------------------------------------------- 7-1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 Introduction Vegetated Swales Vegetated Filter Strips Sand Filters Bioretention Systems Permeable Pavements Infiltration Trenches Infiltration Basins Rainwater Tanks 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-3 7-4 7-4 7-5 7-5

8

References -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-1

ii

List of Tables, Figures, Plates & Appendices

Tables
Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table DS1.1 Table DS1.2 Table DS2.1 Table DS2.2 Table DS3.1 Table DS4.1 Table DS6.1 Table DS6.2 Table DS7.1 Table DS7.2 Table DS8.1 Table DS8.2 Table DS8.3 Table DS8.4 Table DS8.5 Table DS8.6 Table DS8.7 Table DS8.8 Table DS8.9 Table DS8.10 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Average Monthly Rainfall in the Western Sydney Area Average Evaporation Rates in Western Sydney Rainfall Statistics – Mean Inter-Event Dry Period (hrs) for Sydney Rainfall Statistics – Mean Storm Duration (hrs) for Sydney Ranking of Objectives for New Development Treatable Flow Rates and Runoff Depths (Blacktown City Council) WSUD Measures Included in the Design Specifications WSUD Treatment Measure Categories Control Levels in the Urban Hydrological System Minimum Clearances for Infiltration Systems Site Assessment for Infiltration Systems Scale of WSUD Application in Urban Catchments Role and Function of WSUD Measures Site Constraints for WSUD Elements Maximum Flow Velocities in Channels Selection of Flow Retardance Class Maximum Acceptable Flow Velocities in Channels Selection of Flow Retardance Class Sand Filter Particle Grading Specification Maximum Flow Velocities in Vegetated Channels Infiltration Rates for Homogeneous Soils Factors of Safety for Infiltration (Bettess, 1996) Infiltration Rates for Homogeneous Soils Factors of Safety (f) for Infiltration (Bettess, 1996) Design Roof Area and Number of Occupants for a given Lot Size Design Demand for Rainwater Tank (kL/year) Average Efficiency of Rainwater Tank for 250 m2 Lot Average Efficiency of Rainwater Tank for 350 m2 Lot Average Efficiency of Rainwater Tank for 450 m2 Lot Average Efficiency of Rainwater Tank for 1000 m2 Lot Average Available Detention Volume for 250 m2 Lot Average Available Detention Volume for 350 m2 Lot Average Available Detention Volume for 450 m2 Lot Average Available Detention Volume for 1000 m2 Lot Estimated Unit Rate Construction Cost for Vegetated Swale Estimated Swale Maintenance Costs – Model Farms High School Estimated Unit Rate Construction Cost for Bioretention Trench

iii

List of Tables, Figures, Plates & Appendices

Figures
Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11 Figure 4.12 WSUD Planning Process Streetscape View Zone with Development Both Sides Streetscape View Zone with Development One Side Existing Road with Car Parking One Side Existing Road with Car Parking Two Sides 2 m Wide Median 4 m Wide Median 6 m Wide Median 2 m Median with Car Parking, Permeable pavement and Street Trees 4 m Median with Car Parking, Permeable pavement and Street Trees 6 m Median with Car Parking, Permeable pavement and Street Trees Open Space Edge Median with Car Parking, Permeable pavement and Street Trees

iv

Introduction

SECTION 1

1

Introduction

1.1 Background
Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is a relatively new approach to water management in urban areas. The objective of WSUD is to maintain or replicate the pre-development water cycle through the use of design techniques to create a functionally equivalent hydrological landscape. When urban development occurs, the natural water cycle is altered to the extent that stormwater runoff from individual properties and roads intensify, flows usually increase and potential contaminants from residential and commercial activity and associated vehicle use flow into the streams and watercourses. Traditionally stormwater generated from urban areas is conveyed efficiently to designed trunk drainage systems to reduce stormwater ponding and flooding risk. The effect of this type of water management approach on natural systems has in the past included:

• • • •

the intensification of flows in watercourses potentially resulting in stream bank erosion and sedimentation; and an increase in contamination of receiving aquatic environments resulting in generally adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems. an increase in the use of water resources for domestic, commercial/industrial uses as well as outdoor irrigation of gardens and open space areas; an increased tendency for more severe flooding and increased areas of flooding;

Much of the Western Sydney area has recently been converted from a peri-urban and rural landuse to residential development. The implementation of WSUD in these areas can therefore be used to counteract disruptions to the natural water cycle. The importance of increasing the use of WSUD has be recognised by local councils across Sydney with growing acceptances of the longer-term environmental benefits of the application of WSUD principles. However, implementation of WSUD has been limited in the past due to the lack of understanding of WSUD measures available and suitable to Western Sydney as well as a lack of established procedures, standards and approvals within councils. This creates a perception that there are unacceptable risks involved in approving alternative approaches to water management. In order to encourage WSUD implementation in Western Sydney this document aims to provide WSUD best management practice design specifications for a diverse range of WSUD measures at the subdivision and allotment scales. The WSUD measures provided in this document are based upon innovative WSUD methods that have proven environmental, aesthetic and economic outcomes and are applicable to the local environment of Western Sydney. It should be noted however that the WSUD design specifications provided is not an exhaustive list of all possible WSUD measures that could be used in urban development. However, they do include those measures that are most likely to be used in the Western Sydney region.

1-1

Introduction

SECTION 1

The appropriate WSUD measures, procedures and products are generally well known, even though ongoing research is providing additional information. The challenge is to gain broad-based acceptance and application of WSUD. This requires a greatly increased level of awareness and understanding of the techniques involved. This document is aimed at achieving broad application of WSUD measures by providing best practice design specifications for a number of those measures.

1.2 What is WSUD
WSUD is the integration of various Best Planning Practices (BPPs) and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the sustainable management of the urban water cycle. WSUD is concerned with the design of urban environments to be more “sustainable” by limiting the negative impacts of urban development on the total urban water cycle. Therefore WSUD is about:

• • •

Trying to more closely match the pre-development stormwater runoff regime, in both quality and quantity; Reducing the amount of water transported between catchment, both in water supply import and wastewater export; and Optimising the use of rainwater that falls on the urban areas.

There is a wide range of approaches to WSUD, however the most commonly implemented is the improvement of stormwater management. Other approaches include management of water at the household scale such as the collection and use of rainwater from rooftops and water efficient landscape design. The key principles of WSUD as presented in the Urban Stormwater: Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999) are:

• • •

Protect natural systems (creeks, rivers and wetlands) within urban catchments. Protect water quality by improving the quality of stormwater runoff draining from urban developments. Integrate stormwater treatment into the landscape by using stormwater treatment systems in the landscape that incorporate multiple uses providing various benefits such as water quality treatment, wildlife habitat, public open space, recreational and visual amenity for the community. Reduce runoff peak flows from developments by on-site temporary storage measures (with potential for reuse) and minimise impervious areas. Add long-term value while minimising development costs. Reduce potable water demand by using stormwater as a resource through capture and reuse for nonpotable purposes.

• • •

1-2

Introduction

SECTION 1

WSUD applications can be sized to suit most individual sites from residential house blocks through to whole subdivisions. However, appropriate planning and design are required to ensure successful outcomes. The range of applications available may be applied in the following areas:

• • • • • • • •

new road/street in large or small development areas; existing streets and roadways; upgrade of drainage systems or pavements; publicly owned land new residential developments existing residential developments, redevelopments and infill areas; commercial or industrial developments; and carparks / driveways / access ways on public or private property.

It should be noted that WSUD measures cover a range of disciplines and therefore a multi-disciplinary team approach is required to promote urban design which integrates best practice water planning and management measures with attractive streetscapes and open spaces. This integration can create attractive and sustainable urban landscapes that can provide developers with a marketing advantage.

1.3 Proponent of the Technical Guidelines
This document has been prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) for the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust (UPRCT). The UPRCT in conjunction with the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), Sydney Coastal Councils Group (SCCG), Blacktown City Council (BCC) and Baulkham Hills Shire Council (BHSC) are working together to promote WSUD and sustainable water usage in the Sydney region. Other key organisations such as the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC, formerly the NSW Environment Protection Authority), the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR, formally the Department of Land and Water Conservation), Sydney Water Corporation (SWC) and Landcom are also enthusiastic to pursue WSUD projects and have provided valuable contributions to this project. The NSW Government’s Stormwater Trust has principally funded the project, with financial support from Sydney Water Corporation and the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust.

1.4 Purpose and Use of the Technical Guidelines
The WSUD Technical Guidelines, incorporating the WSUD Design Specifications, are initially intended to provide information for those proposing development within the Blacktown City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council Local Government Areas (LGAs). The Guidelines explain how best to incorporate and design WSUD measures into urban developments. It provides guidance to councils, master planners, developers and builders through provision of best management practice design specifications for a number of WSUD measures suitable for application in the Western Sydney area. It

1-3

Introduction

SECTION 1

does not discuss detailed site planning techniques or set water quality or quantity targets. Such targets will generally be set by the relevant Council or regulatory authority.

1.5 Australian Runoff Quality
This document is intended not to replace but be used in conjunction with Australian Runoff Quality, published by the Institution of Engineers’ National Committee on Water Engineering. This document is aimed at providing an overview of the current best practice in the management of urban stormwater quality in Australia and guidelines to the following:

• • • •

procedures for the estimation of a range of urban stormwater contaminants; design of stormwater quality improvement measures; procedure for the estimation on performance of stormwater quality improvement measures; and development of an integrated urban water cycle management strategy.

1.6 Document Structure
The technical guidelines are organised in the following sections: Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Physical Characteristics in Western Sydney WSUD Elements and Applications WSUD Planning and Selection Guide WSUD Design Specifications WSUD Operation and Maintenance Life Cycle Costs for WSUD Measures

This draft document has been prepared for review and comment by the WSUD Technical Specifications Project Steering Committee. Amendments will be made in response to comments received and a final document produced.

1-4

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney
2 Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney

SECTION 2

The key physical factors that affect the function, design and performance of WSUD measures in Western Sydney are:

• • • •

Climate; Geology and Soils; Groundwater/Salinity; and Catchment Water Quantity and Quality Objectives.

2.1 Climate
The climate in Western Sydney is typically characterised by warm, wet summers and cool, dry winters. Rainfall in summer is typically associated with thunderstorm activity. The major influences on Sydney's climate are the topography in and around the Sydney area, the sea-surface temperature of the coastal waters, and the orientation of the coastline. Western Sydney receives less rainfall than the coastal areas of Sydney and there is also significant variation in rainfall across the Western Sydney area. The average monthly distribution of rainfall across the year within Western Sydney is summarised in Table 2.1 below. Generally, the average rainfall is highest in the northeast and least in the southwest. Annual rainfall tends to vary from approximately 750 to 950 mm within the Western Sydney area
Table 2.1 Average Monthly Rainfall in the Western Sydney Area
Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Blacktown (1963 – 1993) Prospect (1887 – 2003) Windsor (1897 – 2003) Parramatta (1832 – 1960) Liverpool (1962 – 2001) Bankstown Airport (1968 – 2001) Badgerys Creek (1936 – 1996)

102 95 87 89 98

95 94 91 96 95

97 98 83 99 101

77 75 67 91 85

57 74 57 80 69

78 74 59 82 73

37 59 48 80 39

50 52 45 55 58

40 48 40 51 46

58 59 55 63 62

85 72 67 63 78

70 76 70 72 66

854 874 769 921 870

94

107

118

94

67

81

43

52

42

64

82

73

917

94

93

89

65

60

66

34

48

38

56

74

74

789

2-1

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney

SECTION 2

Average monthly evaporation rates for the Western Sydney area are also summarised in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2 Average Evaporation Rates in Western Sydney
Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Prospect (1974 – 2003)

173

139

125

92

64

51

57

82

111

142

154

186

1373

A summary of the monthly rainfall statistics for the general Sydney area are summarised in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 (sourced from ARQ, 2003).
Table 2.3 Rainfall Statistics – Mean Inter-Event Dry Period (hrs) for Sydney
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

70.3

64.7

66.6

69.3

70.2

73.4

91.5

98.5

97.8

77.9

68.9

76.3

75

Table 2.4 Rainfall Statistics – Mean Storm Duration (hrs) for Sydney
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

11.0

11.4

12.2

13.8

13.5

16.2

13.4

13.0

11.0

11.3

10.7

11.5

12.4

2.2 Geology and Soils
The Hawkesbury Sandstone and Wianamatta Group Shales are the two main geologic groups in Western Sydney. Steep slopes and rolling plateaux are typical of a Hawkesbury Sandstone surface geology, which occurs generally in the northern and eastern regions. Gently undulating hills and flat plateaux are associated with Wianamatta Shales, which extend over most of Western Sydney. Sandy soils are associated with Hawkesbury Sandstone parent material. These soils are generally shallow and highly permeable (Bannerman and Hazelton 1990). Clay soils are associated with the Wianamatta Shales. The clays characteristically have low permeability and poor drainage and in some areas high erosion hazard. The soils on Wianamatta Shales are also associated with areas of potential salinity hazard (refer Section 2.3). Given the range of soil types and hazards, such as erosion and salinity, the application of WSUD measures, particularly those that involve infiltration, needs careful consideration to the soil types occurring at individual WSUD project sites.

2-2

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney
2.3 Groundwater/Salinity

SECTION 2

Salinity is a well-recognised issue in Western Sydney. According to WSROC (2002) urban development in Western Sydney can contribute to salinity problems in the following ways: By exposing sodic or saline sub-soils When areas are developed using the process of cut and fill, particularly for slab on-ground construction, the upper layers of soils are removed or disturbed. If the lower soil profile has saline or sodic properties, this can result in the occurrence of salinity problems and erosion. By increasing the level of regional groundwater and encouraging the development of perched water tables. Traditional urban development can increase the amount of water entering the natural system. This is due to the irrigation of parks and gardens, leaking stormwater and sewer pipes and changed stormwater flows and concentrations. By changing soil groundwater flow creating areas of impeded drainage or forced drainage. This can result in sub-soil salinity being expressed on the surface at these points. For example where roads, house slabs, retaining walls or trenches intercept the soil water flow or create hydraulic pressure that raises the groundwater table. By developing or disturbing areas sensitive to salinity. Some areas exist in a delicate balance that once disturbed is difficult to restore and rapidly deteriorates. For example, removing established salt resistant vegetation in riparian corridors could increase erosion and downstream disturbances. Due to the role of water in all salinity problems; the management of water and site drainage on sites in potential salinity hazard areas is essential. A potential salinity hazard therefore has direct implications for the selection and design of WSUD measures. The key principles of salinity management that need to be considered when implementing WSUD include:

• • • • •

identify hazard areas and processes on the site; reduce water input and maintain natural water balance that limits groundwater rise and soil water flow-through; maintain good drainage and reduce water logging; retain or increase vegetation in strategic areas; and implement building controls and/or engineering responses where appropriate.

2-3

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney
Salinity Hazard Mapping for Western Sydney

SECTION 2

To assist with the first step identified above, DLWC (now known as DIPNR) have produced a draft Salinity Hazard Map for Western Sydney. The most recent issue of this map is December 2000. The Salinity Hazard Map depicts potential salinity hazard zones and areas with known salinity problems. The map is at a scale of 1:100 000 and covers the area of the Penrith Soil Landscape map sheet (Bannerman and Hazelton 1990). It is noted in the draft guidelines which accompany the map that the salinity hazard zones should not be used at the property scale (i.e. individual lots) and that the maps should only be used to identify the general level of hazard in the locality of the site. This indicates the appropriate salinity assessment and management response for the site. To identify local variations in salinity hazard, it may be necessary to undertake on-site investigations, which the map cannot substitute for. The Salinity Hazard Map identifies four classes of salinity hazard: 1. 2. 3. 4. known areas of salinity; areas of extensive salinity hazard; areas of localised salinity hazard; and no known hazard.

The draft salinity hazard map shows that salinity may occur throughout the Western Sydney LGA’s. Areas of extensive salinity hazard particularly include the lower slopes and streamlines, which have the potential to become waterlogged, or where the movement of water through the soil profile is low. Areas of localised salinity hazard cover the remainder of the map wherever Wianamatta Group shales and their derived soil materials are found. Areas of no known salinity hazard have been mapped on areas of Hawkesbury Sandstone and Narrabeen Group sedimentary rocks. It should be noted that the Salinity Hazard Map is currently in draft (as at October 2003), and therefore users should ensure that the latest version is being sourced prior to use.

Salinity Hazard Assessment for Western Sydney
An assessment key accompanies the draft Salinity Hazard Map for Western Sydney to assist in the assessment of salinity hazard for specific sites in Western Sydney. It is intended for use at the planning scale and requires some field observation and reference to other maps and documents. It does not provide proof of the absence or presence of salinity but is simply a guide to planners and designers in deciding what type of salinity process model may be operating and whether further investigations may be necessary. The types, methodology and interpretation of salinity investigations suitable for urban developments is provided in WSROC (2002). The WSUD design specifications provided in this document have generally taken into account salinity risk in the Western Sydney area. However, this does not preclude the need for appropriate site-specific investigations.

2-4

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney
2.4 Stormwater Management Objectives
2.4.1 Objectives for New Developments

SECTION 2

Stormwater management objectives for new development aim to define those stormwater outcomes which councils and/or developers will seek to achieve in the development or redevelopment of land (EPA, 2000). The purpose of prescribing such objectives is to minimise the impact of new development (including redevelopment) upon receiving waterways and areas of natural heritage. The objectives, recommended by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, aim to capture the greatest stormwater management opportunities that can be incorporated into new development, compared to those able to be cost-effectively retrofitted to existing urban areas. These objectives will provide guidance to both Council officers and development proponents in the management of stormwater from new developments. For the construction and post-construction phases of development, the stormwater management objectives include both quantitative performance objectives for stormwater quality control measures, and qualitative management principles and objectives that should be adopted to mitigate any other known potential impacts on the environment. In addition, it is useful to consider stormwater management objectives for new development at the scales of individual lots, subdivisions and sub-catchments.

2.4.2 Construction Phase
The primary stormwater issue during the construction phase of new development is sediment eroded from exposed areas or flow paths, which leads to elevated levels of sediment and turbidity in stormwater discharges from the site. Secondary issues include chemicals (including fuels and oils) stored on site and litter generated by construction activities. The construction phase objectives adopted by Council are listed in Table 2.5 below. As both Type C, Type D and Type F soils (as described in Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction document) are present within the local government area, objectives are expressed for runoff from these soil types. Type D (dispersible) soils are of particular concern because of the elevated levels of turbidity in stormwater runoff from exposed areas.
Table 2.5 Construction-phase Stormwater Management Objectives for New Development
Quantitative Objectives – applicable to subdivisions and all medium-large scale developments(a)

Pollutant / Issue Suspended solids and turbidity

Soil Type (b) Type D (dispersible) Type F (fine) Type C (coarse)

Management Objective (b) Suspended solids concentration not to exceed 50 mg/L for all 5-day rainfall totals up to the 75th percentile rainfall event Suspended solids concentration not to exceed 50 mg/L for all flow events up to 25% of the 1 Year ARI flow. (b)

2-5

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney

SECTION 2

Qualitative Objectives – applicable to all new development, including individual building lots.

Pollutant / Issue Suspended solids (sediment)

Management Objective Minimise soil erosion and the discharge of sediment by the appropriate design, construction and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures. Employ all practical measures to minimise soil erosion and the discharge of sediment in storm events exceeding the design storms specified in the Quantitative Objectives.

Motor Fuels, Oils and other Chemicals Litter

All motor fuels, oils and other chemicals are stored and used on site in a manner which ensures no contamination of stormwater. No litter placed in a position where it may be blown or washed off-site.

Key (a) (b) (c)

“medium-large scale developments” generally defined as those greater than 2,500 m total area Refer to Section 6.3, Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction document for further information. Assumes settling 0.02 mm particle in runoff from Type C soils achieves 50 mg/L suspended solids

2

2.4.3 Post-Construction Phase
Quantitative Objectives
Different types of land use typically generate specific stormwater pollutants in significant quantities. Consequently, the ‘key’ pollutants to be addressed from new development, and the control techniques employed, are a function of the type of development. Table 2.6 ranks the significance of pollutants likely to be generated by different land uses.
Table 2.6 Ranking of Objectives for New Development
Development Style Litter Coarse sediment Fine particles Total phosphorus Total nitrogen Hydrocarbons, motor fuels, oils and grease

Low Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial, Shopping & Retail Outlets Industrial

Y Y Y

N Y Y

N Y Y

Y Y N

Y Y N

N V N

Y

Y

Y

V

V

Y

2-6

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney
Development Style Litter Coarse sediment Fine particles Total phosphorus Total nitrogen

SECTION 2

Hydrocarbons, motor fuels, oils and grease

Fast Food Outlets and Restaurants Carparks, Service Stations and Wash Bays

Y Y

N Y

N Y

N N

N V

V Y

Adapted from Upper Parramatta River Stormwater Management Plan, 1999

Key: Y – key pollutant – needs to be addressed V – variable – requires site-specific assessment N – not significant Table 2.7 prescribes the degree of pollutant retention to be achieved in relation to the specific pollutants likely to be discharged from a range of new developments (denoted ‘Y’ above). For small developments (generally less or equal to 5 ha), these performance objectives shall be met for all flows up to 25% of the 1 year ARI peak flow from the development site. For larger urban developments (greater than 5 ha in area for Blacktown City and Penrith City), or developments proposed within particularly sensitive catchments, proponents will be required to assess the magnitude of any change in stormwater pollutant loads caused by the development (with proposed stormwater controls) (‘Level 2’ or ‘Level 3’ modelling, Appendix F, Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook), and the likely impact of any increase in pollution levels.
Table 2.7 Quantitative Post-Construction Phase Stormwater Management Objectives for New Development Quantitative Objectives – applicable to subdivisions and all medium-large developments (a)(b)
Pollutant / Issue Coarse sediment Fine particles Total phosphorus Total nitrogen Litter Hydrocarbons, motor fuels, oils and grease. (a) Retention Criteria 80% of average annual load for particles 0.5 mm or less 50% of average annual load for particles 0.1 mm or less 45% retention of average annual load 45% retention of average annual load 70% of average annual litter load greater than 5 mm 90% of average annual pollutant load
2

(b)

“medium-large scale developments” generally defined as those greater than 1,000 m total area. areas relate to total developments, rather than individual stages of a development.

Greater levels of pollutant retention than those listed in Table 2.7, including ‘no net increase’ in pollutant loads from the pre (existing) development situation, may be adopted in pursuit of sub-catchment

2-7

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney

SECTION 2

objectives relating to the protection or restoration of catchment values. In such circumstances, enhanced source controls or ‘compensatory’ stormwater measures will be considered in order to achieve this greater degree of pollutant retention. These stormwater management objectives will be adopted in relation to individual developments (particularly redevelopments) to the maximum extent practicable in respect of site constraints, opportunities and objectives. Urban salinity issues, for example, may constrain the scope of stormwater management options considered feasible in individual developments.

Qualitative Objectives
The retention of pollutants is only one part of stormwater management at new development sites. There are a number of stormwater management objectives that, although not quantifiable, are nonetheless critical to the pursuit of more sustainable stormwater management practices at new development sites. Councils will require developers to employ the following stormwater management principles, listed in Table 2.8, for managing stormwater from new developments.
Table 2.8 Qualitative Post-Construction Phase Stormwater Management Objectives for New Development Qualitative Objectives – applicable to all new development

Pollutant / Issue
Runoff volumes and flow (a) rates Stormwater quality
(a)

Management Objective
Impervious areas connected to the stormwater drainage system are minimised Reuse of stormwater for non-potable purposes maximised Use of vegetated flow paths maximised Use of stormwater infiltration ‘at source’ where appropriate

Riparian Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat

Protect and maintain natural wetlands, watercourses and riparian corridors. All natural (or unmodified) drainage channels within the site which possess either: a) base flow; b) defined bed and/or banks; or c) riparian vegetation are to be protected and maintained. (b) “Natural” channel designs should be adopted in lieu of floodways in areas where there is no natural (or unmodified) channel. Alterations to natural flow paths, discharge points and runoff volumes from the site are to be minimised. The frequency of bank-full flows should not increase as a result of development. Generally, no increase in the 1.5 year and 100 year peak flows. Multiple use of stormwater facilities to the degree compatible with other management objectives Impact of stormwater discharges on urban bushland areas minimised

Flow

Amenity Urban bushland (a)

Stormwater quality benefits of “Water Sensitive Urban Design” principles may contribute to the achievement of the above pollutant retention criteria.

2-8

Key Physical Characteristics Affecting WSUD in Western Sydney
(b)

SECTION 2

“Natural channel designs” involves the creation of channels with attributes of natural channels, including a meandering plan, pool and riffle zones, use of natural materials and riparian/floodplain vegetation. (See Section C6.3, draft Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook for further information and references).

Treatable Flow Rates
The approach required to demonstrate compliance with the above objectives and retention criteria is described Appendix F of Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook – Draft (EPA, 1997). Three categories with associated modelling techniques are described in this appendix; however, a fourth category is to be included for catchments less than 5 ha. This category will specify a Treatable Flow Rate (TFR) for each hectare that contributes to the pollution control device. The TFR is defined as the minimum flow that a stormwater treatment measure must be capable of treating, without bypass, to achieve the desired Pollutant Retention Criteria for the particular development style and catchment size. The TFR will vary throughout the catchments of Western Sydney depending on site-specific rainfall and runoff relationships, and each Council would need to develop the appropriate TFR for use within its Local Government Area. Blacktown City Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy (BCC, 2001) provides interim design Treatable Flow Rates and runoff depths for various pollutant types, and are summarised in Table 2.9 below.
Table 2.9 Treatable Flow Rates and Runoff Depths (Blacktown City Council)
Pollutant Type Treatable Flow Rate (L/sec/ha) Runoff Depth (mm)

Gross pollutants / coarse sediments Fine sediments / hydrocarbons

60 10

30 10

The Treatable Flow Rate for gross pollutants/coarse sediments are higher compared to rates for fine sediments, as they require greater energy and time for the mobilisation of these pollutants. Similarly, the concentration of gross pollutants/coarse sediments transport is dependent on flow rate and thus a higher treatable flow rate is required to achieve a similar mean annual load retention compared with pollutants associated with fine sediments.

2-9

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

3

WSUD Measures and Application

3.1 WSUD Measures
This section provides general information on various WSUD measures in terms of their application, limitations, pollutant removal efficiency, construction and cost implications, to enable designers, engineers and planners to better understand the function of each WSUD measure and its role in the treatment train. The WSUD measures discussed in this section and for which design specifications have been prepared are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 WSUD Measures Included in the Design Specifications Number DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS6 DS7 DS8 DS9 Vegetated Swales Vegetated Filter Strips Sand Filters Bioretention Systems Permeable Pavements Infiltration Trenches Infiltration Basins Rainwater Tanks (single lot above ground) Landscape Developments Name

These elements were chosen as they represent the key fundamental WSUD measures that are currently used in best management WSUD practices in both building and sub-division designs within Australia and overseas. Primary treatment WSUD measures, such as litter traps and gross pollutant traps (GPTs) have not been included in this document, as there are numerous proprietary manufactured devices that are currently available that provide detailed technical design manuals and guidelines. If further information is required on the design and selection of appropriate traps, refer to EPA (1997) and WBM (2003). Tertiary treatment WSUD measures, such as water quality ponds and constructed wetlands, have not been included in this document, as the design of these systems is very specialised, site specific and relatively complex and therefore (currently) outside the scope of the technical guidelines. If further information is required on the planning, design and layout of wetland ponds, refer to the Department of Land and Water Conservation: The Constructed Wetlands Manual (DLWC, 1998), the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology: Managing Urban Stormwater Using Constructed Wetlands (CRCCH, 1999), and Australian Runoff Quality (ARQ, 2003).

3-1

WSUD Measures and A pplication

SECTION 3

3.2 Relationship between WSUD Measures
WSUD treatment measures can be grouped into three main categories: primary, secondary and tertiary. The definition of these categories are provided in the Victorian Stormwater Committee: Urban Stormwater – Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999) and typical WSUD measures appropriate to each category are summarised in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2 WSUD Treatment Measure Categories
Category Definition Typical Retained Pollutant Primary Physical screening or rapid sedimentation techniques Finer particle sedimentation and filtration techniques Gross pollutants and litter, coarse sediments, free oil/grease Fine particles and attached pollutants Gross pollutant traps (GPT’s), sediment traps, oil/grit separators Sand filters, permeable pavements, vegetated filter strips, vegetated swales, infiltration systems Constructed wetlands, bioretention systems, natural stream systems Typical WSUD Measures

Secondary

Tertiary

Enhanced sedimentation and filtration, biological uptake, absorption onto sediments

Nutrients and heavy metals

A fundamental feature of the WSUD philosophy is the restoration of natural features in the hydrological system. This is typically achieved by a series of hydrological design responses at four distinct treatment control levels or stages in the urban hydrological system. The description and the various WSUD measures that can be applied at each of the four levels are summarised in Table 3.3 below (sourced from Coombes, Donovan and Cameron, 1999).
Table 3.3 Control Levels in the Urban Hydrological System
Level Description / Location Typical WSUD Measures

Source Control Conveyance Control

At the individual building allotment Conveyance of stormwater to streets and channels At the point where water leaves the lot, estate or catchment Throughout the urban catchment

Rainwater tanks, infiltration trenches, vegetated filter strips, planting beds, permeable pavements Vegetated filter strips and swales, on-line bioretention systems, natural channels, streetscapes Bioretention and infiltration basins, sand filters, constructed wetlands, detention ponds Natural water courses, creeks, floodplains, wetlands and vegetation

Discharge Control

Natural Systems

3-2

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

3.3 Description of WSUD Measures and Implementation Issues
3.3.1 Vegetated Swales
Swales are formed, vegetated depressions that are used for the conveyance of stormwater runoff from impervious areas. They provide a number of functions including:

• • •

Removing sediments by filtration through the vegetated surface; Reducing runoff volumes (by promoting some infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by reducing flow velocities.

Swales are typically linear, shallow, wide, vegetation lined channels. They are often used as an alternative to kerb and gutter along roadways but can also be used to convey stormwater flows in recreation areas and car parks.

Application
• • • • • •
Most effective in removing coarse to medium sized sediments; Typically most practical and cost effective when serving catchment areas up to 2 ha and typically should not be used in catchments over 4 ha in area; Most often used as a pre-treatment for other stormwater treatment devices, such as bioretention and infiltration systems; Most applicable at the subdivision scale (i.e. along median strips, or through parks) but can be applied at allotment level, depending on catchment area; Best placed in central median strips rather than on edge of road where driveways and services are required, however driveways and services can be accommodated with swales as needed; Can substitute underground pipes, dish drains or kerb and gutters and are typically situated adjoining allotment boundaries or impervious surfaces such as roads.

Pollutant Trapping Efficiency
Typical pollutant removal efficiencies for swales are provided in the table below (source: WBM, 2003).
Gross Pollutants* Coarse Sediment* Medium Sediment Fine Sediment Free Oil and Grease Nutrients Metals

-

50 – 80%

30 – 50%

10 – 50%

10 – 50%

10 – 50%

10 – 50%

* Assumes gross pollutant pre-treatment provided.

3-3

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Limitations
1. Site limitations that may preclude the use of this WSUD measure include: – – 2. Suitable only for gentle grades between 1% and 6%; Site requires adequate sunlight for vegetation growth.

Site limitations that may be overcome by modification to the design specifications include: – – Pre-treatment of gross pollutants required; Water ponding within relatively flat swale grades (<2%) to incorporate a subsoil drain to improve drainage.

3.

Other issues which require consideration in design planning include: – Wider road corridors may be required to incorporate swales and off street parking may be limited; Regular inspections and maintenance required during the establishment period; Potential for damage during construction of other developments; Establishment period for vegetation growth may be relatively long, particularly during winter; Residents need to be informed of swale function and benefits in order to prevent damage or misuse.

– – – –

Vegetation Selection
The selection of vegetation for swales should not preclude the use of plants other than low grasses. It is often desirable for general landscape/aesthetics reasons, or to limit pedestrian or vehicular traffic to use more substantial plants and shrubs. Recommended plant species for swales is provided in Design Specification DS9 – Landscape Developments.

Construction Issues
The timing of swale construction must take account of the intended function of the area and device. If the swale is to be used during development construction, the swale should be constructed well in advance of development to provide enough time for the swale vegetation to establish. Depending on the site runoff sediment loads and flow rates, swales may need to be restored once development construction is complete. If the swale is to be constructed for use after development completion, it should be protected from construction-site runoff and should be fenced during the construction period to prevent damage from heavy plant and vehicles.

3-4

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

3.3.2 Vegetated Filter Strips
Vegetated filter strips (or buffers) are broad, sloped open vegetated areas that accept shallow runoff from impermeable areas as distributed or sheet flow. They provide a number of functions including:

• • •

Removing sediments by filtration through the vegetation; Reducing runoff volumes (by promoting some infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by reducing flow velocities.

Application
• • • •
Most effective in removing coarse to medium sized sediments and attached pollutants (such as nutrients, free oils/grease and metals); Typically used in conjunction with swales as an alternative to kerb and gutter and can form part of a multi-use corridor. Typically used as a pre-treatment for other stormwater treatment devices, such as bioretention and infiltration systems; Most applicable at the subdivision scale, with catchment areas less than 2 ha, however can be applied at allotment level (eg. buffering runoff from driveways, overflows from rainwater tanks etc) depending on catchment area

Pollutant Trapping Efficiency
Typical pollutant removal efficiencies for vegetation filter strips are provided in the table below (source: WBM, 2003).
Gross Pollutants* Coarse Sediment* Medium Sediment Fine Sediment Free Oil and Grease Nutrients Metals

-

50 – 80%

30 – 50%

10 – 50%

10 – 50%

10 – 50%

10 – 50%

* Assumes gross pollutant pre-treatment provided.

Limitations
1. Site limitations that may preclude the use of this WSUD element: – – 2. Suitable only for relatively flat or gradually sloping areas; up to 5% grade; Require adequate sunlight for vegetation growth.

Other issues that require consideration in design planning: – Regular inspections and maintenance required during the establishment period.

3-5

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Construction Issues
Filter strip construction must be timed to take account of the intended function of the area/device. If the filter strip is to be used during development construction, the filter strip should be constructed well in advance of development to allow adequate time for vegetation in the filter strip to establish. Depending on site runoff sediment loads and flow rates, filter strips may need to be restored once development construction is complete. If the filter strip is to be constructed for use after development completion, it should be protected from construction-site runoff and should be fenced during the construction period to prevent damage from heavy plant and vehicles.

3.3.3 Sand Filters
Sand filters typically comprise of a bed of filter medium through which stormwater is passed to treat it prior to discharging to the downstream stormwater system. The filter media is usually sand, but can also contain sand/gravel and peat/organic mixtures. Sand filters provide a number of functions including:

• •

Removing fine to coarse sediments and attached pollutants by infiltration through a sand media layer; and Delaying runoff peaks by providing retention capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Sand filters can be constructed as either small or large scale devices. Small scale units are usually located in below ground concrete pits (at residential/lot level) comprising of a preliminary sediment trap chamber with a secondary filtration chamber. Larger scale units may comprise a preliminary sedimentation basin with a downstream sand filter basin-type arrangement.

Application
• •
Most effective in removing medium to fine sized sediments and attached pollutants (such as nutrients, free oils/grease and metals, specially when the sand is mixed with organic mulch); Best suited as near source treatment measures with small catchments (<0.4 ha) for residential, commercial and industrial developments with high percentages of impervious areas, such as parking lots, service stations, high density residential housing and roadways; Maximum catchment area should be less than 4 ha; Appropriate for retro-fitting, sites with space limitations and underground or under road pavement installations.

• •

Pollutant Trapping Efficiency
Typical pollutant removal efficiencies for sand filters are provided in the table below (source: WBM, 2003):

3-6

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Gross Pollutants*

Coarse Sediment*

Medium Sediment

Fine Sediment

Free Oil and Grease

Nutrients

Metals

-

50 – 80%

50 – 80%

30 – 50%

30 – 50%

30 – 50%

30 – 50%

* Assumes gross pollutant pre-treatment provided.

Limitations
1. Site limitations that may preclude the use of this WSUD element: – – – High head loss due to vertical filtration; Restricted to relatively low flow rates through sand filter media; Requires frequent inspection and maintenance (ie. annual removal and replacement of surface filter sand).

2.

Other issues that require consideration in design planning: – – – Upstream pre-treatment of litter and coarse sediments is essential to minimise filter clogging; Large land areas are required for large scale devices with limitations on future land use; To reduce infiltration to the groundwater system (ie. in known salinity hazard areas), provision of an underlying perforated pipe is to be provided to recover the filtered water; and Large sand filters without a vegetation cover can be unattractive in residential areas.

Construction Issues
The following issues are important to recognise during construction:

• • •

The filter is not be used for sediment control during construction; The foundation area should be compacted to sustain the load placed on it by the filtration system; and The sand filter material and grading must meet the criteria specified on the technical specification for the works.

3.3.4 Bioretention Systems
Bioretention systems are essentially a surface and sub-surface water filtration system. They provide a number of functions including:

Removing sediments and attached pollutants by filtering through surface vegetation, ground cover and through an underlying filter media layer; and

3-7

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Delaying runoff peaks by providing retention capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Bioretention systems are similar in function to sand filters. Whereas sand filters rely on water quality treatment via passage of stormwater through a sand medium, bioretention systems incorporate both plants and an underlying filter media such as soil for the removal of contaminants. The vegetation enhances the filtration process as well as maintaining the porosity of the filter media. The filter media is usually the plant growing material, which may comprise soil, gravel, sand and peat mixtures. Bioretention trenches can be constructed as either small or large scale devices. Small scale units are usually located in residential planter boxes (sometimes referred to as “rain gardens”), which pass collected stormwater and percolate it through the filer media to the outlet. Larger scale devices work on the same principle and can be located along the streetscapes and in conjunction with retarding basins over large open areas. There are two main types of bioretention systems:

Non-conveyance (off-line) systems – These use a freeboard for ponding above the bioretention surface to maximise the volume of runoff treated. Typically they contain the design inflow with higher flows discharged through overflow pits or bypass paths and are not required to convey flood flows. They are commonly installed in planting boxes or streetscapes as a landscape feature. Conveyance (on-line) systems – These treat the design inflow but are also able to convey minor storm events along longitudinal channels. These systems are commonly used in streetscape applications in combination with vegetated swales, which are used to convey street runoff to the designated bioretention system.

Application

Most effective in removing medium to fine sized sediments and attached pollutants (such as nutrients, free oils/grease and metals), but have typically higher pollutant removal efficiencies for a wider range of contaminants due to enhanced filtration/biological processes associated with the surface vegetation; Best suited too small (<5 ha catchments) residential, commercial and industrial developments with high percentages of impervious areas, including parking lots, high density residential housing, roadways and bridges. “Planting box” type systems should restricted to catchment areas less than 0.1 ha (ARC, 2003). Commonly used in conjunction upstream vegetated filter strips or swales to provide effective water treatment chain and conveyance of stormwater runoff; May have aesthetic benefits due to the surface vegetation and therefore can be incorporated in streetscape and general landscape features; and Can be appropriate in areas where runoff is insufficient or unreliable, evaporation rates are high, or soils are too pervious to sustain the use of constructed wetlands.

• • •

3-8

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Pollutant Trapping Efficiency
Typical pollutant removal efficiencies for bioretention systems are provided in the table below (source: WBM, 2003):
Gross Pollutants* Coarse Sediment* Medium Sediment Fine Sediment Free Oil and Grease Nutrients Metals

-

80 – 100%

50 - 80%

30 – 50%

30-50%

30-50%

30-50%

* Assumes gross pollutant pre-treatment provided.

Limitations
1. Site limitations that may preclude the use of this WSUD element: – – 2. High head loss due to vertical filtration; and Require adequate sunlight for vegetation growth.

Other issues that require consideration in design planning: – – Upstream pre-treatment of litter and coarse sediments is essential to minimise filter clogging; Regular inspections and maintenance required during the vegetation establishment period.

Construction Issues
The following issues are important to recognise during construction:

• • •

The filter system should not be used for sediment control during construction; The filter material and grading must meet the criteria specified on the technical specification for the works; Quality control relating to filter media placement is essential during construction.

3.3.5 Permeable Pavement
Permeable pavements, which are an alternative to typical impermeable pavements, allow runoff to percolate through hard surfaces to an underlying granular sub-base reservoir for temporary storage until the water either infiltrates into the ground or discharges to a stormwater outlet. They provide a number of functions including:

• •

Removing some sediments and attached pollutants by infiltration through an underlying sand/gravel media layer; Reducing runoff volumes (by infiltration to the sub-soils); and

3-9

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Delaying runoff peaks by providing retention/detention storage capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Commercially available permeable pavements include pervious/open-graded asphalt, no fines concrete, modular concrete blocks and modular flexible block pavements. There are two main functional types of permeable pavements:

• •

Infiltration (or retention) systems – temporarily holding surface water for a sufficient period to allow percolation into the underlying soils; and Detention systems - temporarily holding surface water for short periods to reduce peak flows and later releasing into the stormwater system.

Application
• • •
Most effective in removing coarse to medium sediments and attached pollutants (such as nutrients, free oils/grease and metals), Most practical and cost effective when serving catchment areas between 0.1 and 0.4 ha; Best suited to catchment areas with low sediment loads and lightweight vehicle traffic such as small carparks, low traffic streets (eg. cul-de-sacs) and for paving within residential and commercial developments; Can be used to provide a more aesthetically pleasing surface compared to conventional asphalt/concrete pavements; Applicable for pavements grades of 1% or greater, with a maximum grade of 5%.

• •

3-10

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Pollutant Trapping Efficiency
Typical pollutant removal efficiencies for infiltration systems are provided in the table below (source: WBM, 2003):
Gross Pollutants* Coarse Sediment* Medium Sediment Fine Sediment Free Oil and Grease Nutrients** Metals

-

50 – 80%

50 – 80%

30 – 50%

30 – 50%

30 – 50%

30 – 50%

* Assumes gross pollutant pre-treatment provided. ** Bound to sediments and some dissolved nutrients.

Limitations
1. Site limitations that may preclude the use of this WSUD element:

• • • •

Not suitable in areas of high traffic volumes or vehicle weights; Not suitable in areas where the catchment or high wind generates significant sediment loads; Pre-treatment of runoff from the pavement itself is not possible; Infiltration systems are generally not suitable in the following soil or terrain conditions: – – – – – – Loose sands or heavy clays; Exposed bedrock or shallow soils over rock or shale; Steep terrain (>5%); High water tables; Potential salinity hazard areas; Non-engineered fill or contaminated land.

2.

Other issues that require consideration in design planning:

Inadequate maintenance frequencies can result in the underlying media becoming clogged.

Site Evaluation and Selection for Infiltration Systems
To reduce the likelihood of failure of infiltration systems in conjunction with permeable pavements, an initial site evaluation and assessment is required prior to undertaking planning and design. The methodology and procedure for this evaluation is outlined in Section 3.3.6.

3-11

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Construction Issues
The following issues are important to recognise during construction:

• • •

The pavement area should not be used for sediment control during construction; Pavements should not be laid until all catchment surface areas have been stabilised to prevent sedimentation and consequent premature clogging. For infiltration systems: – Construction areas are to be fenced off to prevent heavy equipment compacting the underlying soils; The pavement subgrade is to be ripped/tyned before placement of the overlying aggregate of topsoil.

3.3.6 Infiltration Trenches
Infiltration trenches temporarily hold stormwater runoff within a sub-surface trench prior to infiltrating into the surrounding soils. Infiltration trenches provide the following main functions:

• • •

Removing sediments and attached pollutants by infiltration through the sub-soils; Reducing runoff volumes (by infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by providing detention storage capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Infiltration trenches typically comprise of a shallow, excavated trench filled with reservoir storage aggregate. The aggregate is typically gravel or cobbles but can also comprise of modular plastic cells (similar to a milk crate). Runoff entering the system is stored in the void space of the aggregate material or modular cells prior to percolating into the surrounding soils. Overflow from the trench is usually to a downstream drainage system. Infiltration trenches are similar in concept to infiltration basins (refer Section 3.3.8), however trenches store runoff water below ground within a pit and tank system, whereas basins utilise above ground storage.

Application

Primary function would be reducing runoff volumes (by infiltration to the sub-soils) and delaying runoff peaks by providing detention storage capacity. Secondary function would be removing fine sediments and attached pollutants (such as nutrients, free oils/grease and metals) by allowing infiltration through the sub-soils, Best suited to small (<2 ha catchments) residential, commercial and industrial developments with high percentages of impervious areas, including parking lots, high-density residential housing and roadways.

3-12

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

• •

Allows surface area above the trench to be used for planting, gardens, temporary parking lots etc (i.e. advantage over infiltration basins); Commonly used in conjunction with overlying permeable pavements as an effective water treatment chain.

Pollutant Trapping Efficiency
Typical pollutant removal efficiencies for infiltration trenches are provided in the table below (source: WBM, 2003):
Gross Pollutants* Coarse Sediment* Medium Sediment Fine Sediment Free Oil and Grease Nutrients** Metals

-

50 – 80%

50 - 80%

30 – 50%

30-50%

30-50%

30-50%

* Assumes gross pollutant pre-treatment provided. ** Bound to sediments and some dissolved nutrients.

Limitations
1. Site limitations that may preclude the use of this WSUD element:

• •

Risk of groundwater contamination and low dissolved pollutant removal in coarse, high permeability subsoils; Generally not suitable in the following soil or terrain: – – – – – – heavy clays; Exposed bedrock or shallow soils over rock or shale; Steep terrain; High water table; Potential salinity hazard areas; Non-engineered fill or contaminated land.

2.

Other issues that require consideration in design planning:

• •

Upstream pre-treatment of litter and coarse sediments is essential to minimise clogging of the underlying infiltration surface; Inadequate maintenance frequencies can result in the underlying surface soils to become clogged.

Site Evaluation and Selection
To reduce the likelihood of failure of the infiltration trenches, an initial site evaluation and assessment is required prior to undertaking planning and design.

3-13

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Site Evaluation The site is to be initially evaluated based on the following criteria (adapted from Horner, 1994):

• • • • • • • •

Catchments draining the infiltration system area to be less than 2 ha; Base of facility shall be at least 1.0 to 1.5 m above the seasonal high water table, bedrock, or a low permeability layer; Subsoil permeability shall be at least 0.8 to 1.3 mm/hr, unless an engineering analysis confirms the viability of less permeable subsoils; Subsoil shall not have more than 30% clay or 40% clay and silt content combined; The facility shall not be constructed on slopes greater then 15% unless an engineering analysis confirms the viability; The facility shall not be constructed on soils posing a potentially salinity hazard, nor fill or contaminated land; The facility shall not recharge a potential water supply aquifer; unless an engineering analysis confirms that no potential contamination of the aquifer will occur; The facility shall have sufficient clearance to property boundaries, buildings or other structures than indicated in the Table 3.4 below (source: Coombes, 2002a).
Table 3.4 Minimum Clearances for Infiltration Systems
Soil Type Hydraulic Conductivity (mm/hr) Minimum Clearance (m)

Sand Sandy Clay Medium Clay Heavy Clay

>180 180 – 36 36 – 3.6 3.6 – 0.036

1 2 4 5

Construction Issues
The following issues are important to recognise during construction:

• • • •

The infiltration device should not be used for sediment control during construction; The aggregate for filling of the infiltration trench should meet the criteria specified in the technical specification for the works; Base of trench to be ripped/tyned before placement of the overlying aggregate; Aggregate to be stored on-site to prevent contamination by fine sediments.

3-14

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

3.3.7 Infiltration Basins
Infiltration basins can be situated in either natural or excavated open areas, designed to temporarily hold stormwater runoff prior to infiltrating through the basin floor. Infiltration basins provide the following main functions:

• • •

Removing particulate and attached pollutants by infiltration through the sub-soils; Reducing runoff volumes runoff volumes (by infiltration the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by providing detention storage capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Infiltration basins can be constructed as either small or large scale devices. Small scale units (catchment <5 ha) are usually excavated pits or ponds, with larger scale units (catchments up to 50 ha) are typically located within natural surface depressions or gullies within the site occupying a large open area (i.e. playing field or parkland).

Application
• •
Most effective in removing coarse to fine sediments and attached pollutants (such as nutrients, free oils/grease and metals), Best suited to medium to large (5 to 50 ha catchment) residential, commercial and industrial developments with high percentages of impervious areas, including parking lots, high density residential housing and roadways. Best located within natural surface depressions or gullies within relatively large open areas (i.e. playing field or parkland).

Pollutant Trapping Efficiency
Typical pollutant removal efficiencies for infiltration basins systems are provided in the table below (source: WBM, 2003):
Gross Pollutants* Coarse Sediment* Medium Sediment Fine Sediment Free Oil and Grease Nutrients** Metals

-

50 – 80%

50 – 80%

30 – 50%

30-50%

30-50%

30-50%

* Assumes pre-treatment provided. ** Bound to sediments and some dissolved nutrients.

Limitations
1. Site limitations that may preclude the use of this WSUD element:

Precludes development on the surface of the basin – area restricted to parkland or open space;

3-15

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

• •

Risk of groundwater contamination and low dissolved pollutant removal in coarse, high permeability subsoils; Generally not suitable in the following soil or terrain: – – – – – – heavy clays; Exposed bedrock or shallow soils over rock or shale; Steep terrain; High water tables; Potential salinity hazard areas; Non-engineered fill or contaminated land.

2.

Other issues that require consideration in design planing:

• •

Upstream pre-treatment of litter and coarse sediments is essential to minimise clogging of the underlying infiltration surface; Inadequate maintenance frequencies can result in the underlying sub-soils becoming clogged.

Site Evaluation and Selection
To reduce the likelihood of failure of the infiltration basins, an initial site evaluation and assessment is required prior to undertaking planning and design. Site Evaluation The site is to be initially evaluated based on the following criteria (adapted from Horner, 1994):

• • • • • • • •

Catchments draining the infiltration system area to be less than 2 ha; Base of facility shall be at least 1.0 to 1.5 m above the seasonal high water table, bedrock, or a low permeability layer; Subsoil permeability shall be at least 0.8 to 1.3 mm/hr, unless an engineering analysis confirms the viability of less permeable subsoils; If the facility recharges groundwater, the maximum subsoil infiltration rate shall be 60 mm/hr; Subsoil shall not have more than 30% clay or 40% clay and silt content combined; The facility shall not be constructed on slopes greater then 15% unless an engineering analysis confirms the viability; Base flows shall not enter the facility. The facility shall not be constructed on soils posing a potential salinity hazard, nor fill or contaminated land;

3-16

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

• •

The facility shall not recharge a potential water supply aquifer; unless an engineering analysis confirms that no potential contamination of the aquifer will occur; The facility shall have sufficient clearance to property boundaries, buildings or other structures indicated in Table 3.4 above.

Site Assessment A point score system provided in Table 3.5 below is to be used to assess each site on its suitability for use as an infiltration system (source: Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1993). A score of greater than 30 is considered excellent for stormwater infiltration. A site with a score of less than 20 is not suitable for infiltration, while a score between 20 and 30 is possible, depending on the outcome of more detailed site investigations. Please note that a site evaluation (above) must be undertaken before the assessment and issues such as potential salinity will automatically preclude the use of infiltration on the site.
Table 3.5 Site Assessment for Infiltration Systems Item Ratio between the directly connected impervious area (DCIA) and the infiltration area (IA) Condition IA > 2 DCIA DCIA < IA > 2DCIA 0.5 DCIA < IA > DCIA Coarse soil and low organic material Nature of the surface soil layer Normal humus soil Fine grained soils and high organic matter Gravel or sand Underlying soils (if finer than surface soils, else use surface soils classification) Silty sand or Loam Fine silt or clay S < 7% Slope of infiltration surface(s) 7% < S < 20% S > 20% Healthy natural vegetation Catchment vegetation cover Well established lawn New lawn No vegetation (bare soil) Negligible foot traffic Degree of foot traffic on infiltration surface Average foot traffic (e.g. park lawn) Considerable foot traffic Points 20 10 5 7 5 0 7 8 0 5 3 0 5 3 0 -5 5 3 0

3-17

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Construction Issues
The following issues are important to recognise during construction:

• • •

The infiltration basin should not be used for sediment control during construction; Construction area to be fenced off to prevent heavy equipment compacting the underlying soils; Base of basin to be ripped/tyned before placement of the overlying topsoil.

3.3.8 Rainwater Tanks
Rainwater tanks are sealed tanks designed to contain rainwater collected from roofs. Rainwater tanks provide the following main functions:

• • •

Allow the reuse of collected rainwater as a substitute for mains water supply, for use for toilet flushing, laundry, or garden watering; When designed with additional storage capacity above the overflow, provide on-site detention, thus reducing peak flows and reducing downstream velocities; and It may be permissible to use rainwater tanks for internal hot water supply.

The water collected can be reused as a substitute for mains water supply either indoors (toilet flushing and laundry and possibly hot water supply) or outdoors (garden watering). Rainwater tanks can be either above ground or underground. Above ground tanks can be placed on stands to prevent the need of installing a pump to distribute the water. Such systems are referred to as gravity systems. Pressure systems require a pump and can be either above or below ground tanks. Tanks can be constructed of various materials such as ColorbondTM, galvanised iron, polymer or concrete.

Application
• • •
Can be used in residential, commercial and industrial developments; Best suited to new developments where the design of the tank can be incorporated into the house design and geometry; and Appropriate also for retro-fitting within existing developments, however the tank’s size may be limited to available space.

Limitations
1. Site limitations that may preclude the use of this WSUD element:


2.

Rainwater cannot be collected from asbestos, copper, lead or tar based painted roofs;

Other issues that require consideration in design planing:

3-18

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

Due to large size/area requirements, difficulties may be experienced in retro-fitting in existing developments.

Construction Issues
The following issues are important to recognise during construction:

• •

Tank must be installed by a licensed plumber; Rainwater tanks should be made of durable, watertight, non reflective, opaque materials with a clean, smooth interior such as ColorbondTM, galvanised iron, polymer or concrete. If a metal rain water tank is to be used, it shall comply with Australian Standard AS2179 "Rain Water Storage Tanks Metal (Rain Water) Specifications"; The tank is to be provided with suitable backflow prevention1 to the mains supply in accordance with Australian Standard AS3500.1.2 and the requirements of the relevant water authority. Tank to be fully enclosed to prevent mosquitoes breeding and access by insects, animals and birds; Tank system must be fitted with a first-flush device including a primary leaf/litter screen; Tank system must be fitted with a potable water trickle top-up and floats system; Tank should be located in a cool place; Sunlight should not penetrate the rainwater tank to prevent the growth of algae; The tank must be installed in compliance with the Building Code of Australia and must comply with the following standards: – No tank shall be fixed to the wall of a building unless certified by a practising structural engineer; All tanks are to be placed on a structurally adequate base in accordance with the manufacturers or engineers details; All drainage connections are to be in accordance with the Drainage & Plumbing Code (1998), Australian Standard AS3500; No tank shall be permitted to have a cross connection with the potable water supply.

• • • • • • •

• • •

An appropriate sign or plaque to be placed near the garden and/or tank outlet tap noting “Rainwater”; Pumps must be located and operated so as not to cause offensive noise (as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997); and Gravity tanks should be constructed with sufficient head to achieve the required flow rates.

1

Sydney Water Corporation will supply backflow prevention devices at no cost for standard installations.

3-19

WSUD Measures and Application

SECTION 3

3.3.9 Landscape Developments
The application of WSUD to landscape development involves the landscape design that aims to minimise irrigation water requirements and maximise the survival rate of plants during drought periods. It involves the application of the following seven principles; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Appropriate landscape planning and design. Limiting the extent of lawn Ensuring irrigation efficiency Improving soil for plant growth Using surface mulches Selecting low water demand plants Carrying out effective landscape maintenance

The selection of low water demand plants gives preference to locally indigenous species that are adapted to the local soils and climate. However, the use of non-indigenous species may be appropriate in some situations to achieve a particular landscape outcome.

Application
• •
Can be applied to all scales of landscape development including residential, commercial, industrial and open space. Appropriate also for retrofitting existing landscape areas within existing residential, commercial and industrial development as well as parks and open space.

Limitations

The use of low water demand plants in some situations may not allow the design to meet aesthetic or functional requirements. In situations where soil moisture remains relatively high, even during drought periods, the use of low water demand plants may not be appropriate. The use of extensive lawn areas requiring irrigation may be required in some situations to meet functional requirements (e.g. sports fields).

3-20

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

4

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

4.1 WSUD Planning Process
Figure 4.1 below illustrates the recommended process to be followed in planning WSUD in western Sydney:

Step 1 Determine likely pollutant types and expected loads based on the development type and area (Refer Section 2.4)

Step 2 Determine required pollutant removal target levels given the development type and area (Refer Section 2.4)

Step 3 Determine short list of suitable WSUD measures or series of devices that will meet the pollutant removal target levels given the site’s physical constraints and to satisfy the overall treatment train process (Refer Sections 3.2 and 3.3) Review steps 3-6 to refine design and check for appropriateness and accuracy

Step 4 Determine the optimal WSUD measure given the applicability and function of the measure and its location and incorporation in the treatment train (Refer Section 4.2)

Step 5 Undertake detailed design of selected devices and complete checklist (Refer Section 5)

Step 6 Complete Operation and Maintenance Plan and Checklist (Refer Section 6)

Figure 4.1 WSUD Planning Process

4-1

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

4.2 Applicability and Function of WSUD Measures
Prior to the selection of appropriate WSUD measures for incorporation in the treatment train it is important to recognise the appropriate scale of application (Table 4.1) and the primary role and function of each element (Table 4.2) so the key water management issues for individual sites in urban catchments can be effectively addressed (source: Lloyd et al, 2002).
Table 4.1 Scale of WSUD Application in Urban Catchments
Number WSUD Measure Allotment Scale Subdivision Scale Open Space or Regional Scale

DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4

DS5 DS6 DS7 DS8 DS9

Vegetated Swales Vegetated Filter Strips Sand Filters Bioretention Systems - Off-line (planting beds) - On-line (conveyance) Permeable Pavements Infiltration Trenches Infiltration Basins Rainwater Tanks Landscape Developments

The results of Table 4.1 above indicate that nearly all of specified WSUD measures (with the exception of rainwater tanks) are adaptable to all spatial scales from allotment to open space or regional scale.
Table 4.2 Role and Function of WSUD Measures
Number WSUD Measure Water Quality Treatment Flow Attenuation* Reduction in Runoff Volume*

DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS6 DS7 DS8 DS9

Vegetated Swales Vegetated Filter Strips Sand Filters Bioretention Systems Permeable Pavements Infiltration Trenches Infiltration Basins Rainwater Tanks Landscape Developments

H H H H M H H L M

M M M M H H H H M

L L L L H H H H L

Key: H – High level role; M – Medium level role; L – Low level role * Applies to frequent events.

4-2

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

Table 4.3 below presents a summary of the limitations of each WSUD measures. This table incorporates the key physical attributes of Western Sydney that can significantly influence the design of WSUD measures (limitations for each WSUD element are also discussed in Section 3).
Table 4.3 Site Constraints for WSUD Elements
H i g h Pe r m e a b i l i t y L o w Pe r m e a b i l i t y H i g h Wa t e r T a b l e Sh a l l o w B e d r o c k Land Availabilit y Hydraulic Head Sa l i n i t y H a za r d Loss lim it at ion

H i g h Se d i m e n t

St e e p Si t e

No.

WSUD Element

DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS5 DS6 DS7 DS8 DS9

Vegetated Swales Vegetated Filter Strips Sand Filters Bioretention Systems Permeable Pavements (Infiltration) Permeable Pavements (Detention) Infiltration Trenches Infiltration Basins Rainwater Tanks Landscape Developments

C C M C C C C C

M M M M C M C C M

M M M M C M C C M C C C M M M

M M C C C C C C M

M M C C C C C C M

C C M C C C M C C C C C C C C

Key: C – constraint may preclude the use of this WSUD M – constraint may be overcome with appropriate modifications to design – generally not a constraint (i.e. design specifications apply)

4-3

Lim it at ion

Input

So i l s

So i l s

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

4.3 WSUD Selection and Treatment Train
A fundamental feature of the WSUD philosophy is the restoration of natural features in the hydrological system by forming a hierarchy of allotment-level, subdivision-level and catchment-level solutions. Each WSUD measure should not be considered in isolation, but an element forming a continuous “Treatment Train” through the urban development catchment. The assembly of the Treatment Train is often based on achieving the desired outcomes within a system of stormwater management measures, for example, gross pollutant, coarse to medium sediment, fine sediment removal and soluble pollutant removal (as described in Table 3.2). It is desirable to treat runoff and associated pollutants generated from impervious areas by WSUD measures located as close as possible to its source, thereby minimising the requirement for end-of-pipe or downstream catchment treatment measures. Pollutant removal mechanisms associated with these measures involve physical, biological and absorption processes. Treatment methods based on physical processors are often used first in the treatment train. Physical processes fundamentally involve initially trapping gross pollutants and coarse sediments (ie. primary treatment) followed by finer sediment particles and attached pollutants (ie. secondary treatment). Once these coarse pollutants are removed, other pollutant removal mechanisms involving biological and absorption processes can be effectively applied (ie. tertiary treatment). The optimal WSUD measure/s incorporated in the system is dependent on the following:

• • • • • • •

The style of development and the type of pollutants likely generated (refer Table 2.6); Pollutant reduction objectives (refer Table 2.7); Location within the development catchment (ie. allotment, subdivision or catchment level); Role, function and effectiveness of the treatment measure (refer Section 3); Individual site assessment, physical constraints and design issues(such as soils, slopes, salinity, groundwater and space – refer Tables 4.1 to 4.3); Operation and maintenance issues (refer Section 6); and Life cycle cost considerations (refer Section 7).

Typical combination of WSUD treatment processes that are recommended for various development types (subject to site constraints) are provided below:

Residential Lots
• • •
Rainwater tank (with first-flush device) for reuse in toilet flushing, outdoor use, laundry and possibly hot water supply, with overflow to detention/retention trench. Permeable pavement located along driveways and around building where possible, with overflow to the street drainage system. Stormwater runoff from impervious areas and lawns draining to landscape or garden bed areas.

4-4

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

Excess runoff from impervious areas to detention/retention trench, with overflow to the street drainage system.

Roads and Commercial/Industrial Pavements
• •
Runoff from pavements draining to vegetated filter strips (replacing conventional kerb and gutter) with overland flow draining to bioretention or infiltration trenches, via vegetated swales. Alternately, runoff from pavements draining to in-pit GPTs, which drain to an underground sediment trap and sand filter system.

Carparks
• •
Permeable pavement over the carpark area with overflow to an oil/grit separator pit. Alternately, runoff from the carpark draining to vegetated filter strips with excess overland flow draining to bioretention or infiltration trenches, via vegetated swales.

4.4 Incorporation of WSUD Measures in Streetscapes
The streetscape aims to unify the various WSUD measures while creating the desired streetscape character intent as described in a development’s master plan. The combination of WSUD measures in the streetscape also aims to provide a visual public asset without interference, threat or compromise to public health and safety. Where locally endemic vegetation is used in the implementation of WSUD in the streetscape, this will provide habitat for wildlife and enhance green corridors. The streetscape can be defined as those areas having a primary role in the composition and character of the public domain including public parks, open space areas, roads and car parking. In addition, the areas of commercial and house lots and roofs offer a secondary visual component to the character of the streetscape. When planning and designing the streetscape, consideration must be given to the visual composition of both the WSUD measures in the public spaces and adjoining private properties (refer Figures 4.2 and 4.3). The selection of landscape treatments in the public and private domain is equally important to the success of the visual character of the streetscape and this aspect is covered in Section 3.3.9 (Landscape Developments). WSUD measures maximise passive stormwater treatment opportunities, reduce reliance upon traditional costly water treatment systems and reduce long-term maintenance costs. They can also contribute to an increase in public awareness and ownership through the use of interpretive signage and information. The inclusion and use of WSUD measures does not restrict the design and configuration of the circulation system (street and paths). The simple road sections in Figures 4.2 – 4.12 demonstrate the combinations of road types and WSUD measures and their corresponding widths and possible landscape treatments. Typical of all these sections is the intention that stormwater treatment occurs as close to the source as possible. In many instances WSUD measures can be equally successful when applied to existing roads as they can be in new developments.

4-5

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

Using a typical car park and road as the source, Figures 4.2 to 4.12 show an appropriate combination of WSUD measures and their use. The primary filtration and infiltration process begins with permeable pavement that allows stormwater to infiltrate down to the porous bedding layer below, leaving sediments at the surface. Excess surface water is conveyed to the vegetated strips at the edge of the paved surface where, again, sediments are filtered out and water is detained to infiltrate into the natural soil. This infiltration of water replenishes the groundwater table and sustains the vegetation within the conveyance strip, reducing the need for irrigation as plant species are selected for their drought tolerance. Secondary treatment occurs when excess floodwater passes through a sediment trap and sand filter and then is piped to a bioretention system or bioretention basin, or is conveyed via another vegetated strip or swale. Again sediments and pollutants are filtered out. From the sediment trap and sand filter, water is conveyed via a pipe while surface floodwater is conveyed overland via a vegetated strip or swale to either an infiltration basin, constructed wetland or bioretention basin depending on site conditions, design intent and council approval. The detained stormwater is polished for the last time as it is conveyed to the receiving waters via vegetated filter strips, swales or reconstructed streams. The extent and frequency of use of each of the WSUD measures is dependent the site conditions. WSUD measures can and should be considered as elements that can add value to a development while creating spaces of visual interest. The circulation systems (roads and pedestrian and cycle paths) bridging or interacting with conveyance and treatment elements, such as vegetated filter strips or reconstructed streams, can offer visual and educational opportunities. The open space areas can be defined and provided with visual interest by using WSUD measures. Active recreation areas can be defined and connected with bridges to passive recreation areas using vegetated filter strips, reconstructed streams and linear wetlands. Properly designed wetlands or bioretention basins can become a major visual asset particularly when used as an entry feature to a development. They are also useful islands for the enhancement of biodiversity.

4-6

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

Secondary View Zone (Lot)

Primary View Zone (Circulation System)

Secondary View Zone (Lot)

Secondary View

Primary Views

Primary View

Secondary View

SECTION

Figure 4.2: Streetscape View Zone With Development Both Sides

Secondary View Zone (Lot)

Primary View Zone (Circulation System)

Secondary View Zone (Open Space)

Secondary View

Primary Views

Secondary View

SECTION

Figure 4.3: Streetscape View Zone With Development One Side

4-7

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

SECTION

Lot

Verge and Footpath

Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Travel Lanes

Verge and Footpath

Lot

Figure 4.4

Existing Road with Car Parking One Side

SECTION

Lot

Verge and Footpath

Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Travel Lanes

Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Verge and Footpath

Lot

Figure 4.5

Existing Road with Car Parking Two Sides

4-8

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

SECTION

Lot

Verge and Footpath

Travel Lanes

2m W ide Median W ith Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS1 DS2

Travel Lanes

Verge and Footpath

Lot

PLAN

Figure 4.6

2m Wide Median

4-9

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

SECTION

Lot

Verge and Footpath

Travel Lanes

4m Wide Median With Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS1 DS2 DS4

Travel Lanes

Verge and Footpath

Lot

PLAN

Figure 4.7

4m Wide Median

4-10

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

SECTION

Lot

Verge and Footpath

Travel Lanes

6m W ide Median W ith Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS1 DS2 DS4

Travel Lanes

Verge and Footpath

Lot

PLAN

Figure 4.8

6m Wide Median

4-11

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

SECTION

Lot

Verge and Footpath

Travel Lane Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Travel Lane Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Verge and Footpath

Lot

2m Median with Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS1 DS2 DS4

PLAN

Figure 4.9

2m Median With, Car Parking Porous Pavement and Street Trees

4-12

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

SECTIO N

Lot

Verge and Footpath Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Travel Lane 4m Median with Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS1 DS2 DS4

Travel Lane Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Verge and Footpath

Lot

PLAN

Figure 4.10 4m M edian with Car Parking, Porous Pavement and Street Trees

4-13

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

SECTION

Lot

Verge and Footpath Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Travel Lane 4m Median with Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS1 DS2 DS4

Travel Lane

Verge and Footpath Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Lot

PLAN

Figure 4.11 6m Median with Car Parking, Porous Pavement and Street Trees

4-14

WSUD Planning and Selection Guide

SECTION 4

SECTION

Open Space Median (width varies) with Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS1 DS2 DS4

Travel Lanes Street Tree with Porous Pavement, Slotted Kerb or Bollards Draining Into Stormwater Drainage DS2 DS4 DS5

Verge and Footpath

Lot

Figure 4.12

Open Space Edge Median with Car Parking, Porous Pavement and Street Trees

4-15

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5

WSUD Design Specification

5.1 Introduction
This section provides best practice specifications for a number of WSUD measures presented in Section 3 for the preparation of consistent designs that address all issues ranging from sizing of the device, implementation to construction requirements. These specifications provide a summary of the criteria that must be met as part of the preliminary planning and design process and provides a recommended methodology and step-by-step procedure for carrying out these designs. These design specifications should also be read in conjunction with Section 4 of this document, which provides guidance for the planning and implementation of the WSUD measures within the development area, and provides typical examples of their use and suitability in the overall treatment train process. These design specifications have been prepared specifically for the use of developers, or engineering consultants working on behalf of developers, for preliminary design of WSUD measures during preparation of Stormwater Management Plans. They can also be used by Council Assessment Officers and Engineers assessing the suitability of these designs for development applications. The designs would then form the basis of more detailed design of these measures (if required) as part of the operational works applications. These specifications are based on a number of published design guidelines and manuals currently available for the design of WSUD measures, which are referenced throughout the document. The reader is also encouraged to refer to these supplementary references if additional information is required. However, design criteria and guidelines specific to Western Sydney have been provided, where appropriate. The sizing of the majority of the WSUD measures outlined in this document are based on hand calculations using empirical formulas that should provide an appropriate level of pollutant removal efficiency for a specific nominal detention time for each device. However, the performance of many of these measures (such as vegetated filter strips, swales and bioretention systems) can also be modelled using a continuous simulation export model, such as MUSIC (developed by the CRC for Catchment Hydrology). These types of models take into account the physical dimension of the system and the influence of climatic variability on pollutant export and removal efficiency. The effectiveness of retention systems for any runoff event is dependent on antecedent storage conditions and continuous simulation modelling of the hydrological behaviour of these systems is therefore the preferred method of design. However, such sophisticated modelling, in general, would only be undertaken for major development proposals with catchment areas typically greater than 5 ha based on Blacktown City Councils Stormwater Quality Control Policy (also refer Appendix F of the NSW EPA’s Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook (1997b), for further information). If this type of modelling is undertaken, simple hand calculations (as provided in this document) should also be performed to provide an “order of magnitude” check of the results.

5-1

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.2 Design Process
The flow chart in Figure 5.1 below illustrates the recommended process to be followed in the design of WSUD measures in the western Sydney area:
Step 1 Determine the required Treatable Volume or Flow Rate or Detention Volume for the WSUD measure (Refer to Council’s Stormwater Management and Quality Control Guidelines)

Step 2 Determine optimal WSUD measure from the suite of WSUD measures and applications (Refer Section 3)

Step 3 Undertake preliminary design of selected optimal WSUD measure (Refer Sections 4.2-4.4)

Not suitable
Check maintenance suitability & life cycle cost of WSUD measure (Refer Sections 6 & 7)

Infiltration system not suitable. Choose alternate WSUD measure or modify design, where appropriate. Potential Salinity Hazard

Suitable

Check salinity hazard classification for the site area. (Refer Salinity Hazard Maps)

YES

Infiltration system? No Hazard NO Limit soil infiltration. Include low permeability liner below WSUD measure. Low permeability liner not required below WSUD measure

Step 4 Finalise detailed design

Step 5 Complete design checklist (Refer Section 5)

Figure 5.1 WSUD Design Process

5-2

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.3 Design Specification DS1 – Vegetated Swales
(Refer Design Specification Drawing DSD1).

Function
Vegetated swales provide the following main functions:

• • •

Removing particulates by filtration through the vegetation; Reducing runoff volumes runoff volumes (by promoting infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by reducing flow velocities.

Design Approach
The design approach for vegetated swales is based on achieving the following objectives:

• •

Providing sufficiently low flow velocities through the swale to limit surface erosion and scouring; and Limiting the flow depth through the swale to maximise contact and filtration through the vegetation.

The design of vegetated swales will need demonstrate compliance of the above design objectives and criteria outlined below. References should be made to Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines for acceptable hydrological and hydraulic calculation methods. Where a modelling package is used that takes into account of the physical dimensions of the swale when estimating pollutant removal efficiencies (such as MUSIC2) then compliance with the above design objectives will not need to be demonstrated. However, design details such as swale geometry (i.e. length and cross-section), vegetation species and design flow velocities (to prevent scouring) are to be provided.

Design Criteria
Criteria for the design of vegetated swales are provided below (based on ARC, 2003):

• • • •

Swales shall be designed as trapezoidal or parabolic in shape with low sloping sides, preferably 6H:1V, maximum 4H:1V slope. Swales that traverse driveways or other pavements must match the crossover grade, generally 13H:1V on either side of the swale. Swales shall be blended or smoothed out to resemble the natural topography of the site and to prevent scalping when mowing occurs. Level spreaders or energy dissipators shall be provided at the inlet to swale channels from stormwater pipes or culverts (in accordance with NSW Department of Housing, 1998).

2

Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation, developed by the CRC for Catchment Hydrology.

5-3

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

• • •

Swale top width to depth ratio of 6:1 or greater. A maximum swale width of 2.5 m, unless structural measures are incorporated to ensure uniform spread of flow. A maximum longitudinal grade of 4% is appropriate. If check dams are included in the swale, up to 6% is permissible, but the toe of the upstream dam must be level with the spillway of the next downstream dam. All swales with longitudinal grades less than 2% require a subsoil drain below the swale invert to minimise surface ponding between rain events. In potential salinity hazard areas, a low permeability liner is required below the subsoil drain to minimise sub-surface infiltration; Longitudinal grades on the swale shall be uniform or gradual. The floor of the swale shall have no lateral grade. The swale aspect (ie length to width) ratio shall be within the range 3:1 to 10:1, or greater, to minimise short-circuiting. The flow depth in the swale during the design Treatable Flow Rate shall be equal to one-third to half the vegetation height, to a maximum depth of 75 mm. Velocities within the swale for all flows up to the design Treatable Flow Rate shall be <0.5 m/s (velocity where most grasses will be knocked over). Maximum acceptable flow rate velocities for conveyance of Peak Design Flows along the swale shall not exceed the recommended maximum scour velocities for various ground covers and soil erodibility presented in the Table DS1.1 below (NSW Department of Housing, 1998) and shall ideally be less than 1 m/s.

• • • • •

5-4

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Table DS1.1 Maximum Flow Velocities in Channels
Ground Cover Mat or sword grasses with UV stabilised mesh Kikuyu grass Couch grass, carpet grass, Rhodes grass, sword forming grasses Other improved perennials Tussock grasses Maximum Acceptable Velocity (m/s) Soil Erodibility Low Moderate High 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.3 2.2 1.8 1.3 0.9 1.9 1.4 0.9 0.5

Design Procedure
The following design steps are recommended when designing vegetated swales (based on ARC, 2003): 1. Determine the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area to provide a level of treatment of pollutants (refer Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy Guidelines). 2. Determine the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) for the swale based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines). 3. Determine the average swale slope (s) based on-site conditions. Slopes to be between 1% and 4% or up to 6% if check dams are constructed. 4. Determine maximum swale top width (T) based on-site space/area restrictions and limitations (i.e. road carriageway widths). 5. Trial an initial swale flow depth (d) based on estimated maximum swale top width (T) and using sides slopes flatter than 4H:1V. Depths should be at least half the vegetation height or 75 mm maximum. 6. Select a swale base width (b). Adopt b minimum of 0.6 m and for maintenance requirements and maximum of 2.5 m, unless check dams are provided to ensure uniform spread of flow along swale. 7. Determine swale top width (T) using the following equation:

T = b + 2dZ
where Z = 4 minimum when sides slopes are 4H:1V. 8. 9. Check top width to depth ratio is 6:1 or greater. Modify b if required. Calculate swale geometry for either a trapezoidal or parabolic swale shape:

Trapezoid : A = bd + Zd 2

5-5

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

T = b + 2dZ

R = bd + Zd 2 /(b + 2d Z 2 + 1)
where A = swale flow area (m2); b = swale base width (m); d = swale flow depth (m) R = hydraulic radius (m) T = top width (m). T

d

Z = e/d

b

e

Parabola : A = 3Td T = 1 .5 A / d

R = T 2 d /(1.5T 2 + 4d 2 )

T

d

8. Select the swale vegetation type and nominal vegetation height for the species. Recommended vegetation species for swales shall be in accordance with Design Guideline DG9 – Landscape Developments.

5-6

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

9. Determine the Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) value based on the type of swale vegetation and average depth of flow. Select n values according to the following equations (from ARC, 2003): For 150 mm grass and d < 0.06 m, n = 0.153 d–0.33 / (0.75 + 25s) For 50 mm grass and d < 0.075 m, n = (0.54 - 228 d2.5) / (0.75 + 25s) where: d s = = depth of flow (m) for water quality storm longitudinal slope as a ratio of vertical rise/horizontal run (m/m)

10. Use Manning’s equation to determine flow rate in swale:

Q = AR 0.67 S 0.5 / n
where Q = swale flow rate (m3/s); A = swale flow area (m2); s = average swale slope (m/m) (from Step 2); R = hydraulic radius (m) (from Step 7); n = Manning’s roughness coefficient (from Step 9). 11. Compare Q with the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) from Step 1. Perform iterations by changing flow depth d until Q = Qd (i.e. increase d if Q is to low). 12. Calculate the average flow velocity along the swale using equation:

V = Q/ A
where V = average swale flow velocity (m/s). Note that maximum V = 0.5 m/s.

13. Determine the Flow Retardance Class from the Table DS1.2 below based on grass height. The grass should be maintained at 100 to 150 mm minimum height.
Table DS1.2 Selection of Flow Retardance Class Average Height of Grass (mm) 150 – 250 50 – 150 < 50
3

Flow Retardance Class C D E

3

The grass should be maintained at 100 to 150 mm minimum height.

5-7

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Figure DS1.1
14. Check Mannings roughness coefficient (n) with Figure DS1.1, depending on protocol below: If Mannings n is not similar to that assumed in Step 9, perform iterations by using the n obtained from from Figure DS1.1 and changing d until the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) is calculated and the n used corresponds to that in Figure DS1.1. 15. Check flow velocity for the design Treatable Flow Rate. If greater than 0.5 m/s, reduce the flow, increase the flow width or reduce the depth of flow. 16. Check flow velocity for the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) for the swale for conveyance with the recommended maximum velocities presented in Table DS1.1, or ideally less than 1 m/s. 17. Design swale check dams along portions of the swale with longitudinal slopes >4% where required (refer Figure DSD1). 18. Design swale subsoil drain along portions of the swale with longitudinal slopes <2% where required (refer Figure DSD1). Assess the swale subsoil drain capacity and size appropriately for the design Treatable Flow Rate. 19. Incorporate a low permeability liner along the swale length where required for potential salinity hazard areas. 20. Design inlet culverts and outlet pit size/grates for the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) along the swale.

5-8

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

21. Complete the Design Checklist for Vegetated Swale.

Vegetated Swales Design Checklist
Design Feature Checked Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comments

Side slope at least 4H:1V Longitudinal grade between 1% and 6% Vegetation species selected Velocity does not exceed recommended maximum for vegetation (0.5 m/s) Check dams provided if grade >4% Subsurface drainage and liner provided if grade < 2% Soil salinity hazard assessment

Y Y

N N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

5-9

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.4 Design Specification DS2 – Vegetated Filter Strips
(Refer Design Specification Drawing DSD2)

Function
Vegetated filter (or buffer) strips provide the following main functions:

• • •

Removing sediments and attached pollutants by filtration through the vegetation; Reducing runoff volumes (by promoting infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by reducing flow velocities.

Design Approach
The design approach for vegetated filter strips is similar to swales (refer Design Specification - DS1) and is based on achieving the following objectives:

• •

Providing sufficiently low flow velocities through the system to limit surface erosion and scouring; and Limiting the flow depth through the system to maximise contact and filtration through the vegetation.

The design of vegetated swales will need to demonstrate the compliance of the above design objectives and in accordance with the design criteria outlined below. References should be made to Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines for acceptable hydrological and hydraulic calculation methods. Where a modelling package is used that takes into account of the physical dimensions of the filter strip when estimating pollutant removal efficiencies (such as MUSIC) then compliance with the above design objectives will not need to be demonstrated. However, design details such as the filter strip geometry (i.e. length and area), vegetation species and design flow velocities (to prevent scouring) do need to be provided.

Design Criteria
Criteria for the design of vegetated filter strips are provided below (based on ARC, 2003):

• •

Filter strip shall have a longitudinal grade of between 1% and 5%. Concentration of flows through the filter strip to be avoided by providing level spreaders or energy dissipaters at the inlet/s from stormwater pipes or culverts (in accordance with NSW Department of Housing, 1998). The flow depth over the filter strip during the design Treatable Flow Rate shall be a maximum of 12 mm (Horner et al, 1994). The design flow velocity shall be <0.5 m/s (velocity where most grasses will be knocked over).

• •

5-10

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Maximum flow rate velocities for conveyance of the Peak Design Flow shall not exceed the recommended maximum scour velocities for various ground covers and soil erodibilities presented in Table DS2.1 from (NSW Department of Housing, 1998), or ideally less than 1 m/s.
Table DS2.1 Maximum Acceptable Flow Velocities in Channels
Maximum Velocity (m/s) Ground Cover Low Soil Erodibility Moderate High

Mat or sword grasses with UV stabilised mesh Kikuyu grass Couch grass, carpet grass, rhodes grass, sword forming grasses Other improved perennials Tussock grasses

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.3

2.7 2.2 1.8 1.3 0.9

2.4 1.9 1.4 0.9 0.5

Design Procedure
The following design steps are recommended when designing vegetated filter strips (based on ARC, 2003): 1. Determine the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area to provide a level of treatment of pollutants (refer Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy Guidelines). 2. Determine the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) for the filter strip based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines). 3. Determine the average filter slope (s) based on-site conditions. Slopes to be between 1% and 5%. 4. Trial an initial filter strip flow depth (d). Depth shall be less than 12 mm. 5. Select a optimum filter width (b) based on-site area constraints. 6. Calculate filter strip flow area (A) and hydraulic radius (R):

A = bd R = bd/(b+2d)

5-11

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

where

A = filter flow area (m2); b = filter width (m); d = filter strip flow depth (m) R = hydraulic radius (m).

22. Determine the Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) value based on the type of filter strip vegetation and average depth of flow. Select n values according to the following equations (from ARC, 2003): For 150 mm grass and d < 0.06 m, n = 0.153 d–0.33 / (0.75 + 25s) For 50 mm grass and d < 0.075 m, n = (0.54 - 228 d2.5) / (0.75 + 25s) where: d s = = depth of flow (m) for water quality storm longitudinal slope as a ratio of vertical rise/horizontal run (m/m)

7. Use Manning’s equation to determine flow rate (Q) across the filter strip:

Q = AR 0.67 S 0.5 / n
8. Compare Q with the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) from Step 1. Perform iterations by changing flow depth d until Q = Qd (i.e. increase d if Q is to low). 9. Calculate the average flow velocity along the filter strip using equation:

V = Q/ A
where V = average filter flow velocity (m2/s);

10. Determine the Flow Retardance Class from the Table DS2.2 below based on grass height. The grass should be maintained at 75 to 100 mm minimum height.
Table DS2.2 Selection of Flow Retardance Class
Average Height of Grass (mm) Flow Retardance Class

150 – 250 50 – 150 < 50
4

C D E

4

The grass should be maintained at 75 to 100 mm minimum height.

5-12

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

11. Check Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) with the Figure DS2.1 below, depending on protocol below:

Figure DS2.1
If Mannings roughness coefficient (n) is not similar to that assumed in Step 7, perform iterations by using the n obtained from Figure DS2.1 and changing d until the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) is calculated and the n used corresponds to that in Figure DS2.1.

12. Check flow velocity for the design Treatable Flow Rate. If greater than 0.5 m/s, reduce the flow, increase the flow width or reduce the depth of flow. 13. Check flow velocity for the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) for the filter strip for conveyance with the recommended maximum velocities presented in Table DS2.1, or ideally less than 1 m/s. 14. Design inlet culverts and outlet pit size/grate for the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) along the filter strip. 15. Complete the Design Checklist for Vegetated Filter Strip.

5-13

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Vegetated Filter Strips Design Checklist
Design Feature Checked Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comments

Grade between 1% and 5% Sheet flow achievable No lateral grade Vegetation species selected Velocity does not exceed recommended maximum Soil salinity hazard assessment

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

5-14

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.5 Design Specification DS3 – Sand Filters
(Refer Design Specification Drawing DSD3).

Function
Sand filters provide the following main functions:

• •

Removing fine to coarse particulates and attached pollutants by infiltration through a sand media layer; and Delaying runoff peaks by providing retention capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Design Approach
The design approach for sand filters is based on achieving the following objectives:

• • •

Providing adequate sedimentation of gross pollutants and medium to course sediments within the stormwater runoff prior to entering the sand filter system; Providing an adequate hydraulic residence (filtration) time through the system to enable sediments and attached pollutants to be retained; and Selecting suitable filter media to provide the required hydraulic residence (filtration) time through the system.

The design of sand filters will need to demonstrate compliance of the above design objectives and criteria outlined below. References should be made to Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines for acceptable hydrological and hydraulic calculation methods.

Design Criteria
Criteria for the design of sand filters are provided below:

• •

Sand filters are to be located off-line with a high flow by-pass system. A sedimentation chamber/pond/basin shall be provided to remove litter and coarse sediments with the following key design criteria: – – inflow into the chamber shall not allow for re-suspension of previously deposited sediments; sediment chamber/basin designed to provide uniform sheet flow to the filtration chamber using a weir system; flow velocities through the sedimentation area shall be less than 0.25 m/s; recommended drawdown time of 24 hours for the settling basin; and settling of medium to coarse sediments down to the 0.125 mm size particle recommended to minimise clogging of the sand filter media.

– – –

5-15

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Sand filter media shall be clean, washed aggregate, selected to provide the required retention time and minimise clogging and have a grading (or as close as possible) within the limits specified in Table DS3.1 (ARC, 2003):
Table DS3.1 Sand Filter Particle Grading Specification (Source: ARC, 2003) Sieve Size (mm) Percentage Passing (%) 9.5 6.3 3.17 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.25 100 95 – 100 80 – 100 50 – 85 25 – 60 10 – 30 2 – 10

A sample (if available) of the proposed filter sand shall be tested in a NATA-registered laboratory to determine the average coefficient of permeability. The results shall be provided to Council, certifying compliance. Filter sand shall have a nominal permeability of between 1 and 5 m/day, but should be assessed to provide the required filtration time. ARC (2003) recommends a design sand hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1 m/day (0.04 m/hr), which is typically less than the typical conductivity of new sand media (ie. up to 8.6 m/day) and therefore allows for some clogging. Capacity of the facility shall be sufficient to provide adequate filtration time through the sand media. ARC (2003) adopts a filtration period for the mean storm of at least 30 to 50% of the mean interstorm period. As the majority of the filtration occurs during the inter-event period, an approximate filtration period can be determined from an analysis of the site’s rainfall data history. A 2-day maximum filtration time is recommended (ARC, 2003). Drainage (filtration) of the design Treatable Volume through the filter media should be 30 to 50% of the mean inter-event dry period, or approximately 24 to 48 hours, for the Western Sydney area (refer Table 2.3). An underdrainage pipe collection system shall be provided below the sand filter media comprising a perforated lateral pipe/s system, sized to drain the design filter flow, with a minimum pipe size of 100 to 150 mm diameter. The underdrainage pipe/s shall be contained in fine to coarse gravel layer comprising clean gravel of generally uniform particle size and free from silt/clay fines or other deleterious matter. The pipe/s shall have 50 mm minimum cover of gravel material. The gravel material shall be selected to meet the following grading compatibility criteria with the filter sand:

D15 ≤ 4 ∗ d 85

5-16

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

where

D15 = particle size (mm) in gravel material for which 15% by weight of particles are smaller; d85 = particle size (mm) in sand filter material for which 85% by weight of particles are smaller.

Geofabric shall not be used as a filter/separation layer between the sand and gravel materials layers. A transition filter layer (200 mm min thick) may, however, be provided between the sand filter media and the gravel to satisfy the above grading compatibility criteria. Geofabric may be required along the side trench walls and base (only) to prevent the migration of surrounding fine soils into the system. A suitable backflushing system shall be incorporated in the design to enable flushing of the perforated pipe underdrainage system. A low permeability liner beneath the underdrainage system shall be provided in potential salinity hazard areas to minimise sub-soil infiltration.

• • •

Design Procedure
The following design steps are recommended when designing sand filters (based on ARC, 2003): 1. Determine the Treatable Volume (VT) based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area to provide a level of treatment of pollutants (refer Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy Guidelines). 2. Determine the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) and Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) upstream of the sand filter system based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines). 3 4. Determine the initial sediment chamber/basin size based on sediment settling velocity theory or retention curves (NSW Dept of Housing, 1998) and criteria outlined in this specification. Determine maximum water depth in the filtration chamber (dmax) based on site/space/depth restrictions.

5. Calculate the surface area of the sand filter using the following equation:

A = VT ∗ d /( k ∗ (h + d ) ∗ t )
where: A = minimum surface area of the filter (m2); VT = Treatable Volume (m3) (from Step 1); k = filter media hydraulic conductivity (m/day); t = filtration time (days); h = average depth of water above the sand (i.e. half dmax depth); and

5-17

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

d = sand bed depth. For initial sizing, use the following data: t = 1 day minimum, 2 days maximum; k = 1 m/day minimum for filter sand (assumes partially clogged); d = 0.4 m minimum. 6. Optimise the filter area/size based site area and depth constraints and assessing alternate filter media permeability (k) properties. 7. Determine the underdrainage system pipe size/s based on the design flow through the system using the following equation:

Qmax = A ∗ k ∗ (d max + d ) / d
where: Qmax = maximum outflow from the system (m3/s); A = surface area of the system (m2); k = filter media hydraulic conductivity (m/s) (from Step 5); dmax = maximum depth of water above the soil (from Step 4); d = filter soil depth (from Step 5). 8. Determine gravel material size and grading to satisfy grading compatibility criteria. 9. Design backflush system for the perforated underdrainage pipe/s. 10. Design high flow by-pass system for all flows above the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) and up to the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak). 11. Incorporate a low permeability liner beneath the underdrainage system where required for potential salinity hazard areas. 12. Complete the Design Checklist for Sand Filters.

5-18

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Sand Filters Design Checklist
Design Feature Checked Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comments

Treatable Volume Off-line System? Sedimentation Chamber/ Basin Filter Media Permeability Detention time 1day> t <2days Filter Media Depth >0.4 m Underdrainage System Soil salinity hazard assessment Low Permeability Liner Required Underdrainage Pipe Backflush System High Flow Bypass

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N N N N N N N N N N N

5-19

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.6 Design Specification DS4 – Bioretention Systems
(Refer Design Specification Drawing DSD4).

Function
Bioretention systems provide the following main functions:

• • • •

Removing sediments attached pollutants by filtering through surface vegetation and ground cover and through an underlying filter media layer; Removing some dissolved pollutants through soil chemistry and vegetation nutrition; Reducing runoff volumes (by infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by providing retention capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Design Approach
The design approach for bioretention systems is based on achieving the following objectives:

• •

Providing an adequate hydraulic residence (filtration) time through the system to enable sediments and attached pollutants to be retained; Selection of suitable planting soil/filter media to provide required hydraulic residence (filtration) time through the system.

The design of bioretention systems will need to demonstrate compliance of the above design objectives and criteria outlined below. References should be made to Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines for acceptable hydrological and hydraulic calculation methods. Where a modelling package is used that takes into account of the physical dimensions of the bioretention system when estimating pollutant removal efficiencies (such as MUSIC) then compliance with the above design objectives will not need to be demonstrated. However, design details such as the bioretention system geometry (i.e. length and surface area), vegetation species, filter media type and properties and design flow velocities (to prevent scouring) are to be provided.

Design Criteria
Criteria for the design of bioretention systems are provided below:

The primary filter media used within the bioretention system shall be permeable enough to allow runoff to filter through the media. The media shall meet the following general criteria (ARC, 2003): – – – a loam/sand, or sand, or sand/gravel mix; clay content less than 25% (by mass); not susceptible to degradation or breakdown once incorporated in the works;

5-20

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

– – –

hydraulic permeability at least 0.3 m/day (i.e. silt/sand loam); free of stumps, roots, or other woody material over 25 mm in diameter; free of seeds or propagules from noxious plants.

A sample (if available) of the proposed filter media should be tested in the laboratory to determine its average coefficient of permeability.

If a planting soil is used as the primary filter media within the system, the soil shall be permeable enough to allow runoff to filter through the media, while having characteristics suitable to promote and sustain a vegetation cover (ie. a sand/loam mix - 35 to 60% sand content by mass). A sample (if available) of the proposed soil should be tested in the laboratory to determine its average coefficient of permeability and chemical properties. If a planting soil is not used as the primary filter media within the system, a 100 mm minimum thick planting soil layer is to be provided above the primary filter media. If so, then the filter material grading shall be selected (preferably) to meet the following grading compatibility criteria to limit fines from the overlying planting soil layer entering and potentially clogging the filter media:

D15 ≤ 0.7 mm
where D15 = particle size (mm) in filter material for which 15% by weight of particles are smaller;

Alternatively, an intermediate transition filter layer (200 mm min. thick) may be provided between the surface planting soil and the primary filter media. A geofabric layer shall not be used. The transition filter material shall a competent clean, sand material, with less than 5% fines, which is not susceptible to degradation or breakdown once incorporated in the works. The transition filter material shall be provided to meet the above grading compatibility criteria and have a hydraulic permeability equivalent or greater than the underlying or overlying primary filter media.

Capacity of the system shall be sufficient to provide adequate filtration time through the primary filter media. ARC (2003) adopts a filtration period for the mean storm of at least 30 to 50% of the mean inter-storm period. As the majority of the filtration occurs during the inter-event period, an approximate filtration period can be determined from an analysis of the site’s rainfall data history. Drainage (filtration) of the design Treatable Volume through the filter media should be 30 to 50% of the mean inter-event dry period, or approximately 24 to 48 hours, for the Western Sydney area (refer Table 2.3). Recommended plant species for bioretention systems shall be in accordance with Specification DS9 – Landscape Development. An underdrainage collection system shall be provided below the primary filter media comprising a perforated lateral pipe/s system, sized to drain the design filter flow, with a minimum pipe size of

• •

5-21

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

100 to 150 mm diameter. The underdrainage pipe/s shall be contained in fine to coarse gravel layer comprising sound, clean stone or rock of generally uniform particle size (10 mm nominal) and free from silt/clay fines or other deleterious matter. The pipe/s shall have 50 mm minimum cover of gravel material. The gravel material shall be selected to meet the following grading compatibility criteria with the filter media:

D15 ≤ 4 ∗ d 85
where D15 = particle size (mm) in gravel material for which 15% by weight of particles are smaller; d85 = particle size (mm) in filter material for which 85% by weight of particles are smaller. Geofabric shall not be used as a filter/separation layer between the sand and gravel materials layers. A transition filter layer (200 mm min thick) may, however, be provided between the primary filter media and the gravel to satisfy the above grading compatibility criteria.

• • • • •

Geofabric shall be provided along the side trench walls and base (only) to prevent the migration of surrounding fine soils into the system. Inclusion of inspection well(s) to check the efficiency of the bioretention system. A suitable backflushing system shall be incorporated in the design to enable flushing of the perforated pipe underdrainage system. Incorporation of a low permeability liner is required where the site is within a potential salinity hazard area to minimise sub-soil infiltration. Maximum flow rate velocities for conveyance of the Peak Design Flow shall not exceed the recommended maximum scour velocities for various ground covers and soil erodibilities presented in Table DS4.1 below (NSW Department of Housing, 1998).

5-22

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Table DS4.1 Maximum Flow Velocities in Vegetated Channels
Maximum Velocity (m/s) Ground Cover Low Mat or sword grasses with UV stabilised mesh Kikuyu grass Couch grass, carpet grass, rhodes grass, sword forming grasses Other improved perennials Tussock grasses 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.3 Soil Erodibility Moderate 2.7 2.2 1.8 1.3 0.9 High 2.4 1.9 1.4 0.9 0.5

Design Procedure
Non-Conveyance Systems (Planting Beds) The following steps are recommended when designing non-conveyance (off-line) bioretention trenches for small scale units, eg. planting beds or “rain gardens” (adopted from ARC, 2003): 1. Determine the Treatable Volume (VT) based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area to provide a level of treatment of pollutants (refer Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy Guidelines). Determine the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) and Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) upstream of the system based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Stormwater Drainage Design Guidelines). Determine maximum ponded surface water depth (dmax) – adopt 150 mm for planting beds. Calculate the surface area of the bioretention system using the following equation:

2.

3. 4.

A = VT ∗ d /( k ∗ (h + d )t )
where: A = minimum surface area of the system (m2); VT = Treatment Volume (m3) (from Step 1); k = filter soil hydraulic conductivity (m/day); t = filtration time (days); h = average depth of water above the soil (i.e. half dmax depth); and d = planting soil depth (m).

5-23

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

For initial sizing, use the following data: t = 1 day minimum, 2 days maximum; k = 0.3 m/day minimum (assuming a sand/silt loam soil); h = 0.075 m; d = 1 m nominal. 5. Optimise the filter area/size based site area and depth constraints and assessing alternate soil media permeability properties and drainage time. Determine the underdrainage system pipe size/s based on the design flow through the system using the following equation:

6.

Qmax = A ∗ k ∗ (hmax + d ) / d
where: Qmax = maximum outflow from the system (m3/s); A = surface area of the system (m2); k = planting soil hydraulic conductivity (m/s) (from Step 4); hmax = maximum depth of water above the soil (from Step 4); d = filter soil depth (from Step 3). 7. 8. 9. Assess intermediate sand filter layer requirements by checking grading compatibility criteria. Design and incorporate backflush system for the underdrainage pipes. Design high flow by-pass system for all flows above the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) and up to the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak).

10. Incorporate a low permeability liner along the swale length if required for potential salinity hazard areas. 11. Complete the Design Checklist for Bioretention Systems. Conveyance Systems (Road Design) The following steps are recommended when designing conveyance (on-line) bioretention systems for medium to large-scale units, comprising vegetated channels for the treatment of road runoff in combination with grass swales (adopted from CRC, 2000): 1. Determine the Treatable Volume (VT) based on the site-specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area to provide a level of treatment (refer Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy Guidelines).

5-24

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

2.

Determine the Treatable Flow Rate (Qd) and Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) upstream of the system based on the site-specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Stormwater Management Guidelines). Based on the site area/space/hydraulic constraints, determine the maximum surface water ponding depth available (hmax), average width of ponded channel cross-section (Wav), and depth of infiltration medium (d). Calculate the effective length of the bioretention system using the following equation:

3.

4.

L = I max/ hmax ∗ (Wav / t c + k ∗ Wav / d )
where: L = minimum effective length of the system (m); Imax = Treatable Flow Rate (m3/s) (from Step 1); k = filter soil hydraulic conductivity (m/s); hmax = maximum ponding depth (m); d = infiltration medium depth (m); Wav = average width of ponded cross-section; and tc = time of concentration for catchment (used in Step 2). For initial sizing, use the following data: k = 10-5 m/s for a sand, 5 x 10-5 to 1 x 10-6 m/s for a sandy loam/clay soil; hmax = 0.3 to 0.4 m; d = 1 m nominal. 5. Determine the average outflow rate through the system using the following equation:

Qav = L ∗ Wbase ∗ k ∗ (hay + d )/ d
where: Qav = average outflow from the system (m3/s); L = length of the system (m) (from Step 4); Wbase = base width of the bioretention zone; k = filter media hydraulic conductivity (m/s) (from Step 4); hav = average depth of water above the soil (i.e. half hmax depth); and

5-25

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

d = infiltration medium depth (from Step 4). 6. Determine the average Hydraulic Residence Time (THRT) in the bioretention zone under steady state conditions using the following equation:

T HRT = L(φ ∗ Wbase ∗ d + Wav ∗ hmax )/ Qav
where:

φ = porosity of the infiltration media;

Use a porosity of 0.2 for a graded sand or gravel filter media. 7. THRT should be 30 to 50% of the mean inter-event dry period, or approximately 24 to 48 hours, for the Western Sydney area (refer Table 2.3). Increase bioretention length, width or filtration media characteristics to increase THRT if required. 8 Determine the underdrainage system pipe size/s based on the maximum design outflow from the system using the following equation:

Qmax = A ∗ k ∗ k (hmax + d )/ d
where: 9. Qmax = maximum outflow from the system (m3/s);

Assess intermediate sand filter layer requirements by checking grading compatibility criteria.

7. Design backflush system for the underdrainage pipes. 8. Check flow velocity for the design Treatable Flow Rate through the bioretention system. If greater than 0.5 m/s, increase the flow width or reduce the depth of flow. 9. Check flow velocity for the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) through the bioretention system for conveyance with the recommended maximum velocities presented in Table DS4.1. 10. Design inlet culverts and outlet pit size/grate for the Peak Design Flow Rate(Qpeak) within the system. 11. Complete the Design Checklist for Bioretention Systems.

5-26

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Bioretention Systems Design Checklist
Design Feature Checked Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comments

Treatable Volume/Flow Rate Off-line/On-line System Pre-treatment System Primary Filter Media Permeability Detention time 1day> t <2days Primary Filter Media Depth Underdrainage System Surface Velocity (online systems) Salinity hazard assessment Low Permeability Liner Required Perforated Pipe Backflush System

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N N N N N N N N N N N

5-27

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.7 Design Specification DS5 – Permeable Pavements
(Refer Design Specification Drawing DSD5)

Function
Permeable pavements provide the following main functions:

• • •

Removing some sediments and attached pollutants by infiltration through an underlying sand/gravel media layer; Reducing runoff volumes (by infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by providing retention/detention storage capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Design Approach
Even though some filtration of sediments (and attached pollutants) will occur as runoff is drained through the underlying sand bedding and gravel reservoir layers, permeable pavements should only be designed as either infiltration systems (i.e. percolation to the underlying soils) or detention systems (i.e. holding of runoff for short periods to reduce peak flows). The design approach for permeable pavements is based on achieving the following objectives:

• •

For infiltration systems, providing sufficient surface area and capacity of the reservoir (sub-base) storage to contain the treatment volume and allow infiltration to the subsoil between storm events; For detention systems, providing sufficient capacity of the reservoir (sub-base) storage to provide adequate detention during high runoff events to reduce peak outlet design discharges to specified pre-development conditions.

The design of permeable pavements will need to demonstrate compliance with the above design objectives and criteria outlined below. References should be made to Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines for acceptable hydrological and hydraulic calculation methods.

Design Criteria
Criteria for the design of permeable pavements are provided below:

• • •

Runoff directed to permeable pavements, where possible, to be pre-treated to remove coarse to medium sediments. Pavements shall be constructed on grades less than 1% where possible, and no steeper than 5%. Graded such that the area can drain to another downstream source control device or the street drainage system in an overflow event.

5-28

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

• •

The pavement subgrade to comprise a sand or fine gravel filter/bedding course with an underlying reservoir storage gravel/stone sub-base layer. Bedding/filter material should comprise of clean, washed (no-fines) uniform size sand or fine gravel aggregate with a minimum thickness of 50 mm below the pavement, or as specified in the pavement manufactures technical manual. For infiltration systems, the surface area and capacity of the reservoir storage shall be sufficient to contain the treatment volume and allow infiltration to the subsoil between storm events. ARC (2003) adopts a filtration period for the mean storm of at least 30 to 50% of the mean inter-storm period. As the majority of the filtration occurs during the inter-event period, an approximate filtration period can be determined from an analysis of the site’s rainfall data history. Drainage (filtration) of the design Treatable Volume through the filter media should be 30 to 50% of the mean inter-event dry period, or approximately 24 to 48 hours, for the Western Sydney area (refer Table 2.3). For detention systems, the capacity of the reservoir storage shall be sufficient to provide adequate storage capacity to provide detention during high runoff events to reduce peak outlet design discharges to specified pre-development conditions (refer UPRCT’s On-site Detention Handbook). The reservoir storage sub-base layer material shall comprise coarse, sound, clean stone or rock of generally uniform particle size (typically 10 to 63 mm size) and free from silt/clay fines or other deleterious matter, or as specified in the pavement manufacturer’s technical manual. Geofabric may be required along the side walls and base to prevent the migration of surrounding fine soils into the system. A geofabric layer should not be installed above the gravel reservoir storage layer, unless otherwise specified or recommended in the pavement manufacturer’s technical manual. Where possible, suitable size/graded gravel or filter material shall be provided to meet the following grading compatibility criteria:

D15 ≤ 4 * d85
where D15 = particle size (mm) in gravel material for which 15% by weight of particles are smaller; d85 = particle size (mm) in filter material for which 85% by weight of particles are smaller.

For detention systems, an underdrainage collection system shall be provided, sized to limit outflow discharges. The underdrains shall comprise a perforated lateral pipe/s system, sized to drain the design filter flow, with a minimum pipe size of 100 to 150 mm diameter. The pipes shall be contained within the reservoir sub-base gravel layer with 50 mm minimum cover over the underdrain pipe/s. The pipes shall discharge to the downstream drainage system.

5-29

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

• •

A suitable backflushing system shall be incorporated in the design to enable flushing of the perforated pipe underdrainage system. Incorporation of a low permeability liner required where the site is within a potential salinity hazard area to minimise sub-soil infiltration.

Design Procedure
Infiltration System Please note that infiltration systems are unsuitable in areas of potential salinity hazard. The following steps should be followed when designing permeable pavements for sub-surface infiltration (adopted from ARC, 2003, MDE, 2000): 1. 2. Determine site suitability based on evaluation criteria provided in Section 3 of this document. Determine optimum infiltration time for the site based on mean inter-event period (determined from an analysis of the site’s rainfall data history). An infiltration time of between 24 and 48 hours is recommended for the Western Sydney area. Determine Design filtration Rate (I) for the subsoil based investigations undertaken at the site and applying the appropriate factor of safety (s). The classification of soil types on-site and the determination of infiltration rates shall be in accordance with AS 1547 – 1994. Refer Design Specification DS6 – Infiltration Trenches (Table D6.1) for guidance of typical infiltration rates for various soils, determination of the Design filtration Rate and appropriate factors of safety to be used (Table D6.2). Determine the Treatable Volume (VT) based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area to provide a level of treatment of pollutants (refer Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy Guidelines).

3.

4.

5. Determine the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) from the pavement area based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Stormwater Management Guidelines). 6. Calculate the maximum allowable reservoir layer depth (dmax) using the following equation:

dmax = I*t
where: dmax = maximum allowable trench depth (m); t = infiltration time (hr) (from Step 2); I = Design Infiltration Rate of subsoil (m/hr) (from Step 3). For initial sizing, use the following data: I = use minimum from Step 3; t = 24hr minimum, 48hrs maximum.

5-30

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

12. Select the optimum reservoir layer depth (d) based on the depth that is required above the seasonal high water table, bedrock, or a very low permeability layer, or a depth less than or equal to dmax, whichever is the smaller depth. 13. Calculate the permeable pavement surface area (A) using the following equation:

A = VT/(n*d)
where: A = required area of the permeable pavement (m2); VT = Treatable Volume (m3) (from Step 4); n = porosity of the aggregate filling material; d = reservoir layer depth (m) (from Step 7). For initial sizing, use the following data: n = 0.35 for uniform size stone/gravel, 0.25 for a graded gravel. 14. Design surface drainage system to downstream source control device or the street drainage system for all flows up to the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak). Detention with Underdrainage System The following steps should be followed when designing permeable pavements for stormwater detention only (no sub-surface infiltration): 1. Determine the Site Storage Requirement (SSR) and Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) and Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) from the pavement area based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Stormwater Management Guidelines and UPRCT’s On-site Detention Handbook). Select the optimum trench depth (d) based on-site area/depth/hydraulic structural constraints, Calculate the permeable pavement surface area (A) using the following equation:

2. 3.

A = SSR/(n*d)
where: A = minimum required area of the permeable pavement (m2); SSR = Site Storage Requirement (m3) (from Step 1); d = reservoir layer depth (m) (from Step 2). n = porosity of the reservoir aggregate material; For initial sizing, use the following data: n = 0.35 for uniform size stone/gravel, 0.25 for a graded gravel. 4. Design surface drainage system to downstream source control device or the street drainage system in an overflow event.

5-31

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.

Determine the underdrainage system pipe size/s based on the maximum design outflow from the system using the following equation:

Q = A*k
where: Q = discharge outlet rate from the system (m3/s); k = reservoir storage aggregate material hydraulic conductivity (m/sec); use k = 1 x 10-3 m/s for uniform size stone/gravel. 6. Check if Q is less than the Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) (from step 1). If greater, reduce reservoir storage aggregate material hydraulic conductivity proportionally to limit Q to PSD. 7. Design backflush system for the underdrainage pipes. 8. Design high flow overflow system for all flows up to the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak). 9. Incorporate a low permeability liner below the underdrainage system where required for potential salinity hazard areas. 10. Complete the Design Checklist for Permeable Pavements.

Permeable Pavement Design Checklist
Design Feature Checked Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comments

Site Evaluation Infiltration Time Subsoil Infiltration Rate Treatment Volume Required Reservoir Layer Depth Pavement Surface Area Overflow System Perforated Pipe Underdrainage System Salinity hazard assessment Low Permeability Liner

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N N N N N N N N N N

5-32

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.8 Design Specification DS6 – Infiltration Trenches
(Refer Design Specification Drawing DS6).

Function
Infiltration trenches provide the following main functions:

• • •

Removing sediments and attached pollutants by infiltration through the sub-soils; Reducing runoff volumes (by infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by providing detention storage capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Design Approach
Even though some filtration of sediments (and attached pollutants) will occur as runoff is drained through the underlying gravel reservoir layers, infiltration trenches should only be designed as infiltration systems where runoff is stored within the trench until it has percolated into the underlying soils. The design approach for infiltration trenches is based on achieving the following objectives:

Ensuring that the in-situ soil permeability properties (i.e. porosity) and other physical constraints (such as geology, soil salinity, terrain and groundwater table) within the site are appropriate for infiltration to occur between rain events; Providing sufficient trench depth, surface area and capacity storage to contain the treatment volume and allow infiltration to the subsoil between rainfall events (i.e. drainage time).

The design of infiltration trenches will need to demonstrate compliance of the above design objectives and criteria outlined below. References should be made to Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines for acceptable hydrological and hydraulic calculation methods. Design of infiltration systems will be required to be based on in-situ soil properties (i.e. infiltration rates) determined by site-specific investigations (refer to AS/NZS 1547:2000 for methods to determine infiltration rates).

Design Criteria
Please note that infiltration systems are unsuitable in areas of potential salinity hazard. Criteria for the design of infiltration trenches are provided below:

Stormwater entering the trench must be pretreated (eg. GPT, sediment trap or basin, vegetation filter/buffer strips, grass swale or combinations) to remove gross pollutants, coarse to medium sediments and organic matter. Capacity of the facility must be sufficient to provide adequate infiltration time into the subsoil. The optimum infiltration time is related to the mean inter-event period, which can be determined from an analysis of the site’s rainfall data history. An infiltration drainage time of between 24 and 72 hours is recommended (ARC, 2003).

5-33

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Field measured infiltration rates using borehole or percolation tests are required for each site. The classification of soil types and the determination of infiltration rates shall be in accordance with AS/NZS 1547:2000. The typical range of infiltration rates for homogeneous soils are provided in Table DS6.1 below (source: ARQ,2003): Table DS6.1 Infiltration Rates for Homogeneous Soils
Soil Texture Deep Sand (Confined/Unconfined) Sandy Clays Medium Clays Heavy Clays Infiltration Rate (m/sec) 5 x 10 Minimum 1 x 10 to 5 x 10 1 x 10 to 1 x 10 1 x 10 to 1 x 10
-8 -6 -5 -5 -5 -6 -5

Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) 180 Minimum 36 to 180 3.6 to 36 0.036 to 3.6

Infiltration Rate (m/day) 4.3 Minimum 0.86 to 4.3 0.086 to 0.86 0.00086 to 0.086

A factor of safety (s) shall be applied to the measured infiltration rate to ensure the system will function as designed, which follows:

I = f/s
where I = Design Infiltration Rate (m/hr); f = measured or estimated infiltration rate (m/hr); and s = factor of safety based on Table DS6.2 below.
Table DS6.2 Factors of Safety for Infiltration (Bettess, 1996)
Size of area to be drained No damage or inconvenience Consequence of failure Minor inconvenience (e.g. surface water on carpark) Damage to buildings or structures, flooding of major roads, etc

< 100 m2 100
m2

1.5
2

2 3 5

10 10 10

to 1,000 m

1.5 1.5

> 1,000 m2

If runoff inflow to the trench sub-base is to occur from the surface, an intermediate transition filter layer (200 mm min thick) is to be provided between the surface planting soil and the primary filter media. A geofabric layer shall not be used. The transition filter material shall a competent clean, sand material, with less than 5% fines, which is not susceptible to degradation or breakdown once incorporated in the works. The transition filter material shall be provided to meet the above grading

5-34

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

compatibility criteria and have a hydraulic permeability equivalent or greater than the underlying or overlying primary filter media.

D15 ≤ 0.7 mm
where D15 = particle size (mm) in filter material for which 15% by weight of particles are smaller;

The aggregate trench material shall be clean, washed stone/gravel of 25 to 75 mm diameter with the highest available surface area (i.e. granite preferred over basalt). If runoff inflow to the trench subbase is to occur from the surface, the gravel material shall be selected to meet the following grading compatibility criteria with the overlying transition filter layer:

D15 ≤ 4 * d85
where D15 = particle size (mm) in gravel material for which 15% by weight of particles are smaller; d85 = particle size (mm) in filter material for which 85% by weight of particles are smaller. Geofabric shall not be used as a filter/separation layer,. However, if there is no surface inflow, a geofabric layer can be used as separation layer between the aggregate trench material and the surface soils.

• • •

Geofabric shall be provided along the side trench walls and base to prevent the migration of surrounding fine soils into the system. An optional perforated inlet pipe can extend through the upper portion of the trench to maximise the diffusion of water throughout the trench. A high level overflow pit/pipe is required, connected to the stormwater system or a safe overland flow path. The overflow pipe shall be separate from the inlet diffuser pipe to prevent opportunities for short-circuiting through the trench. An observation well is to be installed to the base of the infiltration trench to allow performance monitoring of the system. The well is to comprise a 100 to 200 mm diameter, perforated pipe with a suitable footplate and lockable end cap. The invert of the trench shall be at least 1 m above any seasonable high water table or impermeable soil layer at depth.

Design Procedure
The following steps are recommended followed when designing a standard sub-surface infiltration trench (adopted from ARC, 2003, MDE, 2000): 1. Determine site suitability based on evaluation criteria provided in Section 3 of this document.

5-35

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

2. Determine the optimum infiltration time (t) for the facility based on the mean inter-event period (determined from an analysis of the site’s rainfall data history). An infiltration time of 30 to 50% of the mean inter-event dry period, or approximately 24 to 48 hours, for the Western Sydney area (refer Table 2.3). 3. Determine the Design Filtration Rate (I) for the subsoil based investigations undertaken at the site and applying the appropriate factor of safety (s) (Table DS6.2). The classification of soil types on-site and the determination of in-situ infiltration rates shall be in accordance with AS 1547 – 1994. 4. Determine the Treatable Volume (VT) based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area to provide a level of treatment of pollutants (refer Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy Guidelines). Determine the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) from the pavement area based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Stormwater Management Guidelines). Calculate the maximum allowable trench depth (dmax) using the following equation:

6.

6.

dmax = I*t/n
where: dmax = maximum allowable trench depth (m); t = infiltration (drainage) time (hr) (from Step 2); I = Design Infiltration Rate of subsoil (m/hr) (from Step 3); n = porosity of the aggregate trench material. For initial sizing, use the following data: I = use minimum determined from Step 3; t = 24 hr minimum, 48 hours maximum; n = 0.35 for uniform size stone/gravel, 0.25 for a graded gravel. 7. Select the optimum trench depth (d) based on the depth that is required above the seasonal high water table, bedrock, or a very low permeability layer, or a depth less than or equal to dmax, whichever is the smaller depth. 8. Calculate the infiltration trench surface area (A) using the following equation:

A = VT/(n*d - P + IT)
where: A = area of the infiltration trench (m2); VT = Treatable Volume (m3) (from Step 4);

5-36

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

d = optimum trench depth (m) (from Step 7); n = porosity of the aggregate trench material; I = Design Infiltration Rate of subsoil (m/hr) (from Step 3); P = Rainfall from design event (m); T = Filling time of the trench (hrs). For initial sizing, use the following data: n = 0.35 for uniform size stone/gravel, 0.25 for a graded gravel. Please note that the storage infiltration volume loss during the design event and the additional design water volume that enters the basin during the event are assumed to be negligible with the design volume (VT), and have been ignored for these calculations. However, these inputs/losses should be included in the calculations if deemed considerable. 9. Determine minimum length of trench required but adopting an optimal trench width (minimum 450 mm) based on site space/area constraints and limitations. 10. Design inlet culverts and outlet pit size/grate for the Peak Design Flow Rate(Qpeak) within the system. 11. Complete the Design Checklist for Infiltration Trenches.

Infiltration Trenches Design Checklist
Design Feature Checked Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comments

Site Evaluation Infiltration Time Subsoil Infiltration Rate Treatment Volume Pre-treatment System Aggregate Fill Permeability Trench Depth Trench Surface Area Overflow System

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N N N N N N N N N

5-37

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.9 Design Specification DS7 – Infiltration Basins
(Refer Design Specification Drawing DS7).

Function
Infiltration basins provide the following main functions:

• • •

Removing sediments and attached pollutants by infiltration through the sub-soils; Reducing runoff volumes (by infiltration to the sub-soils); and Delaying runoff peaks by providing detention storage capacity and reducing flow velocities.

Design Approach
The design approach for infiltration basins is based on achieving the following objectives:

Ensuring that the in-situ soil permeability properties (i.e. porosity) and other physical constraints (such as geology, soil salinity, terrain and groundwater table) within the site are adequate for infiltration to occur between rain events; Providing sufficient surface area and capacity of the reservoir (sub-base) storage to contain the treatment volume and allow infiltration to the subsoil between rain events.

The design of infiltration basins will need demonstrate compliance of the above design objectives and criteria outlined below. References should be made to Council’s Drainage Design Guidelines for acceptable hydrological and hydraulic calculation methods. Design of infiltration systems will be required to be based on in-situ soil properties (i.e. infiltration rates) based on site-specific investigations (refer to AS/NZS 1547:2000 for methods for determining infiltration rates).

Design Criteria
Please note that infiltration systems are unsuitable in areas of potential salinity hazard. Criteria for the design of infiltration basins are provided below:

Stormwater entering the trench must be pretreated (eg. GPT, sediment trap or basin, vegetation filter/buffer strips, grass swale or combinations) to remove gross pollutants, coarse to medium sediments and organic matter. Capacity of the facility must be sufficient to provide adequate infiltration time into the subsoil. The optimum infiltration time is related to the mean inter-event period, which can be determined from an analysis of the site’s rainfall data history. An infiltration time of between 24 and 72 hours is recommended (ARC, 2003).

5-38

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Field measured infiltration rates using borehole or percolation tests are required for each site. The classification of soil types and the determination of infiltration rates shall be in accordance with AS/NZS 1547:2000. The typical range of infiltration rates for homogeneous soils are provided in Table DS7.1 below (source: ARQ, 2003): Table DS7.1 Infiltration Rates for Homogeneous Soils
Soil Texture Deep Sand (Confined/Unconfined) Sandy Clays Medium Clays Heavy Clays Infiltration Rate (m/sec) 5 x 10 Minimum 1 x 10 to 5 x 10 1 x 10 to 1 x 10 1 x 10 to 1 x 10
-8 -6 -5 -5 -5 -6 -5

Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) 180 Minimum 36 to 180 3.6 to 36 0.036 to 3.6

Infiltration Rate (m/day) 4.3 Minimum 0.86 to 4.3 0.086 to 0.86 0.00086 to 0.086

A factor of safety (s) shall be applied to the measured infiltration rate to ensure the system will function as designed, which follows:

I = f/s
where I = Design Infiltration Rate (m/hr); f = measured or estimated infiltration rate (m/hr); and s = factor of safety based on Table DS7.2 below. Table DS7.2 Factors of Safety (f) for Infiltration (Bettess, 1996)
Consequence of failure Size of area to be drained No damage or inconvenience Minor inconvenience (e.g. surface water on carpark) Damage to buildings or structures, flooding of major roads, etc

< 100 m2 100 m to 1,000 m > 1,000 m
2 2 2

1.5 1.5 1.5

2 3 5

10 10 10

• •

Energy dissipators to be provided at the inlet to minimise erosion and distribute flows across the basin floor; Basin floor and embankment walls to be vegetated to minimise erosion and potential clogging of the basin floor;

5-39

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

• • •

Basin floor to be generally flat with side slopes to be greater than 4H:1V to meet maintenance and safety requirements; Provision of maintenance vehicle access to the basin floor. A high by-pass spillway channel is required, connected to the stormwater system or a safe overland flow path.

Design Procedure
The following steps are recommended when designing a standard trapezoidal shaped excavated infiltration basin (adopted from ARC, 2003, MDE, 2000). This design procedure could also be used to approximate a parabolic shaped basin. 1. Determine site suitability based on evaluation criteria provided in Section 3 of this document. 2. Determine optimum infiltration time (t) for the facility based on mean inter-event period (determined from an analysis of the site’s rainfall data history). An infiltration time of between 24 and 72 hours is recommended. 3. Determine the Design Filtration Rate (I) for the subsoil based investigations undertaken at the site and applying the appropriate factor of safety (s). The classification of soil types on-site and the determination of in-situ infiltration rates shall be in accordance with AS 1547 – 1994. 4. Determine the Treatable Volume (VT) based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area to provide a level of treatment of pollutants (refer Council’s Stormwater Quality Control Policy Guidelines). Determine the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) from the pavement area based on the site specific characteristics such as catchment area, topography and impervious area (refer Council’s Stormwater Management Guidelines). Calculate the maximum allowable basin depth (dmax) using the following equation:

5.

6.

dmax = I*t
where: dmax = maximum allowable basin depth (m); t = infiltration drainage time (hr) (from Step 2); I = Design Infiltration Rate of subsoil (m/hr) (from Step 3); For initial sizing, use the following data: I = use minimum determined from Step 3; t = 24 hr minimum.

5-40

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

7.

Select the optimum average basin depth (d) based on the depth that is required above the seasonal high water table, bedrock, or a very low permeability layer, or a depth less than or equal to dmax, whichever is the smaller depth.

8. Determine the allowable top surface area (At) based onsite area/space constraints; 9. Calculate the infiltration basin bottom area (Ab) using the following equation (assuming trapezoidal shaped basin:

Ab = (2*VT – At*d)/(d –2P +2IT)
where: Ab = infiltration basin bottom area (m2); VT = Treatable Volume (m3) (from Step 4); At = infiltration basin top area (m2) (from Step 8); d = average basin depth (m); I = Design Infiltration Rate of subsoil (m/hr) (from Step 3); P = Rainfall from design event (m); T = Filling time of the trench (hrs). Please note that the storage infiltration volume loss during the design event and the additional design water volume that enters the basin during the event are assumed small compared with the design volume (VT), and have been ignored for these calculations. However, these inputs/losses should be included in the calculations if deemed considerable. 10. Design inlet culverts and outlet spillway for the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) within the system. 12. Complete the Design Checklist for Infiltration Basins.

5-41

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Infiltration Basin Design Checklist
Design Feature Checked Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comments

Site Evaluation Infiltration Time Subsoil Infiltration Rate Treatment Volume Pre-treatment System Required Trench Depth Trench/Basin Surface Area Overflow Spillway

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N N N N N N N N

5-42

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.10 Design Specification DS8 – Rainwater Tanks
(Refer Design Specification Drawing DSD8).

Function
Rainwater tanks provide the following main functions:

• •

Allow the reuse of collected rainwater as a substitute for mains water supply, for use for toilet flushing, laundry, garden watering or possibly hot water supply; and When designed with additional storage capacity above the overflow, provide on-site detention, thus reducing peak flows and reducing downstream velocities.

Design Approach
Rainwater tank capacity is to be designed based on one or both of the following system functions:

• •

Water reuse system – only sufficient capacity to supply (on average) a specified proportion of the total water demand supply for the development; and Water reuse and detention system – provides additional storage capacity above the design capacity for reuse to temporarily detain a specified volume prior to releasing downstream stormwater system.

The proportion of water reuse from the tank depends on several variables including effective roof catchment area, water use rate, tank capacity and long-term rainfall characteristics of the area. The required detention volume depends on several variables including the roof and other impervious areas within the site, tank capacity, outlet orifice size and storm characteristics. This can be matched by the available detention volume, which is dependent on the tank size, roof size and consumption rate. The tank efficiency and the average available detention volume have been estimated using the Probabilistic Urban Rainwater and wastewater Reuse Simulator (PURRS, 2002), using 10 years of continuous rainfall data from Prospect Reservoir gauging station. The design capacity requirements for both rainwater reuse and reuse/detention tank systems are addressed in this document.

Design Criteria
The adopted design assumptions and criteria for design of rainwater tanks are provided below:

• •

For detention systems, at least 80% of the roof area of the development must be diverted to the tank with the remainder being diverted to other WSUD measures, or to the stormwater system. All tanks must be fitted with a first flush device, which diverts the first 1 mm of roof water. The device is to include a primary litter/leaf mesh screen and a first flush containment storage with a small orifice (5 mm nom. diameter) to empty the storage between rain events. The first flush water is

5-43

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

to be directed to another WSUD measure (such as a grassed filter strip/buffer) before discharging to the stormwater system.

The tank is topped up with potable mains water to a level when the tank levels falls below a minimum specific level. A float valve system is to be incorporated to close, or partially close, the top up pipe in response to water levels. The Design Roof Area and Design Number of Occupants have been estimated for four lot sizes, as shown in Table DS8.1. The Design Roof Area has been used in PURRS to calculate the rainfall that will be available for use by the rain tank, while the Design Number of Occupants determines the demand for toilet and washing requirements.
Table DS8.1 Design Roof Area and Number of Occupants for a given Lot Size
Design Lot Size (m2 ) 250 350 450 1000 Design Roof Area (m2 ) 150 210 270 450 Design Number of Occupants 2 3 4 5

The Design Demand has been determined based on Design Number of Occupants in the household and the Demand Use of the rainwater tank, and is shown in Table DS8.2 below.
Table DS8.2 Design Demand for Rainwater Tank (kL/year)
Design Lot Size (m2) Demand Use 250 Gardening* only Toilet** Washing Machine*** 303 271 248 350 426 407 372 450 548 542 496 1000 1277 678 619

* Seasonally based - 50% of annual demand occurs in summer, 20% in autumn and spring and 10% in winter. ** Based on typical toilet consumption of 35 L/person/day (ARQ, 2003). ** Cold water usage for washing machines only.

The minimum required Rainwater Tank Capacity for reuse is determined based on the Design Demand and the Minimum Rainwater Tank Efficiency for the appropriate effective Roof Catchment Area, using PURRS. The results of this modelling have been provided in Tables DS8.3, DS8.4, DS8.5 and DS8.6. Overflows from the rainwater tank to be connected to the downstream stormwater system.

5-44

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Table DS8.3 Average Efficiency of Rainwater Tank for 250 m 2 Lot
Demand Use 1 Gardening only Gardening + Toilet Gardening + Toilet + Washing Machine 53 37 27 Rainwater Tank Capacity for Reuse (kL) 2 73 57 44 5 93 80 66 7.5 96 88 74 10 98 92 78 15 99 95 85

Table DS8.4 Average Efficiency of Rainwater Tank for 350 m 2 Lot
Demand Use 1 Gardening only Gardening + Toilet Gardening + Toilet + Washing Machine 45 29 21 Rainwater Tank Capacity for Reuse (kL) 2 65 48 35 5 87 73 58 7.5 94 81 67 10 96 87 73 15 98 93 80

Table DS8.5 Average Efficiency of Rainwater Tank for 450 m 2 Lot
Demand Use 1 Gardening only Gardening + Toilet Gardening + Toilet + Washing Machine*** 36 22 16 Rainwater Tank Capacity for Reuse (kL) 2 56 38 27 5 81 65 50 7.5 89 74 59 10 94 80 65 15 97 88 74

Table DS8.6 Average Efficiency of Rainwater Tank for 1000 m 2 Lot
Demand Use 1 Gardening only Gardening + Toilet Gardening + Toilet + Washing Machine 18 14 11 Rainwater Tank Capacity for Reuse (kL) 2 32 24 19 5 58 48 39 7.5 68 59 49 10 75 65 56 15 84 75 66

The Average Available Detention Volume is determined by subtracting the average volume of water in the tank from the total tank volume. The average volume for each tank size has been calculated

5-45

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

by PURRS, based on the Roof Area, Lot Size and Demand Use, and is provided in Tables DS8.7, DS8.8, DS8.9 and DS8.10. Table DS8.7 Average Available Detention Volume for 250 m 2 Lot
Demand Use 1 Gardening only Gardening + Toilet Gardening + Toilet + Washing Machine 0.18 0.26 0.29 Average Available Detention Volume (kL) 2 0.37 0.63 0.73 5 0.79 1.68 2.22 7.5 0.90 2.27 3.33 10 1.07 2.78 4.41 15 1.39 4.19 6.87

Table DS8.8 Average Available Detention Volume for 350 m 2 Lot
Demand Use 1 Gardening only Gardening + Toilet Gardening + Toilet + Washing Machine 0.13 0.20 0.23 Average Available Detention Volume (kL) 2 0.31 0.51 0.59 5 0.72 1.64 2.09 7.5 0.93 2.31 3.21 10 1.01 2.84 4.23 15 1.28 3.83 6.58

Table DS8.9 Average Available Detention Volume for 450 m 2 Lot
Demand Use 1 Gardening only Gardening + Toilet Gardening + Toilet + Washing Machine 0.19 0.26 0.30 Average Available Detention Volume (kL) 2 0.40 0.59 0.66 5 0.97 1.83 2.18 7.5 1.3 2.76 3.47 10 1.52 3.47 4.62 15 1.82 4.93 7.19

5-46

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Table DS8.10 Average Available Detention Volume for 1000 m 2 Lot
Demand Use 1 Gardening only Gardening + Toilet Gardening + Toilet + Washing Machine 0.18 0.23 0.26 Average Available Detention Volume (kL) 2 0.40 0.50 0.55 5 1.18 1.56 1.75 7.5 1.77 2.49 2.89 10 2.36 3.47 4.11 15 3.37 5.35 6.59

Design Procedure
The following steps should be followed when designing the capacity of a rainwater tank: Water Reuse System 1. Determine the Minimum Rainwater Tank Efficiency for the development from Council’s Planning Policy Guidelines. Determine the Design Lot Size for the development using Table DS8.1. Determine the Demand Use for the rainwater tank to supply the household using Table DS8.2. Determine the minimum required Rainwater Tank Capacity for Reuse using Tables DS8.3, DS8.4, DS8.5 and DS8.6, as appropriate based on the Lot Size (from Step 2), the Design Use (from Step 3) and the Minimum Rainwater Tank Efficiency (from Step 1). Interpolate between alternate Lot Sizes if different than those specified for the tables. Determine pre-treatment requirements (i.e. leaf diverters, first-flush system etc.). Determine outlet pipe requirements for the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) from the effective Roof Catchment Area (refer Council’s Stormwater Management Guidelines).

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Water Reuse and Detention System 1. Determine the required rainwater tank capacity for reuse (Steps 1-6 from Water Re-use System design procedure). Determine the average available detention storage using Tables DS8.7, DS8.8, DS8.9 and DS8.10 for the specified Tank Size, Lot Size and Demand Use. Determine the Total Impervious Area requiring detention, which is the effective Roof Catchment Area that is draining to the rainwater tank plus any other impervious areas on-site that are not connected to the tank, such as driveways, carparks (up to a maximum of 120 m2 for non-roof impervious areas).

2.

3.

5-47

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

4.

Determine the Site Storage Requirement (SSR) and Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) based on the Total Impervious Area within the site requiring detention (refer Council’s Stormwater Management Guidelines and UPRCT’s On-site Detention Handbook). Combine the required Rainwater Tank Capacity for Reuse (from Step 2) and the required SSR volume (from Step 2) to obtain the total effective rainwater tank volume. Determine the required orifice and outlet requirements (refer UPRCT’s On-site Detention Handbook). Determine pre-treatment requirements (i.e. leaf/litter screen, first-flush system etc.). Determine outlet pipe requirements for the Peak Design Flow Rate (Qpeak) from the effective Roof Catchment Area (refer Council’s Stormwater Management Guidelines). Rainwater Tank Design Checklist
Design Feature Checked Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comments

5.

6.

7. 8.

Minimum Rainwater Tank Efficiency Design Number of Occupants Demand Use Design Demand Roof Catchment Area Rainwater Tank Capacity For Reuse Site Total Impervious Area Site Storage Requirement (SSR) Total Rainwater Tank Volume Overflow system First Flush Device

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N N N N N N N N

Y

N

5-48

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

5.11 Design Specification DS9 - Landscape Developments
Function
Application of WSUD principles to landscape design aims to perform the following functions:

• • •

Maximising the survival of plants during periods of low rainfall. Conserving an effective vegetation cover for WSUD measures that incorporate vegetation such as drainage needs and filter strips. Enhancing biodiversity and habitat values by giving preference to locally indigenous plant species.

Appropriate Landscape Planning and Design
• • • • • • •

Landscape design shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person (eg landscape architect with ecological knowledge) based on the six principles listed in section 1.2 Determine general soil category (clay, alluvial, sandstone derived). Identify the regional climatic factors that will influence the selection of suitable low-water demand plants. Carry out a site analysis to identify microclimate relevant factors including shading, sun and wind exposure, low-lying areas subject to frost. Determine landscape situation (eg residential development, local street, riparian zone). Assess soil conditions (fertility, physical structure, permeability) to identify factors that influence plant growth as well as any requirements to modify these conditions to assist plant growth. Irrigation water requirements are to be minimised by grouping species with similar water requirements and selecting plants that are adapted to local climatic and soil conditions. The extent of lawn should be limited in order to minimise requirements for irrigation water. Xerophytic vegetation is preferred. Ground cover plants and native grasses are to be used as an alternative to lawn as much as possible. Inorganic material such as gravel (not sourced from rivers and creeks) should be used as an alternative surface cover to lawn where appropriate. Consumption of water for irrigation shall be eliminated where possible through the selection of suitable species. Where irrigation is necessary the volume of water consumed shall be minimised by ensuring that the most efficient irrigation system is installed and properly maintained. Drip irrigation systems shall be used wherever possible in preference to spray irrigation.

• •

5-49

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Automatic irrigation systems are to incorporate soil moisture sensors that avoid irrigation during periods of rainfall.

Implementing soil improvements

Site soil should be tested to identify conditions that may inhibit plant growth such as compaction, soil salinity and deficiencies in soil nutrient and organic matter content. Improvements to the physical and nutrient condition of the soil should be carried out to ensure rainfall infiltration and soil moisture retention are achieved in order to assist plant growth.

Using surface mulches

Evaporation from the soil surface can be minimised through the application of a 75 mm min. thick layer of surface mulch, such as weed-free woodchip mulch, where appropriate in planted landscape areas. Surface water run-off may be minimised through the application of suitable mulch material.

Selecting low water demand plants

Low water demand plants shall be selected from the tables presented for the appropriate soil category and landscape situation.

Implementing appropriate landscape maintenance

A program of landscape to assist health and vigour of plants that includes

• • • • • •

regular weed control measures maintenance of installed vegetation repair of any soils and mulch erosion that occurs conserving soil on site

Plant species shall be selected from the following schedules for the appropriate landscape situation and soil type. Selecting locally endemic plant species can reduce landscape maintenance requirements due to their adaptations to the local climate.

5-50

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Table DS9.1 Suggested Landscaping Plants for Clay Soils
infiltration/Detention Basins Public Open Space Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands Urban Parklands Swales & Filter Strips Riparian Zones

Landscape Situation

Trees Acacia decurrens Acacia elata Acacia melanoxylon Acacia parramattensis Angophora bakeri Angophora floribunda Angophora subvelutina Brachychiton populneum Casuarina glauca Eucalyptus acmenoides Eucalyptus amplifolia Eucalyptus bauerana Eucalyptus benthamii Eucalyptus crebra Eucalyptus eugenoides Eucalyptus fibrosa Eucalyptus molluccana Eucalyptus paniculata Eucalyptus tereticornis Melaleuca decora Melaleuca linariifolia Melaleuca stypheloides Melaleuca bracteata x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

5-51

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

infiltration/Detention Basins

Public Open Space

Landscape Situation

Platanus x hybrida Shrubs Acacia glaucescens Callistemon salignus Callistemon viminalis Callistemon citrinus Clerodendrum tomentosum Dillwynia retorta Kunzea ambigua Leptospermum lanigerum Ground Cover Myoporum debile Hardenbergia violacea Grasses Themeda australis Danthonia tenuior Imperata cylindrica Lomandra longifolia Microlaena stipoides Poa labillardieri Macrophytes Baumea articulata Baumea rubiginosa Bolboschoenus caldwellii Bolboschoenus fluvitalis Carex appressa x x x x x x x x X x x x x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x

x X

x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x

5-52

Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands

Urban Parklands

Swales & Filter Strips

Riparian Zones

Local Streets

Residential Development

x x x x x

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

infiltration/Detention Basins

Public Open Space

Landscape Situation

Cyperus exaltatus Eleocharis acuta Eleocharis sphacelata Juncus usitatus Isolepsis inundata Phragmites australis Schoenoplectus mucronatus Schoenoplectus validis

5-53

Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands

Urban Parklands

Swales & Filter Strips

Riparian Zones

Local Streets

Residential Development

x x x x x x x x

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Table DS9.2 Suggested Landscaping Plants for Alluvial Soils
Swales & Filter Strips infiltration/Detention Basins Public Open Space Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands Urban Parklands Riparian Zones x x x x

Landscape Situation

Trees Acmena smithii Angophora floribunda Backhousia myrtifolia *Acer buergerianum Brachychiton acerifolium Brachychiton populneum Callistemon citrinus Callistemon salignus Callistemon viminalis Casuarina cunninghamiana Corymbai citriodora Corymbia maculata Corymbia gummifera Elaeocarpus reticulatus Eucalyptus amplifolia Eucalyptus deanei Eucalyptus elata Eucalyptus parramattensis Eucalyptus pilularis Eucalyptus sideroxylon Eucalyptus robusta Eucalyptus saligna Eucalyptus sclerophylla x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

5-54

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Swales & Filter Strips

infiltration/Detention Basins

Public Open Space

Landscape Situation

Eucalyptus viminalis Lophostemon confertus Melaleuca quinquenervia Syncarpia glomulifera Grevillea robusta Livistona australis Melaleuca deocra Melaleuca eliptica Melaleuca bracteata Melaleuca stypheloides *Populus deltoides Tristania conferta Shrubs Acacia elata Acacia pendula Acacia promine Acacia spectabilis Acacia floribunda Banksia intergifolia Banksia robur Leptospermum petersonii Leptospermum laevigatum Olearia pimeloides Westringia fruticosa Westringia grandifolia x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

5-55

Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands

Urban Parklands

Riparian Zones

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Swales & Filter Strips

infiltration/Detention Basins

Public Open Space

Landscape Situation

Ground Cover Hibbertia scandens *Clivea mineata Myoporum debile Wahlenbergia gracillis Dianella caerulea *Cerastium tomentosum *Hemerocallis hybrids Kennedia rubicunda Hardenbergia violacea Grasses Dichelachne crinata Danthonia caespitosa Imperata cylindrica Lomandra longifolia Microlaena stipoides Poa labillardieri Stipa spp. Themeda australis Macrophytes Baumea articulata Baumea rubiginosa Bolboschoenus caldwellii Bolboschoenus fluviatilis Carex appressa Cyperus exaltatus x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

5-56

Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands

Urban Parklands

Riparian Zones

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Swales & Filter Strips

infiltration/Detention Basins

Public Open Space

Landscape Situation

Eleocharis acuta Eleocharis sphacelata Juncus usitatus Isolepsis inundata Phragmites australis Schoenoplectus mucronatus Schoenoplectus validis

5-57

Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands x x x x x x x

Urban Parklands

Riparian Zones

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

Table DS9.3 Suggested Landscaping Plants for Sandstone Derived Soils
infiltration/Detention Basins Public Open Space Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands Urban Parklands

Riparian Zones

Landscape Situation

Trees Allocasuarina portuensis Angophora costata Angophora bakeri Angophora hispida Banksia ericifolia Banksia marginata Banksia serrata Callitris rhomboidea Callistemon salignus Casuarina glauca Casuarina littoralis Casuarina torulosa Corymbia gummifera Eucalyptus eximia Eucalyptus gummifera Eucalyptus haemastoma Eucalyptus piperita Eucalyptus punctata Eucalyptus racemosa Eucalyptus resinifera Eleaocarpus reticulata Ficus rubiginosa Glochidion ferdinandi x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

5-58

Swales & Filter Strips

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

infiltration/Detention Basins

Public Open Space

Landscape Situation

Syncarpia glomulifera Tristaniopsis laurina Trochocarpa laurina Shrubs Acacia buxifolia Acacia prominens Acacia calamifloia Acacia longifolia Acacia conferta Acacia fimbriata Acacia floribunda Acacia glaucescens Acacia longifolia var longifolia Callicoma serratifolia Callistemon citrinus Ceratopetalum gummiferum Clerodendrum tomentosum Dillwynia retorta Dodonaea micozyga Dodonaea viscose Doryanthes excelsa Eremophila bowmanii Eremophila divaricata Grevillea juncifolia Hakea dactyloides Hakea sericea x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x

5-59

Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands

Urban Parklands

Riparian Zones

Swales & Filter Strips

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

infiltration/Detention Basins

Public Open Space

Landscape Situation

Isopogon anethifolius Kunzea ambigua Leptospermum polygalifolium Leptospermum petersonii Melaleuca nodosa Myoporum insulare Olearia microphylla Pittosporum revolutum Westrigia fruticosa Westringia ‘Wynyabbie Gem’ Ground Cover Carpobrotus modestu Cissus antartica Clematis aristata Darwinia grandiflora Dianella caerulea Dianella revoluta Echinopogon caespitosus Einadia nutans Hardenbergia violacea Hibbertia scadens Hibbertia pendunculata Myoporum parvifolium Pandorea pandorana Grasses Blandfordia nobilis

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x x x

x

x x x x

x

x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x

x

x x

5-60

Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands

Urban Parklands

Riparian Zones

Swales & Filter Strips

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Design Specification

SECTION 5

infiltration/Detention Basins

Public Open Space

Landscape Situation

Dichelachne crinata Danthonia tenuior Imperata cylindrica Lomandra longifolia Microlaena stipoides Poa labillardieri Stipa ramossissima Themeda australis Macrophytes Baumea articulata Baumea rubiginosa Bolboschoenus caldwellii Bolboschoenus fluviatalis Carex appressa Cyperus exaltatus Eleocharis acuta Eleocharis sphacelata Juncus usitatus Isolepsis inundata Phragmites australis Schoenoplectus mucronatus Schoenoplectus validis x x x x

x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x

5-61

Bioremediation Systems/Wetlands x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Urban Parklands

Riparian Zones

Swales & Filter Strips

Local Streets

Residential Development

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

6.1 Introduction
Detailed operation and maintenance programs for structural WSUD measures are crucial to optimise their long-term performance. Industry experience has shown that many WSUD measures are inadequately protected during construction or poorly maintained, leading to the reduction in design performance and, in some instances, failure. Inadequate maintenance may arise from a number of issues (CRCCH, 2003) and include:

A lack of consideration of design attributes during the planning phase of the WSUD measure that facilitate maintenance programs being adequately conducted on site (ie. access ramps, dewatering facilities etc.); Maintenance personnel unsure of what maintenance procedures to follow during routine site inspections and clean out programs; and Inadequate budgetary resources set aside by organisations responsible to maintain the WSUD measure at a frequency necessary to ensure a system operates as it was designed to.

• •

The following section provides:

• • •

Guidance on the critical items should be monitored during inspections for each WSUD measure; Guidance on the critical maintenance requirements and activities for each WSUD measure; and Preliminary Maintenance and Inspection Checklists for each WSUD measure, providing critical items to be inspected, specifying maintenance requirements and inspection frequencies, that can be used for maintenance personnel (based on ARC, 2003).

6-1

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.2 Vegetated Swales
Inspection and Monitoring
Following construction, swales should be inspected every 1 to 3 months (or after each major rainfall event) during the initial establishment period to determine whether or not the swale surface and vegetation requires immediate maintenance. The following critical items should be monitored:

• • • • • •

Channelisation and erosion; Density of vegetation; Weed infestation; Integrity of inlet and outlet areas and check dams; Inappropriate access and wear; Nuisance problems such as mosquitoes and boggy areas

After the initial establishment period (typically 1 to 2 years), inspections may be extended to the frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Vegetated Swales.

Maintenance
Vegetated swales require on-going maintenance such as mowing, watering (depending on the plant species selected), weeding, fertilising (depending on the plant species selected), sediment and litter removal and scour and erosion repair. Vegetation should maintained preferably above 100 to 150 mm in height. Residents need to be informed of the function of any swale(s) within or bordering their properties and its benefits to prevent damage and or misuse. The erection of signage near swales on publicly accessible land may be useful in informing the public of their function and use. For grass-lined channels, which are not recommended in comparison to vegetated swales, mowing of the grass shall be at least to 25 mm height. Mowing shall be outside predicted rain periods.

6-2

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Vegetated Swales Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency

DEBRIS CLEANOUT Swale and contributing areas clean of debris Observed dumped domestic litter/debris in swale channel SWALE SURFACE Evidence of erosion Vegetation condition SWALE VEGETATION Vegetation trimming/mowing Fertilisation required where grass is used (slow release organic fertilisers recommended) Weed infestation PONDING Evidence of ponding water Inspection Frequency Key: A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly

6M

6M

6M

6M

6-3

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.3 Vegetated Filter Strips
Inspection and Monitoring
Following construction, filter strips should be inspected every 1 to 3 months (or after each major rainfall event) for the initial establishment period to determine whether or not the filter strip surface and vegetation requires immediate maintenance. The following critical items should be monitored:

• • • • •

Channelisation and erosion; Density of vegetation; Weed infestation; Inappropriate access and wear; Nuisance problems such as boggy areas.

After the initial establishment period (typically 1 to 2 years), inspections may be extended to the frequencies shown in Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Vegetated Filter Strips.

Maintenance
Vegetated strip or buffers require regular maintenance such as mowing, watering (depending on the plant species selected), weeding, fertilising (depending on the plant species selected), sediment and litter removal and scour and erosion repair. Vegetation should be maintained preferably above 75 mm in height. Residents need to be informed of the function of any filter strip(s) within or bordering their properties and its benefits to prevent damage and or misuse. The erection of signage near filter strips on publicly accessible land may be useful in informing the public of their function and use.

6-4

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Vegetated Filter Strip Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency

DEBRIS CLEANOUT Filter and contributing areas clean of debris Observed dumped domestic debris/litter within area SWALE SURFACE Evidence of erosion Vegetation condition Erosion repair required FILTER STRIP VEGETATION Vegetation trimming/mowing required Fertilisation required where grass is used (slow release organic fertilisers recommended) Weed infestation PONDING Evidence of ponding water

6M

6M

6M

6M

Inspection Frequency Key: A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly

6-5

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.4 Sand Filters
Inspection and Monitoring
Following construction, sand filters should be inspected every 1 to 3 months (or after each major rainfall event) for the initial 6 months of operation to determine whether or not the filter requires maintenance or the media requires replacement. The following items should be monitored:

• • •

Ponding, clogging and blockage of the filter media; Depth of sediment in the sediment chamber; and Blockage of the outlet from the sediment chamber.

After the initial 6 months, inspections may be extended to the frequencies shown in Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Sand Filters.

Maintenance
If the filter is not cleaned frequently, the entire filter media may need to be replaced due to clogging of the media material with fine particles. This means frequent maintenance will be more cost effective in the long term. The following maintenance activities will be required with inspection frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist:

• • • • •

Sediment and litter to be removed from the sediment chamber if the sediment storage capacity is approaching half full, with drying of the sediment possibly required before disposal. Litter and debris over the filter surface to be cleaned out and the surface raked to break up any crusts (to improve infiltration). The top layer (50 to 100 mm) of the filter media to be periodically removed and replaced depending on loading rates. Repair of structure components including side walls, pits and grates; Repair outlet and overflow structures and the removal of accumulated debris.

6-6

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Sand Filters Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency M/A DEBRIS CLEANOUT Contributing areas clean of debris Filtration surface clean of debris Inlets and outlets clear of debris FILTER SURFACE REPAIRS Surface of filter clean Top layer require raking Top 100 mm layer requires replacement Entire filter media requires replacement OIL AND GREASE Evidence of filter surface clogging Activities in drainage area minimise oil and grease entry VEGETATION (UPSLOPE) Contributing drainage area stabilised Evidence of erosion SEDIMENT TRAPS, FOREBAY, OR BASIN Sediment chamber at normal pool depth? Sediment chamber not more than 50% full of sediment STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS Evidence of structural deterioration Grate/pit condition OUTLETS/OVERFLOW SPILLWAY Good condition, no need for repair No evidence of erosion (if draining into a natural channel) Inspection Frequency Key: A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly A A 6M 6M 6M 6M 6M

6-7

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.5 Bioretention Systems
Inspection and Monitoring
Following construction, bioretention systems should be inspected every 1 to 3 months (or after each major rainfall event) for the initial vegetation establishment period to determine whether or not the bioretention zone requires maintenance or the media requires replacement. The following critical items should be monitored:

• • •

Ponding, clogging and blockage of the filter media; Establishment of desired vegetation/plants and density; Blockage of the outlet from the bioretention system.

After the initial establishment period (typically 1 to 2 years), inspections may be extended to the frequencies shown in Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Bioretention Systems.

Maintenance
If the bioretention system is not maintained frequently, the entire filter media may need to be replaced due to clogging of the media material with fine particles. This means frequent maintenance ismore cost effective in the long term. The following maintenance activities will be required with inspection frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist:

• • • • •

Maintenance of flow to and through the system; Maintaining the surface vegetation; Preventing undesired overgrowth vegetation/weeds from taking over the area; Removal of accumulated sediments; and Debris and litter removal.

6-8

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Bioretention System Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency

DEBRIS CLEANOUT Surface clear of debris & litter Inlet area clear of debris & litter Overflow clear of debris & litter TRENCH SURFACE VEGETATION Vegetation condition Vegetation trimming/maintenance Weed infestation Evidence of erosion DEWATERING Trench surface dewatering between storms Top soil layer require replacing? Entire planting media require replacing? OUTLET/OVERFLOW CHANNEL OR PIT Pit/grate condition Evidence or cracking or spalling of concrete structures Evidence of erosion in downstream channel

6M

6M

6M

A

Inspection Frequency Key: A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly

6-9

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.6 Permeable Pavements
Inspection and Monitoring
Following construction, infiltration system should be inspected every month (or after each major rainfall event) for the initial 6 months of operation to determine whether or not the infiltration zone requires immediate maintenance. The following critical items should be monitored:

• • •

Surface ponding (which would indicate clogging or blockage of the underlying aggregate); Sediment build-up; Blockage of the outlet pipe (if applicable).

After the initial 6 months, inspections may be extended to the frequencies shown in Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Permeable Pavements.

Maintenance
For efficient operation of permeable pavements it is essential that the gaps between the paver and the underlying bedding layer do not become clogged by fine sediment. To prevent this from occurring, permeable pavements require the following maintenance activities:

• • • •

High pressure hosing, sweeping or vacuuming depending on the manufacturer’s specifications to remove sediments and restore porosity; Repair of potholes and cracks; Replacement of clogged/water logged areas; Rectification of any differences in pavement levels.

6-10

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Permeable Pavement Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency

DEBRIS CLEANOUT Pavement surface clear of debris PAVEMENT SURFACE Sediment build-up Potholes Cracking of pavement Significant pavement deflection DEWATERING Pavement surface dewatering between storms? Replacement required of clogged pavement OUTLET/OVERFLOW Outlet condition Evidence of erosion downstream

3M

3M

3M

A

Inspection Frequency Key: A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly

6-11

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.7 Infiltration Trenches
Inspection and Monitoring
Following construction, the infiltration system should be inspected every 1 to 3 months (or after each major rainfall event) for the initial 6 months of operation to determine whether or not the infiltration zone requires immediate maintenance. The following critical items should be monitored:

• • • • •

Surface ponding (which would indicate clogging or blockage of the underlying aggregate); Water remaining above the trench base after the design infiltration period (which would indicate clogging of the underlying aggregate or the base of the trench); Sediment in the upper layer of aggregate; Pre-treatment sediment traps, forebays or swales are working in accordance with the design; and Blockage of the outlet pipe from the system.

After the initial 6 months, inspections may be extended to the frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Infiltration Trenches.

Maintenance
If the infiltration trench is not maintained frequently, the entire trench aggregate may need to be replaced due to clogging of the media material with fine particles. This means frequent maintenance is more cost effective in the long term. The following maintenance activities will be required with inspection frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist:

• • •

Removal of the top sand/aggregate layer and the geofabric layer if excessively clogged; Maintaining the surface vegetation (if present); Debris and litter removal.

6-12

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Infiltration Trench Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency

DEBRIS CLEANOUT Trench surface clear of debris & litter Inlet area clear of debris & litter Overflow clear of debris & litter SEDIMENT TRAPS, FOREBAYS, OR PRE-TREATMENT SWALES Trapping sediment effectively Facility not more than 50% full of sediment TRENCH SURFACE Evidence of surface erosion/scouring TRENCH SURFACE VEGETATION (if applicable) Vegetation condition Vegetation trimming/maintenance Weed infestation DEWATERING Trench surface dewatering between storms Trench base dewatering between storms Top aggregate layer/geofabric need replacing? Entire aggregate requires replacing? OUTLET/OVERFLOW SPILLWAY Outlet/overflow condition Evidence of erosion downstream

6M

6M

6M

6M

3-6M

A

Inspection Frequency Key: A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly

6-13

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.8 Infiltration Basins
Inspection and Monitoring
Following construction, infiltration basins should be inspected every 1 to 3 month (or after each major rainfall event) for the initial 6 months of operation to determine whether or not the infiltration zone and inlet and outlet structures require immediate maintenance. The following critical items should be monitored:

• •

Monitoring duration of ponding compared to the design infiltration period; Inspection of basin floor for erosion, sediment deposition and grass growth;

After the initial 6 months, inspections may be extended to the frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Infiltration Basins. A long-term monitoring program of infiltration rates should be initiated to compare/confirm actual rates against design rates over time.

Maintenance
The following critical maintenance activities will be required with inspection frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist.

• • •

Removal of deposited sediment, debris and litter from the basin floor and inlet/outlet areas; Surface ripping to enhance infiltration rates (if dropped to unacceptable rates); and Vegetation trimming and maintenance.

6-14

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Infiltration Basin Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency

DEBRIS CLEANOUT Storage clear of debris & litter Inlet area clear of debris & litter SEDIMENT TRAPS, FOREBAYS, OR PRE-TREATMENT SWALES Trapping sediment effectively Facility not more than 50% full of sediment BASIN SURFACE Evidence of surface erosion/scouring Good vegetation layer exists BASIN VEGETATION Vegetation condition Vegetation trimming/maintenance Weed infestation DEWATERING Basin dewatering between storms? OUTLET/OVERFLOW SPILLWAY Outlet/overflow condition Evidence of erosion downstream

6M

6M

6M

6M

3-6M

A

Inspection Frequency Key: A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly

6-15

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.9 Rainwater Tanks
Inspection and Monitoring
For rainwater tanks the following items should be inspected:

• • •

Clogging and blockage of the first flush device; Clogging and blockage of the tank inlet leaf/litter screen; and Depth of sediment within the tank.

Inspections should be undertaken at the frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Rainwater Tanks.

Maintenance
The following maintenance activities will be required with inspection frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist:

• • • •

First flush device to be cleaned out; Leaves and debris to be removed from the inlet leaf/litter screen; Removing leaves and debris from roof gutters; and Sediment and debris to be removed from rainwater tank floor.

Adequate first flush systems and mesh screens on tanks inlets will reduce the amount of sediment and debris entering the tank rendering cleaning only necessary approximately 10 years or so.

6-16

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Rainwater Tank Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency

DEBRIS CLEANOUT Basin surface clear of debris Inlet area clear of debris Overflow pipe clear of debris FIRST FLUSH DEVICE Leaves and debris in sump/vessel INLET SCREEN Leaves and debris on surface ROOF GUTTERS Leaves and debris in gutters SEDIMENT LEVEL IN TANK Sediment level TANK STRUCTURE Check for corrosion Check footings OUTLET PIPE Pipe condition Evidence of blockage

6M

2M

6M

6M

2A

2A

A

Inspection Frequency Key: 2A A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = = 2 Years Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly

6-17

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

6.10 Landscape Developments
Inspection and Monitoring
For landscape areas the following items should be inspected:

• • • •

Signs of plant moisture stress; Dead or damaged vegetation; Weed infestation; Signs of surface erosion and scouring.

Inspections should be undertaken at the frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist for Landscape Development. During the first twelve months of the landscaping – the establishment period – inspections should be carried out more frequently (e.g. fortnightly during summer and monthly otherwise) to ensure that watering systems are operating and plants are attended to. Based on the maintenance activities and regimes experienced during the establishment period, the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist may need to be amended.

Maintenance
The following maintenance activities will be required with inspection frequencies shown in the Maintenance and Inspection Checklist:

• • • •

Repair/replace any damaged vegetation; Reapply or apply mulch layer Watering; Repair surface erosion and scouring.

6-18

WSUD Operation and Maintenance

SECTION 6

Landscape Development Maintenance and Inspection Checklist
Items Inspected Checked Maintenance Needed Inspection Frequency

PLANT SURVIVAL Dead plants identified and replaced Alternative species used if soil moisture unsuitable IRRIGATION SYSTEM CHECK Plants show no evidence of moisture stress Repair/replace any damaged components Adjust irrigation program if necessary DRAINAGE PATTERN Subsurface drainage required to prevent waterlogging Modification of surface drainage required to direct stormwater to planted areas

3M

3M

3M

Inspection Frequency Key: A M 3M 6M 3-6M 1-3M = = = = = = Annual Monthly Three Monthly Six Monthly Three to Six Monthly One to Three Monthly

6-19

7

Life Cycle Costs for WSUD Measures

7.1 Introduction
This section provides capital and on-going maintenance associated with the specified WSUD measures in this document. The costs provided in this section have been obtained from a number of sources, as follows:

• •

Collation of indicative construction and maintenance costs from the latest manuals and reports, as referenced in this section; Using unit rates of the supply and construction of individual items or activities associated with each WSUD measure, using Rawlinsons - Australian Construction Handbook (2002) for the Sydney area; and Where possible, actual construction and maintenance costs from recently completed projects in Sydney and Victoria, as referenced in this section.

All costs provided in this document are based on 2003 unit rates and values.

7.2 Vegetated Swales
The construction cost for vegetated swales would depend on the surface area/width, type of vegetation and the steepness of the area (ie. requiring intermittent check dams). The estimated unit rate construction costs for a nominal 3 m wide swale in the Sydney area (as shown on Drawing DSD1) is summarised in Table 7.1 below:
Table 7.1 Estimated Unit Rate Construction Cost for Vegetated Swale
Works Description Quantity Unit Rate Cost ($/m)

Excavate and profiling swale channel Supply and place topsoil layer (100 Nom thick) Supply and apply grass seed, fertiliser and watering TOTAL

3.0 3.0 3.0

m2/m m3/m m2/m

2.0 7.0 1.0

6 21 3 30

Based on the above, the unit cost is approximately $30/m length of swale or approximately $10/m2 of swale. For swales with an underlying subsoil drain (ie. for grades less than 2%) include an additional $30/m for the construction of the subsoil drain, including excavation, perforated pipe, gravel and sand backfill and geofabric surround. If rolled turf is used instead of seed, the estimated unit cost of the swale would increase to approximately $18/m2 (excluding subsoil drain).

7-1

Construction of a swale covering 2700 m2 at Kinfauns Estate, Hasting, Victoria cost $41,750, which equates to approximately $15.50/m2 (Lloyd et al, 2002). Estimated swale maintenance costs for the Model Farms High School at Baulkham hills are provided in the Table 7.2 (Beecham, 2002). The overall maintenance cost obtained is $3.13/m2 of swale. CRCCH (2003) indicates that maintenance of grass swales for the removal of litter and mowing is about $2.5/m2 (based on figures provided by Vicroads).
Table 7.2 Estimated Swale Maintenance Costs – Model Farms High School
Component Estimated Unit Cost Swale Size 1 Swale Size 2 Comments

($)

0.5m deep 0.3m bottom width 3m top width ($) 264.6

1m deep 1m bottom width 7m top width ($) 440.1 Mow 2/3 times per year Grass Maintenance area is (top width + 3m) x length

Mowing

1.62/100m2
2

General Grass Care Debris/Litter Removal Reseeding/ Fertilisation Inspection and General Administration TOTAL

16.2/100m 0.95/m2 0.65/m
2

297 170.1 10.8

499.5 170.1 18.9

Area revegetated is 1% of maintenance area per year Inspection once per year

1.35/m2 3.13/m2

421 1164

421 1550

7.3 Vegetated Filter Strips
The construction cost for vegetated filter strips would depend on the surface area and type of vegetation used. The construction cost for a filter strip (as shown on Drawing DSD2) comprising surface preparation (grading, tyning), topsoiling, and seeding (with grasses) would be in the order of $10 to $15/m2 in the Sydney area. The cost would increase to around $20 to $50/m2 if the area was planted with a ground cover of established native grasses and shrubs. CRCCH (2003) indicates that maintenance of buffer strips for the removal of litter and mowing is about $2.5/m2 (based on figures provided by Vicroads).

7-2

7.4 Sand Filters
The capital cost will vary depending on the scale of the system. The estimated costs for supply and installation will therefore likely range from $5,000 to $50,000 (WBM, 2003). Maintenance costs will also likely range from $1,000 to $5,000 per year depending on the scale of the device (WBM, 2003). For small filters, this would involve the use of a shovel, a wheelbarrow and a small utility to transport the clean sand and the removal of the contaminated sand to an approved solid waste disposal site. Larger sand filters may require larger equipment (eg. a grader or a front-end loader).

7.5 Bioretention Systems
The construction cost for bioretention systems would depend on the surface area/width, depth, type of surface vegetation and the inlet/outlet structures. The estimated unit rate construction costs for a 3 m wide x 1 m nominal deep, on-line bioretention trench (as shown on Drawing DSD4b) is summarised in Table 7.3 below.
Table 7.3 Estimated Unit Rate Construction Cost for Bioretention Trench
Works Description Quantity Unit Rate Cost ($/m)

Excavate trench (3m x 1.5m) and stockpile Supply and install geofabric liner Supply and place underdrainage pipe (100 diameter) Supply and place gravel drainage layer Supply and place filter media (sand/gravel soil) Supply and place graded filter sand layer (150 Nom thick) Supply and place topsoil layer (100 Nom thick) Supply established vegetation ground cover including planting, fertiliser and watering TOTAL

4.8 6.2 1.0 0.7 3.0 0.5 3.0 3.0

m3/m m2/m m/m m3/m m3/m m3/m m3/m m2/m

20 5 13 45 55 45 7.0 10

96 31 13 31.5 165 22.5 21 30

410

Based on the above, the unit cost 3 m wide x 1 m nominal deep bioretention trench is approximately $410/m by length, or approximately $137/m2 of trench surface area. Costs, however, will tend to differ with the type of surface landscaping, and the sand and gravel type and source location. Long-term maintenance cost for are bioretention systems largely unknown but likely to be dominated by activities similar to those of swales, ie. $1.5 to $2.5/m2 for landscaped systems (CRCCH, 2003).

7-3

7.6 Permeable Pavements
The construction cost for permeable pavements would depend largely on the type of permeable pavement selected (ie. no fines asphalt/concrete or block) and the depth of the underlying gravel reservoir layer. The supply cost for permeable pavement blocks typically varies from $30 to $50/m2. Installation costs of permeable pavements is typically greater than conventional pavements. The estimated unit rate construction costs for a typical permeable pavement area (using block pavers with a 400 mm thick sub-base sand/gravel layer, as shown on Drawing DSD5) is summarised in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4 Estimated Unit Rate Construction Cost of Permeable Block Pavement Works Description Excavate and profiling subgrade surface Supply permeable pavement blocks Install pavement blocks Supply and install geofabric liners Supply and place gravel reservoir layer (350 thick) Supply and place bedding sand layer (50 thick) TOTAL Quantity 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.35 0.05 Unit m2 m m
2 2

Rate) 2 40 25 5 55 45

Cost ($/m2) 2 40 25 10 19.2 2.2 98.4

m2 m3/m2 m3/m2

Based on the above, the unit cost for permeable block pavements is approx. $100/m2 of pavement surface. Maintenance costs are generally higher than that of traditional pavements due to the extra cleaning costs required to ensure pavements do not become clogged with sediment. Accurate maintenance cost estimates were unavailable at the time of writing.

7.7 Infiltration Trenches
The construction cost for an infiltration trench would depend largely on the surface area/width and depth of the trench. The estimated unit rate construction costs for a typical 1 m wide x 1 m nominal infiltration trench in the Sydney area (as shown on Drawing DSD6) is summarised in Table 7.5 below.

7-4

Table 7.5 Estimated Unit Rate Construction Cost of Infiltration Trench Works Description Excavate trench (1m x 1.25m) and stockpile Supply and install geofabric liner Supply and place perforated pipe (100 dia) Supply and place gravel storage layer Supply and place filter layer (100 Nom thick) Supply and place topsoil layer (100 Nom thick) Supply and apply grass seed, fertiliser and watering TOTAL
2

Quantity 1.25 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.15 1.0 1.0

Unit m3/m m /m m/m m3/m m /m m /m m2/m
3 3 2

Rate 20 5 13 65 45 7.0 1.0

Cost ($/m) 25 20 13 65 7 7 1 138

Based on the above, the unit cost is approximately $140/m of infiltration trench (or $130/m of trench surface). Maintenance costs will differ depending on the scale of the device. Maintenance costs for infiltration trenches are unknown at present.

7.8 Infiltration Basins
The construction cost for an infiltration basin would depend largely on the excavation volume required to construct the basin (i.e. surface area/width and depth). Excavation would typically be less in natural depressions or gullies on sites. Excavation costs would also depend on subsurface ground conditions, with rates varying from $20/m3 in light soils, to over $50/m3 in soft rock that can be easily ripped. Maintenance costs will differ depending on the scale of the basin. Maintenance labour/plant requirements will range from hand and shovels for small basins, to front-end loaders and trucks for larger basins. Maintenance costs for infiltration basins are unknown at present.

7.9 Rainwater Tanks
The cost for the supply of rainwater tanks will largely depend on the tank’s fabrication material. Supply costs for a range of tank types are summarised in Table 7.6 below (Coombes, 2002b, Practice Note 4).

7-5

Table 7.6 Typical Rainwater Tank Supply Costs (2002) Supply Cost for various Tank Size ($) Tank Type 4.5 kL Aquaplate Galvanised Iron Polymer Concrete
TM

9 kL 860 640 1150 1,800

540

440
670 1,300

The cost of installing a rainwater tank can vary considerably depending on-site constraints. Installation, fitting and plumbing costs for a typical 5 to 10 kL size tank are also summarised in Table 7.7 below.
Table 7.7 Typical Rainwater Tank Installation and Fittings Costs (2002) Tank Item Pump and Pressure Controller Tank stand/base Fittings including float system Installation TOTAL Cost ($) 350 300 500 450 $1600

The additional costs for installation of a below ground rainwater tank would be around $2,000 (Coombes, 2002b, Practice Note 4). The on-going operating costs for the pump motor would be approximately $150/year (based on $13.53 cents/kWh for a 0.75 kW pump for an average 4 hr operating day). A conservative estimate of annual maintenance costs incurred for a rainwater tank is about $70/year.

7-6

References

SECTION 8

8

References

(ARC, 2003), Stormwater Treatment Devices: Design Guidelines Manual, Technical Publication 10. Auckland Regional Council, July 2003. (ARQ, 2003) Australian Runoff Quality, Proceedings of Launch of Guidelines, June 2003, The Institute of Engineers Australia, National Committee on Water Engineering. (BCC, 2001) Stormwater Quality Control Policy - Background Information and Guidelines for Application, Blacktown City Council. (Bannerman and Hazelton, 1990) Soil landscapes of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney. (Beecham, 2002) Development of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Concepts for Model Farms High School, prepared by Dr Simon Beecham. (Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1993), California Storm Best Water Management Practice Handbooks: Municipal, prepared for California Stormwater Quality Task Force. (Coombes, 2002a), Practice Note No.5 – Infiltration Devices, LHCCREMS, NSW. (Coombes, 2002b), Practice Note No.4 – Rainwater Tanks, LHCCREMS, NSW. (Coombes, Donovan and Cameron, 1999) Water Sensitive Urban Development: Implementation Issues for the Lower Hunter and Central Coasts, Lake Macquarie City Council, Speers Point, on behalf of the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Environmental Management Strategy. (CRCCH, 1999) Managing Urban Stormwater Using Constructed Wetlands, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne. (CRCCH, 2000) Water Sensitive Road Design – Design Options for Improving Stormwater Quality of Road Runoff. Technical Report 00/1, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology ,August, 2000. (CRCCH, 2003) Stormwater Flow and Quality and The Effectiveness of Non-Proprietary Stormwater Treatment Measures (Draft), prepared by the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne for the NSW EPA. (DLWC, 1998) The Constructed Wetlands Manual. Volumes 1 and 2, Department of Land and Water Conservation, New South Wales. (DoH, 1998), Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, NSW Department of Housing, NSW August 1998. (EPA, 1997a), Managing Urban Stormwater: Treatment Techniques, Draft, Environment Protection Authority, NSW, November 1997.

8-1

References

SECTION 8

(EPA, 1997b) Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook – Draft, Environment Protection Authority. (EPA, 2000) Example Stormwater Management Plan – Draft, Environment Protection Authority. (EPA, 2002c) Environmental Management Plan for Landscaping Works, NSW EPA and The Stormwater Trust, August 2002. (EPA, 2002d) Landscape Industry Fact Sheets: environmental information. Sheet 7 – Using Water Wisely. Sheet 8 – Controlling Erosion and Sediment. Home Landscaping. (Horner, Skupien, Livingston and Shaver, 1994), Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management, Terrene Institute, Washington, DC. (KNOX, 2003) Water Sensitive Urban Design Guidelines for City of Knox, prepared for Knox City Council by MDG Landscape Architects and KLM Development Consultants. (MDE, 2000), Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volumes 1 and 2, Maryland Department of the Environment and the Center Watershed Protection, Maryland, 2000. (RTA, 2003), Procedure for Selecting Treatment Strategies for Road Runoff. Road and Traffic Authority (S Lloyd, T Wong, and C.Chesterfield, 2002), Water Sensitive Urban Design – A stormwater Management Perspective, prepared for Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology and Melbourne water Corporation. (SCS, 1990), Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100 000Sheet. Bannerman, S.M. and Hazelton, P.A. Soil Conservation Service of NSW. (UPRCT, 1999) On-site Detention Handbook, Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust. (UPRCT, 2002), Upper Parramatta River Stormwater Management Plan, Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust. (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999), Urban Stormwater – Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, Victorian Stormwater Committee, CSIRO Publishing, Victoria. (Walsh, 1993) Water-Saving Gardening in Australia, Kevin Walsh, Reed Books Australia (WBM, 2003), Stormwater Treatment Framework and Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Guidelines – Exhibition Draft – Version 3, WBM Oceanics Australia. (WSROC, 2002), Final Draft Salinity Code of Practice, Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, July 2002.

8-2

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful