Identification of Water Sensitive Urban Design Measures ... · Identification of Water Sensitive...

Important Notice This report applies only to the subject of the project. University does not accept responsibility for the conformity or non-conformity of any other subject to the findings of this report. This report consists of one cover page and 57 pages of text. It may be reproduced only with permission of the copyright owner, and only in full.

Educating Professionals Applying Knowledge Serving the Community

Identification of Water Sensitive Urban Design Measures and Approaches for Sustainable Stormwater Management

Report – Part B Water Quality

Prepared for Catchment Management Subsidy Scheme, Transport SA, Adelaide & Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Local Government Association and Environment Protection Authority

Prepared by Urban Water Resources Centre University contact David Pezzaniti Group Leader Telephone +61 8 8302.3652 Facsimile +61 8 8302.3386 Date of issue December, 2006

ISO 9001 QEC6382

Educating Professionals • Creating and Applying Knowledge • Serving the Community

Division of IT, Engineering and the Environment

Identification of WSUD Measures and Approaches Report – Part B

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES................................................................................. 1 1.2 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR THE CATCHMENT........................................ 1 1.3 COMPARISON WITH INTERSTATE GUIDELINE VALUES ....................................... 3

2 CATCHMENT WATER QUALITY MODEL .................................................... 4

2.1 CATCHMENT AREAS AND LAND USE ................................................................. 4 2.2 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS ......................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Model Calibration................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.2 Residential Urban Areas...................................................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Commercial and Industrial Areas........................................................................................ 8 2.2.4 Roads ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 MODELLING METHODOLOGY............................................................................. 9 2.4 CATCHMENT WITH NO TREATMENT MEASURES .............................................. 10

3 WATER QUALITY MODELLING – CATCHMENT SCALE....................... 14

3.1 BASINS............................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Gleneagles Basin ............................................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 Sedimentation Basin at Matheson Reserve ........................................................................ 18 3.1.3 Summary of Load Reductions ............................................................................................ 20 3.1.4 Life Cycle Costs – Basins................................................................................................... 21

3.2 ASR WETLAND SCHEMES................................................................................ 22 3.2.1 Life Cycle Costs of ASR Wetlands...................................................................................... 28

3.3 VEGETATED SWALES ...................................................................................... 28 3.3.1 Life Cycle Cost of Reeded Swale........................................................................................ 30

4 WATER QUALITY MODELLING - STREETSCAPE INFILTRATION, FILTRATION AND SWALE SYSTEMS .................................................................. 31

4.1 MAJOR ROADS................................................................................................. 32 4.1.1 Bioretention Systems in Major Road Medians................................................................... 32 4.1.2 Permeable Pavement Along Major Roads ......................................................................... 34 4.1.3 Summary of Load Reductions and Downstream Pollutant Concentrations for Major Road Devices 36 4.1.4 Life Cycle Costs ................................................................................................................. 37

4.2 MINOR ROAD STREETSCAPES .......................................................................... 38 4.2.1 Infiltration Systems ............................................................................................................ 38


Page ii

4.2.2 Filtration (Extended Detention) Systems ........................................................................... 40 4.2.3 Swales ................................................................................................................................ 41 4.2.4 Infiltration vs Filtration vs Swales.................................................................................... 42

5 SUMMARY OF SELECTED MEASURES....................................................... 46

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 50

6.1 REDUCTION IN LOADS...................................................................................... 50 6.2 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS ....................................................................... 50 6.3 COMPARISON WITH INTERSTATE GUIDELINE LIMITS ....................................... 51 6.4 POLLUTANT REMOVAL COSTS ......................................................................... 51

7 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 52

FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Catchment Sub Areas Figure 2-2 MUSIC Catchment Model Figure 2-3 Pollutant Contribution for Increasing Contributory Areas Figure 3-1 Gleneagles Basin During Operation Figure 3-2 TSS Summary – Basins Figure 3-3 TP Summary - Basins Figure 3-4 TN Summary – Basins Figure 3-5 Life Cycle Costs - Basins Figure 3-6 Location of Potential ASR Sites Figure 3-7 TSS Loads with ASR Wetlands Figure 3-8 TP Loads with ASR Wetlands Figure 3-9 TN Loads with ASR Wetlands Figure 3-10 TSS Load and Reductions at Catchment Outlet with ASR Wetlands Figure 3-11 TP Load and Reductions at Catchment Outlet with ASR Wetlands Figure 3-12 TP Load and Reductions at Catchment Outlet with ASR Wetlands Figure 3-13 Life Cycle Costs – ASR Wetlands Figure 3-14 Reeded Swale Location Figure 3-15 Life Cycle Costs - Reeded Swale Nash St Figure 4-1 Example of an Infiltration Basin in a Minor Road (West, 2005) Figure 4-2 Example of a Bioretention Swale in Major Road Median (West, 2005) Figure 4-3 TSS - Summary Major Road Measures Figure 4-4 TP - Summary Major Road Measures Figure 4-5 TN - Summary Major Road Measures


Page iii

Figure 4-6 Life Cycle Costs - Major Road Measures Figure 4-7 Example of a Minor Road Bioretention Pod Figure 4-8 TSS Removal – Minor Road Measures Figure 4-9 TP Removal – Minor Road Measures Figure 4-10 TN Removal – Minor Road Measures Figure 4-11 Equivalent Annual Payment – Minor Road Measures Figure 5-1 Annual TSS Load at Catchment Outlet Figure 5-2 Annual TP Load at Catchment Outlet Figure 5-3 Annual TN Load at Catchment Outlet Figure 5-4 Average TSS Concentration at Catchment Outlet Figure 5-5 Average TSS Concentration at Catchment Outlet Figure 5-6 Average TN Concentration at Catchment Outlet Figure 5-7Annualised Costs Associated With Measures (Considered Independently)

TABLES

Table 1-1 Water Quality Criteria (EPA, 2003) Table 2-1 Land Use Contribution Table 2-2 No Catchment Treatment Processes - Modelled Mean Annual Loads Table 2-3 No Treatment - Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l) Table 3-1 Gleneagles Basin Low Flows Bypassed - Modelled Average Annual Load

Reductions Table 3-2 Gleneagles Basin Low Flows Bypassed – Average Pollutant Concentrations

at Catchment Outlet (mg/l) Table 3-3 Gleneagles Basin Low Flows Enter - Modelled Average Annual Load

Reductions Table 3-4 Gleneagles Basin Low Flows Enter – Average Pollutant Concentrations at

Catchment Outlet (mg/l) Table 3-5 Matheson Basin - Modelled Average Load Reductions Table 3-6 Matheson Basin – Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet

(mg/l) Table 3-7 Summary of ASR Schemes Table 3-8 ASR Wetland Schemes - Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment

Outlet (mg/l) Table 3-9 Nash St Reeded Swale - Modelled Average Load Reductions


Page iv

Table 3-10 Nash St Reeded Swale – Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

Table 4-1 Crittenden Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd Bioretention System - Modelled Average Load Reductions

Table 4-2 Crittenden Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd Bioretention System –Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

Table 4-3 Crittenden Rd/Findon Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd Permeable Pavement - Modelled Average Load Reductions

Table 4-4 Crittenden Rd/Findon Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd Permeable Pavement – Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

Table 4-5 Summary of Annual Average Load Reductions for Minor Road Infiltration Devices

Table 4-6 Summary of Average Annual Load Reductions for Bioretention Devices Table 4-7 Summary of Average Annual Load Reductions for Roadside Swales


Urban Water Resources Centre, University of South Australia Page 1 of 53

1 INTRODUCTION One of the aims of this study is to compare various WSUD strategies with respect to environmental values and their associated water quality objectives (EPA, 2003). It is recognized that meeting environmental values for the receiving body from stormwater discharges may not be practical due to the variable nature (both discharge and loading) of stormwater. Once modelling of various WSUD measures has been undertaken it will become more apparent how to set performance targets, for example these could be defined by load reductions, pollutant concentrations or both (eg percent reductions in key water quality parameters in order to meet EPA water quality guideline values). It will also become more apparent what can be practically achieved by Councils with respect to various WSUD measures.

1.1 Environmental Values As described in the Initial Urban Stormwater Master Plan (Tonkin, 2003), discharge from the Meakin Terrace catchment enters the Henley/Fulham drain prior to discharging into the southern end of West Lakes. West Lakes is a popular recreational facility, a major rowing and canoeing venue and passive recreation and fishing are also important. Important environmental values identified are:

• Recreation, both primary and secondary contact. • Maintenance and protection of aquatic marine ecosystems.

These are also consist with environmental values at the outlet of West Lakes to the Port River (inner harbour area), as described in “Port Waterways Water Quality Improvement Plan – Stage 1”, (EPA, 2005). The Port River is the receiving body from West Lakes and thus these environmental values must also be protected. There is no natural watercourse or other natural water bodies within the Meakin Terrace catchment, although the catchment discharges to a small reeded section at the Henley/Fulham drain (also known as Grange lakes). Thus governing environmental values are related to West Lakes/Port River and natural sections of the Henley/Fulham drain only.

1.2 Water Quality Objectives for the Catchment Pollutants of particular significance that should be targeted have been identified as (Tonkin, 2003):

• Bacteria • Nutrients • Heavy metals • Sediment (turbidity) • Litter and floating material

Five water quality objectives have been identified in the Initial Urban Stormwater Master Plan for the catchment (Tonkin, 2003). These include:



1. Improve the quality of stormwater discharged from the Meakin Terrace catchment such that bacterial levels in the discharge ensure that primary contact recreation is possible in the Lake 4 days after a “specified” rain event.

2. Improve the quality of stormwater discharged from the Meakin Terrace catchment such that nutrient concentrations in the discharge water are reduced to a level that will not promote the formation of algal blooms in the lake.

3. Improve the quality of stormwater discharges from the Meakin Terrace catchment such that aquatic ecosystems in the Lake are protected.

4. Minimise the quantity of gross pollutants entering West Lakes. 5. Intercept pollutants at source from land uses and activities having a high potential for pollution

generation. In order to assess water quality a suitable model is required for the catchment (see Section 2.0). MUSIC (Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation, CRC for Catchment Hydrology) was adopted in the study. The model developed for the catchment enables a review of the performance of WSUD measures with respect to Suspended Solids (TSS), Nutrients (TN and TP) and gross pollutants. Dissolved pollutants and bacteria are not modeled as part of this study due to limited information available to incorporate such parameters into MUSIC, however strategies that provide tertiary treatment that allow biological uptake such as bioretention systems, wetlands, reeded streams etc will enable removal of such pollutants. With regards to West Lakes, the seawater circulation system and associated high oxygen levels reduce long term problems associated with occasional high faecal coliforms and algal blooms after storm events (TCWMB, 2000) For the parameters modelled in MUSIC comparison with the maximum values based on the governing environmental values, as set out in the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy, 2003, was undertaken. It must be noted that the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy, 2003, does not apply to the ultimate discharge of stormwater from a public stormwater disposal system into any waters by government or public authority responsible for the system. Also guideline values are applicable to the receiving body as opposed to the stormwater discharge. As such the values are presented for comparison purposes only. Maximum values for the chosen environmental values relevant to the catchment are set out in Table 1.1.

Table 1-1 Water Quality Criteria (EPA, 2003)

Pollutant Marine aquatic ecosystem

Recreation

(mg/l) Primary contact Secondary contact

Suspended sediment 10

Phosphorous (total as phosphorous) 0.5

Nitrogen (total as nitrogen) 5



No specific values for the above pollutants are provided for recreational values. These are mostly associated with turbidity and bacterial pollution (faecal coliforms or E.coli). The results of the Adelaide Coastal Water study is expected to provide more specific information with regards to the requirements for environmental protection. Until this is available comparison with the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy will be undertaken.

1.3 Comparison with Interstate Guideline Values It must be noted that EPA guideline limits for nutrients are typically higher than interstate limits. This is mainly due to the influence different climate conditions (lower rainfall) has on determining the limits experienced in Adelaide. As a result, associated pollutant concentration levels for protection of aquatic ecosystems have been found to be higher. For example, water quality guideline limits for Melbourne and Brisbane are:

• Melbourne TP 0.05 mg/l; TN 0.6 mg/l • Brisbane TP 0.07 mg/l; TN 0.65 mg/l both considered at the 50% level

It can been seen that urban catchments producing similar contaminant loads in Adelaide may meet relevant local guideline limits, but would fail to meet interstate limits. This is an important point when considering appropriate reductions in contaminants for different regions. For example, typically WSUD measures applied in new developments in the eastern states will require a demonstration in load reductions of:

• 80 % TSS • 45 % TP • 45 % TN

Similar values may not be relevant in the context of urban Adelaide catchments. It must be noted however, that although nutrient levels may be within guideline values it is still desirable to manage nutrient loads to minimize potential nuisance algal growths and other adverse effects.



2 CATCHMENT WATER QUALITY MODEL A catchment model has been developed in order to investigate the water quality improvements for varying WSUD measures. MUSIC (Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation, CRC for Catchment Hydrology) was adopted in the study. MUSIC provides the ability to model both water quality and quantity from catchments in a simplistic manner. MUSIC is typically used as a conceptual design tool and will allow water quality assessment in relative terms. The main water quality parameters that can be investigated using MUSIC include Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorous (TP) and gross pollutants. Other pollutants can be modelled provided the user provides details on the treatment processes etc. As there is a growing tendency by Local Governments across Australia, particularly in the eastern states, to require demonstration of water quality improvements for new developments using MUSIC, it was felt that modelling using MUSIC would be most appropriate for this study. MUSIC also allows various treatment measure strategies to be modeled with only minimal effort. An additional life cycle costing module in the latest version of MUSIC (Version 3) also allows the life cycle costing of each measure to be easily identified. The development of the MUSIC model requires information related to sub-catchment areas, land use, soil type and pollutant concentrations. Specific catchment information related to the Meakin Terrace catchment for the current study has been directly derived from catchment, drainage and land use maps provided in the Initial Urban Stormwater Master Plan (Tonkin, 2003) as well as aerial photographs of the catchment. The following describes in more detail the model developed for the Meakin Terrace catchment.

2.1 Catchment Areas and Land Use The Meakin Terrace catchment (411 ha) has been modeled using 51 sub-areas. These sub-areas have been adapted from the catchment maps presented in the Initial Urban Stormwater Master Plan (Tonkin, 2003). Figure 2.1 shows the catchment sub areas used to develop the model.



N

Figure 2-1 Catchment Sub Areas



Each sub area was further divided into land use categories to enable varying pollutants from different surface to be modeled. Again, the current land use was derived from maps from the Initial Urban Stormwater Master Plan as well as aerial photographs. The main land use categories modeled are:

• residential; • commercial; • industrial; • education; • government Institution; • reserves; • vacant land; • agricultural; • residential roads; and • arterial roads.

Road verges were not included in the residential/arterial road components, but in adjacent property areas. The percent impervious for each land use in each sub catchment was derived from aerial photographs as well as runoff coefficients presented in the Initial Urban Stormwater Master Plan. A summary of the catchment contribution for each land use category is provided in Table 2.1. Figure 2.2 shows the model developed for the catchment.

Table 2-1 Land Use Contribution

Land Use Catchment Contribution

Residential (includes road verge) 71.9%

Commercial 4.0%

Industrial 1.6%

Education 3.2%

Government Institution 2.0%

Reserves 5.3%

Vacant Land 1.1%

Agriculture 1.3%

Residential Roads (not including verge) 7.7%

Arterial Roads (not including verge) 1.9%



Figure 2-2 MUSIC Catchment Model



2.2 Pollutant Concentrations No water quality data specific to the catchment is currently available. As such, pollutant concentrations typical for each land use category have been derived from a review of previous metropolitan Adelaide studies as well as other relevant studies both in Australia and overseas. Pollutant concentrations chosen are event mean concentrations, with log-normal distributions to allow stochastic generation of pollutants during continuous modelling. When reviewing previous studies variations in pollutant concentrations for particular land uses were encountered. For example large variations in nutrient levels for road runoff have been reported from monitoring at different sites across Adelaide. As a result concentrations that were considered to best represent catchment conditions were chosen. Some of main local studies used to derive pollutant concentrations for varying land use for the catchment include:

• Water Quality, Riverine Habitat and Aquatic Biodiversity (EMS, 2000) – Background Report, Torrens Catchment Water Management Plan.

• Catchment (Water Quality) Modelling (Tonkin, 2000) - Background Report, Torrens Catchment Water Management Plan.

• Monitoring River Health (AWQC, 2000).

2.2.1 Model Calibration A good calibration of the model has not been possible due to the lack of water quality data for the catchment. However, as water quality values for varying land uses have been derived mostly from local (Adelaide) data, model outputs are expected to provide reliable results. A grab sample for a storm event on April 17,2006 was taken and analysed for TSS, TN and TP by the UWRC and found to reasonably correlate with model outputs for the storm event. Results from further samples, taken on July 1, will be reviewed as results are available.

2.2.2 Residential Urban Areas A detailed modelling study of the Torrens catchment (Tonkin, 2000) determined typical pollutant concentrations from urban runoff at:

• 120 mg/l TSS • 1.2 mg/l TN • 0.16 mg/l TP

These values were tested against gauged data throughout the Torrens catchment during the modelling. These values also lie in the typical ranges expected for urban runoff for Australian conditions (Duncan, 1999). These values have been adopted in the study to represent typical pollutant concentrations for residential areas, government institution, education, reserves and vacant land.

2.2.3 Commercial and Industrial Areas Pollutant concentration for commercial and industrial areas have been adapted from water quality monitoring around the Barker inlet, Magazine creek and Range wetland catchments (EMS, 2000) as well



as two sites in the Patawalonga catchment (AWQC, 2000) where water quality monitoring is performed at the outlet of two industrial estates (Morphett Rd, Site 18; Adelaide Tce, Site 10). The following values have been used in the model:


These values lie within the typical ranges expected for industrial and commercial runoff for Australian conditions (Duncan, 1999) and also are consistent with values for commercial/industrial areas derived from an extensive water quality monitoring program undertaken by the City of Austin (Barrett et al, 1995).

2.2.4 Roads Pollutant concentrations from road surfaces were adapted from monitoring data from various sites across Adelaide (Kumar et al 2003; Johnston et al, 2000) which includes runoff from arterial and residential roads. This data indicated variable results and due to the small sample size further analysis of Australia wide data was included (Duncan, 1999; Drapper 1999; JDA, 2002). The following pollutant concentrations were adopted for arterial roads and related closely to values derived for Perth, where climatic conditions are similar:


A further study undertaken by Davies et al (2000) for road runoff water quality in Perth investigated the influence of traffic loading on road runoff pollutant concentration. The study determined that traffic volume does not significantly influence road runoff pollutant concentration. As such both major and minor roads in the Meakin Terrace catchment were modelled with the pollutant concentrations indicated above.

2.3 Modelling Methodology The catchment model developed for Meakin Tce was used to identify water quality improvements at key points in the catchment for a range of WSUD measures considered. These include:

• catchment condition with no treatment measures; • catchment scale measures such as basins (including detention, sedimentation and infiltration)

and wetlands. Re-use schemes such as Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) are also considered; • streetscape measures such as infiltration and filtration devices as well as swales. These can

include measures along major roads (eg road side permeable pavement, bioretention medians along Crittenden Rd, Findon Rd and Tapleys Hill Rd ) and minor road sections (eg traffic calming infiltration/filtration devices, swales in residential streets);

• allotment measures such as rainwater tanks, detention tanks and raingardens.



Model results presented are event based. Base flows are not considered in the model due to the moderate to deep infiltration of the soils and the non existence of natural water courses in the catchment. Moisture in soil stores that do not contribute to runoff are considered to enter underlying aquifers and are thus “lost” from the system. Preliminary life cycle costing has also been undertaken. This has been based on values provided in MUSIC for typical treatment measures and where applicable adjusted to local conditions.

2.4 Catchment with No Treatment Measures Although the current catchment includes the Gleneagles basin, initial modelling was undertaken to review the catchment without the basin. This will thus allow a review of the total sources of pollution throughout the catchment without any treatment. In all other modelling described in this report the influence of the Gleneagles basin is excluded from the results. This allows direct comparison between each treatment measure individually. Table 2.2 presents a summary of the total annual loads at various points throughout the catchment together with the contribution as a percentage of the total catchment (indicated in brackets). These values are source values and do not take into account any treatment removal processes in the catchment (eg at Gleneagles basin). Figure 2.3 presents the accumulative pollutant contribution at specific points along the drainage system from the upstream end of the catchment at Beverly to the downstream outlet at Grange.



Table 2-2 No Catchment Treatment Processes - Modelled Mean Annual Loads

Location Contributory

Area Mean Annual Loads

(ha) Flow

(ML)

TSS

(tonne)

TP

(kg)

TN

(kg)

Gross Pollutants

(tonne)

1.Ledger Rd/ Toogood Ave

50.5 (12.2%)

71.4 (17.4%)

16.6 (19.8%)

32.8 (17.1%)

189 (16.3%)

3.6 (18.3%)

2.Crittenden Rd/ Broadford Crt

79.5 (19.3%)

106 (25.8%)

24.7 (29.4%)

51.2 (26.7%)

292 (25.2%)

5.2 (26.4%)

3.Crittenden Rd/ Findon Rd

126.8 (30.7%)

150 (36.6%)

33.3 (39.6%)

72.2 (37.6%)

422 (36.4%)

7.3 (37.1%)

4.Findon Rd/ Angley Ave

159.7 (38.7%)

179 (43.7%)

39.1 (46.5%)

85.1 (44.3%)

501 (43.2%)

8.7 (44.2%)

5.Angley Ave/ Buccleugh Ave

191.0 (46.3%)

207 (50.5%)

44.7 (53.2%)

98 (51.0%)

582 (50.2%)

9.98 (50.6%)

6.Tapleys Hill Rd/ Meakin Tce

352.3 (85.4%)

354 (86.3%)

73.7 (87.7%)

168 (87.5%)

1010 (87.1%)

16.9 (85.8%)

7.Tapleys Hill Rd/ Dumfries Ave

82.1 (19.9%)

74.2 (18.1%)

14.5 (17.3%)

35.7 (18.6%)

219 (18.9%)

3.5 (17.8%)

8.Meakin Tce/ Wedge Crt

373.6 (90.6%)

371 (90.5%)

76.9 (91.5%)

176 (91.7%)

1060 (91.4%)

17.7 (89.8%)

9.Frederick Rd/ Nash St

399.3 (96.8%)

397 (96.8%)

81.7 (97.3%)

186 (96.9%)

1120 (96.6%)

19.0 (96.4%)

10.Outlet Henley/Fulham drain

412.3 (100%)

410 (100%)

84.0 (100%)

192 (100 %)

1160 (100%)

19.6 (100%)

The total average annual flow (modelled) from the catchment of 410 Ml corresponds to a volumetric runoff coefficient of 0.24, which is considered in the range typical for urban residential catchments (Wilkinson et al., 2004). Overall average annual catchment loading rates, as estimated from the catchment model, for each pollutant category are estimated at:

1

2

3

45

6

7

8 9

10

N



• TSS 204 kg/ha/yr • TP 0.47 kg/ha/yr • TN 2.82 kg/ha/yr • Gross pollutants 47.6 kg/ha/yr

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0102030405060708090100

Contributory Catchment Area (% of Total)

Pollu

tant

Con

trib

utio

n (%

of T

otal

)

TSS

TP

TN

Gross pollutants

Crittenden Rd/Findon Rd

Ledger Rd/Toogood Ave

Findon Rd/Angley Ave

Crittenden Rd/Broadford Crt

Angley Ave/Buccleugh Ave

Tapleys Hill Rd/Meakin Tce

Outlet Henley/Fulham Drain

Figure 2-3 Pollutant Contribution for Increasing Contributory Areas

Figure 2.3 clearly indicates relatively greater pollutant contributions from areas in the upstream end of the catchment, particularly in the Beverly area. This is not unexpected as this area is influenced by significant areas of commercial and industrial activity. Table 2.3 presents a summary of the average pollutant concentrations at the catchment outlet to the Henley/Fulham drain. These are based on mean annual flows and loads as derived from the model.

N

Greatest pollutantcontribution



Table 2-3 No Treatment - Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

Pollutant Average Value EPA Guideline Limit

TSS 204.9 10

TP 0.468 0.5

TN 2.83 5 When reviewing results for the existing condition it is interesting to note that modeled TP and TN values are within the EPA guideline limit (associated with the receiving body) of 0.5 mg/l and 5 mg/l, respectively. For TSS values far exceed the guideline value of 10 mg/l. It must be noted that model results still requires verification through calibration with monitored data, which the UWRC plans to undertake during the coming months.



3 WATER QUALITY MODELLING – CATCHMENT SCALE As mentioned in Section 2 the catchment model developed for Meakin Tce was used to assess water quality improvements resulting from a range of WSUD measures at varying scales from allotment to end of catchment. Water quality was then assessed at key points evenly distributed along the main drainage line. The following presents results from the catchment model developed for the Meakin Terrace catchment for strategies at the catchment scale. These include:

• Gleneagles basin; • Sedimentation basin at Matheson reserve following diversion of flows from Crittenden/Findon

road intersection; • Wetlands combined with Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) located at the Powerhouse,

Ledger oval, Matheson reserve, Gleneagle basin and Royal Adelaide Golf Course (RAGC). • Reeded swale at Nash St

3.1 Basins

3.1.1 Gleneagles Basin The Gleneagles basin is primarily an offline capacity relief storage basin, however some sedimentation processes will occur when stormwater is detained for a period of time. From discussions with Council staff inflow into the basin is designed to occur 5 times per year on average, thus the majority of low flows will bypass the basin and continue through the underground network. The basin is connected to the existing underground drainage system, draining parts of the Kidman Park and Findon areas, via a single inlet/outlet. During surcharge events water enters the basin by through this inlet/outlet (1.2m x 0.6m) where water is detained and then re-enters the drainage network as capacity becomes available. Figure 3.1 shows a photograph at the basin in operation. Field observations have noted that surcharge into the basin is probably more frequent than that designed and some blinding of the basin floor has occurred with the deposition of sediments. Council staff have confirmed some teething problems with maintenance of the basin, particularly with regards to maintaining infiltration capacity of the basin floor and the impact on recreational use.

Figure 3-1 Gleneagles Basin During Operation



For the purposes of the assessment, model results presented assume an infiltration rate in the basin of 36 mm/hr (typical for sandy loam type soils). Low flows are also assumed to by-pass the basin. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 provide details of the impact of the basin on pollutants.

Table 3-1 Gleneagles Basin Low Flows Bypassed - Modelled Average Annual Load Reductions

Location Annual Flow

(ML)

TSS

(tonne/yr)

TP

(kg/yr)

TN

(kg/yr)

1.Crittenden Rd/Findon Rd

Sources 150 33.3 72.2 422

Residual Load 150 33.3 72.2 422

Gleneagles Basin Removal 0 0 0 0

% Reduction 0 0 0 0

2.Findon Rd/Angley Ave

Sources 179 39.1 85.1 501

Residual Load 179 39.1 85.1 501


% Reduction 0 0 0 0

3.Tapleys Hill Rd/Meakin Tce

Sources 354 73.7 168 1010

Residual Load 352 73.2 166.8 1005

Gleneagles Basin Removal 2 0.5 1.2 5

% Reduction 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5

4.Outlet Henley/Fulham Drain

Sources 410 84.0 192 1160

Residual Load 408 83.5 190.8 1155


% Reduction 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4

2

1

3

4

Gleneagles basin

N



Table 3-2 Gleneagles Basin Low Flows Bypassed – Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

TSS TP TN

without measure 204.9 0.468 2.83

with measure 204.6 0.467 2.83

% reduction 0.1 0.2 0

The above indicates only minor water quality improvements compared with the catchment with no treatment measures applied. This is mainly due to the fact that low flow events which typically carry the majority of pollutants, bypass the basin. As a review of the potential increase in pollutant removal efficiency, low flows were allowed to enter the basin. Pollutant removal was primarily through infiltration and sedimentation. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 presents the results for this case.



Table 3-3 Gleneagles Basin Low Flows Enter - Modelled Average Annual Load Reductions


(ML)

TSS

(tonne/yr)

TP

(kg/yr)

TN

(kg/yr)


Sources 150 33.3 72.2 422

Residual Load 150 33.3 72.2 422


% Reduction 0 0 0 0


Sources 179 39.1 85.1 501

Residual Load 179 39.1 85.1 501


% Reduction 0 0 0 0


Sources 354 73.7 168 1010

Residual Load 303 60.6 138 842

Gleneagles Basin Removal 51 13.1 30 168

% Reduction 14.4 17.8 17.8 16.6


Sources 410 84.0 192 1160

Residual Load 359 70.9 162.8 994


% Reduction 12.4 13.2 15.2 14.3

Table 3-4 Gleneagles Basin Low Flows Enter – Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

TSS TP TN


with measure 197.5 0.453 2.77

% reduction 3.6 3.2 2.1

2

1

3

4

Gleneagles basin

N



The above tables clearly indicate improved load reductions by allowing low flows to enter the basin. This could be easily achieved by connecting the drainage system along Dumfries Ave and Leven Ave into the basin. The basin floor could also be landscaped with vegetated swales to direct flow to the outlet, further improving water quality.

3.1.2 Sedimentation Basin at Matheson Reserve The priority works assessment for the Meakin Tce catchment (Tonkin, 2004) identified Matheson Reserve as a possible detention basin site, in conjunction with an upgrade of the drainage infrastructure, whereby a new stormwater main diverts flows from Crittenden Rd/Findon Rd along the northern perimeter of the catchment to the Henley/Fulham drain outfall. Matheson reserve is currently a sporting facility, and thus there are limitations as to use of this land for any large scale basin. Nevertheless, a sedimentation basin has been modelled at this location to investigate the potential benefits with respect to water quality improvements. When modelling this option catchment areas upstream of the Findon/Crittenden Rd intersection were considered as inputs to the basin. The basin was sized to detain approximately 90% of average annual flows with a 300 mm pipe outlet. The maximum basin depth was taken as 1 m with a detention time of approximately 5 hours. Seepage from the basin was assumed at 36 mm/hr, typical for sandy loam soils. Table 3.5 presents the reductions in mean annual loads at the outlet of the Matheson basin and at the outlet to the Henley/Fulham Drain. Table 3.6 presents the average pollutant concentrations at the catchment outlet.



Table 3-5 Matheson Basin - Modelled Average Load Reductions


(ML) TSS

(tonne/yr)

TP

(kg/yr)

TN

(kg/yr)


Sources 150 33.3 72.2 422

Residual Load 150 33.3 72.2 422

Matheson Basin Removal 0 0 0 0

% Reduction 0 0 0 0


Sources 29 5.8 12.9 79

Residual Load 29 5.8 12.9 79


% Reduction 0 0 0 0


Sources 204 40.4 95.8 588

Residual Load 204 40.4 95.8 588


% Reduction 0 0 0 0


Sources 410 84.0 192 1160

Residual Load 356 55.5 139.7 952

Matheson Basin Removal 54 28.5 52.3 208

% Reduction 13.2 33.9 27.2 17.9 Note: Catchment areas upstream of Crittenden Rd/Findon Rd are diverted to the basin and only rejoin catchment flows at the outlet to the Henley/Fulham drain.

Table 3-6 Matheson Basin – Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

TSS TP TN


with measure 155.9 0.392 2.67

% reduction 23.9 16.2 5.6

2

1

3

4 Matheson basin

Drainage diversion

N



3.1.3 Summary of Load Reductions Figures 3.2 to 3.4 indicate the load reductions compared against values assuming no treatment process in the catchment when considering both Gleneagles and Matheson Basins.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Henley/Fulham Drain Outlet Tapleys Hill Rd/Meakin Ave Findon Rd/Angley Ave Findon Rd/Crittenden Rd

Location

TSS

Load

(ton

nes/

yr)

No treatment Gleneagles Reserve Low Flow BypassGleneagles Reserve with Low Flow Matheson Reserve Basin

Figure 3-2 TSS Summary – Basins

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


Location

TP L

oad

(kg/

yr)

No treatment Gleneagles ReserveLow Flow BypassGleneagles Reserve with Low Flow Matheson Reserve Basin

Figure 3-3 TP Summary - Basins



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Location

TN L

oad

(kg/

yr)

No treatment Gleneagles ReserveLow Flow BypassGleneagles Reserve with Low Flow Matheson Reserve Basin

Figure 3-4 TN Summary – Basins

3.1.4 Life Cycle Costs – Basins Figure 3.5 indicates the annual cost for each treatment measure as well as the equivalent annual payment per kilogram of pollutant removed. These have been adapted from default costs derived from Australia studies that are used in MUSIC. When developing the life cycle costs a time span of 50 years was taken with an inflation rate of 2 % and a discount rate of 5.5 %. Life cycle costs include all expenses associated with acquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, discarding and disposal costs, but do not include land acquisition costs. .



0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Annual payment formeasure

Annual cost per kg TSSremoval

Annual cost per kg TPremoval

Annual cost per kg TNremoval

Annual cost per kg GrossPollutant removal

Cos

t ($)

Gleneagles Reserve Low Flow Bypass Gleneagles Reserve with Low Flow Matheson Reserve Basin

Figure 3-5 Life Cycle Costs - Basins

3.2 ASR Wetland Schemes Potential ASR wetland sites have been identified at locations where combined re-use using ASR can also be undertaken (refer to Report C – Harvesting, Re-use and Flood Mitigation). These include sites at:

1. Powerhouse reserve; 2. Ledger oval; 3. Matheson reserve; 4. Gleneagles basin; and 5. RAGC

Figure 3.6 indicates the location of each site.

Figure 3-6 Location of Potential ASR Sites

Powerhouse reserve

Ledger oval Matheson reserve

Gleneagles reserve

RAGC



Each site was modelled as an integrated wetland/storage arrangement. For the purposes of sizing holding storages, it was considered that a minimum 3 day retention time would be sufficient to achieve a suitable level of treatment prior to injection. The wetland storage capacity was taken as equal to the holding capacity required for harvesting. The maximum water depth in the wetland was assumed at 0.5 m. Table 3.7 presents a summary of the requirement for each site. This is reproduced from Report C –Harvesting, Re-use and Flood Mitigation.

Table 3-7 Summary of ASR Schemes

Site Existing open space area (ha)

Connected impervious area (ha)

Irrigation demand (ML/yr)

Min. holding storage

required (kL)

Harvested volume (ML/yr)

% of total runoff

harvested

Powerhouse 4.0 12.5 20 500 25 38.9

Ledger 1.9 23.3 9.5 195 12 10.0

Matheson 4.8 68.5 24 475 30 8.5

Gleneagles 4.0 21.7 20 445 25 22.3

RAGC 68.0 117 150 5,075 150 27.7 Notes:

1. maximum aquifer injection rate = 10 l/s (tertiary aquifer) 2. minimum retention time = 72 hours 3. maximum re-use = 80 % of injected water 4. irrigation rate = 500 mm/yr for open space areas (except Royal Adelaide golf course where known

irrigation rates are used) 5. each scheme is considered independently

This sizing of wetlands may not be the optimal for treatment (typically 1-2% of the connected impervious area) however wetland treatment processes and load reductions from harvesting will still occur. Minimal seepage losses were considered when modelling wetlands. Figures 3.7 to 3.9 indicate the pollutant loads at various points in the catchments for each wetland ASR scheme considered separately. As a comparison all wetland ASR schemes are combined with the resulting loads also indicated.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Location

TSS

Load

(ton

nes/

yr)

No treatment Powerhouse wetland Ledger Oval WetlandMatheson Reserve Wetland Gleneagles Reserve Wetland RAGC WetlandAll Wetlands

Figure 3-7 TSS Loads with ASR Wetlands

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


Location

TP L

oad

(kg/

yr)


Figure 3-8 TP Loads with ASR Wetlands



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Location

TN L

oad

(kg/

yr)


Figure 3-9 TN Loads with ASR Wetlands

Figures 3.10 to 3.12 show the pollutant loads and reductions at the outlet for ASR wetland schemes installed progressively across the catchment. Interestingly a single wetland at the Royal Adelaide golf course (RAGC) can attain similar reductions in pollutant loads at the outlet, compared to all wetlands installed across the catchment. The main difference is the pollutant load into the RAGC wetland is increased if this is the only scheme considered. Table 3.8 presents a summary of the average pollutant concentrations at the catchment outlet.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No

treat

men

t

Pow

erho

use

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

+G

lene

agle

s

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

+G

lene

agle

s +

RAG

C

RAG

C

Wetland Location

TSS

Load

at O

utle

t (kg

/yr)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TSS

Load

Red

uctio

n at

Out

let (

%)

Figure 3-10 TSS Load and Reductions at Catchment Outlet with ASR Wetlands

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

No

treat

men

t

Pow

erho

use

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

+G

lene

agle

s

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

+G

lene

agle

s +

RAG

C

RAG

C

Wetland Location

TP L

oad

at O

utle

t (kg

/yr)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TP L

oad

Red

uctio

n at

Out

let (

%)

Figure 3-11 TP Load and Reductions at Catchment Outlet with ASR Wetlands



0

200

400

600

800

1000

No

treat

men

t

Pow

erho

use

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

+G

lene

agle

s

Pow

erho

use

+ Le

dger

+ M

athe

son

+G

lene

agle

s +

RAG

C

RAG

C

Wetland Location

TN L

oad

at O

utle

t (kg

/yr)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TN L

oad

Red

uctio

n at

Out

let (

%)

Figure 3-12 TP Load and Reductions at Catchment Outlet with ASR Wetlands

Table 3-8 ASR Wetland Schemes - Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

TSS TP TN


Powerhouse

with measure 205.6 0.471 2.83

% reduction -0.3 -0.6 0

Powerhouse+Ledger

with measure 202.1 0.463 2.80

% reduction 1.4 1.0 1.0

Powerhouse+Ledger+Matheson

with measure 198.2 0.458 2.79

% reduction 3.3 2.1 1.4

Powerhouse+Ledger+Matheson+Gleneagles

with measure 192.7 0.443 2.72

% reduction 5.9 5.3 3.9

Powerhouse+Ledger+Matheson+Gleneagles+RAGC

with measure 139.7 0.325 2.14

% reduction 31.8 30.6 24.4

RAGC

with measure 123.1 0.281 1.70

% reduction 39.9 40.0 39.9



3.2.1 Life Cycle Costs of ASR Wetlands Figure 3.13 indicates the annual cost for the ASR wetlands considered as well as the equivalent annual payment per kilogram of pollutant removed. These have been adapted from default costs derived from Australia studies that are used in MUSIC and do not take into account re-use infrastructure. When developing the life cycle costs a time span of 50 years was taken with an inflation rate of 2 % and a discount rate of 5.5 %. Life cycle costs include all expenses associated with acquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, discarding and disposal costs, but do not include land acquisition costs.

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Annual payment for measure Annual cost per kg TSS removal Annual cost per kg TP removal Annual cost per kg TN removal

Cos

t ($)

Powerhouse Reserve Ledger Oval Matheson Reserve Gleneagles Reserve RAGC

Figure 3-13 Life Cycle Costs – ASR Wetlands

3.3 Vegetated Swales One of the potential opportunities for the inclusion of vegetated (reeded) swale section in the catchment is available at the downstream end of the catchment in the reserve adjacent to Nash street. The existing drainage infrastructure (2 x 1050 mm pipes) runs parallel to this reserve. This reserve is approximately 1.0 ha in area with a length of approximately 350 m and a width of 30 m. Figure 3.14 shows the location of the reeded swale.



Figure 3-14 Reeded Swale Location

A 350 m long by 10 m wide reeded swale with a depth of 1.5 m was modeled using MUSIC. The vegetation height was taken at 0.5 m. The model considered cases with and without infiltration. In the case of infiltration a seepage rate of 36 mm/hr was taken. Table 3.9 presents a summary of the load reductions at the catchment outlet. Table 3.10 presents the modeled event based statistics at the catchment outlet.

Table 3-9 Nash St Reeded Swale - Modelled Average Load Reductions

Description Annual Flow

(ML)

TSS

(tonne/yr)

TP

(kg/yr)

TN

(kg/yr)

Swale 350 m long

Seepage = 36 mm/hr

Sources 410 84.4 191 1,160

Residual load 294 15.9 66.8 710

Removal 116 68.5 124.2 450

% Reduction 28.3 81.1 65.1 38.5

Seepage = 0 mm/hr

Sources 410 84.4 191 1,160

Residual load 410 19.9 88.7 940

Removal 0 64.5 102.3 220

% Reduction 0 76.4 53.6 19.0

reeded swale catchment outlet

RAGC



Table 3-10 Nash St Reeded Swale – Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

TSS TP TN


Seepage = 36 mm/hr

with measure 54.1 0.227 2.41

% reduction 73.6 51.5 14.8

Seepage = 0 mm/hr

with measure 48.5 0.216 2.29

% reduction 76.3 53.8 19.1 Results indicate high removal rates of suspended solids (>75 %) with lower rates of removal for nutrients. Lower pollutant concentrations with no seepage reflects the dilution effects associated with a greater outflow volume.

3.3.1 Life Cycle Cost of Reeded Swale Figure 3.15 indicates the annual cost for the reeded swale as well as the equivalent annual payment per kilogram of pollutant removed. These have been adapted from default costs derived from Australia studies that are used in MUSIC. When developing the life cycle costs a time span of 50 years was taken with an inflation rate of 2 % and a discount rate of 5.5 %. Life cycle costs include all expenses associated with acquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, discarding and disposal costs, but do not include land acquisition costs.

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Annual payment for measure Annual cost per kg TSS removal Annual cost per kg TP removal Annual cost per kg TN removal

Cos

t ($)

36 mm/hr 0 mm/hr

Figure 3-15 Life Cycle Costs - Reeded Swale Nash St



4 WATER QUALITY MODELLING - STREETSCAPE INFILTRATION, FILTRATION AND SWALE SYSTEMS

Due to the moderate to high infiltration capacity of the soil in the catchment opportunities for streetscape infiltration systems distributed across the catchment are available. Streetscape filtration devices and swale systems are also considered. Suitable locations for incorporation of infiltration, filtration and swale systems in the catchment include:

• major road medians and road edges (infiltration/filtration) • traffic calming measures in minor road streetscapes (infiltration/filtration); • minor road verges (infiltration/filtration/swales); and • round-a-bouts (infiltration/filtration).

Figure 4.1 shows an example of an infiltration basin installed within the verge of a minor road section (West, 2005).

Figure 4-1 Example of an Infiltration Basin in a Minor Road (West, 2005)

Treatment processes for infiltration devices will be mainly due to removal of contaminants as a result of infiltration processes. This water is “lost” from the system and will not contribute to flow at the outlet of the catchment. For filtration devices treatment will primarily be due to filtering processes through the soil media of the device (eg bioretention, permeable pavement etc). Filtered water then re-enters the drainage system. Treatment processes for swales is a combination of filtering and infiltration. As part of this study the impact of infiltration practices on groundwater quality has not been investigated, however for residential areas this is not expected to be high.



4.1 Major Roads

4.1.1 Bioretention Systems in Major Road Medians A potential option that has been identified in a previous study reviewing opportunities and limitations for WSUD in streetscapes (West, 2005; see Appendix A, Report A) is the incorporation of bioretention systems into arterial road medians. In fact due to the narrow verge widths and extensive services typically found under arterial roads, this was one of only a few WSUD techniques identified for major roads. For the Meakin Terrace catchment opportunities are available along Crittenden Road and Tapleys Hill Road. This was assessed. Figure 4.2 shows an example of incorporating a bioretention system into a median. Note the limited possibilities for incorporating WSUD into a major road section due to the number of services.

Figure 4-2 Example of a Bioretention Swale in Major Road Median (West, 2005)

When modelling this option runoff from the road surface and adjacent properties discharging directly to the road were considered to enter the bioretention system. The area available for filtration was taken to be the same as the median area, with a 0.5 m trench. A maximum depth of ponding over the filter zone was taken at 0.3 m. A seepage rate of 36 mm/hr (typical for sandy loam soils) to the surrounding soil is assumed in the model. Installing bioretention systems in road medians would require significant reconstruction of the road pavement, with the road drainage directed to the centre of the road to the median. Table 4.1 presents the reductions in mean annual loads at various locations throughout the catchment using bioretention systems in major road medians only.



Table 4-1 Crittenden Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd Bioretention System - Modelled Average Load Reductions


(ML)

TSS

(tonne/yr)

TP

(kg/yr)

TN

(kg/yr)


Sources 150 33.3 72.2 422

Residual Load 136.8 30.1 64.1 378.2

Bioretention Removal 13.2 3.2 8.1 43.8

% Reduction 8.8 9.6 11.2 10.4


Sources 179 39.1 85.1 501

Residual Load 165.8 35.8 77.0 457.4


% Reduction 7.3 8.4 9.5 8.7


Sources 354 73.7 168 1010

Residual Load 326.8 67.1 151.7 923.1


% Reduction 7.6 8.9 9.7 8.6


Sources 410 84.0 192 1160

Residual Load 382.9 77.4 176.7 1069.2


% Reduction 6.6 7.9 8.0 7.8

2

1

3

4

Crittenden Rd bioretention

Tapleys Hill Rd bioretention

N



Table 4.2 presents the modelled event based statistics at the outlet to the Henley/Fulham drain.

Table 4-2 Crittenden Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd Bioretention System –Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

TSS TP TN


with measure 202.1 0.461 2.79

% reduction 1.4 1.5 1.4

Results indicate only low (<10%) reductions in contaminant loads at the catchment outlet with only minor reductions in outlet concentrations.

4.1.2 Permeable Pavement Along Major Roads A potential option of installing permeable pavement at the edges of major arterial roads has been investigated. This option has the advantage of eliminating the need for major road reconstruction in order to implement a WSUD feature in major roads. There may be some limitations to the use of this measure, particularly if road edges are used for bicycle lanes, or if sediment loads are high. For the Meakin Terrace catchment opportunities are available along Crittenden Road, Findon Road and Tapleys Hill Road. When modelling this option runoff from the road surface and adjacent properties discharging directly to the road were considered to enter the permeable pavement system. The permeable pavement area was taken to be 1 m wide on each side of the road, with a 0.3 m underlying trench. Seepage to the underlying soil was assumed at 36 mm/hr, typical for sandy loam soils. Table 4.3 presents the reductions in mean annual loads at various locations throughout the catchment using permeable pavement bicycle lanes only. Table 4.4 presents the modelled event based statistics at the outlet to the Henley/Fulham drain.



Table 4-3 Crittenden Rd/Findon Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd Permeable Pavement - Modelled Average Load Reductions


(ML)

TSS

(tonne/yr)

TP

(kg/yr)

TN

(kg/yr)


Sources 150 33.3 72.2 422

Residual Load 133.8 29.3 62.4 369.5

Permeable Pavement Removal 16.2 4.0 9.8 52.5

% Reduction 10.8 11.9 13.5 12.4


Sources 179 39.1 85.1 501

Residual Load 154.7 33.4 71.4 425.5


% Reduction 13.6 14.6 16.1 15.1


Sources 354 73.7 168 1010

Residual Load 314.8 64.5 145.6 883.9


% Reduction 11.1 12.5 13.3 12.5


Sources 410 84.0 192 1160

Residual Load 370.8 74.8 169.7 1037.9


% Reduction 9.6 10.9 11.6 10.5

Table 4-4 Crittenden Rd/Findon Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd Permeable Pavement – Average Pollutant Concentrations at Catchment Outlet (mg/l)

TSS TP TN


with measure 201.7 0.457 2.8

% reduction 1.6 2.4 1.1

2

1

3

4

Crittenden Rd permeable pavement

Tapleys Hill Rd permeable pavement

Findon Rd permeable pavement

N



4.1.3 Summary of Load Reductions and Downstream Pollutant Concentrations for Major Road Devices

Figures 4.3 and 4.4 indicate load reductions for major road devices considered, compared against values assuming no treatment processes in the catchment.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Location

TSS

Load

(ton

nes/

yr)

No treatment ArterialRd Bioretention Medians Arterial Rd Permeable Pavement

Figure 4-3 TSS - Summary Major Road Measures

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


Location

TP L

oad

(kg/

yr)

No treatment ArterialRd Bioretention Medians Arterial Rd Permeable Pavement

Figure 4-4 TP - Summary Major Road Measures



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Location

TN L

oad

(kg/

yr)

No treatment Arterial Rd Bioretention Medians Arterial Rd Permeable Pavement

Figure 4-5 TN - Summary Major Road Measures

4.1.4 Life Cycle Costs Life cycle costing has been undertaken for each measure. These have been adapted from Fletcher (2005). When developing the life cycle costs a time span of 50 years was taken with an inflation rate of 2 % and a discount rate of 5.5 %. Life cycle costs include all expenses associated with acquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, discarding and disposal costs. Road re-construction costs have not been included. Figure 4.6 indicates the annual cost for each treatment measure as well as the equivalent annual payment per kilogram of pollutant removed.



1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Annual payment formeasure

Annual cost per kg TSSremoval

Annual cost per kg TPremoval

Annual cost per kg TNremoval

Annual cost per kg GrossPollutant removal

Cos

t ($)

Arterial Road Median Bioretention Arterial Road Permeable Pavement

Figure 4-6 Life Cycle Costs - Major Road Measures

4.2 Minor Road Streetscapes When assessing different devices suitable for minor streetscapes a range of sizes were investigated to review the storage/performance relationship. To maintain consistency in results an effective device depth of 575 mm was taken. This approach was performed for a typical single device treating a 100 m length of road together with adjacent contributory runoff from residential areas. The results for this single device analysis was applied catchment wide to determine the combined performance at the catchment outlet.

4.2.1 Infiltration Systems Minor road infiltration devices could be above or belowground installations. Typically above ground devices are more applicable in older areas where generally more space is available. Belowground installations can be used where there are space constraints. Belowground installations using plastic modular boxes allow a greater storage volume than an equivalent sized gravel or sand filled device. Table 4.5 presents a summary of the modelled average load reductions for a typical infiltration system that could be incorporated into a minor road streetscape.



Table 4-5 Summary of Annual Average Load Reductions for Minor Road Infiltration Devices

Infiltration area available (m2)

Storage volume (m3)

Annual Flow

(kL)

TSS

(kg/yr)

TP

(kg/yr)

TN

(kg/yr)

85m2 48.9

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 10.9 1.6 0.004 0.03

Removal 693.1 99.4 0.253 1.72

% Reduction 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5

40 m2 23

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 64 9.2 0.023 0.16

Removal 640 91.8 0.233 1.59

% Reduction 90.9 90.9 90.9 90.9

20 m2 11.5

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 182 26.4 0.066 0.454

Removal 522 74.6 0.190 1.296

% Reduction 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1

10 m2 5.75

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 353 50.4 0.129 0.876

Removal 351 50.6 0.128 0.874

% Reduction 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

5 m2 2.87

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 503 72.4 0.185 1.26

Removal 201 28.6 0.072 0.49

% Reduction 28.5 28.3 28.0 28.0 Notes:

1. catchment area contributing to the device based on a maximum 100 m length of road (7.5 m wide), with adjacent houses contributing (residential area taken as 0.8 ha with 0.16 ha connected impervious). Total connected impervious area = 2,350 m2;

2. infiltration rate at 36 mm/hr to soil; 3. for subsurface storage modular plastic boxes are used (voids ratio = 0.95. Note gravel trenches could also

be used, however the voids ratio would be reduced to approximately 0.3, reducing the storage volume available for a given area); and

4. effective depth of device = 0.57 m (0.5 m below surface and 0.1 m surface ponding).



4.2.2 Filtration (Extended Detention) Systems Devices such as bioretention trenches/pods, permeable pavement etc are examples of minor road filtration devices. Figure 4.7 shows an example of the inclusion of a bioretention pod into a minor road streetscape. Sizes are maintained as per the infiltration devices for comparison (note available storage is less as the voids ratio of the sand is taken at 0.3). Table 4.6 presents a summary of the modelled average load reductions for a minor road filtration systems that could be incorporated into a minor road streetscape.

Figure 4-7 Example of a Minor Road Bioretention Pod



Table 4-6 Summary of Average Annual Load Reductions for Bioretention Devices

Filter area available (m2)

Storage volume (m3)

Flow

(kL/yr)

TSS

(kg/yr)

TP

(kg/yr)

TN

(kg/yr)

85 m2 21.25 704 101 0.257 1.75

Sources 704 10.2 0.072 0.81

Residual load 0 90.8 0.185 0.94

Removal 0 89.9 72.0 53.5

% Reduction

40 m2

Sources 10 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 704 12.8 0.072 0.841

Removal 0 88.2 0.185 0.909

% Reduction 0 87.3 72.0 52.0

20 m2 5

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 704 20.2 0.092 0.916

Removal 0 80.8 0.165 0.834

% Reduction 0 80.0 64.1 47.7

10 m2 2.5

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 704 32.1 0.117 1.05

Removal 0 68.9 0.140 0.7

% Reduction 0 68.2 54.4 40

5 m2 1.25

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 704 51.5 0.157 1.25

Removal 0 49.5 0.100 0.5

% Reduction 0 49.0 38.9 28.6 Notes:


2. no seepage allowed; 3. filter media taken with an average sand size of 0.7 mm and hydraulic conductivity of 360 mm/hr; 4. filter depth = 0.5 m with 0.1 m surface ponding

4.2.3 Swales Swales are most appropriate in areas where sufficient road side verge width is available (typically 4 m). Typically swales would be located on one side of the street with drainage from road and adjacent allotments directed to the swale. Table 4.7 presents a summary of load reductions for a swale collecting 100 m of road and residential runoff. This is the same assumption as per the infiltration and filtration devices. Seepage rates of 36 mm/hr and 0 mm/hr are presented for comparison.



Table 4-7 Summary of Average Annual Load Reductions for Roadside Swales

Description Flow (kL/yr) TSS (kg/yr) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr)

Swale 100 m long

Seepage = 36 mm/hr

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 87.5 2.6 0.016 0.16

Removal 616.5 98.4 0.241 1.59

% Reduction 87.6 97.4 93.9 90.9

Seepage = 0mm/hr

Sources 704 101 0.257 1.75

Residual load 704 21.3 0.128 1.23

Removal 0 79.7 0.129 0.52

% Reduction 0 78.9 50.2 29.7 Notes:


2. base width = 1 m, depth = 0.3 m, side slopes 5H:1V; 3. channel slope = 0.2%

4.2.4 Infiltration vs Filtration vs Swales Figures 4.8 to 4.10 present a comparison of the combined removal rates at the catchment outlet for infiltration, filtration devices and swales installed across the catchment at the minor streetscape level. Figure 4.11 presents the equivalent annual payment taking into account construction and maintenance costs over a 50 year period. Costs are adapted from values presented in Fletcher (2005), but do not take into account road re-construction works.



0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

% of Catchment Treated

TSS

Rem

oval

(kg/

yr)

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

TSS

% R

educ

tion

at C

atch

men

t Out

let

Infiltration 40 m2

Bioretention 40 m2

Infiltration 20 m2

Bioretention 20 m2

Bioretention 10 m2

Infiltration 10 m2

Bioretention 5 m2

Infiltration 5 m2

Swale k=36 mm/hr

Swale k=0 mm/hr

Assumptions:1. Total contributory area per device = 0.875 ha2. Equivalent impervious are per device = 0.235 ha

Infiltration 85 m2

Bioretention 85 m2

Figure 4-8 TSS Removal – Minor Road Measures

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%


TP R

emov

al (k

g/yr

)

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

TP %

Red

uctio

n at

Cat

chm

ent O

utle

t

Infiltration 40 m2

Bioretention 85/40 m2Infiltration 20 m2

Bioretention 20 m2

Bioretention 10 m2

Infiltration 10 m2

Bioretention 5 m2

Infiltration 5 m2

Swale 36 mm/hr

Swale 0 mm/hr


Infiltration 85 m2

Figure 4-9 TP Removal – Minor Road Measures



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%


TN R

emov

al (k

g/yr

)

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

TN %

Red

uctio

n at

Cat

chm

ent O

utle

t

Infiltration 40 m2Swale k=36 mm/hr

Bioretention 40 m2

Infiltration 20 m2

Bioretention 20 m2

Bioretention 10 m2

Infiltration 10 m2

Bioretention 5 m2Infiltration 5 m2

Swale 0 mm/hr


Infiltration 85 m2

Bioretention 85 m2

Figure 4-10 TN Removal – Minor Road Measures

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%


Equi

vale

nt A

nnua

l Pay

men

t ($)

Infiltration 40 m2

Bioretention 40 m2

Infiltration 20 m2

Bioretention 20 m2

Bioretention 10 m2

Infiltration 10 m2Bioretention 5 m2Infiltration 5 m2

Swale 100 m long


Bioretention 85 m2

Infiltration 85 m2

Figure 4-11 Equivalent Annual Payment – Minor Road Measures



Results indicate that larger sized infiltration devices and swales that allow infiltration result in the highest pollutant reductions. Typically infiltration devices outperform filtration devices with regards to quality improvements for the larger sized devices, however as treatment area reduces filtration devices provide better reductions. When comparing costs, swales result in the most costly measure.



5 SUMMARY OF SELECTED MEASURES The following graphs provide summary information for selected WSUD measures (considered independently). These include:

• Pollutant loads at catchment outlet (Figures 5.1 to 5.3) • Average pollutant concentrations at catchment outlet (Figure 5.4 to 5.6) • Annualised costs associated with each measure as well as cost per kilogram removal of pollutant

(Figure 5.7).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

No trea

tmen

t

Glenea

gles r

eserv

e low

flow by

pass

Mathes

on re

serve

basin

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger A

SR wetl

and

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger+

Mathes

on+G

lenea

gle A

SR wetl

and

RAGC ASR w

etlan

d

Nash S

t Ree

ded S

wale

Major r

oad b

iorete

ntion

med

ian

Major r

oad p

ermea

ble pa

vemen

t

Minor r

oad i

nfiltra

tion 1

0% ca

tchmen

t trea

ted 2.

6% M

ARV

Minor r

oad i

nfiltra

tion 1

0% ca

tchmen

t trea

ted 5.

4% M

ARV

Minor r

oad s

wale 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

TSS

Load

at O

utle

t (to

nne/

yr)

Figure 5-1 Annual TSS Load at Catchment Outlet

0

50

100

150

200

250

No trea

tmen

t

Glenea

gles r

eserv

e low

flow by

pass

Mathes

on re

serve

basin

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger A

SR wetl

and

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger+

Mathes

on+G

lenea

gle A

SR wetl

and

RAGC ASR w

etlan

d

Nash S

t Ree

ded S

wale

Major r

oad b

iorete

ntion

med

ian

Major r

oad p

ermea

ble pa

vemen

t

Minor r

oad i

nfiltra

tion 1

0% ca

tchmen

t trea

ted 2.

6% M

ARV

Minor r

oad i

nfiltra

tion 1

0% ca

tchmen

t trea

ted 5.

4% M

ARV

Minor r

oad s

wale 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

TP L

oad

at C

atch

men

t Out

let (

kg/y

r)

Figure 5-2 Annual TP Load at Catchment Outlet



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

No trea

tmen

t

Glenea

gles r

eserv

e low

flow by

pass

Mathes

on re

serve

basin

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger A

SR wetl

and

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger+M

athes

on+G

lenea

gle ASR w

etlan

d

RAGC ASR wetl

and

Nash S

t Ree

ded S

wale

Major ro

ad bi

oreten

tion m

edian

Major ro

ad pe

rmea

ble pa

vemen

t

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

2.6%

MARV

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

5.4%

MARV

Minor ro

ad sw

ale 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

TN L

oad

at C

atch

men

t Out

let (

kg/y

r)

Figure 5-3 Annual TN Load at Catchment Outlet

0

50

100

150

200

250

No trea

tmen

t

Glenea

gles r

eserv

e low

flow by

pass

Mathes

on re

serve

basin

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger A

SR wetl

and

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger+M

athes

on+G

lenea

gle ASR w

etlan

d

RAGC ASR wetl

and

Nash S

t Ree

ded S

wale

Major ro

ad bi

oreten

tion m

edian

Major ro

ad pe

rmea

ble pa

vemen

t

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

2.6%

MARV

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

5.4%

MARV

Minor ro

ad sw

ale 10

% catch

ment tr

eatedTS

S A

vera

ge C

once

ntra

tion

at C

atch

men

t Out

let (

mg/

l)

EPA Guideline Limit

10 mg/l

Figure 5-4 Average TSS Concentration at Catchment Outlet



0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

No trea

tmen

t

Glenea

gles r

eserv

e low

flow by

pass

Mathes

on re

serve

basin

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger A

SR wetl

and

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger+M

athes

on+G

lenea

gle ASR w

etlan

d

RAGC ASR wetl

and

Nash S

t Ree

ded S

wale

Major ro

ad bi

oreten

tion m

edian

Major ro

ad pe

rmea

ble pa

vemen

t

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

2.6%

MARV

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

5.4%

MARV

Minor ro

ad sw

ale 10

% catch

ment tr

eatedTP

Ave

rage

Con

cent

ratio

n at

Cat

chm

ent O

utle

t (m

g/l)

EPA Guideline Limit0.5 mg/l

Figure 5-5 Average TSS Concentration at Catchment Outlet

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

No trea

tmen

t

Glenea

gles r

eserv

e low

flow by

pass

Mathes

on re

serve

basin

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger A

SR wetl

and

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger+M

athes

on+G

lenea

gle ASR w

etlan

d

RAGC ASR wetl

and

Nash S

t Ree

ded S

wale

Major ro

ad bi

oreten

tion m

edian

Major ro

ad pe

rmea

ble pa

vemen

t

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

2.6%

MARV

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

5.4%

MARV

Minor ro

ad sw

ale 10

% catch

ment tr

eatedTN

Ave

rage

Con

cent

ratio

n at

Cat

chm

ent O

utle

t (m

g/l)

EPA Guideline Limit5 mg/l

Figure 5-6 Average TN Concentration at Catchment Outlet



0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Glenea

gles r

eserv

e low

flow by

pass

Mathes

on re

serve

basin

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger A

SR wetl

and

Powerh

ouse

+Led

ger+M

athes

on+G

lenea

gle A

SR wetl

and

RAGC ASR wetl

and

Nash S

t Ree

ded S

wale

Major ro

ad bi

oreten

tion m

edian

Major ro

ad pe

rmea

ble pa

vemen

t

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

2.6%

MARV

Minor ro

ad in

filtrat

ion 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

5.4%

MARV

Minor ro

ad sw

ale 10

% catch

ment tr

eated

Cos

t (S)

Annual cost Cost per kg reduction TSS Cost per kg reduction TP Cost per kg reduction TN

Figure 5-7Annualised Costs Associated With Measures (Considered Independently)



6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Reduction in Loads The majority of source control WSUD measures investigated provided a low reduction (<30%) in contaminant loads at the catchment outlet. Individual basins such as at Matheson oval and Gleneagles reserve provided reductions in the order of 30 to 40 % if both are installed. The present configuration of Gleneagles basin provides minor water quality improvements as low flows bypass the basin. With a reconfiguration of this basin to allow low flows to enter the basin, contaminant loads at the outlet can be reduced by approximately 15% or more. The greatest water quality improvement measure was associated with the construction of the RAGC ASR wetland scheme where contaminant reductions of 60 to 70% at the outlet could occur. These reductions are based on a wetland size for harvesting and could be improved if a larger wetland area is used. Installation of additional WSUD measures upstream of the RAGC wetland results in only minor improvements in water quality at the catchment outlet, the main benefit being a reduction in load into the RAGC wetland. A reeded swale located adjacent to Nash St at the downstream end of the catchment achieved high rates of removal for solids (>75%) but lower removal rates for nutrients. WSUD infiltration systems can be an effective measure to reduce contaminant loads, but will not necessarily reduce pollutant concentrations at the catchment outlet. This is due to the reduced flow at the catchment outlet. Allotment harvesting where typically “clean” roof water is abstracted may also result in increased concentrations in the general (reduced) outflow from the catchment. It must be noted that larger scale schemes such as ASR wetlands, basins and the Nash st reeded swale provide immediate water quality improvements following construction, whereas schemes such as streetscape devices installed across the catchment with provide progressive water quality improvements as they are constructed over time.

6.2 Pollutant Concentrations The study reviewed stormwater pollutant concentrations at the catchment outlet with respect to water quality criteria for governing environmental values, as per Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy, 2003. It must be noted that the guideline values do not apply to the ultimate discharge of stormwater from a public disposal system into any waters by government or public authority responsible for the system. Also the guideline values are applicable to the receiving body as opposed to the stormwater discharge. As such the review was for comparison purposes only. Typically water quality improvements have been reviewed in terms of reductions in total loads at the catchment outlet. With no treatment measures installed in the catchment modelled pollutant concentrations for nutrients are within EPA water quality guideline limits for the environmental values relevant to the catchment (0.5 mg/l for TP and 5 mg/l for TN).



Suspended solids concentrations typically far exceed guideline values (10 mg/l limit) for the measures investigated. Typically, larger downstream measures would provide the greatest benefit with respect to reduction in pollutant concentrations. For example, the reeded swale adjacent to Nash St indicated a discharge suspended solids concentration in the order of 50 mg/l. It must be noted that due to the variable nature of stormwater (both discharge and loading), setting pollutant concentration guideline limits for stormwater discharges in the future may not be practical or achievable. A more suitable approach may be to set target values based on the receiving water environment. The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Natural Resource Management (NRM) Board is currently developing general water quality targets for the NRM regional plan and subsequent to this environmental values in conjunction with the EPA. Another approach being used in the eastern states is to set load reduction targets for new developments. Setting some form of target value for stormwater discharges in South Australia will be a key driver in the implementation of WSUD in the future.

6.3 Comparison with Interstate Guideline Limits It must be noted that EPA guideline limits for nutrients are typically higher than interstate limits. This is mainly due to the influence different climate conditions (lower rainfall) has on determining the limits experienced in Adelaide. As a result, associated pollutant concentration levels for protection of aquatic ecosystems have been found to be higher. For example, water quality guideline limits for Melbourne and Brisbane are:

• Melbourne TP 0.05 mg/l; TN 0.6 mg/l • Brisbane TP 0.07 mg/l; TN 0.65 mg/l both considered at the 50% level

It can been seen that urban catchments producing similar contaminant loads in Adelaide may meet relevant local guideline limits, but would fail to meet interstate limits. This is an important point when considering appropriate reductions in contaminants for different regions. For example, typically WSUD measures applied in new developments in the eastern states will require a demonstration in load reductions of:

• 80 % TSS • 45 % TP • 45 % TN

Similar values may not be relevant in the context of urban Adelaide catchments. It must be noted however, that although nutrient levels may be within guideline values it is still desirable to manage nutrient loads to minimize potential nuisance algal growths and other adverse effects.

6.4 Pollutant Removal Costs The most cost effective measures in terms of pollutant removal are associated with the larger end of catchment measures such as the RAGC ASR wetland scheme and the Nash street reeded swale. Distributed source control measures are seen to be an order of magnitude higher in cost per kilogram of pollutant removed.



7 REFERENCES AWQC (2000). “Monitoring River Health”. Prepared by the Australian Water Quality Centre for the Torrens and Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Boards. Barrett, M.E.; Malina, J.F.; Charbeneau, B.J. (1995). “Water Quality and Quantity of Highway Construction and Operation: Summary and Conclusions”. Technical Report, Centre for Research in Water Resources, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin. Davies, J.; Vukomanovic, S.; Yan, M.; Goh, J.; (2000). “Stormwater Quality in Perth, Western Australia”. Hydro 2000, 3rd International Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Institution of Engineers, Interactive Hydrology, pp. 271-276, Perth, Nov 2000. Drapper, D.; Tomlinson, R.; Williams, P. (2000). “Pollutant Concentrations in Runoff: Southeast Queensland Case Study”. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No 4, April 2000. Duncan, H.P. (1999). “Urban Stormwater Quality: A Statistical Overview”. Cooperative Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Report 99/3. EMS (2000). “Water Quality, Riverine Habitat and Aquatic Biodiversity – Background Report”. Prepared by Eco Management Services Pty Ltd for Tonkin Consulting on behalf of the Torrens Catchment Water Management Board. EPA (2003). “Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 and Explanatory Report”. Environment Protection Authority, South Australia. EPA (2005A). “Setting Environmental Values for the Port waterways”. Environment Protection Authority, South Australia. EPA(2005B). “Port Waterways Water Quality Improvement Plan Stage 1 – 2005”. Environment Protection Authority, South Australia. Fletcher, T.; Duncan, H.; Lloyd, S. and Poelsma, P. (2005). “Stormwater Flow and Quality and the Effectiveness of Non-proprietary Stormwater Treatment Measures”. Technical report 04/8. Co-operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne, Victoria. JDA Consultant Hydrologists (2002). “Metropolitan Road Network: Potential for Direct Runoff to Wetlands and Rivers”. Report produced for Main Roads, Western Australia. Johnston, L.; Pezzaniti, D.; Jenkins, C. (2000). “An environmental Investigation to Assess the Effectiveness of Stormwater Detention Basins in Improving Road Runoff”.



Kumar, A.; Woods, M.; El-Merhibi, A; Bellifemine, D.; Hobbs, D.; and Doan, H. (2003). “The Toxicity of Arterial Road Runoff in Metropolitan Adelaide, Phase II”. School of Pharmaceutical, Molecular and Biomedial Sciences, University of South Australia. TCWMB (2000). “2002-2007 Catchment Water Management Plan”. Prepared by the Torrens Catchment Water Management Board. Tonkin (2000). “Catchment (Water Quality) Modelling – Background Report”. Prepared by Tonkin Consulting for the Torrens Catchment Water Management Board. Tonkin (2003). “Meakin Terrace Catchment – Initial Urban Stormwater Master Plan”. Prepared by Tonkin Consulting for the City of Charles Sturt. West, S.; Pezzaniti, D. (2005). “Water Sensitive Urban Design: Limitations and Opportunities within a Typical Urban Streetscape”. Prepared for the University of South Australia. Civil Engineering investigation project.

Date post:	17-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Identification of Water Sensitive Urban Design Measures ... · Identification of Water Sensitive...

Documents