Sediment management in sustainable urban drainagesystem ponds

K.V. Heal*, D.A. Hepburn** and R.J. Lunn***

*University of Edinburgh, School of Geosciences, Crew Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JN,

UK (E-mail: k.heal@ed.ac.uk)

**School of the Built Environment, Heriot Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK

(E-mail: duncanhepburn607@hotmail.com)

***Department of Civil Engineering, University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, 107 Rottenrow,

Glasgow G4 0NG, UK (E-mail: rebecca.lunn@strath.ac.uk)

Abstract Since removal and disposal of sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) sediment can incur high

maintenance costs, assessments of sediment volumes, quality and frequency of removal are required.

Sediment depth and quality were surveyed annually from 1999–2003 in three ponds and one wetland in

Dunfermline, Scotland, UK. Highest sediment accumulation occurred in Halbeath Pond, in the most

developed watershed and with no surface water management train. From comparison of measured potentially

toxic metal concentrations (Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Zn) with standards, the average sediment quality should

not impair aquatic ecosystems. 72–84% of the metal flux into the SUDS was estimated to be associated with

coarse sediment (.500mm diameter) suggesting that management of coarse sediment is particularly

important at this site. The timing of sediment removal for these SUDS is expected to be determined by loss of

storage volume, rather than by accumulation of contaminants. If sediment removal occurs when 25% of the

SUDS storage volume has infilled, it would be required after 17 years in Halbeath Pond, but only after 98

years in Linburn Pond (which has upstream detention basins). From the quality measurements, sediment

disposal should be acceptable on adjacent land within the boundaries of the SUDS studied.

Keywords Pond; potentially toxic metals; sediment depth; sediment quality; sustainable urban drainage

system; wetland

Introduction

Uncertainty concerning maintenance costs is one of the main barriers to the implemen-

tation of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDSs) (McKissock et al., 2003) which

aim to minimise the impact of urban development on receiving watercourses. Sediment

accumulates in SUDS ponds and wetlands over time due to the operation of chemical,

physical and biological processes. Since removal and disposal of SUDS sediment can

incur high maintenance costs, assessments of the frequency of sediment removal, sedi-

ment volumes and sediment quality are required. Results are presented here from annual

surveys of sediment depth and sediment quality in four SUDS in the Duloch Park devel-

opment, Dunfermline, Scotland, UK. The aims of the investigation were to: (a) character-

ise sediment accumulation and quality in SUDS ponds; (b) investigate sediment particle

size and metal concentration relationships and; (c) provide recommendations for the

design and maintenance of SUDS ponds, with regards to sediment issues.

Methods

The four SUDS studied (three ponds and one wetland) are located in the Duloch Park

area of the Dunfermline East Expansion Area (DEX), a new 7.5 km2 residential,

retail, leisure and light industrial development on the eastern edge of the town of

Dunfermline, central Scotland, UK (568 40 N, 38 240 W). Over a period of 20 years from

Water

Science

&T

echnolo

gy

Vo

l5

3N

o1

0p

p2

19

–2

27Q

IWA

Pub

lishing2

00

6

219doi: 10.2166/wst.2006.315

the mid-1990s, approximately 5 km2 of greenfield, predominantly agricultural land, is

being converted to a 200,000m2 industrial park, 5,500 homes, an 18 ha leisure park, three

schools and a district shopping centre. The development area comprises the headwaters

of four streams which drain through the town of Dunfermline and were already respon-

sible for downstream flooding and water quality deterioration due to the conventional

urban drainage infrastructure in the town. As a result, a comprehensive drainage plan was

developed for the site involving local (e.g. swales, permeable paving, detention basins)

and regional SUDS (ponds and wetlands) to control stormwater flows and quality. At the

time of its development, DEX was the largest site in the UK at which SUDS had been

included in the initial site design. A detailed discussion of the SUDS techniques

employed at Duloch Park is given in Roesner et al. (2001). The main characteristics of

the SUDS studied are summarised in Table 1. The ponds and the wetland were designed

following the guidance in CIRIA (2000) to hold four and three times the design treatment

volume (Vt), providing residence times of 21 and 14 days, respectively, during wet con-

ditions. Halbeath Pond, Linburn Pond and Pond 7 have a similar design comprising two

basins, separated by a shallow sill, with piped inflows (mainly in concrete inlet structures)

and an outlet. In contrast to Halbeath Pond and Pond 7, Linburn Pond has a surface water

management train, including six detention basins, in the watershed upstream of the pond.

For safety reasons, the slopes at the edge of the ponds are gently sloping and were

planted with common reed (Phragmites australis) in 1998. The Wetland is less highly

engineered and was developed by flooding an existing marshy area.

Sediment depth and quality were surveyed annually from 1999 to 2003 in the four

SUDS as part of an ongoing investigation of the performance, biological quality and

maintenance costs of SUDS at Duloch Park. All measurements were conducted along

transects across each SUDS: two for each of the ponds (one along the primary axis from

the main inlet to outlet of each pond, and one perpendicular to this) and three for the

Wetland (due to its larger area). Along each transect, water depth was measured and sedi-

ment cores were collected in a plastic liner (diameter 48mm) within a stainless steel

aquatic sediment sampler (Wildcow hand corer, length 0.51m), equipped with a Lexan

nosepiece and a rubber flutter valve to provide suction. The corer was attached to a steel

extension rod and driven into the sediment by hand from a small boat attached to a rope

(with distance markers) which was stretched across the pond surface. In this way sedi-

ment samples were collected from the same points each year to enable comparison of

results between years. Wet sediment depth was measured in the cores in the field (27–55

cores in each SUDS). Selected sediment cores (7–14 in each SUDS) were transferred to

sample bags and retained for laboratory analysis. Grab samples of sediment from inlet

and outlet structures were also analysed.

All wet sediment samples were weighed immediately on return to the laboratory in

order to calculate wet bulk sediment density from the wet volume and mass. The sedi-

ment was subsequently prepared for analysis by air-drying and grinding by hand in a pes-

tle and mortar. Particle size was determined by dry sieving 50 g sediment through 600

and 63mm stainless steel sieves (BS410/1986, Endecotts) to separate the coarse sand,

medium-fine sand, and silt and clay fractions, respectively. pH was measured with an

electrode calibrated with pH buffers 7 and 9 in a suspension of 25 g air-dried sediment in

50ml deionised water that had been stirred, left for 30 minutes and then re-stirred. The

remaining sediment was oven-dried at 105 8C for 6 hours and then milled. Sediment

organic matter content was determined by loss on ignition of 20 g oven-dried, milled

sediment heated in a muffle furnace at 430 8C for 6 hours. Total potentially toxic metal

concentrations (Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Zn) were measured by flame atomic absorption

spectrometry (Solaar M Series, Unicam) in digests of the ashed samples prepared using

K.V

.Healet

al

220

Table 1 Characteristics of SUDS studied at Duloch Park, Dunfermline, Scotland

Characteristic Halbeath Pond Linburn Pond Pond 7 Wetland

SUDS type Pond Pond Pond Wetland/pondWatershed land use Leisure development, highway Residential, highway, undeveloped grassland Residential, highway District park, residential, highwayWatershed area (ha)a 13.5 67.5 67 197b

% watershed developeda 72 27 35 22Construction date 1997 1998 1998 1998Inlets and outlet configuration 1 inlet. 1 outlet (perforated standpipe). 4 inlets. 1 outlet (weir plate

with 4 equal-sized 908 V-notches).3 inlets (1 added in 2003).1 outlet.

2 inlets (1 open channel, 1piped). 1 outlet.

Water storage volume (m3)a 4600 15495 5120 14325Pond surface area (m2)c 6489 9848 4992 18633Mean water depth (m)d 1.49 2.24 1.15 0.94

aFrom Spitzer and Jefferies (2003)bWetland is in subcatchmentcCalculated in ArcView v.3.2 (ESRI) GIS from scanned design drawingsdFrom measurements conducted annually along transects across SUDS, 1999–2003

K.V.Healetal

22

1

hydrochloric and nitric acids (Allen et al., 1974). Total nitrogen and phosphorus concen-

trations were determined by automated colorimetry (Autoanalyser II, Bran & Luebbe) in

Kjeldahl digests (prepared using the procedure of Taylor (2000)) of milled, oven-dried

samples. All analyses were performed in duplicate, with certified reference materials and

blanks for laboratory quality control. In 1999 and 2000, six separate sediment samples

from each SUDS were collected and freeze-dried prior to analysis for hydrocarbons by

infrared spectroscopy at the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s Riccarton labora-

tory. Maps of interpolated sediment depth and sediment quality were produced from the

core measurements at the transect points in each SUDS using the spatial analyst tool

(spline function) within the ArcView v.3.2 (ESRI) GIS (Geographical Information Sys-

tem) package. To investigate relationships between sediment particle size and metal con-

centration (Hepburn, 2004), 100 g of 23 selected sediment samples from Halbeath and

Linburn Ponds in 1999 and 2002 were dry sieved through 63, 125, 250 and 500mm stain-

less steel sieves (BS410/1986, Endecotts). Approximately 8 g of each sieved fraction was

retained, milled and then analysed for total potentially toxic metals using the procedure

described above.

Results and discussion

Sediment depths varied within each SUDS, with sediment initially accumulating near

inlets and in the primary basins, before accumulating throughout the SUDS (see Figure 1

for Linburn Pond). Mean measured sediment depths for each SUDS were combined with

surface area and sediment density data to estimate sedimentation rate, change in sediment

volume and dry mass, and % of volume infilled for each SUDS (Table 2). The figures

were calculated on a cumulative basis to smooth out interannual variations in sediment

depth measurements. Table 2 shows that the greatest increases in sediment volume and

mass and the highest mean annual sedimentation rate occur in Halbeath Pond and the

Wetland. The increase in sediment dry mass is greater in Halbeath Pond than the Wetland

because the Wetland sediment has a higher organic content and is less dense. Some of

the values for change in sediment volume and mass for Linburn Pond and Pond 7 are

negative due to interannual variation in measured sediment density and depth. The final

column in Table 2 provides information relevant for estimating when sediment removal

from the ponds will be required, depending on the acceptable threshold for loss of storage

volume. For example, if sediment removal is required when 25% of the SUDS storage

volume has infilled, excavation would be necessary in Halbeath Pond every 17 years,

whereas for Linburn Pond it would not be necessary for 98 years (although the distri-

bution of sediment between the two basins in each pond would also need to be taken into

consideration). These estimates concur with the frequency of sediment excavation of 25

Figure 1 Maps of interpolated sediment depths (m) in Linburn Pond, Duloch Park, Dunfermline, in (a) 1999

and (b) 2003

K.V

.Healet

al

222

years suggested by Yousef et al. (1994a) in order to minimise the potential of metal

transport from SUDS basin sediments to groundwater. The estimated sedimentation rates

in the Duloch Park SUDS lie within the range reported from other studies (Table 3).

Concentrations of most potentially toxic metals (Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn) increased signifi-

cantly (1-way ANOVA, p , 0.05) in the sediments in all SUDS from 1999/2000 to

2001/2002 (see Figure 2), though concentrations of most metals returned to 1999/2000

values in 2003. There are a number of possible explanations for the observed increases in

metal concentrations in sediments. The most likely explanation is that they are due to

increasing traffic as site development has progressed. Chromium and nickel are often

elevated in highway drainage due to corrosion of metal plating and wear of bearings and

other moving parts in engines (Makepeace et al., 1995). Other studies have also found

evidence of metal accumulation in SUDS. For example, Lind and Karro (1995) measured

higher loadings of copper, lead and zinc in soil beneath an infiltration device in Goteborg,

Sweden, which had received runoff for eight years from a highway with a mean daily

traffic flow of 11,400 vehicles, compared to soil from a reference site at the same dis-

tance from the road which had not been used for infiltration. An alternative explanation

may be an increase in metal inputs to the SUDS surfaces from atmospheric deposition

(wet and dry) from 1999 to 2002. Analytical error can be ruled out as a cause since certi-

fied reference materials (of known metal concentration) were analysed at the same time

as the sediment samples as a quality control procedure. Furthermore, repeat analyses of

some of the samples showed similar results. Nevertheless, comparison with standards for

aquatic sediments and contaminated soils (Table 4) showed that the average SUDS sedi-

ment quality at Duloch Park should not generally pose a threat to the aquatic environment

and would not be classified as a special waste if excavated.

Table 2 Estimates of sedimentation rate, changes in sediment volume and dry mass, and % of volume

infilled for four SUDS at Duloch Park, Dunfermline, 1999–2003

SUDS Sedimentation rate

(cm a21)

Increase in sediment volume

(m3)

Increase in sediment dry mass

(t)

SUDS volume infilled

(%)

Halbeath 1.0 335 454 7Linburn 0.4 197 290.5 1Pond 7 20.2 244 12.8 21Wetland 0.8 717 131 5

Table 3 Sedimentation rates determined in other SUDS/urban ponds

Reference Method Sedimentation

rate (cm a21)

Pond

characteristics

Main watershed

land use

Farm(2002)

3 sedimentcores

3.2 Detention pondconstructed 1998

Highway

Marsalek et al.(1997)

19 sedimentcores

2.0 (mean) On-stream stormwaterpond constructed 1982

Commercial

Rowney et al.(1986)

14 sedimentcores

0.46 (mean) Urban lake constructed1961

Residential

Striegl (1987) Probing andsediment cores

0.2 (mean) Impounded 1889.Drained and sedimentsremoved 1970.

Residential

Yousef et al.(1994b)

10–66 sedimentcores

0.46 (mean of 9 ponds) 9 detention pondsconstructed 1961–1986

Urbanised andhighway

In situmeasurements

2.26 (mean of 9 ponds)

U.S. EPA model 1.23 (mean of 9 ponds)

K.V

.Healet

al

223

Concentrations of chromium, copper and zinc in sediments from the Duloch Park

SUDS studied were of similar magnitude to those reported for other SUDS/urban

lakes (Table 5). Cadmium and lead concentrations were lower than at some other sites,

probably due to the phasing out of leaded petrol in the 1980 s, but iron and nickel

050

100150200250300350400450

Halbeath Linburn Pond 7 Wetland

a a

a

b

aa,c

a

b,c

a

cc

a

b

a,b

a

aa

bb

(a)

Cr

b

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Halbeath Linburn Wetland

19992000200120022003

(b)

Cub

a,c

a

b

a

ca

b

b

aa

a

0

50

100

150

200

250

Halbeath Linburn Pond 7 Wetland

(c)

Ni

a

b

c

b

a

b

c

a

c

a

b

b,c

a,c

a

a,ca

aa

b

a

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Halbeath Linburn Pond 7 Wetland

19992000200120022003

a,ba

b

a

b

a

b,c

a

b,ca,bb,c

b,ca,b

a,b

a,b

a

a

a,ba,b

a,b

(d)

Zn

Pond 7

a,b

a,b a,b

a,b

a,ba,b

a,b a,c

Figure 2 Total metal concentrations (mg kg21 dry weight) in SUDS sediments at Duloch Park, Dunfermline,

1999–2003. All bars show the mean value ^ one standard deviation. Bars with different letters are

significantly different from other bars for the same pond

Table 4 Sediment total potentially toxic metal, nitrogen, phosphorus and hydrocarbon concentrations in the

Duloch Park SUDS for all samples 1999–2003 compared with standards for aquatic sediments and

contaminated land. Units are mg kg21 dry weight, except for Fe (%). Values are mean ^ 1 standard

deviation. Values in bold exceed aquatic sediment and/or contaminated land standards

Determinand Halbeath

(n 5 49)

Linburn

(n 5 77)

Pond 7

(n 5 62)

Wetland

(n 5 123–126)

Standards

for aquatic

sedimentsa

Standards for

contaminated

landb

Cd 0.21 ^ 0.54 0.22 ^ 0.42 0.32 ^ 0.39 0.39 ^ 0.94 10 30Cr 70.7 ^ 65.8 78.2 ^ 87.0 118 ^ 110 76.7 ^ 102 110 200Cu 18.8 ^ 9.22 20.9 ^ 15.3 16.3 ^ 6.42 17.4 ^ 7.44 110 –Fe 4.41 ^ 1.10 4.74 ^ 1.68 3.87 ^ 0.873 7.16 ^ 3.04 4 –Ni 63.3 ^ 48.4 68.4 ^ 39.8 83.9 ^ 61.4 63.6 ^ 57.5 75 75Pb 26.3 ^ 31.5 25.4 ^ 19.6 18.2 ^ 9.46 22.6 ^ 17.2 250 450Zn 78.4 ^ 72.9 110 ^ 89.4 77.0 ^ 24.8 93.1 ^ 43.1 820 –N 977 ^ 575 1850 ^ 998 1300 ^ 705 3550 ^ 2340 4800 –P 720 ^ 915 696 ^ 568 560 ^ 208 664 ^ 662 2000 –Hydrocarbonsc 89.2 ^ 100 523 ^ 590 515 ^ 943 171 ^ 197 1500 –

aSevere effect level, Ontario Ministry of Environment (1993)bSoil guideline values for residential land use without plant uptake, DEFRA and The Environment Agency(2002a, b, c, d)cn ¼ 6

K.V

.Healet

al

224

Table 5 Total potentially toxic metal concentrations reported in sediment from other SUDS/urban ponds. Units are mg kg21 dry weight, except for Fe (%). Values are mean ^ 1 standard

deviation

Reference Number samples Cd Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn

Farm (2002)a 3 0.431 ^ 0.368 25.7 ^ 9.07 51.3 ^ 24.1 – 38.7 ^ 12.4 34.0 ^ 9.85 189 ^ 73.7Mallin et al. (2002)b 4 0.150 ^ 0.153 1.72 ^ 1.31 3.58 ^ 6.00 0.0304 ^ 0.0320 0.723 ^ 0.764 3.35 ^ 3.71 25.7 ^ 45.2Marsalek et al. (1997)c 5 1.2 ^ 0.3 110 ^ 25 63 ^ 26 2.98 ^ 0.21 32 ^ 5 125 ^ 50 319 ^ 124Meseure and Fish (1989)d 4—44 4 – 17 ^ 4 – – 16 –

47 ^ 1618 ^ 517 ^ 4

Rowney et al. (1986)e 33—34 2.55 ^ 1.03 – 25.7 ^ 9.97 – – 58.3 ^ 32.9 114 ^ 38.9Striegl (1987) 7—15 4 – 250 1.94 – 1590 210Yousef et al. (1990) 28 5 ^ 6 19 ^ 17 10 ^ 14 – 10 ^ 10 92 ^ 193 37 ^ 101

aNitric acid digestionbDigestion with H2O2 and nitric acidcNitric, hydrochloric, perchloric and hydrofluoric acid extractiondExtraction for 24 hours at room temperature with H2O2 and nitric acideNitric, perchloric and hydrofluoric acid digestion

K.V.Healetal

22

5

concentrations were higher. The higher iron concentrations in Duloch Park SUDS sedi-

ments is attributable to former coal mining activity and ferruginous staining has been

observed in ditches near the Wetland. Concentrations of potentially toxic metals in SUDS

sediments measured by Mallin et al. (2002) are considerably lower than those reported

from other studies, apart from cadmium.

Sediment quality is highly variable in many SUDS ponds as reflected in the large

values for standard deviation. In the Duloch Park SUDS the highest concentrations of

potentially toxic metals were measured in sediments near the inlet and this pattern has

also been reported by Meseure and Fish (1989). From analyses of metal concentrations in

different sediment particle size fractions it was estimated, unexpectedly, that 72–84% of

the metal flux into the SUDS ponds is associated with coarse sediment (.500mm diam-

eter). One plausible explanation for this observation is that fine sediments are washed

rapidly from watershed surfaces compared to coarse sediments, so there is more time for

accumulation of metals to occur on the coarser sediments.

Conclusions

Accumulated sediment will require removal in the future, but the timing of removal will

vary between SUDS and is expected to occur in the order: Halbeath (earliest) – Linburn –

Pond 7 – Wetland (latest). Although metal concentrations generally increased in sediments

from 1999/2000 to 2001/2002, they only exceeded severe effect levels for aquatic organ-

isms in a few samples. Consequently the timing of sediment removal is expected to be

determined by reduction in the retention time for storm runoff, due to sediment infilling the

SUDS storage volume, rather than by accumulation of contaminants to unacceptable levels

in the sediment. It is recommended that sediment removal is not conducted until required

in order to minimise disturbance in the ponds. The disposal route for excavated sediment

will be dependent on the sediment quality at the time of removal but the measurements to

date suggest that disposal may be acceptable on adjacent land within the boundaries of the

SUDS as recommended by the National SUDS Working Group (2003).

The majority of the metal flux into the SUDS is associated with coarse sediment mean-

ing that control of construction runoff is particularly important at Duloch Park. The two-

basin design of Halbeath and Linburn Ponds and Pond 7 is regarded as a positive feature

for sediment management. Sediment accumulates preferentially in the primary basin so

that removal should only be required from here, thereby minimising the disturbance to the

entire pond. Inclusion of a larger shallow forebay at the main inlets would also provide an

area for preferential accumulation of coarse sediment which could be removed with mini-

mal disturbance to the pond ecosystem. A surface water management train upstream of the

ponds, as for Linburn Pond, is recommended to minimise the frequency of sediment

removal. Detention basins are particularly valuable features in a surface water management

train since accumulated sediment is highly visible and can be removed relatively easily (as

long as access for sediment removal is included in the detention basin design).

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Taylor Woodrow and Scottish Water for funding, to the

Urban Water Technology Centre, University of Abertay Dundee, for support and advice

and to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for hydrocarbons analyses. Hannah

Bird, Clare Dunsmore, Marina Xenophontos, Maggie Keegan, Nick Forrest, Marc

Giamblanco and James Wright assisted with sediment sampling, laboratory analysis and

data analysis. The technical support of Andrew Gray, John Morman, Alan Pike, Alex

Jackson and James Smith is acknowledged.

K.V

.Healet

al

226

ReferencesAllen, S.E., Grimshaw, H.M., Parkinson, J.A. and Quarmby, C. (1974). Chemical Analysis of Ecological

Materials. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.

CIRIA (2000). Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems – design manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

CIRIA C521, CIRIA, London, UK.

DEFRA and The Environment Agency (2002a). Soil Guideline Values for Cadmium Contamination. R&D

Publication SGV 3, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.

DEFRA and The Environment Agency (2002b). Soil Guideline Values for Chromium Contamination. R&D

Publication SGV 4, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.

DEFRA and The Environment Agency (2002c). Soil Guideline Values for Nickel Contamination. R&D

Publication SGV 7, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.

DEFRA and The Environment Agency (2002d). Soil Guideline Values for Lead Contamination. R&D

Publication SGV 10, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.

Farm, C. (2002). Evaluation of the accumulation of sediment and heavy metals in a storm-water detention

pond. Wat. Sci. Tech., 45(7), 105–112.

Hepburn, D.A. (2004). Analysis of Particle Size Distributions and Metal Concentrations to Trace the Origin

of Incoming Sediments to SUDS ponds. BSc thesis, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.

Lind, B.B. and Karro, E. (1995). Stormwater infiltration and accumulation of heavy metals in roadside green

areas in Goteborg, Sweden. Ecological Engineering, 5, 533–539.

Makepeace, D.K., Smith, D.W. and Stanley, S.J. (1995). Urban stormwater quality: summary of contaminant

data. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 25, 93–139.

Mallin, M.A., Ensign, S.H., Wheeler, T.L. and Mayes, D.B. (2002). Pollutant removal efficacy of three wet

detention ponds. J. Environ. Qual., 31, 654–660.

Marsalek, J., Watt, W.E., Anderson, B.C. and Jaskot, C. (1997). Physical and chemical characteristics of

sediments from a stormwater management pond. Wat. Qual. Res. J. Canada, 32, 89–100.

McKissock, G., D’Arcy, B.J., Wild, T.C., Usman, F. and Wright, P.W. (2003). An evaluation of SUDS

guidance in Scotland. In: Diffuse Pollution and Basin Management, Bruen, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the

7th International Specialised IWA Conference, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 4-11–4-17.

Meseure, K. and Fish, W. (1989). Behaviour of runoff-derived metals in a detention pond system. Wat. Air

Soil Poll., 47, 125–138.

National SUDS Working Group (2003). Framework for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) in England

and Wales. Draft for consultation, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1993). Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic

Sediment Quality in Ontario, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Roesner, L.A., Campbell, N. and D’Arcy, B.J. (2001). Master planning stormwater management facilities for

the Dunfermline, Scotland, Expansion Project. Proceedings of Novatech 4th International Conference on

Innovative Technologies in Urban Storm Drainage, Lyon, France.

Rowney, A.C., Droste, R.L. and MacRae, C.R. (1986). Sediment and ecosystem characteristics of a detention

lake receiving urban runoff. Wat. Poll. Res. J. Canada, 21, 460–473.

Spitzer, A. and Jefferies, C. (2003). Hydraulic and water quality performance of two SUDS ponds and

treatment trains in the Dunfermline Eastern Expansion Area - a field and modelling study. In: Proc. 2nd

National Conf. On Sustainable Drainage, Pratt, C.J., Davies, J.W., Newman, A.P. and Perry, J.L. (eds),

pp. 159–170.

Striegl, R.G. (1987). Suspended sediment and metals removal from urban runoff by a small lake. Wat. Res.

Bull., 23, 985–996.

Taylor, M.D. (2000). Determination of total phosphorus in soil using simple Kjeldahl digestion. Commun.

Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 31, 2665–2670.

Yousef, Y.A., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Harper, H.H. and Lin, L.Y. (1990). Heavy metal accumulation and

transport through detention ponds receiving highway runoff. Sci. Tot. Environ., 93, 433–440.

Yousef, Y.A., Yu Lin, Y., Lindeman, W. and Hvitved-Jacobsen, T. (1994a). Transport of heavy metals

through accumulated sediments in wet ponds. Sci. Tot. Environ., 146/147, 485–491.

Yousef, Y.A., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Sloat, J. and Lindeman, W. (1994b). Sediment accumulation in detention

or retention ponds. Sci. Tot. Environ., 146/147, 451–456.

K.V

.Healet

al

227