Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
TT 558/13
Alternative Technology for Stormwater Management
Report to the
Water Research Commission
by
May 2013
Obtainable from
The publication of this report emanates from a project titled Alternative technology for
stormwater management (WRC Project No. K 5/1826)
This report forms part of a series of two reports. The other report is Alternative technology
for stormwater management: Report and South African Case Studies (WRC Report No.
1826/1/13
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the WRC nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ISBN 978-1-4312-0413-7
Printed in the Republic of South Africa
ii
Executive summary
Background
Stormwater management in the urban areas of South Africa has and continues to
predominantly focus on collecting runoff and channelling it to the nearest watercourse. This
means that stormwater drainage currently prioritises quantity (flow) management with little
or no emphasis on the preservation of the environment. The result has been a significant
impact on the environment through the resulting erosion, siltation and pollution. An
alternative approach is to consider stormwater as part of the urban water cycle, a strategy
which is being increasingly known as Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) with the
stormwater management component being known as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
SuDS attempts to manage surface water drainage systems holistically in line with the
ideals of sustainable development. It aims to design for water quantity management, water
quality treatment, enhanced amenity, and the maintenance of biodiversity. In so doing many
of the negative environmental impacts of stormwater are mitigated and some benefits may in
fact be realised.
Methodology
Literature review
An extensive search was undertaken to uncover all that had been published on Sustainable
Drainage Systems since 2000. The information obtained, which included books, journal
papers, conference proceedings, reports and manuals, was used to compile a 405-page
bibliography. The bibliography was in turn used to compile a summary Literature Review (in
the research report) as well as these South African Guidelines for Sustainable Drainage
iii
Systems – hereafter referred to as the South African SuDS Guidelines, or simply “the
Guidelines”
Project deliverables
This study set out to identify and develop new and appropriate guidelines for the use of
alternative stormwater technology in South Africa. The project resulted in the development of
the following deliverables:
• Sustainable Drainage Systems – report and South African case studies.
• The South African Guidelines for Sustainable Drainage Systems (The South African
SuDS Guidelines) (this document).
• The ‘SuDS Economic Model (SEM)’.
• The ‘SuDS Conceptual Design’ poster.
• The‘Working Sustainable Drainage Systems into the City’ poster.
• The ‘Water Sensitive Urban Design: South Africa’ website (www.wsud.co.za).
v
Chapter 1: Introduction to SuDS
Chapter 1 provides an overview of SuDS. The chapter details how and why there has been a
shift internationally in the management of stormwater. The chapter also briefly highlights: the
design principles of SuDS, the importance of the ecosystem and the services it provides. The
chapter ends by noting that designing stormwater management systems using SuDS ideally
requires an interdisciplinary approach which could, but does not always, require a vast range
of professionals.
The grouping of the options is not meant to be prescriptive and it is possible that most could
be used at a different control level, e.g. wetlands could be a source, local or regional control.
The overview includes, inter alia: general overview, design guidance, guidance on
operational and maintenance requirements, and a list of advantages and disadvantages of the
SuDS option. The twelve SuDS ‘families’ are:
Source Controls
• Green roofs are vegetated roofs (Wanielista et al., 2008; Stahre, 2006).
• Rainwater Harvesting refers to the temporary storage and reuse of rooftop and/or
surface runoff (Melbourne Water Corporation, 1999).
vi
• Soakaways are usually excavated pits that are packed with course aggregate and other
porous media and are used to detain and infiltrate stormwater runoff from a single
source.
• Permeable pavements comprise load-bearing, durable and pervious surfaces such as
concrete block pavers (CBPs) laid on top of granular or stone base that can temporarily
store stormwater runoff.
Local controls
• Filter strips are vegetated areas of land that are used to manage shallow overland
stormwater runoff through filtration (Debo & Reese, 2003).
• Swales are shallow grass-lined channels with flat and sloped sides that are used to
convey stormwater from one place to another. They typically remain dry between
rainfall events (Mays, 2001; Parkinson & Mark, 2005).
• Infiltration trenches are excavated trenches which are lined with a geotextile and
backfilled with rock or other relatively large granular material (Hobart City Council,
2006). They are typically designed to receive stormwater runoff from adjoining
residential properties.
• Bio-retention areas are landscaped depressions used to manage stormwater runoff
through several natural processes such as filtration, adsorption, biological uptake and
sedimentation (Debo & Reese, 2003).
• Sand filters usually comprise of an underground sedimentation chamber connected to a
filtration chamber in which stormwater runoff is temporarily stored before being
filtered through a sand filter (Woods-Ballard et al., 2007).
Regional controls
• Detention ponds are relatively large depressions that temporarily store stormwater
runoff in order to reduce the downstream flood peak (Woods-Ballard et al., 2007).
• Retention ponds also known as ‘retention basins’ – are formed by excavating below the
natural ground water level and/or lining the base to retain stormwater runoff (Debo &
Reese, 2003; Mays 2001).
• Constructed wetlands attempt to mimic the characteristics of natural wetlands through
the use of marshy areas and aquatic-resilient plants (NCDWQ, 2007; Woods-Ballard et
al., 2007). They can be aesthetically pleasing and provide a vibrant wildlife habitat.
Appendices
• Appendix A presents a SuDS site design framework.
vii
• Appendix B is a table summarising the estimated pollutant removal capacities of
selected SuDS options from international literature.
• Appendix C comprises a series of standard design drawings for each of the SuDS
options presented in the guidelines.
• Appendix D provides an overview of the need for, and the way of, determining the life
cycle costs of stormwater management.
• Appendix E describes the SuDS Economic Model (SEM) and its appropriate use.
• Appendix F supplies users of the SEM with basic life cycle costing and maintenance
data for both SuDS and conventional systems.
• Appendix G is the SuDS Conceptual Design poster.
• Appendix H is the ‘Working SuDS into the city’ poster.
Conclusions
Conventional stormwater management focuses largely on quantity (flow) management, by
collecting runoff and channelling it to the closest watercourse. This has resulted in the
erosion of natural channels, and pollution resulting in environmental degradation. SuDS
offers an alternative approach through designing for water quantity management; water
quality treatment; enhanced amenity; and the maintenance of biodiversity. The approach has
been widely adopted internationally, however there is still some resistance to their use in
South Africa. These guidelines are is intended to assist practitioners to identify and flag
opportunities where the use of SuDS is appropriate and may add to the value of the urban
environment.
Cape Town
June 2012
viii
Acknowledgements
The research in this report emanated from a project funded by the Water Research
Commission (WRC) entitled “Alternative technology for stormwater management”.
The Reference Group responsible for the project consisted of the following persons:
Dr V Naidoo (Chair) Water Research Commission
Dr J Barnes University of Stellenbosch
Mr C Brooker CBA
Dr E Day Freshwater Consulting Group
Mr M van Dijk University of Pretoria
Mr A de Klerk University of Pretoria
Mr I Malherbe BKS
Mr P Reddy DWA (KZN)
Mr D Still PID and DUCT
Prof F van Vuuren University of Pretoria
The financing of the project by the WRC and the contributions of the members of the
Reference Group are gratefully acknowledged.
This Project was only made possible with the help and cooperation of many individuals. The
authors would particularly like to thank the following project team members:
Mr R Arnold City of Cape Town
Ms C Haskins City of Cape Town
Mr B Wood City of Cape Town
Mr G Tooley eThekwini Municipality
Mr M Braune SRK Consulting
Ms J Burke SRK Consulting
Mr G Jansen van Vuuren Tshwane Municipality
Ms K Carden University of Cape Town
Mr C Hindes University of Cape Town
Ms J McLachlan University of Cape Town
Mr S Milandri University of Cape Town
ix
Appropriate use of the guidelines
These guidelines are designed to assist practitioners with the design, operation and
maintenance of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in South Africa. They are not meant to
be prescriptive but rather to assist practitioners identify and implement opportunities for
improving the management of stormwater in South Africa.
There is very little data available locally as to the efficacy of SuDS in South Africa. As
a result a number of parameters quoted in this guideline have been collected from
international literature. These parameters are dependent on a variety of factors including,
inter alia, climate, pollution composition and concentration, technical design, and
maintenance. As a result they should be considered only a guide to the relative performance
of selected SuDS options. Where local data is available it should be used instead.
Neither the Water Research Commission (WRC) nor the authors take any responsibility
for any loss of life or damage to property that might result from the use of these guidelines.
x
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii
Acknowledgements ix
Appropriate use of the Guidelines x
Table of Contents xi
Glossary of Terms xv
List of Acronyms xxi
1. Introduction to SuDS 1
1.1 The impacts of urbanisation 1
1.2 SuDS processes 3
1.2.1 Stormwater quantity management 3
1.2.2 Stormwater quality management 3
1.2.3 Amenity management 4
1.2.4 Biodiversity management 4
1.3 SuDS selection 4
1.3.1 Selection basics 4
1.3.2 Ecosystem services 6
1.3.3 Risk Assessment 6
1.4 Interdisciplinary partnerships 6
1.4.1 Role players in SuDS 6
1.4.2 ‘Sustainable Development’ and SuDS 7
4. Local controls 35
4.1 Filter strips 35
4.1.1 General description 35
4.1.2 General design guidelines 35
xii
4.1.3 Advantages 36
4.1.4 Limitations 36
4.1.5 Operation and maintenance 36
4.1.6 Technology derivative 36
4.1.7 Case studies 36
4.1.8 Further reading 37
4.2 Swales 37
4.2.1 General description 37
4.2.2 General design guidelines 37
4.2.3 Advantages 38
4.2.4 Limitations 39
4.2.5 Operation and maintenance 39
4.2.6 Technology derivatives 39
4.2.7 Case studies 40
4.2.8 Further reading 40
4.3 Infiltration trenches 40
4.3.1 General description 40
4.3.2 General design guidelines 40
4.3.3 Advantages 41
4.3.4 Limitations 41
4.3.5 Operation and maintenance 41
4.3.6 Technology derivatives 42
4.3.7 Case studies 42
4.3.8 Further reading 42
4.4 Bio-retention areas 42
4.4.1 General description 42
4.4.2 General design guidelines 43
4.4.3 Advantages 43
4.4.4 Limitations 44
4.4.5 Operation and maintenance 44
4.4.6 Technology derivative 44
4.4.7 Case studies 45
4.4.8 Further reading 45
4.5 Sand filters 45
4.5.1 General description 45
4.5.2 General design guidelines 46
4.5.3 Advantages 46
4.5.4 Limitations 46
4.5.5 Operation and maintenance 47
4.5.6 Technology derivatives 47
4.5.7 Case studies 47
4.5.8 Further reading 48
xiii
5. Regional Controls 49
5.1 Detention ponds 49
5.1.1 General description 49
5.1.2 General design guidelines 49
5.1.3 Advantages 50
5.1.4 Limitations 50
5.1.5 Operation and maintenance 50
5.1.6 Technology derivative 50
5.1.7 Case studies 51
5.1.8 Further reading 51
5.2 Retention ponds 51
5.2.1 General description 51
5.2.2 General design guidelines 52
5.2.3 Advantages 52
5.2.4 Limitations 52
5.2.5 Operation and maintenance 53
5.2.6 Technology derivative 53
5.2.7 Case studies 53
5.2.8 Further reading 53
5.3 Constructed wetlands 54
5.3.1 General description 54
5.3.2 General design guidelines 54
5.3.3 Advantages 55
5.3.4 Limitations 55
5.3.5 Operation and maintenance 56
5.3.6 Technology derivatives 56
5.3.7 Case studies 57
5.3.8 Further reading 57
References R-1
Appendices
Appendix A: SuDS design frameworks A-1
Appendix B: Pollutant removal capacities B-1
Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options C-1
Appendix D: Life cycle costing of stormwater management D-1
Appendix E: Description of ‘SuDS Economic Model’ E-1
Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets F-1
Appendix G: SuDS Conceptual Design poster G-1
Appendix H: ‘Working SuDS into the city’ poster. H-1
xiv
Buffer strip here refers to a vegetated area
Glossary of Terms ordinarily situated on gently sloping ground
designed to filter out insoluble pollutants in
The definitions below refer to the use of terms in
runoff. It is also known as a filter strip.
these guidelines only and care should be taken
when applying these definitions outside of these Catchment here refers to the area contributing
guidelines. runoff to any specific point on a watercourse
or wetland.
Channel here refers to any natural or artificial
Abstraction here refers to the portion of rainfall watercourse.
that does not contribute to runoff through
such processes as: interception, infiltration Channel Protection Volume (CPV) refers to the
and storage in local depressions. volume and rate of flow required for
management to reduce the potential for
Absorption here refers to the taking up of one degradation in natural channels. It is usually
substance into the body of another e.g. achieved through the detention of runoff
rainwater taken up into a plant. onsite. The critical storm event typically has
Aerobic is the state requiring or allowing the a recurrence interval (RI) of around 2 years.
presence of free essential oxygen. Check dam is a low weir or dam that lies across a
Anaerobic is the absence of free elemental oxygen, drainage channel to retard or re-route flow
or a state not requiring or damaged by the from a channel, ditch or canal for the
absence of free elemental oxygen. purpose of erosion or scour reduction.
Annual probability of exceedance is the statistical Climate change is a continuous phenomenon and
probability of a flood or rainfall event of a refers to the change in global climatic
given magnitude being exceeded in any conditions, e.g. as a result of temperature
given year. increases due to anthropogenic emissions.
xv
event for the design of a drainage system or water, most commonly in the case of
a component thereof. groundwater tables, ponds or wells.
Design period here is either the expected useful Dry pond is a detention pond that remains dry
lifespan of a structure or asset, or sometimes during dry weather flow conditions.
the amortisation period if loans have been
Dry weather flow means flow occurring in a water
procured to finance its construction.
course not attributable to a storm rainfall
Design storm encompasses the properties of a event. Dry weather flows do not fluctuate
selected storm which may include the depth, rapidly.
spread and duration of the rainfall as well as
Effluent here refers to wastewater that flows from
variations in rainfall intensity in space and
a process or confined space that has been
time over the catchment area for the
partially or completely treated.
purposes of sizing infrastructure.
Evapotranspiration means the evaporation from
Detention pond here refers to a pond that is
all water, soil, snow, ice, vegetation and
normally dry except following large storm
other surfaces plus transpiration of moisture
events when it temporarily stores
from the surface membranes of leaves and
stormwater to attenuate flows. It may also
other plant surfaces.
allow infiltration of stormwater into the
ground. Event probability is the probability of a particular
threshold being equalled or exceeded by a
Development here refers to any man-made change
selected rainfall event.
to property including, but not limited to, the
construction or upgrading of buildings or Extended attenuation storage is the retention of
other structures, paving, municipal services, stormwater runoff to protect receiving
etc. watercourses in the event of flooding if
long-term storage and additional infiltration
Don’t Do Damage (D3) here refers to the
are not feasible on-site.
importance of ensuring that extreme storm
events does not cause significant damage to Filtration, also referred to as bio-filtration, means
property and pose significant risks to life. the filtering out of stormwater runoff
pollutants that are conveyed with sediment
Drainage may refer to: (1) the removal of excess
by trapping these constituents on vegetative
ground-water or surface water by gravity or
species in the soil matrix or on geotextiles.
pumping; (2) the area from which water
bodies are removed; or (3) the general flow Flood means a temporary rise in water level,
of all liquids under the force of gravity. including ground water or overflow of
water, onto land not normally covered by
Drainage area is that part of a catchment that
water.
contributes to the runoff at a specified point.
Floodplain means the area susceptible to
Drainage corridor refers to the area usually
inundation by floods.
extending on either side of the centreline of
a watercourse along its longitudinal length Floodplain fringe is that area in a river defined as
but also including: vleis, wetlands, dams or being below the level reached by the
lakes that can be linked to the conveyance of Regional Maximum Flood (RMF) or
runoff. Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and above
the level reached by normal flow.
Drainage system refers to the network of channels,
drains, hydraulic control structures, levees, Flood zone or floodway means the area inundated
and pumping mechanisms that drain land or by the Regional Maximum Flood (RMF) or
protect it from potential flooding. Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).
Drawdown is the lowering of the surface level of a Flow Control (minor storms) (FCm) here refers to
water body as a result of the withdrawal of the reduction of peak storm flow rate (m3/s)
to the equivalent of pre-development
xvi
scenario. This is typically for storm events Impervious surface here refers to surfaces which
with a recurrence interval of between 2 and prevent the infiltration of water. Roads,
10 years. parking lots, sidewalks and rooftops are
typical examples of impervious surfaces in
Flow Control (FCD) here refers to the reduction of
urban areas.
peak storm flow rate (m3/s) to the equivalent
of the pre-development scenario – or Infiltration here refers to the process of
accepted alternative – while simultaneously penetration of rainwater into the ground.
ensuring that risks to property and human
Infiltration device is a SuDS element designed to
life are mitigated. This is typically for storm
aid the infiltration of surface water into the
events with a recurrence interval greater
ground.
than 10 years.
Infiltration trench is a trench that is usually filled
Freeboard means the vertical distance from the
with granular material designed to promote
water surface to the top of a confining
infiltration of surface water to the ground.
structure, usually a wall and/or gate.
Interception refers to precipitation stored on
Gabion is a rectangular shaped steel wire basket
vegetation as opposed to rain stored in
that is generally filled with rock for
surface depressions (termed depression
embankment protection and flood control.
storage).
Geotextile is a textile or plastic fabric designed to
Lag time is defined as the time from the centroid
separate different fill materials. It is
of the excess rainfall to the peak of the
normally permeable.
associated runoff hydrograph.
Green-field here refers to any site including
Long-term storage is the volumetric control of
parkland, open space and agricultural land
stormwater runoff in a specified infiltrating
which has not previously been used for
area that will drain very slowly.
buildings and other major structures.
Major drainage system is a stormwater drainage
Green roof is a roof on which plants and
system which caters for severe, infrequent
vegetation can grow. The vegetated surface
storm events, to prevent fatalities and
provides a degree of retention, attenuation,
minimise damage to property.
temperature insulation and treatment of
rainwater. Minor drainage system is a stormwater drainage
system which caters for frequent storms of a
Gross pollutants are waste items generally larger
minor nature, to minimise inconveniences.
than 10 mm in diameter and typically
include: plastics, cardboard packaging, Nitrification is the oxidisation of ammonia and
metals, bottles and paper products. ammonium ions in stormwater runoff to
form nitrite and nitrate.
Hydrograph is a plot of discharge or runoff
relative to time. Non-structural measures here refer to planning,
institutional and pollution prevention
Hydrology refers to the physical, chemical and
practices designed to prevent or minimise
physiological sciences of the water bodies of
pollutants from entering stormwater runoff
the earth including: occurrence, distribution,
and/or reduce the volume of stormwater
circulation, precipitation, surface runoff,
requiring management.
stream-flow, infiltration, storage and
evaporation. Overland flood escape route is an area over which
stormwater in excess of the capacity of a
Hyetograph is a plot of rainfall relative to time.
stormwater system will flow to safeguard
Hydraulic roughness is a composite of the property from flooding.
physical characteristics that influence the
Perennial stream is a watercourse that flows
flow of water across the ground, whether
continuously.
natural or channelized.
xvii
Permeability refers to the ability of a material to years), assuming no climate change, there
allow water to flow through when fully will be approximately 20 events of greater
saturated and subjected to an unbalanced magnitude (1000/20 = 50 years). See Return
pressure. period.
Peak discharge (also known as ‘peak flow’) is the Retention pond is a pond-like structure where
maximum rate of flow of water passing a runoff is retained for a sufficient time to
given point during or immediately after a allow settlement and possibly biological
rainfall event. treatment of some pollutants.
Plant-uptake is the removal of stormwater runoff Retrofitting here refers to the modification or
nutrients and metals through uptake by installation of additional or alternative
plants. stormwater management devices or
approaches in an existing developed area in
Polish here refers to the additional treatment of
order to achieve better management of
runoff by any physical or biological process.
stormwater.
Porous asphalt is an asphalt surface that is
Return period is the average time interval of
pervious with open voids to allow water to
hydrological event occurences of a given or
pass through.
greater magnitude. The interval is normally
Precipitation is the water received from expressed in years. See Recurrence Interval.
atmospheric moisture as rainfall, hail, snow
Riparian refers to anything adjoining a
or sleet, normally measured in millimetres
watercourse or other water body.
depth.
Riprap refers to stone or blocks which are
Rainfall excess is the additional water that
intentionally placed along the embankment
produces runoff after interception storage,
of watercourses to minimise the potential for
depression storage and infiltration have been
erosion.
satisfied.
Runoff generally refers to the excess water that
Rainwater harvesting is the direct capture of
flows after precipitation.
stormwater runoff, typically from roof-tops,
for supplementary water uses on-site. Scour here refers to the movement of solid material
due to the forces of flowing water.
Receiving waters are natural or man-made aquatic
systems which receive stormwater runoff Sedimentation is the deposition of soil particles
e.g. watercourses, wetlands, canals, that have been carried by flowing waters,
estuaries, groundwater and coastal areas. typically during flood peaks as a
consequence of a decrease in the velocity of
Recharge Volume (ReV) is the proportion of the
flow below the minimum transportation
Water Quality Volume (WQV) that needs to
velocity.
be infiltrated on site to make up for the
reduction of natural infiltration. Sheet flow is runoff over a relatively flat or
flattened surface. It has no defined channel.
Recurrence interval (RI) or return period is the
average interval between events exceeding a Soakaway is a subsurface structure that is designed
stated benchmark. The recurrence interval is to promote infiltration into the ground.
usually expressed in years and is the
Source controls are non-structural or structural
reciprocal of the annual probability – that is,
best management practices to minimise the
the event having an annual probability of
generation of excessive strormwater runoff
occurrence of 2% (0.02) has a recurrence
and/or pollution of stormwater at or near the
interval of 50 years. This does not imply
source.
that such an event will occur after every 50
years, or even that there will necessarily be Spillway is a waterway adjoining ponding areas or
one such event in every 50 years, but rather other hydraulic structures used for the
that over a very long period (e.g. 1000 routing of excess water.
xviii
Stormwater is water resulting from natural reach the receiving streams or bodies of
precipitation and/or accumulation and water.
includes rainwater, groundwater and spring
Sustainable development means “development
water.
that meets the needs of the present without
Stormwater attenuation pond is a facility which compromising the ability of future
temporarily stores excess stormwater runoff generations to meet their own needs”
with the intention of reducing the flood (Bruntland et al., 1986).
peak.
Swale is a shallow vegetated channel designed to
Stormwater outfall is the point at which runoff convey stormwater, but may also permit
discharges from a conduit. infiltration. The vegetation assists in
filtering particulate matter.
Stormwater runoff refers to the portion of rainfall
which flows to the surface drainage system. Time of concentration is the time required for
water to flow from the most hydraulically
Stormwater system is constituted by both
remote point of the basin to the
constructed and natural facilities including:
point/location of analysis.
stormwater pipes, canals, culverts, overland
escape routes, ‘vleis’, wetlands, dams, lakes, Treatment train is a combination of different
and other watercourses, whether over or methods implemented in sequence or
under public or privately owned land, used concurrently to achieve best management of
or required for the management, collection, stormwater. These methods include both
conveyance, temporary storage, control, structural and non-structural measures.
monitoring, treatment, use and disposal of
Volatilisation is the conversion of stormwater
stormwater.
runoff compounds to gas or vapour typically
Structural measures/controls are permanent as a result of heat, chemical reaction, a
engineered devices implemented to control, reduction of pressure or a combination of
treat or prevent stormwater pollution and/or these.
reduce the volume of stormwater that
Watercourse means any river, stream, channel,
requires management.
canal or other visible topographic feature,
Sub-drain is a porous conduit that is installed whether natural or constructed, in which
below the ground surface to manage ground- water flows regularly or intermittently
water flows thereby mitigating potential including any associated storage and/or
damage to property. stormwater attenuation dams, natural vleis
or wetland areas.
Sub-surface runoff is the flow derived from water
infiltrating the soil and flowing laterally in Watercourse edge means the top of a discernable
the upper soil strata. It usually reaches the bank or canal in the case of natural and
receiving streams or bodies of water fairly constructed watercourses respectively.
soon after a rainfall event without joining Where an edge is not readily discernable,
the main body of groundwater. the extremity of the area susceptible to
inundation by the 1:2 year storm is often
SuDS is the abbreviation for sustainable drainage
deemed the watercourse edge.
systems or sustainable urban drainage
systems, which are a sequence of Watershed is the upper boundary of a specified
management practices and/or control catchment area for rainfall that contributes
structures or technologies designed to drain to a given drainage area.
surface water in a more sustainable manner
Water pollution incident means an occurrence
than conventional techniques.
that has the potential of prejudicing the
Surface runoff is that part of the runoff that travels quality of water in the stormwater
over the ground surface and in channels to management system or threatening public
health or safety.
xix
Water quality volume (WQV) is the design
volume of runoff which requires water
quality treatment in order to reduce/remove
a specified percentage of pollutants.
Water table is the upper most level of the zone of
saturation below the Earth’s surface, except
where this surface is formed by an
impermeable body.
Weir is a relatively small dam-type structure across
a waterway used to divert flow, reduce
erosion and/or measure flow volumes.
Wetland refers to any land translational between
terrestrial and aquatic systems where the
water table is usually at or near the surface,
or is periodically covered with shallow
water, and which in normal circumstances
supports or would support vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated soil.
This includes water bodies such as lakes,
salt marshes, coastal lakes, estuaries,
marshes, swamps, ‘vleis’, pools, ponds, pans
and artificial impoundments.
Whole Life Cycle Cost refers to the present day
value of the total costs of a structure
throughout its likely operating life.
xx
List of acronyms
ASCE American Society of Civil FCM Flow Control (minor storms)
Engineers
GIS Geographic Information System
Aus Australia
LCCA Life Cycle Cost Analysis
BCA Benefit Cost Analysis
LID Low Impact Development
CBD Central Business District
P&G Preliminary & General
CCA Capital Cost Analysis
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
CoCT City of Cape Town
ReV Recharge Volume
CPAF Cost Price Adjustment Factor
RI Recurrence Interval
CPI Consumer Price Index
RMF Regional Maximum Flood
3
D Don’t Do Damage
SEM SuDS Economic Model
DAC Damage Avoidance Cost
SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems
DEADP Department of Environmental
TN Total Nitrogen
Affairs and Planning
TP Total Phosphorus
DoCGTA Department of Cooperative
Governance and Traditional Affairs TSS Total Suspended Solids
xxi
xxii
1. Inttroduction
n to SuDS
S • Compliaance with the law – particullarly local
by-laws which are offten quite speecific with
There haas been growiing interest in n the promotiion respect to
t allowable ddevelopment.
of sustaainable develoopment amongst local aand
national governments throughout the world – aand
this inclludes the coontrol of storrmwater runooff Whilst
W each off these will bbe mentioned d in these
(Ellis, ett al. 2006). Sustainable Drrainage System ms guuidelines theyy are largely ooutside the sco
ope of the
(SuDS) offer an alternative approach to doocument whicch is focused more on the available
conventioonal drainagee practices by y attempting to technology optiions. Chapter 1 (this one) introduces
i
manage ssurface water drainage systtems holisticaally th
he notion of sustainable ddrainage and describes
in line w
with the idealss of sustainable developmeent. im
mportant dessign and m management concepts
They acchieve this by mimickin ng the natuural asssociated with h SuDS. Chhapter 2 desccribes the
hydrologgical cycle, often
o h a number of
through baasic design appproach. Chappters 3, 4 and 5 present
sequentiaal interventionns in the form
m of a ‘treatmeent tw
welve ‘families’ of SuDS opptions / techn nologies in
train’ as will be discuussed in Sectioon 1.1. The kkey th
he categoriess of ‘Sourcce Controls’’, ‘Local
objectivees of the SuD DS approach area the effectiive Controls’, and ‘Regional C Controls’ resspectively.
managem ment of: stormmwater runoff quantity,
q quallity Appendix
A A presents
p a SuuDS conceptu ual design
and the aassociated am menity and bioodiversity whiich framework. Ap ppendix B ppresents the expected
may be ddescribed in thhe form of a hierarchy (Figuure poollutant remo oval for vaarious SuDS options.
1.1) wheere each levell contributes tot an improveed, Appendix
A C presents
p typiccal design details
d for
more suustainable draainage system m. Simply pput, vaarious SuDS options. Apppendix D givees a brief
there is nno point focussing on biodiv
versity if life aand in
ntroduction to o life cycle ccosting for sttormwater
property have not alreaady been proteected. management.
m Appendix E describes a costing
model
m that is available as ppart of the guidelines.
g
Appendix
A F prrovides suppllementary datta for the
afforementioned d model. Apppendix G is th he ‘SuDS
co
onceptual desiign poster’. T These SuDS Guidelines
G
arre intended for use by all ppractitioners working
w in
th
he field of stoormwater mannagement and d promote
th
he notion of interdisciplinaary partnersh hips at all
levels and phases of developm ment where applicable.
Waterr table
Ground
G water
Infiltration recharge
Post-d
development runnoff
Extensive hardeening
of surfaces Increassed runoff
volumes and rates
Pipe netw
works
Low
wer water table
Concrrete lined canal
Figu
ure 1.2: Typiccal pre- and post-developm
p ment runoff scenarios
s withh the conventtional approa
ach to
stormwaterr managemen nt (after Wilsoon et al., 2004
4; Haskins, 2010; Van Wierringen, 2010)
High
her and rapid
peak
k discharges
Pre-development
Post-developmen
nt
Steep recession
Increased runoff vo
olume
Floow
Higher baseflo
ow Gentle recession
Time
Figu
ure 1.3: Typiccal hydrograpphs associated
d with pre- and
a post-deveelopment withh the conventtional
approoach to storm
mwater managgement (after Reed, 2000; Wilson,
W et al.,, 2004)
Fig
gure 1.4: SuD
DS treatment train schema
atic
Figure 1.4 depicts a SuDS treatment t traain otther environm ments; (2) thee size of contributing
schematic illustrating the relationshhip between tthe caatchments up pstream; andd (3) the expected
four SuD DS interventiions. SuDS treatment
t traiins poollutant conccentrations in stormwateer runoff
should pprioritise: (1) water quality treatment ffor in
nflows (Wood ds-Ballard et al., 2007). Whilst
W the
low flowws; and (2) atttenuation and volume contr trol diifferent SuDS options tend to be associatted with a
for high fflows. Furtherrmore, the num
mber and sizee of paarticular point in the treattment train, it is often
the SuDS S treatment trrain components depends oon: poossible to utiliise them elsew
where dependiing on the
(1) the sensitivity off receiving watercourses
w or sitte. For exaample, consttructed wetlands are
alphabetically).
Local cultural studies
Social Amenity and
and social impact
Anthropologists Biodiversity
assessments
Table 1.1: Potential human capital for SuDS
interdisciplinary partnerships Urban Planners
Urban layouts and
Amenity
land-use requirements
Elementary
Expertise and Wildlife biology and Amenity and
Professionals focal point(s) Zoologists
knowledge base habitat requirements Biodiversity
in SuDS
Infrastructure Quantity /
Architects conceptualisation and Amenity and
structural aesthetics Biodiversity 1.4.2 ‘Sustainable development’ and SuDS
‘Sustainability’ and ‘Sustainable development’
Quality /
Botanists
Vegetation sciences
Amenity and have become buzzwords in the 21st Century,
and plant biology
Biodiversity especially in the urban infrastructure design and
management sector. Brundtland et al. (1987) define
Infrastructure design Quantity / sustainable development as “development that
Civil Engineers
and management Quality
meets the needs of the present without
Conceptual
compromising the ability of future generations to
Clients specifications and All meet their own needs”. According to Hjorth &
appointments
Bagheri (2006), it is often misconceived as an ‘end
state’ and perceived as a rigid project target to be
Climatology issues and Quantity /
Climatologists concerns, and ‘climate Amenity and achieved in an allotted time-frame. Sustainable
change’ Biodiversity development, however, should not be viewed as a
project that has an end state. It is neither the state of
Funding, fiscal viability the system nor an attainable target, rather an ideal.
Economists and investment All
opportunities It is an ongoing process which inter-relates aspects
of economy, environment, society and other
Engineering
Engineering geology technicalities. O’Regan & Moles (1997) suggest
and earthwork Quantity
Geologists
requirements
that conventional practices in environmental
management for one, fail to manage the
Environmental impacts Amenity and complexities of environmental systems which has
Environmentalists
and protection Biodiversity resulted in a surplus of misguided paradigm shifts.
They suggest that common errors and undesirable
Water-borne diseases, Quality /
Epidemiologists and related health Amenity and
side effects in urban management are often a result
provisos Biodiversity of the inability of decision-makers to understand
the underlying structure of the system of which
Freshwater
Urban river restoration, Quality / they are a part. The design and management of
rehabilitation and Amenity and
Ecologists
remediation Biodiversity urban infrastructure in South Africa, and urban
drainage practices in particular, require a shift from
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 9
basic design process may be summarised as costed to determine the relative life-cycle
follows: costs (Appendix D); and
i) Carry out a preliminary analysis of the vii) The team needs to make a decision!
amount (volume and flow) and the quality
of stormwater to be treated.
It is also important to recognise that the design of
ii) Map out the preferred flow path/s – with
any SuDS treatment train is directly linked to the
preference being given to overland routes.
anticipated long-term management plan. This
This may differ between the minor system
aspect is covered in more detail in Appendix D.
and the major system (Section 2.2).
The following four international design
iii) Determine the number, type and location of
manuals give considerable detailed guidance for the
the various SuDS options in a treatment
design of treatment trains and the associated SuDS
train. Generally, the performance of the
options (listed alphabetically). Links have been
treatment train is related to the number of
provided at www.wsud.co.za. The various SuDS
SuDS options that the stormwater passes
options are summarised in Chapters 3-5 of this
through. Multi-component treatment trains
document:
can be more readily designed to remove a
wide range of pollutants by utilising i) Hobart City Council, (2006). Water
different treatment processes. Furthermore, Sensitive Urban Design Site Development
the greater the number of SuDS Guidelines and Practice Notes, Hobart City
interventions, the smaller the risk of a total Council, Tasmania, Australia
system failure. ii) North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
iv) Determine the performance of each of the (2007). Stormwater Best Management
different SuDS options in the treatment train Practices Manual, NCDWQ, North
for each of a variety of design scenarios Carolina, United States of America
ranging from the smaller, more frequent iii) Southeast Michigan Council of
storms to the larger, less frequent storms. Governments, (2008). Low Impact
The SuDS treatment train would be Development Manual for Michigan: A
expected to treat the entire pollution load Design Guide for Implementers and
from the small, very frequent storms; handle Reviewers, SEMCOG, Michigan, United
the peak flow and possibly volume for a States of America
designated ‘design storm’; and survive the
very largest infrequent storms without iv) Woods-Ballard B., Kellagher R., Martin P.,
significant damage. Jefferies C., Bray R. and Shaffer P (2007).
The SUDS Manual. CIRIA 697. London.
v) Aggregate the contributions from each of
the elements in the SuDS treatment train and
compare with the stormwater management
2.2 Design events
objectives. These should ideally be the pre-
development conditions but it is possible A common – but not the only – way of designing
that the objectives may have been relaxed SuDS systems is through the consideration of a
by an agreed performance standard number of ‘design storms’. The design objective is
determined by the local authority. If the different for each storm frequency. For example,
design meets the objectives and is agreed to small storms should be fully infiltrated on site
by all parties, detailed design follows, where possible, whilst very large storms should be
otherwise the designer needs to return to managed in such a way to minimise damage.
step iii) and try out other treatment train
Figure 2.1 gives a conceptual SuDS design
options.
framework. It is a plot of peak flow rate versus the
vi) Once a number of potential treatment train storm recurrence interval, RI (the reciprocal of
solutions have been found, they must be frequency of exceedance). Two curves are
indicated: the first is labelled ‘Pre-development’
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 10
and referrs to an ideaalised relationn between peeak storms. It is only in the casee of extreme events
e that
flow ratte and storm m recurrence interval forr a th
he difference between
b peakk flow rates emanating
e
t is still in its natural staate.
theoreticaal catchment that from the pre-d development and post-dev velopment
As can bbe seen, no flow is anticcipated for loow- sittuations becoomes insignif ificant as thee surface
recurrencce interval, i.e. very small storm ms. beecomes comp pletely saturatted – thereby y reducing
Precipitaation is tottally absorbeed through a in
ntervention stoorage and infilltration to zero – whilst
combinattion of interceeption storage and infiltratioon. th
he flow paths become verry similar. On ne of the
A point is reached however wheere the rainffall ob t SuDS appproach is to bring the
bjectives of the
becomes sufficient – through a combination of peeak flow rates (and associiated volumess) back to
intensity and duration – to result in
n runoff. Largger th
he pre-development situatiion. It simulltaneously
storms wwill generally result in largger peak runooffs atttempts to meeet the objecttives of wateer quality,
trending to a theoretiical maximum m as defined by prrovide for am menity and ppreserve bio--diversity.
the Regioonal Maximuum Flood (RM MF) or Probabble Th his makes it inherently more comp plex than
Maximum m Flood (PM MF). The seecond curve is onventional design which ttypically has only two
co
labelled ‘Post-develoopment’ and refers to tthe prrimary objecctives: minim mising incon nvenience
situation associated wiith most current developmeent. th
hrough the miinor – usuallyy piped – system, and
Hardeninng of surfa faces and improving tthe minimising
m dam
mage to propperty and poteential loss
conveyannce of drainagge channels reesults in flow ffor off life through the major – uusually overlaand flow –
smaller sstorms comparred with the pre-developme
p ent sy
ystem.
situation,, and higher flows for allmost all largger
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 12
Table 2.3: Links between zones, design objectives and associated treatment / management
Environmental (Flow rate) Peak flow control reduced to predevelopment levels Local and regional
4
& Inconvenience (FCM) Controls
Environmental, Health & Peak flow control reduced to pre-development levels Road ways and
5a
Safety, Inconvenience (FCD) and prevent damage to property, and risks to life regional attenuation
The Water Quality volume (WQV) is used to first flush and is normally attributed to the
determine the volume of each storm that should be following rainfall induced characteristics:
fully treated for water quality. The use of a
• The build-up of sediment and other
treatment train enhances the pollutant removal
pollutants on surfaces between rainfall
capabilities of each of the various SuDS over the
events;
course of the drainage system. The estimated
pollutant removal capabilities of a number of SuDS • Relatively higher erosion potential after an
options and/or technologies are listed in Appendix extended dry period; and
B. The pollutant removal capabilities are dependent
• Relatively higher rainfall intensities towards
on a number of variables such as: rainfall event
the beginning of many rainfall events.
characteristics, soil characteristics – and their
associated infiltration capacities, vegetation type
and the geological lie of the land.
It is particularly important that the capture and
Currently there are no national or treatment of the first flush is prioritised in the
provincial standards for pollutant removal from design process to ensure that the initial stormwater
stormwater – although this will surely come within runoff that is discharged into the receiving
the next few years. The City of Cape Town has, watercourse is of an improved quality (Jefferies,
however, released interim criteria that specify 2010, Woods-Ballard et al., 2007). Interception
required performance standards for the storage is a particularly useful way of dealing with
management of stormwater impacts in that city this phenomenon as it provides considerable water
(CCT, 2009). These may be utilised as acceptable quality benefits.
pollutant removal standards until such time as more
appropriate performance standards are published.
2.2.3 Flood protection for receiving
Pollution concentrations during rainfall
events are neither constant nor proportional relative
watercourses (FCM & FCD)
to the rainfall duration and intensity. Instead, they The Flow Control (minor storms – FCM; and major
are relatively higher during the early stages of a storms – FCD) is required for the protection of the
rainfall event. This phenomenon is known as the receiving water bodies. Typically this is determined
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 13
for pre-determined design storms representing • Increased runoff volumes from developed
minor and major storms respectively. areas associated with the reduction in
pervious area usually results in less
The protection of the receiving watercourse
groundwater recharge and thus reduced
is a critical aspect in the design of SuDS.
base-flow in the receiving watercourses; and
According to Woods-Ballard et al., (2007), there
are two general principles with respect to the • The relatively smaller, more frequent
protection of receiving watercourses from the threat rainfall events from developed areas
of increased flood risk: contribute the largest total pollutant load to
i) To ensure, wherever possible, that the the receiving watercourse. In most green-
frequency of discharge rates from the new field situations, small rainfall events do not
or proposed development is similar to that generate runoff. Runoff volumes from these
of the equivalent green-field conditions; and events should thus be minimised which will
in turn significantly reduce the pollutant
ii) To ensure, wherever possible, the frequency loads.
of volumes of runoff from the new
development is similar to that of the
equivalent green-field conditions. For small events, infiltration devices and
interception storage are easily capable of trapping
the first 5-10 mm of rainfall. Much larger storage
Each of these is briefly discussed here to illustrate capacity will be required for the more extreme
the necessity of these drainage characteristics in the rainfall events which can, in the extreme, cause
proposed SUDS design. total runoff volumes from developed areas to be up
to 10 times the runoff volume from the equivalent
green-field conditions (SANRAL, 2006).
2.2.3.1 Assessment of runoff rates
According to the SANRAL ‘Road Drainage
Manual’ (2006), urbanisation typically increases 2.2.4 Flood protection for developments
the runoff rate by 20-50% compared with natural
An important objective of stormwater management
conditions. In the extreme, the peak flow can be as
is the protection of people and property from
much as 6.8 times that pertaining before
flooding. According to Clause 144 of the South
development. This typically causes flash floods in
African National Water Act, No. 36 of 1998 (RSA,
streams and rivers and an increased number of
1998), “no person may establish a township unless
‘bankfull’ flows. Excessive scour and erosion that
the layout plan shows, in a form acceptable to the
could negatively affect the ecology of these
local authority concerned, lines indicating the
watercourses is likely to follow. This is mitigated
maximum level likely to be reached by floodwaters
by ensuring that the post-development runoff rates
on average once in every 100 years.” Development
are limited to the green-field runoff rate through
should be discouraged within the 1 in 100 year
local storage and/or infiltration. It is not essential
flood-lines – particularly on functional floodplains.
that the post-development runoff rates from
Developments should also not raise the risk of
individual storms should be identical to the green-
flooding in neighbouring areas. As with
field runoff rate, only the frequency of these rates
conventional design, SuDS should cater for the
should be matched as closely as possible.
more common storms without causing major
inconvenience (the minor system). Typical design
flood frequencies for different types of
2.2.3.2 Assessment of runoff volume
development are reproduced from “The Red Book”
The frequency of runoff volumes from a new or (CSIR, 2000b) in Table 2.4.
proposed development should also be designed to
be similar to those of the equivalent green-field
conditions. Particular consideration should be given
to the following (after Woods-Ballard et al., 2007):
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 14
Table 2.4: Design flood frequencies for catchment management authority prior to
minor systems (CSIR, 2000b) development approval.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 15
2.3.1 Runoff rates and volumes not preclude the use of pipes and channels. The
flow through such components is readily described
The runoff rates and volumes for the pre-developed
by the Manning equation:
conditions should be estimated to determine the
acceptable maximum discharge from the
A5⁄3 × S1⁄2
designated site. Runoff from most urban Q =
developments is almost instantaneous when n × P2⁄3
compared to greenfield sites. Normally, the runoff Where:
is modelled using one of the many commercial Q = design peak flow rate (m3/s)
software packages available. Alternatively a A = cross-sectional area of flow (m2)
number of simple methods are offered in the S = slope of water surface (m/m)
Drainage Manual (SANRAL, 2006). A quick n = Manning roughness coefficient (s/m1/3)
assessment of the expected runoff rates from small
catchments – typically less than 15 km2 – may be
obtained with the aid of the Rational Method: 2.3.3 Storage design
The storage of stormwater runoff from a
development is an important unit process in SuDS.
CiA
Q = There are two primary objectives:
3.6
Where: • Adequate water quality treatment by the
provision of extended residence (treatment
Q = design peak runoff rate (m3/s) storage); and
C = runoff coefficient (0 – 1)
i = rainfall intensity (mm/hr) • Flood protection downstream of the site by
A = catchment area (km2) attenuation of the peak flows (attenuation
storage).
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 16
RV = volumetric runoff coefficient (0.05 – 0.95) ∆V = change in permanent pool volume (m3)
A = total drainage area (m2) P = precipitation on surface of pool (m3)
Ro = runoff volume (m3)
Bf = baseflow volume (m3)
with
I = infiltration component (m3)
RV = 0.05 + 0.009 × I E = evaporation component (m3)
Et = evapotranspiration component (m3)
and: I = percentage of impermeable cover (%)
Of = overflow volume (m3)
There are three alternative methods that could be 2.3.4 Infiltration design
used to determine the total rainfall depth, P, for the
determination of the WQV: Infiltration is a critical design characteristic in most
SuDS. It serves two primary objectives:
i) A predetermined rainfall depth, typically in
the region of 10-25 mm. Wilson et al. • Reducing the attenuation storage volume
(2004) suggest that rainfall depths of requirements; and
10, 15 and 20 mm are adequate to wash off: • Replenishing the groundwater.
fine dust and / or soluble pollutants; oils and
greases; and pollutants on pervious surfaces. Infiltration is an acceptable and feasible means of
stormwater disposal in most locations although the
ii) P can be determined with the aid of a structural stability of adjoining soils, structures,
rainfall event analysis over the specific area services and slopes should be rigorously assessed
in question. According to Wilson et al. and suitable remedial action taken if infiltration
(2004) and Debo & Reese (2003), the 90th systems are to be implemented. Care must also be
percentile of the daily rainfall can be used; taken to ensure that groundwater resources are
determined by plotting a 24–hour rainfall protected against contamination by polluted
exceedance curve. The percentage of days stormwater runoff. This might require the pre-
where a specific rainfall depth was exceeded treatment of the stormwater prior to infiltration.
should be plotted against the total number of
rainfall days. The suitability of a site for infiltration is
dependent on a number of variables, notably the
iii) Alternatively the rainfall depth generated by permeability and saturation-state of the surface and
the half-year 24-hour rainfall event could be sub-surface soil media. These soil properties
used. usually dictate the performance of infiltration
systems. In the first instance, a soil’s capacity to
infiltrate water is limited by the coefficient of
Whatever method is chosen, the rainfall depth permeability. Table 2.5 lists typical permeability
should not be less than 10 mm. coefficients categorised in terms of their general
Debo & Reese (2003) also recommend a suitability for infiltration. The soil texture may be
water balance calculation. This assists designers in determined from the sand, silt and clay percentages
determining whether the specified stormwater using the United States Department of Agriculture
drainage area is large enough and has the necessary (USDA, 1938) Soil Texture Triangle (Figure 2.3).
characteristics to support a permanent pool of water The coefficient of permeability is one of the
during more extreme conditions. This calculation is greatest uncertainties in the design of infiltration-
particularly useful in the design of constructed type SuDS, the efficiency of which also are likely
wetlands and retention ponds (Section 5). A water to reduce over time due to clogging and
balance calculation accounts for the change in compaction. A geotechnical investigation should be
volume of permanent pools of water resulting from performed prior to the design to ensure that
the difference between the inflows and outflows infiltration-type SUDS are capable of performing
over a given period of time: the task that they have been assigned. Since
infiltration-type SuDS are prone to significant
∆V = P + Ro + Bf – I – E – Et – Of
changes in infiltration performance due to the
Where: changes in the state of infiltration media over their
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 17
specified design lives, a factor of safety (FOS)
should be used in their design. Table 2.6 lists
typical FOS.
Permeability
Soil texture coefficients Adequacy Figure 2.2: Soil Texture Triangle (USDA,
(mm/h) 1938)
Gravel 10,000 – 1,000,000 Generally
inadequate
Sand 100 – 100000 treatment Table 2.6: Factors of safety for
Loamy sand 10 – 1000 infiltration-type SuDS (Woods-Ballard et al.,
Sandy loam 50 – 500 2007)
Table 2.7: Potential models for design criteria computation (after Elliot & Trowsdale, 2005)
design of regional
subdivision or site
subdivision or site
Developing Sizing
Detailed design of
Detailed design of
regional drainage
Public Education
catchments/cities
Planning of land
rules for devices
Preliminary
design of a
materials
Research
selection
controls
system
use in
MOUSE
MUSIC
P8
SLAMM
StormTac
SWMM
PCSWMM
UVQ
WinDes (Quant. only)
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 18
Table 2.8: SuDS component capabilities for selected design models (after Elliot & Trowsdale, 2005)
Permeable paving
Bioretention, rain
gardens filtration
On-site detention
Imperviousness
Soil protection
trenches/bores
Reduction of
contaminant
Green roofs
Infiltration
Rain tanks
generation
reduction
Run on
devices
Swales
tanks
MOUSE
MUSIC
P8
WinSLAMM
StormTac
SWMM
UVQ
WinDes (Quant. only)
Model explicitly addresses Model may be used for the Cannot be used for device
Key the use of the approach approach the approach
A key input is rainfall data. This is often available 2.4.1 Environment, health and safety
from the local authority; alternatively the South
There are a number of circumstances where some
Africa Rainfall Atlas (Zucchini & Nenadic, 2006)
SuDS options are unsafe; for example where there
includes image and site specific databases in
is a serious risk of drowning in the case of ponds
addition to a rainfall simulator. Daily, monthly and
and wetlands, or of damage to motor vehicles in
annual rainfall data and information can be
ditches. These risks should be taken into
extracted – as well as storm percentage and
consideration in the design and, if necessary,
percentile data.
precautions taken. Areas of particular concern
Before utilising any form of modelling, include:
users should be aware of the model assumptions
• Transportation nodes and links;
and limitations. The greatest uncertainties in the
prediction of the performance of SuDS are as a • Pre-primary and primary schools; and
result of the complexities associated with the
vegetated and amenity components (Woods- • Informal dwelling areas.
Ballard, et al., 2007).
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 19
Table 2.9: Stormwater pollutants (Krypo, 2004; Minton, 2002; Opher & Freidler, 2010)
Fertilisers
Septic tanks
Erosion of landscaping
Suspended & settable Increased turbidity, sedimentation, smothering of aquatic
Sediments
solids Erosion of construction plant and animal life.
sites
Failing sewer/sewage
Bacteria, viruses and systems
Pathogens
protozoa
Animal waste
Agriculture
Pesticides and
Toxic chemicals
herbicides
Landscaping
Littering
Solids Debris & rubbish Threat to wildlife. Aesthetic appeal decreased
Dumping
what pollutants are typically found in stormwater. could be designed to drain within, say, three days
The potential risks of each pollutant that may be of the specified rainfall event to prevent the
present at a site need to be assessed. This is stagnation of water. Other natural controls, such as
especially important in the case of pathogens where the introduction of selected fish species, could be
stormwater facilities are open to the general public introduced into permanent bodies of water. The
(NWQMS, 2006). expertise of an appropriately qualified scientist will
be useful in these circumstances.
Another significant health and safety
concern relates to breeding of mosquitoes and other According to Wilson et al., (2004) and
vectors and the associated risk of transmission of Woods-Ballard et al. (2007), the following four
various diseases. In these circumstances, ponds risk management questions need to be answered:
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 20
i) What are the possible hazards? Ecological diversity can be maximised, inter alia,
in the following manner:
ii) Who is at risk?
• The planting of indigenous vegetation;
iii) How can these possible hazards be avoided
or mitigated? • Pre-treatment before polluted water is
iv) What is the associated residual risk? discharged into open water bodies;
• Retaining, protecting and enhancing existing
natural drainage systems;
2.4.2 Aesthetic impact and amenity benefit
• Creating a range of diverse habitat types;
Many SuDS have a visual impact, therefore public and
acceptability needs to be addressed through
• Including a relatively shallow aquatic bench
activities such as (Woods-Ballard et al., 2007):
zone in wetland and pond design.
• Education and awareness campaigns;
• Landscaping the area to maximise the
It is important to recognise that implementing
aesthetic appeal of the specified system;
certain SuDS options may have unintended
• Ensuring that an appropriate maintenance consequences. For example wetlands may attract
plan is developed and adhered to so as to water birds, such as herons, whose faeces cause an
ensure that the SuDS have a positive visual increase in phosphorous concentrations.
impact all year round; and
• Adjoining open water areas to recreation 2.4.4 Education and awareness
sites where` the health and safety risks can
be properly managed. Education and awareness campaigns are often an
effective means of developing community
acceptance and reducing concerns over perceived
Landscaping and planting procedures may require risks associated with various SuDS options. They
the expertise of a Landscape Architect and also have an important role to play in ensuring that
Botanist, respectively. SuDS structures are not adversely affected during
general landscaping maintenance. Opportunities
may include:
2.4.3 Ecological services • Public participation during the design
According to the American Society of Landscape process;
Architects (2008) and Woods-Ballard et al., (2007),
• The dissemination of information on the
the maximization of the ecological services of
proposed SuDS and its role in supporting
SuDS is important for two main reasons:
and/or enhancing the environment;
i) To provide the necessary amenity and
• The placing of signs at each SuDS structure
biodiversity enhancements at the specified
informing the community and maintenance
development site; and
teams about its purpose and its functioning.
ii) To adequately facilitate the natural
movement of wildlife species through the
‘green’ corridors within the development.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Chapter 2: Design criteria and methods Page 21
3. Source controls spring growing seasons, with reduced efficiencies
in autumn and winter seasons. According to Stovin
3.1 Green roofs (2009), structural appraisal of a variety of flat roof
types suggests that retrofitting green roofs is a
3.1.1 General description feasible option in many instances, particularly for
A roof that is deliberately covered in vegetation concrete roof slabs. Typical pollution control
may be described as a ‘green roof’ (Semple et al., characteristics for green roofs are included in
2004; Stahre, 2006; Figure 3.1). The use of Appendix B.
vegetative roof covers and roof gardens is an
important source control for stormwater runoff.
They provide great benefits in densely urbanised 3.1.2 General design guidelines
areas where there is less space for other SuDS
Post 2000 advances in synthetic drainage materials
options (NCDWQ, 2007; Semple et al., 2004).
now allow green roofs to be built on flat and gently
Sedum (a type of small shrub) is the most common
sloped roofs, typically between 0° and 20°. On roof
vegetation type used for green roofs, however,
slopes greater than 20°, support systems such as
many other vegetation types can be used depending
horizontal strapping should be used to prevent
on the conditions. Generally, green roofs that
slipping or slumping of the growing vegetation.
contain moss-sedum mixtures are able to endure
The vegetative layer is typically 30-40 mm thick
longer periods of drought (Stahre, 2006). Flat roofs
and sits upon a drainage layer approximately half
often incorporate a thicker layer of vegetation or
this thickness. The drainage layer in turn lies on a
roof gardens that promote general rooftop
waterproof membrane to prevent leakage into the
accessibility and other forms of outdoor recreation.
building below (Figure 3.2). Green roofs
constructed using these dimensional characteristics
generally have specific weights of 40-60 kg/m2
(Stahre, 2006; Wanielista et al., 2008). The
structural design of the roof needs to account for
the additional weight of the green roof component
materials and expected water detention volumes –
including any possible snow accumulation
(NCDWQ, 2007).
3.1.4 Limitations
3.1.6.1 Extensive green roofs
i) The implementation phase for green roofs
requires experienced professionals who are Extensive green roofs incorporate low growing and
competent in water-proofing and plant low maintenance vegetation that cover the entire
requirements; roof surface. They are typically accessed for
maintenance purposes only, and can be
ii) Green roofs are generally more costly to
implemented on both flat and sloped surfaces.
implement than conventional roof-runoff
Extensive green roofs usually comprise a growing
practices due to their added structural,
vegetation medium 25-125 mm in thickness,
vegetative and professional requirements;
covered with hardy and drought tolerant flora.
iii) The detention of water within the green roof Indigenous mosses, herbs and grasses are
storage layers could result in the failure of commonly used – which are intended to be
waterproofing membranes which in turn reasonably self-sustaining.
could cause leakage and / or increase the
threat of the roof collapsing (Stahre, 2006);
iii) Chanan, A, (2003). Low Flow Filtration & Multiple soakaways can be linked to drain
Reuse Project, Kogarah Municipal Council, larger areas such as parking lots and motor
Kogarah: A case study of the designs, highways. In such instances, modular geocellular
construction, installation and costs of a low structures can be used as a more suitable ‘backfill
flow sand filtration and reuse system for material’. The cross-section of the soakaway and
treating and reusing stormwater from a the type of material utilised determines the
roadway arterial. infiltration characteristics of the device. Modular
geocellular structures provide relatively high
stormwater treatment and rates of groundwater
3.2.8 Further reading recharge. On the negative side, the rapid movement
of water through soakaways leads to an increased
The following documents are considered useful risk of groundwater contamination. It is thus
references when designing rainwater harvesting important to ensure that adequate stormwater pre-
systems. Where possible, download links to the treatment is implemented upstream of the
documents have been provided at www.wsud.co.za. soakaway if necessary. The pollutant removal
i) Gold, A, Goo, R, Hair, L, Arazan, N, processes associated with soakaways include:
(2010). Rainwater Harvesting: Policies, volatilisation, sedimentation, bio-degradation and
Programs, and Practices for Water Supply filtration (Wilson et al., 2004; Woods-Ballard et
Sustainability, ASCE Low Impact al., 2007). Pollution control characteristics for
Development 2010: Redefining Water in the soakaways are included in Appendix B.
City, Los Angeles.
ii) Lesjean, B, Schmidt, M, Schroeder, K,
Huau, MC, (2009). International Review of
Rainwater Harvesting Management:
Practices, Market and Current
Developments, 8th Urban Drainage
Modelling and 2nd Rainwater Harvesting
Conference, Tokyo.
iii) Rodrigo, S, Sinclair, M, Leder, K, (2009).
Urban Tanks – Are they properly
maintained?, 8th Urban Drainage Modelling
and 2nd Rainwater Harvesting Conference,
Tokyo.
Figure 3.5: Groundwater recharge of runoff
from a single residential dwelling, Cotswold
Downs Estate, Hillcrest
Soakaways are usually designed to store the iv) Sub-drain piping systems must be utilised
entire volume from the design storm and be able to when soakaways are implemented in very
infiltrate at least half of this within 24 hrs to create fine silt and clay stratum because of the low
additional capacity for the runoff from subsequent infiltration rates; and
rainfall events. They normally serve areas less than v) Sedimentation within the collection
1000 m2, but groups of soakaways can serve areas chambers will cause a gradual reduction in
as large as 100,000 m2 (MBWCP, 2006). They can the storage capacity (Stahre, 2006).
be between one and four metres in depth although
soakaways serving single residences are seldom
more than 1.5 m in depth. They are often 3.3.5 Operation and maintenance
constructed using preformed polyethylene or
precast concrete rings, 1-2.5 m in diameter. The As with most SuDS options, the design life of
lined excavation can be kept hollow, but a high soakaways is directly related to the frequency and
voids fill material reduces the turbulence associated quality of inspection and maintenance cycles.
with high flow rates into the structure (Woods- Soakaways situated in fine soils, such as silts and
Ballard et al., 2007). To prevent groundwater clays, require a more detailed inspection and
contamination, soakaways should be constructed at maintenance routine than those in more porous
least 1.5 m above the groundwater table to allow stratum (Melbourne Water, 2005). An inspection
for additional filtration (Livingston & McCarron, opening makes routine inspections easier and
2008). The general design for soakaways with the allows greater accessibility to the backfill material.
adjoining oil and sediment collection compartment The flow entrance into the soakaway should be
is given in Figure C2. visible through the inspection opening. Such
accessibility also makes it easier to manually clear
out debris and sediment build-up. Adjoining
3.3.3 Advantages stormwater runoff contributing areas, such as
parking lots and roadways, should be regularly
i) Soakaways that are operated and maintained swept to prevent the intrusion of silt into the
regularly may have design lives of up to 20 soakaway. Clogged soakaways may attract
years, after which the fill should be replaced mosquitoes and other associated vectors as well as
(Stahre, 2006); foul odours as a result of standing water (Taylor,
ii) Soakaways significantly decrease both the 2003). In this instance, the replacement of the
runoff volume and rate; and ‘backfill material’ will most likely be necessary
(Woods-Ballard et al., 2007).
Modular plastic geocellular structures are ii) Hewa, GA, Argue, JR, Pezzaniti, D, (2009).
geometric structures with high void ratios that are Setting Criteria for Channel-Forming,
used to increase storage capacity without Environmental and Flood Flows for
significant loss of structural strength. Due to the Waterways in Urbanising Catchments, The
modular nature of these geocellular structures, they 6th International Water Sensitive Urban
can be made to suit the specific requirements of a Design Conference and Hydropolis #3,
wide variety of sites (Woods-Ballard et al., 2007). Perth
They normally have a high load capacity relative to iii) Hossain, MA, Furumai, H, Nakajima, F,
their light weight which allows for their use Kasuga, I, (2008). Accumulated sediments
beneath heavily trafficked areas such as parking within soakaways in an old infiltration
bays. They are also commonly used in retrofitted facility: source or sink for heavy metals?,
systems. According to Woods-Ballard et al. (2007), 11th International Conference on Urban
modular plastic geocellular structures generally Drainage, Endinburgh
have long-term physical and chemical stability
when utilised below ground.
3.4 Permeable pavements
The following case studies are good examples of Permeable pavements refer to pavements that are
where soakaways have been implemented. Where constructed in such a manner that they promote the
possible, download links to the documents have infiltration of stormwater runoff through the
been provided at www.wsud.co.za. surface into the sub-layers and/or underlying strata
(Figures 3.6 and 3.7). There are many alternatives
i) Atlantis, (2010). Case studies: for the load-bearing surface material including:
Infiltration/Soakaway systems, Atlantis permeable concrete block pavers (PCBP), brick
Water Management, New South Wales: pavers, stone chip, gravel, porous concrete and
3.4.4 Limitations
i) The implementation of permeable
pavements is generally limited to sites with
slopes less than 5% (Melbourne Water,
2005);
ii) Permeable pavements should not be
Figure 3.7: Section through the base layers that constructed over fill materials as these soils
will support permeable concrete block pavers could fail when saturated;
iii) Permeable pavements are not normally
suitable for high traffic volumes and speeds
According to the British Board of Agreement
greater than about 50 km/hr, or for usage by
(2009), the mean compressive strength of PCBPs is
heavy vehicles and/or high point loads
approximately 30-40 N/mm2, with an absolute
(Woods-Ballard et al., 2007);
minimum strength of 30 N/mm2. PCBPs are
generally designed with impact resistance sufficient iv) If managed incorrectly, there is great
to prevent the cracking of pavers during the potential for clogging by fine sediment,
handling and laying implementation phases. which significantly reduces the effectiveness
Furthermore, they are usually manufactured from of the specified system; and
C40 concrete which is able to resist the corrosive
4.2.4 Limitations
4.2.6.1 Enhanced dry swales
i) Swales normally require a larger land area
Enhanced dry swales are vegetated conveyance
than conventional kerb and channel drainage
systems that include a bed of prepared soil to
systems;
enhance the filtration of the stormwater runoff
ii) Swales have very limited removal volume that passes through it (Figure 4.4). The
capabilities for soluble pollutants and fine filter soil overlies an under-drain system. They are
sediment; designed to treat the entire volume of water that
passes through.
iii) Swales are impractical on properties that
have a relatively steep topography;
iv) Standing water in swales has the potential to
result in the breeding of mosquitoes and the
generation of foul odours; and
v) If they are not properly maintained, failure
is likely to occur more quickly with swales
than with most other SuDS options.
4.5.4 Limitations
Sand filters are prone to clogging, especially from
i) Premature clogging is likely to occur in sand
sediment-carrying runoff from construction sites
filters if they receive excessive sediment-
and areas with open soil patches. In light of this, it
carrying runoff, especially from
is often useful to pre-screen out litter, coarse
construction sites and areas with open soil
sediment and larger debris (MBWCP, 2006).
patches;
The most common filter media used in sand
ii) Large sand filters are not generally
filters is sand – often in layers. Other filter media
attractive, especially if they are not covered
include peat, limestone and topsoil (Environment
with grass or other vegetation;
iii) Suitability for the local climate; iii) Retention ponds may attract birds, such as
herons, whose faeces can cause an increase
iv) Tolerance of hypertrophic water-logged
in phosphorous in the water;
conditions; and
iv) Water that is clean or with low levels of
v) Stormwater runoff pollutant removal
pollution can actually pick up pathogens
capacity.
from the sediment and exit in a worse
condition than on entering the wetland;
Care must be taken to ensure that the wetland v) The maximum inflow should be controlled
vegetation does not act as a source of pollution in order to prevent damage to the wetland.
itself (Minton, 2002). For example, birds roost in Flooding of the wetland may result in water
Ellis, J., Deutsch, J., Legret, M., Martin, C., Revitt Jefferies, C. (2005). SUDS Online - Design
D.M., Scholes, L., Seiker, H. & Zimmerman U. Concepts & Principles - Course Notes.
(2006) Water Practice and technology: The Scotland.
DayWater decision support approach to the Jefferies, C. (2010). SUDS Concepts and Design
selection of sustainable drainage systems: A Principles: Information and lessons to support
multi-criteria methodology for BMP decision the course. University of Abertay. Dundee.
makers. IWA Publishing. Vol. 1, No. 1. ISSN:
1751-231X. Klein, R. (2003) Development Issues, A Citizens
Guide to preserving and enhancing quality of
Ellis, R. & Callaghan, P., (2009). Infrastructure life in developing areas. Community and
Asset Useful Lives - SA Councils Current Environmental Defense services Available
Practises. Tonkin Engineering Science. online: http://ceds.org/pdfdocs/TOC.pdf
Available at: http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/
webdata/resources/files/Infrastructure_Asset_U Krpo, A. (2004). GIS Model for Assessment of
seful_Lives_SA_Councils__Current_Practices_ Land Use and Urban Development Effects on
-_Final_Report.pdf Stormwater Runoff: Puhinui Catchment Case
Study, 1-242. Auckland University.
Endicott, J. & Walker, M. (2003). California
Stormwater BMP Handbook: Municipal. Lampe, L., Barrett, M., Woods-Ballard, B.,
California. Andrews, A., Martin, P., & Kellagher, R.
(2005). Performance and Whole Life Costs of
Environment Protection Authority – Melbourne Best Management Practices and Sustainable
Water Corporation (1999). Urban Stormwater: Urban Drainage Systems. Water Environment
Disclaimer
The values quoted in this table have been collected from international literature. Removal
efficiencies are dependent on a variety of factors including, inter alia, climate, pollution
composition and concentration, technical design, and maintenance. As a result the values
should be considered as a guide only to the relative performance of selected SuDS options
and technologies. Where local data is available it should be used instead.
Appendix C
General designs for SuDS options
Extensive green roof Inspection compartment
Growth medium
Filter layer (geotextile 100-200 mm
fabric)
Drainage layer Pre-treated
(aggregate material) stormwater ingress
Protection layer
Impermeable membrane
Heavy-duty insulation
Impermeable membrane
Pipe collar
Roof structure
Downpipe
Long-section Cross-section
Figure C1: General design for green roofs and adjoining inspection compartment
[after Wilson et al., (2004); Woods-Ballard et al., (2007)]
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-1
Compartment Soakaway
inspection covers inspection cover
Vault soakaway Stone fill soakaway
Optional overflow
Variable diameter
system
Inflow (pre-treatment
of some form advised) Optional overflow Inflow (pre-treatment
Inlet system of some form advised)
110 mm inspection
tube
Variable depth
500–4000mm
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-2
Kerb
Permeable concrete (typically concrete)
Stormwater
block pavers Typically > 450 mm
infiltration
Optional geotextile
Cross-section
Figure C3: General design for permeable pavements and adjoining landscaped areas
[after Wilson et al., (2004); Woods-Ballard et al., (2007)]
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-3
A
Impermeable area
Infiltration width
(typically 7.5–15 m)
Berm (optional)
A
Plan
Hard surface lip
(typically 50-100 mm)
Grass filter surface Temporary ponding of Water
Quality Volume (WQV) Berm and weir
Sheet flow (optional)
2 º ≤ Ѳ ≤ 6º
Overflow to adjoining
SuDS option or receiving
waterbody.
Infiltration width
Optional pea gravel (uniform
gravel of approximately 3 mm
diameter) silt trap and flow
A-A
spreader
Long-section
Figure C4: General design for filter strips and adjoining silt trap and berm
[after Wilson et al., (2004); Woods-Ballard et al., (2007); Haubner et al., (2001)]
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-4
Standard vegetated swale Enhanced dry swale
Ѳ ≤ 30º (Grassed channel) Ѳ ≤ 30º
Maximum Maximum
design level design level
150 mm 150 mm
Maximum flow Water Quality Volume Maximum flow Water Quality Volume
depth for WQV (WQV) designed to flow depth for WQV (WQV) designed to flow
below vegetation height below vegetation height
Cross-section
Wet swale
Ѳ ≤ 30º
Maximum
design level
150 mm
Channel Protection
(CPV) flow depth
Water Quality Volume
(WQV) designed to flow
below vegetation height
Impermeable or saturated
underlying stratum
Cross-section
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-5
Standard system Sub-surface system
Graminoids family
110 mm inspection tube
110 mm inspection tube Optional swale at centreline (50-
Clean course aggregate 150 mm deep)
(uniformly graded)
Light non-woven
geotextile
Minimum infiltration
150 mm minimum
Undisturbed subgrade
Variable width (1000-2000 mm) material (uncompacted) Variable width (1000-2000 mm)
Cross-section Cross-section
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-6
Hard surface lip
(typically 50-100 mm)
Topsoil or mulch layer
(typically 50-100 mm) Grassed filter strips
Sand layer
(typically 250- 400 mm)
Long-section
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-7
Energy dissipater (see Debo &
Reese 2003 for alternative
designs)
Sheet flow Sand Filter structure
(typically concrete frame)
Access
Inlet grid (manhole cover)
A
Baffle wall Debris screen
Weir (typically 75mm gravel)
Temporary
stormwater ponding
Filter material
(Geotextile)
Sedimentation chamber
Sand filter media
(depth varies)
Filter material
(Geotextile)
Figure C8: General design for sand filters with pre-treatment chamber
[after Debo & Reese (2003); Wilson et al., (2004); Woods-Ballard et al., (2007)]
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-8
Inflow system 1
Vehicular access for
operation and maintenance
Safety zone
Permeable berm
Aquatic zone with (gabion or stone wall)
Temporary wet pool zone
undulating water levels
(1.5-2.5 m in depth)
Plan Emergency overflow
structure
Sediment
± 100 mm Erosion control structure
forebay Sump (gabions recommended)
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-9
Inflow system 1 Vehicular access for
operation and maintenance
Safety zone
Permeable berm
(gabion or stone wall)
Aquatic zone with Permanent wet pool zone
undulating water levels (1.5-3m in depth)
Plan Emergency overflow
Emergency overflow and structure
maximum flood storage
Undulating
(250- 400 mm)
aquatic bench
Inflow systems Optional berm WQV design
(gabion or stone wall) level
Permanent water Outlet structure and flow
level control mechanism
± 150 mm
Sediment
forebay Erosion control structure
(gabions recommended)
Erosion control structure
(gabions recommended)
Clay/plastic liner
Pond low point
Long-section
Figure C10: General design for retention ponds
[after Wilson et al., (2004); Woods-Ballard et al., (2007)]
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-10
High marsh
(macrophyte zone)
Sediment
Peak flow forebay Erosion control structure
control (Diverts (gabions recommended)
flood flows into
bypass channel)
Safety bench
Deep marsh
(ephemeral zone) Permeable berm (macrophyte zone)
(gabion or stone wall) Shallow marsh
Bypass channel
Erosion control (macrophyte zone) Emergency overflow and
(if required) bypass outlet.
Peak flow
control (Diverts Plan Safety bench
flood flows into Bypass channel (ephemeral zone)
bypass channel) High marsh Emergency overflow
(macrophyte zone) (250-400 mm)
Inflow systems Outlet structure and flow
WQV design control mechanism
Optional berm
level
(gabion or stone wall)
Permanent
500-1500 mm Erosion control structure
water level
(gabions recommended)
± 1500 mm
Depth calculated to
ensure adequate
Erosion control structure
residence time for
(gabions recommended)
biological treatment
Undulating to take place.
Sediment forebay aquatic bench Wetland low point
Long-section
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix C: General designs for SuDS options Page C-11
Appendix D
Life cycle costing of stormwater management
D1 Introduction to document successive unit process acts to further treat the
runoff, as illustrated in Figure D1.
Appendix D is intended to give a brief introduction
to the most important aspects of costing SuDS. Good House Keeping
Appendix E describes a costing tool that is
available as part of these guidelines. Appendix F Source Control
provides useful data for the costing tool. Appendix
D is not aimed as a detailed guide to costing, rather Site Control
it is aimed and structured to specifically highlight
aspects relevant to SuDS and identify relevant Regional Control
literature sources to aid those currently working
with, designing, tendering or promoting the use of Figure D1: SUDS Treatment Train
SuDS.
• Section D2 highlights the importance of
designing using a treatment train approach; By way of example, the three treatment trains
shown in Figure D2 could all potentially meet the
• Sections D3-D5 cover the basics of local pollutant removal criteria in the short term for
estimation for different phases of the a certain hypothetical catchment. The capital costs
systems life cycle; increase from Treatment Train 1 through to
• Section D6 discusses international Treatment Train 3. It may therefore seem logical to
comparisons of SuDS and conventional use Treatment Train 1 as it has the lowest capital
designs citing studies from the UK, USA cost, however:
and Australia; and i) In Treatment Train 1, all the runoff with
• Section D7 discusses techniques for associated pollutants is piped directly into
calculating and analysing life cycle costs of the wetland. This implies that all the
stormwater systems. suspended solids will collect in the wetland,
which will require frequent removal.
ii) In Treatment Train 2, swales convey the
D2 Principles affecting costs runoff to the wetland. During this process
the swales will filter the runoff and remove
SuDS are fundamentally different to conventional a large portion of the sediment, lessening the
systems and therefore the factors that influence quantity entering the wetland.
their costs, both capital and operating are different.
This section highlights how the principles of SuDS iii) In Treatment Train 3, the runoff is further
and design decisions impact on the costs of the detained in a dry detention pond before it is
system. released to the wetland. This allows for
almost all sediment to settle out thus
In the process of selecting stormwater preventing it from entering the wetland.
components for new developments, it is crucial that
the SuDS philosophy be considered. SuDS, unlike
conventional piped systems, are not solely a Treatment Train 1 may have the lowest capital cost,
stormwater quantity management solution – but since it is generally more cost effective to
stormwater quality, amenity and bio-diversity are remove sediments from dry above-ground SuDS
also considered. It is important to recognize that (Berwick, 2011), both Treatment Trains 2 and 3
these other aspects are often ignored in a might well prove to be more cost effective in the
conventional system – effectively externalising long term. Treatment Train 3 might be over-
them to the long-term detriment of the designed, although this depends on the catchment,
environment. The costs need to be considered from pollutant load, and receiving water body. This
a holistic perspective. shows that it is vital that the long term functioning
The effectiveness of a SuDS system is based of the SuDS technology and treatment train is
on the use of a treatment train, where each considered as part of the design and costing
process.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix D: Life cycle costing of stormwater management Page D-1
Figure D2: Three treatment trains (adapted from Berwick, 2011)
Section D2 explained the importance of • Public vs. private design and construction;
considering a SuDS system as a treatment train and • Contractor vs. public works crew;
not just as individual components. The following
section outlines the factors that need to be • Flexibility in site selection, site suitability;
considered when designing and costing SuDS. and
Unlike a conventional system, each SuDS option • Levels of experience with the technologies,
has a range of performance variables. Each of these by both designers and contractors (Lampe et
variables has potential impacts on the costs of al., 2005).
implementing the specific SuDS option, as well as
on the cost of the future maintenance requirements
of the system as a whole. It is therefore important The last point is of particular relevance in South
that when optimizing the system a range of Africa where the ‘SuDS approach’ is relatively
performance variables and their impacts on new.
maintenance costs be considered.
An important aspect that should be
The majority of expenditure in SuDS is considered as part of the capital costs is the cost of
related to earthworks and landscaping. Estimating establishing vegetation where it is required, e.g.
accurate unit rates is quite difficult due to the swales, wetlands and green roofs. These SuDS
variation in the rates, especially within the options require irrigation and possible replanting
landscaping profession. Apart from inflation, the until the vegetation is fully established. These costs
following aspects of a development will may be difficult to accurately determine.
additionally impact on the costs of the system:
Developers may be concerned that SuDS
• Project scale and unit costs; options may decrease the developable area (Buys &
Aldous, 2009; ECONorthwest, 2007). This concern
• Retrofits vs. green fields;
is real as many SuDS options require a larger land
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix D: Life cycle costing of stormwater management Page D-2
take than conventional options. On the other hand, • Minor overhauls; and
if SuDS are correctly implemented – considering
• Repair of failed components
quantity, quality and amenity – they may add
considerable value to the properties.
Maintenance may be considered at five different
levels, as detailed in Table D1. It is important to
D4 Operation & maintenance recognise that amenity is a central SuDS principle
The design process must fully consider the and therefore this may require particular attention.
maintenance requirements. Facilities should be In certain circumstances, for example where a
designed to be as maintenance free as possible; detention pond is out of sight and has no amenity
however competent designers should “recognise value, a low level of maintenance would be
that all structures require periodic maintenance, appropriate (performance functioning). Conversely,
inspection and repair” (Debo & Reese, 2003). upmarket gated communities may emphasise the
aesthetic aspects of SuDS and hence Level 5,
“The question is not whether stormwater focusing on amenity aspects would be important.
management system maintenance is necessary in a Normally a medium level of maintenance would be
community. Rather, the question is how a acceptable. It is highly unlikely that there will be
community's maintenance programs will be many situations where no maintenance would be
budgeted, staffed, and administered, and who has required.
responsibility for managing inspections, scheduling
periodic required maintenance, and funding
remedial work.” (Haubner et al., 2001). Many Table D1: Levels of maintenance for SUDS
SuDS require constant maintenance to ensure
proper functioning; failure to do so may result in
Maintenance
the system needing to be prematurely overhauled Level
Description
which may have significant cost implications.
Designs should therefore allow for the frequency 1. None No maintenance is undertaken.
and types of maintenance that the system will
require and all associated cost should be considered Basic maintenance ensuring
2. Low
as part of the design process. functioning of the SuDS options
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix D: Life cycle costing of stormwater management Page D-3
specific considerations to be addressed by the runoff by up to a factor of 10 (Haubner et al., 2001;
project team. Brown et al., 2008). Conventionally piped systems
are designed to remove runoff from an area as
quickly as possible. This ignores the aesthetics of
D5 Environmental goods & the stormwater system. Water frontage (in upper
income areas) and natural features can add to the
services (EGS) aesthetics of an area and consequently to the value
SuDS mimic natural processes. Consequently they of the properties in that area. The US Department
have the potential to supply a number of of Defence (2010) concludes that “In a variety of
environmental goods and services to stakeholders. completed projects, micro-scale runoff
These include but are not limited to: flood management features have provided architectural
mitigation, improved water quality, increased interest in various forms...” The value of the
ground water recharge, and improved aesthetics benefit is typically 5-30% averaging at a 10%
resulting in increasing property values. This section increase in property values with a suitable view of
discusses the environmental goods and services the water bodies (Buys & Aldous, 2009). This is
which SuDS potentially offer. however not the case for all SuDS technologies;
some in fact can cause depreciation in adjacent
Increasing urban development generally property values. For example, Klein (2003) found
results in increased runoff volumes and peak flows. that dry ponds had the opposite effect of wet ponds
The cumulative effects of these impacts on flood and that property values were 4-10% lower than
peaks typically range between 20-50% in when they were not present. This perspective is
residential areas and up to 100% – or more – in supported by research in Illinois, which also
heavily industrialized areas (SANRAL, 2007; indicated a perceived negative effect related to their
Brown et al., 2008). The SuDS philosophy of on- construction (Buys & Aldous, 2009). Common
site treatment results in both the detention and factors impacting on property values are
infiltration of stormwater on site, as well as highlighted in Table D2.
reducing runoff velocities. This not only reduces
flooding but also reduces the costs of downstream Certain technologies take up more land that
infrastructure, e.g. bridges (ECONorthwest, 2007) conventional systems, and this land also has value
(Buys & Aldous, 2009). There is a need to consider
SuDS have the ability to treat stormwater, and to balance this aspect through the combination
and thus improve water quality (ECONorthwest, of technologies used.
2007). This is important as stormwater is a major
contributor to the deteriorating water quality in On the other hand, vegetated roofs for
cities (Buys & Aldous, 2009). SuDS improve water example take no additional land. “Vegetated roof
quality by capturing pollutants and treating them covers in urban areas offer a variety of benefits,
through physical, chemical, and biological such as extending the life of roofs, reducing energy
processes depending on the technology costs….” (USEPA, 2000). Greenstone (2010)
implemented (Minton, 2002). showed that the use of green roofs decreases the air
temperatures and insulates the roofs. This
The use of infiltration in SuDS increases insulation effect can reduce an entire building’s
ground water recharge, a source of water identified energy requirements (ECONorthwest, 2007), while
by the South African government as a potential concurrently reducing pollution and improving
resource for supplying coastal towns and cities in aesthetics (US Department of Defence, 2010)
particular. Research in Atlanta, USA by Otto et al.
(2002) suggests that impervious surfaces have
reduced ground water infiltration in Atlanta by 132
billion gallons (500 billion litres) a year, the
equivalent water usage of 3.6 million people
(ECONorthwest, 2007).
Increased urbanization generally leads to increased
impervious surfaces, e.g. pavements, sidewalks,
roofs, driveways. These have the ability to increase
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix D: Life cycle costing of stormwater management Page D-4
Table D2: The effect of open bodies of water on D6 International case studies
property values (USEPA, 1995)
A number of studies have been undertaken around
Factors affecting property values the world in order to determine the financial and
Increase Decrease economic implications of implementing SuDS type
Open, unprotected water technologies. Different regions define SuDS,
Naturally designed water LID’s, BMP’s etc. slightly differently, but in
is a concern to residential
bodies have a greater
owners with young general, the results are comparable. Table D3
impact
children summarises the conclusions from a selection of
Ponds & lakes create ideal Poor design/aesthetic international studies. Overall it appears that SuDS
scenery for business parks appeal (dry ponds) are usually, but not always, more economical than
Positioning features near to conventional systems. In the extreme, conventional
entrances increase sales and Safety concerns systems can cost twice that of SuDS over the
the value of properties
lifetime of the project. It is however important to
Poor maintenance leads to identify ‘who pays for what’. SuDS require on-
Property with water views unsightly wet/dry ponds
going, regular maintenance. A relatively higher
or other amenities can be due to excessive algae
charged premiums growth or garbage build- proportion of the costs might be contained within
up. this particular item.
Health concerns The ECONorth West (2007) report: The
New recreational facilities
(mosquito breeding
(paddling, open areas etc.)
grounds)
Economics of Low Impact Development - A
Literature review supplies a very good overview of
a wide range of studies into the economics of Low
Impact Development (equivalent to SuDS) in the
USA.
“Analysis of the capital costs of the bio-filtration systems showed only a 0.5% increase to
the developer. This small increase in cost was offset by the increased marketability of the
Lloyd et
Aus. 2002 estate to the consumer. The success of the project has been widely acknowledged and the
al
Lynbrook Estate demonstration project has helped to encourage the adoption of WSUD
principles and practice by others elsewhere in Australia.”
“Based on the above discussion it appears that a WSUD can be delivered on most projects
Boubli &
Aus. 2003 without imposing a cost burden. In fact a balanced WSUD may be cost neutral on smaller
Kassim
projects but is likely to deliver increasing savings on larger projects.”
“The benefits of WSUD source control approaches arise from reduced mains water use
and reduced stormwater infrastructure…In addition, the case study demonstrates that use
Coombes
UK 2004 of WSUD source controls including rainwater tanks in new urban development’s offers the
et al
economically most efficient infrastructure solution providing benefits to the community of
up to $6B in the Lower Hunter Region and up to $5B in the Central Coast Region.”
In a comparison of conventional systems and grass swales system, grass swales appeared
Narayanan USA 2006
to cost approximately a fifth of the cost over the life cycle.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix D: Life cycle costing of stormwater management Page D-5
D7 Life cycle costing however important to recognise that there are a
number of non-financial benefits to SuDS. These
When considering the costs of a drainage system, may be accounted for in a simplified economic life
whether it is a SuDS or conventional system, it is cycle cost analysis (Appendix E).
important to understand what type of analysis is
being undertaken. The three main techniques
commonly used internationally to evaluate the costs Table D5: Techniques for analysing drainage
– both financial and economic – of stormwater economics
drainage systems are as follows
Techniques for analysing urban drainage economics
• Capital Cost Analysis (CCA) is the
Advantages Disadvantages
calculation and comparison of the capital
costs of projects. Capital Cost Analysis (CCA)
One of the most common Considers only capital
• Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) is the process studies costs
of calculating and comparing the benefits
Requires the least number Ignores benefits
and costs of a project via the computation of
of inputs Ignores goods & services
the benefits: costs ratio.
Does not take account of
• Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is the Can be easily completed
effectiveness of system
calculation and comparison of all costs from
Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA)
acquisition to disposal of an asset.
More comprehensive
analysis Requires more data and
time, and costs more to
Each of these techniques has different advantages Considers all economic produce
and short comings. Table D5 outlines the benefits and costs
differences between each approach. CCA is the Life Cycle Costing (LCCA)
simplest to calculate where there is limited life
cycle costing data. Section D1 however emphasised Considers whole life cycle Does not consider the
the need to consider the whole life cycle of the costs from design to value of all ecosystem
decommissioning goods and services
SuDS system. It is therefore vital that the interests
of all stakeholders be considered as part of the
design process, especially when considering the
economic arguments. Should the system’s owners,
Life Cycle Costing is “the systematic consideration
either city councils or private land owners, not be
of all relevant costs and revenues associated with
able to maintain and operate the system, the system
the acquisition and ownership of an asset.” (Clift &
will potentially fail. Therefore a simple CCA
Bourke, 1999). Life cycle costing essentially
analysis may be inappropriate.
considers all the costs associated with an asset. In
The BCA is the most comprehensive terms of SuDS, this would include: design,
approach, however it is difficult to undertake. The construction, establishment of vegetation (SuDS
more complicated and detailed the studies required, option dependent), maintenance (inspections,
the less attractive SuDS may appear to developers. regular, irregular, and corrective), and disposal.
These costs (and any benefits) are all discounted to
The LCCA analysis, on the other hand, is
their present value. There are two possible Life
commonly used internationally and would
Cycle Costing analyses that may be undertaken,
generally be the most appropriate in South Africa.
viz. an economic or a financial analysis, as
By considering all expenditure over the system’s
indicated in Figure D4. Both environmental costs
life cycle it ensures all stakeholders have an
and benefits may be economically appraised and
understanding of their total commitments. It is
included in the analysis.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix D: Life cycle costing of stormwater management Page D-6
Life Cycle Costing
Environmental
Environmental costs Direct costs Indirect costs
benefits
In order to undertake economic analyses it is Benefits may be calculated in the same manner and
necessary to bring future expenditure to Present subtracted from the present value costs; the result
Value. To do this the expenditure is multiplied by would be considered the ‘Net Present Value’.
the relevant discount factor:
1 D8 Further reading
DF =
(1 + i)n
i) Debo, T & Reese, AJ, 2003, Municipal
Where: Stormwater Management, Lewis Publishers,
Florida. 1141 pp.
DF = Discount Factor
i = Interest rate ii) DoCGTA (2010). An Industry Guide to
n = Period/year from present service levels and unit costs Department of
Cooperative Governance and Traditional
Affair.
The Total Life Cycle Costs is the sum of all future
iii) Narayanan, A. and R. Pitt. (2005). Costs of
costs reduced to present value, as expressed in the
Urban Stormwater Control Practices.
following equation:
Stormwater Management Authority of
Jefferson County, AL.
PV = DF0 (EX0 ) + DF1 EX1 +……+ DFn (EX )
iv) SANRAL (2006). Drainage Manual 5th
Where: Edition. The South African Roads Agency
Ltd. Pretoria. ISBN 1868443280.
PV = Present Value
DF = Discount Factor v) Woods-Ballard, B, Kellagher, R, Martin, P,
EX = Expenditure Jefferies, C, Bray, R & Shaffer, P, 2007, The
i = Interest rate SUDS Manual, CIRIA 697, London.
0 = Base year
1,2… =Years from base year
n = Period/year from present
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix D: Life cycle costing of stormwater management Page D-7
Appendix E
Overview of the ‘SuDS Economic Model’
E1 Introduction Additionally – and critically – the value of
Environmental Goods and Services (EGS) are
It is important that the selection of an alternative accounted for through the use of a ‘Damage
stormwater strategy is done in a fair manner. Avoidance Cost (DAC)’ in the case of conventional
Appendix E lays out the procedure to undertake systems. The DAC is an estimate of the minimum
such an analysis using a ‘SuDS economic model’ cost of treating the stormwater discharge to the
(SEM) available at www.wsud.co.za. The SEM receiving waters to a level equivalent to that
was developed with four aims: provided by SuDS through the device of a virtual
i) To establish the life cycle costs of stormwater treatment works (the treatment works
alternative drainage designs. does not exist, it is merely a means to estimate the
value of EGS expected from the receiving waters).
ii) To account for the differences in The SEM can analyse stormwater management
environmental impacts on an ‘equivalent systems over any period up to a maximum of 100
and fair basis’. years, although shorter analysis periods are
iii) To provide a simple method that may be generally more appropriate. The program ensures
applied to different sites within South that the maintenance schedule is ‘reset’ when a
Africa. technology / component is replaced. With the aid of
this SEM it is possible to quickly and fairly
iv) To present results in a manner that is complete a comparative analysis of two very
accessible and understandable to the different drainage systems. The output of the SEM
stakeholders. is a number of user-friendly comparative charts and
tables.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix E: Description of ‘simplified economic model’ Page E-1
E3.1 Stage 1 – Life Cycle Cost all designs are developed to manage the same
Appraisal design storm. The SEM aims to compare the
systems in a transparent manner and thus the
A design for the site is developed. All costs over a different cost elements are presented separately as
common life cycle are reduced to their present indicated in Table E1. This also allows for a
value. The life cycle analysis considers different comparison of the two systems from a number of
maintenance regimes, i.e. High, Medium and Low different perspectives, i.e. the capital costs – which
maintenance for both SuDS and conventional are of particular interest for developers, the
designs, as different maintenance regimes may environmental costs – which are of particular
result in different outcomes. It is possible to enter interest for environmental lobby, and the
data for three different maintenance scenarios maintenance costs – which are of particular interest
either from a maintenance plan or by making use of for the property owners. Sensitivity analyses may
Appendix F to estimate the frequency of different also be undertaken, for example by varying the
tasks where there is a lack of local data. It is also discount rate and/or level of maintenance.
important to recognize that different drainage
systems cannot be compared at component level as,
for example, a green roof cannot be directly Table E1: Comparing a SuDS system with a
compared with a conduit which would convey an conventional system
equivalent roofs runoff to the municipal storm
sewer, because the value of the municipal storm Proposal 2
Proposal 1
sewer would also need to be considered. Proposals Stage Item (e.g.
(e.g. SuDS)
Conventional)
need to be considered as whole systems and not
individual components. Capital
a) R XXXX R XXXX
Costs
1
b) O&M (PV) R XXXX R XXXX
E3.2 Stage 2 – Environmental & Sub Total 1 R XXXX R XXXX
Amenity Appraisal
Quantity & R 0,00 (meets
Stage 1 provides LCCAs of the monetary aspects. Quality set criteria
management therefore no
Stage 2 considers the non-monetary aspects. For 2 a) R XXXX
(Damage externalized
comparison with conventional systems the EGS Avoidance environmental
supplied by SuDS, but not conventional systems, Cost) (PV) costs)
need to be considered. The EGS are valued using Amenity
the DAC tool described in Section E4. The DAC (local /site
b) R XXXX R XXXX
tool calculates an annual environmental cost to specific
data) (PV)
substitute for the fact that the environment is
continuously treating and managing runoff from Total
3 “Cost” R XXXX R XXXX
conventional systems. The SEM then reduces the
(PV)
costs to their present value. One shortcoming is that
SuDS cater for water quality, quantity and amenity
whilst the DAC tool only considers water quality
E4 The Damage Avoidance Cost
and quantity. Where local data is available for the
valuation of the amenity this can be entered into the (DAC) tool
model. All systems are now being considered on a
The valuation of EGS is the most significant
‘fair and equivalent basis’.
feature of the SEM as it allows for SuDS and
conventional stormwater management systems to
be fairly compared. While many tools are available
E3.3 Stage 3 – Results & Comparison for completing Stage 1, few are available for
of Systems completing Stage 2. The DAC tool provides a
quick, conceptual estimate of the EGS. This tool
The process outlined in Figure E1 should be
applies the ‘Substitute Cost Principle’ in valuing
completed for each proposed design, ensuring that
the EGS in the form of the quantity management
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix E: Description of ‘simplified economic model’ Page E-2
and quallity treatmentt supplied byy SuDS systeem. an
nd managing g a virtual ttreatment facility for
The assuumption is thhen made th hat conventionnal stormwater froom the convventional sysstem that
systems externalize the
t equivalen
nt value, in tthe would
w produce equivalent wwater quality treatment
form of EGS, onto thhe environmen nt at large. T
The an
nd quantity management nt. Typical treatment
value of the goods annd services suppplied by SuD DS ob nsidered achieevable by th
bjectives con he CoCT
is calculaated by consiidering the co
ost of acquiriing (2
2009) for SuDS are presenteed in Table E2
2.
F
Figure E2: Sch
hematic treattment train fo
for virtual treeatment work
ks used to estiimate the DA
AC
Figure EE2 presents a schematic treatment train ffor 6. A portio on of the stoormwater equivalent to
the virtuaal treatment works
w assumedd by the SEM M to the nattural rechargge volume is then
be the most cost-effective waay of treatiing infiltrateed to suppleme
ment ground waater.
stormwatter discharge from a conven ntional drainaage
7. The remmaining stormwwater is released to the
system inn order to meet the objectiv
ves describedd in
receiving water coursee.
Table E22. The treatment train operattes as followss:
8. In event of a storm m requiring peakp flow
1. Thhe stormwaterr is collected in
i the municippal
attenuatiion (decreasinng of peak flows)
f the
stoormwater netw
work.
stormwaater which exxceeds the caapacity of
2. Thhe stormwater passes th hrough a floow the treattment facility is diverted (S Step 2) to
diivider which is i designed to o divert flows to the detenntion pond. Itt is then releaased to the
thhe detention pondp (8) wheen the treatmeent receiving waterbody at a predev velopment
faacility is filledd to capacity. rate.
3. Thhe stormwatter enters the settlemeent
chhamber wheree settleable solids and grooss
Th he water releeased to the receiving waaters from
poollutants are reemoved.
suuch a facilityy is of a siimilar quality y to that
4. Thhe stormwater then passes through a saand exxpected from a SuDS system m designed too meet the
fillter to removee suspended po
ollutants. saame objectivees, hence thee hypotheticaal cost of
treeating conven ntional cost in this way y may be
5. Thhe stormwater then passes through a floow
termed the ‘Dam mage Avoidan ance Cost (DA AC)’. Note
coontrol which diverts a porrtion for grouund
th
hat the virtual facility also aallows for gro
oundwater
w
water recharge..
reecharge, an im
mportant additiional service offered
o by
Su uDS.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix E: Description of ‘simplified economic model’ Page E-4
WQV Storm. The FCM Storm is routed through the generated. Step 7 involves the separate calculation
facility and excess runoff that the quality treatment of the costs for treatment and the ‘land-take’. The
facility cannot manage is routed through a quantity land-take accounts for the fact that real treatment
control pond which releases runoff at a reduced rate facilities would have to be located somewhere in
(30% of post development). the city and land will have to be acquired at some
cost. The SEM allows for this cost to be included if
The calculation procedure for the DAC
so desired.
follows the process outlined in Figure E3. The
initial parameters for the analysis are entered by the The user calculates the final DAC in Step 8.
user in Step 1. The model then automatically The final DAC includes an amount for treatment
completes Steps 2-6. The order of the model’s and an amount for land-take (if desired). The
calculation procedure is significant as it ensures virtual facility initially assumes a catchment with
that the facility’s use is optimized, i.e. the treatment an effective impervious area (EIA) equal to 15 ha –
facility is fully utilized before the detention facility an estimate of the area that will require a sand filter
is required, ensuring it is a ‘least cost alternative’. of roughly optimal size. This is to ensure that the
The hydrographs for the Water Quality volume
Step 5: Size Infiltration Chamber Step 8b: Determine pro-rata DAC for land-take
based on the costs for a 15ha EIA catchment
Step 6: ‘Goal Seeks' optimum detention facility
size (accounts for flow routing) Step 8c: Calculate total DAC from the sum of
DAC for treatment and DAC for land take.
Step 7b: Calculates land take and reduces it to Step 9: Export total DAC to SEM
annualised cost (over 100 years) i.e. the DAC
for land take
cost of developing and operating the facility is pro-rata. The final DAC is then exported to the
based on the ‘least cost principle’. The costs main SEM spread-sheet in Step 9.
(treatment and land-take) associated with EIAs
larger or smaller than 15 ha are then determined
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix E: Description of ‘simplified economic model’ Page E-5
E5 Conclusion SuDS systems. The SEM presented above does not
consider all aspects, but it considers those most
The failure to consider the impact of externalizing relevant to ensuring that the costs and benefits of
stormwater pollution from conventional systems is different stormwater management systems may be
a common criticism of most commonly used compared in a fair manner and in a way which may
economic tools as this unfairly distorts the benefit be understood by a variety of stakeholders.
to cost ratio away from SuDS. LCCAs in particular
have failed to fairly consider alternative designs
through not accounting for the EGS supplied by
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix E: Description of ‘simplified economic model’ Page E-6
Appendix F
Stormwater management costing fact sheets
F1 Overview of fact sheets F1.1 Summary of capital costs
Each fact sheet included herein contains a summary The ‘capital costs’ section details factors that need
of the information required to conduct a to be considered when implementing the SuDS
preliminary ‘life cycle costing’ analysis for a option. Typical unit rates for construction are also
stormwater management system. The fact sheets presented.
include:
• An overview of the SuDS option; F1.2 Summary of maintenance costs
• Summary of capital costs; The inspection, routine maintenance and corrective
• Summary of routine maintenance maintenance frequencies that have been presented
frequencies and costs; in this section are largely based on work done by
Lampe et al (2005). The results are presented for
• Summary of corrective maintenance the USA and UK separately, and based on the USA
predicted frequencies and costs; format. This study is available on the WERF
• Predicted life cycle duration; and website (www.werf.org) along with a set of MS
Excel based costing tool that makes use of data
• Conceptual value of environmental goods from the USA. These frequencies reflect typical
and services. frequencies for individual SuDS. It is important to
note that:
Although the focus of this document is not • The frequencies and typical rates for
conventional stormwater drainage systems, inspections refer to having a professional
components of conventional systems are often used inspection and the completion of a report;
as part of a SuDS system. A section detailing the and
cost relating to conventional systems has therefore
• The routine maintenance frequencies and
been included. Table F1 lists the available fact
typical rates refer to specific maintenance
sheets corresponding to the primary SuDS options
tasks undertaken and exclude inspection
included in the main text of the guidelines.
tasks.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-1
activities for each SuDS option are included in the The DPLG (2006) presented a set of operating and
main body of the guidelines. maintenance estimates as a percentage of the
Current Replacement Cost (CRC) of the
infrastructure. The CRC’s supplied in DPLG
F1.4 Typical rates (2006) however seem to be poor estimates when
compared to the costs of the tasks required to
The typical rates for capital costs presented in the
maintain such systems. No information or reference
fact sheets are estimates that are largely based on
is given for the origin of these estimates. Hence,
DoCGTA (2010), and checked against recent
while simple to use, there is the potential that these
tenders, and industry pricing manuals (Merkels &
estimates underestimate the costs of maintaining a
Buildaid). The ‘Gauteng prices’ used can be
conventional system. The estimates supplied in
adjusted in line with the MIG Guidelines for other
DPLG (2006) should not, if at all possible, be used
provinces. With respect to landscaping costs,
to estimate the life cycle costs of a conventional
identifying typical unit rates is difficult as it is
system. Instead estimates should be made by
dependent on the contractors and how they
estimating the costs for cleaning, minor repairs and
determine their rates. Additionally the cost of
inspections separately. This can either be
vegetation varies significantly. Grass is a prime
undertaken by sourcing typical rates from local
example. ‘Buffalo’ sometimes cost more than R50
companies or using the fact sheets below. Where
per square meter in 2010, whereas ‘Kikuyu’ was
data is not available and the fact sheets are not
typically less than half that at R20 a square meter.
suitable so that using the DPLG (2006) estimates
For swales and buffer strips this could have major
for operating and maintenance costs cannot be
cost implications as grassing is a significant cost
avoided, the uncertainty in these values should be
factor. It was decided that the MIG guidelines
clearly noted.
should guide the typical rates, as these was based
on an extensive research and stakeholder input. All
rates exclude VAT, P&G’s, and consulting / design Table F2.1: Typical Capital costs for
fees. The typical rates presented for operations and conventional drainage design – Aug 2009
maintenance have been collected from the City of (DoCGTA, 2010)
Cape Town’s Catchment, Stormwater and River
Management Branch and adjusted to 2010 values. Average cost
Asset Unit
R’s (Gauteng)
Unlined channel m 230
F2 Conventional drainage Lined channel m 770
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-2
into the trunk line. The study effectively averaged F2.3.3 Corrective maintenance
the values of many successful tenders (Bester,
Estimating the cost of corrective maintenance is
2010).
difficult as it is affected by the age of the system
The alternative to making use of algorithms and the standards and levels of service to which the
such as these is to build up the costs considering all local authority aspires. The City of Cape Town
the individual aspects. Narayanan & Pitt (2005) spends approximately 10% of its annual
presented a simple model for this purpose. maintenance budget on ‘repairs’ (Austin, 2010).
Alternatively a Quantity Surveyor should be This is a rough guide and is based on a sub-optimal
consulted. routine maintenance operation related to budgetary
constraints.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-3
of EUL is in Table F2.5. These are from a recent Table F2.6: Inspection rates for conventional
study in South Australia by Tonkin Engineering systems (2010) (see Section F1.4)
Science. The study looked at the current Asset
Management strategies. It is worth noting that Inspection costs
where assets are not actively managed, their EUL Asset Rate
Units
may be reduced (Narayanan & Pitt, 2005). (R)
Catch pits No. 130
Conduits/pipes m 20-25
Table F2.5: EUL of stormwater network
monitoring point
components (Ellis & Callaghan, 2009) Lined channels 130
inspection
Connections No. 63
F2.3.5 Typical unit rates Catch pits No. 60
Tables F2.6 & F2.7 present typical unit rates for ≤300 mm diameter m 55
inspections and routine maintenance. They have
375 mm diameter m 60
been sourced from recent tenders and budgeting
documents compiled by the City of Cape Town’s 450 mm diameter m 60
stormwater department. Where applicable the rates 525 mm diameter m 80
have been adjusted to 2010 Rand values.
600 mm diameter m 80
>600 mm diameter and box
m 150
culverts
F2.3.6 Further reading
Box culvert m 350
The following documents are considered valuable
Lined channels m 37
references when calculating the costs of
conventional systems. Where possible download Unlined channels m 47
links to the documents have been provided at Maintained watercourses m 280
www.wsud.co.za.
Intakes / headwalls No. 200
i) Debo, T & Reese, AJ (2003) Municipal
Vleis and wetlands ha 5,800
Stormwater Management, Lewis Publishers,
2
Boca Raton. Ponds m 1.3
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-4
iii) DoCGTA. (2010). An Industry Guide To F3.3 Routine maintenance
Infrastructure Guide To Service Levels And
Unit Costs. Department of Cooperative “The different vegetative roofing system
Governance and Traditional Affairs. manufacturers have different maintenance
recommendations, so it depends on the system
iv) Ellis, R., & Callaghan, P. (2009). you’re installing…it depends on intensive versus
Infrastructure Asset Useful Lives - SA extensive. It depends on built in place versus
Councils Current Practises. Tonkin modular” (Matt, 2009). Routine maintenance is
Engineering Science. primarily about vegetation management, and the
v) Woods-Ballard, B, Kellagher, R, Martin, P, replacement of soil that is lost due to ‘erosion’, be
Jefferies, C, Bray, R & Shaffer, P (2007). it water or wind erosion. While the system is being
The SUDS Manual, CIRIA 697, London established it may also include the replacement of
plants that do not survive. Table F3.2 displays
typical routine maintenance frequencies for green
roofs in the USA and UK.
F3 Green roofs
Green roofs are roofs designed to carry a vegetated
layer. For further information see Section 3.1. Table F3.2: Routine maintenance frequencies
(months) (Lampe et al., 2005)
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-5
F3.5 Expected Useful Life (EUL) Supply and add mulch to shrub areas
m2 62
(20 mm)
The expected useful life of a system is determined
Grassing per m2 m2 20-50
in the design phase. It is dependent on the type of
system and the type of vegetation. Narayanan & Crane hire – all terrain hydraulic
day 4584
Pitt (2005) showed how three different green roofs crane, 18 ton
had varying EUL’s of between 10 and 40 years Green roof estimate (without
m2 444
simply due to the design selected. Narayanan et al. consideration for height)
(2005) estimate a EUL ranging between 10-40 Green roof estimate – direct
years, although EUL’s up to 90 years have been application (without consideration for m2 400
height)
noted.
Green roof estimate – modular
application (without consideration for m2 480
height)
F3.6 Typical unit rates
Maintenance costs, as with construction costs, will
vary depending on the accessibility of the roof, the F4 Rainwater harvesting
function of the roof, and the scale of the project.
Rainwater harvesting is the collection, storage and
Households with easy accessibility could
reuse of stormwater runoff. For further information
potentially be managed by the homeowner at no
see Section 3.2.
additional cost. Table F3.4 displays typical
construction rates for green roofs. Table F3.5
displays typical maintenance rates for green roofs.
F4.1 Capital costs
The capital costs are comprised of the storage unit,
Table F3.4: Typical maintenance rates (2010) the additional piping and guttering required to
(see Section F1.4) convey the water to the storage unit. Additionally a
‘first flush filter’ is recommended to prevent the
Description Unit Rate (R) storage unit becoming filled with sediments and
debris. Where gravity flow to the point of reuse is
Inspections No. 210
not possible a booster pump may be required.
Litter & vegetation
management visit.m2 2.00-2.40
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-6
F4.3 Routine maintenance Table F4.2: Typical construction rates (2010)
(see Section F1.4)
In order to protect the system from a build-up of
sediments the gutters upstream need to be cleaned, Rate
Description Units
as well as the ‘First Flush’ device. The roof (R)
catchment area should also be maintained and kept Supply and install 5000 litre
free of a build-up of pollutants. Tank/Water Butt (Including 15% No 14,200
P&G's)
F5 Permeable pavements
F4.6 Typical unit rates Permeable pavements allow water to percolate
through them. Often the runoff is then detained in a
The costs of constructing a rainwater harvesting storage unit from where it either infiltrates into the
system are based upon those of a ‘yard tank’ ground or is released at a reduced flow rate to a
connected to the gutters of a house (DoCGTA, receiving water body. For further information see
2010), with the addition of a first flush filter. While Section 3.4.
it may not be necessary to raise the rain water
harvesting tank, by elevating the tank it is possible
to negate the need for a pumping system. Table
F5.1 Capital costs
F4.2 displays typical construction rates for
rainwater harvesting systems. Capital costs are dependent on the design – whether
it is a full infiltration, partial infiltration or fully
Maintenance costs reflect estimates of the
contained system. For partial or full infiltration
costs should a contractor be responsible for the
systems it is important that the outlet be sized
maintenance of a system. Rainwater harvesting can
correctly. The connection of the outlet into the
easily be maintained by the home owner at no
municipal sewer will result in an additional cost.
additional cost. Table F4.3 displays typical rates for
maintenance of rainwater harvesting systems.
F5.2 Inspections
Permeable pavements require regular inspections to
ensure that they are being optimally managed.
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-7
Additional inspections should be carried out after majority of sediments are collected in the top
large storm events to ensure the permeable paving 25mm of the paving layer works – hence this could
system is operating within design limits. Table F5.1 be removed and replaced. Irregular maintenance
displays typical inspection frequencies for frequencies for permeable pavements are highly
permeable pavements in the UK and USA. variable and typically range between 10-15 years
(Lampe et al., 2005).
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-8
Cut to fill m3 39
Cut to spoil m3 79 Table F6.1: Inspection frequencies (months)
0.10 - (Lampe et al., 2005)
Overhaul to dumpsite m3.km 8.00
Country Low Med. High
Layer Works:
Supply, install and compact 250 mm UK 24 6 1
thick, 10-63 mm course aggregate, no m3 240
fine USA 36 6 1
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-9
Erosion m2 35
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-10
Table F7.2: Routine maintenance (months) Design
10 years 20-50 years
(Lampe et al., 2005) life
Litter
F7.6 Typical unit rates
UK 12 4 1
management Table F7.5 displays typical construction rates for
Grass cutting UK 6 4 1 swales. Table F7.6 displays typical maintenance
rates for swales.
Grass cutting,
weeding and
USA 36 6-12 1
litter
management
Table F7.5: Typical construction rates (2010)
(see Section F1.4)
Rate
Description Units
F7.4 Irregular & corrective (R)
maintenance Clear and grub m2 4
3
Corrective maintenance is limited to sediment Strip and remove topsoil m 27
removal. When the build-up of sediment begins to Cut to spoil m 3
82
impact on the hydraulic capacity of the swale then
Trimming side drains to profile,
sediment will need to be removed i.e. when 10% of m 27
compact
the swale depth or according to design
Levelling verges m 19
specifications. Erosion management is also vital
and any signs of erosion should be dealt with to Grassing m2 20-50
prevent compounding the damage in future storm Swale per m (P&G's = 15%) m 305
events. Table F7.3 displays typical irregular
Construct scour protection (steep
maintenance frequencies for grass swales. No. 440
sections)
Table F7.3: Irregular maintenance frequencies Table F7.6: Typical maintenance rates (2010)
(months) (Lampe et al., 2005) (see Section F1.4)
Task Low Med. High
Description Unit Cost (R)
Erosion and
sediment 1200 78 18 Inspections visit 160
management
Litter & vegetation management visit.m2 1.50-2.40
Erosion m2 35
F7.5 Expected Useful Life (EUL) Sediment management m 3
71
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-11
F8.1 Capital costs Task Country Low Med High
Table F8.2: Routine maintenance frequencies Table F8.4: EUL of an infiltration trench
(months) (Lampe et al., 2005)
EPA in Jefferies, FHWA in Jefferies,
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-12
2005 2005 include an under drain connecting into the
Design
municipal stormwater pipe. For further information
5-15 10 see Section 4.4.
life
Table F8.6: Typical construction rates (2010) Table F9.1: Inspection frequencies (months)
(see Section F1.4) (Lampe et al., 2005)
Litter
UK 12 4 1
F9 Bio-retention management
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-13
Vegetation
and Litter UK 36 6-12 1 Table F9.5: Typical construction rates (2010)
management
(see Section F1.4)
Rate
Description Units
(R)
F9.4 Irregular & corrective
Clear and remove topsoil m2 7
maintenance
Cut to spoil m3 82
Corrective maintenance which predominantly
comprises the management of sediment, is 300x300 stone drain covered in
m 160
Geofabric (110 mm drainex pipe)
dependent on upstream sediment management. If
the bio-retention unit does not drain within the Backfilling with selected material m3 120
design period (24-36 hours) it will be necessary to Top soil supplied by contractor,
m3 160
either cultivate / scarify the top soil layers or Spread in 100-200 mm thick layers
overhaul the system. Table F9.3 displays typical Plants supplied & planted m2 45
irregular maintenance frequencies for bio-retention
Supply and add mulch to shrub
systems in the USA. m2 60
areas (20 mm)
Surrounding areas:
Table F9.3: Irregular maintenance frequencies Top soiling of verge areas m2 6
(months) (Lampe et al., 2005)
Grassing m2 20-50
Source Low Med. High
Unit rate for bio-retention area m2 410
USA n/a 78 18
Irrigation m2 20
F9.5 Expected Useful Life (EUL) Table F9.6: Typical maintenance rates (2010)
As with other SuDS options there is a wide (see Section F1.4)
variation in the EULs of bio-retention systems. Soil
Rate
conditions, catchment areas, and treatment train Task Unit
(R)
design and maintenance schedule will all impact
Inspections visit 210
the EUL of a bio-retention area. If possible the bio-
retention area should be preceded by a small swale, Litter & vegetation management 2.00-
(based on quarterly visits) visit.m2 2.40
filter strip, or sediment bay. Table F9.4 displays
typical EULs for bio-retention areas. Sediment removal m3 71
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-14
maintenance simpler and cheaper. It is also Table F10.2: Routine maintenance frequencies
important that the type of outlet is carefully (months) (Lampe et al., 2005)
considered.
Task Country Low Med. High
Litter &
vegetation USA 36 6 -12 1
F10.2 Inspections management
The inspections of detention ponds should consider Litter removal UK 12 6 1
the general state of the detention pond, including
Grass cutting UK 36 3 1
the impact of sedimentation, vegetation growth, the
state of the inlets and outlets etc. Table F10.1 Clean
sediment in UK 12 12 12
displays typical inspection frequencies for forebay
detention ponds in the UK and USA.
Sediment
USA >36 36 12 + large storm events removal & UK 600 300 120
dewatering
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-15
Table F10.5: Typical construction rates (2010)
(see Section F1.4)
F11.1 Capital costs
Description Units Rate (R)
Wetlands and retention ponds require extensive
Earthworks: landscaping works. The outlet would need to be
Cut to fill m3 40
designed to ensure that the system retains runoff for
sufficient time in order to ensure biological
Excavate detention ponds 1-2m
m3 18 treatment.
deep
0.10 –
Overhaul m3.km
8.00
F11.2 Inspections
Excavate material m3 100
Inspections include checking and monitoring for
Surface bed preparation for
m2 70 mosquitoes (vector control), monitoring algae, and
bedding of gabions
monitoring sediment build-up etc. Table F11.1
Gabions (2.0 x 1.0 x 1.0) PVC
coated gabion boxes 2,7mmm displays typical inspection frequencies for wetlands
m3 1300 and retention ponds.
diameter galvanised wire, to
SANS 1580, including rock infill
Geotextile (Filter Fabric - Bidim) m2 20
Table F11.1: Inspection frequencies (months)
Reno mattresses (3.0 x 1.0 x 0.3
m3 1590 (Lampe et al., 2005)
PVC boxes)
Gabions, reno mattress, stone
m2 330 Country Low Med. High
Pitching
Pond inlet/outlet No 23,500 UK >12 <4 <1
Attenuation pond outlet (2006 USA >36 36 12 + Events
No 550,000
includes P&G, VAT)
Grassing m2 20
F11.3 Routine maintenance
The routine maintenance of wetlands includes:
F11 Wetlands & retention ponds removal of litter, mowing of grass banks and
Wetlands and retention ponds are controls which general management of vegetation. Routine
maintain a permanent pool of water. The major maintenance should include the inspection and
difference from a design point of view is that a cleaning of inlets and outlets. Table F11.2 displays
retention pond has 25 to 50 per cent of the pond typical routine maintenance frequencies for
surface area covered with vegetation, whereas a wetlands and retention systems in the USA.
wetland has 75 to 100 per cent coverage (Jefferies,
2010). For further information see Section 5.2 and
Section 5.3. Table F11.2: Routine maintenance frequencies
(months) (Lampe et al., 2005)
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-16
tasks are climate and site specific and difficult to Table F11.4: Expected useful life
predict. Sediment removal requirements will be
USEPA (Jefferies, FHWA (Jefferies,
dependent on the treatment train design and general
2005) 2005)
maintenance of the whole drainage system. Table
F11.3 displays typical irregular maintenance Design
>20 20-50
life
frequencies for wetlands and retention systems in
the USA and UK.
F11.6 Typical unit rates
Table F11.3: Irregular maintenance frequencies Currently no estimates for the construction of
(months) (Lampe et al., 2005) wetlands are available. Table F11.5 displays typical
maintenance rates for wetlands and retention
Task Country Low Med. High ponds.
Sediment
UK 600 300 120
removal
Table F11.5: Typical maintenance rates (2010)
Sediment (see Section F1.4)
removal main USA 480 360 240
pool
Description Unit Rate (R)
Sediment
removal USA 240 60-120 12-24 Inspections Visit 210
forebay
Vegetation management
visit.m2 0.60
(large )
Vegetation management
F11.5 Expected useful life (EUL) visit.m2 2.00-2.40
(pocket wetlands)
The South African SuDS Guidelines – Appendix F: Stormwater management costing fact sheets Page F-17
Appendix G
SuDS Conceptual Design Chart
TT 558/13