Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Sediment Assessment of Stormwater Retention Ponds within the


Urban Environment of Calgary, Canada
K. Vopicka1*
1

Strategic Planning and Policy, City of Calgary, P.O. Box 2100, Stn. M, LOC #433, T2P 2M5,
Calgary, AB, Canada
*Corresponding author, e-mail krista.vopicka@calgary.ca

ABSTRACT
The treatment of urban stormwater by retention ponds is known to be effective for water
quality improvement as well as storm flow management and in the past two decades has
become widely implemented. However, limited research has been conducted on the quality of
the resulting sediment within ponds. This research focuses on contaminant concentrations
within the sediment from stormwater ponds that have been created in Calgary, Canada.
Electrical conductivity and the sodium adsorption ratio consistently exceeded CCME
agricultural soil quality guidelines, indicating a city wide salt contamination issue. F3
hydrocarbon fractions, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and zinc were also identified as
parameters of concern. In particular 61 Ave SE Duck pond displayed the greatest diversity
and severity of contaminants due to the industrial catchment area.
Removal and disposal options were limited due to the characteristics of the sediment.
Removal is anticipated to be mechanical as the solids concentrations were greater than the
liquid limit of clay. In addition, the examination of the solids content illustrates that all the
retention ponds will require the sediment to be dewatered prior to disposal. Disposal options
were subsequently restricted to landfill disposal due to salt, metal and/or hydrocarbon
parameters exceeding CCME soil guidelines.

KEYWORDS
Disposal; heavy metals; hydrocarbons; retention pond; salt; sediment.

INTRODUCTION
Water is rapidly becoming an important commodity and it is necessary that urban centres
maintain high water quality to mitigate impact upon downstream communities. Subsequently
urban centres need to take the initiative and be proactive in protecting priority watersheds
affected by urban activities. Management practices have been established to reduce
contaminants from entering the watershed via stormwater by the increasing utilization of
retention ponds. These retention ponds are known to be effective for water quality
improvement and storm flow management. However the resulting sediment in the ponds
requires periodic maintenance to retain water treatment efficiency. Knowledge of retention
pond sediment composition is limited within literature, however urban runoff generally
contains contaminants which include sediment, nutrients, metals, salt, and hydrocarbons (The
City of Calgary, 2000; EPA, 1993a). This is particularly important as the extent of
contamination will directly affect the potential maintenance and disposal options of the
sediment.
The primary objective of this thesis was to provide a base of knowledge on the contaminant
concentrations within the sediment in a variety of ponds receiving stormwater from differing
Vopicka

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008


residential, commercial, industrial and highway land uses. Secondly, sediment removal and
disposal were evaluated.
Regulatory legislation
Water management is governed by both provincial and federal statutes. Federally, the
government takes on a supervisory and enforcement role while provinces have the authority to
legislate water supplies, pollution control, irrigation and recreation use (Environment Canada,
1987; BRBC, 2005). Alberta Environment has adopted the federally issued Canadian Council
of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) water quality guidelines (CCME, 1999) to
supplement provincial legislation. This provides actual parameter restrictions to delineate
specific environmental goals for users discharging water. This regulates the quality of the
water exiting retention ponds, however currently there are no guidelines that are directly
applicable to the deposited sediment within. It should also be noted that CCME sediment
guidelines exist but are applicable to natural wetlands with purpose to maintain wetland
health. Retention ponds encompassed within this study are not designed to be pristine
systems, replace removed wetlands or be maintained as natural ecosystems. Instead the
retention ponds are maintained to mitigate water quantity and quality. Therefore CCME
sediment criteria were not utilized. Moreover accumulation of sediment is expected to be an
ongoing process, requiring periodic removal and disposal. Due to the required ex-situ disposal
of sediment and the lack of applicable sediment specific criteria, any sediment removed from
the retention ponds will hereafter be classified as a soil and subsequently regulated as such.
Urban retention pond induction
Surface flow retention ponds have been utilised by The City of Calgary since 1979 when
Calgary constructed its first wet pond at 68th Street and 17th Avenue SE to moderate
stormwater event volumes reaching the river systems. By 1988 retention ponds were designed
as part of the storm drainage systems with a storage capacity to accommodate a 1 in 100 year
precipitation event (The City of Calgary, 2006a). During this time it was also recognized that
retention ponds demonstrated beneficial water quality improvements as they are efficient at
pollutant removal, capable of addressing multiple contaminants, sustainable, require relatively
low maintenance, have a high aesthetic appeal and are cost effective (Kadlec and Knight,
1996; Lin et al., 2002; Griffin and Upton, 1999; Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993; Magmedov et
al., 1996). This has lead to all new residential subdivisions requiring the installation of
retention ponds to treat the stormwater, prior to it discharging into the rivers.

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA


The retention ponds chosen as sampling sites for this study were selected from Calgary wet
ponds and wetlands which have been receiving stormwater for an extensive period of time
and subsequently have developed a distinct sediment layer. The intention was to encompass
retention ponds that are reaching their water treatment capabilities and will require dredging
shortly to maintain treatment efficiency. Furthermore sites were chosen to represent a variety
of dominant land uses present within the catchment area, and represent degrees of ongoing
development within Calgary. Based on these criteria the following five stormwater facilities
were selected:
Deerfoot Trail & Highway 22X pond (Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd., 2000)
was constructed in 2001 to treat runoff from a 63.7 ha of highway runoff. Pond
design specifics consist of a surface area of 7950 m2, permanent water level
(PWL) of 1031.5 m and a pond bottom of 1029.0 m.

Sediment Assessment of Stormwater Retention Ponds within the Urban Environment of


Calgary, Canada

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

The 68 Street SE retention lake was constructed in 1979 and accommodates


runoff from an exceptionally large catchment area of approximately 2925 ha
(The City of Calgary, 2006b). The land use present within the catchment area
consists of residential, parkland, commercial and light industrial. Pond design
specifics available include the pond surface area of 20.03 ha, a pond bottom of
1047.62 m and the PWL of 1049.92 m.
The Edgemont wetland was completed in 1996 (IMC Consulting Group Inc.,
1995) servicing a designated drainage area of 114.2 ha of residential and
parkland land uses. The Edgemont wetland was designed with a permanent
water level elevation of 1175.5 m, a pond bottom of 1173.5 m and total surface
area of 17768 m2.
Harvest lake construction was completed in 1988. It was designed to treat a
drainage area of 390 ha, consisting primarily of residential and parkland land
use (The City of Calgary, 2006b). Pond specifics include a surface area of
44587 m2, a permanent water level of 1066.0 m and a set pond bottom of
1062.7 m.
61 Ave SE Duck Pond was constructed in 1985 and designed to treat
stormwater originating from a 28 ha catchment area dominated by industrial
land use (Westhoff Engineering Resources Inc., 1998). However due to growth
of Calgary, the pond currently receives runoff from 1375 ha. Pond design
specifics encompass a surface area of 5477 m2, pond bottom of 1032.0 m and a
PWL of 1034.0 m.

SAMPLING EVENTS
All samples were collected from February 24 to 26, 2004 during the winter freeze. Sediment
samples were collected in mid-winter which allowed the samples to be more accurately
obtained and mapped. Additionally, winter collection avoided disturbance of the sediments
that might occur if accessed by boat (paddle or poling action) and avoided drifting that would
occur when utilizing a boat. Discrete grab samples were collected at even intervals from the
inlet to the outlet of the pond, following the main flow path, which was determined from the
facility design plans. Grab samples were collected using an Eckman dredge, and appropriately
preserved and kept on ice.

METHODS
All of the parameters were analysed using standard methods.
Total solids, fixed solids and volatile solids: Method 2540G (APHA, 1998)
Particle size distribution by laser diffraction (Malvern Instruments, 1998)
Heavy Metal Concentrations were digested using the Method 3050B (EPA, 1996a)
and analysed using ICP/MS and ICP/OES
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen was digested following the Method 351.2 (EPA, 1993b) and
subsequently analyzed by Semiautomated Colorimetry
Total Phosphorus was digested using EPA Method 351.2 (EPA, 1993b) and
subsequently analysed by Semiautomated Colorimetry
Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Gas Chromatography (CCME, 2001)
Paint Filter Test: Method 9095A (EPA, 1996b)
Electrical conductivity, pH and chloride were analysed for all samples using field
probes

Vopicka

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

RESULTS
Solids
The average total solids concentration of each pond was found to be 44.10 %, 30.34 %, 44.40
%, 41.83 % and 38.48 % for Deerfoot Trail & 22X pond, 68 Street SE retention lake,
Edgemont wetland, Harvest lake and 61 Ave SE Duck pond respectively. The highest average
volatile solids concentration determined was 4.5 % for 61 Ave SE Duck pond, which is well
below both sediment and organic soil thresholds.

80

70

70

70

60

60
50
40
30
20

60
50
40
30
20

10

10

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

sand
clay

Distance from inlet (m)

50
40
30
20
10
0

20

60

100

140

silt

A: Deerfoot Trail & 22X pond

200

290

470

650

Distance from inlet (m)

830

980 1040

sand
clay

7.5

70

70

60

60

50
40
30
20
10

26

silt

55

Distance from inlet (m)

B: 68 St SE retention pond

Particle fraction (%)

Particle fraction (%)

Particle fraction (%)

80

Particle fraction (%)

Particle fraction (%)

Particle Size Distribution


Deerfoot Trail & 22X pond, 68 Street SE retention lake, Harvest lake and 61 Ave SE Duck
pond (Figures 1 A, B, D, E) all display a high proportion of sand at the inlet, with the
exception of the Edgemont wetland (Figure 1 C).

140

sand
clay

silt

C: Edgemont wetland

50
40
30
20
10

0
30

50

70

90

120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Distance from inlet (m)

sand
clay

D: Harvest lake

silt

20

40

60

80

100

Distance from inlet (m)

120

sand
clay

140

silt

E: 61 Ave SE Duck pond

Figure 1. Particle fraction (%) of each fraction for sand (> 50 microns), silt (50 2 microns)
and clay (< 2 microns)
Metals
The main summary of the analysed chemical constituents with their respective guidelines are
displayed in Table 1. Chromium, copper and lead mean concentrations exceeded guidelines in
61 Ave SE Duck pond while cadmium and zinc mean concentrations exceed guidelines in
both 61 Ave SE Duck pond and 68 St SE retention lake. Cadmium (F0.05,4,13 = 14.11),
chromium (F0.05,4,13 = 6.65), copper (F0.05,4,13 = 13.17), lead (F0.05,4,13 = 45.82), and zinc
(F0.05,4,13 = 15.67) concentrations were determined to be significantly higher in 61 Ave SE
Duck pond compared to the remainder of the sites. Additionally, cadmium (F0.05,3,11 = 9.55)
and zinc (F0.05,3,11 = 19.59) concentrations were determined to be significantly higher in 68 St
SE retention lake.

Sediment Assessment of Stormwater Retention Ponds within the Urban Environment of


Calgary, Canada

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008


Table 1. Total chemical concentrations for compounds with soil quality guidelines per
sampling location, bolded parameters indicate values that exceed fine-grained CCME
agricultural soil criteria (CCME, 1999).
Sample site/
CCME
Chemical
Guidelines
concentration (agricultural)
(mg/kg)

(mg/kg)

Arsenic

12

Barium

750

Cadmium

1.4

Chromium

64

Hexavalent
Chromium

0.4

Copper

63

Lead

70

Nickel

50

Thallium

Vanadium

130

Zinc

200

Deerfoot
Trail &
22X

68 St SE
retention
lake

Edgemont
wetland

Harvest
lake

Mean = 5
Max = 6
Mean = 227
Max = 250
Mean = 0.6
Max = 0.8
Mean = 16
Max = 21

Mean = 7
Max = 8
Mean = 263
Max = 310
Mean = 1.6
Max = 2.1
Mean =33
Max = 38

Mean = 7
Max = 7
Mean = 315
Max = 330
Mean = 1.1
Max = 1.7
Mean = 27
Max = 31

Mean = 5
Max = 9
Mean = 311
Max = 339
Mean = 0.8
Max = 1.0
Mean = 21
Max = 23

Mean = 16
Max = 22
Mean = 11
Max = 14
Mean = 21
Max = 31
Mean = 0
Max = 0
Mean = 23
Max = 29
Mean = 85
Max = 118

Mean = 41
Max = 48
Mean = 59
Max = 78
Mean = 27
Max = 29
Mean = 0
Max = 0
Mean = 30
Max = 39
Mean= 281
Max = 347

Mean = 29
Max = 33
Mean = 20
Max = 25
Mean = 32
Max = 33
Mean = 0
Max = 0
Mean = 31
Max = 32
Mean = 178
Max = 233

Mean = 22
Max = 27
Mean = 15
Max = 18
Mean = 25
Max = 29
Mean = 0
Max = 0
Mean = 24
Max = 26
Mean = 124
Max = 155

61 Ave SE
Duck
pond
Mean = 5
Max = 6
Mean = 310
Max = 375
Mean = 49
Max = 64
Mean = 205
Max = 352
Mean = 0.01
Max = 0.02
Mean = 69
Max = 89
Mean = 96
Max = 106
Mean = 31
Max = 38
Mean =1
Max = 1
Mean = 29
Max = 34
Mean = 945
Max = 1220

Nutrients
With respect to nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus were examined. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) and total phosphorus (TP) were measured (Table 2) as they are macronutrients which
predominantly influence nutrient loading and limit biological activity.
Table 2. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations of dredge samples per
sampling location
Sample ID
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Deerfoot Trail & 22X
1680.14
1134.60
68 St SE retention lake
3332.27
1185.81
Edgemont Wetland
1717.50
1346.24
Harvest lake
1756.62
739.84
61 Ave SE Duck pond
1661.43
1648.63
Hydrocarbons
The averages of F2 (C10-C16) and F3 (C16-C34) concentrations (mg/kg) of each pond were
found to be 0.49, 140.75; 1.23, 1923.12; 0.68, 569.11; 0.22, 279.02 and 1.14, 1893.51 for
Deerfoot Trail & 22X pond, 68 Street SE retention lake, Edgemont wetland, Harvest lake and
61 Ave SE Duck pond respectively. For all sites, the average concentration and ranges were
well below the CCME agricultural soil guideline for the F2 hydrocarbon fraction of 900
mg/kg. With respect to the F3 fraction the average concentrations for 68 St SE retention pond
and 61 Ave SE Duck pond exceed the allowable CCME F3 hydrocarbon concentration of 800

Vopicka

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008


mg/kg. Furthermore the hydrocarbon content of 68 St SE retention pond and 61 Ave SE Duck
pond were significantly higher (F0.05,4,10 = 11.64) than the remaining ponds.
Additional Sediment Parameters
With respect to the average pH values, all retention ponds are within the CCME soil quality
guideline range of 6 to 8. The averages electrical conductivity (EC) (dS/m) and Sodium
Adsorption Ratio (SAR) of each pond was found to be 2.31, 5.76; 5.84, 10.52; 5.79, 24.83;
2.29, 5.42 and 3.78, 11.65 for Deerfoot Trail & 22X pond, 68 Street SE retention lake,
Edgemont wetland, Harvest lake and 61 Ave SE Duck pond respectively. All of the site
averages exceeded agricultural soil guideline for EC and SAR of 2.0 dS/m and 5.0.
Additionally the electrical conductivity varied significantly between sites (F0.05,4,48 = 6.11)
with Edgemont wetland and 68 St SE retention lake being significantly greater compared to
the remaining sites.
Paint Filter Test
Landfill criteria require that any material disposed of within a landfill cannot have any free
liquids present. Paint filter test were conducted for all sites and after five minutes all sites
failed the test.

DISCUSSION
The primary objective was to determine the presence and concentration of contaminants in
order to understand the extent of contamination of accumulated sediment within the retention
ponds. Consequently each parameter was evaluated against the CCME agricultural soil
guideline as a baseline comparison, as well as evaluated against literature.
The parameters that exceeded the CCME guidelines in every pond were EC and SAR. This
indicates that all of the retention ponds within The City of Calgary have contamination
problems with salinity and sodicity regardless of the catchment area differences. This is
potentially due to the widespread usage of road salts (sodium chloride and calcium chloride)
for winter road maintenance (The City of Calgary, 2006c). This illustrates that salt is the
primary contaminant of concern for cold climate urban environments. In addition, the
remaining parameters varied between retention ponds illustrating differences due to
catchment area contributions.
It was observed that of all the metals evaluated within this study only cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead and zinc accumulated sufficiently to exceed the baseline levels. Moreover the
contaminant of greatest concern within the ponds was cadmium. Literature reports of
background soil levels (mg/kg) within Alberta are known to be 0.16, 0.01, 20, 12 and 74 for
cadmium, chromium, copper lead and zinc respectively (Knight & Klassen, 2005) This
illustrates anthropogenic sources are contributing to the contaminant loading of the sediment.
Cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and zinc concentrations were subsequently compared to
the studies including Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Heal, 1999; Yousef et al., 1994a,b; Vymazal
and Krasa, 2003; Marsalek and Marsalek, 1997; Marsalek et al., 1999; Mallin et al., 2002 and
Kamalakkannan et al., 2004. The metal concentrations in sediments from other urban
retention pond studies have found concentrations (mg/kg) to range between 0.051-53.0
(cadmium), 0.97-128.0 (chromium), 0.45-1441 (copper), 1.5-1047 (lead) and 1.0-779 (zinc).
These studies encompass a diverse urban environment including residential, parkland,
commercial, roadways and light industrial similar to the urban land uses examined within this
study. These concentrations illustrate two important points. Firstly all of the retention ponds
within this study had comparable concentrations to those observed in other urban retention
pond sediments, with the exception of 61 Ave SE Duck pond. Secondly the ranges found in
6

Sediment Assessment of Stormwater Retention Ponds within the Urban Environment of


Calgary, Canada

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008


literature emphasises the severity of the contamination observed within 61 Ave SE Duck
pond. This is especially true for cadmium, chromium and zinc with respective average
concentrations (mg/kg) of 49, 205 and 945 which illustrates that sediment from industrial land
use is severely contaminated compared to urban retention ponds within other studies.
TKN and TP concentrations are not regulated by the CCME soil quality guidelines. Literature
reports levels of nitrogen-n in soil from Calgarys urban perimeter to be an average of 3859
mg/kg for an A horizon and 1245 mg/kg for a B horizon (Macmillan, 1987). Consequently all
nitrogen concentrations within the retention ponds are similar to the natural soil levels as
average TKN concentrations within the ponds were found to range between these natural
concentrations.
Hydrocarbons were anticipated to be present in urban areas due to fuel storage, automotive
wear and maintenance. The two most prominent hydrocarbons fractions found were the F2
and F3 fractions. F3 hydrocarbon anthropogenic sources are related to the handling, transport,
storage and disposal of heavy end fuel, oil and grease products within urbanised areas
(Allcock et al., 1991; Heal, 1999) while F2 hydrocarbon originates from the subsequent
handling, transport, storage and disposal of lighter end fuels. This could be because the light
end hydrocarbons are very mobile, are easily volatilized and have a high microbial
degradation potential (CCME, 2001; Allcock et al., 1991; Heal, 1999). Conversely, heavy end
hydrocarbons such as oil and grease persist longer in the environment, have a stronger
association to particulate matter and cannot be easily degraded (Allcock et al., 1991; Heal,
1999). With respect to the industrial sector, oil and greases are more prevalently used and
subsequently have an increased potential of entering the environment in areas of high
industrial activity (Allcock et al., 1991; Heal, 1999).
To illustrate the internal dynamics, correlations were conducted between the contaminant
parameters and sediment parameters. It was anticipated that once material enters the system
there would be a close association between contaminants and clay particles (Horowitz, 1991).
Within each pond only a few contaminants displayed a close affinity to clay particles but this
relationship was neither consistent for the contaminant or retention pond. One exception was
61 Ave SE Duck pond, which illustrated a high positive association with the majority of the
metal constituents as well as the F3 fraction to clay/silt particles and a negative correlation
with sand. Phosphorus also illustrates this trend in the 61 Ave SE Duck pond, which has been
observed in other industrial site studies investigated by Verstraeten and Poesen (2002). The
only other pond which displayed a strong relationship to phosphorus and clay particles was
Edgemont wetland. This is potentially due to the presence of a marsh area between the two
cells, which appears to have reduced the phosphorus levels in the latter portion of the pond.
With respect to phosphorus the concentrations present represent the phosphorus fraction most
easily retained. Specifically soluble reactive phosphorus and phosphorus bound to particles
are subject to the greatest mechanical settling (Nungesser and Chimney, 2001). This is
reiterated by studies indicating nutrient concentrations are primarily influenced by catchment
area erosion or sediment yield variability and to a far lesser degree to variations in input
concentrations (Verstraeten and Poesen, 2002). Collectively for metals, hydrocarbons and
nutrients correlations suggest that the association of contaminants to small particulates is
stronger at high parameter concentrations. This positive relationship with silt and clay is
reiterated in the retention ponds with observed high concentration of F3 hydrocarbon fractions
present in 68 St SE retention lake and 61 Ave SE Duck pond. The associations are due to the
charges of each particle, wherein clay particles have a higher negative charge in relation to
surface area than sand with respect to bulk sediment volume. Consequently at higher
concentrations contaminants preferentially adhere to the highly charged clay particles
(Scholes et al., 1998; Horowitz, 1991).

Vopicka

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008


The distribution of particles sizes combined with the association of contaminants to smaller
particles illustrates an advantageous phenomenon particularly within retention ponds which
have high contamination levels. Since sand typically accumulates at the inlet this particulate
fraction forms the bulk of the sediment present at the inlet. Sand also has the lowest
association to contaminants. This trend can be utilized to facilitate sediment disposal wherein
the less contaminated inlet portion of retention ponds can be dredged and handled separately.
Disposal
With insight into the properties of sediment, removal and disposal options can be
investigated. Considerations of each option will depend on the physical and chemical
properties of the sediment as well as monetary considerations, regulatory viability, and public
acceptance. To complete the disposal of sediment considerations it will be necessary to
consider removal options and possible treatment requirements.
Sediment volumes must be determined to assess the amount of sediment in the retention
ponds requiring disposal. Sediment volumes were derived from measured surface areas and
collected sediment depth taken along the main flow path. With respect to disposal, the
approximate sediment volumes (m3) were 2284, 5221, 15192, 28447 and 172058 for 61 Ave
SE Duck pond, Deerfoot Trail & 22X pond, Edgemont wetland, Harvest lake and 68 St SE
retention pond, respectively.
A limiting factor with respect to sediment removal is the solids content. Generally sediment
behaves as either a solid, semisolid or liquid depending upon the solids content. These limits
are defined as 30 % solids for the liquid limit, which is the transition point between liquid and
semi solid, and 69 % solids for the plastic limit, which is the transition point between semi
solids and solids. The average percent solids for the retention ponds range between 38 to 44 %
with the exception of 68 St SE retention lake which approached the liquid limit of clay.
Therefore it is recommended that the sediment be dredged mechanically. 68 St SE retention
lake on the other hand will require hydraulic dredging if all sediment is intended to be
removed as the latter half of the pond is well below the liquid limit.
Landfills can accept a broad array of waste products but restrictions include: no free liquids,
does not contain a restricted waste, waste contains concentrations less than the regulated
limits, does not contain a substance that ignites or propagates combustion and has a pH less
than 12.5 (Alberta Environment, 1995). Disposal into a landfill should only be considered
once other disposal options are exhausted. This is typically the most expensive disposal
option since material must be transferred to the landfill site, possibly dewatered to achieve a
high solids content and has large associated tipping fees. To determine the disposal possibility
of sediment within a landfill, metal concentrations, pH and solids content need to be
addressed. Comparison of all metals regulated from each pond indicates that metal
concentrations found were under the regulated criteria. pH was not a concern as it did not
exceed the regulated limits and therefore does not restrict disposal. However all the sediment
samples failed the standard paint filter test illustrating the presence of free liquids. Therefore
all ponds could potentially be disposed of directly into a landfill site, based on these
preliminary results, if dewatered.
To estimate the landfill disposal costs it will be assumed that the material has an average
weight of 1388 kg/m3. Consequently for every 1000 m3 of sediment there will be 1388 tonnes
of sediment to dispose of. Normal landfill rates are $42/tonne for stabilised material (The City
of Calgary, 2005). At this rate total tipping charges would therefore be $182,000;
$10,000,000; $886,000; $1,660,000; and $133,000 for Deerfoot Trail & 22X pond, 68 St SE
retention lake, Edgemont wetland, Harvest lake, and 61ave SE Duck pond, respectively.
These costs do not include trucking, dewatering or removal costs illustrating that disposal of
sediment from retention ponds will not be completed without very large associated costs.
8

Sediment Assessment of Stormwater Retention Ponds within the Urban Environment of


Calgary, Canada

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

CONCLUSIONS

All the retention ponds within the study were deemed to be contaminated as they
exceeded criteria for one or more of the following parameters: salt, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, zinc, and/or F3 fraction hydrocarbons
A strong positive relationship was found between heavy metals, F3 fraction
hydrocarbons and phosphorus when correlated to finer particulates. However this was
only observed at higher contamination concentrations.
A primary sedimentation area or forebay displayed useful characteristics in sediment
disposal. Although these would require more frequent maintenance, due to sediment
volume, the sediment removed from these forebays would ultimately have a lower
concentration of contamination. The lower concentration is due to the greater volume
accumulations, higher proportion of large particulates and the lower contamination
association with the large particulate sediment, which could potentially lower disposal
costs.

REFERENCES
Alberta Environment. (1995). Alberta user guide for waste managers. Manifest Form 3/95, Part 2 5. Edmonton:
Alberta Environment - Environmental Protection.
Allcock, R., DArcy, B. J., Dolby, J., & Walker, R. (1991). Pollution of water by oil: The case for storage
regulations. Reading: Joint National Rivers Authority/River Protection Board Report.
American Public Health Association (APHA). (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater 20th edition. Washington: American Public Health Association.
Bow River Basin Council (BRBC). (2005). The 2005 report on the state of the Bow River basin. Calgary: Bow
River Basin Council.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (1999). Canadian environmental quality guidelines.
Winnipeg: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2001). Canada-wide standard for petroleum
hydrocarbons in soil tier 1. Winnipeg: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1993a). Natural wetlands and urban stormwater: Potential impacts and
management. Washington: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1993b). EPA method 351.2. Determination of total Kjeldahl nitrogen by
semi-automated colorimetry. Washington: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1996a). EPA method 3050B: Acid digestion of sediments, sludges, and soils.
Washington: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1996b). EPA method 9095A. Paint filter liquids test. Washington: United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Environment Canada. (1987). Federal water policy. Ontario: Environment Canada.
Griffin, P., & Upton, J. (1999). Constructed wetlands: A strategy for sustainable wastewater treatment at small
treatment works. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. 13(6),
441-446.
Heal, K. (1999). Surface water: Ecological and source controls metals in sediments of sustainable urban
drainage structures in Scotland. IAHS Publications Series of Proceedings and Reports Intern Assoc
Hydrological Sciences. 259, 331-337.
Horowitz, A. J. (1991). A primer on sediment-trace element chemistry. New Jersey: Lewis Publishers.
IMC Consulting Group Inc. (1995). Edgemont stage VI constructed wetlands stormwater management facility.
Calgary: IMC Consulting Group Inc.
Kadlec, R. H., & Knight, R. L., (1996). Treatment wetlands. Florida: Lewis Publishers.
Kamalakkannan, R., Zettel, V., Goubatchev, A., Stead-Dexter, K., & Ward, N. I. (2004). Chemical (polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon and heavy metal) levels in contaminated stormwater and sediments from a
motorway dry detention pond drainage system. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 6(3), 175-181.
Knight, R. D., & Klassen, R. A. (2005). Prairie soil geochemistry. Environmental geochemistry and geochemical
hazards. Toronto: Natural Resources Canada.
Lin, Y., Jing, S., Lee, D., & Wang, T. (2002). Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater using a constructed
wetlands system. Aquaculture. 209(1), 169-184.

Vopicka

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008


Macmillan, R.A. (1987). Soil survey of the Calgary urban perimeter: Alberta soil survey report No.45.
Edmonton: Terrain Science Department.
Magmedov, V. G., Zakharchenko, M. A., Yakovleva, L. I., & Ince, M. E. (1996). The use of constructed
wetlands for the treatment of run-off and drainage waters: The UK and Ukraine experience. Water,
Science and Technology. 33(4), 315-323.
Mallin, M.A., Ensign, S.H., Wheeler, T.L., & Mayes, D.B. (2002). Surface water quality Pollutant removal
efficacy of three wet detention ponds. Journal of Environmental Quality. 31, 654-660.
Malvern Instruments. (1998). Malvern Instruments operators guide. Worcestershire: Malvern Instruments Ltd.
Marsalek, J., Rochfort, Q., Brownlee, B., Mayer, T., & Servos, M. (1999). An exploratory study of urban runoff
toxicity. Water Science and Technology. 39(12), 33-40.
Marsalek, P., & Marsalek, J. (1997). Characteristics of sediment from a stormwater management pond. Water
Science and Technology. 36(8-9), 117-122.
Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (1993). Wetlands. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Nungesser, M. K., & Chimney, M. J. (2001). Phosphorus removal and transformations Evaluation of
phosphorus retention in a south Florida treatment wetland. Water Science and Technology. 44(11-12),
109-115.
Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. (2000). Deerfoot Trail upgrading and extension highway 22X Deerfoot Trail
interchange stormwater management report. Calgary: Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd
Scholes, L., Shutes, R. B. E., Revitt, D. M., Forshaw, M., & Purchase, D. (1998). The treatment of metals in
urban runoff by constructed wetlands. Science of the Total Environment. 214(1), 211-219.
The City of Calgary. (2000). Wastewater and drainage: Stormwater management and design manual. Calgary:
The City of Calgary.
The City of Calgary. (2005). Wetland and wet pond maintenance scoping study Phase 2. Retention pond
sediment management: Final Report. Calgary: Watertech Engineering, Research & Health Inc.
The City of Calgary. (2006a). Storm drainage system history website, http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/
gateway/PTARGS_0_2_104_0_0_35/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Wat
er+Services/Water+and+Wastewater+Systems/Storm+Drainage+System/History.htm, visited on 16
February 2006.
The City of Calgary. (2006b). The City of Calgary pond book website, http://work/swr-work/pondbook.dgn,
visited on 14 September 2006.
The City of Calgary. (2006c). Salt management plan website, http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/
PTARGS_0_2_780_237_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Roads/Roa
d+Maintenance/Snow+and+Ice+Control/Salt+Management+Plan.htm#4, visited on 17 February 2006.
Verstraeten, G. & Poesen, J. (2002). Regional scale variability in sediment and nutrient delivery from small
agricultural watersheds. Journal of Environmental Quality. 31, 870-879.
Vymazal, J., & Krasa, P. (2003). Distribution of Mn, Al, Cu, Zn, in a constructed wetland receiving municipal
sewage. Water, Science and Technology. 48(5), 299-305.
Westhoff Engineering Resources, Inc. (1998). 61 Avenue SE, stormwater management report. Calgary: Westhoff
Engineering Resources, Inc.
Yousef, Y. A., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Sloat, J., & Lindeman, W. (1994a). Sediment accumulation in detention or
retention ponds. Science of the Total Environment. 146/147, 451-456.
Yousef, Y.A., Lin, L., Linderman, W., & Hvitved-Jacobsen, T. (1994b). Transport of heavy metals through
accumulated sediments in wet ponds. Science of the Total Environment. 146/147, 485-491.

10

Sediment Assessment of Stormwater Retention Ponds within the Urban Environment of


Calgary, Canada

Potrebbero piacerti anche