Infiltration trench
Contents
- 1 Suitability
- 2 Design Variants
- 2.1 Infiltration Basin
- 2.2 Infiltration Trench (a.k.a. infiltration gallery)
- 2.3 Dry Wells (a.k.a. infiltration tubes, french drains, soak-away pits or soak holes)
- 2.4 Underground Infiltration Systems
- 2.5 Retrofit Suitability
- 2.6 Special Receiving Waters Suitability
- 2.7 Cold Climate Suitability
- 2.8 Water Quantity Treatment
- 2.9 Water Quality Treatment
- 2.10 Limitations
Suitability
General
Stormwater infiltration practices capture and temporarily store stormwater before allowing it to infiltrate into the soil. Design variants include; the infiltration basin, the infiltration trench, the dry well and the underground infiltration system. As the stormwater penetrates the underlying soil, chemical, biological and physical processes remove pollutants and delay peak stormwater flows.
Infiltration practices are applicable to sites with naturally permeable soils and a suitable distance to the seasonally high ground-water table, bedrock or other impermeable layer. They may be used in residential and other urban settings where elevated runoff volumes, pollutant loads, and runoff temperatures are a concern. In applications where the stormwater runoff has a particularly high pollutant load or where the soils have very high infiltration rates, a significant amount of pre-treatment should be provided to protect the ground-water quality. Sources that include potential stormwater should not be introduced to infiltration systems. Sources that include potentialstormwater hotsposts (PSH) should not be introduced to infiltration areas.
Function Within Stormwater Treatment Train
Infiltration practices may be located at the end of the treatment train or they can be designed as off-line configurations where the water quality volume is diverted to the infiltration practice. In any case, the practice may be applied as part of a stormwater management system to achieve one or more of the following objectives:
- Reduce stormwater pollutants
- Increase ground-water recharge
- Decrease runoff peak flow rates
- Decrease the volume of stormwater runoff
- Preserve base flow in streams
- Reduce thermal impacts of runoff.
MPCA Permit Applicability
One of the goals of this Manual is to facilitate understanding of and compliance with the MPCA General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MN R100001), commonly called the Construction General Permit (CGP), which includes design and performance standards for permanent stormwater management systems. The permit and related documentation can be found online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-c.html. These standards must be applied in all projects in which at least one acre of new impervious area is being created, and the permit stipulates certain standards for various categories of stormwater management practices.
For regulatory purposes, infiltration practices fall under the “Infiltration / Filtration” category described in Part III.C.2 of the permit. If used in combination with other practices, credit for combined stormwater treatment can be given as described in Part III.C.4. Due to the statewide prevalence of the MPCA permit, design guidance in this section is presented with the assumption that the permit does apply. Also, although it is expected that in many cases infiltration will be used in combination with other practices, standards are described for the case in which it is a stand alone practice.
The following terms are thus used in the text to distinguish various levels of stormwater pond design guidance:
REQUIRED: Indicates design standards stipulated by the MPCA Permit (or other consistently applicable regulations).
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: Indicates design guidance that is extremely beneficial or necessary for proper functioning of the infiltration practice, but is not specifically required by the MPCA permit.
RECOMMENDED: Indicates design guidance that is helpful for infiltration performance but not critical to the design.
Of course, there are situations, particularly retrofit projects, in which an infiltration facility is constructed without being subject to the conditions of the MPCA permit. While compliance with the permit is not required in these cases, the standards it establishes can provide valuable design guidance to the user. It is also important to note that additional and potentially more stringent design requirements may apply for a particular infiltration facility, depending on where it is situated both jurisdictionally and within the surrounding landscape.
Of course, there are situations, particularly retrofit projects, in which an infiltration facility is constructed without being subject to the conditions of the MPCA permit. While compliance with the permit is not required in these cases, the standards it establishes can provide valuable design guidance to the user. It is also important to note that additional and potentially more stringent design requirements may apply for a particular infiltration facility, depending on where it is situated both jurisdictionally and within the surrounding landscape.
Design Variants
Infiltration Basin
An infiltration basin is a natural or constructed impoundment that captures, temporarily stores and infiltrates the design volume of water over several days. In the case of a constructed basin, the impoundment is created by excavation or embankment. Infiltration basins are commonly used for drainage areas of 5 to 50 acres with land slopes that are less than 20 percent. Typical depths range from 2 to 12 feet, including bounce in the basin. An infiltration basin construction detail is located in Appendix D.
Infiltration Trench (a.k.a. infiltration gallery)
An infiltration trench is a shallow excavated trench, typically 3 to 12 feet deep, that is backfilled with a coarse stone aggregate allowing for the temporary storage of runoff in the void space of the material. Discharge of this stored runoff occurs through infiltration into the surrounding naturally permeable soil. Trenches are commonly used for drainage areas less than 5 acres in size. An infiltration trench construction detail is located in Appendix D.
Dry Wells (a.k.a. infiltration tubes, french drains, soak-away pits or soak holes)
A dry well or soak away pit is a smaller variation of an infiltration trench. It is a subsurface storage facility (a structural chamber or an excavated pit backfilled with a coarse stone aggregate) that receives and temporarily stores stormwater runoff. Discharge of this stored runoff occurs through infiltration into the surrounding naturally permeable soil. Due to their size, dry wells are typically designed to handle stormwater runoff from smaller drainage areas, less than one acre in size (e.g. roof tops). A dry well construction detail is located in Appendix D.
Underground Infiltration Systems
Several underground infiltration systems, including pre-manufactured pipes, vaults, and modular structures, have been developed as alternatives to infiltration basins and trenches for space-limited sites and stormwater retrofit applications. These systems are similar to infiltration basins and trenches in that they are designed to capture, temporarily store and infiltrate the design volume of stormwater over several days. Underground infiltration systems are generally applicable to small development sites (typically less than 10 acres) and should be installed in areas that are easily accessible to routine and non-routine maintenance. These systems should not be located in areas or below structures that cannot be excavated in the event that the system needs to be replaced. An underground infiltration system construction detail is located in Appendix D.
Retrofit Suitability
The narrow and versatile shape of infiltration trenches and dry wells makes them well suited for retrofit projects. For example, infiltration practices can be situated along the margin or perimeter of a developed site or roadway in many cases. They are particularly desirable as retrofit practices in watersheds or catchments that are targeting volume reduction practices to help minimize channel erosion. Use of infiltration practices is PROHIBITED in the CGP for treatment of runoff from industrial areas with exposed significant materials or from vehicle fueling and maintenance areas. Generally, infiltration should not be used to treat runoff from manufacturing or industrial sites or other areas with high pollutant concentrations unless correspondingly high levels of pretreatment are provided.
Special Receiving Waters Suitability
Table 12.INF.1 provides guidance regarding the use of infiltration practices in areas upstream of special receiving waters. This table is an abbreviated version of a larger table in which other BMP groups are similarly evaluated. The corresponding information about other BMPs is presented in the respective sections of this Manual.
Cold Climate Suitability
Various options for use of infiltration are available for treating snowmelt runoff. Some of the installations are built below the frost line (trenches, sub-grade proprietary chambers) and do not need further adaptation for the cold. However, some special consideration as described in Chapter 9 is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for surface systems. The problem with infiltration in cold weather is the ice that forms both over the top of the facility and within the soil interstices. To avoid these problems to the extent possible, it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that the facility be actively managed to keep it dry before it freezes in the late fall. This can be done by various methods, including limiting inflow, under-drainage, and surface disking.
Even if the infiltration properties of an infiltration practice are marginal for snowmelt runoff, the storage available in the facility will provide some storage if it is dry entering the melt season. Routing the first highly-soluble portions of snowmelt to an infiltration facility provides the opportunity for soil treatment (such as filtration, adsorption, microbial activity) of these solubles. Again, however, flow originating in an industrial area, a high traffic area where large amounts of salt are added, or another PSH should be diverted away from infiltration systems.
Proprietary, sub-grade infiltration systems provide an alternative to standard surface based systems. Essentially, these systems provide an insulated location for pre-treated snowmelt to be stored and slowly infiltrated, or simply filtered and drained away if ground-water sensitivity is an issue. The insulating value of these systems adds to their appeal as low land consumption alternatives to ponds and surface infiltration basins.
Water Quantity Treatment
The amount of stormwater volume infiltrated depends on the design variant selected. Smaller infiltration practices (e.g. infiltration trenches) should either be designed off-line using a flow diversion, or designed to safely pass large storm flows while still protecting the infiltration area. In limited cases (e.g. extremely permeable soils), these smaller infiltration practices can accommodate the channel protection volume, Vcp, in either an off- or on-line configuration.
In general, supplemental stormwater practices will be necessary to satisfy channel and flood protection requirements when smaller infiltration practices are used. However, these practices can help reduce detention requirements for a site through volume reduction.
Due to their size, the larger infiltration practices (e.g. infiltration basins and underground infiltration systems) have the potential to provide greater water quantity benefits. Surcharge storage above the practice bottom is available for detention. Outlet structures can be sized to partially or fully accommodate larger storm peak discharge control while allowing the volume below the outlet to infiltrate.
Water Quality Treatment
Infiltration practices can remove a wide variety of stormwater pollutants through chemical and bacterial degradation, sorption, and filtering. Surface water load reductions are also realized by virtue of the reduction in runoff volume.
There are few data available demonstrating the load reductions or outflow concentrations of larger-scale infiltration practices such as infiltration trenches. Similarly, few sampling programs collect infiltrating water that flows through an infiltration system.
For properly designed, operated, and maintained infiltration systems, all water routed into them should be “removed” from stormwater flow, resulting in 100% efficiency relative to volume and pollutant reduction. For this reason, any infiltration BMP performance table should show all 100% entries (see page 1 of Ch. 12-INF). This logic assumes that stormwater is the beneficiary of any infiltration system, but ignores the fact that pollution, if any remains after the internal workings of the infiltration BMP itself (see later discussion in this chapter), is being transferred into the shallow groundwater system. Good monitoring data on the groundwater impact of infiltrating stormwater are rare, but there are efforts underway today to document this, so future Manual revisions should be able to include some data updates.
Properly designed infiltration systems discussed later in this chapter will accommodate a design volume based on the required water quality volume. Excess water must be by-passed and diverted to another BMP so that the design infiltration occurs within 48 hours if under state regulation, or generally within 72 hours under certain local and watershed regulations. In no case should the by-passed volume be included in the pollutant removal calculation.
Data that are reported in performance literature for infiltration systems, unless reporting 100% effectiveness for surface water or documenting outflow water downward, are not accurately representing behavior, or are representing the excess flow (overflow) from a system. The performance percentages and effluent concentrations reported in the Version 1.1 Manual will be removed for this reason and replaced at a future date to better reflect the movement of surface water pollutants into the groundwater system. Design specifications in the following sections of this chapter should prevent putting contaminated runoff and excess water beyond that which will infiltrate within the given timeframe. Any runoff containing toxic material or excess volume that cannot infiltrate should be diverted away from the infiltration system and reported as inflow to another treatment device.
Both Chapter 12-INFIL and Chapter 13 address the necessity of careful use of infiltration BMPs to make sure they are not transporting highly loaded or toxic contaminants into the groundwater system. These chapters address the pollution remediation processes at work in infiltration systems to reduce or totally remove pollutants that move through them. However, extreme caution must be exercised and serious planning undertaken to assure that no highly contaminating material is routed into these BMPs. Of particular concern are toxic organics (gasoline, solvents) and high levels of chloride.
Appendix N contains details on how design and operations can either raise or lower the expected level of performance for infiltration BMPs.
Limitations
The following general limitations should be recognized when considering installation of infiltration practices:
- Limited monitoring data are available and field longevity is not well documented.
- Failure can occur due to improper siting, design, construction and maintenance.
- Systems are susceptible to clogging by sediment and organic debris
- There is a risk of ground-water contamination depending on subsurface conditions, land use and aquifer susceptibility.
- They are not ideal for stormwater runoff from land uses or activities with the potential for high sediment or pollutant loads.
- They are not recommended for areas with steep slopes
- Please not that even though there are potential pollution and physical clogging problems with infiltration, it is one of the most important elements in the stormwater runoff treatment train. Fear of the limitations should not prevent well designed systems from being used.
As noted in the Chapter 6 discussion of BMP selection, the benefits associated with infiltration BMPs should only be accrued based on the amount of water actually passing through the BMP. Excess runoff beyond that designed for the BMP should not be routed through the system because of the potential for hydraulic and particulate over-loading, both of which will adversely impact the life and operation of the BMP.
For example, an infiltration device designed to treat the first 0.5” of runoff from a fully impervious surface will catch about 30% of the volume of runoff in the Twin Cities. This means that 70% of the runoff volume should be routed around the filtration system and will not be subject o the removals reflected in the above tables. Attributing removal to all runoff just because a BMP is in place in a drainage system is not a legitimate claim.