Difference between revisions of "Bioretention"
(→Design) |
|||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
*Spaces for herbaceous flowering plants can be included. This may be attractive at a community entrance location or in a residential rain garden. | *Spaces for herbaceous flowering plants can be included. This may be attractive at a community entrance location or in a residential rain garden. | ||
Tables for identifying ideal species for bioretention are found in the [[Plant lists]]. See [[plant selection]] and [[planting design]] for supporting advice. | |||
===Variations of Bioretention Cells=== | |||
Below, find three alternate Bioretention cell configurations, that differ based off whether developers want the system to infiltrate incoming water fully, partially, or not at all due to sites which possess contaminated soils or shallow bedrock, and/or zero-lot-line developments (i.e. condo developments and dense urban infill). | |||
All the images below are image map drawings from the following pages to compare side-by-side the differences between varying configurations. | |||
<imagemap> | |||
File:Bioretention Full infiltration placementswap.png|thumb|left|450px|[[Bioretention: Full infiltration|'''Full infiltration bioretention''']] cell draining a parking lot. This design variation includes a surface overflow pipe/structure to allow excess water to leave the practice. A monitoring well is included so drainage performance can be evaluated over its operating lifespan.<span style="color:red">'''''Note''': The following is an "image map", feel free to explore the image with your cursor and click on highlighted labels that appear to take you to corresponding pages on the Wiki.''</span> | |||
rect 1278 2868 1335 3149 [[Bioretention|Water Storage Depth]] | |||
rect 1129 3088 1159 3145 [[Digital technologies|Water Level Sensor]] | |||
rect 1113 1434 1162 1487 [[Wells|Monitoring Well]] | |||
rect 1129 2835 1162 3072 [[Wells|Monitoring Well]] | |||
rect 1047 3147 1359 3225 [[Soil groups|Uncompacted subgrade soil]] | |||
rect 898 3147 933 3225 [[Soil groups|Uncompacted subgrade soil]] | |||
poly 870 241 866 322 953 333 1017 371 1045 400 1078 322 1129 312 1182 316 1235 328 1388 245 1263 245 1388 247 1155 243 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 874 604 1021 573 1004 632 870 690 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 1384 255 1266 602 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 866 1034 990 1406 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 1300 1061 1392 1171 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 864 359 1015 585 [[Stone|Erosion Control - Stone]] | |||
rect 1257 1206 1394 1420 [[Stone|Erosion Control - Stone]] | |||
rect 813 382 862 530 [[Curb cuts|Curb Cut]] | |||
rect 1396 1240 1439 1379 [[Curb cuts|Curb Cut]] | |||
rect 862 687 1402 1034 [[Trees: List|Tree]] | |||
rect 1066 355 1253 628 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 1033 1100 1237 1406 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 837 1653 1427 2609 [[Trees: List|Tree]] | |||
rect 1047 2687 1245 2895 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 866 2862 960 2938 [[Flow through media|Ponding Depth]] | |||
rect 1019 2903 1272 2936 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 1310 2901 1400 2936 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 1021 2934 1266 3140 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]] | |||
rect 1312 2936 1363 3138 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]] | |||
rect 939 1416 1019 1485 [[Overflow|Overflow Outlet]] | |||
rect 960 2846 1019 3215 [[Overflow|Overflow Outlet]] | |||
poly 982 3227 941 3144 917 3160 953 3217 970 3219 1015 3227 1059 3152 1031 3148 1023 3191 1064 3176 [[Reservoir aggregate|Clear Stone / Aggregate]] | |||
</imagemap> | |||
<imagemap> | |||
File:Bioretention Full Partial infiltration placementswap.png|thumb|right|450px|[[Bioretention: Partial infiltration|'''Partial infiltration bioretention cell''']] draining a parking lot. This design variation includes an underdrain and surface overflow pipes that allow excess water to leave the practice. A monitoring well is included so drainage performance can be evaluated over its operating lifespan. <span style="color:red">'''''Note''': The following is an "image map", feel free to explore the image with your cursor and click on highlighted labels that appear to take you to corresponding pages on the Wiki.''</span> | |||
rect 1295 2828 1342 3128 [[Underdrains|Underdrain Access Structure]] | |||
rect 1296 1423 1348 1478 [[Underdrains|Underdrain Access Structure]] | |||
rect 1293 3128 1346 3178 [[Underdrains|Underdrain]] | |||
rect 1112 3181 1169 3250 [[Bioretention|Water Storage Depth]] | |||
rect 1134 3187 1159 3246 [[Digital technologies|Water Level Sensor]] | |||
rect 1126 2838 1163 3187 [[Wells|Monitoring Well]] | |||
rect 1116 1437 1163 1480 [[Wells|Monitoring Well]] | |||
rect 1295 3183 1348 3254 [[Bioretention|Water Storage Depth]] | |||
rect 939 1415 1011 1482 [[Overflow|Overflow Outlet]] | |||
rect 956 2845 1017 3177 [[Overflow|Overflow Outlet]] | |||
rect 935 3229 1012 3285 [[Overflow|Overflow Outlet Pipe]] | |||
poly 866 326 866 241 1386 241 1386 416 1392 683 1337 620 1270 579 1278 410 1241 339 1078 326 1045 398 1049 400 992 355 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 870 685 868 610 1000 567 1004 632 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 868 1028 966 1081 1021 1370 864 1485 870 1283 868 1211 870 1136 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 990 1397 1045 1482 1110 1485 1111 1421 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 1214 1389 1263 1419 1339 1440 1390 1446 1384 1491 1161 1497 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 1292 1062 1386 1032 1384 1164 1249 1209 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 1027 379 870 575 [[Stone|Erosion Control - Stone]] | |||
rect 1241 1223 1392 1432 [[Stone|Erosion Control - Stone]] | |||
rect 815 389 868 540 [[Curb cuts|Curb Cut]] | |||
rect 1398 1234 1441 1378 [[Curb cuts|Curb Cut]] | |||
rect 862 685 1388 1038 [[Trees: List|Tree]] | |||
rect 1068 351 1245 648 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 1007 1089 1235 1399 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 854 1652 1408 2651 [[Trees: List|Tree]] | |||
rect 1064 2684 1227 2822 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 862 2863 955 2940 [[Flow through media|Ponding Depth]] | |||
rect 1017 2902 1119 2942 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 1164 2900 1398 2938 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 864 2943 955 3079 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]] | |||
rect 1023 2941 1111 3083 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]] | |||
rect 1168 2938 1392 3081 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]] | |||
rect 866 3083 953 3116 [[Choker layer|Choker Layer]] | |||
rect 1021 3079 1110 3116 [[Choker layer|Choker Layer]] | |||
rect 1168 3085 1386 3116 [[Choker layer|Choker Layer]] | |||
rect 868 3120 955 3185 [[Reservoir aggregate|Clear Stone / Aggregate]] | |||
rect 1023 3114 1113 3189 [[Reservoir aggregate|Clear Stone / Aggregate]] | |||
rect 1170 3116 1388 3191 [[Reservoir aggregate|Clear Stone / Aggregate]] | |||
rect 1045 3252 1363 3309 [[Soil groups|Native Soil]] | |||
rect 900 3289 1047 3309 [[Soil groups|Native Soil]] | |||
</imagemap> | |||
<imagemap> | |||
File:Bioretention No infiltration placementswap.png|thumb|center|450px|[[Stormwater planters|'''Stormwater planter / No infiltration bioretention''' ]] cell draining a parking lot. This design variation includes an impermeable liner, an underdrain and surface overflow pipes to allow excess water to leave the practice. <span style="color:red">'''''Note''': The following is an "image map", feel free to explore the image with your cursor and click on highlighted labels that appear to take you to corresponding pages on the Wiki.''</span> | |||
rect 1288 1419 1353 1483 [[Underdrains|Underdrain Access Structure]] | |||
rect 1290 2822 1345 3140 [[Underdrains|Underdrain Access Structure]] | |||
rect 1288 3142 1345 3191 [[Underdrains|Underdrain]] | |||
poly 866 326 866 241 1386 241 1386 416 1392 683 1337 620 1270 579 1278 410 1241 339 1078 326 1045 398 1049 400 992 355 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 870 685 868 610 1000 567 1004 632 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 868 1028 966 1081 1021 1370 864 1485 870 1283 868 1211 870 1136 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 990 1397 1045 1482 1110 1485 1111 1421 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 1214 1389 1263 1419 1339 1440 1390 1446 1384 1491 1161 1497 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
poly 1292 1062 1386 1032 1384 1164 1249 1209 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 1027 379 870 575 [[Stone|Erosion Control - Stone]] | |||
rect 1241 1223 1392 1432 [[Stone|Erosion Control - Stone]] | |||
rect 815 389 868 540 [[Curb cuts|Curb Cut]] | |||
rect 1398 1234 1441 1378 [[Curb cuts|Curb Cut]] | |||
rect 862 685 1388 1038 [[Trees: List|Tree]] | |||
rect 1068 351 1245 648 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 1007 1089 1235 1399 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 939 1415 1011 1482 [[Overflow|Overflow Outlet]] | |||
rect 854 1652 1408 2651 [[Trees: List|Tree]] | |||
rect 1064 2684 1227 2822 [[Plant lists|Vegetation]] | |||
rect 862 2863 955 2940 [[Flow through media|Ponding Depth]] | |||
rect 1017 2902 1119 2942 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 1164 2900 1398 2938 [[Mulch|Mulch]] | |||
rect 960 3126 1019 3175 [[Overflow|Overflow Outlet Pipe]] | |||
rect 956 2845 1017 3177 [[Overflow|Overflow Outlet]] | |||
rect 864 2943 955 3079 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]] | |||
rect 1023 2941 1111 3083 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]] | |||
rect 1168 2938 1392 3081 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]] | |||
rect 866 3083 953 3116 [[Choker layer|Choker Layer]] | |||
rect 1021 3079 1110 3116 [[Choker layer|Choker Layer]] | |||
rect 1168 3085 1386 3116 [[Choker layer|Choker Layer]] | |||
rect 868 3120 955 3185 [[Reservoir aggregate|Clear Stone / Aggregate]] | |||
rect 1023 3114 1113 3189 [[Reservoir aggregate|Clear Stone / Aggregate]] | |||
rect 1170 3116 1388 3191 [[Reservoir aggregate|Clear Stone / Aggregate]] | |||
rect 825 3238 1439 3279 [[Soil Groups|Compacted Subgrade]] | |||
rect 825 2867 862 3238 [[Liner|Impermeable Liner]] | |||
rect 862 3191 1437 3242 [[Liner|Impermeable Liner]] | |||
rect 1392 2865 1439 3193 [[Liner|Impermeable Liner]] | |||
</imagemap> | |||
==Performance== | ==Performance== |
Revision as of 19:44, 4 March 2022
This article is about planted installations designed to capture and infiltrate some or all of the stormwater received.
For simple systems, without underdrains or storage reservoirs (typically found in residential settings), see Rain gardens.
For linear systems that have a gradually sloping filter media bed and convey flow, but are otherwise similar to bioretention, see Bioswales.
For planted systems that do not infiltrate water, see Stormwater planters.
Overview[edit]
Bioretention systems may be the most well recognized form of low impact development (LID). They can fit into any style of landscape and utilize all of the stormwater treatment mechanisms: sedimentation, infiltration, filtration, attenuation and evapotranspiration.
Bioretention is an ideal technology for:
- Fitting multi-functional vegetation into urban landscapes
- Treating runoff collected from nearby impervious surfaces
Take a look at the downloadable Bioretention Factsheet below for a .pdf overview of this LID Best Management Practice:
The fundamental components of a bioretention cell are:
- Inlets which may be curb openings (e.g. modified curbs, spillways), pipes, road or side inlet catchbasins, trench drains or other pre-fabricated inlet structures;
- A surface ponding area defined by landscaped side slopes or hardscape structures and the invert elevation of the overflow outlet structure;
- A filter bed containing filter media;
- A filter bed surface cover layer (e.g. mulch and stone);
- Plants, and;
- An overflow outlet to limit surface ponding and safely convey excess flow to a downstream storm sewer or the next BMP in the treatment train.
Additional components may include:
- An underdrain to redistribute or remove excess water and access structures or standpipes for periodic inspection and flushing;
- An internal water storage reservoir composed of a reservoir aggregate layer, and may include embedded void-forming structures to minimize depth and conserve aggregate, and organic material derived from untreated wood (aids in dissolved nitrogen removal);
- Monitoring wells installed to the base and screened in the underdrain aggregate to verify and track drainage time; and
- Filter media additives intended to enhance retention of nutrients, metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and/or bacteria.
Planning considerations[edit]
Note Site Considerations from the Bioretention Fact Sheet [1] in the 2010 CVC/TRCA LID Stormwater Management Planning Design are detailed below and within links included
Infiltration[edit]
Some form of stormwater landscaping (bioretention) can be integrated into most spaces. Although there are some constraints to infiltrating water, it is preferable to do so where possible. Designing bioretention without an underdrain is highly desirable wherever the soils permit infiltration at a rate which is great enough to empty the facility between storm events. Volume reduction is achieved primarily through infiltration to the underlying soils, with some evapotranspiration. As there is no outflow from this BMP under normal operating conditions, it is particularly useful in areas where nutrient management is a concern to the watershed.
Bioretention with an underdrain is a popular choice in areas with 'tighter' soils where infiltration rates are < 15 mm/hr. Including a perforated pipe in the reservoir aggregate layer helps to empty the facility between storm events, which is particularly useful in areas with low permeability soils. The drain discharges to a downstream point, which could be an underground infiltration trench or chamber facility. Volume reduction is gained through infiltration and evapotranspiration. By raising the outlet of the discharge pipe the bottom portion of the BMP can only drain through infiltration, creating an internal water storage reservoir. This creates a fluctuating anaerobic/aerobic environment which promotes denitrification. Increasing the period of storage has benefits for promoting infiltration, but also improves water quality for catchments impacted with nitrates. A complimentary technique is to include fresh wood mulch in the storage reservoir aggregate, which fosters denitrifying biological processes.
Where infiltration is entirely impossible, but the design calls for planted landscaping, try a stormwater planter instead.
Space[edit]
- For optimal performance bioretention facilities should receive runoff from impervious drainage areas between 5 to 20 times their own permeable footprint surface area.
- In the conceptual design stage it is recommended to set aside approximately 10 - 20 % of the contributing drainage area for bioretention facility placement.
- Bioretention cells work best when distributed, so that no one facility receives runoff from more than 0.8 Ha, although there is a trade off to be considered regarding distributed collection and treatment versus ease of maintenance.
- Bioretention can be almost any shape, from having very curvilinear, soft edges with variable depth, to angular, hard-sided and uniform depth.
- For ease of construction and to ensure that the vegetation has adequate space, cells should be no narrower than 0.6 m at any point.
- The maximum width of a facility is determined by the reach of the construction machinery, which must not be tracked into the cell.
- Setback from buildings: A typical four (4) metre setback is recommended from building foundations. If an impermeable liner is used, no setback is needed.
- Proximity to underground utilities and overhead wires: Consult with local utility companies regarding horizontal and vertical clearance required between storm drains, ditches, and surface water bodies. Further, check whether the future tree canopy height in the bioretention area will not interfere with existing overhead wires.
The principles of bioretention can be applied in any scenario where planting or vegetation would normally be found.
Private sites[edit]
In single family residential sites rain gardens most often take the form of a soft edged, traditional perennial planting bed. As many private industrial, commercial and institutional sites have landscaping around their parking lots, bioretention is an increasingly popular choice to manage stormwater in these contexts.
Streetscape[edit]
Bioretention is a popular choice for making urban green space work harder. Design configurations include extending the cells to accommodate shade trees, and using retrofit opportunities to create complete streets with traffic calming and curb extensions or 'bump outs'. See Bioretention: Streetscapes
Parkland and natural areas[edit]
Naturalized landscaping and soft edges can make a bioretention facility 'disappear' into green space surroundings. In some scenarios, a larger bioretention (50 - 800 m2) cell may be used as an end-of-pipe facility treating both sheet flow and concentrated flow before it enters an adjacent water course. In these larger installations care must be made in the design to distribute the inflow, preventing erosion and maximizing infiltration.
Design[edit]
Poor design choice: Limits outflow water quality |
Better design choice: Improves outflow water quality |
---|---|
Single large cell design | Several smaller distributed or connected cells |
Single concentrated inflow | Forebays or distributed flow |
No pretreatment | Pretreatment provided as part of inlet design |
Over-sized underdrain | Moderately sized underdrain (or no underdrain) |
Filter bed < 0.5 m | Filter bed > 0.75 m |
Filter media Plant-Available Phosphorus > 40 ppm | Filter media Plant-Available Phosphorus < 40 ppm |
Filter media is predominantly sand | Filter media is a mixture of sand, topsoil and organic material |
Surface covered with turf grass and stone | Surface covered with mulch and dense, deeply rooting vegetation |
Sizing and Modelling[edit]
Bioretention facilities should be sized to accommodate runoff from approximately 5 to 20 times the footprint area of the facility. i.e. they should have an I/P ratio of 5 to 20. When the drainage area is too large, silt can accumulate very rapidly, overwhelm the pretreatment devices, and lead to clogging of the facility. When the drainage area is relatively small compared to the bioretention facility, it can make the facility unreasonably costly.
Inlets and pretreatment options[edit]
Options for pretreatment include:
- A level spreader, gravel diaphragm or Vegetated filter strip for sheet flow
- A forebay for concentrated surface flow
- An oil and grit separator for concentrated underground flow
Simple (non-treating) inlets include:
- Sheet flow from a pavement edge or flush curb
- One of more curb cuts
- Covered drains
Overflow routing[edit]
Routing[edit]
- Infiltration facilities can be designed to be inline or offline from the drainage system. See Inlets
- Inline facilities accept all of the flow from a drainage area and convey larger event flows through an overflow outlet. The overflow must be sized to safely convey larger storm events out of the facility.
- The overflow must be situated at the maximum surface ponding elevation or furthest downgradient end of the facility to limit surface ponding during periods of flow in excess of the facility storage capacity.
- Offline facilities use flow splitters or bypass channels that only allow the design storm runoff storage volume to enter the facility. Higher flows are conveyed to a downstream storm sewer or other BMP by a flow splitting manhole weir or pipe, or when the maximum surface ponding depth has been reached, by by-passing the curb opening and flowing into a downstream catchbasin connected to a storm sewer.
Overflow elevation[edit]
The invert of the overflow should be placed at the maximum water surface elevation of the practice (i.e. the maximum surface ponding level). A good starting point is 150 to 350 mm above the surface of the mulch cover. However, consideration should be given to public safety, whether or not an underdrain is included, the time required for ponded water to drain through the filter bed surface, and if no underdrain is present, into the underlying native soil (must drain within 48 hours). See Bioretention: Sizing and Stormwater planters for more details.
Freeboard[edit]
- In swales conveying flowing water a freeboard of 300 mm is generally accepted as a good starting point.
- In bioretention the freeboard is the difference between the invert elevation of the overflow structure and the inlet. 150 mm will suffice, so long as the inlet will not become inundated during design storm conditions.
- In above grade stormwater planters, the equivalent dimension would be the difference between the invert elevation of the overflow structure and the lip of the planter (150 mm minimum)
Overflow outlet options[edit]
Metal grates are recommended (over plastic) in all situations.
Feature | Anti Vandalism/Robust | Lower Cost Option | Self cleaning |
---|---|---|---|
Dome grate | x | ||
Flat grate | x | ||
Catch basin | x | ||
Ditch inlet catch basin | x | x | |
Curb cut | x | x | x |
Gallery[edit]
Flat metal overflow with stone surround to reduce erosion around the cast concrete structure. Mississauga Road, ON
Domed, metal overflow grate
Photo credit: Aaron Volkening Being flush with the surface reduces potential infiltration of ponded water.Overflow inlet for newly constructed stormwater bioretention areas in median of Bradley Road. Village of Brown Deer, Wisconsin. Bradley Road, east of 51st Street. Photo from October 2015. Constructed summer 2015.
Photo credit: Aaron Volkening
Plant Selection[edit]
The nature of bioretention cells is to attenuate stormwater from rainfall events of varying intensities. For this reason, the vegetation used must be suitable for the varying moisture conditions and is often categorized into three zones related to the grading of the feature.
- Low Zone -- This area is frequently inundated during storm events, and is well-drained between rainfall events.
- Mineral Meadow Marsh plant community.
- Grasses, sedges, rushes, wildflowers, ferns and shrubs that have an ‘obligate’ to ‘facultative’ designation.
- Wetland 'obligate' species that are flood tolerant as they will persist in average years and flourish in wetter years.
- Plants that are likely to occur in wetlands or adjacent to wetlands.
- Plants with dense root structure and /or vegetative cover are favoured for their ability to act as pollution filters and tendency to slow water velocity.
- Be advised these practices are not constructed wetlands and are designed to fully drain within 48 hours.
- Mid Zone -- This zone is inundated less frequently (2 – 100 year storm events) and has periodically high levels of moisture in the soil. The ecology of this zone is a transition from the Mineral Meadow Marsh/Beach-type community to an upland community.
- Plants able to survive in soils that are seasonally saturated, yet can also tolerate periodic drought.
- Species include grasses and groundcovers, as well as low shrub species.
- High Zone -- The ecology of this zone is terrestrial due to its elevation in relation to the filter bed. The zone most closely resembles a Cultural Meadow or a Cultural Thicket community, depending on the mix of grasses, herbaceous material, shrubs and trees utilized.
- Plants should have deep roots for structure, be drought-tolerant and capable of withstanding occasional soil saturation.
- Trees and large shrubs planted in this zone will aid in the infiltration and absorption of stormwater.
- This area can be considered a transition area into other landscape or site areas.
- A variety (min. five) species should be used to avoid monocultures.
Exposure to roadway or parking lot runoff must be considered.
- Exposure to roadway or parking lot runoff
- Select salt tolerant grasses, other herbaceous material and shrubs.
- These can take on several forms, including parking lot islands, traffic islands, roundabouts, or cul-de-sacs and are often used as snow storage locations.
- No exposure to roadway or parking lot runoff
- Practices allow for a greater range of species selection.
- These receive runoff from rooftops or areas that use no deicing salt and have low pollutant exposure, such as courtyard bioretention.
Other selection factors:
- Most bioretention cells will be situated to receive full sun exposure. The ‘Exposure’ column in the plant lists identifies the sun exposure condition for each species.
- Facilities with a deeper filter media bed (e.g., 1 m) provide the opportunity for a wider range of plant species (including trees).
- The inclusion of vegetation with a variety of moisture tolerances ensures that the bioretention cell will adapt to a variety of weather conditions.
- Proper spacing must be provided for above-ground and below-ground utilities, and adjacent infrastructure.
- Where possible, a combination of native trees, shrubs, and perennial herbaceous materials should be used.
- A planting mix with evergreen and woody plants will provide appealing textures and colors year round, but are not appropriate for areas where snow will be stored/piled during winter.
- In areas where less maintenance will be provided and where trash accumulation in shrubbery or herbaceous plants is a concern, consider a “turf and trees” landscaping model.
- If trees are to be used, or the bioretention is located in a shaded location, then ensure that the chosen herbaceous plants are shade tolerant.
- Spaces for herbaceous flowering plants can be included. This may be attractive at a community entrance location or in a residential rain garden.
Tables for identifying ideal species for bioretention are found in the Plant lists. See plant selection and planting design for supporting advice.
Variations of Bioretention Cells[edit]
Below, find three alternate Bioretention cell configurations, that differ based off whether developers want the system to infiltrate incoming water fully, partially, or not at all due to sites which possess contaminated soils or shallow bedrock, and/or zero-lot-line developments (i.e. condo developments and dense urban infill).
All the images below are image map drawings from the following pages to compare side-by-side the differences between varying configurations.
Performance[edit]
BMP | Water Balance | Water Quality | Erosion Control |
---|---|---|---|
Bioretention with no underdrain | Yes | Yes-size for water quality storage requirement | Partial-based on available storage volume and native soil infiltration rate |
Bioretention with underdrain | Partial-based on available storage, native soil infiltration rate and if a flow restrictor is used | Yes-size for water quality storage requirement | Partial-based on available storage, native soil infiltration rate and if a flow restrictor is used |
Bioretention with underdrain and liner | No-some volume reduction occurs through evapotranspiration | Yes-size for water quality storage requirement | Partial-some volume reduction occurs through evapotranspiration |
Water Balance[edit]
Bioretention practices have been shown to reduce runoff volume through both means of evapotranspiration and infiltration. The primary body of research is separated into bioretention practices either with underdrains and those without (therefore, relying solely on full infiltration into underlying soils). Volumetric performance improves when:
- Native soils have high infiltration capacity.
- General size of the practice.
- Underdrain is elevated above the native soil and/or a flow restrictor is installed on the underdrain.
LID Practice | Location | Runoff Reduction* | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Bioretention without underdrain | Connecticut | 99% | Dietz and Clausen (2005) [2] |
Pennsylvania | 80% | Ermilio (2005)[3] | |
Pennsylvania | 70% | Emerson and Traver (2004)[4] | |
China | 85 to 100%* | Gao, et al. (2018)[5] | |
Bioretention with underdrain | |||
Texas | 82%* | Mahmoud, et al. (2019)[6] | |
Virginia | 97 to 99% | DeBusk and Wynn (2011)[7] | |
China | 35 to 75%* | Gao, et al. (2018)[8] | |
North Carolina | 40 to 60% | Smith and Hunt (2007)[9] | |
North Carolina | 33 to 50% | Hunt and Lord (2006). [10] | |
Maryland and North Carolina | 20 to 50% | Li et al. (2009). [11] | |
Ohio | 36 to 59% | Winston et al. (2016). [12] | |
Bioretention with underdrain & liner | |||
Ontario | 15 to 34% | STEP (2019) [13] | |
Maryland | 49 to 58% | Davis (2008). [14] | |
Queensland, Australia | 33 to 84% | Lucke and Nichols (2015). [15] | |
Victoria, Australia | 15 to 83% | Hatt et al. (2009). [16] | |
Runoff Reduction Estimate* | 85% without underdrain;
45% with underdrain | 30% with underdrain and liner |
Water Quality[edit]
Performance results from both laboratory and field studies indicate that bioretention systems have the potential to be one of the most effective BMPs for pollutant removal (TRCA, 2009). Bioretention provides effective removal for many pollutants as a result of sedimentation, filtering, soil adsorption, microbial processes and plant uptake. It is also important to note that there is a relationship between the water balance and water quality functions. If a bioretention cell infiltrates and evaporates 100% of the runoff from a site, then there is essentially no pollution leaving the site in surface runoff. Furthermore, treatment of infiltrated runoff continues to occur as it moves through the native soil.
A comparative performance assessment of bioretention in Ontario was conducted comparing 9 different bioretention facilities in the GTA. The results showed total suspended solids (TSS) concentration reductions between 73 to 99%. (STEP, 2019)[17]. Other STEP studies in the Greater Toronto Area have displayed similar results, with 90% reduction in TSS when compared to nearby asphalt runoff samples having median TSS concentrations below the provincial 30 mg/L standard (median = ~19 mg/L) STEP, 2014[18].
Another group of studies of bioretention facilities examines nutrient removal of these LID installation, with mixed results. Some facilities have been observed to increase total phosphorus in infiltrated water (Dietz and Clausen, 2005[19]; Hunt et al., 2006[20] ; TRCA, 2008[21]). These findings have been attributed to leaching from filter media soil mixtures which contained high phosphorus content. To avoid phosphorus export, the phosphorus content (i.e., Phosphorus Index) of the filter media soil mixture should be examined prior to installation and kept between 10 to 30 ppm (Hunt and Lord, 2006[22]). While moderate reductions in total nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen have been observed in laboratory studies (Davis et al., 2001[23]) and field studies (Dietz and Clausen, 2005[24]), nitrate nitrogen has consistently been observed to be low. Little data exists on the ability of bioretention to reduce bacteria concentrations, but preliminary laboratory and field study results report good removal rates for fecal coliform bacteria (Rusciano and Obropta, 2005; Hunt et al., 2006[25]; TRCA, 2008[26]).
Stream Channel Erosion[edit]
The feasibility of storing the channel erosion control volume within bioretention areas will be dependent on the size of the drainage area and available space. It may prove infeasible due to the large footprint needed to maintain the recommended maximum ponding depth of 200 mm. Meeting the channel erosion control requirement through bioretention is most feasible in the regions of the Greater Toronto Area with A and B soils. In these situations, the reduction in runoff volume through infiltration and evapotranspiration may be sufficient. It is important to note that the bioretention practice will infiltrate runoff throughout the course of the storm; so the actual capacity of the bioretention cell to capture runoff from the drainage area will be larger than its designed storage volume.
Other Benefits[edit]
The benefits of bioretention reach beyond the specific stormwater management goals to other social and environmental benefits, including:
- Reduced thermal aquatic impacts: Bioretention and other filtration and infiltration practices benefit aquatic life by reducing thermal impacts on receiving waters from urban runoff (Jones and Hunt, 2009[27]). Unlike detention ponds, bioretention does not raise water temperature and can help maintain baseflows through infiltration.
- Snow Storage: Bioretention areas can be used for snow storage and snow melt treatment from the contributing drainage area during winter, especially those located adjacent to parking lots and roadways. To function as snow storage, bioretention must include an overflow for snow melt in excess of the designed ponding depth. Additionally, the plant material must be salt-tolerant, perennial and tolerant of periodic inundation.
- Reduced Urban Heat Island: Bioretention is able to reduce the local urban heat island by introducing soils and vegetation into urban areas, such as parking lots. Vegetation absorbs less solar radiation than hard urban surfaces. Also, the water vapor emitted by plant material also cools ambient temperatures.
See also[edit]
External links[edit]
- CSA W200-18 Design of Bioretention Systems (2018) CSA Group
- CSA W201-18 Construction of Bioretention Systems (2018) CSA Group
- Bioretention Design Guidelines (2014) Healthy Waterways (Australia)
- ↑ City of Toronto. 2017. City of Toronto's Green Streets Technical Guidelines - Version 1.0. Schollen & Company Inc., Urban Forest Innovators, TMIG, DMG. August, 2017. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-107514.pdf
- ↑ Dietz, M.E. and J.C. Clausen. 2005. A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water Air and Soil Pollution. Vol. 167. No. 2. pp. 201-208. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.9417&rep=rep1&type=pdf
- ↑ Ermilio, J.F., 2005. Characterization study of a bio-infiltration stormwater BMP (Doctoral dissertation, Villanova University). https://www1.villanova.edu/content/dam/villanova/engineering/vcase/vusp/Ermilio-Thesis06.pdf
- ↑ Emerson, C., Traver, R. 2004. The Villanova Bio-infiltration Traffic Island: Project Overview. Proceedings of 2004 World Water and Environmental Resources Congress (EWRI/ASCE). Salt Lake City, Utah, June 22 – July 1, 2004. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784407370
- ↑ Gao, J., Pan, J., Hu, N. and Xie, C., 2018. Hydrologic performance of bioretention in an expressway service area. Water Science and Technology, 77(7), pp.1829-1837.
- ↑ Mahmoud, A., Alam, T., Rahman, M.Y.A., Sanchez, A., Guerrero, J. and Jones, K.D. 2019. Evaluation of field-scale stormwater bioretention structure flow and pollutant load reductions in a semi-arid coastal climate. Ecological Engineering, 142, p.100007. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590290319300070
- ↑ DeBusk, K.M. and Wynn, T.M., 2011. Storm-water bioretention for runoff quality and quantity mitigation. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 137(9), pp.800-808. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ce431/Articles/DeBusk-ASCE-2011.pdf
- ↑ Gao, J., Pan, J., Hu, N. and Xie, C., 2018. Hydrologic performance of bioretention in an expressway service area. Water Science and Technology, 77(7), pp.1829-1837.
- ↑ Smith, R and W. Hunt. 2007. Pollutant removals in bioretention cells with grass cover. Proceedings 2nd National Low Impact Development Conference. Wilmington, NC. March 13-15, 2007.
- ↑ Hunt, W.F. and Lord, W.G. 2006. Bioretention Performance, Design, Construction, and Maintenance. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin. Urban Waterways Series. AG-588-5. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.
- ↑ Li, H., Sharkey, L.J., Hunt, W.F., and Davis, A.P. 2009. Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. Vol. 14. No. 4. pp. 407-415.
- ↑ Winston, R.J., Dorsey, J.D. and Hunt, W.F. 2016. Quantifying volume reduction and peak flow mitigation for three bioretention cells in clay soils in northeast Ohio. Science of the Total Environment, 553, pp.83-95.
- ↑ STEP. 2019. Comparative Performance Assessment of Bioretention in Ontari0. Technical Brief. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf.
- ↑ Davis, A.P. 2008. Field performance of bioretention: Hydrology impacts. Journal of hydrologic engineering, 13(2), pp.90-95. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:2(90)
- ↑ Lucke, T., & Nichols, P. W. B. 2015. The pollution removal and stormwater reduction performance of street-side bioretention basins after ten years in operation. Science of The Total Environment, 536, 784-792. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.142
- ↑ Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., & Deletic, A. 2009. Hydrologic and pollutant removal performance of stormwater biofiltration systems at the field scale. Journal of Hydrology, 365(3), 310-321. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.001
- ↑ STEP. 2019. Comparative Performance Assessment of Bioretention in Ontario - Technical Brief.
- ↑ STEP. 2014. Performance Evaluation of a Bioretention System - Earth Rangers. Prepared by Toronto and Region Conservation. September 2014. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2014/09/STEP-Bioretention-Report_2014.pdf
- ↑ Dietz, M.E. and J.C. Clausen. 2005. A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water Air and Soil Pollution. Vol. 167. No. 2. pp. 201-208.
- ↑ Hunt, W.F. and W.G. Lord. 2006. Bioretention Performance, Design, Construction, and Maintenance. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin. Urban Waterways Series. AG-588-5. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC
- ↑ . Performance Evaluation of Permeable Pavement and a Bioretention Swale, Seneca College, King City, Ontario. Prepared under the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP). Toronto, Ontario.
- ↑ Hunt, W.F. and W.G. Lord. 2006. Bioretention Performance, Design, Construction, and Maintenance. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin. Urban Waterways Series. AG-588-5. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC
- ↑ Davis, A., M. Shokouhian, H. Sharma and C. Minami. 2001. Laboratory Study of Biological Retention for Urban Stormwater Management. Water Environment Research. 73(5): 5-14.
- ↑ Dietz, M.E. and J.C. Clausen. 2005. A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water Air and Soil Pollution. Vol. 167. No. 2. pp. 201-208.
- ↑ Hunt, W.F., A.R. Jarrett, J.T. Smith, and L.J. Sharkey. 2006. Evaluating Bioretention Hydrology and Nutrient Removal at Three Field Sites in North Carolina. ASCE Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 132(6): 600-608.
- ↑ . Performance Evaluation of Permeable Pavement and a Bioretention Swale, Seneca College, King City, Ontario. Prepared under the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP). Toronto, Ontario.
- ↑ Jones, M.P. and Hunt, W.F. 2009. Bioretention Impact on Runoff Temperature in Trout Sensitive Waters. Journal of Environmental Engineering. Vol. 135. No. 8. Pp. 577-585.