2,681
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 58:
Line 58: − + Line 87:
Line 87: − For guidance on infiltration testing and selecting a design infiltration rate see [[Design infiltration rate]]. Line 105:
Line 104: − + Line 123:
Line 122: − + Line 171:
Line 170: − + Line 206:
Line 205: − + Line 245:
Line 244: − + Line 332:
Line 331: − + Line 340:
Line 339: + + + + + + Line 367:
Line 372: − + Line 375:
Line 380: + + + + Line 386:
Line 395: − |- − |style="text-align: center;" |China − |style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on SWMM and RECARGA models applied to generate the runoff reduction percentages of a bioretention installation near one of China's and expressway service area.">85 to 100%*</span></u>''' − |style="text-align: center;" |Gao, ''et al.'' (2018)<ref>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.</ref> Line 396:
Line 401: + + + + + + + + Line 401:
Line 414: − + − + − + Line 412:
Line 425: − |- − |style="text-align: center;" |Maryland and North Carolina − |style="text-align: center;" |20 to 50% − |style="text-align: center;" |Li ''et al.'' (2009). <ref>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.</ref> − |- − |style="text-align: center;" |Ohio − |style="text-align: center;" |36 to 59% − |style="text-align: center;" |Winston ''et al.'' (2016). <ref>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.</ref> Line 426:
Line 431: − |- − |style="text-align: center;" |Maryland − |style="text-align: center;" |49 to 58% − |style="text-align: center;" |Davis (2008). <ref>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)</ref> Line 438:
Line 439: + + + + Line 451:
Line 456: + +
→Drainage Area
'''Stormwater tree trench installations include:'''
'''Stormwater tree trench installations include:'''
* Overlying impermeable or [[permeable pavements]]
* Overlying impermeable or [[permeable pavements]]
* Trees (tolerant to northern. urban conditions)
* Trees (tolerant to northern urban conditions)
* Planting soil
* Planting soil
* Modular soil support or "soil cell" structures (optional)
* Modular soil support or "soil cell" structures (optional)
===Infiltration===
===Infiltration===
For information about constraints to infiltration practices, and approaches and tools for identifying and designing within them see [[Infiltration]].
For information about constraints to infiltration practices, and approaches and tools for identifying and designing within them see [[Infiltration]].
===Site Topography===
===Site Topography===
===Drainage Area===
===Drainage Area===
Typical contributing drainage areas are between 150-300 m2 per tree, with a maximum of 450 m2 per tree.
Typical contributing drainage areas are between 150 to 300 m<sup>2</sup> per tree, with a recommended maximum of 450 m<sup>2</sup> per tree. For optimal performance recommended ratios of impervious drainage area to pervious facility footprint area (I:P area ratio) range from 5:1 on low permeability soils (HSG C and D) to 15:1 on high permeability soils (HSG A and B).
===Setback from Buildings===
===Setback from Buildings===
For more information on planning considerations and site constraints see [[Site considerations]].
For a table summarizing information on planning considerations and site constraints see [[Site considerations]].
==Design==
==Design==
<imagemap>
<imagemap>
File:SWTT Low Perm Soil Cells Final.png|thumb|left|450px|'''Tree trench with soil cells on low permeability subsoil''' - This tree trench configuration features an overflow outlet storm sewer pipe connection in the catch basin and underdrain to allow excess water to leave the practice. The underdrain perforated pipe is embedded in the aggregate base due to the slow drainage rate of the subsoil. Solid standpipes connected to the underdrain and distribution perforated pipes provide access for inspection and maintenance tasks over the lifespan of the facility. <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>
File:SWTT Low Perm Soil Cells Final.png|thumb|left|400px|'''Tree trench with soil cells on low permeability subsoil''' - This tree trench configuration features an overflow outlet storm sewer pipe connection in the catch basin and underdrain to allow excess water to leave the practice. The underdrain perforated pipe is embedded in the aggregate base due to the slow drainage rate of the subsoil. Solid standpipes connected to the underdrain and distribution perforated pipes provide access for inspection and maintenance tasks over the lifespan of the facility. <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 1494 1440 1584 1530 [[Overflow|Overflow to Underdrain]]
rect 1494 1440 1584 1530 [[Overflow|Overflow to Underdrain]]
<imagemap>
<imagemap>
File:SWTT High Perm Soil Cells Final.png|thumb|right|450px|'''Tree trench with soil cells on high permeability subsoil''' - This tree trench configuration features an overflow outlet storm sewer pipe connection in the catch basin and underdrain to allow excess water to leave the practice. The underdrain perforated pipe is embedded in the growing medium which factors in the fast drainage rate of the subsoil. A monitoring well screened within the aggregate base of the trench 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>
File:SWTT High Perm Soil Cells Final.png|thumb|right|400px|'''Tree trench with soil cells on high permeability subsoil''' - This tree trench configuration features an overflow outlet storm sewer pipe connection in the catch basin and underdrain to allow excess water to leave the practice. The underdrain perforated pipe is embedded in the growing medium which factors in the fast drainage rate of the subsoil. A monitoring well screened within the aggregate base of the trench 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 1494 1440 1584 1530 [[Overflow|Overflow to Underdrain]]
rect 1494 1440 1584 1530 [[Overflow|Overflow to Underdrain]]
<imagemap>
<imagemap>
File:SWTT Struct Soil Med High Perm Final.png|thumb|center|450px|'''Tree Trench with structural soil medium on high permeability subsoil''' - This tree trench configuration features structural soil medium as pavement support, as an alternative to soil cells that improves adaptability around utilities. An overflow outlet storm sewer pipe connection in the catch basin and underdrain are included to allow excess water to leave the practice. The underdrain perforated pipe is embedded in the growing medium which factors in the fast drainage rate of the subsoil. A monitoring well screened within the aggregate base of the trench 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>
File:SWTT Struct Soil Med High Perm Final.png|thumb|center|400px|'''Tree Trench with structural soil medium on high permeability subsoil''' - This tree trench configuration features structural soil medium as pavement support, as an alternative to soil cells that improves adaptability around utilities. An overflow outlet storm sewer pipe connection in the catch basin and underdrain are included to allow excess water to leave the practice. The underdrain perforated pipe is embedded in the growing medium which factors in the fast drainage rate of the subsoil. A monitoring well screened within the aggregate base of the trench 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 1605 3079 1983 3500 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches: Specifications|Structural Soil Medium]]
rect 1605 3079 1983 3500 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches: Specifications|Structural Soil Medium]]
You can also review Urban's presentation he gave at the University of Washington in 2014 about some of the lessons learned in his book here: [https://botanicgardens.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2014/10/Urban_Soils_Jim_Urban.pdf Urban Soil and Site Assessment Presentation] <ref>Urban, J. 2014. Urban Soil and Site Assessment [Presentation]. University of Washington Botanic Gardens. Seattle, WA https://botanicgardens.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2014/10/Urban_Soils_Jim_Urban.pdf.</ref>
You can also review Urban's presentation he gave at the University of Washington in 2014 about some of the lessons learned in his book here: [https://botanicgardens.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2014/10/Urban_Soils_Jim_Urban.pdf Urban Soil and Site Assessment Presentation] <ref>Urban, J. 2014. Urban Soil and Site Assessment [Presentation]. University of Washington Botanic Gardens. Seattle, WA https://botanicgardens.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2014/10/Urban_Soils_Jim_Urban.pdf.</ref>
==Inspection and maintenance==
==Inspection and Maintenance==
Tree trenches have fewer maintenance requirements than bioretention cells or bioswales, but maintenance is still critical to their success. The most critical maintenance task is the removal of trash, sediment and debris accumulated in inlet structure sumps, gravel diaphragms and tree openings at curb cuts. This should be done at least once per year, however the frequency will depend on pavement uses, traffic volumes and tree canopy size. Inspect new trenches closely during the first two years of operation to measure the rate of accumulation and set an optimal maintenance frequency.
Tree trenches have fewer maintenance requirements than bioretention cells or bioswales, but maintenance is still critical to their success. The most critical maintenance task is the removal of trash, sediment and debris accumulated in inlet structure sumps, gravel diaphragms and tree openings at curb cuts. This should be done at least once per year, however the frequency will depend on pavement uses, traffic volumes and tree canopy size. Inspect new trenches closely during the first two years of operation to measure the rate of accumulation and set an optimal maintenance frequency.
See further details here: [[Stormwater Tree Trenches: Maintenance]]
See further details here: [[Stormwater Tree Trenches: Maintenance]]
<br>
Also take a look at the [[Inspection and Maintenance: Bioretention & Bioswales]] page by clicking below for further details about proper inspection and maintenance practices:
{{Clickable button|[[File:Cover Photo.PNG|150 px|link=https://wiki.sustainabletechnologies.ca/wiki/Inspection_and_Maintenance:_Bioretention_%26_Bioswales]]}}
==Performance==
==Performance==
</br>
</br>
{|class="wikitable"
{|class="wikitable"
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from bioretention
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from Stormwater Tree Trench/Bioretention
|-
|-
!'''LID Practice'''
!'''LID Practice'''
|-
|-
|rowspan="4" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention without underdrain
|rowspan="4" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention without underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on SWMM and RECARGA models applied to generate the runoff reduction percentages of a bioretention installation near one of China's and expressway service area.">85 to 100%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |Gao, ''et al.'' (2018)<ref>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.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Connecticut
|style="text-align: center;" |Connecticut
|style="text-align: center;" |99%
|style="text-align: center;" |99%
|style="text-align: center;" |70%
|style="text-align: center;" |70%
|style="text-align: center;" |Emerson and Traver (2004)<ref>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</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |Emerson and Traver (2004)<ref>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</ref>
|-
|-
|rowspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
|rowspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on differences in runoff volume between the practice and a conventional impervious surface over the period of monitoring.">82%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on differences in runoff volume between the practice and a conventional impervious surface over the period of monitoring.">82%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |Mahmoud, ''et al.'' (2019)<ref>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</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |Mahmoud, ''et al.'' (2019)<ref>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</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on SWMM and RECARGA models applied to generate the runoff reduction percentages of a bioretention installation near one of China's and expressway service area.">35 to 75%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |Gao, ''et al.'' (2018)<ref>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.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Ohio
|style="text-align: center;" |36 to 59%
|style="text-align: center;" |Winston ''et al.'' (2016). <ref>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.</ref>
|-
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Virginia
|style="text-align: center;" |Virginia
|style="text-align: center;" |DeBusk and Wynn (2011)<ref>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</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |DeBusk and Wynn (2011)<ref>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</ref>
|-
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland and North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on SWMM and RECARGA models applied to generate the runoff reduction percentages of a bioretention installation near one of China's and expressway service area.">35 to 75%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |20 to 50%
|style="text-align: center;" |Gao, ''et al.'' (2018)<ref>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.</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |Li ''et al.'' (2009). <ref>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.</ref>
|-
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |33 to 50%
|style="text-align: center;" |33 to 50%
|style="text-align: center;" |Hunt and Lord (2006). <ref>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.</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |Hunt and Lord (2006). <ref>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.</ref>
|-
|-
|rowspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain & liner
|rowspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain & liner
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 34%
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 34%
|style="text-align: center;" |<span class="plainlinks">[https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf STEP (2019)]</span> <ref>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.</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |<span class="plainlinks">[https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf STEP (2019)]</span> <ref>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.</ref>
|-
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Queensland, Australia
|style="text-align: center;" |Queensland, Australia
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 83%
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 83%
|style="text-align: center;" |Hatt ''et al.'' (2009). <ref>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</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |Hatt ''et al.'' (2009). <ref>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</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland
|style="text-align: center;" |49 to 58%
|style="text-align: center;" |Davis (2008). <ref>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)</ref>
|-
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: This estimate is provided only for the purpose of initial screening of LID practices suitable for achieving stormwater management objectives and targets. Performance of individual facilities will vary depending on site specific contexts and facility design parameters and should be estimated as part of the design process and submitted with other documentation for review by the approval authority." >Runoff Reduction Estimate*</span></u>'''
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: This estimate is provided only for the purpose of initial screening of LID practices suitable for achieving stormwater management objectives and targets. Performance of individual facilities will vary depending on site specific contexts and facility design parameters and should be estimated as part of the design process and submitted with other documentation for review by the approval authority." >Runoff Reduction Estimate*</span></u>'''
For other recent research on the water management benefits of urban trees, and modelling approaches see the following articles and projects.
For other recent research on the water management benefits of urban trees, and modelling approaches see the following articles and projects.
* '''[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721063749?via%3Dihub Stormwater runoff volume reduction benefits of urban street tree canopy (Selbig et al., 2022)]''' <ref> Selbig, W.R., Loheide II, S.P., Shuster, W., Scharenbroch, B.C., Coville, R.C., Kruegler, J., Avery, W., Haefner, R., Nowak, D. Quantifying stormwater runoff volume reduction benefit of urban street tree canopy. Science of the Total Environment. v.806 (2022) 151296. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721063749?via%3Dihub </ref>
** In a paired-catchment study design involving medium density residential areas in Wisconsin, with removal of 29 mature green ash and Norway maple street trees as the treatment, tree removal resulted in a 4% increase in runoff volume over the evaluation period, while peak discharge was generally not affected. Runoff volume reduction benefit of the street tree canopy was estimated at 6376 L per tree, which is similar to values reported in previous studies based largely on simulation.
* '''[https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0378388 Stormwater tree trench and bioswale performance in Vancouver, BC (Vega 2019)]''' <ref> Vega, O.M. Green infrastructure in the City of Vancouver: performance monitoring of stormwater tree trenches and bioswales. UBC Theses and Dissertations. https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0378388 </ref>
* '''[https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0378388 Stormwater tree trench and bioswale performance in Vancouver, BC (Vega 2019)]''' <ref> Vega, O.M. Green infrastructure in the City of Vancouver: performance monitoring of stormwater tree trenches and bioswales. UBC Theses and Dissertations. https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0378388 </ref>
** A study of a stormwater tree trench featuring structural soil medium and two bioswales in Vancouver, British Columbia found that these practices are effective in treating heavy metals, suspended solids and other typical stormwater pollutants, and are effective tools for reducing runoff volume by promoting infiltration to native soils.
** A study of a stormwater tree trench featuring structural soil medium and two bioswales in Vancouver, British Columbia found that these practices are effective in treating heavy metals, suspended solids and other typical stormwater pollutants, and are effective tools for reducing runoff volume by promoting infiltration to native soils.