Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stormwater Tree Trenches (view source)

Revision as of 20:43, 15 June 2023

19,658 bytes added ,  10 months ago
→‎Structural Soil Comparisons
Line 51: Line 51:       −
Take a look at the downloadable Stormwater Tree Trenches Fact Sheet below for a .pdf overview of this LID Best Management Practice:
+
Take a look at the downloadable Stormwater Tree Trench Fact Sheet below for a .pdf overview of this LID Best Management Practice:
   −
{{Clickable button|[[File:Treetrench.png|200 px|link=https://wiki.sustainabletechnologies.ca/images/4/4e/Tree_trenches_final_Update.pdf]]}}
+
{{Clickable button|[[File:Treetrench.png|200 px|link=https://wiki.sustainabletechnologies.ca/images/7/77/Tree_trenches_2022.pdf]]}}
       
'''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)
Line 83: Line 83:     
==Planning considerations==
 
==Planning considerations==
−
A commonly held view is that a tree's root system will be similar to it's visible crown. For many trees, this is not the case, as roots will more often spread much more widely, but to a shallower depth <ref>Crow, P. (2005). The Influence of Soils and Species on Tree Root Depth. Edinburgh. Retrieved from https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCIN078.pdf/$FILE/FCIN078.pdf</ref>. For more detailed information on planning (site) considerations see [[Bioretention]].
+
A commonly held view is that a tree's root system will be similar to it's visible crown. For many trees, this is not the case, as roots will more often spread much more widely, but to a shallower depth <ref>Crow, P. (2005). The Influence of Soils and Species on Tree Root Depth. Edinburgh. Retrieved from https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCIN078.pdf/$FILE/FCIN078.pdf</ref>.  
 +
 
 +
===Infiltration===
 +
For information about constraints to infiltration practices, and approaches and tools for identifying and designing within them see [[Infiltration]].
    
===Site Topography===
 
===Site Topography===
Line 97: Line 100:  
Maintaining a separation of 1 m between the elevations of the bottom of the trench and the seasonally high water table, or top of bedrock, is recommended. Lesser or greater values may be considered based on groundwater mounding analysis. See [[Groundwater]] for further guidance and spreadsheet tool.
 
Maintaining a separation of 1 m between the elevations of the bottom of the trench and the seasonally high water table, or top of bedrock, is recommended. Lesser or greater values may be considered based on groundwater mounding analysis. See [[Groundwater]] for further guidance and spreadsheet tool.
   −
===Soil===
+
===Native Soil===
−
Tree trenches can be constructed over any soil type, but hydrologic soil group A and B are best for achieving water balance objectives. Facilities designed to infiltrate water should be located on portions of the site with the highest infiltration rates. Native soil infiltration rate at the proposed location and depth should be confirmed through in-situ measurements of hydraulic conductivity under field saturated conditions.
+
Tree trenches can be constructed over any soil type, but hydrologic soil group A and B are best for achieving water balance objectives. Facilities designed to infiltrate water should be located on portions of the site with the highest infiltration rates. Native soil infiltration rate at the proposed location and depth should be confirmed through in-situ measurements of hydraulic conductivity under field saturated conditions. For guidance on infiltration testing and selecting a design infiltration rate see [[Design infiltration rate]].
    
===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===
Line 117: Line 120:  
===[[Karst]]===
 
===[[Karst]]===
 
Tree trenches designed to drain primarily by infiltration are unsuitable in areas of known or implied karst topography.
 
Tree trenches designed to drain primarily by infiltration are unsuitable in areas of known or implied karst topography.
 +
 +
 +
For a table summarizing information on planning considerations and site constraints see [[Site considerations]].
    
==Design==
 
==Design==
−
[[File:DepressedDrain_SoilCell.png|thumb|500px|A surface [[inlets|inlet]] configuration featuring a depressed drain routing water collected from the street to an enclosed area infiltrating water to soil cells underneath.]]
+
[[File:DepressedDrain_SoilCell.png|thumb|500px|A surface [[inlets|inlet]] configuration featuring a depressed drain routing water collected from the street to an enclosed area infiltrating water to soil cells underneath. Source: Emmons & Olivier Resources]]
    
Things to consider in design:
 
Things to consider in design:
 
*If the trench is unlined it is hydraulically similar to a full- or partial-infiltration design [[bioretention]] cell and should provide similar water quality benefits.   
 
*If the trench is unlined it is hydraulically similar to a full- or partial-infiltration design [[bioretention]] cell and should provide similar water quality benefits.   
−
*If the trench features an impermeable liner and underdrain it is hydraulically similar to a large [[stormwater planter]] or no-infiltration design [[bioretention]] cell and should provide similar water quality benefits.  
+
*If the trench features an impermeable liner and underdrain it is hydraulically similar to a large [[stormwater planter]] or no-infiltration design bioretention cell and should provide similar water quality benefits.  
 
*Depending on design details tree trenches may retain a significant volume of stormwater within the planting soil and internal water storage layer and provide runoff volume reduction benefit.   
 
*Depending on design details tree trenches may retain a significant volume of stormwater within the planting soil and internal water storage layer and provide runoff volume reduction benefit.   
   Line 136: Line 142:     
===Soil Volume===
 
===Soil Volume===
−
Each tree planted should have access to a minimum 30 m<sup>3</sup> of soil volume, including the growing medium within the tree pit and growing or structural soil medium below adjacent supported pavement. If more than one tree shares the same trench a minimum 20 m<sup>3</sup> of soil per tree may be acceptable.
+
Each tree planted should have access to a minimum 30 m<sup>3</sup> of soil volume, including the growing medium within the tree pit and growing or structural soil medium below adjacent supported pavement. If more than one tree shares the same trench a minimum 20 m3 of soil per tree may be acceptable. It should be noted that structural soils are mostly filled with rock and will therefore have much lower soil volumes.  However, trees have been found to grow reasonably well in these soils because roots only occupy a portion of the total soil medium. 
 +
 
 +
Structural soils consist of 3 components, mixed in the following proportions by weight: a load bearing stone lattice, soil, and a tackifier.  Soils may be clay loam or coarser textured soil if drainage is a priority.  Common tackifiers include ‘hydrogel’, a coated potassium propenoate-propenamide copolymer) or ‘stabilizer’, a plant based organic product sourced from the US.
 +
 
 +
*Crushed [[stone]] (granite or limestone) should be narrowly graded, highly angular with no fines. Stone sizes may vary between 20 to 75 mm. In British Columbia, a larger 75 mm stone (range between 60 and 80 mm) is used because it was found to allow for larger soil volumes (up to 33% of the total soil medium volume).
 +
*[[Geotextiles]] are used with structural soils to prevent migration of fines from the road or sidewalk base into the structural soils.  In BC, a Nilex 4545 fabric is used for this purpose, but other fabrics may also be suitable.
 +
*Compaction to 95% SPD is achieved in 1 m lifts to 95% SPD.  Testing of compaction of levels is accomplished with a trolled nuclear densometer for larger rock size mixes.
 +
 
 +
====Structural Soil Comparisons====
 +
 
 +
{|class="wikitable"
 +
|+Specifications for Stormwater Tree Trenches using Structural Soils
 +
|-
 +
!Structural Soil Type
 +
!Median Stone size/range
 +
!Soil Texture
 +
!Tackifiying Agent
 +
!Approximate Porosity
 +
|-
 +
|'''[https://gailmaterials.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/cu-structural_soil_specifications.pdf CU-Soil™]'''
 +
|30mm (20-40mm)*
 +
|
 +
Gravel: <5%<br>
 +
Sand: 20-45%<br>
 +
Silt: 20-50%<br>
 +
Clay: 20-40%<br>
 +
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) >10<br>
 +
pH:  5.5 – 6.5<br>
 +
Organic Content: 2 – 5% by dry weight
 +
|[http://www.amereq.com/pages/12/index.htm Hydrogel (coated potassium propenoate-propenamide copolymer)]
 +
|26%
 +
|-
 +
|'''B.C Soil'''
 +
|75mm/60 – 80mm)
 +
|
 +
Sand:  45-55%<br>
 +
Silt: 25-35%<br>
 +
Clay: 0 – 10%<br>
 +
Silt + Clay: 25 – 45%<br>
 +
pH: 6.0 – 7.0<br>
 +
Organic Content: 15-20%**
 +
|[http://www.stabilizersolutions.com/products/stabilizer/ Stabilizer]
 +
|33%
 +
|-
 +
| colspan="5" style="text-align: left;" |<small>'''Note:'''<br>
 +
"*" = Larger or smaller stone sizes are accepted as long as they do not comprise more than 10% above or 10% below the indicated range.<br>
 +
"**" = Soil texture is the City of Vancouver specification for structural soils</small>
 +
|}
    
===Modular Soil Support Systems===
 
===Modular Soil Support Systems===
Line 144: Line 197:     
===Structural Soil Medium===
 
===Structural Soil Medium===
−
Structural soil is an engineered soil medium that can be compacted to support sidewalk or roadway pavement installation requirements while also permitting tree root growth. Structural soil medium filled trenches are installed adjacent to tree pits to provide room for tree roots to spread out under the supported pavement portion of the tree trench.
+
Structural soil is an engineered soil medium that can be compacted to support sidewalk or roadway pavement installation requirements while also permitting tree root growth. Structural soil medium filled trenches are installed adjacent to tree pits to provide room for tree roots to spread out under the supported pavement portion of the tree trench.  The available soil for root growth ranges from 25 to 33% depending on the stone size.  Larger stone sizes will typically allow for greater soil volume.
    
===Structural Concrete Panels===
 
===Structural Concrete Panels===
Line 164: Line 217:     
<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 951 3681 1591 3739 [[Soil groups|Uncompacted Subgrade Soil]]
+
 
−
rect 1596 3684 1996 3737 [[Soil groups|Compacted Subgrade Soil]]
+
rect 1494 1440 1584 1530 [[Overflow|Overflow to Underdrain]]
−
rect 1605 3079 1983 3500 [[Soil cells: Gallery|Soil Cells]]
+
rect 980 1335 1070 1434 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches|Cleanout Access]]
 +
rect 1860 1350 1946 1440 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches|Cleanout Access]]
 +
rect 1028 665 1545 1210 [[Trees: List|Tree]]
 +
rect 1143 1258 1410 1506 [[Shrubs: List|Shrubs]] 
 +
rect 1162 389 1389 610 [[Shrubs: List|Shrubs]] 
 +
rect 726 1320 886 1458 [[Pretreatment|Catch Basin]] 
 +
rect 961 303 1612 1563 [[Mulch]] 
 +
rect 963 1719 1595 2819 [[Trees: List|Tree]]
 +
rect 1160 2929 1411 3061 [[Shrubs: List|Shrubs]]   
 +
rect 982 3017 1044 3166 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches|Cleanout Access]]
 +
rect 1885 3043 1950 3159 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches|Cleanout Access]]
 +
rect 1092 3576 1116 3679 [[Digital technologies|Water Level Sensor]]
 +
rect 1606 3084 1724 3495 [[Soil cells: Gallery|Soil Cells]]  
 +
rect 1738 3084 1856 3495 [[Soil cells: Gallery|Soil Cells]]
 +
rect 1867 3085 1986 3499 [[Soil cells: Gallery|Soil Cells]]
 +
rect 815 3109 1948 3159 [[Pipes|Stormwater Distribution Pipe]]
 +
rect 759 3074 802 3122 [[Overflow|Outlet Distribution Pipe to Storm Sewer]]
 +
rect 732 3034 877 3339 [[Pretreatment|Catch Basin]] 
 +
rect 1518 2997 1594 3573 [[Overflow|Overflow to Underdrain]]
 +
rect 1523 3577 1593 3644 [[Underdrain]]
 +
rect 950 3038 1610 3087 [[Mulch]]
 +
rect 958 3096 1988 3495 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]]
 +
rect 938 3104 956 3510 [[Geotextile|Geotextile Liner]]
 +
rect 1986 3080 2003 3504 [[Geotextile|Geotextile Liner]]
 +
rect 1608 3078 1994 3093 [[Geotextile|Geotextile Liner]] 
 +
rect 949 3497 1997 3544 [[Choker layer]]
 +
rect 945 3543 1997 3682 [[Aggregates|Clear Stone Aggregate]]
 +
rect 950 3682 1588 3739 [[Soil groups|Uncompacted Subgrade Soil]]
 +
rect 1590 3682 2001 3739 [[Soil groups|Compacted Subgrade Soil]]
 
</imagemap>
 
</imagemap>
    
<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]]  
Line 210: Line 291:     
<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 1534 3458 1576 3737 [[Bioretention: Internal water storage|Internal Water Storage]]
+
 
−
rect 951 3681 1591 3739 [[Soil groups|Uncompacted Subgrade Soil]]
  −
rect 1596 3684 1996 3737 [[Soil groups|Compacted Subgrade Soil]]
  −
rect 1070 3001 1122 3688 [[Wells|Monitoring Well]]
   
rect 1605 3079 1983 3500 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches: Specifications|Structural Soil Medium]]
 
rect 1605 3079 1983 3500 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches: Specifications|Structural Soil Medium]]
 +
rect 1494 1440 1584 1530 [[Overflow|Overflow to Underdrain]]
 +
rect 1055 1464 1112 1508 [[Wells|Monitoring Well]]
 +
rect 980 1335 1070 1434 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches|Cleanout Access]]
 +
rect 1860 1350 1946 1440 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches|Cleanout Access]]
 +
rect 1028 665 1545 1210 [[Trees: List|Tree]]
 +
rect 1143 1258 1410 1506 [[Shrubs: List|Shrubs]] 
 +
rect 1162 389 1389 610 [[Shrubs: List|Shrubs]] 
 +
rect 726 1320 886 1458 [[Pretreatment|Catch Basin]] 
 +
rect 961 303 1612 1563 [[Mulch]] 
 +
rect 963 1719 1595 2819 [[Trees: List|Tree]]
 +
rect 1160 2929 1411 3061 [[Shrubs: List|Shrubs]]   
 +
rect 982 3017 1044 3166 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches|Cleanout Access]]
 +
rect 1885 3043 1950 3159 [[Stormwater Tree Trenches|Cleanout Access]]
 +
rect 1083 2988 1121 3570 [[Wells|Monitoring Well]]
 +
rect 1092 3576 1116 3679 [[Digital technologies|Water Level Sensor]]
 +
rect 1606 3084 1724 3495 [[Soil cells: Gallery|Soil Cells]]
 +
rect 1738 3084 1856 3495 [[Soil cells: Gallery|Soil Cells]]
 +
rect 1867 3085 1986 3499 [[Soil cells: Gallery|Soil Cells]]
 +
rect 815 3109 1948 3159 [[Pipes|Stormwater Distribution Pipe]]
 +
rect 759 3074 802 3122 [[Overflow|Outlet Distribution Pipe to Storm Sewer]]
 +
rect 732 3034 877 3339 [[Pretreatment|Catch Basin]] 
 +
rect 1516 2992 1591 3401 [[Overflow|Overflow to Underdrain]]
 +
rect 1516 3405 1595 3471 [[Underdrain]]
 +
rect 1531 3478 1579 3682 [[Bioretention: Internal water storage|Internal Water Storage]]
 +
rect 950 3038 1610 3087 [[Mulch]]
 +
rect 958 3096 1988 3495 [[Bioretention: Filter media|Filter Media]]
 +
rect 938 3104 956 3510 [[Geotextile|Geotextile Liner]]
 +
rect 1986 3080 2003 3504 [[Geotextile|Geotextile Liner]]
 +
rect 1608 3078 1994 3093 [[Geotextile|Geotextile Liner]] 
 +
rect 949 3497 1997 3544 [[Choker layer]]
 +
rect 945 3543 1997 3682 [[Aggregates|Clear Stone Aggregate]]
 +
rect 950 3682 1588 3739 [[Soil groups|Uncompacted Subgrade Soil]]
 +
rect 1590 3682 2001 3739 [[Soil groups|Compacted Subgrade Soil]]
 
</imagemap>
 
</imagemap>
 +
      Line 223: Line 335:  
==Benefits of trees==
 
==Benefits of trees==
   −
Stormwater Tree Trenches help support healthy street trees in urban settings where conventional plantings have limited space for root establishment. Trees play a critical role in stormwater management from reducing runoff through canopy interception, evapotranspiration, filtering out pollutants, and increasing infiltration capacity of soils, to retaining runoff. Trees also provide a myriad other environmental benefits, from shading impervious surfaces and thereby reducing urban heat island effects, to providing wildlife habitat and improving the aesthetics of streets and neighbourhoods. Research has shown that healthy trees increase property values, retail spending and contribute to a sense of community pride and safety.
+
Stormwater tree trenches help support healthy street trees in urban settings where conventional plantings have limited space for root establishment. Trees play a critical role in stormwater management from reducing runoff through canopy interception, evapotranspiration, filtering out pollutants, and increasing infiltration capacity of soils, to retaining runoff.<ref>Berland, A., Shiflett, S.A., Shuster, W.D., Garmestani, A.S., Goddard, H.C., Herrmann, D.L. and Hopton, M.E. 2017. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and urban planning, 162, pp.167-177. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271853/1-s2.0-S0169204617X00030/1-s2.0-S0169204617300464/Adam_Berland_green_infrastructure_2017.pdf</ref>, <ref>Kuehler, E., Hathaway, J. and Tirpak, A. 2017. Quantifying the benefits of urban forest systems as a component of the green infrastructure stormwater treatment network. Ecohydrology, 10(3), p.e1813. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2017/ja_2017_kuehler_001.pdf</ref> Trees also provide a myriad other environmental benefits, from shading impervious surfaces and thereby reducing urban heat island effects, to providing wildlife habitat and improving the aesthetics of streets and neighbourhoods. Research has shown that healthy trees increase property values, retail spending and contribute to a sense of community pride and safety.
    
Below is a list of trees that are known to tolerate conditions in northern (Zone 3) urban stormwater tree trenches.
 
Below is a list of trees that are known to tolerate conditions in northern (Zone 3) urban stormwater tree trenches.
Line 247: Line 359:  
| Quercus bicolor || White Oak
 
| Quercus bicolor || White Oak
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Quercus macrocarpa || Burr Oak
+
| Quercus macrocarpa || Bur Oak
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Quercus rubra || Red Oak
 
| Quercus rubra || Red Oak
Line 256: Line 368:     
===Tree planting best practices===
 
===Tree planting best practices===
−
An extensive compendium of recommended standard tree planting details and specifications are available from [http://www.jamesurban.net/specifications James Urban].
+
An extensive compendium of recommended standard tree planting details and specifications are available from [http://www.jamesurban.net/specifications James Urban].  
 +
See the figure below that depicts the relationship between soil volume, water storage volume provided by the soil volume, and tree size from James Urban's (2008) book, entitled [http://www.jamesurban.net/up-by-roots#:~:text=Up%20By%20Roots%2C%20written%20by,trees%20in%20the%20built%20environment "Up by Roots"] <ref>Urban, J. 2008. Up By Roots: Healthy soils and trees in the built environment. International Society of Arboriculture. http://www.jamesurban.net/up-by-roots#:~:text=Up%20By%20Roots%2C%20written%20by,trees%20in%20the%20built%20environment.</ref> <br>
 +
</br>
 +
 
 +
[[File:UpbyRoots JU.png|750px]]<br>
 +
</br>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
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.  
   Line 266: Line 386:     
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==
−
To read about the use of stormwater tree trenches featuring soil cells in the Greater Toronto Area see the STEP case study on [https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2018/10/Queensway-Case-Study_FINAL.pdf The Queensway Sustainable Sidewalk Pilot Project] in the City of Toronto. Evaluations of the project found that stormwater tree trenches are able to increase the urban street tree canopy coverage while requiring minimal surface area below, and provide stormwater benefits associated with TSS and heavy metal contaminant removal and runoff volume reduction, with lower routine maintenance costs than other surface practices like bioretention.<ref>STEP. 2018. The Queensway Sustainable Sidewalk Pilot Project - Case Study: Low impact Development Series. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2018/10/Queensway-Case-Study_FINAL.pdf.</ref>
+
In a proof-of-concept study of two stormwater tree trenches in Wilmington, North Carolina, Page et al. (2015) found that the soil-root matrix beneath the supported pavements can be used for stormwater control to achieve runoff volume reduction (80% over a yearlong evaluation period), pollutant retention, pavement stability and urban forestry goals.<ref> Page, J.L., Winston, R.J., Hunt, W.F. 2015. Soils beneath suspended pavements: An opportunity for stormwater control and treatment. Ecological Engineering. v.82. pp.40-48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925857415001706 </ref>  To read about the use of stormwater tree trenches featuring soil cells in the Greater Toronto Area see the STEP [https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2020/09/Soil-cells-tech-brief-FINAL.pdf technical brief] and [https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2018/10/Queensway-Case-Study_FINAL.pdf case study] on the Queensway Sustainable Sidewalk Pilot Project in the City of Toronto. Evaluations of the project found that stormwater tree trenches are able to increase the urban street tree canopy coverage while requiring minimal surface area below, and provide stormwater benefits associated with TSS and heavy metal contaminant removal and runoff volume reduction, with lower routine maintenance costs than other surface practices like bioretention. <ref> STEP. 2018. The Queensway Sustainable Sidewalk Project https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2018/10/Queensway-Case-Study_FINAL.pdf </ref> <ref> STEP. 2020. Assessing the Health of Toronto Street Trees Irrigated by Stormwater. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2020/09/Soil-cells-tech-brief-FINAL.pdf </ref> In a hydrologic study of the Queensway Sustainable Sidewalk project, Li et al. (2020) highlight the importance of inlet hydraulics and spatial distribution of inflow along the stormwater tree trench and propose an integrated modelling approach to simulate overall runoff control performance. <ref> Li, J., Alinaghaian, S., Joksimovic, D., Chen, L. An Integrated Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling Approach for Roadside Bio-Retention Facilities. Water. 2020, 12, 1248 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/5/1248 </ref> Also see Credit Valley Conservation [https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CaseStudy_CPW_Final.pdf Central Parkway LID case study] and [https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads//2021/07/TechReport_CPW_Final.pdf technical report] that summarize findings from evaluation of a stormwater tree trench featuring soil cells located in the median of a high-traffic road in Mississauga, Ontario. Monitoring showed the stormwater tree trench performed well over the eight storm events monitored with an average runoff volume reduction of 97%, and peak flow reduction of 96%. <ref>Credit Valley Conservation. 2016. Central Parkway: Road Right-of-Way Retrofits - Case Study. https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CaseStudy_CPW_Final.pdf</ref> <ref>Credit Valley Conservation. 2016. Central Parkway: Low Impact Development Infrastructure
−
Also see Credit Valley Conservation [https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CaseStudy_CPW_Final.pdf Central Parkway LID case study] and [https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads//2021/07/TechReport_CPW_Final.pdf and technical report] that summarize findings from a multi-year evaluation of a stormwater tree trench featuring soil cells located in the median of a high-traffic road in Mississauga, Ontario.
+
Performance and Risk Assessment - Technical Report. https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads//2021/07/TechReport_CPW_Final.pdf</ref>
    
{|class="wikitable"
 
{|class="wikitable"
Line 293: Line 419:  
</br>
 
</br>
 
{|class="wikitable"
 
{|class="wikitable"
−
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from bioretention
+
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from Stormwater Tree Trench/Bioretention
 
|-
 
|-
 
!'''LID Practice'''
 
!'''LID Practice'''
Line 301: Line 427:  
|-
 
|-
 
|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%
Line 312: Line 442:  
|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>
−
|-
  −
|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>
   
|-
 
|-
 
|rowspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
 
|rowspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
Line 322: Line 448:  
|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
Line 327: Line 461:  
|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
Line 338: Line 472:  
|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>
−
|-
  −
|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>
   
|-
 
|-
 
|rowspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain & liner
 
|rowspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain & liner
Line 352: Line 478:  
|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;" |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>
   
|-
 
|-
 
|style="text-align: center;" |Queensland, Australia  
 
|style="text-align: center;" |Queensland, Australia  
Line 364: Line 486:  
|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>'''
Line 372: Line 498:     
===Performance research===
 
===Performance research===
−
Tree canopies intercept and store rainfall, thereby modifying stormwater runoff and reducing demands on urban stormwater infrastructure (Xiao et al., 1998; Xiao et al., 2000; Xiao and McPherson, 2002; Xiao et al., 2006). Canopy interception reduces both the actual runoff volumes, and delays the onset of peak flows (Davey Resource Group, 2008).  
+
Tree canopies influence various components of the urban hydrologic cycle. Water losses occur via canopy interception and evaporation, transpiration, improved soil infiltration and percolation along root channels, and water table management, thereby attenuating stormwater runoff and reducing demands on drainage infrastructure. Canopy interception loss is relevant during and immediately after a storm event, while transpiration plays a role in managing soil moisture over the days and weeks between events. Canopy interception contributes to runoff volume reduction, delays the onset of peak flows and helps protect water quality.  Urban tree canopy interception and evaporation rates vary according to canopy type (e.g., closed vs. open), tree species attributes, season, and storm characteristics (e.g., rainfall intensity, duration and time between events). Berland ''et al''. (2017), call for greater consideration of arboriculture as a stormwater control measure in their literature review, noting that trees are compatible with various types of LID facilities and may improve the function of these installations through evapotranspiration and maintaining or improving drainage performance.<ref> Berland, A., Shiflett, S.A., Shuster, W.D., Garmestani, A.S., Goddard, H.C., Herrmann, D.L., Hopton, M.E. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning. v.162. pp.167-177. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204617300464?via%3Dihub </ref>  In a study of twenty tree species in Davis, California, Xiao and McPherson (2016) found that conifers generally stored more water than broadleaf deciduous species and that leaf surfaces have larger capacities to store rainfall than stem surfaces. <ref> Xiao, Q., McPherson, E.G.. 2016. Surface water storage capacity of twenty tree species in Davis, California. Journal of Environmental Quality. v.45. pp. 188-198. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2134/jeq2015.02.0092 </ref>  Tree species with large mature sizes and high stomatal conductance (e.g., ''Quercus macrocarpa'', bur oak) were shown to markedly improve the function of parking lot bioretention swales in the City of Chicago, Illinois. <ref> Scharenbroch, B.C., Morgenroth, J., Maule, B. 2016. Tree species suitability to bioswales and impact on the urban water budget. Journal of Environmental Quality. v.45. pp. 199-206. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2134/jeq2015.01.0060 </ref>
−
 
  −
The extent of interception is influenced by a number of factors including tree architecture and it has been estimated that a typical medium-sized canopy tree can intercept as much as 9000 litres of rainfall year. (Crockford and Richardson, 2000).  
  −
 
  −
A study of rainfall interception by street and park trees in Santa Monica, California found that interception rates varied by tree species and size, with broadleaf evergreen trees provided the most rainfall interception (Xiao and McPherson, 2002). Rainfall interception was found to range from 15.3% for a small jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) to 66.5% for a mature brush box (Tristania conferta now known as Lophostemon confertus). Over the city as a whole the trees intercepted 1.6% of annual precipitation and the researchers calculated that the annual value of avoided stormwater treatment and flood control costs associated with this reduced runoff was US$110,890 (US$3.60 per tree).
     −
[[File:TreeTranspiration.png|thumb|Trees suck! (Abstracted from Phyto, by K. Kennen)]]
+
[[File:TreeTranspiration.png|thumb|Trees suck! Comparison of transpiration rates of various tree species and ages (Abstracted from Phyto, by K. Kennen)]]
   −
* [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/9/11/1202 Modelling rainfall interception by urban trees]
+
For other recent research on the water management benefits of urban trees, and modelling approaches see the following articles and projects.
−
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07011784.2017.1375865 Modelling rainfall interception by urban trees]
+
* '''[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>
−
* [https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/land-surface-vegetation/biophysical-parameters/9162 Optical Leaf Area Index In-situ Measurement]
+
** 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://www.wastormwatercenter.org/project/tree-project/ Washington Stormwater Center Tree Project]
+
* '''[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.
 +
* '''[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925857417306365 Stormwater infiltration capacity of street tree pits in New York City (Elliott et al. 2018)]''' <ref> Elliott, R.M., Adkins, E.R., Culligan, P.J, Palmer, M.I., Stormwater infiltration capacity of street tree pits: Quantifying the influence of different design and management strategies in New York City. Ecological Engineering. v.111. pp. 157-166. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925857417306365</ref>
 +
** In a study of forty tree pits representing typical varieties of physical conditions in New York City, Elliott et al. found the most significant factor influencing infiltration rate was the presence of fencing or guard rails, with guarded tree pits having higher infiltration rates. Additionally, higher infiltration rates were associated with larger tree pit areas, built-up surface elevations and the combined presence of ground cover plantings and mulch.
 +
* '''[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022169418306346?via%3Dihub Tree pit hydrology in Melbourne, Australia (Grey et al. 2018)]''' <ref>Grey, V., Livesley, S.J., Fletcher, T.D. and Szota, C. 2018. Tree pits to help mitigate runoff in dense urban areas. Journal of Hydrology, 565, pp.400-410. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022169418306346?via%3Dihub</ref>
 +
** Grey ''et al''. (2018), conducted a streetscape experiment to determine the runoff retention rate of tree pits in heavy [[Soil groups|clay soil]] with low exfiltration rates. Their research found that runoff retention is possible in even very dense urban streetscapes, and that sizing needs to be between 2.5% to 8% of the impervious catchment area (dependent upon tree pit exfiltration rates) to achieve 90% reduction in annual runoff.
 +
* '''[https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000865 Health of trees in bioretention (Tirpak et al. 2018)]'''<ref>Tirpak, R.A., Hathaway, J.M., Franklin, J.A. and Khojandi, A. 2018. The health of trees in bioretention: A survey and analysis of influential variables. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 4(4), p.04018011. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000865</ref>
 +
**Tirpak ''et al.'' (2018), conducted a study on tree health in bioretention systems in southeastern U.S. Of the 6 species studied, only 1 showed greater health when grown in bioretention media compared to urban trees not planted in bioretention systems. Results show that species selection should be based on bioretention filter media analysis and compatability with the growing conditions found in bioretention systems.
 +
* '''[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.1813 Review of stormwater benefits of urban trees (Kuehler et al. 2017)]'''<ref>Kuehler, E., Hathaway, J. and Tirpak, A. 2017. Quantifying the benefits of urban forest systems as a component of the green infrastructure stormwater treatment network. Ecohydrology, 10(3), p.e1813. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2017/ja_2017_kuehler_001.pdf</ref>
 +
** Kuehler, ''et al''. (2017) in their literature review found that urban trees can retain sizable amounts of annual rainfall in their crowns, delay the flow of stormwater runoff, substantially increase the infiltration capacity of urban soils, and provide transpiration of sequestered runoff. Tree canopy effectiveness is highest during short, low‐intensity storms and lower as rainfall volume and intensity increases.
 +
* '''[https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/9/11/1202 Estimating tree leaf area density with LIDAR (Li et al. 2017)]<ref>Li, S., Dai, L., Wang, H., Wang, Y., He, Z., & Lin, S. (2017). Estimating leaf area density of individual trees using the point cloud segmentation of terrestrial LiDAR data and a voxel-based model. Remote sensing, 9(11), 1202. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/9/11/1202/pdf'''</ref>
 +
** Li, ''et al''. (2017), determine an effective means for leaf area density (LAD) estimation of a canopy of magnolia trees using high-resolution LiDAR data and ground measured leaf area index (LAI).
 +
* '''[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07011784.2017.1375865 Modelling rainfall interception by urban trees (Huang et al. 2017)]'''<ref>Huang, J.Y., Black, T.A., Jassal, R.S. and Lavkulich, L.L. 2017. Modelling rainfall interception by urban trees. Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 42(4), pp.336-348. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/LesLavkulich/publication/320085997_Modelling_rainfall_interception_by_urban_trees/links/59fc87bf0f7e9b9968bdc715/Modelling-rainfall-interception-by-urban-trees.pdf</ref>
 +
** Huang, ''et al''. (2017), developed an analytical model to compare rainfall interception rates between four deciduous tree species (white oak, Norway maple, green ash and cherry). The ratio of evaporation rate to rainfall rate was the most dynamic differing parameter amongst the trees selected. The study was able to provide some information on improved tree selection in urban environments.
 +
* '''[https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/land-surface-vegetation/biophysical-parameters/9162 Optical Leaf Area Index In-situ Measurement (Leblanc 2011)]<ref>Abuelgasim, A. A., & Leblanc, S. G. (2011). Leaf area index mapping in northern Canada. International journal of remote sensing, 32(18), 5059-5076. https://www.academia.edu/download/55035075/Leaf_area_index_mapping_in_northern_Canada.pdf'''</ref>
 +
** Abuelgasim, A. and Leblanc, S. G. (2011), discuss how  NRCan have developed methods to measure the leaf density in vegetation canopies with minimum destructive sampling. The measured quantity, Leaf Area Index (LAI), is used in estimates of carbon absorption by plants.
 +
* '''[https://www.wastormwatercenter.org/project/tree-project/ Washington Stormwater Center Tree Project]<ref>Washington Stormwater Center. 2022. Tree Project. https://www.wastormwatercenter.org/project/tree-project/'''</ref>
 +
**The Washington Stormwater Center, conducts their own research on the effectiveness of LID installations, assists homeowners, businesses and organizations with permit assistance for stormwater management and pollution prevention installations, discuss emerging SWM technologies and provide Technology Assessment Protocol - Ecology (TAPE) certification for Washington State.
    
===Modelling tools===
 
===Modelling tools===
−
i-Tree is a free software suite developed by the USDA Forest Service and partners that assesses tree and forest structure, ecosystem services, and value of a community’s tree resources. See external links below for further details and tool downloads.
+
[https://www.itreetools.org/ i-Tree] is a free software suite developed by the USDA Forest Service and partners that assesses tree and forest structure, ecosystem services, and value of a community’s tree resources. See external links below for further details and tool downloads.
−
* [https://www.itreetools.org/tools iTree Tools overview]  
+
* [https://www.itreetools.org/about About iTree Tools]
 +
* [https://www.itreetools.org/tools iTree Tools Overview]  
 
* [https://www.itreetools.org/documents/552/International_iTree_Tools_Summary_17Jan2019.pdf iTree Tools international users summary]
 
* [https://www.itreetools.org/documents/552/International_iTree_Tools_Summary_17Jan2019.pdf iTree Tools international users summary]
 
* [http://www.itreetools.org/eco/international.php iTree Eco International]
 
* [http://www.itreetools.org/eco/international.php iTree Eco International]
Line 395: Line 535:     
*[https://citygreen.com/stratavault/ CityGreen - Stratavault]
 
*[https://citygreen.com/stratavault/ CityGreen - Stratavault]
−
*[http://www.conteches.com/Products/Stormwater-Management/Biofiltration-Bioretention/Filterra Contech - Filterra]
   
*[http://cupolex.ca/ Cupolex]
 
*[http://cupolex.ca/ Cupolex]
 
*[http://www.deeproot.com/index.php Deeproot - Silva Cell]
 
*[http://www.deeproot.com/index.php Deeproot - Silva Cell]
 
*[https://greenblue.com/na/products/rootspace/ GreenBlue Urban - RootSpace]
 
*[https://greenblue.com/na/products/rootspace/ GreenBlue Urban - RootSpace]
 +
*[https://www.imbriumsystems.com/stormwater-treatment-solutions/filterra Imbrium Systems - Filterra]
 
*[https://www.storm-tree.com Storm-Tree]
 
*[https://www.storm-tree.com Storm-Tree]
   Line 410: Line 550:  
Also see references as direct web page links above.
 
Also see references as direct web page links above.
   −
[[Category:Green infrastructure]]
+
----
 +
[[Category:Infiltration]]
 +
[[Category: Green infrastructure]]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.sustainabletechnologies.ca/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/12783...15733"

Navigation menu