Virg Bernero, Mayor
Michigan Avenue Bioretention
Monitoring the Results 3 Years Later
MWEA 86th Annual Conference, June 28, 2011
Dan Christian, P.E., D.WRE Tetra Tech
Valerie Novaes, Tetra Tech
Native Plant Nursery
1
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Overview
Soils: infiltration, porosity, field capacity
Plants: overall health and planting plans
Monitoring
Modeling
Challenges and Lessons Learned
Future Applications
2
Oldsmobile Park
City Hall
Sparrow Hospital
Michigan Avenue
3
Pennsylvania Avenue
Grand River
Larch Street
State Capitol
Bioretention Area
Design
• Ultra-Urban
• 5-ft wide planter box
style bioretention
– 30 bioretention gardens
– 7,631 square feet
– 4.1 acre tributary area
• 4 blocks, both sides
• ADA compliant
• Adaptable to community
needs
4
Construction
2007 to 2008
5
Final
Product
6
Construction Costs
Retaining Wall
$22 / sf
Plants and Watering
Engineered Soil
$4.25 / sf
$27 / cy
Peastone (washed)
Top Mulch
Sediment Forebay
$40 / cy
$42 / cy
$1700 each
Metal Plates
$1.40 / lb
• Bid: $1,000,000*
• $122/SF
(Ultra-urban)
• $30/SF
(Without urban
constraints)
* As this was part of a larger project, the total bid cost is
an estimated portion of the whole.
7
Soil Porosity and Field Capacity
• Question
– What is the volume available in the soil to temporarily
store stormwater?
– Is there a correlation between the unfilled pore space
and the plant health?
• Methods
– Soil analysis for bulk density, porosity and field capacity
– Correlate analysis results with overall plant health
assessment
8
Soils
• 30% Sand (MDOT 2NS)
• 30% Topsoil
– 10% sand
– 40% silt
– 40% clay
– 10% organics
Total clay content 12%
• 10% Coconut coir fiber
• 30% Municipal compost (aged 12 months)
9
Soil Analysis
Bioretention
Garden
700 block
south side
(#33)
800 block
south side
(#43)
700 block
north side
(#14)
Location
within the
garden
Bulk Density
(g/cm3)
Porosity (%)
Field
Capacity (%)
Temporary
Storage
(Porosity –
FC) (%)
East
1.06
52.4%
31.3%
21.1%
Center
1.18
48.6%
29.7%
18.9%
West
1.20
43.2%
27.5%
15.7%
East
1.17
49.2%
25.8%
24.5%
Center
1.25
46.5%
25.8%
20.7%
West
1.29
45.7%
25.8%
19.9%
East
1.08
57.8%
27.9%
29.8%
Center
0.89
62.5%
40.5%
22.1%
West
1.05
49.2%
31.6%
17.6%
1.13
50.6%
29.5%
21.0%
Average
* Non-compacted soil
10
Urban, James. Up by Roots: Healthy Soils
and Trees in the Built Environment. 2008
Bulk Density
Measured
Limiting
11
Water Holding Capacity
50.6% porosity measured
21%
29.5% field capacity measured
FISRWG. Stream Corridor Restoration:
Principles, Processes, and Practices. 2001.
12
Infiltration
• Questions
– What is the infiltration capacity of the
engineered soils?
– Does the infiltration rate vary based on
location within the bioretention garden?
– Comparison of infiltration equipment
• Methods and Equipment
– 24-inch double-ring; LID Manual for
Michigan Appendix E
– 4-inch Turf-Tec (www.turf-tec.com);
manufacturer instructions
– Mini-disk Infiltrometer
(www.decagon.com); manufacturer
instructions
13
Infiltration
Garden #
Location
within
Garden
Equipment
Date
8/13/2010
24-inch
East
Turf-Tec
6/1/2011
6/1/2011
9/28/2010
24-inch
Middle
9/28/2010
Turf-Tec
#33; south side west of
Hill St (Young Bros &
Daley)
MiddleWest
6/2/2011
6/2/2011
24-inch
6/3/2011
Turf-Tec
6/3/2011
8/13/2010
24-inch
West
8/13/2010
Turf-Tec
#14 north side west of
Hosmer St (MSHDA)
Middle
6/3/2011
24-inch
Turf-Tec
6/3/2011
9/27/2010
9/27/2010
Mulch and
top 2-inch
soil
Removed
In Place
Removed
In Place
Removed
Removed
In Place
Removed
Removed
In Place
Removed
In Place
Removed
In Place
Removed
Removed
In Place
Removed
Removed
In Place
Removed
Removed
Removed
Infiltration
(in/hr)
8.7
0.2
0.1
2.2
2.2
2.9
1.9
1.2
21.5
19.9
0.0
14.4
5.3
12.8
4.9
7.2
10.9
1.8
3.6
6.9
0.0
4.0
0.6
14
East 24-in 8/13/10 mulch removed
25.0
East 24-in 6/1/11 mulch in-place
East 24-in 6/1/11 mulch removed
East Turf-Tec 6/1/11 mulch in-place
20.0
East Turf-Tec 6/1/11 mulch removed
Middle 24-in 9/28/10 mulch removed
Infiltration (in/hr)
Legend Notes:
- Location designated by color
- Unit designed by line:
24-inch double-ring solid line
Turf-Tec dashed line
- Dates designated by marker shape
- Mulch designated by marker:
removed marker filled
in-place marker empty
15.0
10.0
Middle 24-in 6/2/11 mulch in-place
Middle 24-in 6/2/11 mulch removed
Middle Turf-Tec 9/28/10 mulch removed
Middle Turf-Tec 6/2/11 mulch in-place
Middle Turf-Tec 6/2/11 mulch removed
Middle-West 24-in 6/2/11 mulch in-place
Middle-West 24-in 6/3/11 mulch removed
Middle-West Turf-Tec 6/3/11 mulch in-place
Middle-West Turf-Tec 6/3/11 mulch removed
West 24-in 8/13/10 mulch removed
5.0
West 24-in 6/3/11 mulch in-place
West 24-in 6/3/11 mulch removed
West Turf-Tec 8/13/10 mulch removed
0.0
0
50
100
Time (min)
150
West Turf-Tec 6/3/11 mulch in-place
200
West Turf-Tec 6/3/11 mulch removed
15
Infiltration
• Highly Variable
• Despite low measured values, gardens
continue to drain well
• Mini-disk infiltrometer couldn’t seal
around base
• Impractical to test with mulch in place
• Suggest
– Larger test area **
– Use full bioretention area when possible
** Bouwer, H. Chp 32 Intake Rate: Cylinder Infiltrometer of the
Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods
Second Edition, 1986
16
Vertical Drain Installation
• July 2009
• Observations
– Mulch extremely thick (up to 8inches)
– Clogged geotextile around
underdrain
• Vertical drains installed in poorly
draining garden
– Perforated 4-inch PVC
– Surrounded by stone
• Re-inspected in September;
working well
17
Plant and Garden
Health Questions
•
•
•
•
What is the overall health of the planted community?
Are there any trends in plant species survival/health?
What is recommended for replanting specific gardens?
Is there any correlation between the following and the
health of the plants: condition of the soil, the thickness
of the mulch, the presence of weeds, and the presence
of trash/debris?
18
Plant and Garden
Health Assessment
• Photographs
• Quantification of each grass, forb, and
tree species present
• Qualitative assessment of each plant
species
• Pervasiveness of weeds
• Condition of the soil
• Degree of erosion
• Degree of soil compaction
• Thickness of mulch
• Pervasiveness of trash/litter
• Overall aesthetics
19
September 2009
Plant and Garden Health Results
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No immediate action needed on any gardens
Inlets: All good condition; except 1 cracked plate
Weeds: 70% gardens few weeds; 17% excessive
Soils: 20% excessively wet, 80% good
Erosion: no concerns
Compaction: no concerns
Mulch: 73% too much mulch (as thick as 9”)
Fencing: 2 gardens with missing caps, bent rails
Curbing: no problems
Sumps: no problems
Trash/liter: 20% gardens no trash, 17% excessive
Overall aesthetics: 64% good, 21% fair,15% poor
20
Plant and Garden Health Results
• Overall plant health: 10% fair
condition, 90% good
• All species originally used have
survived to some degree or
thrived in some gardens
• Some of the most salt tolerant
species did not fair well
• Perennial replacement
– 2009 estimated 530 (16%)
– 2011 actual 853 (26%)
Good Performers
• Joe-Pye Weed (Eupatorium
maculatum)
• Boneset (Eupatorium
perfoliatum)
• Rose Mallow (Hibiscus
moscheutos)
• Southern Blue Flag (Iris
virginica)
• Switch Grass (Panicum
virgatum)
• Ironweed (Vernonia missurica)
21
Replacement Planting June 2011
Plant Replacement
50% of replacement plants
• Species doing very well
–
–
–
–
–
–
Joe-Pye Weed
Boneset
Rose Mallow
Southern Blue Flag
Switch Grass
Ironweed
50% of replacement plants
• Original list
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Nodding Wild Onion
Swamp Milkweed
Tall Tickseed
Alum Root
Giant St. Johns Wort
Rough Blazing Star
Marsh Blazing Star
Beardtongue
Yellow Coneflower
Three Lobed Coneflower
Stiff Goldenrod
• Plus trial plants
Rose Mallow
– Purple Coneflower
– Queen of the Prairie
– Obedient Plant
22
Problem Gardens
• Several gardens not draining sufficiently to support the
originally selected species
• Evidenced by
– absence of the planted species
– growth of cattails
• Cattails
– Thriving, unique and attractive
– Improving overall drainage
– Improving dewatering of gardens
• Plan
–
–
–
–
–
Leave cattails
Supplement with suitable new species
Tall Sunflower (Helianthus giganteus)
Three-Square (Schoenoplectus pungens (Scirpus americanus))
Softstem Bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (Scirpus
validus))
23
Hydrograph Modification
• Question
– How have the bioretention systems modified the surface runoff
hydrograph (volume, Tp, Qp, shape)?
• Methods
– Monitoring
• Rainfall
• Surrogate site
• Bioretention upstream and
downstream
• Rainfall simulation tests
– Modeling
•
•
•
•
•
EPA SWMM V5.0.021
Pre- conditions based on surrogate site
Post- based on monitored bioretention
Model expanded to 4 block system
Model range of storm events
24
Rainfall Simulation Test
• Monitoring period – minimal
events
• Simulated Rainfall
– 1.3 inches over 4 hours
– 1st quartile Huff distribution
• Fire hydrant / garden hose valves
• Excellent results
– Fast
– Accurate
– Fewer unknowns
25
H/H Model
• Method
– SWMM 5.0.021
• Input measured soil characteristics
• Tried different modeling techniques to
simulate the bioretention
– Groundwater routine
– Traditional storage
– New LID options ***
Example calibration plot
• Calibration
– Flow monitoring data
– Pre- and Post- bioretention
• Solved for a range of storm events
26
Hydrology Change Summary
Pre- Condition
(no bioretention)
Rainfall
Post- Condition
(with bioretention)
SRO = Surface Runoff
Qp = Peak Flow
Tp = Time to Peak
Change from
Pre- to Post- Conditions
Recur
Interval
Duration
(hr)
Total
(in)
SRO
(in)
Qp
(cfs)
Tp
(hr)
SRO
(in)
Qp (cfs)
Tp
(hr)
SRO (%)
Qp (%)
Tp
(%)
2-month
1
0.52
0.51
0.13
0.17
0.37
0.02
1.08
-27%
-87%
535%
6-month
1
0.77
0.76
0.21
0.17
0.61
0.03
1.33
-20%
-84%
682%
1-year
1
0.95
0.94
0.27
0.17
0.79
0.04
1.41
-16%
-87%
729%
2-year
1
1.14
1.14
0.37
0.17
0.98
0.04
1.41
-14%
-89%
729%
10-year
1
1.61
1.61
0.55
0.17
1.44
0.20
0.33
-11%
-64%
94%
25-year
1
1.92
1.92
0.66
0.17
1.75
0.29
0.25
-9%
-56%
47%
100-year
1
2.44
2.43
0.87
0.17
2.28
0.58
0.20
-6%
-33%
18%
2-month
24
1.12
0.92
0.05
12
0.75
0.01
20
-18%
-82%
67%
6-month
24
1.64
1.44
0.07
12
1.25
0.01
19
-13%
-81%
58%
1-year
24
2.03
1.83
0.10
12
1.62
0.04
13
-11%
-56%
8%
2-year
24
2.42
2.22
0.11
12
2.02
0.07
13
-9%
-38%
8%
10-year
24
3.43
3.25
0.16
12
3.01
0.10
13
-7%
-40%
8%
25-year
24
4.09
3.89
0.19
12
3.66
0.12
13
-6%
-38%
8%
100-year
24
5.20
5.00
0.23
12
4.75
0.15
13
-5%
-34%
8%
90%
24
0.90
0.70
0.04
12
0.54
0.02
16
-23%
-50%
33%
Runoff Comparison
1-year 1-hour
10-year 1-hour
1-year 24-hour
10-year 24-hour
28
Hydrograph Modification Results
• Change in runoff as a
function of total rainfall
• Decrease in surface runoff
• Decrease in observed
peak discharge
• Increase in time of
concentration
29
Challenges and Lessons Learned
• Trash/debris
– Collection
– Cigarette butts
– Dog poop
– Wind blown trash
• Education
– Local businesses
– Maintenance
• Design-Construction
– Plant now, don’t wait
– Geotextile
– Sidewalk slopes compared to
flat bottom bioretention
– Cars hitting the fence
• Monitoring
– Low flows
– Simulated rainfall event
30
Green Plans in Lansing
• Boulevard bioswales on Linden Grove Ave
(constructed)
• Boulevard infiltration on Barnes Ave
(constructed)
• Bioretention swale on Riley St (designed)
• Bioretention cells on Bank St (designed)
• Bioretention curb extensions on Barnes
Ave and Ray St (designed)
• Bioretention curb extensions on
Washington Square (constructed)
• Permeable pavement parking lane on
Barnes Ave (constructed)
• Permeable pavement parking stall on
South St (designed)
31
Thanks and Questions
32