The following terminology is used throughout this "Design Section":
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED - Indicates design guidance that is extremely beneficial or necessary for proper functioning of the bioretention practice, but not specifically required by the MPCA CGP.
RECOMMENDED - Indicates design guidance that is helpful for bioretention practice performance but not critical to the design.
Before deciding to use a bioretention practice for stormwater management, it is helpful to consider several items that bear on the feasibility of using such a device at a given location. The following list of considerations will help in making an initial judgment as to whether or not a bioretention practice is the appropriate BMP for the site.
Minimum setback requirements (for bioretention practices that treat a volume of 1000 gallons or more)
Link to this table
Setback from | Minimum Distance (feet) |
---|---|
Property Line | 10 |
Building Foundation - Minimum with slopes directed away from the building | 10 |
Private Well | 50 |
Public Water Supply Well | 50 |
Septic System Tank/Leach Field | 50 |
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that overflow associated with the 10-year or 25-year storm (depending on local drainage criteria) be controlled such that velocities are non-erosive at the outlet point (to prevent downstream slope erosion), and that when discharge flows exceed 3 cfs, the designer evaluate the potential for erosion to stabilized areas and bioretention facilities.
Common overflow systems within the structure consist of a yard drain inlet, where the top of the yard drain inlet is placed at the elevation of the shallow ponding area. A stone drop of about twelve inches or small stilling basin could be provided at the inlet of bioretention areas where flow enters the practice through curb cuts or other concentrated flow inlets. In cases with significant drop in grade this erosion protection should be extended to the bottom of the facility.
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that bioretention areas with underdrains be equipped with a minimum 8 inches diameter under-drain in a 1 foot deep gravel bed. Increasing the diameter of the underdrain makes freezing less likely, and provides a greater capacity to drain standing water from the filter. The porous gravel bed prevents standing water in the system by promoting drainage. Gravel is also less susceptible to frost heaving than finer grained media. It is also HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that a pea gravel diaphragm and/or permeable filter fabric be placed between the gravel layer and the filter media.
Pre-treatment refers to features of a bioretention area that capture and remove coarse sediment particles.
For applications where runoff enters the bioretention system through sheet flow, such as from parking lots, or residential back yards, a grass filter strip with a pea gravel diaphragm is the preferred pre-treatment method. The length of the filter strip depends on the drainage area, imperviousness, and the filter strip slope. For retrofit projects and sites with tight green space constraints, it may not be possible to include a grass buffer strip. For example, parking lot island retrofits may not have adequate space to provide a grass buffer. For applications where concentrated (or channelized) runoff enters the bioretention system, such as through a slotted curb opening, a grassed channel with a pea gravel diaphragm is the preferred pre-treatment method.
In lieu of grass buffer strips, pre-treatment may be accomplished by other methods such as sediment capture in the curb-line entrance areas. Additionally, the parking lot spaces may be used for a temporary storage and pre-treatment area in lieu of a grass buffer strip. If bioretention is used to treat runoff from a parking lot or roadway that is frequently sanded during snow events, there is a high potential for clogging from sand in runoff. It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that grass filter strips or grass channels at least 10 or 20 feet long, respectively, convey flow to the system in these situations. Local requirements may allow a street sweeping program as an acceptable pre-treatment practice. It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that pre-treatment incorporate as many of the following as are feasible:
The following guidelines are applicable to the actual treatment area of a bioretention practice:
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that bioretention not be used on sites with a continuous flow from groundwater, sump pumps, or other sources so that constant saturated conditions do not occur.
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that soils meet the design criteria outlined later in this section and contain less than 5% clay by volume. Elevations must be carefully worked out to ensure that the desired runoff flow enters the facility with no more than the maximum design depth. The bioretention area (Af) should be sized based on the principles of Darcy’s Law, as follows
\(A_f = V_{wq} d_f / (k (h_f + df) t_f)\)
Where:
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that this permeability rate be determined by field testing.
When using bioretention to treat PSHs, particularly in sensitive watersheds, it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that additional practices be incorporated as a treatment train for at least limited treatment during the winter when the bioretention area may be frozen.
Landscaping is critical to the performance and function of bioretention areas. Therefore, a landscaping plan is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for bioretention areas. RECOMMENDED planting guidelines for bioretention facilities are as follows:
Bioretention practices do not pose any major safety hazards. Trees and the screening they provide may be the most significant consideration of a designer and landscape architect. Where inlets exist, they should have grates that either have locks or are sufficiently heavy that they cannot be removed easily. Standard inlets and grates used by Mn/DOT and local jurisdictions should be adequate. Fencing of bioretention facilities is generally not desirable
The following steps outline a recommended design procedure for bioretention practices in compliance with the MPCA Construction General Permit for new construction. Design recommendations beyond those specifically required by the permit are also included and marked accordingly.
Make a preliminary judgment as to whether site conditions are appropriate for the use of a bioretention practice, and identify the function of the practice in the overall treatment system
If the initial evaluation indicates that a bioretention practice would be a good BMP for the site, it is RECOMMENDED that soil borings or pits be dug (in the same location as the proposed bioretention practice) to verify soil types and infiltration capacity characteristics and to determine the depth to groundwater and bedrock. The number of soil borings should be selected as needed to determine local soil conditions.
It is RECOMMENDED that the minimum depth of the soil borings or pits be five feet below the bottom elevation of the proposed bioretention practice.
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that soil profile descriptions be recorded and include the following information for each soil horizon or layer (Source: Site Evaluation for Stormwater Infiltration, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Conservation Practice Standards 2004):
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that the field verification be conducted by a qualified geotechnical professional.
Calculate the Water Quality Volume (Vwq), Channel Protection Volume (Vcp), Overbank Flood Protection Volume (Vp10), and the Extreme Flood Volume (Vp100). See the Unified sizing criteria section for details.
If the bioretention practice is being designed to meet the requirements of the MPCA Permit, the REQUIRED treatment volume is the water quality volume of ½ inch of runoff from the new impervious surfaces created from the project (or 1 inch for certain protected waterbodies). If part of the overall Vwq is to be treated by other BMPs, subtract that portion from the Vwq to determine the part of the Vwq to be treated by the bioretention practice.
The design techniques in this section are meant to maximize the volume of stormwater being infiltrated. If the site layout and underlying soil conditions permit, a portion of the Channel Protection Volume (Vcp), Overbank Flood Protection Volume (Vp10), and the Extreme Flood Volume (Vp100) may also be managed in the bioretention practice (see Step 7).
(Note: Steps 5, 6, 7 and 8 are iterative)
After following the steps outlined above, the designer will presumably know the location of naturally occurring permeable soils, the depth to the water table, bedrock or other impermeable layers, and the contributing drainage area. While the first step in sizing a bioretention practice is selecting the type of design variant for the site, the basic design procedures for each type of bioretention practice are similar.
After determining the water quality volume for the entire site (Step 1), determine the portion of the total volume that will be treated by the bioretention practice. Based on the known Vwq, infiltration rates of the underlying soils and the known existing potential pollutant loading from proposed/existing landuse select the appropriate bioretention practice from the table below. Note: the determination for underdrain is an iterative sizing process.
Summary of Bioretention Variants for Permeability of Native Soils and Potential Land use Pollutant Loading
(Link to this table)
Bioretention Type1 | Variant | Underlying Soil Performance Criteria |
---|---|---|
Bioinfiltration (Infiltration/Recharge Facility) |
No underdrain | Higher recharge potential (facility drain time without underdrain is 48 hours or less) |
Biofiltration with underdrain at the bottom (Filtration/Partial Recharge Facility) |
Underdrain | Lower recharge potential (facility drain time without underdrain is > 48 hours) |
Biofiltration with internal water storage | Underdrain | Lower recharge potential (facility drain time without underdrain is >48 hours) |
Biofiltration with elevated underdrain (Infiltration/Filtration/Recharge Facility) |
Elevated underdrain | Higher nutrient loadings and/or quantity control |
Biofiltration with liner (Filtration Only Facility) |
Underdrain with liner | Hot Spot Treatment |
1The terminology has been changed from the original manual. The original Manual terminology is shown in parenthesis. For more information, see Bioretention terminology
Information collected during the Physical Suitability Evaluation (see Step 2) should be used to explore the potential for multiple bioretention practices versus relying on a single bioretention practice. Bioretention is best employed close to the source of runoff generation and is often located in the upstream portion of the stormwater treatment train, with additional stormwater BMPs following downstream.
If the infiltration rate is not measured, use the table below to estimate an infiltration rate for the design of infiltration practices. These infiltration rates represent the long-term infiltration capacity of a practice and are not meant to exhibit the capacity of the soils in the natural state.
.
Design infiltration rates, in inches per hour, for A, B, C, and D soil groups. Corresponding USDA soil classification and Unified soil Classifications are included. Note that A and B soils have two infiltration rates that are a function of soil texture.*
The values shown in this table are for uncompacted soils. This table can be used as a guide to determine if a soil is compacted. For information on alleviating compacted soils, link here. If a soil is compacted, reduce the soil infiltration rate by one level (e.g. for a compacted B(SM) use the infiltration rate for a B(MH) soil).
Link to this table
Hydrologic soil group | Infiltration rate (inches/hour) | Infiltration rate (centimeters/hour) | Soil textures | Corresponding Unified Soil ClassificationSuperscript text |
---|---|---|---|---|
Although a value of 1.63 inches per hour (4.14 centimeters per hour) may be used, it is Highly recommended that you conduct field infiltration tests or amend soils.b See Guidance for amending soils with rapid or high infiltration rates and Determining soil infiltration rates. |
gravel |
GW - Well-graded gravels, fine to coarse gravel GP - Poorly graded gravel |
||
1.63a | 4.14 |
silty gravels |
GM - Silty gravel |
|
0.8 | 2.03 |
sand |
SP - Poorly graded sand |
|
0.45 | 1.14 | silty sands | SM - Silty sand | |
0.3 | 0.76 | loam, silt loam | MH - Elastic silt | |
0.2 | 0.51 | Sandy clay loam, silts | ML - Silt | |
0.06 | 0.15 |
clay loam |
GC - Clayey gravel |
1For Unified Soil Classification, we show the basic text for each soil type. For more detailed descriptions, see the following links: The Unified Soil Classification System, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Source: Thirty guidance manuals and many other stormwater references were reviewed to compile recommended infiltration rates. All of these sources use the following studies as the basis for their recommended infiltration rates: (1) Rawls, Brakensiek and Saxton (1982); (2) Rawls, Gimenez and Grossman (1998); (3) Bouwer and Rice (1984); and (4) Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (NRCS). SWWD, 2005, provides field documented data that supports the proposed infiltration rates. (view reference list)
aThis rate is consistent with the infiltration rate provided for the lower end of the Hydrologic Soil Group A soils in the Stormwater post-construction technical standards, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Conservation Practice Standards.
bThe infiltration rates in this table are recommended values for sizing stormwater practices based on information collected from soil borings or pits. A group of technical experts developed the table for the original Minnesota Stormwater Manual in 2005. Additional technical review resulted in an update to the table in 2011. Over the past 5 to 7 years, several government agencies revised or developed guidance for designing infiltration practices. Several states now require or strongly recommend field infiltration tests. Examples include North Carolina, New York, Georgia, and the City of Philadelphia. The states of Washington and Maine strongly recommend field testing for infiltration rates, but both states allow grain size analyses in the determination of infiltration rates. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual strongly recommends field testing for infiltration rate, but allows information from soil borings or pits to be used in determining infiltration rate. A literature review suggests the values in the design infiltration rate table are not appropriate for soils with very high infiltration rates. This includes gravels, sandy gravels, and uniformly graded sands. Infiltration rates for these geologic materials are higher than indicated in the table.
References: Clapp, R. B., and George M. Hornberger. 1978. Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties. Water Resources Research. 14:4:601–604; Moynihan, K., and Vasconcelos, J. 2014. SWMM Modeling of a Rural Watershed in the Lower Coastal Plains of the United States. Journal of Water Management Modeling. C372; Rawls, W.J., D. Gimenez, and R. Grossman. 1998. Use of soil texture, bulk density and slope of the water retention curve to predict saturated hydraulic conductivity Transactions of the ASAE. VOL. 41(4): 983-988; Saxton, K.E., and W. J. Rawls. 2005. Soil Water Characteristic Estimates by Texture and Organic Matter for Hydrologic Solutions. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 70:5:1569-1578.
The infiltration capacity and existing hydrologic regime of natural basins are inherently different than constructed practices and may not meet MPCA Permit requirements for constructed practices. In the event that a natural depression is being proposed to be used as an infiltration system, the design engineer must demonstrate the following information:
The design engineer should also demonstrate that operation of the natural depression under post-development conditions mimics the hydrology of the system under pre-development conditions.
If the infiltration rates are measured, the tests shall be conducted at the proposed bottom elevation of the infiltration practice. If the infiltration rate is measured with a double-ring infiltrometer the requirements of D3385 should be used for the field test.
The safety factor of 2 adjusts the measured infiltration rates for the occurrence of less permeable soil horizons below the surface and the potential variability in the subsurface soil horizons throughout the infiltration site. This safety factor also accounts for the long-term infiltration capacity of the stormwater management facility.
\(A_f = V_{wq} d_f / (i (h_f + d_f) t_f)\)
Use the table below to determine the infiltration rate of the underlying soils. Note that these numbers are intentionally conservative based on experience gained from Minnesota infiltration sites.
The bioretention surface area is computed using the following equation, for those practices that are designed with an underdrain
\(A_f = (V_{wq} x d_f) / k (h_f + d_f) t_f]\)
The coefficients of permeability recommended for the Planting Medium / Filter Media Soil is 0.5 feet per day (Claytor and Schueler, 1996). Note: the value is conservative to account for clogging associated with accumulated sediment.
(Note: Steps 5, 6, 7 and 8 are iterative)
(Note: Steps 5, 6, 7 and 8 are iterative) Groundwater mounding, the process by which a mound forms on the water table as a result of recharge at the surface, can be a limiting factor in the design and performance of bioretention practices where infiltration is a major design component.
A groundwater mounding analysis is RECOMMENDED to verify this separation for infiltration designed bioretention practices.
The most widely known and accepted analytical methods to solve for ground water mounding is based on the work by Hantush (1967) and Glover (1960). The maximum groundwater mounding potential should be determined through the use of available analytical and numerical methods. Detailed groundwater mounding analysis should be conducted by a trained hydrogeologist or equivalent as part of the site design procedure.
If a grass filter strip is used, it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that it be sized using the guidelines in the table below.
Guidelines for filter strip pre-treatment sizing
Link to this table
Parameter | Impervious Parking Lots | Residential Lawns | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Maximum Inflow Approach Length (ft) | ||||||||
Filter Strip Slope | =<2% | >2% | =<2% | 2% | =<2% | 2% | =<2% | 2% |
Filter Strip Minimum Length | 10' | 15' | 20' | 25' | 10' | 12' | 15' | 18' |
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that grass channel pre-treatment for bioretention be a minimum of 20 feet in length and be designed according to the following guidelines:
(Note: Steps 5, 6, 7 and 8 are iterative)
Follow the design procedures identified in the Unified sizing criteria section to determine the volume control and peak discharge recommendations for water quality, recharge, channel protection, overbank flood and extreme storm.
Model the proposed development scenario using a surface water model appropriate for the hydrologic and hydraulic design considerations specific to the site (see also Introduction to stormwater modeling). This includes defining the parameters of the bioretention practice defined above: sedimentation basin elevation and area (defines the pond volume), infiltration/permeability rate, and outlet structure and/or flow diversion information. The results of this analysis can be used to determine whether or not the proposed design meets the applicable requirements. If not, the design will have to be re-evaluated (back to Step 5).
See Major Design Elements for guidance on preparing vegetation and landscaping management plan.
See Operations and Maintenance for guidance on preparing an O&M plan.
See Cost Considerations section for guidance on preparing a cost estimate that includes both construction and maintenance costs.