Bioretention systems

Bioretention systems are generally the simplest, most widely implemented water sensitive
urban design strategy designed and constructed around Australia, used both individually as
well as part of larger treatment trains (Blacktown City Council, 2020). A typical bioretention
system collects and treats stormwater runoff by acting as a vegetated soil filter, this filter
assists to reduce the flow rate of the runoff, removes bacteria, fine sediments, nutrients and
heavy metals from the stormwater, whist also providing an enhancement to the surrounding
biodiversity levels (Sharma et al, 2020). In order to effectively provide these benefits to the
surrounding environment a bioretention system must include the following components as
seen in figure **; an inlet system, filter vegetation and filter media, an extended detention
zone, transition layer and drainage layer, an inspection opening, and an overflow system
(Melbourne Water, 2013).

As bioretention systems are usually developed as a part of a larger water sensitive urban
design treatment train, the input is generally in the form of a pipe used to convey stormwater
runoff into the bioretention system, however this inlet can also be in the form of a kerb cut
out off a road or carpark as seen in figure ** (Townsville City Council, 2011). Once the
stormwater runoff enters the system through the input it proceeds into the extended detention
zone then through the filter vegetation and filter media, the filter media used is generally a
sandy loam soil that is blended with both organic compost and matter with low nutrient levels
(Parklea Sand & Soil, 2019). This soil blend allows the stormwater to infiltrate through the
system providing the filter vegetation with nutrients whilst simultaneously removing
pollutants from the stormwater (Melbourne Water, 2013). Once the storm water passes
through both the filter vegetation and filter media it proceeds through both the transition and
drainage layers, the transition layer consists of a coarse sand layer that blocks both sediments
and fine silts from exiting the bioretention system and progressing into the drainage layer and
drainage system. The stormwater runs through a drainage layer consisting of a coarse
aggregate that allows the treated stormwater to renter the drainage system (Water By Design,
2010). Additionally, both an inspection opening, and an overflow system are essential to the
operations, effectiveness and longevity of a bioretention system. The inspection opening is
not only used for inspecting the drainage layer of the system but is also used for the general
maintenance and cleaning of the drainage layer (Melbourne Water, 2013). The overflow
system is vital as it transfers excess stormwater runoff away from the bioretention system
when the extended detention zone is at capacity, this overflow system generally presents in
the form of a grated pit or side entry pit that collects the excess overflow and transfers it to a
discharge point (Water By Design, 2010).

The overall functionality and general processes developed within bio-retention systems are
present within a wide range of water sensitive urban design strategies, with a number of
different bioretention system varieties available for use within the engineering and
construction industries, including; street tree bioretention pits, bioretention swales, and lastly
bioretention raingardens and basins (Melbourne Water, 2013). Street tree bioretention pits are
an alteration to the typical bioretention system where a street tree is planted within the filter
media. This form of a bioretention system is generally located adjacent to a kerb of a road or
carpark similar to figure ** or can also be located within large non-permeable pedestrian
pavements as a form of a drainage that enhances the local streetscape (Burge, 2008).
Similarly, bioretention swales use the general bioretention system concepts to convey
stormwater runoff at a low velocity to allow infiltration into the surrounding soils and
vegetation, a further explanation of this system is developed further within this research piece
(Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010). Bioretention raingardens and basins
similarly use the general bioretention system concepts and components to treat stormwater
runoff, however, unlike bioretention swales both raingardens and basins do not convey the
stormwater instead acting somewhat as an endpoint for the stormwater runoff to pool,
infiltrate and be treated by the filter media to then be disposed of or collected for reuse.
Generally, bioretention raingardens and basins are used and designed as a landscape feature
to fit the local streetscape and environment (Deeks & Milne, 2005).

Similar to any water sensitive urban design strategies all forms of bioretention systems have a
wide array of beneficial advantages of their design and implementation, as well as negative
impacts that may cause the implementation of these systems to be questioned. The main
overall advantage of implementing a bioretention system as a form of a water sensitive urban
design strategy is to filter the pollutants of stormwater runoff. A laboratory study completed
by the Monash University Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration project team 1
determined that approximately 90% of heavy metals were removed from stormwater runoff
when processed through a bioretention system, included in this pollutant removal was the
discovery that this water sensitive urban design system also removes nitrogen from the
stormwater as well as a high level of phosphorus if the index level starts at less than
100mg/kg (Bratieres et al., 2008). In addition to the main benefit of removing pollutants from
the stormwater runoff, bioretention systems assist the local environment in the following
ways; reducing the stormwater runoff volume, increasing water quality, require less space
than other systems and can be scaled as required, removes standing water from other
landscaped areas, creating a habitat for local insects and animals, reducing the overall
maintenance of the area and enhancing the overall appeal and aesthetics of the area.
Additionally, bioretention systems can survive longer than other vegetation during high
drought periods due their functionality of storing usable nutrients and water (Blacktown City
Council, 2020). However, with this vast array of benefits and advantages of implementing a
bioretention system there are multiple disadvantages that need to be considered, including; if
the system is operated and implemented too early in the development process the systems and
components can get clogged with sediment and fine silt rendering it inoperable, if system is
not constructed as it is designed and the filter media is not flat the water is unable to pond
evenly causing the water not to infiltrate (Department of Planning and Local Government,
2010). Additionally, the inlet pit of the system must be above the surface level to allow water
to pond, with the outlet pit designed and constructed to be below the surface level of the
banks to ensure localised flooding in large rainfall event is avoided (Blacktown City Council,
2020). Overall, it is shown that the many advantages and benefits of implementing a
bioretention system as a water sensitive urban design system far outweigh the associated
disadvantages.

In addition to the benefits, advantages and disadvantages to implementing a bioretention

system the overall cost involved in the design, construction and maintenance must be
established before a decision can be determined on whether to implement the design strategy
or not. The general design fees involved with the implementation of a bioretention system is
approximately 10-15% of the overall project cost with no fixed amount per square metre
(Knights et al., 2010). The overall cost of constructing a bioretention system can be spilt into
two categories, bioretention rain gardens and bioretention basins. Since bioretention
raingardens match the local streetscape the costs involved are significantly higher starting at
approximately $1000 per square metre for a small project up to 50 square metres and
reducing to approximately $500 per square metre for project larger than 250 square metres,
with basins costing $800 per square metre and $50 per square metre respectively (Parsons
Brinckerhoff, 2013). The overall maintenance cost involved with bioretention systems
approximates at $10 per year per square metre of system (Knights et al., 2010). Considering
the aforementioned benefits of bioretention systems it can be seen through an analysis of the
costs involved that a small system may not provide a long-term benefit, however if this
system is implemented on a large scale or over multiple small sites the benefits of the system
far outweigh its cost.

A case study completed by Water by Design in 2010 on a residential greenfield development

site that contained a subdivision of roughly 1000 hectares with over 950 houses located in
Queensland to determine the overall cost versus the outcome that was achieved by
implementing a bioretention system (Water By Design, 2010). The conclusive evidence
developed by the case study determined that the lifecycle costs of implementing a
bioretention system within a large-scale development is rather significant, however these
costs are outweighed by the benefit to the environment and community in varying ways
(Water By Design, 2010).

In conclusion, the design and implementation of using a bioretention system as a water

sensitive urban design strategy has been proven to provide a better overall outcome for the
local environment, community and all stakeholders whilst still remaining financially viable.
The treatment of stormwater through this method is proven too reduce runoff flow rate,
increase the water quality, provide flood management and enhance the local biodiversity.
Although the long-term costs involved in the implementation of a bioretention system within
a development in rather significant, through a cost-benefit analysis it was determined that this
system is suitable for implementation in vast array of locations.

Blacktown City Council, 2020. Water Sesitive Urban Design (WSUD). Information Sheet
No.4. Blacktown City Council, New South Wales.

Bratières, K., Fletcher, A., Deletic, L., Alcazar, S., Le Coustumer, D., and Y, Zinger, Y.
2008. Removal of nutrients, heavy metals and pathogens by stormwater biofilters. 11th
International Conference on Urban Drainage (ICUD). Edinburgh, Scotland.

Brinckerhoff, P. 2013. Water Sensitive Urban Design Life Cycle Costing - Data Analysis
Report. Melbourne, Australia: Report prepared for Melbourne Water.

Burge, K. 2008. BEDP Environment Design Guide. CAS 46: Water Sensitive Urban Design
in the Melbourne Docklands – An Overview. Royal Australian Institute of Architects.

Deeks, B., Milne, T., 2005. WSUD Engineering Procedures for Stormwater Management in
Southern Tasmania 2005, Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, Hobart

Department of Planning and Local Government. 2010. Water Sensitive Urban Design
Technical Manual for the Greater Adelaide Region. Government of South Australia,
Adelaide.

Knights, D., Beharrell, D., and Jonasson, J., 2010, What does it cost to build a water quality
treatment system?. Stormwater 2010: National Conference of the Stormwater Industry
Association.

Melbourne Water, 2020. WSUD Maintenance Guidelines. A Guide for Asset Managers.
Melbourne Water.

Parklea Sand & Soil, 2020. Filter Media. Viewed 14 August 2020.
<https://parkleasandsoil.com.au/portfolio/filter-media/>.

Sharma, A., Gardner, T., Begbie, D., 2018. Approaches to Water Sensitive Urban Design:
Potential, Design, Ecological Health, Urban Greening, Economics, Policies, and Community
Perceptions. Online: Elsevier

Townsville City Council, 2019. WSUD Technical Design Guidelines for the Coastal Dry
Tropics. Bioretention Basins. Townsville City Council , Queensland, (Chapter 6).
Water By Design, 2010. A Business Case for Best Practice Urban Stormwater Management.
South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership.

Water By Design, 2010. Construction Establishment Guidelines. Swales, Bioretention

Systems and Wetlands. South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership.