wisconsin; implementation of bioretention systems: a wisconsin case study

8/3/2019 Wisconsin; Implementation of Bioretention Systems: A Wisconsin Case Study

1/9

ABSTRACT: The implementation of various bioretention systemswas analyzed, including rain gardens, vegetated swales, trenches,and infiltration basins in the St. Francis subdivision, Cross Plains,Wisconsin. Through the examination of archival data and inter-

views with key participants, it was found that although regulatory

and political pressures encouraged the inclusion of bioretention,current standards for storm water management prevailed. Thedevelopers had to meet both existing requirements and anticipatedrules requiring infiltration. As a result, bioretention systems sim-ply supplemented, rather than replaced, traditional storm waterpractices. The confusion surrounding dual standards contributed tosubstantial delays in the negotiations among relevant stakeholdersin the watershed. It is concluded that the St. Francis subdivisionserves as both a cautionary tale and a bioretention success story. Asa caution, this situation demonstrates the need for careful reviewand refinement of existing storm water ordinances to incorporatewater quality improvement technologies, such as bioretention. Thedemonstrated success of the St. Francis development, however, isthat it became a positive prototype for best management stormwater practices elsewhere in the region. In addition, the water

quality monitoring data from the site has contributed to develop-ment of a new county ordinance, the first in Wisconsin to addressboth quantity and quality of storm water runoff.(KEY TERMS: storm water management; best management prac-tices; infiltration and soil moisture; rain gardens.)

Morzaria-Luna, Hem Nalini, Karen S. Schaepe, Laurence B. Cutforth, and

Rachel L. Veltman, 2004. Implementation of Bioretention Systems: A Wiscon-

sin Case Study. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA)

40(4):1053-1061.

INTRODUCTION

Traditional storm water systems are designed toconcentrate and convey runoff away from source

areas. Runoff is stored in detention basins to reducethe peak flow and control the rate of discharge, andthe total volume is then routed out of the watershed

via streams. These practices are very successful ineliminating frequent flooding and reducing the localized and short term impacts of environmental pollu-tion (Butler and Parkinson, 1997; Huhn and Stecker1997). However, because runoff carries sedimentnutrients, and synthetic chemicals that accumulate inthe aquatic environment, the diversion of storm wateralso reduces ground water recharge and baseflow(Correll, 1997; Huhn and Stecker, 1997).

Direct infiltration of storm water, by contrast, canreduce peak flow and total volume, thereby ameliorat-ing stream bank erosion and increasing ground waterrecharge and baseflow (Fujita, 1997; Bucheli et al.,1998). As runoff infiltrates, depending on site condi-tions, suspended solids, phosphorus, metals, somepesticides, and organic compounds are adsorbed andwater quality improves, although highly water solublecompounds, such as nitrates and salts are notremoved and can contaminate ground water (Appleyard, 1993; Pittet al., 1996; Bucheliet al., 1998; Lloyd

et al., 2002).Bioretention systems are one option for direct

storm water infiltration. These systems consist of adepression over porous soil, covered with mulch, and

1Paper No. 02126 of theJournal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) (Copyright 2004). Discussions are open untilFebruary 1, 2005.

2Respectively, Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 430 Lincoln Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706; Department of Soci-ology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706; Farm Services Agency, U.S. Department of Agri-culture, 8030 Excelsior Drive, Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53717; and Natural Resources Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 128, 119 South MainStreet, Suite D, Cottage Grove, Wisconsin 53527-0128 (E-Mail/Veltman: [email protected]).

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1053 JAWRA

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

AUGUST AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 2004

IMPLEMENTATION OF BIORETENTION SYSTEMS:A WISCONSIN CASE STUDY1

Hem Nalini Morzaria-Luna, Karen S. Schaepe, Laurence B. Cutforth, and Rachel L. Veltman2


2/9

planted with a variety of vegetation. Runoff from animpervious area is directed into the bioretention area,where it infiltrates or is lost through evapotranspira-tion. The plants maintain soil porosity, encourage bio-logical activity, and take up pollutants (Davis et al.,2001; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001;Prince Georges County Department of Environmental

Resources, 2002). Bioretention includes window boxesthat capture rainfall, small vegetated depressionsadjacent to downspouts (rain gardens), vegetatedswales (bioretention islands), and infiltration basins.These systems operate in the same general way butdiffer in size.

Bioretention was originally designed to minimizesurface water runoff volume, but increasingly it isbeing used to improve ground water quality. Bioreten-tion is recommended as a structural Best Manage-ment Practice used to meet the requirements of thenational storm water program under Section 402(p) ofthe Clean Water Act (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1999). In particular, rain gardens haveattracted attention (Table 1) because they are aes-thetically pleasing, simple to build, and can be veryeffective when infiltration is focused to maximizerecharge (Kercher, 2003; Dussaillant et al., 2004). Arain garden is a landscaped garden in a small shallowdepression that receives the runoff from one house-hold or lot through layers of mulch and porous soil(Dussaillant, 2002; Prince Georges County Depart-ment of Environmental Resources, 2002).

Although many sites around the country haveincorporated rain gardens and other bioretention sys-tems (Table 1), uncertainty about the implementationand regulatory processes still exists. The process ofimplementation of bioretention practices in the St.Francis subdivision in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, wasanalyzed. The subdivision was one of the first residen-tial developments in Wisconsin to include bioretentionsystems in its site design. A case study approach wasused because of little prior knowledge of relevant

variables and relationships. Two questions wereaddressed: (1) which technical, social, and regulatoryprocesses hindered or assisted the implementationprocess of storm water bioretention practices in theSt. Francis subdivision; and (2) in the future, how can

this process be improved?

METHODS

The research proceeded through three phases.Initially, background information on stormwaterinfiltration and bioretention was gathered and a pilotstudy on homeowner attitudes and knowledge of rain

gardens conducted in the Madison area in 2001(M. Hornung, R. Veltman, and H. Morzaria-Luna,unpublished data) was analyzed. A series of inter-

views conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Nat-ural Resources (WDNR) about barriers to adoption ofbioretention systems were analyzed. Physical andengineering data on the St. Francis subdivision were

then collected, including reviews of topographic andsoil maps, street and utility construction plans, aswell as historical documentation.

In the second phase, in 2002, a series of open endedinterviews was conducted with key participantsinvolved in the development of the St. Francis subdi-

vision. The public works engineer for the Village ofCross Plains, two project design engineers who devel-oped the plans for the subdivision, the developer ofthe project, a representative from the Dane CountyRegional Planning Commission (RPC), and a staffperson from the Land Conservation Department whowas involved in monitoring the site were interviewed.

The questions were similar for all the interviews, butmodified accordingly to the area of expertise of theinterviewee. The interviewees were asked to describehow the bioretention component emerged and devel-oped and to identify the primary source(s) of resis-tance. Follow-up phone interviews also wereconducted with third parties referred by the initialinterviewees.

Finally, in the third phase of the study a list of fac-tors described as assisting and/or hindering theimplementation process was developed. Feedback forthe analysis was sought from two engineers uncon-nected to the project, but with extensive experienceworking with watershed development issues (onefrom Montgomery Associates: Resource Solutions inMadison, Wisconsin, and another from Peer Engineer-ing in Bloomington, Minnesota).

Study Site

The St. Francis subdivision (Figure 1) is located 19km west of the City of Madison, Wisconsin, in the Vil-lage of Cross Plains (population approximately 3,000).Before development, the property was farmland. The

plat is composed of 20.9 buildable hectares and 8.7environmental corridor hectares. When completed itwill have 102 residential units (Table 2). The subdivi-sion has variable topography with a 2 to 8 percentslope.

Cross Plains is located in the transition zonebetween the glaciated and unglaciated areas of DaneCounty. The upland areas contain well drained glacialtill and colluvial deposits. In lowland areas, poorlydrained soils are subject to flooding and a high water

JAWRA 1054 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

MORZARIA-LUNA, SCHAEPE, CUTFORTH, AND VELTMAN


3/9

table. Environmental corridors exist on the lowerareas and bottomland soils because they are unsuit-able for development (Dane County Regional Plan-ning Commission, 2000).

St. Francis is located along a small tributary, Brew-ery Creek. This creek drains into the Black EarthCreek, a high quality (Class 1) trout stream with suf-ficient natural reproduction to sustain populations of

wild trout at or near carrying capacity (WDNR, 2003)The downstream segments of Brewery Creek havenatural meanders and fair habitat quality. Brown andrainbow trout sometimes use these areas as a refugefrom predation. Ground water recharge suppliesapproximately 80 percent of Black Earth Creeks flow

volume (Genskow and Born, 1997). Over time, morethan $2 million (public and private) have been used to


IMPLEMENTATION OF BIORETENTION SYSTEMS: A WISCONSIN CASE STUDY

TABLE 1. Urban Development Projects Where Bioretention Practices Have Been Implemented in the United States.

Location Implementer Project Implementation* Practice**

Frederick County, Maryland1 Ecosite, Inc. Pembroke Subdivision N 3,4,5

Seattle, Washington1 Seattle Public Utilities and Urban Creeks Legacy R 5,7Seattle Transportation Department Program. SEA Streets

Sherwood, Arkansas1 Terry Paff, Developer Gap Creek Subdivision N 1, 6

Maplewood, Minnesota1 Maplewood Water Gardens R 5

St. Paul, Minnesota1 Upper Swede Hollow Neighborhood Maria Bates Rain Garden R 4Association

Mount Rainier, Maryland2 Prince Georges County Department HIP Artists House R 1of Environmental Resources

Port Towns, Maryland2 Port Towns, Prince Georges County Bladensburg Streetscape Project R 4and Maryland State Highway

Administration

Austin, Texas3 Alta Vista Planned Unit N, M 5

Development

Somerset, Maryland4 Prince George's County Department Somerset Subdivision N 4of Environmental Resources

Carrboro, North Carolina5 Giles Blunden, Architect Pacifica Cohousing N 1

Minneapolis, Minnesota6 Friends of Bassett Creek Bassett Creek R 4

St. Paul, Minnesota6 Friends of Swede Hollow Lower Phalen Creek R 4

Grayslake, Illinois7 Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Prairie Crossing 5,6

Lake Wisconsin, Wisconsin8 Heffron and Associates The Waters Edge N 4

Seattle, Washington9 City of Seattle Green Street Project R 1,2,5

**Implementation: R = retrofit; N = new construction; and M = monitoring for pollutant removal.**Includes housing and living areas. Does not include parking lots or highways. Practices: 1 = bioretention (unspecified); 2 = window boxes;**3 = sediment detention basins; 4 = rain gardens; 5 = swales; 6 = wetlands and natural area preservation; and 7 = retention grading of**lawns.1Lehneret al., 1999.2Prince Georges County, 2001.3ASCE, 2001.4Coffman, 1995.5Carrboro Collaborative Development Association, 2002.6Friends of Basset Creek, 2004.7Apfelbaumet al., 1994.8Daniel Heffron, Heffron and Associates, personal communication, February 13, 2002.9Wulkan, 2001.


4/9

improve trout habitat in the Black Earth Creekwatershed (Mayers, 2001). This money includes astate funded watershed program to support cost shar-ing of best management practices that reduce non-point pollution from urban areas, dairy feedlots, andagricultural fields.

Engineering Practices

During the site planning process, hydric soils andpermeable areas, where infiltration practices could belocated, were mapped. The site analysis was used toprepare a plan that incorporated the following prac-tices: a naturally vegetated buffer along Brewery



Figure 1. Location and Plan of the St. Francis Subdivision Located in the Village of Cross Plains, Wisconsin,Showing Some of the Locations of Bioretention Practices Used in the Design of the Subdivision.

TABLE 2. Land Use Characteristics of the St. Francis Subdivision, Cross Plains, Wisconsin.

Number of Density

Housing Units Hectares (hectares/unit) No. of People

Single Family 91 16.3 0.18 291

Two Family 20 1.4 0.07 45

Multifamily 4 3.2 0.80 160

Dedicated Right of Way 5.0

Park and Open Space 3.8

Farm Buildings 0.9

Existing Residences 3 0.6 0.20

Totals 118 31.2

Note: Information from R. Roth, unpublished engineering design for the St. Francis Plat.


5/9

Creek, protection of existing wooded areas, deep till-ing to increase infiltration and reduce the effects ofsoil compaction, storm water storage and infiltrationswales behind all house sites, and storm water stor-age and infiltration swales within cul-de-sacs andboulevards (Dane County, 2002a).

The bioretention systems implemented in St. Fran-

cis (Figure 1) include rain gardens, vegetated swales,trenches, and infiltration basins. The design goal ofthe storm water engineering plans is to infiltrate theone-year storm runoff. Water quality improvement isexpected as the first flush of runoff is contained, sinceit carries the majority of pollutants and has highertemperatures. The plan predicts no increase in therate of storm water drainage from the developed sitecompared to predevelopment during two-year to 50-year storms. Additionally, it should allow a 100-yearstorm to pass safely (R. Roth, General Engineering,Portage, Wisconsin, unpublished engineering designfor the St. Francis Plat).

A deed restriction requires that each lot in the sub-division have an 18.6 m2 minimum area rain garden.The Village Building Inspector checks on the deedrestriction requirement when approving initial houseconstruction plans and subsequently in response tocomplaints. A landscape architect is required todesign the rain garden and the Architecture ControlCommittee of the subdivision needs to approve theplan. The objective is that the rain gardens and theswales in 7 to 9 m easements between lots will infil-trate the one-year storm in each lot. Vegetated swalesconvey larger storm runoff to the street. The swalesare shallow channels with small holding areas creat-ed by depressions that allow the water to pond andinfiltrate (R. Roth, unpublished data).

The streets are designed as boulevards with asunken median that contains 11 turf lined infiltrationtrenches. Trenches are 0.5 to 3.0 m deep and back-filled with stone in order to create an undergroundreservoir. The runoff is temporarily retained in thebackfill until it can percolate into the soil beneath orinto the perforated drainpipes. Infiltration basinsoccupy the center of each of the cul-de-sacs. Thebasins are designed to store a defined volume ofrunoff, allowing it to exfiltrate through the sides and

floor into the underlying permeable soil. Underneatheach trench and basin are perforated drainage tiles(15.24 cm) with socks that connect the series oftrenches. Low profile curbs on the median cause roadrunoff to sheet flow into the trenches and basins. Thedesign required variances for narrower street widths(4.9 m boulevard lanes; 8.5 m street widths whereverpossible) because of the boulevard strips and lowercurbs.

Overflow standpipe structures drain water overdepths of plus or minus 45 cm to a storm sewer line,

which leads to two larger detention/sedimentationponds adjacent to Brewery Creek. Each pond hassump structures to facilitate drainage and emergencyspillways to accommodate overflow from the ponds tothe creek in the event of very large storms (while alsoreducing thermal impacts).

ANALYSIS

Inclusion of Storm Water Bioretention Systems in theSt. Francis Subdivision

Regulatory and political pressures facilitated theinclusion of bioretention practices in the St. Francissubdivision. Foremost, residents of the Black EarthCreek watershed are very concerned about protectingthe natural resources in the area and had rejected

previous plans to develop the property. New federalrequirements resulting from the implementation ofthe National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systemmandate addressing construction site erosion andsediment control (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 2001). In addition, at the time St. Franciswas being planned, Dane County was reviewing locastorm water regulations to address water quality, andthe WDNR wanted a test site for rain gardens. Staffat the WDNR and Land Conservation Departmentintroduced the developer to bioretention practicesand he agreed to include them because, as a lifelongresident of the area, he wanted to protect the creek as

well. The developer also gained six more lots by usinginfiltration systems. In addition, a storm water man-agement plan that uses native vegetation and empha-sizes environmental issues can make a developmentmore desirable and marketable (Lloyd et al., 2002Prince Georges County Department of EnvironmentaResources, 2002). As a result, the engineers wereencouraged by the developer to use infiltration andbioretention as part of the storm water managementplan.

Projects where stakeholders are willing to testnovel technology serve as models to promote furtherchange and provide publicity to bioretention (Dane

County, 2002b, 2003). St. Francis was very successfulin this role. The developer received a Dane CountyLakes and Watershed Commission award for hisstewardship. Preliminary water quality data collectedby the Land Conservation Department indicated littleor no impact from the St. Francis development (DaneCounty, 2003). This information was used in the newDane County Stormwater Management OrdinanceThe new ordinance addresses both quantity and quality of storm water runoff from any development that




6/9

has 1,858 m2 or more of impervious surface. The stan-dard is no increase in the rate of runoff for a site afterdevelopment compared to predevelopment, in theevent of a two-year and a ten-year storm. The ordi-nance indicates downspouts, driveways, and otherimpervious areas must be directed to pervious areaswhere feasible; and rain gardens, infiltration trench-

es, and porous pavement are included recommendedpractices in the accompanying manual (Dane County,2002a).

Implementation Process

The developer of the St. Francis subdivision initial-ly proposed a smaller development on the south sideof the Brewery Creek, but the Village of Cross Plainsrequested a plan for the whole property so they couldapprove the development of the property in one step.This requirement substantially increased the area of

the plat and led to greater regulatory and politicalscrutiny of possible storm water impacts to BreweryCreek.

In Wisconsin, subdivision plats and associatedstorm water management plans are approved bymunicipalities. The Village of Cross Plainss stormwater ordinance requires control of post- developmentstorm water flows to predevelopment levels for two-year storm events. In addition to village storm waterrequirements, the WDNR requires a NR216 stormwater permit for land disturbances greater than2 hectares that discharge into state waters. This per-mit aims to eliminate to the maximum extent practi-

cable pollutants in municipal storm water runoff(WDNR, 2002). The St. Francis subdivision alsorequired approval to extend the village urban sewerservice area from the RPC. This agency conductswater quality planning for the region and delineatesareas for urban development and places where envi-ronmental resources should be protected. The locationof the site next to the Black Earth Creek also broughtthe issue to the attention of local environmentalgroups such as Trout Unlimited.

The Village of Cross Plains and the engineers com-promised on allowing a deviation from the waterquantity requirement, in exchange for bioretention

systems that would improve water quality by captur-ing sediment and lowering runoff temperature.

Although bioretention is not common in the area, theengineers used examples from other regions, includ-ing Minnesota, Illinois, and Maryland (Table 1). Theengineers received help from the Land ConservationDepartment with the design of the infiltration prac-tices in exchange for allowing the Department toinstall monitoring stations above and below thesite. From 2001 to 2003, sedimentation, temperature,

discharge, and other water quality parameters wereassessed. The RPC questioned whether infiltrationsystems could be trusted to provide long term stormwater quantity protection. Rain gardens were a prob-lem because they were planned in private yards, andthe urban sewer service extension requires a publiclymanaged storm water system. Neither the developer

nor the Village wanted the responsibility of rain gar-den maintenance. In other subdivisions, like TheWaters Edge (Table 1), rain gardens have been builtin the public right of way to avoid this issue. The RPCdecided to exclude the effects of the rain gardens fromthe storm water management plan and required fur-ther site design changes such as adding a widerstream buffer and detention ponds. Rain gardensremained as part of the deed restriction for each lot.

Overall, the approval process required three yearsfrom the initial proposal until construction (R. Roth,personal communication, March 27, 2002).

Obstacles and Opportunities in the Implementation

of Bioretention

One major social obstacle to the implementation ofbioretention was revealed during the negotiation pro-cess among relevant stakeholders in the watershed.The developer and government agency representa-tives from Land Conservation Department, WDNR,and the RPC all indicated that their own role andresponsibilities had been misunderstood by the otherparticipants in the negotiations and by the public, as

well. For example, staff from RPC noted that a com-monly held view of their agency is that they err on theside of conservation and of course would sign off onany plan that encouraged infiltration techniques.RPC staff emphasized that this misrepresents theirmandate. Although they encourage low impact solu-tions, part of their job is to consider how deed restric-tions and rain garden maintenance could be enforced.Staff noted that because of their close scrutiny of howenforcement was possible, some interpreted their hes-itation as a lack of support for the project as a whole.The developer noted that he was surprised and some-what unprepared for the level of resistance from the

RPC and for the number of meetings he would ulti-mately have to attend before the project wasapproved. When the RPC board delayed approval ofthe St. Francis project, the developer reasoned thatsome of the board members thought he was using themodified storm water management design for eco-nomic gain, pure and simple, and therefore it reallydid not merit a high priority on the boards agenda.

Over time, as relationships developed, the misun-derstandings over stakeholder roles and expectations




7/9

dissipated, replaced to some extent by mutual trustand respect. The developer said that as things pro-ceeded he was very encouraged by the help andinvolvement of agency officials. Staff members fromthe WDNR and Land Conservation Department wereimpressed by the efforts from the developer to ensurethat the project was approved and completed ade-

quately. One WDNR staff person noted that he wasimpressed by the fact that the developer often madespot visits to the site to be sure the contractors weremaintaining the silt fences and complying with otherspecifications of the project, He didnt have to dothat, you know. Therefore, although stereotypes werea formidable obstacle in the beginning, through theprocess of sharing knowledge, networks developedbetween various agencies and private interests thatwill likely aid the inclusion of bioretention techniquesin the future.

The physical design requirements in the St. Fran-cis subdivision were the easiest part of the process. As

the site engineers described it, the impermeable sur-face area could be calculated; the quantitative mea-sures of peak flow and volume could be determined;flow patterns could be established; and the appropri-ate structures could be designed. Likewise, the devel-oper and the engineers systematically addressed andsolved various technological and economic obstacles inthe early stages of the project, such as calculating theminimum size of a rain garden to infiltrate a one-yearstorm. Both the developer and the engineers conclud-ed that they gained experience they could use in thefuture, should they choose to use bioretention tech-niques again.

Ordinance and governance structure proved to bethe most intractable obstacle during the implementa-tion of bioretention techniques at the St. Francis site.With the exception of the RPC, the stakeholdersthought that including bioretention technology wouldlessen the perceived impacts of development andensure rapid approval of the St. Francis subdivision.In fact, having to consider both existing ordinancesand the anticipated future requirements turned out tobe much more challenging than grappling with eitheraspect would have been alone. Engineers had to showthat the bioretention practices would not interfere

with traditional storm water management practices.In accordance with traditional storm water plans,detention basins, sewers, curb, and gutters were builtin St. Francis. The bioretention requirements weresimply added on top of existing requirements. AWDNR staff person described the final design as likeso many barnacles on a ship. That is, more regulato-ry weight was added to the existing ship of stormwater ordinances, but elimination of redundant orreconciliation of contradictory requirements did notoccur.

By way of perspective drawn from other situationsin a subdivision in Australia, where bioretention waspart of the storm water design, the developer also hadto build a conventional drainage system, but the suc-cess of the storm water infiltration management planresulted in similar infiltration practices beingapproved elsewhere without such conditions being

placed on the design teams (Lloyd et al., 2002). InPrince Georges County, Maryland, the only region inthe United States where bioretention practices arenow in common use (Table 1), the alternative tech-nologies were initially adopted and encouraged by thelocal governance, as a response to the increasing pol-lution in the Chesapeake Bay. In this case, collabora-tion between the academic community, localgovernment, and local developers was key to theacceptance of bioretention practices (U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, 2001; Prince GeorgesCounty Department of Environmental Resources2002). In other areas where bioretention has been

implemented (Table 1), the initiative has come fromlocal grass roots groups, environmental agencies, ordevelopers.

Rain Gardens Remain Part of St. Francis as Deed

Restrictions

Rain gardens, the most innovative part of thestorm water management design, were not includedin the final version of the plan. Because the deedrestrictions made it difficult to enforce maintenance

rain gardens were excluded. Nonetheless, the designengineers, developer, and WDNR staff remained com-mitted to including rain gardens in each lot. Home-owners receive a brochure on rain gardens preparedby the WDNR and references to landscaping compa-nies in the area. They are responsible for hiring alandscaper to design the rain garden and for mainte-nance. Building inspection at the end of constructionwill check for compliance with the deed restriction,but no further oversight will occur unless there is acomplaint.

Participants opinions disagreed on whether home-owners will maintain the rain gardens. The developer

viewed homeowners as very amenable to innovativestorm water management techniques and willing tocomply with the deed restrictions. Staff at the RPCargued that homeowners would be unlikely to main-tain rain gardens. Personnel at the WDNR believedthat the public would probably need to be educatedregarding rain gardens. In a pilot study on homeowner knowledge of rain gardens and attitudes towardsadoption conducted in the Madison area in 2001, sev-eral negative perceptions to the adoption of rain




8/9

gardens were identified (i.e., rain gardens encouragemosquitoes, require too much work, are expensive todesign and plant, and promote weeds) (M. Hornung,R. Veltman, and H. Morzaria-Luna, unpublisheddata). Liability and possible damage to foundationswere also mentioned. This study concluded that ahomeowner with average ecological knowledge needed

extensive education before he would build and carefor a rain garden.

How Can the Implementation of Bioretention Be

Improved?

The authors believe that further efforts should bedirected to implementing rain gardens as a stormwater management practice because they have sever-al advantages over other bioretention practices. Raingardens are an appealing landscape feature that canbe designed to a certain standard, with a known soilprofile, vegetation receiving area and topography(Dussaillant, 2002). Also, rain gardens can be includ-ed in new designs or retrofitted inexpensively intoexisting areas (Prince Georges County Department ofEnvironmental Resources, 2002). Some suggestions topromote public acceptance and participation includeoutreach programs, demonstration rain gardens,hands-on design workshops, and credit plans wherehomeowners who infiltrate their stormwater on-sitecould receive a reduction on the sewer fee.

However, these findings suggest that any policyaimed at modifying the approach to storm water man-

agement must originate within the governance struc-ture. Attention must be concentrated on reviewingand reconfiguring existing storm water regulationsand ordinances. Although radical changes will notoccur overnight, gradual additions to the standarddesign are important milestones to the eventualwidespread acceptance of bioretention in storm watermanagement plans (Lloydet al., 2002). The new DaneCounty Stormwater Management Ordinance is anexcellent example of how bioretention can comple-ment the traditional storm water managementapproach.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research is a product of the NSF IGERT Program HumanDimensions of Social and Aquatic System Interactions Grant9870703. The authors wish to thank S. Dodson, M. Heemskerk, andP. Nowak for their guidance. S. Born, K. Potter, and J. Zedlerencouraged the authors to explore rain garden implementation inMadison and provided suggestions to earlier versions of thismanuscript. J. Bahr, R. Bannerman, E. Nelson, and J. Pechenekprovided advice and access to primary sources. The authors would

also like to thank all interview participants. Financial support toH. Morzaria-Luna was provided by the Consejo Nacional de Cienciay Tecnologa-Mexico (Scholarship 134519).

LITERATURE CITED

Apfelbaum, S.I., J.D. Eppich, T.H. Prices, and M. Sands, 1994. ThePrairie Crossing Project: Attaining Water Quality and Stormwa-ter Management Goals in a Conservation Development. Avail-able at .Accessed in June 2004.

Appleyard, S.J., 1993. Impact of Stormwater Infiltration Basins onGroundwater Quality, Perth Metropolitan Region, Western Aus-tralian. Environmental Geology 21(4):227-236.

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), 2001. InternationalStormwater Best Management Practices Database. Version 1.2.

ASCE, Urban Water Resources Research Council on-lineresource. Available at .Accessed in June 2004.

Bucheli, T.D., S.R. Muller, S. Heberle, and R.P. Schwarzenbach,1998. Occurrence and Behavior of Pesticides in Rainwater, RoofRunoff, and Artificial Stormwater Infiltration. Environmental

Science and Technology 32(22):3457-3464.Butler, D. and J. Parkinson, 1997. Towards Sustainable Urban

Drainage. Water Science and Technology 35(9):53-63.Carrboro Collaborative Development Association. 2002. Pacifica

Cohousing: A Carrboro NC Community. Available at . Accessed in June 2004.

Coffman, L., 1995. Maryland Developer Grows Rain Gardens toControl Residential Runoff. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Nonpoint Source News-Notes. 42. Available at.Accessedin June 2004.

Correll, C., 1997. Infiltration Study of the North Fork of PheasantBranch Creek Watershed. Master of Science. University of Wis-consin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.

Dane County, 2002a. Stormwater Management Ordinance. Dane

County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14.Dane County, 2002b. Setting New Standards: Dane County

Stormwater Management Ordinance Takes Effect Today. PressRelease.Available at http://www.co.dane.wi.us/DaneDept/press/default.asp?frmPRID=201.Accessed in December 2003.

Dane County, 2003. Dane County Showcases Stream Monitoring toEPA Official. Press Release. Available at http://www.co.dane.wi.us/DaneDept/press/default.asp?frmPRID=326. Accessed inDecember 2003.

Dane County Regional Planning Commission, 2000. Addendum tothe 7/24/00 Staff Analysis of Proposed Amendment to the DaneCounty Land Use and Transportation Plan and Water QualityPlan to Revise the Cross Plains Urban Service Area Boundaryand Environmental Corridors in the Town of Berry.

Davis, A.P., M. Shokouhian, and C. Minami, 2001. Laboratory

Study of Biological Retention (Bioretention) for Urban StormWater Management. Water Environmental Research 73(1):5-14.Dussaillant, A.R., 2002. Stormwater Infiltration and Focused

Groundwater Recharge in a Rain Garden: Numerical Modelingand Field Experiment. Doctor of Philosophy. University of Wis-consin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.

Dussaillant, A.R., C. Wu, and K.W. Potter, 2004. Richards EquationModel of a Rain Garden. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering9(3):219-225.

Friends of Basset Creek, 2004. Rain Gardens: Gardening WithWater Quality in Mind. Available at .Accessed in June 2004.




9/9

Fujita, S., 1997. Measures to Promote Stormwater Infiltration.Water Science and Technology 36(8-9):289-293.

Genskow, K. and S. Born, 1997. Assessing Consensus-BuildingEfforts in the Black Earth Creek Watershed: Parts 1 and 2, Uni-

versity of Wisconsin-Extension, Reports 97.5, 97.6, Madison,Wisconsin.

Huhn, V. and A. Stecker, 1997. Alternative Stormwater Manage-ment Concept for Urban and Suburban Areas. Water Scienceand Technology 36(8-9):295-300.

Kercher, S., 2003. Factors That Influence Dominance by ReedCanary Grass ( Phalaris arundinacea L.) in Wet Meadows. Doc-tor of Philosophy. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,Wisconsin.

Lehner, P., G.P., Aponte, D.M. Cameron, and A.G. Frank, 1999.Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollu-tion. National Resources Defense Council. New York, New York,145 pp.

Lloyd, S.D., T.H.F. Wong, and B. Porter, 2002. The Planning andConstruction of an Urban Stormwater Management Scheme.Water Science and Technology 45(7):1-10.

Mayers, J., 2001. Great American Trout Streams: Wisconsins BlackEarth Creek. Trout (Autumn): 22-27.

Pitt, R., S. Clark, K. Parmer, and R. Field, 1996. Groundwater Con-tamination for Stormwater Infiltration. Ann Arbor Press,

Chelsea, Michigan.Prince Georges County, 2001. The Anacostia Port Towns Environ-

mental Revitalization Program. Available at . Accessed in June 2004.

Prince Georges County, Department of Environmental Resources,2002. Bioretention Manual. Prince Georges County, Maryland,Programs and Planning Division. Available at .Accessedin June 2004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Preliminary DataSummary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices.EPA-821-R-99-012, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Availableat .Accessed in Decem-ber 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Post-ConstructionStorm Water Management in New Development and Redevelop-ment: Bioretention. Available at . Accessed in December2003.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), 2002. Chap-ter NR216: Storm Water Discharge Permits. Wisconsin Admin-istrative Code, pp. 133-150.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), 2003. Wis-consin Fish: Trout Stream Classifications. Available at. Accessed in January 2003.

Wulkan, B. 2001. Stormwater Problems? Put a LID on It. LowImpact Development Techniques Help Protect Local Waters asthe Region Grows. Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, Online

Edition, Environmental Outlook, July 12, 2001. Available at.Accessed inJune 2004.



wisconsin; implementation of bioretention systems: a wisconsin case study

Documents