GUIDELINES FOR SOIL FILTER MEDIA IN BIORETENTION SYSTEMS (Version 2.

01)
March 2008

The following guidelines for soil filter media in bioretention systems have been prepared on behalf of
the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB) to assist in the development of bioretention
systems, including the planning, design, construction and operation of those systems.

NOTE: This is a revision of the previous FAWB guideline specifications (published in 2006). It attempts
to provide a simpler and more robust guideline. FAWB acknowledges the contribution of EDAW Inc.,
Melbourne Water Corporation, Dr Nicholas Somes (Ecodynamics), Alan Hoban (SEQ Healthy Waterways
Partnership), and STORM Consulting to the preparation of the revised guidelines.

Disclaimer

The Guidelines for Soil Filter Media in Bioretention Systems are made available and distributed solely
on an "as is" basis without express or implied warranty. The entire risk as to the quality, adaptability
and performance is assumed by the user.

It is the responsibility of the user to make an assessment of the suitability of the guidelines for its own
purposes and the guidelines are supplied on the understanding that the user will not hold EDAW Inc.,
Monash University, Sydney Environmental & Soil Laboratory Pty. Limited (SESL), Dr Peter May, The
University of Melbourne, or Melbourne Water Corporation or parties to the Facility for Advancing Water
Biofiltration (FAWB) (“the Licensor”) liable for any loss or damage resulting from their use.

To the extent permitted by the laws of Australia, the Licensor disclaims all warranties with regard to
this information including all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. In no event shall the
Licensor be liable for any special, direct or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever
resulting from loss or use, whether in action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising
out of the use of, or performance of this information.

1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The bioretention filter media guidelines require three layers of media: the filter media itself
(400-600 mm deep or as specified in the engineering design), a transition layer (100 mm deep), and a
drainage layer (50 mm minimum underdrainage pipe cover). The bioretention system will operate so
that water will infiltrate into the filter media and move vertically down through the profile.

The filter media is required to support a range of vegetation types (from groundcovers to trees) that
are adapted to freely draining soils with occasional flooding. The material should be based on natural
soils or amended natural soils and can be of siliceous or calcareous origin. In general, the media
should be a loamy sand with an appropriately high permeability under compaction and should be free
of rubbish, deleterious material, toxicants, declared plants and local weeds (as listed in local
guidelines/Acts), and should not be hydrophobic. The filter media should contain some organic
matter for increased water holding capacity but be low in nutrient content.

Bioretention Filter Media Guidelines (Version 2.01), Prepared by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB),
March 2008.
 Maintaining an adequate infiltration capacity is crucial in ensuring the long-term treatment efficiency
of the system. The ability of a bioretention system to detain and infiltrate incoming stormwater is a
function of the filter surface area, extended detention (ponding) depth, and the hydraulic conductivity
of the filter media (Figure 1). Most importantly, design of a bioretention system should optimize the
combination of these three design elements.

For a bioretention system in a temperate climate with an extended detention depth of 100–300 mm
and whose surface area is approximately 2% of the connected impervious area of the contributing
catchment, the prescribed hydraulic conductivity will generally be between 100-300 mm/hr in order to
meet best practice targets (Figure 2). This configuration supports plant growth without requiring too
high a land space. In warm, humid (sub- and dry- tropical) regions the hydraulic conductivity may
need to be higher in order to achieve the required treatment performance using the same land space
(i.e., ensuring that the proportion of water treated through the media meets requirements).

Where one of these design elements falls outside the recommended range, the infiltration capacity can
still be maintained by offsetting another of the design elements. For example, a filter media with a
lower hydraulic conductivity may be used, but the surface area or the extended detention depth would
need to be increased in order to maintain the treatment capacity. Similarly, if the available land were
the limiting design element, the system could still treat the same size storm if a filter media with a
higher hydraulic conductivity were installed. Where a hydraulic conductivity greater than 300 mm/hr
is prescribed, potential issues such as higher watering requirements during the establishment should
be considered. Bioretention systems with a hydraulic conductivity greater than 600 mm/hr are
unlikely to support plant growth due to poor water retention, and may also result in leaching of
pollutants. However plant survival might be possible if the outlet pipe were raised to create a
permanently submerged zone.

filter media
hydraulic
conductivity
conductivity

infiltration
extended capacity filter
detention surface
depth area

Figure 1. Design elements that influence infiltration capacity

Bioretention Filter Media Guidelines (Version 2.01), Prepared by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB),
March 2008.
 Figure 2. Recommended filter media hydraulic conductivity range and potential issues

The infiltration capacity of the bioretention system will initially decline during the establishment phase
as the filter media settles and compacts, but this will level out and then start to increase as the plant
community establishes itself and the rooting depth increases (see Appendix A). In order to ensure
that the system functions adequately at its eventual (minimum) hydraulic conductivity, a safety
co-efficient of 2 should be used: i.e., designs should be modelled using half the prescribed hydraulic
conductivity. If a system does not perform adequately with this hydraulic conductivity, then the area
and/or ponding depth should be increased. It may also be desirable to report sensitivity to infiltration
rate, rather than simply having expected rate. This is important when assessing compliance of
constructed systems as systems should ideally meet best practice across a range of infiltration rates.

2 TESTING REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity

The hydraulic conductivity of potential filter media should be measured using the ASTM F1815-06
method. This test method uses a compaction method that best represents field conditions and so
provides a more realistic assessment of hydraulic conductivity than other test methods.

Note: if a hydraulic conductivity lower than 100 mm/hr is prescribed, the level of compaction
associated with this test method may be too severe and so underestimate the actual hydraulic
conductivity of the filter media under field conditions. However, FAWB considers this to be an
appropriately conservative test, and recommends its use even for low conductivity media.

2.2 Particle Size Distribution

Particle size distribution (PSD) is of secondary importance compared with hydraulic conductivity. A
material whose PSD falls within the following recommended range does not preclude the need for
hydraulic conductivity testing i.e., it does not guarantee that the material will have a suitable hydraulic
conductivity. However, the following composition range (percentage w/w) provides a useful guide for
selecting an appropriate material:

Bioretention Filter Media Guidelines (Version 2.01), Prepared by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB),
March 2008.
 Clay & Silt <3% (<0.05 mm)

Very Fine Sand 5-30% (0.05-0.15 mm)

Fine Sand 10-30% (0.15-0.25 mm)

Medium to Coarse Sand 40-60% (0.25-1.0 mm)

Coarse Sand 7-10% (1.0-2.0 mm)

Fine Gravel <3% (2.0-3.4 mm)

Clay and silt are important for water retention and sorption of dissolved pollutants, however they
substantially reduce the hydraulic conductivity of the filter media. This size fraction also influences
the structural stability of the material (through migration of particles to block small pores and/or
slump). It is essential that the total clay and silt mix is less than 3% (w/w) to reduce the likelihood of
structural collapse of such soils.

The filter media should be well-graded i.e., it should have all particle size ranges present from the
0.075 mm to the 4.75 mm sieve (as defined by AS1289.3.6.1 - 1995). There should be no gap in the
particle size grading, and the composition should not be dominated by a small particle size range.
This is important for preventing structural collapse due to particle migration.

2.3 Soil Properties

2.3.1 AS4419 – 2003 (Soils for Landscaping and Garden Use)

Filter media that do not meet the following specifications should be rejected:

i. Organic Matter Content – less than 5% (w/w). An organic content higher than 5% is likely to
result in leaching of nutrients.

ii. pH – as specified for „natural soils and soil blends‟ 5.5 – 7.5 (pH 1:5 in water).

iii. Electrical Conductivity (EC) – as specified for „natural soils and soil blends‟ <1.2 dS/m.

iv. Phosphorus - <100 mg/kg. Soils with phosphorus concentrations >100 mg/kg should be
tested for potential leaching. Where plants with moderate phosphorus sensitivity are to be
used, phosphorus concentrations should be <20 mg/kg.

Optional testing:

v. Dispersibility – this should be carried out where it is suspected that the soil may be
susceptible to structural collapse. If in doubt, then this testing should be undertaken.

Bioretention Filter Media Guidelines (Version 2.01), Prepared by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB),
March 2008.
 2.3.2 Soil Nutrition

Potential filter media should generally be assessed by a horticulturalist to ensure that they are capable
of supporting a healthy vegetation community. This assessment should take into consideration
delivery of nutrients to the system by stormwater. Any component or soil found to contain high levels
of salt (as determined by EC measurements), high levels of clay or silt particles (exceeding the particle
size limits set above), or any other extremes which may be considered retardant to plant growth
should be rejected.

3 TRANSITION AND DRAINAGE LAYERS

Transition layer material shall be a clean, well-graded sand/ coarse sand material containing little or
no fines.

The drainage layer is to be clean, fine gravel, such as a 2-5 mm washed screenings.

Geotextile fabrics are not recommended for use in bioretention systems due to the risk of clogging.
An open-weave shade cloth can be placed between the transition layer and the drainage layer to help
reduce the downward migration of smaller particles if required, however this should only be adopted
where there is insufficient depth for transition and drainage layers.

4 INSTALLATION

It is recommended that filter media be lightly compacted during installation to prevent migration of
fine particles. In small systems, a single pass with a vibrating plate should be used to compact the
filter media, while in large systems, a single pass with roller machinery (e.g. a drum lawn roller) should
be performed. Under no circumstance should heavy compaction or multiple-passes be made. Filter
media should be installed in two lifts unless the depth is less than 500 mm.

5 FIELD TESTING

It is recommended that field testing of hydraulic conductivity be carried out at least twice: 1. one
month following commencement of operation, and 2. in the second year of operation to assess the
impact of vegetation on hydraulic conductivity.

The hydraulic conductivity of the filter media should be checked at a minimum of three points within
the system. The single ring, constant head infiltration test method (shallow test), as described by Le
Coustumer et al. (2007), should be used. Given the inherent variability in hydraulic conductivity
testing and the heterogeneity of the filter media, the laboratory and field results are considered
comparable if they are within 50% of each other. However, even if they differ by more than 50%, the
system will still function if both the field and laboratory results are within the relevant recommended
range of hydraulic conductivities.

Bioretention Filter Media Guidelines (Version 2.01), Prepared by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB),
March 2008.
 References

ASTM International (2006). ASTM F 1815-06: Standard test methods for saturated hydraulic
conductivity, water retention, porosity, and bulk density of putting green and sports turf root zones.
West Conshohocken, U.S.A.

Le Coustumer, S., T. D. Fletcher, A. Deletic and S. Barraud (2007). Hydraulic performance of biofilters
for stormwater management: first lessons from both laboratory and field studies. Water Science and
Technology 56(10): 93-100.

Standards Australia (1995). AS1289.3.6.1 - 1995: Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes -
Soil classification tests - Determination of the particle size distribution of a soil - Standard method of
analysis by sieving. Sydney, Australia, Standards Australia International Ltd.

Standards Australia (2003). AS4419 - 2003: Soils for landscaping and garden use. Sydney, Australia,
Standards Australia International Ltd.

Bioretention Filter Media Guidelines (Version 2.01), Prepared by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB),
March 2008.
 Appendix

Figure A.1 illustrates the change in hydraulic conductivity during the establishment phase of a
Melbourne bioretention system containing a sandy loam filter media. The hydraulic conductivity
initially declines as the filter media is compacted under hydraulic loading, but recovers back to the
design value (as indicated by the dashed horizontal line) as plant growth and increased rooting depth
counters the effects of compaction and clogging.

Figure A.1 Evolution of hydraulic conductivity during the first 20 months of a bioretention system

Bioretention Filter Media Guidelines (Version 2.01), Prepared by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB),
March 2008.