"=-~- •" ~- V.. -:-.- =-. ''"• -• / J?
-------
The symbol on the cover of
this report was developed in
Washington State by a group
of state and federal agencies
working in cooperation with
a private real estate firm, Port
Blakely Mill Company. It is
available free of charge for
use in any program dealing
with wetland preservation
and enhancement. To date,
organizations in 33 states are
using the symbol. For more
information, contact:
Ellin Spenser
Port Blakely Mill Company
151 Madrone Lane North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
or call (206) 842-3088.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
Foreword iii-iv
Introduction 1
Background : 2-3
Free Water Surface Constructed Wetlands Systems 4-7
Sources of Additional Information 8-10
Grand Strand, SC (Carolina Bays) 11-18
Houghton Lake, MI 19-34
Cannon Beach, OR 35-42
Vermontville, MI 43-54
Arcata, CA 55-66
Martinez, CA (Mt. View Sanitary Dist.) 67-74
Marin Co., CA (Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Dist.) 75-82
Hayward Marsh, CA (Union Sanitary Dist.) 83-94
Orlando, FL (Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project) 95-106
Lakeland, FL 107-114
Incline Village, NV 115-122
ShowLow, AZ (Pintail Lake & Redhead Marsh) 123-130
Pinetop/Lakeside, AZ (Jacques Marsh) 131-138
Fort Deposit, AL 139-146
West Jackson Co., MS 147-154
Hillsboro, OR (Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve) 155-162
Des Plaines River, IL 163-174
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This compilation of constructed
wetlands system case studies
was prepared with funding
assistance from the U.S. EPA's Office
of Wastewater Management under the
direction of Robert K. Bastian of the -
Municipal Technology Branch.
The following individuals and
organizations provided significant
resource support and were responsible
for the preparation of the individual
case study write-ups:
Robert L. Knight;
CH2M-Hill (Gainesville, FL)
Grand Strand, SC;
West Jackson Co., MS;
Fort Deposit, AL;
Incline Village, NV
Robert H. Kadlec;
University of Michigan and
Wetland Management Services
Houghton Lake, MI;
Vermontville, MI;
Des Plaines River, IL
MelWilhelm;
U.S. Forest Service/Apache Sitgreaves
Nat'l. Forests with assistance from the
U.S. EPA Center for Environmental
Research Information, Cincinnati, OH
ShowLow, AZ;
Pinetop/Lakeside, AZ
Francesca C. Demgen;
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
(Oakland, CA)
Martinez, CA;
Hayward Marsh, CA;
Marin Co., CA;
Cannon Beach, OR
Robert A. Gearheart;
Humbolt State University
Arcata, CA
Jon C. Dyer,
Jo Ann Jackson,
John S. Shearer and staff;
Post, Buckley, Schuh &
Jernigan, Inc. (Winter
Park, FL),
Orlando, FL;
Lakeland, FL
Dale Richwine,
Linda Newberry and Mark Jockers;
Hillsboro, OR (Unified
Sewerage Agency)
Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve
In addition, insights on the habitat
value and wildlife usage of many of the '
facilities described were provided by
field data collected and summarized by
the EPA Environmental Research Lab.,
Corvallis, OR, in cooperation with
ManTech Environmental Technology
Inc.; the Cooperative Fish & Wildlife
Research Unit, Dept. of Wildlife &
Range Sciences, University, of Florida-
Gainesville; and the Nevada
Department of Wildlife.
The case studies were not subject to
the Agency's peer and administrative
review. Mention of specific case studies
does not constitute endorsement or
categorical recommendation for use by
the U.S. EPA. While EPA believes that
the case studies may be very useful to
the reader, EPA does not select or
endorse one alternative technology over
other approaches to treat or reuse
wastewater effluents.
The operational experience
and research results reported in
the available literature suggest
that the growing interest in the
use of constructed wetlands as
a part of water treatment offers
considerable opportunity for
realizing sizable future savings
in wastewater treatment costs
for small communities and
for upgrading even large
treatment facilities.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Extensive research efforts
have provided considerable
insight into the design,
operation and performance
of natural and constructed
wetlands treatment systems.
Wastewater treatment is a prob-
lem that has plagued man ever
since he discovered that
discharging his wastes into surface
waters can lead to many additional
environmental problems. The Clean
Water Act (P.L.92-500 passed in 1972
and its more recent amendments) led
to the construction of many new waste-
water treatment facilities across the
country to help control water pollution.
In the future add-on processes will be
needed to upgrade many of these treat-
ment facilities. In addition, more atten-
tion will need to be given to controlling
the many small volume, point sources as
well as the numerous non-point sources
of water pollution if the water quality
objectives of the Clean Water Act are
ever to be fully realized.
Today, a wide range of treatment tech-
nologies are available for use in our
efforts to restore and maintain the chem-
ical, physical, and biological integrity of
the nation's waters. During the past 20
years, considerable interest has been
expressed in the potential use of a vari-
ety of natural biological systems to help
purify water in a controlled manner.
These natural biological treatment
systems include various forms of ponds,
land treatment and wetlands systems.
As a result of both extensive research
efforts and practical application of these
technologies, considerable insight has
been gained into their design, perform-
ance, operation and maintenance. Much
of this experience has been summarized
in project summaries, research reports,
technical papers and design guidance.
Some of the earliest investiga-
tions to explore the capabilities
of various wetland and other
aquatic plant systems to help
treat wastewater were under-
taken in various European coun-
tries by Seidel, Kickuth, de Jong
and others. Related studies were
eventually undertaken by Spangler,
Sloey, Small, Gersberg, Goldman,
Dinges, Wolverton, Reddy, Richardson
and others in numerous locations
across the U.S.
Kadlec, Odum and Ewel, Valiela,
Teal, and others have undertaken long-
term assessments of the capabilities of
several types of natural wetlands to
handle wastewater additions. Funding
provided by the National Science Foun-
dation, U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Department of
Agriculture and others has played an
important role in stimulating the devel-
opment of the available information ,
and guidance on constructed wetland
treatment systems in the U.S.
Generally EPA discourages the use
of natural wetlands for wastewater
treatment, unless carefully designed
and managed to protect their multi-
functional values. However, certain
wetlands may benefit from the timed
release of treated wastewater effluents,
such as drier and degraded wetlands.
Even though it is recognized that
wetlands provide water quality
improvement functions, these benefits
should not be traded at the expense of
Intensive studies carried out for
over five years at Santee, CA,
evaluated the performance of
constructed wetlands experi-
mental units planted with
reeds, cattails, and bulrush.
Long-term observations and
studies of northern wetlands
receiving wastewater effluents
have followed the impact of
changes in nutrient loadings
and hydrology on vegetation
and wildlife use at projects
such as the Drummond Bog
in Northern Wisconsin.
in
-------
other wetland functions (i.e., habitat
value). When natural wetlands are used
for these purposes there is a need for
monitoring to assure the maintenance of
the wetland system.
While it appears that many wetlands
have some capacity for improving water
quality of wastewater, runoff, or indus-
trial discharges, some wetlands are
clearly not appropriate for continuous
day-in/day-out use as a part of a waste-
water disposal or treatment system. The
potential for altering the biotic commu-
nities of natural wetlands when including
them in wastewater management is of
great concern to EPA and groups inter-
ested in preserving existing wetlands.
Constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment involve the use of. engineered
systems that are designed and construc-
ted to utilize natural processes. These
systems are designed to mimic natural
wetland systems, utilizing wetland plants,
soils and their associated microorgan-
isms to remove contaminants from
wastewater effluents. As with other
natural biological treatment technolo-
gies, wetlands treatment systems are
capable of achieving additional benefits.
The renovation and reuse of wastewater
with constructed wetland systems
also provides an opportunity to success-
fully create or restore valuable wetland
habitat for wildlife use and environ-
mental enhancement.
The operational experience and
research results reported in the available
literature suggest that the growing inter-
est in the use of constructed wetlands as
a part of water treatment offers consid-
erable opportunity for realizing sizable
future savings in wastewater treatment
costs for small communities and for
upgrading even large treatment facilities.
At the same time, as is demonstrated by
the 17 wetland treatment system case
studies located in 10 states that are
presented in this document, these
systems can provide valuable wetland
habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife,
as well as areas for public education and
recreation. Clearly such systems create
an opportunity to contribute to the
Nation's efforts to restore, maintain and
create valuable wetland habitat.
Constructed wetlands are
being effectively used to help
protect the quality of urban
lakes by improving the
quality ofstormwater runoff
in urban areas such as at the
Greenwood Urban Wetland,
a former dump site, in
Orlando, Florida.
Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of Wastewater Management
Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds
IV
-------
Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment and Wildlife Habitat:
17 Case Studies
Introduction
The potential for achieving improved
water quality while creating valuable
wildlife habitat has lead to a growing
interest in the use of constructed
wetlands for treating and recycling
wastewater. While land intensive, these
systems offer an effective means of
integrating wastewater treatment and
resource enhancement, often at a cost
that is competitive with conventional
.wastewater treatment alternatives. This
document provides brief descriptions
of 17 wetland treatment systems from
across the country that are providing
significant water quality benefits while
demonstrating additional benefits such
as wildlife habitat. The projects
described include systems involving
both constructed and natural wetlands,
habitat creation and restoration, and
the improvement of municipal effluent,
urban stormwater and river water
quality. Each project description was
developed by individuals directly
involved with or very familiar with the
project in a format that could also be
used as a stand-alone brochure or
handout for project visitors.
Many of the same values
associated with natural
wetlands can also be realized
by wetlands constructed for
wastewater polishing.
-------
Background
Natural wetlands (e.g., swamps, bogs,
marshes, fens, sloughs, etc.) are being.
recognized as providing many benefits,
including: food and habitat for wildlife;
water quality improvement; flood pro-
tection; shoreline erosion control; and
opportunities for recreation and aesthe-
tic appreciation. Many of these same
benefits have been realized by projects
across the country that involve the use
of wetlands in wastewater treatment.
Many freshwater, brackish, and salt-
water wetlands have inadvertently
received polluted runoff and served as
natural water treatment systems for
centuries. Wetlands, as waters of the
U.S., have been subjected to wastewater
discharges from municipal, industrial
and agricultural sources, and have
received agricultural and surface mine
runoff, irrigation return flows, urban
stormwater discharges, leachates, and
other sources of water pollution. The
actual impacts of such inputs on dif-
ferent wetlands has been quite variable.
However, it has only been during the
past few decades that the planned use of
wetlands for meeting wastewater treat-
ment and water quality objectives has
been seriously studied and implemented
in a controlled manner. The functional
role of wetlands in improving water
quality has been a compelling argument
for the preservation of natural wetlands
and in recent years the construction of
wetlands systems for wastewater treat-
ment. A growing number of studies have
provided evidence that many wetlands
systems are able to provide an effective
means of improving water quality with-
out creating problems for wildlife.
However, in some cases evidence has
shown a resulting change in wetland
community types and a shift to more
opportunistic species.
There remain, however, concerns
over the possibility of harmful effects
resulting from toxic materials and
pathogens that may be present in many
wastewater sources. Also, there are
concerns that there may be a potential
for long-term degradation of natural
wetlands due to the addition of nutri-
ents and changes in the natural hydro-
logic conditions influencing these
systems. At least in part due to such
concerns, there has been a growing
interest in the use of constructed
wetlands for wastewater treatment.
In the Southeast alone, over
500 natural wetlands such
as this Cyprus strand in
Florida receive discharges
from POTWs and other
point sources.
-------
Constructed wetlands treatment
systems are engineered systems that
have been designed and constructed to
• utilize the natural processes involving
wetland vegetation, soils, and their
associated microbial assemblages to
assist in treating wastewater. They are
designed to take advantage of many of
the same processes that occur in natural
wetlands, but do so within a more
controlled environment. Some of these
systems have been designed and oper-
ated with the sole purpose of treating
wastewater, while others have been
implemented with multiple-use objec-
tives in mind, such as using treated
wastewater effluent as a water source
for the creation and restoration of
wetland habitat for wildlife use and
environmental enhancement.
Constructed wetlands treatment
systems generally fall into one of two
general categories: Subsurface Flow
Systems and Free Water Surface
Systems. Subsurface Flow Systems are
designed to create subsurface flow
through a permeable medium, keeping
the water being treated below the
surface, thereby helping to avoid the
development of odors and other
nuisance problems. Such systems have
also been referred to as "root-zone
systems," "rock-reed-filters," and
"vegetated submerged bed systems."
The media used (typically soil, sand,
gravel or crushed rock) greatly affect
the hydraulics of the system. Free Water
Surface Systems, on the other hand, are
designed to simulate natural wetlands,
with the water flowing over the soil
surface at shallow depths. Both types of
wetlands treatment systems typically
are constructed in basins or channels
with a natural or constructed subsurface
barrier to limit seepage.
Constructed wetlands treatment
systems have diverse applications and
are found across the country and
around the world. While they can be
designed to accomplish a variety of
treatment objectives, for the most part,
Subsurface Flow Systems are designed
and operated in a manner that provides
limited opportunity for benefits other
than water quality improvement. On
the other hand, Free Water Surface
Systems are frequently designed to
maximize wetland habitat values and
reuse opportunities, while providing
water quality improvement.
A recently expanded
Subsurface Flow constructed
wetland system serves the
small community of Monterey
in Highland Co., Virginia.
-------
Free Water Surface
Constructed Wetlands
Systems
Just how do constructed wetlands, in
this case free water surface systems,
remove pollutants from the wastewater
effluent? These systems affect water
quality through a variety of natural
processes that occur in wetlands. An
explanation of the major processes
involved are effectively described by
Robert A. Gearheart in a paper contained
in the proceedings of a conference on
wetlands for wastewater treatment and
resource enhancement at Humbolt State
University in Arcata, CA, during 19881:
'Allen, G.H.andR.A. Gearheart(eds). 1988.
Proceedings of a Conference on Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment and Resource Enhance-
ment. Humbolt State Univ., Arcata, CA.
"The wide diversity of organisms coupled with
the high level of productivity makes a marsh a hot
bed of biological activity. The most striking
improvement is the removal of suspended solids.
Suspended solids in the Arcata STP are algae
which supply oxygen in their secondary treatment
ponds. These algae solids become entrapped,,
impacted, and isolated in small quiescent areas
around the stems and underwater portions of
aquatic plants as the water moves through
marshes. The algal solids in these quiescent areas
become food sources for microscopic aquatic
animals and aquatic insects. This predation plays
an important part in removing the solids and in
moving energy through the food chain in the
wetland. Over time, wetlands continue to separate
and deposit suspended solids building deltas
comprised of organic matter. At some point this
detrital layer in the bottom of the marsh along
with dead aquatic plants may need to be removed.
Based on Arcata's experience this maintenance
requirement is not expected until at least 8-10
years of operation at design loads.
Dissolved biodegradable material is removed
from the wastewater by decomposing microorgan-
isms which are living on the exposed surfaces of
the aquatic plants and soils. Decomposers such
as bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes are active
in any wetland by breaking down this dissolved
and paniculate organic material to carbon
dioxide and water. This active decomposition
in the wetland produces final effluents with a
characteristic low dissolved oxygen level with
low pH in the water. The effluent from a
constructed wetland usually has a low BOD as
a result of this high level of decomposition.
Aquatic plants play an important part in
supporting these removal processes. Certain
aquatic plants pump atmospheric oxygen into
their submerged stems, roots, and tubers. Oxygen
is then utilized by the microbial decomposers
attached to the aquatic plants below the level of
the water. Plants also play an active role in taking
up nitrogen, phosphorus, and other compounds
from the wastewater. This active incorporation of
nitrogen and phosphorus can be one mechanism
for nutrient removal in a wetland. Some of the
nitrogen and phosphorus is released back into the
water as the plants die and decompose. In the case
of nitrogen much of the nitrate nitrogen can be
converted to nitrogen gas through denitrification
processes in the wetland."
-------
Free Water Surface constructed
wetlands treatment systems and related
natural systems used as a part of treat-
ment systems have been successfully
used across the country. Many of these
systems have been designed and oper-
ated to not only improve water quality,
but to also provide high quality wetland
habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife.
Many of the systems are operated as
wildlife refuges or parks as well as a
part of wastewater treatment, reuse or
disposal systems. In some cases these
systems also provide an area for public
education and recreation in the form of
birding, hiking, camping, hunting, etc.
The operational experience and
research results reported to date
suggest that the growing interest in
managing constructed wetlands systems
as a part of wastewater treatment and
habitat creation/maintenance efforts
offers considerable opportunities for the
future. The technical feasibility of
implementing such projects has been
clearly demonstrated by full-scale
systems in various parts of the country.
However, it is also clear that there is still
a long way to go before such systems
will be considered for routine use. While
existing projects have demonstrated the
potential for future use of constructed
wetlands systems, there is an obvious
need for further study to improve our
understanding of the internal compo-
nents of these systems, their responses
and interactions, in order to allow for
more optimum project design, operation
and maintenance.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/
Eastern Municipal Water
District Wetlands Research
Facility, San Jacinto,
California. This site is a
popular spot for local schools
to tour and study wetlands
ecology. One of the multi-
purpose elements of the
project is public education
and recreation.
-------
Case Studies
Descriptions of 17 carefully selected
projects located in 10 states (see Figure
1) are provided that help describe the
full range of opportunity to treat and
reuse wastewater effluents that exist
across the country today. They include
systems involving both constructed and
natural wetlands, habitat creation and
restoration, and the improvement of
municipal wastewater effluents, urban
stormwater and river water quality.
Many of the projects received Construc-
tion Grants funding and several were
built on Federal lands. All experience
extensive wildh'fe usage, some providing
critical refuge for rare plants and
animals. Several are relatively new
projects while others have been operat-
ing for 15-20 years. There are projects
involving as few as 15 acres and several
with more than 1,200 acres of wetland
habitat. Among those described in this
document are projects which have
received major awards such as the ASCE
Award of Engineering Excellence, the
ACEC Grand Conceptor Award, and
the Council Award, the ESA Special
Recognition Award, and the Ford
Foundation Award for Innovation in
a Local Government Project.
The case studies demonstrate that
wastewater can be effectively treated,
reused and recycled with free water
surface wetland systems in an environ-
mentally sensitive way. They also
demonstrate that wastewater treatment
and disposal can be effectively integrated
into recreational, educational, and
wildlife habitat creation/wetland
restoration efforts so as to enhance the
value of a city's capital investment in
wastewater treatment facilities. Greater
recognition of these model projects may
help lead to projects of high quality
being developed in the future.
OREGON:
Hillsboro (Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve)
• natural bottomland/15 acres constructed wetlands
• polishes/reuses secondary effluent
• wildlife enhancement, research, water quality
improvement, public recreation and education
OREGON:
Cannon Beach
• natural alder/spruce/sedge wetlands (15 acres)
• polishes pond effluent (0.68 mgd)
• June thru Oct operation since 1984
CALIFORNIA:
Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary
• polishes/reuses secondary effluent 2.3 mgd
• 7.5 acres treatment wetland; 31 acres refuge;
plus pond, tidal sloughs and estuary habitat
• managed as wildlife sanctuary for wildlife use,
research and extensive public use
• Ford Foundation award for innovation in 1987
CALIFORNIA:
Marin Co. (Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Dist.)
• constructed wetlands for habitat enhancement
• polishes/reuses secondary effluent (2.9 mgd)
• 20 acres wildlife marsh; 40 acres ponds;
200 acres pasture (summer irrigation)
• operational since 1984; no summer discharge
CALIFORNIA:
Hayward Marsh (Union Sanitary Dist.)
• constructed wetlands for habitat creation
• restoration of historical wetlands area
• secondary effluent and stormwater reuse
• 172 acres of fresh & brackish marshes part of
a 400 acre marsh restoration effort
CALIFORNIA:
Martinez (Mt. View Sanitary Dist)
• 85 acres constructed wetlands created for habitat value
• restoration of historical wetlands area
• polishes/reuses secondary effluent (1.3 mgd)
• staged wetlands construction since 1974
NEVADA:
Incline Village
• constructed (total evaporative) wetlands
• polishing/disposal of secondary effluent (3.0 mgd from Lake Tahoe Basin)
• 390 acres of non-discharging wetlands; 770 acre project site also includes
some existing warmwater wetlands and 200 acres of uplands
• operational since late 1984
-------
Figure 1.
Location and Characteristics of
17 Free Water Surface System
Success Stories
ILLINOIS:
Des Plaines River
• constructed wetlands w/450 acres
riparian land
• demo of improving river water quality
• incorporates 2.8 miles of river drainage
• drainage area 80% agricultural, 20% urban
• private and government sponsored demo
• ESA Special Recognition Award 1993
MICHIGAN:
Houghton Lake
• natural peatland wetlands (1,500 acres)
• polishes pond effluent (2.6 mgd summer
only)
• 16 years of May-Sept operation
• ASCE Award of Engineering
Excellence 1977
Show Low, AZ
(Pintail Lake/Redhead Marsh)
Pinetop/Lakeside, AZ
(Jacques Marsh)
• Show Low effluent (1.42 mgd) currently supports 201 acres of ponds
and constructed marshes (total evaporative wetlands)
• Pinetop/Lakeside effluent (2 mgd) currently supports 127 acres of
ponds and constructed marshes (total evaporative wetlands)
• polishing/disposal of secondary effluent
• habitat creation on National Forest lands
• initiated in 1970; expanded in 1977,1978,1980 and 1985
• managed as wildlife habitat and for public use
MICHIGAN:
Vermontville
• polishes pond effluent (0.1 mgd)
• 11.5 acres wetlands self established
• continuous operation for 19+ yrs.
SOUTH CAROLINA:
Grand Strand, SC (Carolina Bays)
• natural pocosin wetlands (702 acres); mostly
previously disturbed
• polishes/reuses secondary effluent (2.5 mgd)
• wetlands managed as Nature Park
• critical refuge for rare plants and animals
• ACEC Grand Conceptor Award 1991
ALABAMA:
Fort Deposit
• constructed treatment wetlands (15 acres)
• polishes pond effluent (0.24 mgd)
• ACEC Grand Award 1992
MISSISSIPPI:
West Jackson County
• constructed treatment wetlands (56 acres)
• polishes pond effluent; 1.6 mgd w/additional
rainwater input (2.6 mgd total)
FLORIDA:
Orlando Easterly Wetlands
Reclamation Project
• 1,220 acres of constructed wetlands habitat
• restoration of historical wetlands area
• polishes/reuses 20 mgd AWT effluent
• operational since 1987
« ASCE Award of Engineering Excellence 1988
FLORIDA:
Lakeland
• polishes/reuses secondary effluent (14 mgd)
• mixed with power plant blow down water
• restoration of abandoned phosphate mines
• 1,400 acres constructed wetlands habitat
• operational since 1987
-------
SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Allen, G.H. and R.H. Gearheart (eds). 1988. Proceedings of
a Conference on Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and
Resource Enhancement. Humbolt Sate Univ., Arcata, CA
Brinson, M.M. and RR. Westall. 1983. Application of Waste-
water to Wetlands. Rept. #5, Water Research Inst., Univ. of
North Carolina, Raleigh, NC
Brix, H. 1987. Treatment of Wastewater in the Rhizosphere
of Wetland Plants—The Root Zone Method.
Water Set Technol, 19:107-118
Brown, M.T. 1991. Evaluating Constructed Wetlands
Through Comparisons with Natural Wetlands. EPA/600\3-
91-058. EPA Environmental Research Lab., Corvallis, OR
Chan, E., T.A. Bunsztynsky, N. Hantzsche, and Y.J. Litwin.
1981. The Use of Wetlands for Water Pollution Control.
EPA-60Q/S2-82-OS6. EPA Municipal Environmental
Research Lab., Cincinnati, OH
Confer, S.R. and W.A. Niering. 1992. Comparison of Created
and Natural Freshwater Emergent Wetlands in Connecticut
(USA). Wetlands Ecology & Management. 2(3):143-156
Cooper, P.F. and B.C. Findlater. 1990. Constructed Wetlands
in Water Pollution Control. IAWPRC. Pergamon Press, Inc.,
Maxwell House, NY
Etnier, C. and B. Guterstam. 1991. Ecological Engineering for
Wastewater Treatment. Bokskogen, Gothenburg, Sweden
Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum (eds). 1984. Cypress Swamps.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL
Gamroth, M.J. and J.A. Moore. April 1993. Design and
Construction of Demonstration/Research Wetlands for
Treatment of Dairy Farm Wastewater. EPA/600/R-93/105.
EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR
Gersberg, R.M., S.R. Lyon, B.Y. Elkins, and C.R. Goldman.
1984. The Removal of Heavy Metals by Artificial Wetlands.
EPA-600/D-S4-258. Robt. S. Kerr Env. Research Lab.,
Ada, OK
Gersberg, R.M., B.V. Elkins, S.R. Lyon and C.R. Goldman.
1986. Role of Aquatic Plants in Wastewater Treatment by
Artificial Wetlands. Water Res. 20:363-368
Godfrey, P.J., E.R. Kaynor, S. Pelczarski and J. Benforado
(eds). 1985. Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treat-
ment of Municipal Wastewaters. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York, NY
Good, R.E., D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson (eds). 1978.
Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management
Potential. Academic Press, New York, NY
Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark & J.E. Clark (eds). 1979. Wetland
Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding.
Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Minneapolis, MN
Hammer, D.A. (ed). 1989. Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment - Municipal, Industrial &
Agricultural. Lewis Publ, Chelsea, MI
Hammer, D.E. and R.H. Kadlec. 1983. Design Principles for
Wetland Treatment Systems. EPA-600/S2-83-026. EPA
Municipal Environmental Research Lab, Cincinnati, OH
Hook, D.D. et. al. 1988. The Ecology and Management of
Wetlands (2 vols.)- Croom Held, Ltd., London/Timber
Press, Portland, OR
Hyde, H.C. R.S. Ross and F.C. Demgen. 1984. Technology
Assessment of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment. EPA 600/2-84-154. EPA Municipal Environmental
Research Lab., Cincinnati, OH
Experimental studies continue to be carried out in Florida
and many other parts of the country as well as overseas to
evaluate the performance of a variety of constructed
wetlands systems.
-------
IAWQ/AWWA. 1992. Proceedings of Wetlands Dowmmder,
An International Specialist Conference on Wetlands
Systems in Water Pollution Control. Intl. Assoc. of Water
Quality/Australian Water & Wastewater Assoc., Univ. of
New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Kadlec, R.H. and J.A. Kadlec. 1979. Wetlands and Water
Quality IN: Wetlands Functions and Values; The State of
Our Understanding. American Water Resources Assoc.,
Bethesda, MD
Kusler, J.A. and M.E. Kentula (eds). 1990. Wetland Creation
and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press,
Washington, DC
McAllister, L.S. July 1992. Habitat Quality Assessment of
Two Wetland Treatment Systems in the Arid West—Pilot
Study. EPA/600/R-93/117. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR
McAllister, L.S. November 1992. Habitat Quality Assess-
ment of Two Wetland Treatment Systems in Mississippi—
A Pilot Study. EPA/600/R-92/229. EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR
McAllister, L.S. November 1993. Habitat Quality
Assessment of Two Wetland Treatment Systems in Florida—
A Pilot Study. EPA/600/R-93/222. EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR
Mitsch, WJ. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY
Moshiri, G.A. (ed). 1993. Constructed Wetlands for Water
Quality Improvement. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL
Newton, R.B. 1989. The Effects of Stormwater Surface
Runoff on Freshwater Wetlands: A Review of the Literature
and Annotated Bibliography. Publ. #90-2. The Environmen-
tal Institute, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
Nixon, S.W. and V Lee. 1986. Wetlands and Water Quality:
A Regional Review of Recent Research in the U.S. on the
Role of Freshwater and Saltwater Wetlands as Sources,
Sinks, and Transformers of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and
Heavy Metals. Technical Rept. Y-86-2, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS
Reddy, K.R. and W.H. Smith (eds). 1987. Aquatic Plants for
Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. Magnolia Press,
Inc., Orlando, FL
Reed, S.C., E.J. Middlebrooks, R.W. Crites. 1988. Natural
Systems for Waste Management & Treatment. McGraw Hill,
New York, NY
Reed, S.C., R. Bastian, S. Black, and R. Khettry. 1984.
Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Cold Climates. IN:
Future of Water Reuse, Proceedings of the Water Reuse
Symposium III. Vol. 2:962-972. AWWA Research Founda-
tion, Denver, CO
Richardson, C.J. 1985. Mechanisms Controlling Phospho-
rous Retention Capacity in Freshwater Wetlands. Science
228:1424-1427
Stockdale, E.G. 1991. Freshwater Wetlands, Urban Storm-
water, and Nonpoint Pollution Control: A Literature Review
and Annotated Bibliography. 2nd Ed. WA Dept. of Ecology,
Olympia, WA
Strecker, E.W., J.M. Kersnar, E.D. Driscoll & R.R. Homer.
April 1992. The Use of Wetlands for Controlling Stormwater
Pollution. The Terrene Inst., Washington, DC
Tilton, D.L. and R.H. Kadlec. 1979. The Utilization of a
Freshwater Wetland for Nutrient Removal from Secondarily
Treated Wastewater Effluent. JEQ 8:328-334
The operational experience and research results reported in
the available literature suggest that constructed wetlands
treatment systems are capable of producing high quality
water while supporting valuable wildlife habitat.
-------
Tourbier, J. and R.W. Pierson (eds). 1976. Biological
Control of Water Pollution. Univ. of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, PA
U.S. EPA. February 1993. Natural Wetlands and Urban
Stormwater: Potential Impacts and Management.
EPA843-R-Q01. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
Washington, DC
U.S. EPA. July 1993. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands
for Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assessment.
EPA832-R-93-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC
U.S. EPA. September 1988. Process Design Manual—
Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA 625/1-88/022. Center
for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH
U.S. EPA. October 1987. Report on the Use of Wetlands
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. EPA
430/09-88-005. Office of Municipal Pollution Control,
Washington, DC
U.S. EPA. September 1985. Freshwater Wetlands for
Wastewater Management Environmental Assessment
Handbook. EPA 904/9-85-135. Region IV, Atlanta, GA
U.S. EPA/U.S. F&WL Service. 1984. The Ecological Impacts
of Wastewater on Wetlands, An Annotated Bibliography.
EPA 905/3-84-002. Region V, Chicago, IL and U.S. F&WL
Service, Kearneysville, WY
U.S. EPA. 1983. The Effects of Wastewater Treatment
Facilities on Wetlands in the Midwest. EPA 905/3-83-002.
Region V, Chicago, IL
Whigham, D.F., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988. Impacts
of Freshwater Wetlands on Water Quality: A Landscape
Perspective. Environmental Management 12:663-671
WPCF. 1990. Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment;
Manual of Practice FD-16. Water Pollution Control
Federation, Alexandria, VA
Bottles with representative samples (taken from the influent
[on left] to final [on right] sample stations) from the
Houghton Lake, MI, wetland treatment system which has
been in operation since 1978.
10
-------
/*>:?v*^$*?:;--- : ">:;^ -• ^ -••"•~£^&T%'-/*-r. \ raM^-*&
*L Ll%3-*-" :• ' •*?*>'= T*V*A*
/,\
. .--^^^^^i^MyM^My^fi^d^&^jj^S^l^iiHilkL'^^^d^te^fi^^tt^^^^^^^bt^
-------
BACKGROUND
Carolina bays are mysterious land
features often filled with bay
trees and other wetland vegeta-
tion. Because of their oval shape and
consistent orientation, they are consid-
ered by some authorities to be the result
of a vast meteor shower that occurred
thousands of years ago. Others think the
natural forces of wind and artesian
water flow caused the formation of
lakes, which later filled with vegetation.
Whatever their origin, over 500,000
of these shallow basins dot the coastal
plain from Georgia to Delaware. Many
of them occur in the Carolinas, which
accounts for their name. Most Carolina
bays are swampy or wet areas, and most
of the hundreds present hi coastal
Horry County, South Carolina, are
nearly impenetrable jungles of vines
and shrubs.
Because of population growth and
increased tourism in Horry County,
expansion of essential utility operations
was required. The regional water
utility, the Grand Strand Water &
Sewer Authority (GSWSA), retained
CH2M HILL in the late 1970s to
evaluate wastewater treatment and
disposal options.
Locations to dispose of additional
effluent were extremely limited because
of sensitive environmental and recre-
ational concerns. The slow-moving
Waccamaw River and Intracoastal
Waterway, into which existing facilities
discharged, could not assimilate addi-
tional loading without adverse effects on
water quality and resulting impacts on
tourism and recreational activities.
On the basis of extensive research
and pilot studies, CH2M HILL recom-
mended discharging effluent from a
new 2.5 million gallon per day (mgd)
wastewater treatment plant to four
nearby Carolina bays.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) considers the use of
wetlands to be an emerging alternative
to conventional treatment processes. As
a result, EPA Region IV and the South
Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control awarded an
Innovative /Alternative Technologies
funding grant for the Carolina bays
treatment project, enabling GSWSA to
provide expanded collection, treatment,
and disposal services at affordable costs.
This grant was used for planning,
pilot testing, design, and construction
of the full-scale Carolina Bay Natural
Land Treatment Program.
In cross section, Carolina bays
are shallow, bowl-shaped
depressions, often filled with
peat and surrounded by
sandy rims.
so
45-
40
tb 35
§
1
UI
30
20
Pocosin Bay
(Bay4-C)
Mineral
Sediments
t P .,.!»'
500 -1,000
Horizontal Scale (Meters)
1,500 :
12
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
After 5 years of intensive study
to evaluate viable treatment
and disposal alternatives, four
Carolina bays were selected as treat-
ment sites. Site selection criteria
focused on three primary factors:
1) distance from the wastewater source,
2) available treatment area, and
3) environmental sensitivity. The bays
chosen for the GSWSA treatment
complex had been previously affected
by man and were the least environmen-
tally sensitive of the bays considered.
Carolina Bays 4-A and 4-B are
joined along a portion of their margins
and encompass about 390 acres of
dense, shrubby plant communities with
scattered pine trees. This plant associa-
tion is called "pocosin" after an Indian
word describing a bog on a hill. A
powerline right-of-way bisects Bay 4-A
and also cuts through the southern
end of Bay 4-B.
The 240-acre Pocosin Bay (Bay 4-C)
is also dominated by pocosin vegetation
and is filled with up to 15 feet of highly
organic peat soils. This bay had received
the least amount of prior disturbance
and is being used only as a contingency
discharge area. Bear Bay (Bay 4-D)
covers 170 acres and is dissimilar from
the other bays because it is densely
forested by pine and hardwood tree
species. A large portion of this Carolina
bay was cleared for forestry purposes in
the mid-1970s but has since been reveg-
etated with a mixture of upland and
wetland plant species.
Carolina Bay Project Summary
George R. Vereen WWTP
Design flow = 2.5 mgd
Pretreatment by aerated lagoons in
two parallel trains, one completely
suspended lagoon and three
partially suspended lagoons per train
Lagoon total area = 4.4 acres
Total aeration = 192 hp
Disinfection by contact chlorination
Carolina Bays
Average hydraulic loading rate = 1 in./week
Effluent distribution system
7,000 feet of 10-inch aluminum piping
30,000 feet of elevated boardwalks
Final effluent permit limits
BODS monthly average 12mg/l
TSS monthly average 30 mg/l
NH3 summer (Mar-Oct) 1.2 mg/l
NH3 winter (Nov-Feb) 5.0 mg/l
UOD summer (Mar-Oct) 481 Ib/day
UOD winter (Nov-Feb) 844 Ib/day
Total treatment area = 702 acres
Bay 4A ~\
i. combined = 390 acres
Bay 4B J
Bay 4C (Pocosin Bay) = 142 acres
Bay 4D (Bear Bay) = 170 acres
Biological criteria (allowable % change)
Bay
4A 4B 4C 4D
Canopy cover 15 15 0 50
Canopy density 15 15 0 50
Subcanopy cover 15 15 0 50
Plant diversity 15 15 0 50
Project Cost Summary
Pilot system..'.'.: $411,000
Vereen WWTP 3,587,000
Effluent distribution system
(including land) 2,490,000
Engineering (pilot and
full scale) and monitoring 1,332,000
Four bays covering 700 acres
make up the Carolina Bay
Natural Land Treatment
System. Plant succession in
these bays is naturally
controlled by fire as seen in
Bay 4B (second from left).
Total cost $7,820,000
13
-------
OPERATIONS AND
MANAGEMENT
The carefully planned and moni-
tored use of Carolina bays for
tertiary wastewater treatment
facilitates surface water quality manage-
ment while maintaining the natural
character of the bays.
After undergoing conventional
primary and secondary treatment pro-
cesses at the George R. Vereen Waste-
water Treatment Plant, the wastewater
is slowly released into a Carolina bay for
tertiary treatment, rather than directly
to recreational surface waters of the
area. The plants found in the Carolina
bays are naturally adapted to wet
conditions, so the addition of a small
amount of treated water increases their
productivity and, in the process, provides
final purification of the wastewater.
The treated effluent can be distrib-
uted to 700 acres within the four
selected Carolina bays through a series
of gated aluminum pipes supported on
wooden boardwalks. Wastewater flow is
alternated among the bays, depending
on effluent flow rate and biological
conditions in the bays.
Water levels and outflow rates can
be partially controlled hi Bear Bay
through the use of an adjustable weir
gate. Natural surface outlets ha the
other three bays were not altered by
construction of the project.
High-nutrient water in
the bays increases plant
productivity.
Aluminum pipes distribute
the treated effluent.
14
-------
PERFORMANCE
In 1985, after site selection was
completed and before wastewater
distribution began, baseline studies
were conducted on the hydrology,
surface water, and groundwater quality
and flora and fauna of Bear Bay.
Treated effluent was first discharged to
the bay in January 1987, and monitoring
was continued to measure variations
in the water quality and biological
communities. By March 1988, the pilot
study had been successfully completed
and the Carolina Bay Natural Land
Treatment Program was approved for
full-scale implementation by EPA and
South Carolina regulatory agencies.
In October 1990, the Carolina Bay
Natural Land Treatment System was
dedicated as the Peter Horry Wildlife
Preserve and began serving the
wastewater treatment and disposal
needs of up to 30,000 people.
Ongoing monitoring indicates that
significant assimilation is occurring in
Bear Bay before the fully treated
effluent recharges local groundwater
or flows into downstream surface
waters. Biological changes have been
carefully monitored, with the main
observed effect being increased growth
of native wetland plant species.
Variations in the water quality of
Bear Bay are closely monitored.
Operational water quality since 1987 indicates significant
assimilation of residual pollutants is occurring in Bear Bay.
Tree
Cover
(M2/HA)
November
1989
November
1990
, Compliance with biological criteria protects the Carolina Bay
plant communities from undesirable changes.
Well 3S *
Edge of Bay 4-D
x(Bear Bay)
. Abandoned
Force Main
Vereen
WWTP
• - SW-NE
* Transect
> v
WelI6S ~ '•
b»Well2S
Original "
Distribution
Systerp v
LEGEND
Surface Water
Groundwater
N
Scafe in Feet
0 400 800
15
-------
ANCILLARY BENEFITS
The Carolina Bay Natural Land
Treatment Program not only
serves wastewater management
needs but also plays an important role
in protecting the environment.
Although the Carolina bays have been
recognized as unique, 98 percent of the
bays in South Carolina have been
disturbed by agricultural activities and
ditching. The four bays in the treatment
program will be maintained in a natural
ecological condition. These 700 acres of
Carolina bays represent one of the
largest public holdings of bays in
South Carolina.
The use of wetlands for treatment
can significantly lower the cost of waste-
water treatment because the systems
rely on plant and animal growth instead
of the addition of power or chemicals.
Also, the plant communities present
in the wetlands naturally adjust to
changing water levels and water quality
conditions by shifting dominance to
those species best adapted to growing
under the new conditions.
Carolina bays provide a critical refuge
for rare plants and animals. Amazingly,
black bears still roam the bays' shrub
thickets and forested bottom lands just
a few miles from the thousands of
tourists on South Carolina's beaches.
Venus flytraps and pitcher plants,
fascinating carnivorous plants that trap
trespassing insects, occur naturally in
the Carolina bays. In addition, the
bays are home to hundreds of other
interesting plant and animal species.
The Carolina Bay Nature Park, to be
managed by GSWSA, is currently being
Wetland plant communities
easily adjust to changing
conditions.
Pitcher plants occur naturally
in the Carolina bays.
-------
planned. The focal point of the park will
be an interpretive visitor center open to
the public. This simple structure will be
designed and built in harmony with its
surroundings on a sand ridge overlook-
ing two Carolina bays. The center will
feature displays about black bears and
Venus flytraps as well as theories on the
origin of the Carolina bays, their native
plant associations, including the associ-
ated sandhill plant communities, and
their use for natural land treatment.
The visitor center will be the hub for
three hiking trails, including a 5-minute
walk through an adjacent cypress
wetland; a 45-minute trail though
Pocosin Bay and associated titi shrub
swamp and long-leaf pine uplands; and
a one-hour walk through a heavily
forested Carolina bay and its adjacent
sandhill plant communities.
Combined with the interpretive
nature center, the hiking trails and
boardwalks will provide public access,
scientific research, and educational
opportunities that were previously
unavailable.
The designation of the Peter Horry
Wildlife Preserve in October 1990 was
the first step in establishing this park.
An interpretive visitor center is
planned as the focal point of
the Carolina Bay Nature Park.
17
-------
Awards
In 1991, the Carolina Bay Natural
Land Treatment Program won the
Engineering Excellence Award, Best of
Show, from the Consulting Engineers
of South Carolina.
The American Consulting Engineers
Council (ACEC) Grand Conceptor
Award, considered the highest national
honor in the consulting engineering
field, was awarded to CH2M HILL
in 1991 for its implementation of the
Carolina bays project. ACEC selected
the project from a field of 127 national
finalist entries, each of which had earlier
won in state or regional engineering
excellence competitions.
Acknowledgements
Numerous individuals and organizations have shared the vision
necessary to implement the Carolina Bay Natural Land Treatment
Program. Some of the key organizations and individuals include the
following:
Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority
George R. Vereen, Former Chairman
Sidney F. Thompson, Chairman
Douglas P. Wendel, Executive Director
Fred Richardson, Engineering Manager
Larry Schwartz, Environmental Planner
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Samual J. Grant, Jr., Manager, 201 Facilities Planning Section
G. Michael Caughman, Director, Domestic Wastewater Division
Ron Tata, Director, Waccamaw District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Harold Hopkins, Former Chief, Facilities Construction Branch,
. Region IV
Robert Freeman, 201 Construction Grants Coordinator, Region IV
Robert Bastian, Office of Wastewater Management
CH2MHILL
Richard Hirsekorn, Project Administrator
Robert L. Knight, Project Manager and Senior Consultant
Douglas S. Baughman, Project Manager
South Carolina Coastal Council
H. Stephen Snyder, Director, Planning and Certification
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
Stephen H. Bennett, Heritage Trust Program
Ed Duncan, Environmental Affairs Coordination
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Harvey Geitner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Don Hill, Director, 404 Section
This brochure was prepared by CH2M HILL for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
18
-------
-------
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The community of Houghton
Lake, located in the central lower
peninsula of Michigan, has a
seasonally variable population, averag-
ing approximately 5,000. A sewage
treatment plant was built in the early
19701s to protect the large shallow
recreational lake. This treatment facility
is operated by the Houghton Lake
Sewer Authority (HLSA). Wastewater
from this residential community is
collected and transported to two 5-acre
aerated lagoons, which provide six
weeks detention. Sludge accumulates
on the bottom of these lagoons, below
the aeration pipes. Effluent is then
stored in a 29-acre pond for summer
disposal, resulting in depth variation
from 1.5 feet (fall) to 10.0 feet (spring).
Discharge can be to 85 acres of seepage
beds, or to 85 acres of flood irrigation
area, or to a 1500 acre peatland. The
seepage beds were used until 1978, at
which time the wetland system was
started up. The wetland has been used
since that time, with only occasional
discharges to seepage or flood fields.
The average annual discharge is
approximately 120 million gallons.
Secondary wastewater is intermittently
discharged to the peatland during May
through September, at the instanta-
neous rate of 2.6 mgd.
Provisions for chlorination are
available, but have not been used,
because of low levels of fecal coliform
indicator organisms. Water from the
holding pond is passed by gravity or
pumped to a 3-acre pond which would
provide chlorine removal in the event
of the necessity of
its use. Wastewater
from this pond is
pumped through a
12-inch diameter
underground force
line to the edge of
the Porter Ranch
peatland. There the transfer line
surfaces and runs along a raised plat-
form for a distance of 2,500 feet to the
discharge area in the wetland. The
wastewater may be split between two
halves of the discharge pipe which runs
1,600 feet in each direction. The water
is distributed across the width of the
peatland through small gated openings
La the discharge pipe. Each of the
100 gates discharge approximately
16 gallons per minute, under typical
conditions, and the water spreads
slowly over the peatland. The branches
are not used equally in all years.
The peatland irrigation site originally
supported two distinct vegetation types.
One called the sedge-willow community
included predominantly sedges (Carex
spp.) and Willows (Salix spp.). The
second community was leatherleaf-bog
birch, consisting of mostly Chamae-
daphne calyculata (L.) Moench and
Betula pumila L., respectively. The
leatherleaf-bog birch community also
had sedge and willow vegetation, but
only in small proportions. The edge of
the peatland contained alder (Alnus
spp.) and willow. Standing water was
usually present in spring and fall, but
the wetland had no surface water during
dry summers. The leatherleaf-bog birch
The original leatherleaf-bog
community also had sedge
and willow vegetation in
small proportions, and very
low abundance of cattail.
20
-------
cover type generally had less standing
water than the sedge-willow cover type.
Soil in the sedge-willow community was
3-5 feet of highly decomposed sedge
peat; while in the leatherleaf-bog there
is 6-15 feet of medium decomposition
sphagnum peat. The entire wetland
rests on a clay "pan" several feet thick.
The wetland provides additional
treatment to the wastewater as it
progresses eventually to the Muskegon
River eight miles away. Small, natural
water inflows occur intermittently on
the north and east margins of the
wetland. These flows are partially
controlled by beaver. Interior flow in
the wetland occurs by overland flow,
proceeding from north-
east down a 0.02%
gradient to a stream
outlet (Deadhorse Dam)
and beaver dam seepage
outflow (Beaver Creek),
both located 2-3 miles
from the discharge
(Figure 1.) Wastewater
adds to the surface sheet
flow. Hydrogeological
studies have shown that
there is neither recharge
or discharge of the
shallow ground water
under the wetland.
The treated waste-
water arriving at the
peatland is a good
effluent which contains
virtually no heavy metals
or refractory chemicals.
This is due to the
absence of agriculture and industry in
the community. Phosphorus and nitro-
gen are present at 3-10 ppm, mostly as
orthophosphate and ammonium. BOD
is about 15 ppm, and solids are about
20 ppm. Typical levels of chloride are
100 ppm, pH 8, and conductivity 700
mmho/cm. The character of the water
is dramatically altered in its passage
through the wetland. After passage
through ten percent of the wetland,
water quality parameters are at back-
ground wetland levels. The system has
operated successfully in the treatment
of 1900 million gallons of secondary
wastewater over the first sixteen years.
The wetland treatment site
is located southwest of the
lake. The land belongs to the
State of Michigan and is
dedicated to public and
research uses. Dots indicate
water monitoring stations-
21
-------
HISTORY
The Porter Ranch peatland has
been under study from 1970 to
the present. Studies of the
background status of the wetland were
conducted during the period 1970-74,
under the sponsorship of the Rocke-
feller Foundation and the National
Science Foundation (NSF). The natural
peatland, and 6m x 6m plots irrigated
with simulated effluent, were studied
by an interdisciplinary team from The
University of Michigan. This work gave
strong indications that water quality
improvements would result from
wetland processes.
Subsequently, pilot scale (100,000
gal/day) wastewater irrigation was
conducted for the three years 1975-77.
This system was designed, built and
operated by the Wetland Ecosystem
Research Group at The University of
Michigan. NSF sponsored this effort,
including construction costs and
research costs. The pilot study results
provided the basis for agency
approval of the fullscale wetland
discharge system.
The full scale system was designed
jointly by Williams and Works, Inc.
and the Wetland Ecosystem Research
Group at The University of Michigan.
Construction occurred during winter
and spring, 1978, and the first water
discharge was made in July, 1978.
Compliance monitoring has been
supplemented by full scale ecosystem
studies, spanning 1978 to present, which
have focussed on all aspects of water
quality improvement and wetland
response. Those studies have been
sponsored by NSF, and in major part by
the Houghton Lake Sewer Authority.
This wetland treatment system has
functioned extremely well for nutrient
removal over its sixteen year history.
Table 1. Economics
Capital
(1978 dollars)
Holding Pond Modificatioh"."~". ~~.":".T. ~~"".".".~.."".".".' "."$38,600
Dechlorination Pond 153,200
Pond-Wetland Water Transfer 83>600
Irrigation System 112,800
Monitoring Equipment .".."...'...'........".. '^,705
$397,900
Annual Operating Costs
(1991 dollars)
Pumping ".".'.......'"!"."....... .7.^ $2,000
Monitoring — 800
Maintenance • • • - • • •• • • • • • • -500
Research .".'................'.".".".".....""." 12,000
$15,300
22
-------
HYDROLOGY
On average, most of the
water added to the
wetland finds its way to
the stream outflows. But in
drought years, most of the water
evaporates; and in wet years,
rainfall creates additions to flow.
During most of the drought
summers of 1987 and 1988, all
the pumped water evaporated in
the wetland.
Water flow is strongly depth
dependent, because litter and
vegetation resistance is the hydrologic
control. Doubling the depth causes a
ten-fold increase in volume flow. There-
fore, when the pump is turned on, water
depths rise only an inch or two. For
similar reasons, a large rainstorm does
not flood the peatland to great depths.
There are no man-made outlet control
structures, but both man and beaver
have relocated the points of outflow, via
culvert and dam placements. Inflows at
El and E2 have ceased (see Figure 1).
The point of principal stream outflow
has changed from E8 to E9; and E9 has
been relocated three times, twice by
beaver and once by man.
The soil elevations in the discharge
area were originally extremely flat, with
a gentle slope (one foot per mile)
toward the outlet. There has developed
a significant accumulation of sediment
and litter in the irrigation area, which
has the effect of an increased soil eleva-
tion. This acts as a four-inch-high dam.
As a consequence, the addition of
wastewater along the gated irrigation
pipe gives rise to a mound of water with
the high zone near and upstream of the
Table 2. Summary of Water Budgets.
Thousands of m3, 1 .0 km2 zone. Inventory change not shown.
The interval is the pumping season, typically May 1 — September 14.
Year Precipitation Wastewater
minus Addition
Evapotranspiration
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
: 1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 -250
Averages
80
-4
-137
99
-38
-110
-24
44
-11
-273
-311
-153
-43
-100
(est)
-82
240
384
407
455
404
485
546
379
465
347
425
672
622
724
719
485
Watershed
Runoff
0
18
0
30
20
132
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
Outflow
135
333
304
558
386
487
602
347
412
74
114
522
628
624
469
400
Outflow
Percent
56
87
75
123
96
ioo
110
92
89
21
27
78
101
86
65
80
discharge pipe; in other words, there is
a backgradient "pond". Depth at the
discharge is not greater, but depths are
greater at adjacent up and downstream
locations. There is a water flow back
into the backgradient pond, which
compensates for evaporative losses
there. But most water moves down-
gradient, in a gradually thinning sheet
flow, (see Figure 2)
The hydroperiod of the natural
wetland has been altered in the zone of
discharge: dryout no longer occurs
there, even under drought conditions.
Figure 2
Water moves at about
30-100 m/d with a depth
of'about20 cm.
23
-------
WATER QUALITY
The phenomena interior to the
irrigation zone lead to gradients
in the concentrations of dissolved
constituents in the direction of water
flow. As the water passes through the
ecosystem, both biotic and abiotic
interactions occur which reduce the
concentration for many species, includ-
ing nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur.
Surface water samples from the waste-
water irrigation area are collected and
analyzed throughout the year. The
changes in water chemistry as a function
of distance from the discharge point
are monitored by sampling along lines
perpendicular to the discharge pipe,
extending to distances up to 1000
meters. Such transects are made in
the former sedge-willow area, along
the central axis of the wetland.
The transect concentration profiles
are all similar. Water flow carries
materials a greater distance in the
downgradient (positive) direction than
in the upgradient direction. Through
the early years of operation, the zone
of concentration reduction increased
in size; background concentrations are
now reached at distances of about
500 meters downstream of the discharge.
The advance of nutrient concentration
fronts during the application of waste-
water is illustrated by tracking the
location of phosphorus drop-off.
Concentrations in excess of 1.0 mg/liter
were confined to within 440 meters
Treatment Area and Nutrient Reductions
DIN = Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen = Nitrate plus Ammonium Nitrogen TP
Area, ha
Year
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
AVERAGES:
10
13
17
24
30
55
50
48
46
46
61
54
67
76
In
0.56
3.68
3.22
2.83
5.85
3.76
10.04
7.64
9.63
4.26
6.26
8.13
8.14
7.80
5.69
DIN, mg/l
Out
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.094
0.093
0.148
0.078
0.194
0.176
0.244
0.080
0.156
0.119
0.112
0.129
Reduction
82
97
97
97
98
96
99
98
98
94
99
98
99
99
96
In
2.85
2.87
4.41
2.83
3.27
2.74
4.52
4.1 1
5.26
2.90
2.66
1.66
2.93
2.59
3.31
= Total Phosphorus.
TP, mg/l
Out
0.063
0.047
0.068
0.088
6.064
0.066
0.079
0.099
0.063
0.074
0.086
0.047
6.112
0.147
0.074
Reduction
97 !
98
97
96
98
97
•" ': 9f"
97
99
97" "":
97 '•
97
•" """'""96""' '":
94
_ 97 _ ^
24
-------
of the discharge point in 1990. It
appears that nutrient removal processes
are stabilizing.
Nitrogen species include organic,
ammonium and nitrate/nitrite nitrogen.
The wetland micro-organisms convert
nitrate to nitrogen gas. Other bacteria
convert atmospheric nitrogen to ammo-
nium, which is in short supply; both for
the natural wetland and for the fertilized
zone. Large amounts are incorporated
in new soils and in extra biomass.
Because the irrigation zone is
imbedded in a natural wetland of
larger extent, care must be taken in the
definition of the size of the treatment
portion of this larger wetland. A zone
extending 300 meters upstream and 700
meters downstream, spanning the entire
1000 meter width of the wetland,
encompasses the treatment zone with
room to spare. Nutrient removal is
essentially complete within this zone;
some background concentrations will
always be present in outflows.
The reductions in dissolved nutrient
concentrations are not due to dilution,
as may be seen from' the water budgets.
There are summers in which rainfall
exceeds evapotranspiration, but on
average there are evaporative losses,
which would lead to concentration
increases in the absence of wetland
interactions..
It is possible to elucidate the mech-
anisms by which water-borne substances
are removed in this freshwater wetland
ecosystem. There are three major cate-
gories of removal processes: biomass
increases, burial, and gasification. The
•^ 8
T
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance From Discharge, meters
10-
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Discharge, meters
production of increased biomass due to
nutrient stimulation is a long-term
temporary sink for assimilable
substances. Accretion of new organic
soils represents a more permanent
800
25
-------
sink for structural and sorbed compo-
nents. A few species, notably nitrogen,
carbon and sulfur compounds, may be
released to the atmosphere, and thus
are lost from the water and the wetland.
Mass balance models have been
constructed that adequately character-
ize these processes on both short and
long term bases.
Some substances in the wastewater
do not interact as strongly with the
wetland as do nutrients. Chloride,
calcium, magnesium, sodium and
potassium all display elevated values •
in the discharge affected zone. Chlo-
ride, especially, moves freely through
the wetland to the outlet streams.
Oxygen levels hi the pumped water,
are good, approximately a 6 mg/1 aver-
age. In the irrigation zone, levels are
typically 1-2 mg/1 hi surface waters. The
surrounding, unaffected wetland usually
has high DO, representing conditions
near saturation. The zone of depressed
oxygen increased in size as the affected
area increased, as indicated by the
advance of an oxygen front both
upgradient and downgradient. In
addition, the diurnal cycle appeared to
be suppressed hi the irrigation zone.
Redox potentials indicate that
the sediments are anaerobic hi the
irrigation area, even at quite shallow
depths. Steep gradients occur, leading
to sulfate and nitrate reduction zones,
and even to a methanogenesis zone,
only a few centimeters deep into the
sediments and Utter.
Phosphorous Pools in the Discharge Zone
45678
Months from May 1
10 11
12
Fourteen Year Phosphorous Budget, Kilograms
Wastewater = 22,200
Precipitation = 80
Gaseous = 0
Run-in = 20
Ne
Burial = 15.200
26
-------
SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
Wastewater solids are relatively
small in amount and deposit
near the discharge. Incoming
suspended solids average about 25 mg/1,
and the wetland functions at levels of
about 5-10 mg/1. But internal processes
in both natural and fertilized wetlands
produce large amounts of detrital
material, thus complicating the concept
of "suspended solids removal".
Some fraction of each year's plant
litter does not decompose, but becomes
new organic soil. It is joined by detritus
from algal and microbial populations.
Such organic sediments contain sig-
nificant amounts of structural compo-
nents, but in addition are good sorbents
for a number of dissolved constituents.
The accretion of soils and sediments
thus contributes to the effectiveness of
the wetland for water purification. The
natural wetland accreted organic soils at
the rate of a two to three millimeters
per year, as determined from carbon-14
and cesium-137 radiotracer techniques.
The wastewater has stimulated this
process to produce a net of ten millime-
ters per year of new organics in the
discharge area. The maximum
accumulation rate is located a short
distance downflow from the discharge.
Sediment fall in the discharge area
totals several millimeters per year, and
this combines with wetland leaf litterf all
to produce a large amount of large and
small detritus. The majority of this
detritus decomposes each year, but
there is an undecomposable fraction.
The result of continued generation and
deposition of sediments, combined with
Soil/Sediment Density
Depth Below Water, cm
1
ui
I
0.4
-400 -300 -200 -100
100
200
300
400
500
600
Distance from Discharge, meters
27
-------
the accumulation of the mineralized
fraction of leaf and stem litter, is the
accretion of new organic soil.
Part of the sediments are suspend-
ible, and are transported by the flowing
water. The rate of travel caused by
sequential suspension and sedimenta-
tion is much slower than the rate of
water flow; solids move only some tens
of meters per year.
Estimated mass balances for particu-
late, transportable solids indicate the
large internal cycle superimposed on
net removal for the wetland.
Wetland Suspendible Solids
Annual Budget, 1.0 km Discharge Zone
Wastewater
9 metric tons
Run-in
4 metric tons
: Inventory Change =
""
Runoff
3 metric tons
160 ^ Resuspended 230 y Settling
After more than a decade, sediment and litter
accumulation total about 15 cm.
28
-------
VEGETATION
I any changes have occurred in
the composition, abundance
and standing crops of the
wetland plants in the zone of nutrient
removal. There are two observable
manifestations of the wastewater addi-
tion: elevated nutrient concentrations
in the surface waters, and alterations of
the size, type and relative abundance of
the aboveground vegetation. Vegetative
changes occur in response to changes
in hydraulic regime (depth and duration
of inundation) and to changes in water
nutrient status. The treatment area is
taken to be the greater of these two
measurable areas for each year.
When a wetland becomes the
recipient of waters with higher nutrient
content than those it has been experien-
cing, there is a response of the vegeta-
tion, both in species composition and in
total biomass. The increased availability
of nutrients produces more vegetation
during the growing season, which in
turn means more litter during the
non-growing season. This litter requires
several years to decay, and hence the
total pool of living and dead material
grows slowly over several years to a new
and higher value. A significant quantity
of nitrogen and phosphorus and other
chemical constituents are thus retained,
as part of the living and dead tissues, in
the wetland. This response at the point
of discharge in the Houghton Lake
wetland has been slow and large. Below
ground biomass responded differently
from above ground biomass, however.
Original vegetation required greatly
reduced root biomass in the presence of
3000-
CM
G)
«
in
CO
o
3
1
o
2000-
1000-
Live and Dead Aboveground Biomass
Discharge Zone
76
78
80
\
82
\ \ \
84 86
Year
I
88
I
90
I
92
94
29
-------
added nutrients; 1500 gm/m2 versus
4000. However, the sedges initially
present were replaced by cattail, which
has a root biomass of 4000 gm/m2.
Approximately 65 hectares of the
wetland have been affected hi terms of
visual vegetative change. Some plant
species - leatherleaf and sedge—have
been nearly all lost in the discharge
area, presumably due to shading by
other species and the altered water
regime. Sedges in the discharge zone
went through a large increase followed
by a crash to extinction. Species compo-
sition within the discharge area is no
longer determined by earlier vegetative
patterns; cattail and duckweed have
totally taken over. Cattail has extended
its range out to about 600 meters along
the central water track.
The cattail cover type did not exist in
enough abundance (1.76% of the peat-
land area) to warrant study in pre-irriga-
tion years, but was present in many loca-
tions (17% of all test plots). The early
years of wastewater addition produced a
variable but increasing annual peak
standing crop of cattail. This change has
been completed in the irrigation area,
and there is no space for more plants,
nor can they grow any larger.
The willows and bog birch are
decreasing in numbers in the irrigation
area. The fraction standing dead is
low because the dead shrubs are
pulled down by the falling cattail.
Nonetheless, a high fraction of the
standing stems are now dead. Further,
the number of surviving clumps of
stems is decreasing.
The aspen community near the
pipeline completely succumbed in 1983.
A second aspen island, located 500
meters downgradient, had also totally
succumbed by 1984. The aspen on the
edges of the peatland have died in back-
gradient and side locations where the
shore slopes gradually. The alteration of
the water regime has caused tree death
along much of the wetland perimeter, in
a band up to 50 meters wide at a few
locations. Long-dead timber at these
locations indicates that similar events
may have occurred naturally in the past.
30
-------
PUBLIC USE
The project was not designed for
purposes of public use, but a set
of regular users has evolved. The
site serves several organizations as a
field classroom. Each year, the sixth
grade science classes from the
Houghton Lake School pay visits—and
ask the best questions. Ducks Unlimited
and the Michigan United Conservation
Clubs also schedule trips to the wetland.
The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources includes field trips to the
system as'part of their annual training
course. And, Central Michigan Univer-
sity conducts a portion of its wetlands
course at the site.
Many visitors, some from as far as
New Zealand, come to inspect the treat-
merit facility to learn of its performance.
The authorized operating period is
set to allow deer hunting: the discharge
is stopped in September to permit the
wetland to "relax" from the influence of
pumping. The bow-and-arrow season in
October, and the rifle season in Novem-
ber, both find numerous hunters on and
near the wetlands. Those hunters
receive a questionnaire, which has
demonstrated nearly unanimous accep-
tance of the project. The only complaint
is that the boardwalk allows too easy
access to the wetlands.
Duck hunting and muskrat trapping
have occurred on an intermittent basis.
These activities are new to this wetland,
which was formerly too dry to support
waterfowl and muskrats.
31
-------
ANIMALS
In addition to game species, coyotes,
bobcats and raccoons frequent the
wetland. Small mammals include a
variety of mice, voles and shrews. The
relative numbers have shifted with time
in the discharge area; generally there
are now fewer and different small
mammals. The number of muskrats has
increased greatly in the irrigation zone.
Bird populations have also changed.
The undisturbed wetland (1973)
contained 17 species, dominated by
swamp sparrows, marsh wrens and
yellowthroats. In 1991, the irrigation
zone had 19 species, dominated by tree
swallows, red wing blackbirds and
swamp sparrows.
Insect species and numbers fluctuate
from year to year, with no discernible
pattern. In some years there are fewer
mosquitoes near the discharge; in other
years they are more numerous there.
There are typically more midges in the
discharge zone, and fewer mayflies,
caddisflies and dragonflies.
32
-------
PERMITS
The project operates under two
permits: an NPDES permit for
the surface water discharge, and
a special use permit for the wetlands.
The Michigan Water Resources
Commission issues the NPDES permit
in compliance with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. Both the irriga-
tion fields and the wetlands are permit-
ted. The wetlands part of the permit
establishes three classes of sampling
locations: the effluent from the storage
or dechlorination ponds, a row of
sampling stations approximately 800
meters downgradient from the discharge
pipeline in the wetland (Figure 1), and
steamflows exiting the wetland. Lagoon
discharges are monitored weekly;
interior points and stream outflows are
measured monthly. Each location has
its own parameter list (Table 3). The
interior wetland stations are the early
warning line. Background water quality
was established in pre-project research.
Target values are set which are the basis
for assessing the water quality impacts
at the interior stations.
The special use permit is issued by
the Wildlife Division of the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.
Under this permit, the Roscommon
County Department of Public Works is
granted permission to maintain a water
transporting pipe across State-owned
lands, maintain a wooden walkway on
the peatlands to support a water distri-
bution pipe, and to distribute secondar-
ily treated effluent onto the peatlands.
Under the terms of this permit, if
circumstances arise that are detrimental
to plant and animal life, the project
w
Tabie3. Permit Monitoring Points and Target Values
L = Lagoon Discharge
Parameter
Chloride
pH
Ammonium Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Nitrite Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Dissolved
Phosphorus
BODS
Suspended Solids
Fecal Conforms
1 - Wetland Interior O = Stream Outflow
Location
L,l,0
1,0
L,l,0
L,l,0
L.1,0
L,0
L.1,0
L,0
L
L
Background Value
28 mg/l
7.0 SU
0.7mg/l
0.04 mg/l
0.008 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
Target Value
8.0 SU
3 mg/l
0.1 2 mg/l
0.1 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
comes under immediate review. Detri-
mental circumstances include detection
of toxic materials, excessive levels of
pathogenic organisms and excessive
water depths. There has not been such
an occurrence. This permit also requires
monitoring of plant and animal popula-
tions, hydrology and water quality.
Water samples were collected for
analysis at the points of input and
output from the wetland for purposes
of compliance
monitoring.
Water chemis-
try data for
these inflows
and outflows
shows no
significant
increases in the
nitrogen or
phosphorus in
the wetland
waters at these
exit locations.
Stream Outflow #1
Stream Outflow #2
Input NH4-N
76
6-
£ 3-
& -
° 2-
Q.
1
i Stream Outflow #2
• Stream Outflow #1
iLagoon
76
I
78
I
SO
I
82
84
Year
I
86
I
88
I
go
92
33
-------
Operator Opinions
Mr. Brett Yardley, operator of the facility,
believes "It is a great system. It has low
maintenance, and is good for the community".
Importantly, he feels that the regulators
(Michigan DNR) are "on my side". The
comments he receives are all positive.
Awards
Clean Waters Award 1974,1985
Michigan Outdoor Writers Association
Award of Merit 1977
Michigan Consulting Engineers Council
Award for Engineering Excellence 1977
American Consulting Engineers Council
State of Michigan
Sesquicentennial Award 1987
Michigan Society of Professional
Engineers
People
The treatment facility is operated by:
Mr. Brett Yardley
Houghton Lake Sewer Authority
P. O. Box 8
1250 S. Harrison Road
Houghton Lake, MI 48629
Wildlife and land use considerations are coordinated by:
Mr. Rich Earle
Research/Surveys Section Head
Houghton Lake Wildlife Research Station
Box 158
Houghton Lake Heights, MI48630
Research is conducted and archived by: Dr. Robert H. Kadlec
Wetland Ecosystem Research Group
Department of Chemical Engineering
Dow Building
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2136
Literature
Several thousand pages of documentation exist for this
project. The principal categories of documents are:
• Annual reports. Each operating year: compliance monitoring
results; research results for vegetation, hydrology, internal
water chemistry; and research results for all types of animals,
insects, and invertebrates.
• Research reports. Background studies and pilot system
performance are contained in several reports and
monographs.
• Technical papers. Forty published papers appear in a wide
variety of literature sources, and involve many authors.
• Dissertations. Fourteen MS and PhD theses have originated
from the project.
34
-------
1
t
-------
THE HISTORY OF
THE PROJECT
Ducks, geese, elk? These are not
usual inhabitants of a wastewater
treatment system. But in Cannon
Beach, Oregon, particularly in the
fifteen acres of the wooded wetlands
cells of the system, they are a common
sight. How did this come to pass?
Let's look a little closer. The City of
Cannon Beach had a problem—how
to treat and dispose of its wastewater.
With much citizen involvement, a cost-
effective ecologically-interactive waste-
water treatment facility was created.
This Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) funded "Innovative/Alternative"
treatment system uses an existing
wooded wetland to provide the final
stage of the treatment process.
Here's the story. The three-celled
sewer lagoon complex in existence at
the time of the passage of the Clean
Water Act of 1972 could not meet the
more stringent effluent quality stand-
ards set by the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
In response to this situation, the City
began a Facilities Plan. The completed
plan recommended options for system
upgrading which met with considerable
community opposition.
At this point in 1977, a Sewer
Advisory Board was formed. The City
of Cannon Beach is a resort community
and during the tourist season the popu-
lation swells from a permanent size
of 1,200 to many tunes that number.
Any design considered by the Sewer
Advisory Board would have to be able
to accommodate these large fluctuations
in wastewater flows.
Confrontation led to a City commit-
ment to pursue a biological solution
instead of more high-tech treatment
units to upgrade the treatment system.
The bureaucratic struggle that ensued
lasted eight years and the remarkable
result of these meetings was the consol-
idation of a set of ideas which emerged
as yet another facility plan addendum.
The issues deliberated included: the use
and integrity of the wetlands, elk habitat,
chlorination, point of discharge, birdlife,
the extent of ecological upset, berming
and baffling, fencing costs, and the risks
Confrontation led to a City
commitment to pursue a
biological solution instead of
more high-tech treatment units
to upgrade the treatment system.
Effluent structures during
winter flooding (when wetlands
are typically not operated).
36
-------
Typical vegetation in the
majority of the wetlands
(brush, sedges, and ferns).
of using new treatment techniques.
It is a tribute to the professionals
representing the various agencies
involved in these meetings that, in spite
of diverse and sometimes disparate
responsibilities and divergent goals,
negotiations took place in a spirit of
cooperation and compromise sufficient
to allow development of an approvable
treatment scheme.
This scheme, the wetlands marsh
wastewater treatment system, appeared
in draft Facilities Plan Addendum No. 2
in October, 1981 and became final in
March, 1982. The Plan subsequently
was adopted by the City Council and
approved by all the appropriate agencies
through the State Clearinghouse review
process. Shortly thereafter, a grant
application was completed and submit-
ted to the DEQ and EPA and approval
of funding for the project was granted
in September, 1982.
37
-------
DESIGN
How does the treatment facility
work? Contrary to popular
belief, raw sewage, or waste-
water as engineers prefer to call it, is
over 99% pure water. About half of it
comes from toilets and most of the rest
is from kitchen sinks, showers, bathtubs,
and washing machines. The Cannon
Beach treatment system consists of a
four-celled lagoon complex followed by
two wooded wetland cells which serve
as a natural effluent polishing system.
The objective of the wetland treat-
ment is to meet water quality require-
ments with minimal disturbance to the
existing wildlife habitat. Dikes, contain-
ing water control structures, formed the
wetland cells, constituting the only
physical alteration to the natural
wetland. The fifteen acres of wetlands
are primarily red alder, slough sedge
and twinberry, including the remnants
of an old growth spruce forest. These
wetlands act as a natural filter to
complete the treatment process, and the
wildlife is not disturbed.
Design of the wooded wetland waste-
water treatment system, along with
improvements to the existing lagoon
system, began in December, 1982. The
design of treatment system improve-
ments and the wetland system centered
around meeting stringent effluent limi-
tations imposed by the DEQ. Techni-
cally, speaking, the wastewater treat-
ment focuses primarily on the reduction
of both biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and suspended solids (TSS).
The average monthly limitations were
10 mg/1 of BOD and TSS during dry
weather and 30 mg/1
of BOD and 50 mg/1
of TSS above
Ecola Creek back-
ground levels during
wet weather.
The principal mech-
anisms in achieving
BOD and TSS reduc-
tions in wetland systems are sedimenta-
tion and microbial metabolism. Absence
of sunlight in the canopy covered
wooded wetland contributes to signi-
ficant algae die-off and subsequent
decomposition. The two-celled wetland
system was designed with multiple influ-
ent ports into the first cell, multiple
gravity overflow into the second cell,
and a single discharge from the second
cell to Ecola Creek. Each cell was
designed with approximately 8.0 acres
surface area to be operated in series.
Improvements to the existing lagoon
system were to provide capacity through
the design year of 1998. They centered
around three major improvements:
upgrading the hydraulic capacity of the
system; decreasing the loading to the
facultative lagoon system with the addi-
tion of an aerated lagoon; and adding a
chlorine contact chamber to provide
adequate disinfection before discharging
to the wetland marsh system.
The operational strategy developed
around: 1) operating the upgraded
facultative lagoon system during the
wet weather period of the year, and 2)
operating the aerated/facultative lagoon
system along with the wooded wetland
system during the dry weather season.
1998 Dry Weather
Population, Flows >
Population Equivalents
Lagoons
Flow
Ave. Detention Time
BOD
TSS
-Wooded Wetland
;.T~~F!6w
BOD
TSS
Design
and Loading
4085
0.68 mgd
7-1 5 days
817lbs/day
817lbs/day
• "'• : ' •" '""': •" "' "
0.42g/ac/day
14 {bs/ap/day
18 Ibs/ac/day
Effluent structures and
vegetation located in
north dike.
38
-------
AB ....
1,2,3
S
. Aeration Basin
. Facultative lagoons
. Sludge disposal pits
C Chlorine contact chamber
WOP Winter outfall pipe
Cell 1, Cell 2 Wetland treatment cells
39
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
Construction of the wastewater
facility improvements began in
July 1983 and the facility offi-
cially began operation in June 1984
when flows from the facultative lagoons
were initially pumped into the wetland.
The system was initially operated with
the aerated lagoon effluent flowing in
series to the three facultative lagoons,
with chlorinated effluent pumped to the
wetland cells which were operated in
series. The discharge from the system
into Ecola Creek is approximately
25% to 50% of the influent flow with
the remainder lost through evapotran-
spiration and seepage. The wetlands
cells were initially operated at an
approximate average depth of one foot
and a detention time of 10-14 days.
J-agoon effluent BOD and TSS have
averaged 27 mg/1 and 51 mg/1 respec-
tively, while the wetlands effluent BOD
and TSS averaged 6 mg/1 and 11 mg/1
respectively. Background water quality
in Ecola Creek has averaged 6 mg/1
BOD and 13 mg/1 TSS. The wetland
removes an average of 12% of the
influent BOD while removing 26% of
influent TSS. Operating efficiency has
improved over tune with respect to
BOD and TSS. In 1991, an average of
only 3 mg/1 of BOD was discharged.
For TSS, the past two years have shown
average discharge concentrations of
2 and 5 mg/1 respectively. These rates
were significantly lower than those of
five out of the first six years of operation.
City of Cannon Beach
Wastewater Treatment Facility: Effluent Quality
50-1
I Lagoon Effluent
Wetlands Effluent
| Background
1984
Jul-Oct
1985
Aug-Sep
1986
Jun-Oct
1987 1988
Jul-Oct May-Oct
Year
1989 1990
Jun-Nov May-Oct
1991
May-Oct
City of Cannon Beach
Wastewater Treatment Facility: Effluent Quality
Wetlands Effluent
| Background
TSS
(mg/1) 40 -
1990
May-Oct
1991
May-Oct
Year
40
-------
COSTS AND BENEFITS
The system has been a success.
Performance of the system has
exceeded expectations as the
effluent has come close to meeting the
10/10 effluent limitations without consid-
ering the background water quality. The
City has met its monthly permit require-
ments with only one exception with
respect to concentrations in the first
eight years of operation. The water qual-
ity impact on the creek has been signifi-
cant, only 25% of the mass discharge
loading directly reaches the creek.
The capital costs of the total system
improvements were $1.5 million in
1983. Of that, approximately 40% was
classified innovative and alternative
under the provisions of the Federal
Clean Water Act, thus higher funding
was provided by EPA. The City received
an approximate 80% grant from the
EPA. A significant portion of the City's
share has been financed through a loan
from Farmers Home Administration.
The total Sewer Department's 1992-
1993 budget is approximately $600,000.
The total operational costs of the pond/
wetland treatment facility represents
approximately 12% of this figure. Staff
includes one full-time operator who
devotes approximately half of his time
to plant operation and laboratory work,
a weekend public works utility person,
and a summer student intern.
Sewer billings are based on water
usage, using a base rate of $7.50 for
the first 600 cubic feet and $1.25 for
each additional 100 cubic feet. This
rate has remained unchanged since
1983. A10% across-the-board Increase
is currently under consideration.
Elk browse on their long-time
path to Ecola Creek, along the
edge of the wooded wastewater
wetland, just 700 feet from
downtown Cannon Beach.
41
-------
A NATURE STUDY SITE
Treatment of facultative lagoon
effluent through the use of a
natural wooded wetland has been
demonstrated as an effective method
over the eight years of operation. The
City's direct discharge to Ecola Creek
has been reduced and it's quality has
been improved resulting in improved
water quality for the creek. The capital,
operation, and maintenance costs utiliz-
ing the wetland treatment system are
significantly less than alternative
systems. The treatment lagoons and
wetland cells are a physical reality and
an integral part of the City. Involvement
in this sewerage project has resulted in
a heightened awareness of the physical
setting in which we live, the biological
processes of which we are a part, and
the society in which we function.
The City has cooperated with the
school system in setting up a partner-
ship. Educational materials that inte-
grate social studies and science have
been developed cooperatively using a
City liaison person and resource
teacher. As well as serving as a nature
study site, the treatment marsh has
been the focus of programs devised by
Citizen Education. Waterfowl have
been monitored by citizen effort. Tours
are conducted for environmentally
oriented classes, for groups of teachers,
for sewer operators, for those seeking -
wastewater treatment solutions for their
communities and for local citizens, as
well as any interested individuals.
The organic nature of the sewerage
facilities, the lack of offensive odor
and the open layout of the facility
contribute to a land use scheme that
has a minimal disruption to the environ-
ment. Very few visitors realize that
the City's sewerage facilities are just
700 feet from the downtown shopping
area! Within the site, the stream flows,
trees and plants grow, and animals and
birds come and go. Numerous species of
wild ducks can be seen on the lagoons,
elk canLbe seen in the wetlands area,
fishing, walking, and bird watching take
place here.
This brochure is dedicated to the memory of
Don Thompson, "The Thinker and the Doer
of the Cannon Beach Sewer."
Contributors—Dan Elek, Jerry Minor and
Francesca Demgen
Produced by—Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Graphic Design—Chris Dunn
EPA Project Manager—Robert Bastian
Within the site, the stream
flows, trees and plants grow,
and animals and birds come
and go.
42
-------
Reuse of Munacspa!
Wastewater by Volunteer
Freshwater Wetlands
Vermontville, Michigan
*JS*T*J*SS
-------
INTRODUCTION
Vermontville is a rural community
located 25 miles southwest of
Lansing. The local maple
syrup industry is active; each year a
festival brings thousands of visitors to
this community of 825 residents.
Vermontville considers itself "the
sweetest little town in Michigan." There
is no evidence of the high growth and
bustle of more urban areas; in fact the
local Amish folk tie up their horses
and buggies on Main Street. Mayor
Beverly Sue Billanueva runs the town
and its only restaurant.
The Clean Water Act of the early
1970 Is dictated that Vermontville up-
grade its wastewater treatment capabili-
ties. In common with many other small
communities, Vermontville could not
afford to own or operate a "high tech"
physical-chemical wastewater treatment
plant But it was situated to utilize the
land-intensive natural systems tech-
nology, and decided to do so. In 1972,
they opted for facultative lagoons
followed by seepage beds. Those seep-
age beds unexpectedly became wetlands,
a system which works remarkably well
and is liked by the operators.
Cover: Wetland number one
is bordered by lagoons and
Anderson Highway, and is in
dose proximity to an operat-
ing farm. Cattails dominate
the vegetation, with a few
willow shrubs in evidence.
Late summer senescence is in
progress, the cattails are
beginning to turn brown.
Inflow
System Description
The municipal wastewater treatment
system at Vermontville, Michigan
consists of two facultative stabilization
ponds of 10.9 acres (4.4 ha), followed
by four diked surface (flood) irrigation
fields of 11.5 acres (4.6 ha) constructed
on silty-clayey soils. The system is
located on a hill with the ponds upper-
most and the fields at descending
elevations (Figure 1). After 1991, the
nineteenth year of operation, the fields
are totally overgrown with volunteer
emergent aquatic vegetation, mainly
cattail. The system was designed for
0.1 MGD and a life of twenty years.
It is presently operated at about three-
quarters of design capacity.
The Vermontville system was
intended, in the conceptual stages, to
provide phosphorus removal both by
harvesting of terrestrial grasses and by
soil-water contact as wastewater seeps
Figure 1. Layout of the
Vermontville wastewater treat-
ment system. Inflow may be
directed to either of the two
lagoons. The lagoons are
discharged into wetlands 1-3.
Wetland 4 no longer receives a
direct discharge; but seepage
water from the uphill units
re-emerges into wetland 4.
44
-------
downward from the irrigation fields.
Up to four inches of water applied over
several hours time once each week
would flood the fields briefly until the
water seeped away. The upper pond
(Lagoon 1, Figure 1), has separate
discharge lines into fields 1 and 2, and
the lower pond.(Lagoon 2) has separate
discharge lines into fields 3 and 4.
Fields 1-4 have all been colonized by
volunteer wetland vegetation, and are
now eutrophic emergent marshes.
Pond-stabilized wastewater is released
into each wetland by gravity flow
through 10-in. (0.25 m) main and
8-in (0.2m) manifold pipe having
several ground level outlets in each
wetland. The lagoons and wetlands are
terraced on a steep hillside (Figure 2),
providing ample driving force for
gravity flow. Should the water level
exceed 6 in. (15.2 cm), water would
overflow to the next wetland by means
of standpipe drain. All applied water
would seep into the ground before
leaving the treatment area.
900
880
860
840
The system is operating nearly in
this manner today. There is a constant
surface overflow from the final wetland,
made up of ground-recycled wastewater
which enters the final field at springs.
The direct surface overflow from
wetland 3 has been taken out of service.
Essentially, the system is a seepage
wetland complex and very similar to a
conventional flood irrigation facility.
The vegetation and relatively small
surface overflow from the final wetland
provides an established system in which
to evaluate the treatment aspects of
seepage combined with lateral flow-
through wetlands, the potential nutrient
removal and wildlife values of these
strictly voluntary wastewater wetland,
and the economics of the system.
A thorough study of water quality and
other aspects of system was conducted
in 1978, by Dr. Jeffrey Sutherland of
Williams and Works and Professor
Frederick Bevis of Grand Valley
University. This work was sponsored
by The National Science Foundation.
Lagoon 1
Figure 2. Cross section of
the Vermontville wastewater
treatment system. The units are
set on a steep hillside, with
large driving forces for the
gravity flow from lagoons to
wetlands. Elevations shown on
the left are in feet above sea
level. Overflow occurs out of
wetland 4 to the right.
45
-------
HYDROLOGY
PERMITS
D
(uring 1990, approximately 29
MG of wastewater was intro-
duced into the lagoons. This was
a dry year. Evaporation exceeded rain-
fall and snowmelt, leaving only about
22 MG to discharge to wetlands 1,2,
and 3. There was no lagoon discharge
to wetland 4. About 7 MG were lost
to evaporation in the wetland cells,
13 MG infiltrated to groundwater, and
2 MG overflowed from wetland 4 to
the receiving stream.
Wetland 4 receives its water from
interior springs fed by the groundwater
mound under the upgradient wetlands,
most importantly wetland 3. The direct
discharge to wetland 4 was
discontinued, since it was in
close proximity to the system
outflow point, and was
clearly short-circuiting water
across wetland 4. Effluent
discharged from the system
has therefore passed through
the lagoons, then through the
upper wetlands, the soils
under the site, and finally
through the last wetland.
T:
I he facility operates under an
NPDES Permit issued by
Michigan DNR. The outflow
from wetland 4 is to an unnamed
tributary of the Thornapple River,
which is protected for agricultural uses,
navigation, industrial water supply,
public water supply at the point of
water intake, warm water fish and total
body contact recreation. There are
presently no industrial dischargers. The
discharge limitations from the treatment
wetlands (Table 1) are set for a design
flow of 0.1 MGD. Discharge is limited
to the ice free high flow periods from
May 1-October 31.
Table 1 . Discharge limitations for the
Vermontville wastewater treatment facility.
Parameter Dates Daily
Minimum
CBOD5 4/15-4/30
5/1-9/30
10/1-10/31
TSS 4/15-4/30
5/1-10/31
NH4-N 4/15-4/30
5/1-9/30
10/1-10/31
TP All Year
DO 4/15-4/30 5mg/l
5/1-9/30 6mg/l
10/1-10/31 5mg/l
pH All Year 6.5
Daily 30-Day
Maximum Average
25mg/I 17mg/l
14lb/d
1 0 mg/l 5 mg/l
4.2 Ib/d
16 mg/l 11 mg/l
9O IKM
.
-------
WATER QUALITY
Compliance Monitoring
The overflow from final wetland field
4 contains a fairly constant volume of
effluent which has seeped from the
higher elevation wetlands, flowed
through the ground, and entered field
4 springs. This treated effluent is of high
quality, as is the ground water recovered
from the project's monitoring wells.
The outflow is monitored weekly.
Total suspended solids (TSS) was well
within permit limits at all times during
1990 (Figure 3), indicating that the
wetlands had effectively filtered and
settled particulate material.
Carbonaceous biological oxygen
demand (CBOD) also remained within
30-day average permit limits in 1990,
and there was only one excedance of
the seven-day permit limit of 5 mg/1.
The CBOD load in the surface
discharge was less than 10% of that
allowed by the permit.
Total phosphorus in the surface
discharge was also well within permit
limits, with an average 1990 value of
0.24 mg/1 compared to the permit level
of 1.0 mg/1 (Figure 4). The same was
true for ammonium nitrogen, which
averaged 0.86 mg/1 compared to the 2.2
mg/1 permit requirement. Both phospho-
rus and nitrogen display considerable
variability, which is characteristic of
many wetland systems. The seasonal
trends in ammonium nitrogen—an
increase followed by a decrease—have
been observed at other sites, and are
therefore probably real. They are likely
due to the changing processes of plant
uptake and decomposition.
Figure 3. Both CBOD and
TSS fluctuate in the outflow
from the wetlands, but the
seasonal averages are quite low;
3.5 mg/lfor CBOD; 4.2 mg/l
for TSS. (Data are for 1990)
1 I I I I I I I I
120 150 180 210 240 270 300
May June July August September October
Yearday
figure 4. The nutrients
phosphorus and ammonium
nitrogen were well within limits
in the wetland outflow in 1990.
The seasonal average total
phosphorus was 0.24 mg/l;
ammonium nitrogen averaged
0.86 mg/l.
2.0-
.5-
TP, mg/l
NH4-N, mg/l
1 I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I
120 150 180 210 240 270 300
May June July August September October
Yearday
47
-------
Dissolved oxygen averaged 7.0 mg/1
in 1990, with a range from 5.4 to 9.4,
which included a four excedances of
minor nature. pH ranged from 6.6 to
7.2, well within the permit range.
Fecal coliform counts (Figure 5)
are within limits for surface water
discharges, but are higher than at other
comparable wetland sites.
Research Results
Some of the more detailed water
quality results for 1978 are summarized
in Figure 6. Greater than two-fold dilu-
tion across the system was evident in
the decreasing chloride concentration
from 280 mg/1 in the effluent to 124 mg/1
in the ground water. Pond effluent was
25% diluted with respect to influent.
Although a few inches of precipitation
in excess of evaporation from the ponds
occurred during the summer, the 25%
dilution was more importantly due to
excessive snow and ice meltwater added
to the ponds in spring 1978. The 25%
dilution between the pond effluent and
the water standing in the wetlands was
due principally to a large number of
sampling dates coinciding with signifi-
cant rainfall. Greater than 20 inches
(50.8 cm) of rain fell in the 4 V£ months
from June to mid October, which was
approximately 50% higher than the
normal rate. The decrease in concentra-
tion between irrigation fields and
ground water was due to .mixing of
vvastewater with more dilute ambient
ground water.
Phosphorus was removed to the
extent of around 97% between the
-1000
o
o
0)
a
|
e
« 100L
£ -
o
"in
10
iiiiiFIIiiiiiIIri i i i i i i
120 150 180 210 240 270 300
May June July August September October
Yearday
wetland fields and the ground water,
which was sampled from monitoring
wells placed at depths ranging from
roughly 10 ft. to 25 ft. (3.0 m to 7.6 m)
below the wetland floors. Most removal
of phosphorus occurs in the upper
3 ft. (0.9 m) of soils judging from a
small number of lysimeter samples
which averaged 0.11 mg/1 total P and
0.06 mg/1 ortho-P, with ranges of
0-0.3 mg/1 and 0-0.2 mg/1, respectively.
The average removals of phosphorus
effected in the upper 3 ft. (0.9 m) of
soils were approximately 95%.
Levels of nitrate-nitrogen increased
approximately 60% between the pond
discharge and the wetland standing
water, indicating that aerobic bacteria
were at work in the wetland waters.
On the other hand, the sediments were
anaerobic as evidenced in the fetid
odor which evolved when they were
disturbed. Loss of some of the nitrate
by denitrification was apparently
Figure 5. Fecal coliform
bacteria counts also fluctuate
in the outflow from the
wetlands, but the seasonal
average is quite low; the
geometric mean value was 77.
(Data are for 1990)
48
-------
occurring. Lysimeter samples showed
nitrate-nitrogen ranging from 0.0 to
0.9 mg/1, which suggested that denitri-
fication of approximately 60% of the
nitrate occurred in the shallow wetland
soils. The ambient ground water
contained higher levels of nitrate-nitro-
gen than did the seeping wastewater,
perhaps indicating some further nitri-
fication during passage through the soil.
Levels of TKN and ammonia-
nitrogen seemed not to change much
between the pond discharge and the
wetland waters. But this constancy was
likely only apparent, with organic
nitrogen and ammonia probably
being produced through anaerobic
decomposition in the wetland sediments
and being consumed in the aerobic
wetland waters.
Incoming Wastewater
TP=5.3
C1=280
TKN=81
NO3N=1.3
Lagoon Discharge
TP=1.8
C1=207
TKN=6.5
NO3N=1.0
Lysimeter @ 3ft TP=0.11
Groundwater
Wetland Discharge
TP=2.1
C1=157
TKN=5.0
NO3N=1.2
Surface
Outflow
TP=0.64
C1=123
Figure 6. Profiles of water
quality in 1978. Lagoons
and wetlands and soils are
functioning to remove
nutrients in this system.
During the early life of the
facility, there were lagoon
discharges directly to wetland
4; and there was surface
overflow directed from
wetland 3 to wetland 4. This
resulted in some short-circuit-
ing to the surface outflow,
and consequently higher
phosphorus numbers than in
the present mode of operation.
49
-------
VEGETATION
WILDLIFE
The wetlands were observed to
contain eight plant communities
in 1978. These included areas
dominated by grassland, duckweed,
cattail and willow. In 1991, the grassland
and duckweed communities were no
longer significant. The wetlands are now
dominated entirely by cattail and willow
shrubs and trees.
Standing crops (above ground plant
parts) for the wetlands varied from a
minimum of 830 to over 2,200 gm/m2 in
the wetlands in 1978. Visual estimates in
1991 indicate that the standing crops are
presently somewhat higher than that
maximum, and more uniform. There
appears to be approximately 3,000
gm/m2 at all locations, not counting
trees. Because the wetlands are located
on an exposed hillside, winds can and do
blow down the cattails. The result is a
patchy stand of cattail, about three
meters in height where it is erect, and
flat on the surface elsewhere.
The phosphorus in the prevailing
cattail standing crop is significant
compared to the phosphorus released
into the wetlands. Cattail harvesting
would therefore be a means of reducing
effluent phosphorus. But harvesting is
not needed for phosphorus removal in
seepage wetland settings where sub-
surface soil types and volumes are
adequate to effect phosphorus removal
before effluent ground water reaches
receiving streams. The expense and
difficulty of harvesting further preclude
its use at Vermontville.
Casual observation reveals the
wastewater-grown wetlands have
significantly added to the
acreage of suitable, adequately isolated
habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife
in the Vermontville area. Natural,
interrupted zones of attached aquatic
plant life fringe the nearby Thornapple
River, but these are narrow, small and
easily accessible to fisherman and
other recreationists. The wastewater
wetlands are part of a restricted public
access area.
The Vermontville volunteer wetland
system created marshland habitat
suitable for waterfowl production other-
wise not present in the immediate area.
Many other types of birds also nest in
the marshes, including red-wing black-
birds, American coot, and American
goldfinch. Waterfowl (blue-winged teal
and mallard), shorebirds (gallinule,
killdeer, lesser yellow-legs, and sand-
piper) and swallows use the wetland
pond system for feeding and/or resting
during their migration. Great blue
heron, green heron, ring-neck pheasant,
and American bittern have also been
seen frequenting the wetlands.
These volunteer wetlands are also
important habitat for numerous
amphibians and reptiles. These include
snapping and painted turtles, garter
and milk snakes, green and leopard
frogs, bullfrogs and American toads.
Muskrats inhabit the wetlands, while
raccoon, whitetail deer, and woodchuck
are seen feeding in the wetlands.
50
-------
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Vsry little wetland maintenance
lias been required at Vermontville.
The berms are mowed three or
four times per year, for aesthetic reasons
only. Water samples are taken on a
weekly frequency at the surface outflow.
The discharge risers within the wetlands
are visited and cleaned periodically
during the irrigation season. There is
essentially nothing to be vandalized, and
there have been no repairs required.
The dikes are monitored for erosion,
which has not been a significant
problem. Muskrats build lodges and
dig holes in the dikes; and woodchucks
also dig holes in the
berms. Therefore, a
trapper is allowed on
the site to remove these
animals periodically.
The operator also
periodically tears the
muskrat lodges apart.
There are no bare
soil (tilled) areas to
be plugged through
siltation caused by rain
splash, spray irrigation,
or flood-suspension of
inorganic soils. The
Vermontville wetlands
showed buildup of
three or four inches
(0.1 m) or organic
residues largely in the
form of cattail straw
after six irrigation
seasons (1972-78). That
litter mat is still of the
same thickness today,
but is accompanied by a small accretion
of new organic sediments and soils.
There was one attempt to burn the
accumulated detritus, which proved to
be difficult, and of no value in the system
operation or maintenance. The amounts
of this material have not compromised
the freeboard design of the embank-
ments over the system's 19+ year
operational period. Tree control has not
been practiced at Vermontville, and the
wetlands now contain willow trees up to
several meters in height. No hydraulic
problems have been experienced due
to these trees, or any other cause.
Wetland number two contains
more and larger willows.
Together with the narrow
leaved cattail, these two species
dominate the wetland.
-------
COSTS
CONTACTS
The Vermontville ponds and
wetlands cost $395,000 to build in
1972. Much of this expense was
incurred for grading, because of the
uneven topography of the site.
The operating and maintenance costs
associated with the wetlands portion of
the treatment system are quite low. In
1978, these were approximately $3,500
per year, of which $2,150 was labor and
field costs, and the balance for water
quality analytical services. In 1990, these
same costs totalled about $4,200, includ-
ing §3,400 for labor and field costs.
The treatment system is under
the supervision of Mr. Tony
Wawiernia, Superintendent,
Department of Public Works,
121 South Main Street, Vermontville,
MI 49096. Phone (517) 726-1429.
The designers and engineers for this
facility were Williams and Works, Inc.,
611 Cascade West Parkway S.E.,
Grand Rapids, MI 49506.
Phone (616) 942-9600.
Professor Fred Bevis visits the site
with his students on a regular basis,
and collects information on vegetation
and other aspects of the ecosystem.
Fred is Chairman of the Department of
Biology, Grand Valley State University,
Allendale, MI 49401.
Phone (616) 895-3126.
:,,.'-
fe^£fe^i^y^jk^^^f^i&jja£^"™t*^^^^Afri'*4^': I
P^P^ra^^BffiS5p5f=^Sr^P??^:S I
^^KsSSggglgfg^gjg:]
**&£?\»-£\fy.
£ . ^»-f>:
52
-------
The ponds at Vermontville are
set into a hillside that drops
off more than 70 feet. This
view of lagoon 2 shows the
high and wide berms that this
relief necessitates. In late
summer, these are covered with
a profusion of wildflowers.
53
-------
FURTHER INFORMATION
The 1978 research work is detailed
in a report to The National
Science Foundation under Grant
No. NSF ENV-20273, May 1978. This
report is available from the National
Technical Information Service. Confer-
ence reprints summarizing the work
were prepared, and may be obtained
by contacting Professor Bevis:
Applied Ecology Group
11628104th Ave.
West Olive, MI 49460-9632
Sutherland, J. C. and F. B. Bevis, 1979.
Reuse of Municipal Wastewater by
Volunteer Fresh-Water Wetlands.
IN: Proceedings of Wetland Reuse
Symposium, Vol. 1, p. 762-781.
AVVWA Research Foundation,
Denver, CO.
Bevis, F. B., 1979. "Ecological
Considerations in the Management of
Wastewater-Engendered Volunteer
Wetlands," presented at the Michigan
Wetlands Conference, MacMullan
Center, Higgins Lake, MI.
A brief summary description also may
be found in:
Sutherland, J. C., 1982. "Michigan
Wetland Wastewater Tertiary Treatment
Systems," Chapter 16 in: Water Reuse,
E. J. Middlebrooks, ed., Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
54
-------
A Natural System for
Wastewater Reclamation
and Resource Enhancem
Arcata, California
-------
INTRODUCTION
The constructed wetland system is
the cornerstone of Arcata's urban
watershed renovation program.
This program includes major urban
stream restoration, log pond conversion
to a swamp habitat, pocket wetlands
on critical reaches of urban streams,
and an anadramous wastewater aqua-
culture program to restore critical
commercial recreational and ecological
important populations. The Arcata
project is a demonstration of waste-
water reuse, ecological restoration, and
reuse of industrial, agricultural and
public service land.
N
Arcata Marsh
and Wildlife Sanctuary
f ~
Oxidation Ponds
. " "V»
" Humbert Bay
Arcata
San
Francisco
Arcata Site Plan
Situated in the heart of the redwood country and along the rocky
shores of the Pacific Northcoast, the City of Arcata is located
on the northeast shore of Humboldt Bay in Northern California,
280 miles north of San Francisco. Arcata, with a population of
approximately 15,000, is a diverse community whose resourcefulness
and integrity has demonstrated that a constructed wetland system
can be a cost efficient and environmentally sound wastewater
treatment solution. In addition to effectively fulfilling wastewater
treatment needs, Arcata's innovative wetland system has provided
an inspiring bay view window to the benefits of integrated wetland
enhancement and wastewater treatment.
56
-------
What is the Arcata Marsh
and Wildlife Sanctuary?
Arcata is a small town located on the
north-eastern side of Humboldt Bay,
about 280 miles north of San Francisco.
Humboldt Bay is a focal point where
timber resources and marine resources
cross paths as they struggle to sustain
Humboldt County's economy. Resource
management is a practice that receives
high priority and expert advice in this
scenic niche of the Pacific Northcoast.
Arcata, with a population of approxi-
mately 15,000, is a diverse community
whose resourcefulness and integrity
... a constructed
wetland system can
be a cost efficient
and environmentally
sound wastewater
treatment solution.
has served to lead the city down a
successful path marked by innovative
decisions and maintained by pride.
So, when the city faced making a
change in their wastewater treatment
methods, they demonstrated that a
constructed wetland system can be a
cost efficient and environmentally
sound wastewater treatment solution.
In addition to effectively fulfilling
wastewater treatment needs, Arcata's
innovative wetland system has provided
an inspiring bay view window to the
benefits of integrated wetland enhance-
ment and wastewater treatment.
57
-------
Arcata established its
innovative treatment
system as a result of
extensive community
involvement and a series
of political events.
How did the project evolve?
Arcata established its innovative
treatment system as a result of exten-
sive community involvement and a
series of political events. In the early
1970's, Arcata's active wastewater treat-
ment plant discharged unchlorinated
primary effluent into Humboldt Bay.
In 1974 the State of California enacted
a policy which prohibited discharge of
wastewater into bays and estuaries
unless enhancement of the receiving
water was proven. In response to this
policy the local Humboldt Bay Waste-
water Authority proposed the construc-
tion of a state sponsored regional waste-
water treatment plant that would serve
all the communities in the Humboldt
Bay vicinity. The plant was to have
large interceptors around the perimeter
of the bay with a major line crossing
under the bay in the region of active
navigation. The proposed treatment
facility was energy intensive, with signif-
icant operational requirements. Efflu-
ent from the proposed plant was to be
released offshore into an area of shift-
ing sea bottom and heavy seas during
winter storms. As the scale of the
regional treatment plant grew, the costs
and difficulties of incorporating other
communities became apparent
Recognizing the constraints of the
local environment and criteria for
wastewater treatment, the City of
Arcata began exploring the design of a
decentralized system which employed
constructed wetlands. Wastewater aqua-
culture projects at the City of Arcata
started as early as 1969 and had been
58
successful in raising juvenile Pacific
Salmon and Trout in mixtures of
partially treated wastewater and
seawater. This project demonstrated
that wastewater was a "resource" that
could be reused and not simply to be
viewed as a disposal problem. With
this philosophy a city Task Force on
Wastewater Treatment determined that
the natural processes of a constructed
wetland system could offer the city an
effective and efficient wastewater treat-
ment system. From 1979 to 1982 the
city, and associated proponents of
alternative wastewater treatment,
experimented with partially treated
wastewater and the natural processes
of wetland ecosystems. These experi-
ments demonstrated that constructed
freshwater wetlands could be utilized
to treat Arcata's wastewater and at the
same time enhance the biological
productivity of the wetland environment
into which treated wastewater was
discharged. The Task Force determined
that a constructed wetland system was
extremely cost effective. Moreover, a
successful system offers the city a vital
wetland ecosystem that could be used
for the rearing of salmon and steelhead
as well as offer the community a unique
site for recreation and education.
With the aid of the Arcata City
Council and political representatives in
the state capital, the city received
authorization in 1983 to develop the
constructed wetland system and incor-
porate its use at the original Arcata
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The wet-
land system that exists today was
-------
completed in 1986. Since that time the
natural ability of marsh plants, soils and
their associated microorganisms has
successfully been utilized to meet the
need for a cost-effective and environ-
mentally sound wastewater treatment
technology that meets federal and state
mandated water quality requirements.
Who cares and what are
the benefits?
At the same time that wetland waste-
water technology has been used to
successfully meet water quality criteria,
it has also aided in restoring a degraded
urban waterfront. Prior to the installa-
tion of its wetland treatment system, the
City of Arcata's waterfront was the site
of an abandoned lumbermill pond,
channelized sloughs, marginal pasture
lands, and a closed sanitary landfill.
59
-------
Today, Arcata's waterfront has been
transformed into 100 acres of fresh-
water and saltwater marshes, brackish
ponds, tidal sloughs and estuaries.
Because of the wetland communities
and wildlife habitats that the waterfront
now supports, the area in its entirety
has come to be known as the Arcata
Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary
(AMWS.) The AMWS's three freshwa-
ter wetlands are Gearheart, Allen and
Hauser Marshes. They were construc-
ted to receive treated wastewater,
thereby treating the wastewater further
and enhancing the receiving water at
the same time. These enhancement
marshes are a host of aquatic vegetation
that, in association with Klopp Lake
and the adjacent estuaries and ponds,
have further provided an extraordinary
habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl,
raptors and migratory birds.
As a home or rest stop for over 200
species of birds, the AMWS has devel-
oped a reputation as one of the best
birding sites along the Pacific North
Coast. The Redwood Region Audubon
Society uses the site on a regular basis
for its weekly nature walks. For the past
10 years, docents trained by the Society
have explained the role the wetlands
play in attracting bkds and'mammals,
as well a s their role in managing the
water quality of Humboldt Bay. The
beauty and uniqueness of the AMWS
has served as inspiration to many artists,
whose products range in form from plays
and poems to photographs and paintings.
Arcata has become an international
model of appropriate and successful
wastewater reuse and wetland enhance-
60
ment technologies. Over 150,000 people
a year use the AMWS for passive
recreation, bird-watching, or scientific
study. Visitors from around the world
have come to Arcata to investigate its
success in wastewater management.
Students of all ages and institutions
use the AMWS for scientific study. In
1987, the City of Arcata was selected
by the Ford Foundation to receive an
award for this wastewater wetlands
project as an innovative local govern-
ment project. This award included a
$100,000 prize to be used to fund the
establishment of the Arcata Marsh
Interpretive Center. The Center
focuses on the historical, biological
and technical aspects of the AMWS,
and attempts to meet the informational
and educational demands of the waste-
water treatment system.
Today, Arcata's
waterfront has been
transformed into
100 acres of freshwater
and saltwater marshes,
brackish ponds, tidal
sloughs and estuaries.
-------
./ J
V
, ** ' ' Dragonflies Eat Mosquitos and
V^ j I } serve,as f00^ t*>r farger animals
"
intercept light jnhilJitialgaf grdwffif
eool water (block IJVirgh^^redu^;
Birds; Swallows, Marsh Wrens and
Red-winged Blackbirds eat insects
Fish feed on jnsfe6t,,la:fVe! ^nd;
Detritis;and pther plants provide;
surface area for decomposers (fungi)
and bacteria that nitrify and denitrify
Organisms (single and multi-cell animals)
reduce carbon^and! organic material; and ,
pass; it up the food chain and are X :
Setlimerrts are mos^
:breakJ|t^"down;cpfnt|!^iO@aSiW"{
^uej^'l^ ai|o:M^^^ter;hT^|i/'re^
" ^e|(f!$S^
Corgl;rii||ti& (dra^opif |^ iM^f^^^^W^K^^^^^^^&^f^
61
-------
r Headwo
ylM
Chan
i
Jopneraiion
SI
tks
JltrSsieeR ,
AV , , , . ,. . ,
• fn nf1
: . ..-,• -
1; I 4^ "~&r Oxidation Pond 1 Treatment Marsh 1 con"
I.1'11 ^^--^Y V^rtss^rrV , , : r r r r r r r Bas
^"*-*. -"^^ ^i k k ~y\ "YY^'YY Y A
iber /\
Primary 1
Clarification
O Oxidation Pond !
rimary
igestor A.
**%:;... V.:,..;:i .r': >.',:"•
1 [^Secondary
J pfgestor Oxidation Pond i
^1T* 1 A
La-
1 ,
4L. JLX. J-~
JT n
i
i
A 1 A A I Pump
l_K
3 Treatment Marsh 3
>h^K^ff
A ,0. A
'1 "
adse Drytafl Bed ' " ' ' ' ' """":" "^ "l:'"";" "'"BayDi
1 1 1 iiii i iiii nil iiiiiiiii iiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii nil in iiii 1 iiii ii|iiiiiiii|i iiii 1 1 in 11 ii inn iiiiiii i ii niiiii nil i|i|iiii ii i|iii iiii i|i n i| "iiipii in - i (fir tit (Mixture o
iii ii ii ! in I nil ' '* ' ! I "• 1
"cet Allen Marsh ^
A ,^. ..>*-. rt, ;A ^
lOutfallf
Inn? 1
001
|A^ -^Mr^Hr
irsh
^XA
A. H. j-u. /\
Hauser Marsh
I * ^ ^Hr^r>Sr
JA >*.T v -
r
scharge
f 001 & 002}
i Ji in " i iii ' *i ii/
^%r
*• -i A.
|
^ (J;
Stage in Treatment Plan
H BOD (mg/l) o^eToemand H SS (mg/l) loHdrded H TIN (mg/l) Nrtrogen"93"'0
200
150 — 1
100 — — 1
— 1
50 = I
— 1
mg/I
Influent Primary Treatment Oxidation Pond Treatment Marshes Enhancement Marsh
ja 1 2
ji^
II iljifi " miii1-- -r-.-j
IHflPiiiniiipiiliili 1 Hip*!* " |
irin i
3 4
P^^ _.
itt IT""!"!
5
— r—
•inn
mg/l
Arcata's present wastewater treat-
ment plant consists of seven
basic components. These are
the headworks, primary clarification,
solids handling, oxidation pond, treat-
ment marshes, enhancement marshes
and disinfection. Each one of these
components will be detailed as follows.
Headworks: The "headworks" compo-
nent of Arcata's wastewater treatment
plant is the first phase in the treatment
of raw sewage and consists of technolo-
gies aimed at removing inorganic
materials from the raw sewage. The
technologies include two screw pumps
that lift the sewage fifteen feet and pass
it through bar screens, a parshall flume
(for flow measurement) and grit
separators before it enters the clarifiers.
62
-------
Pond and Wetland BOD Values
120
100
Pond and Wetland Suspended Solids Values
100
Sao
, o
w
|40
Pond Effluent
Bay Discharge
t>ond Effluent
Bay Discharge
Primary Clarification: Two clarifiers
are used to settle out any remaining
suspended material that passes through
the headworks. The liquid form of
sewage that results from clarification
flows to the oxidation ponds, complet-
ing primary treatment. The solids that
settle out in the clarifiers are pumped
to the digesters.
Sludge Pumping and
Stabilization/Cogeneration: The sludge
from the clarifiers is pumped first to
the primary digester and then the
secondary digester. The digestors mix
the sludge by recirculating methane gas
with compressors. The digestors were
designed in conjunction with a methane
recovery and.cogeneration system. The
cogeneration component is designed
burn the methane gas and utilize the
heat to aid in the digestion process.
Oxidation Pond: The oxidation ponds
efficiently remove approximately
50 percent of the BOD and suspended
solids that remain after primary treat-
ment. Long detention times and natural
processes (see diagram showing plant;:
and animal roles) accomplish these
reductions.
Treatment Marshes: The treatment
marshes reduce the levels of suspended
solids and BOD concentrations that
remain in the oxidation pond effluent.
The three, two-acre treatment marshes
in operation are located north of the
oxidation ponds. They were created
by subdividing the previous oxidation
ponds. All treatment marshes were
planted with hardstem bulrush (Scirpus
acutus), a freshwater marsh plant native
to the Humboldt Bay area. This plant's
effectiveness as a treatment species was
shown by Marsh Pilot Project data. The
treatment marsh's effluent is combined
at a pump station where it is pumped
to the disinfection facility.
Enhancement Marshes: After the first
chlorination, wastewater is directed to
the enhancement marshes, which are
located northwest of the oxidation
ponds. The three enhancement marshes
cover a total of 31 acres. These marshes
are managed to maintain the greatest
diversity of aquatic plant species and to
maintain or improve water quality. Flow
is directed through the enhancement
marshes with sluice gates and wooden
stop-log weirs. After disinfection, the
wastewater flows into George Allen
Marsh, then Robert Gearheart Marsh,
and finally Dan Hauser Marsh. The
effluent from Hauser Marsh is pumped
back to the disinfection facility.
Disinfection: Chlorine gas is used to
disinfect Arcata's waste water before
it is discharged to the enhancement
marshes and again before it is dis-
charged into Humboldt Bay. Because
of this "double™ chlorination" two
chlorine contact basins are necessary.
These basins are built as one unit,
which is located immediately south
of the headworks. Any free chlorine
remaining in the final effluent after
the 60 minute contact time is removed
with sulfur dioxide.
63
-------
ARCATA MARSH AND SANCTUARY: POINTS OF INTEREST
"** :£iP'''^l!"
I Robert Gearheart Marsh: Com-
pleted in 1981, this marsh was built
from pastureland and now uses treated
wastewater as the sole water source.
2 George Allen Marsh: Also
completed in 1981, this marsh was
built on an abandoned log deck and
is enhanced with wastewater.
3 Dan Hauser Marsh: The final
marsh to be irrigated with treated
wastewater before returning to the
treatment plant for disinfection and
release into to the bay. This marsh
was a barrow pit for the closure of
the adjacent landfill.
4 Mount Trashmore: This grassy
hill has been reclaimed from a sealed
sanitary landfill that operated during
the!960'sand70's.
5 Frank KIopp Lake: This brackish
lake was also a barrow pit for the
closure of the landfill and is now a
popular loafing area for shorebirds, a
feeding area for diving birds and river
otters, and a place for artificial-bait-
only sport fishing.
6 Treatment Marshes: Three 2.5 acre
constructed wetlands which process
oxidation pond effluent to secondary
standards prior to release to the
Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary.
7 Arcata Boat Ramp: The only
concrete boat ramp maintained in
Arcata Bay, this serves as an access
point for sport boating, duck hunting,
and sport shellfish harvesting.
8 Wastewater Aquaculture Project:
Fish hatchery and ponds where salmon,
trout and other fish are raised in a
mixture of wastewater and seawater.
9 Marsh Pilot Project: These ten
20' X 200' marsh cells have been used
since 1980 to demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of constructed wetlands to
achieve water quality and habitat goals.
64
-------
1O Oxidation Ponds: These 45 acres
of ponds, built in the late 1950's, treat
Arcata's wastewater to secondary
standards.
11 Butcher's Slough: Butcher's
Slough is a restored estuary receiving
feed from Jolly Giant Creek, the
principal watershed in Arcata. A
California Coastal Conservancy
Project returned the estuary to its
original alignment and ecological
value. This slough serves as home
to the Coastal Cutthroat Trout.
12 Butcher's Slough Marsh: An old
log pond restored to provide swamp-
like habitat in the Arcata Marsh and
Wildlife Sanctuary.
13 Arcata Bay: This bay produces
more than half of the oysters grown
in California and is home to a variety
of other aquatic animals.
14 Head works Facility: This is the
place where the influent to the treat-
ment system is received.
15 Discharge Point: This is the
point where a mixture of treatment
of marsh effluent and enhancement
marsh effluent is discharged into the
Arcata Bay side of Humboldt Bay.
16 AMWS Interpretive Center:
This is the site where the AMWS
Interpretive Center is built. This center
will attempt to meet the educational
demands of the treatment system.
65
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Design Population 19,056
Average Annual Flow 2.3 mgd
Maximum Monthly Flow 5.9 mgd
Peak How 16.5 mgd
BOD's Load 41001bs/day
TSSLoad 34001bs/day
Headworks
Mechanically Cleaned
Bar Screens 2 at 5 mgd each
Gravity Grit Removal 144 ft.2
Primary Treatment
2 Primary clarifiers 26 ft. diam./60 ft. diam
Retention time at design flow 3.8 hrs.
Retention time at max. monthly flow 1.4 hrs.
Treatment Marshes
Total area 7.5 acres
Ave. Depth :.2ft.
Total detention time at design flow 1.9 days
Chlorination/Dechlorination
Volume 185,400 gallons
Retention time at design flow 58 min.
Retention time at max. monthly flow 30 min.
3 Enhancement Marshes
Total area 31 acres
Ave. depth 1.5ft.
Retention time at ave. flow 9 days
Elected Officials
Lynne Canning
Elizabeth Lee
Bob Ornelas
Sam Pennisi
Victor Schaub—Mayor
City Staff
Frank Klopp—Director of Public Works
Steve Tyler—Deputy Director of Public Works
David Hull—Aquatic Resources Specialist
Supporting Organizations
California Coastal Conservancy
California State Water Resources Control Board
California Coastal Commision
California Department of Fish and Game
Humboldt State University
Redwood Regional Audubon Society
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cover Painting—Jim McVicker
66
-------
-------
THE MT. VIEW WETLANDS PROJECT:
A COMMUNITY SUCCESS STORY
11. View Sanitary District
(MVSD) provides wastewater
I treatment for approximately
16,000 people living in and around
Martinez, California. This community,
led by an independent-minded Board
of Directors and a forward-thinking
engineer, created the first wastewater
wetlands on the West Coast. The
project saved the rate payers millions
of dollars and established a valuable
wildlife habitat in the process. This is
the story of how Mt. View Sanitary
District created a wastewater wetland
for the enrichment of both the commu-
nity and wildlife.
Sewage treatment plants, by their very
nature, are often located at the fringe
of development. The year Mt. View
Sanitary District was established —
1923, it was located outside the City
of Martinez, in rural Contra Costa
County, California.
Mt. View was created as a special
district to treat the wastewater from the
rural portions of the county surrounding
Martinez and was to be governed by a
board of five publicly elected directors.
The board was an independent
group and did not easily accept the
Regional Water Quality Control
Boardls (RWQCB) idea in the late
'60s of consolidating all of the small
treatment facilities into a large regional
plant. The result would have required
pumping MVSD's wastewater to a
neighboring facility to be treated,
effectively dissolving their district.
Not only would it have usurped their
control, but it also was going to cost
over $6 million. The District decided to
search for an alternative.
MVSD tried to sell its water to
neighboring industrial plants and to the
highway department for irrigation. The
District considered constructing its own
deep-water diffuser in nearby Carquinez
Straits, at a cost of $2.38 million. Warren
Nute, the District's engineer at the time,
observed that the regulations the
RWQCB were using stated that if the
treated effluent was creating an environ-
mental benefit, then the District would
not have to remove its effluent discharge
from Peyton Slough, a small creek,
influenced by tidal action along part of its
length, that delivers the District's effluent
to Carquinez Straits and San Francisco
Bay. The District then set about creating
the first wetland on the West Coast using
secondary treated effluent, to provide
environmental benefits.
Mt. View Sanitary District
Wetlands are located adjacent
to large industrial facilities.
-------
THE MARSH BEGAN TO GROW
In 1974 the District began with a
simple 10-acre wetland divided into
two sections. The area that was
created by scraping away the topsoil
became a shallow, open-water pond.
The other area, whose topsoil was not
disturbed, was quickly colonized by
emergent vegetation, such as cattails.
In 1977 the marsh was expanded to
include 10 more acres of land divided
into three marsh areas. One was
constructed as an open-water pond
with islands to provide protected
nesting habitat for waterfowl.
A second marsh was seeded with
plants to provide food for waterfowl,
such as water grass and alkali bulrush
(Echinochloa crusgalli and Scirpus
robustus). The third area was designed
in a serpentine fashion to provide
maximum water/plant contact to
enhance treatment effectiveness.
The Mt. View Sanitary District
marshes are located in an urban
environment and the marsh is bisected
by an interstate highway. The next
22 acres, added to the marsh system in
1984, were located across the interstate
to the north. This area had been season-
ally flooded and the District merely had
to make minor changes to water control
structures to allow the marsh's inclusion
A variety of habitat types.
and controlled public access
promote wildlife use of the
waste-water -wetland.
69
-------
in the system. The most recent addition
to the wastewater wetland complex is a
43-acre section that also is located to
the north of the interstate and adjacent
to the previous 22 acres.
The wetlands area totals 85 acres.
This bountiful wildlife habitat includes
plants, animals, fish and invertebrates.
Some of the animals are permanent
residents of the marshes, while others
are temporary visitors that stop along
their migratory journey. Plants grow in
the marshes as well as on the levees
surrounding the marshes and a riparian
corridor is beginning along Peyton
Slough. There are emergent plants
rooted in the bottom muds as well as
submerged plants.
Wetland plants provide food and
shelter for marsh biota and improve
water quality. Birds, mammals, reptiles
and amphibians eat plant leaves, seeds
and roots of the more than 70 species
of marsh and riparian vegetation.
Dense growths of marsh bulrushes
provide nesting sites for songbirds as
well as ducks.
The most visible animals at the
marshes are the more than 123 species
of birds. The diversity of aquatic
habitats attracts mallard and cinnamon
teal to rest and feed in the open-water
areas; avocets and black-necked stilts to
probe for invertebrates in the mudflats;
and red-winged blackbirds to nest
among the cattail stands. There are
resident birds in the wetland, such as
song sparrows and American coot, in
addition to migrant birds, as exemplified
by sandpipers and pintail.
Bird usage from 1989-1991
in Mt. View Sanitary
District Wetlands
Birds Observed in the Waterfront Road Marshes,
North of Interstate 680
2000
1800
w
"E
2
3
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Birds Observed in the Marshes,
South of Interstate 680
500
450
400
350
300
3
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
11989 11990 11991
70
-------
There are more than 15 species of
birds that nest in the wetland. The area
provides valuable nesting sites for
waterfowl, shorebirds and songbirds.
The wetland is also important because
fresh drinking water is a requirement
for ducklings. Later, as the ducklings
mature, they develop salt glands that
allow them to drink saline water. How-
ever, until that time, they must be
reared in a freshwater environment.
In an area such as San Francisco Bay,
which has lost nearly all of its fresh-
water wetlands, appropriate nesting
habitat is a valuable resource provided
at the Mt. View wastewater wetland.
Fish also inhabit Peyton Slough and
the marshes. Small fish eat midge and
mosquito larvae to help keep the marsh
free of these nuisance insects, and in
turn they are preyed upon by herons
and egrets. The discarded carapace of
a crayfish is evidence of the raccoon's
evening meal. Other marsh wildlife
includes everything from pond turtles
to striped skunks and an occasional
river otter. A total of 34 species of fish,
mammals, reptiles and amphibians
have been observed at the wetland.
Schematic of the Mt. View
Sanitary District marsh
creation project.
4-To Martine
43 acres added in 1987
22 acres added in 1985
20 acres original 1977
Wastewater treatment plant
A-Weir
71
-------
WHERE DOES THE WATER COME FROM?
It. View Sanitary
District provides
secondary treatment to
approximately 1.3 million gallons per
day of wastewater from approximately
16,000 residents in the Martinez, Calif.,
area. Although there is some light
industry and commercial development
within the District's service area, the
primary source of the wastewater is
residential. The District maintains strict
pretreatment standards and prohibits
the discharge of heavy industrial waste
into its sewerage system.
The treatment train includes
comminution, primary sedimentation,
biological treatment by a two-stage,
high-rate trickling filter, a biotower for
ammonia removal, secondary sedimen-
tation, effluent chlorination, dechlorina-
tion with sulphur dioxide, and sludge
processing. A flow equalization basin
assists in equalizing storm flows to the
treatment plant to maximize efficiency.
Monitoring is conducted on the treat-
ment plant influent, effluent, marsh
discharges and the receiving water.
Although the primary purpose for
constructing the wetland is to create
wildlife habitat, it also improves water
quality for some parameters. There are
numerous processes by which plants
contribute to water quality improve-
ments, including direct uptake of
nutrients by algae and some rooted
vegetation. The plants foster settling
of participate matter by slowing water
movement and greatly increase the
contact with microorganisms that live
on the surfaces of emergent plants.
Mt. View Sanitary District
treatment plant.
These microorganisms metabolize
pollutants, decreasing their dissolved
concentrations in the water. Monitoring
shows that wetland nutrient concentra-
tions follow a stable seasonal cycle that
varies little from month to month, but
clearly shows a difference between the
cold, wet season (November through
April) and the warm, dry season
(May through October)
The concentration of nitrates
decreases in the wetland during the
summer months. There is limited
evidence to suggest that the wetland
is removing cadmium, copper, silver and
zinc. In addition, periodic special moni-
toring studies are undertaken to answer
specific questions concerning the
processes or biota within the wetlands.
Studies at the marsh have included an
ammonia study and a fisheries and
benthic invertebrate study.
Doubtless the, largest special study,
however, occurred, after the 1988 spill
of 440,000 gallons of crude oil into the
marsh from an adjacent refinery. The
cleanup efforts included picking up oily
water by vacuum trucks, rototilling of
contaminated soils and hand-cutting
vegetation in less inundated areas of the
marsh. The recovery of the marsh's vege-
tation and soils was monitored closely
and eight months later this section of
the wetland resumed operation.
72
-------
KEEPING THE WETLAND WET
In 1974 MVSD created its wetland
and, as with other man-made
environments, routine operations
and maintenance are required. Tasks
required on a weekly or monthly
basis include removing debris that
collects behind weirs, examining levees
for erosion and inspecting for animal
burrows that could lead to levee failure.
The frequency of vegetation
harvesting in the shallow marsh areas
has proven to be related to its surface.
Smaller marsh plots need to be
harvested more frequently than larger
areas. Marsh A-l is approximately one
acre and has had vegetation removed
a number of times during the past 18
years. Similarly, a three-acre marsh
plot that had internal levees subdividing
it into smaller waterways also was in
need of harvesting and levee rearrang-
ing after 10 years. Whereas the larger
Marsh A-2, approximately four acres,
is only now ready to be harvested after
18 years of operation.
Early maintenance activities included
stocking the marshes with mosquito fish
as predators for mosquito larvae. The
mosquito fish population became self-
sustaining after the first few years. There
were so many of the small fishes that for
a period of time, the MVSD marshes
supplied fish to a local natural history
museum to feed their live exhibits.
The original 10-acre marsh construc-
tion project cost only a few thousand
dollars, and the first 10-acre expansion
cost $85,000. The District already
owned the land for these segments of
the marsh creation project. The first
Marsh Water Quality Analyses Monitoring Frequency
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
PH
Total Ammonia
Cu, Ni, Ag, Zn
Pb, Hg, As, Cd, Cr
BOD
-TSS
Avian Census
Animal Observations
Fisheries
M = Monthly Q = Quarterly
2/W = Twice per Week 2/M
Plant Effluent
M
M
Q
2/W
2/W
-
-
-
Y = Yearly W = Weekly
= Twice per Month
Marshes
W
W
W
M
2/M
2/M
M
M
Y
Marsh Water Quality — 1991 Averages
Marsh Influent
mg/l n (4)
Biochemcial Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Residual Chlorine
Arsenic (2)
Cadmium
Chromium (3)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
25
28
25
17
.003
.0006
(3)
.029
.005
(3)
.008
'.007
.125
70
72
18
17
3
2
-
12
5
-
6
12
9
Marsh Effluent
mg/l
12
18
14
36
.003
(2)
.007
.001
.004
(3)
.01
.001
.07
n
12
12
17
17
3
-
1
12
5
-
10
12
1
(1) All values are in mg/l except where noted.
(2) Averages cited are for measured levels only.
(3) None of the samples contained
(4) n = Number of detectable data
concentrations above the detection
points.
limit.
73
-------
22 acres to the north of the interstate
were acquired by the California State
Department of Fish and Game and is
managed by MVSD. The 43 acres
acquired in 1985 were purchased for
$204,887. It is likely that more acreage
will be added to the wetland hi the
future as a result of the settlements
from the oil spill. The annual operation
and maintenance budget includes
labor for marsh monitoring, special
research studies, vegetation harvesting
and levee repair. These costs average
$30,000-$50,000 annually.
The total cost of the marsh over
the past 18 years is less than one-third
the cost ratepayers would have had to
contribute to the neighboring treatment
plantfs deep-water diffuser.
Iot only has the experiment been
cost effective, but the marsh
itself boasts a long list of contri-
butions to the community. Visitors
spend hundreds of hours enjoying the
marsh and its wildlife. Bird watching
and nature photography are favorite
pastimes of local, regional and inter-
national visitors. Students from elemen-
tary through college come to observe
and do research projects at the wetland.
The wetland provides open space in
a rapidly developing county. The fresh-
water habitat is a link on the Pacific
Flyway used by migratory birds. The
effluent is viewed as a resource
creating wildlife habitat and maintain-
ing a small, freshwater surface inflow
to San Francisco Bay, which has lost
most of its freshwater tributaries.
The creation of Mt. View Sanitary
District's wetland system is a community
success story. The independent District
was willing to question regional policy
makers and in so doing pioneered the
creation of wetland habitat using
secondary treated effluent, saving
local citizens millions of dollars.
The wetland serves as an
outdoor laboratory for
learning. Students from local
elementary schools as well
as college students are
interested in the marsh.
Tins brochure is dedicated to the
memory of J. Warren Nute, who
pioneered the development of waste-
water wetlands on the West Coast.
This brochure was created with funding from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Requisition No. A22190
Robert Bastian—
U.S. EPA, Project Officer
Francesca Demgen, Woodward-Clyde Consultants—
Project Manager
Dick Bogaert and Francesca Demgen—
Photography
74
-------
ay? v'S..T - ..^..iglp?.
-------
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY
V M Mhere can you find herons
•••V roosting in trees and 31A miles
W •» of public access trails on the
edge of San Pablo Bay? The answer is
at Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District's
Wastewater Reclamation Project in
Marin County, California. The District
has created a multi-faceted reclamation
project that includes a freshwater
marsh, irrigated pasture, storage ponds,
a saltwater marsh and miles of trails for
hiking, biking and bird watching.
regional planning effort for
eastern Marin and southern
oma counties began in the
early 1970's. The goal of the planning
was to improve effluent water quality
to meet the increased requirements of
the Clean Water Act. The best apparent
alternative identified in 1977 was to
discharge treated effluent to the shallow
waters of the Bay, but only on high
tides, and to begin reclamation for
landscape irrigation.
The agencies determined that this
did not afford the shallow waters of San
Pablo Bay, the northern most portion of
The District has created a
multi-faceted reclamation
project that includes a fresh-
water marsh, irrigated pasture,
storage ponds, a saltwater marsh
and miles of trails for hiking,
biking and bird watching.
fy&$'^.
76
-------
San Francisco Bay, enough protection.
They decided to require an elimination
of any discharge of treated wastewater
effluent to the shallow fringes of the
Bay and its tributary creeks during the
summer months.
The planners were frustrated by the
moving target, but they went back to
the drawing boards and developed a
plan for treatment and disposal that
would meet all of the requirements.
In order to meet a requirement of no .
summer discharge the plan needed to
include storage capacity and alternative
disposal options. So they developed a
project that included many forms of
reuse and disposal.
Las Gallinas' wastewater reclamation
project is a 385 acre complex including
200 acres of irrigated pasture, 40 acres
of storage ponds, a 20 acre freshwater
wetland, a 10 acre salt marsh, and land-
scape irrigation. The District has an
agreement with the local water agency
for reclamation of up to 350 million
gallons of treated effluent per year for
landscape irrigation.
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
was formed in 1954 by residents who
were faced with serious health problems
from failing septic tanks and pollution
in Gallinas Creek. The District now
serves a community of approximately
30,000 people in northern Marin
County. The District's influent is
predominantly residential including
discharges from some commercial and
light industry sources. The treatment
facility has a design capacity of
2,9 million gallons per day.
Las Gallinas
Valley
Sanitary
District
Treatrnent ,
'
TFi? stTJecfaihiea'Water Customer
The planners were frustrated
by the moving target, but they
went back to the drawing
boards and developed a plan
for treatment and disposal.
77
-------
TREATMENT AND RECLAMATION
The treatment plant was expanded
and upgraded in 1984, when the
reclamation project was construc-
ted. The project received state and
federal Clean Water Grant funds for
87.5% of the costs. The treatment
consists of grit removal, clarification,
two stage biofiltration, ammonia
removal, filtration, chlorination, and
dechlorination. The treated effluent
goes to a combination of the marsh, the
creek, or the storage ponds, depending
on the time of year. For nine months
out of the year the effluent from the
marsh is discharged to Miller Creek
and San Pablo Bay. During June, July,
and August, the discharge is stored in
40 acres of ponds and used to irrigate
the pasture and for the water agency's
recycling program.
The 200 acres of pasture is subdivided
into sections so that it may be irrigated
on a rotating schedule. The irrigation
must be done in June, July, and August
to dispose of the effluent, however
depending on the weather and the
needs of the pasture, it is usually
irrigated through November. The
irrigation schedule rotates among the
fields with a goal of the disposal of a
target number of gallons per month.
Marin County is located on a narrow
peninsula north of San Francisco. The
County's drinking water reservoirs
have relatively small watersheds and
under extreme draught conditions have
been nearly emptied. In seeking to
develop new sources of water, the water
district approached Las Gallinas to
discuss the potential for reclamation.
The agreement that was developed
allows the water district to purchase up
to 350 million gallons of Las Gallinas'
effluent per year. The effluent receives
further treatment and is then sold for
landscape irrigation, helping the limited
potable water supply to stretch further.
The 20 acre freshwater marsh/pond
was designed to incorporate a number
of different wildlife habitat types into a
single unit. This is accomplished by
varying the depths of the water and the
types of vegetation that colonize each
area. The central area is the deepest,
more than six feet under normal opera-
tion. The deep central area is ringed by
a two foot deep zone that was designed
to become inhabited by emergent vege-
tation such as tall thin bulrushes. There
is an overflow zone that is only inun-
dated during winter rains and when the
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
Design Criteria
Design Year
Population
Average Dry Weather Flow
Peak Dry Weather Flow •..
BOD Loading
TSS Loading
Irrigated Pasture
Marsh/Pond
Storage Ponds
Irrigated Landscaping
. . . 2001
...34,711
. ..2.69 mgd
. . .4.3 mgd
. . . 5434 Ibs/day
. . . 5738 Ibs/day
. . . 200 acres
. . . 20 acres
. . 40 acres
. . 20 acres
78
-------
marsh/pond is needed occasionally to
store additional effluent near the end
of the summer. The five islands are the
final physical component of the marsh.
The most important part of the
marsh/pond is not its physical configura-
tion but its biological inhabitants. The
wide variety of plants and animals make
the area interesting to the many visitors
that walk, jog, or bike around the
perimeter. There are many regular
bird watchers that keep track of the
resident and migratory populations that
use the reclamation project. Members
of the Marin Audubon Society have
observed over 147 species of birds in
the reclamation project areas.
There are over 40 species of plants in
the marsh/pond ranging from submerged
pond weeds to emergent cattails. There
are willow trees and acacias on the
islands, grasses, and shrubs on the
banks. The grasses on the islands
produce seeds that are eaten by small
rodents and serve as cover for water-
fowl nesting. Mallards, coots, and
Canada geese nest and raise their young
at the marsh/pond. A portion of one of
the islands is barren and has a gentle
slope up from the water. This area is a
favorite resting place for the cormorant.
The island's trees provide, roosting
habitat for a wide variety of birds
including snowy and great egrets,
black-crowned night heron and the
great blue heron. Occasionally there is
even competition for roosting space
among the tree branches. A long-eared
owl rested not so peacefully in a willow
tree one February afternoon when a
red-shouldered hawk perched barely
3 feet above its head in the same tree
and screeched incessantly, trying
unsuccessfully to get the owl to move.
The wading herons and egrets and
the diving pelicans and cormorant are
probably attracted to the wetland not
only for resting but to feed on the plen-
tiful small fish in the pond. The flock
of dozens of large white pelicans that
frequent the marsh are a favorite of
visitors. There are small mosquito fish
as well as carp that grow to fourteen
inches in length. Many other animals
use the marsh/pond including noisy
bullfrogs, snakes that shed their old
skins intertwined among the tall grasses,
raccoon, jack rabbits, deer and muskrat.
The muskrats aren't always welcomed
by the wetland manager because they
tend to dig tunnels in the levees.
The salt marsh restoration project
was completed to diversify the types
of wildlife habitat. The salt marsh is
fed by water from the Bay and does
not receive any treated effluent.
79
-------
WATER QUALITY
The Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary
District produces a high quality,
advanced secondary effluent.
The average flow in 1992 was 2.7
million gallons per day, during the
months when the effluent is discharged
to Miller Creek and the Bay. The
purpose of the treatment plant and
reclamation project is to keep as much
of the pollutant load from entering the
environment as possible. In 1992 the
plant removed 95% of the organic
material that would enter the creek
and bay. These biochemical oxygen
demanding substances would use
oxygen to complete decomposition.
It is this oxygen that is needed by fish
and other aquatic organisms for their
survival. The concentration of ammonia
in the effluent is reduced substantially,
to a level that is not harmful to fish in
the marsh/pond or the creek.
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
Effluent Water Quality, 1 992 Averages
Parameter
Monitoring Average
Frequency Concentration
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 3x/wk
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Settleable Solids
pH
Ammonia Nitrogen
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Phenols
3x/wk
1 mo
daily
daily
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
4x/yr
9.9mg/L
14mg/L
<5mg/L
0.06ml/L/hr
6.6 units
2.3mg/L
<2ug/L
<1ug/L
<2ug/L
18ug/L
<10ug/L
<2ug/L
0.3ug/L
3.5ug/L
2.3ug/L
75ug/L
<50ug/L
80
-------
COSTS AND BENEFITS
The reclamation project was
constructed in 1984 for a cost of
$6.5 million dollars, including the
land acquisition. Approximately 87.5%
of the project funding was from state
and federal Clean Water Grant funds
administered by the Environmental
Protection Agency. The project was
recognized for Engineering Excellence
in a competition sponsored by the
Consulting Engineers Association of
California and indeed the residents of
the District are proud of the treatment
system and enjoy the benefits of the
reclamation project. Each and every day
people can be seen walking dogs, gazing
through binoculars at their favorite
birds, and jogging around the marshes.
81
-------
Developed by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Project Manager—Francesca Demgen
EPA Project Manager—Robert Bastian
Graphic Design—Chris Dunn
This brochure was created with funding
from the U.S. Enviromental Protection
Agency. Requisition No. A22190.
82
-------
'ikl'ti
:-li
V/tjy
Vs
-------
THE HAYWARD MARSH EXPANSION PROJECT:
WETLANDS FROM WASTEWATER
The History of the Project, Marsh and Shoreline
Can treated sewage effluent be
used to enhance and create
wetlands? This brochure
documents the innovative and effective
use of secondary wastewater on wet-
lands in a northern California coastal
community. The community, Hayward,
is on the eastern shore of San Francisco
Bay. The project, Hayward Shoreline
Marsh Expansion Project, is a part
of a larger marsh restoration and
enhancement plan.
The Hayward Shoreline Marsh
Expansion Project addresses two grow-
ing urban issues: the restoration and
enhancement of declining wetlands areas
in the United States, and the additional
treatment and beneficial uses that can be
achieved from the utilization of waste-
water. The shoreline and marsh in this
case are roughly 172 acres of a 400-acre
restoration and enhancement area. The
source of the wastewater is primarily
residential and light industry.
In 1971 the Hayward Area Shoreline
Planning Agency was formed by five
groups to restore about 1,800 acres of
Hayward shoreline. The five included:
the City of Hayward, Hayward Area
Recreation District, East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD), and the
Hayward and San Lorenzo Unified
School Districts. The 1,800-acre area
had been a part of the Bay area salt-and-
brackish-marsh system until the later
part of the 19th century. At that time the
marsh was eliminated by creation of a
dike to hold out tidal action to allow for
commercial salt production. Salt produc-
tion ceased in the 1940s, but the area
was not returned to marshland until
more than 40 years later.
Biodegradable mesh was laid
on banks near inlet and outlet
structures during construction.
84
-------
THE TWO PHASES
The restoration and enhancement
of the diverse 400-acre marsh—
part of the 1,800 acres of
Hayward shoreline—was planned in
two phases. The first phase was com-
pleted in 1980 when extensive grading
and breaching of the dikes allowed tidal
action to be restored to approximately
200 acres. This created the conditions
necessary for natural restoration of a
tidal cord grass and pickleweed salt
marsh. The second phase, the Hayward
Shoreline Marsh Expansion Project,
involved restoring 172 acres to fresh
and brackish marshes. Using existing
and newly created channels and dikes,
a five-basin marsh system was formed.
This second phase of newly created
fresh and brackish marshes began
operation in April 1988 and relies on
secondary treated wastewater as its
freshwater source.
Funding for the 172-acre marsh
expansion totaled $713,570 and has
come from four sources: the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for designs and
specifications; City of Hayward for
design, contract documents and permits;
the EBRPD's appropriation from the
1980 California Parklands Act for
marsh enhancement and recreational
facilities; and a grant from the State
Coastal Conservancy for the major
portion of construction.
EBRPD and the East Bay
Dischargers Authority (EBDA) are the
joint holders of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for the marsh. Flow to the marsh,
primarily from Union Sanitary District,
Planned urban
park by H.A.R.D
Legend
levees
channels
iiiiiuii boardwalks
regional trail
drainage
structure
wildlife
islands
Johnson
Landing
H A.R.D.
Nature Center
ntral channel ~*
SITE PLAN —parking
proposed development
is diverted from EBDAs forcemain,
which runs along the eastern edge of the
Bay and discharges effluent from six
municipal wastewater treatment plants
to the deep waters of San Francisco Bay.
The anticipated success of the Hayward
Marsh may provide EBDA and its
member agencies with the opportunity
to develop other constructed wetlands
along the Bay.
EBRPD has acquired control of the
site, including the 400 acres designated
for marsh restoration, by purchase of
495 acres and by long-term lease with
other agencies. EBRPD is responsible
for the operation and maintenance of
the marsh. When completed, the
Hayward Marsh will be the largest
restoration and enhancement project
on the West Coast to date.
The 172-acre area is actually divided
into six sections: the five basins men-
tioned earlier and a preserve set aside
for the salt marsh harvest mouse, an
endangered species. The five basins
Schematic of the
Hayward Shoreline Marsh
Expansion Project.
85
-------
include three freshwater basins and two
brackish water basins.
Basin 1 receives the treated, chlori-
nated secondary effluent. The water
that enters the marsh meets standards
for both biochemical oxygen demand
and suspended solids, as well as for
coliform bacteria. Residual chlorine is
allowed to dissipate in this basin. Basin
1 is about 15 acres and is operated at
a depth of between 5 and 8 feet. From
Basin 1 the water is discharged to a
channel leading to Basins 2A and 2B.
Basins 2A and 2B are identical
35-acre freshwater marshes with
internal channels and islands. The
marshes were designed to have a range
of depths: there are shallow areas of
two feet or less and the perimeter and
internal channels are six feet deep.
Basins 3A and 3B are brackish and
receive a combination of approximately
25 percent bay water and 75 percent
effluent from Basins 2A and 2B. These
two basins are each 30 acres and also
have internal channels and islands.
The 27-acre mouse preserve, on the
southeastern corner of Hayward Marsh,
is an area of pickleweed marsh set aside
specifically as habitat for the salt marsh
harvest mouse. This area receives storm
water runoff, but not treated effluent.
A 27-acre corner of Hayward
Marsh has been set aside as a
preserve for the salt marsh
harvest mouse.
Vegetation begins to colonize
Basin 2A, a newly created
freshwater marsh.
86
-------
WASTEWATER:
RESOURCE VERSUS LIABILITY
Wastewater has been treated
and reused successfully as a
water and nutrient resource
in agriculture, silviculture, aquaculture
and golf course and green belt irriga-
tion. By regarding wastewater as a
resource rather than a liability, it is
now being viewed as water pollution
control with positive benefits.
The Hayward Shoreline Marsh
Expansion Project has three main
objectives: creation of a diversified
marsh system using secondary effluent;
maximization of public benefits includ-
ing wildlife habitat, preservation of
open space, and creation of educational,
research and aesthetic opportunities;
and meeting NPDES requirements.
The increased interest in wastewater
wetlands treatment systems can be
attributed to three factors: recognition
of the natural treatment functions of
aquatic plant systems and wetlands,
particularly as nutrient processors and
buffering zones; emerging or renewed
application of aesthetic, wildlife and
other incidental environmental benefits
associated with the preservation and
enhancement of wetlands; and rapidly
escalating costs of construction and
operation associated with conventional
treatment facilities. Constructed
wetlands have become attractive as
a treatment and disposal alternative
for secondary wastewater for several
reasons: they physically entrap pollu-
tants through adsorption in the surface
soils, in organic litter and on suspended
particulates; through their utilization
and transformation of pollutants by
microorganisms; and because of their
low-energy and low-maintenance
requirements to attain consistent
treatment levels.
The marsh system removes
pollutants from the treated
wastewater it receives, so its
final discharge to the bay is
water of higher quality.
87
-------
FLORA AND FAUNA
The first plants to emerge at
Hayward Marsh were grasses,
fat hen and pickleweed which
had colonized the levees prior to
project construction. Recolonizatibn
by plants has been slowed somewhat
because of residual soil salinities from
earlier commercial salt production
and because topsoil was disturbed
during construction.
Planting efforts have met with vary-
ing degrees of success. Seeds of alkali
bulrush (Scirptis robustus) and water-
grass (Echinochloa crusgalli) were
eaten by ducks. Shoots of other bulrush
species were eaten by waterfowl and
geese or were dislodged by high winds.
Subsequent planting efforts have been
more successful due to protective cages
that exclude predators and help block
the wind. Once the plants become well
established the cages will be removed.
The fauna that use the marsh include
waterfowl, shorebirds, small mammals,
amphibians, reptiles and fish. As many
as 94 species of birds have been
recorded using the site for feeding,
nesting, hunting, foraging or as a
refuge during high tide. Hayward Marsh
is strategically located on the bird
migration route known as the Pacific
flyway. On any given day during the
winter migratory season, thousands of
ducks can be seen resting on the
freshwater marshes.
Birds using Hayward Marsh have
been categorized as follows: dabbling
ducks, shorebirds, diving ducks, fish-
eating birds, gulls and landbirds.
Dabbling ducks include mallard,
Water Submerged Duck
Hyacinth Plants Weed
Summary of Combined Bird Census Data
8000 r
6000
4000
2000
Dabbling Ducks
Diving Ducks
Shorebirds
Fish-eating Birds
Gulls
Landbirds
88
-------
northern pintail, gadwall, cinnamon teal
and the northern shoveler. Dabblers
feed on or near the surface of the marsh
and eat seeds and shoots of aquatic
plants, aquatic invertebrates, minnows,
snails, grain, grass and insects.
Shorebirds also migrate through
San Francisco Bay and use the brackish
water sections of Hayward Marsh
during the spring and fall. Common
visitors to the marsh include the
American avocet, black-necked stilt,
Caspian tern, Forster's tern, sandpiper,
willet and killdeer.
Diving ducks have included the
scaup, canvasback, bufflehead and ruddy
duck. Diving ducks feed either within
the water column or by diving to the
bottom for mollusks, crustaceans,
aquatic insects and invertebrates,
crayfish and, to a lesser degree,
aquatic plants.
Fish-eating birds have included
heron, egret, grebe, tern and pelican.
Fisheaters either wade or dive for food.
Their diet, in addition to fish, may
include crustaceans, a'quatic insects,
frogs, small vertebrates and crayfish.
It was not at all a coincidence that a
large flock of opportunistic pelicans
visited immediately after hundreds of
pounds of Sacramento blackfish were
introduced to the marshes.
Land birds at the marsh have included
raptors, such as an endangered peregrine
falcon that preys upon ruddy ducks
and sandpipers. The marsh is within the
peregrine's established territory. Seed-
eating songbirds and insect eaters such
as swallows are regular inhabitants of
the marsh area.
Geese, ducks and shorebirds
produce hundreds of offspring
at the marsh each year.
There are 3 main species of terns that forage
at the marsh including the Forster's tern
(pictured above). The endangered Least tern
stopped at Hayward Marsh on its migratory
journey and nested successfully in 1990.
Efforts to provide suitable nesting habitat
for the tern include covering one of the
islands with crushed oyster shells.
89
-------
GATHERING THE DATA
The EBRPD, EBDA and the
Union Sanitary District (USD)
are the team responsible for
providing the treated effluent to the
marsh, monitoring the water quality
within the system and managing the
wetland. The team's tasks include
everything from analyzing for residual
chlorine to sampling fish and aquatic
invertebrate populations.
One of the most beneficial aspects
of the Hayward Marsh Project is that
the team is encouraging and supporting
research studies of the effect of effluent
heavy metals on the marsh and its
inhabitants. EBDA and USD have
contracted with the University of
California-Berkeley, Hayward State
University and Woodward-Clyde
Consultants to conduct a three-year
research project to study heavy metals
in the marsh.
Research questions and answers
are complicated by the complexities
90
-------
inherent in a marsh. There are many
chemical reactions, biological interac-
tions and physical processes that take
place every day in this 172-acre marsh.
The research project first has to identify
all of the major biological organisms
that live in the marsh. This means count-
ing birds and their nests, digging up
worms and other invertebrates that live
in bottom muds, and identifying the
plants that grow in, on, and right up
through the water.
The second step is to determine the
concentration of metals in the water,
the sediment, and the plants and
animals living in the marsh. There are
10 metals for which the marsh is being
tested: arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver and zinc.
There are three methods being used
to study the marsh. First, the wetland
itself is being sampled. Second, a
mesocosm or small-scale marsh located
adjacent to Hayward Marsh is being
used to create and test future conditions
that will occur in the marsh. And third,
laboratory experiments mimicking
sediments, water and phytoplankton
are being used to isolate and analyze ,
specific metal-uptake processes that
occur in the field. This extensive
research program is partially funded
by an $80,000 grant from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
with the remainder of the total research
costs of $539,000 supported by EBDA
and USD. The park district supports the
research efforts with in-kind services.
Marsh Influent Water
Quality— 1990
Range rng/l
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Cyanide
Residual Chlorine
pH (Units)
Arsenic ....
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury (1)
Nickel
Zinc
Selenium
5.2-22.0
.....10.3-22.0
3-10
<.01-.04
6.0-9.3
7.0-7.4
. <.01-002
<0.1-.039
<.00003-.0074
<.0002-.036
<.000025
<.005-.13
<.001-.14
<.00005-.0022
( 1) None of the 1 1 samples contained concentrations above the detection limit.
Wetland Design Criteria
Average Daily Flow <1> 9.68 mgd
Maximum Daily Flow <2> 25.92 mgd
Minimum Daily Flow (3> .; 0
Bayjnflow w 2.5 mgd
Total Wetland Area 172 acres
Detention Time 14 days
Basin 1 15 acres
Marsh 2A 35 acres
Marsh 2B 35 acres
Marsh 3A — 30 acres
Marsh 3B 30 acres
Mouse Preserye.^...^. .^........... ..._...._._.. ........._•_•_•... • - -.... -27 acres
(1) This is Union Sanitary District treated effluent.
(2) Maximum flows may be used as a management tool, such as to flush
waterfowl disease bacteria out of the system.
(3) The ability to shut off the flow facilitates maintenance.
(4) Bay water mixes with the treated effluent in Marshes 3A and 3B.
91
-------
Trace amounts of heavy metals are a
normal occurrence in our environment.
The key questions research will answer
include: 1) Are the metals being concen-
trated in the wetland? and 2) Are the
metals having an adverse effect on the
marsh's biota? To predict potential
effects to the wildlife, the concentra-
tions of metals in the organisms will
be measured and then compared with
published values for metals that have
been found harmful to wildlife.
Water Quality Analyses
Parameter
Daily
Basin 1
Weekly
Basins 2 A
2B, 3A, 3B &
2x/week
Basins
1.2A2B
Receiving Water
Monthly
Basin Effluents 1
2A, 2B, 3A, 3B &
Receiving Water
Biweekly
12 Stations
in Marsh
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
oH ..... ... ......
r" * '
MPN Coliform Bacteria . . .
Ten Metals
Total Ammonia
Un-ionized Ammonia
Nitrites
...A
...A
...A
1
A
A
1111 " '"!' : "" ' '' ' ' ' '
• '" "''
A
A
A
....A
....A
....A
A
A
H %
1 Hi n t U,
....'....A
: A - " "
A
Nitrate..,
Salinity,.,...,
Chlorophyll a.
PAHs,
Suspended Solids.
Avian Census
Fish Bioassay —.
Ten Metals Analysis: Analysis for 10 metals is being performed twice on multiple samples of sediments, fish, emergent and
floating vegetation, phytoplankton, addled eggs, aquatic invertebrates and benthic invertebrates in both Hayward Marsh and
tbemesocosm.
ft Basin 1 Effluent only
-------
THE PROMISE OF WASTEWATER WETLANDS
Growing numbers of communities
around the country have created
wetland projects to create
wildlife habitat and to further treat
secondary effluent as a low-cost, energy-
efficient disposal alternative. This
method is especially suitable for smaller
communities with available land.
A wastewater wetland created as a
treatment facility will be designed
differently than one built primarily
to enhance wildlife habitat. The
differences may be in design depths,
basin configurations, flow rates and
vegetation types. But a wetland built
as a treatment facility may also yield
other benefits. It may be useful for
some wildlife and may provide recrea-
tional trails. Likewise, a wastewater
wetland created for wildlife habitat
may also improve the quality of water
that flows through it to the sea.
The Hayward Marsh Expansion
Project is a case-in-point of innovative
engineering and science applied to the
conversion of secondary wastewater
effluent into a resource; a project that
holds great promise for a growing
environmental problem.
93
-------
This brochure was created with funding from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Requisition No. A22190.
Robert Bastian, U.S. EPA
Project Officer
Francesca Demgen, Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Project Manager
Mark Taylor, EBRPD
Photographer
94
-------
Wetland Treatment Systems: (
A Case History 3
The Orlando Easterly Wetlands t
Is&ai,
F^^^n^fe
-------
A CASE HISTORY:
ORLANDO EASTERLY WETLANDS RECLAMATION PROJECT
Introduction
Wetlands have been the victim
of progress in America.
Research indicates that less
than half of the 215 million acres of
wetlands originally present in the
United States prior to settlement
remained by the mid 1970s. Much of
this loss is due to the conversion of
wetland areas into farmland.
Today, wetlands are recognized as
a valuable natural resource. They
help maintain the quality of our
environment; provide habitat for a
variety of plants and animals, including
rare and endangered species; and offer
a number of socio-economic benefits,
ranging from flood protection to
recreation opportunities.
The critical role which wetlands can
play in reclaiming valuable freshwater
resources is also recognized. Unlike the
technology of the late 1960s and 1970s,
which focused on the disposal of
wastewater effluents as quickly and
efficiently as possible (usually through
discharge into streams, lakes, or
oceans), wetlands treatment technology
involves passing wastewater effluent or
stormwater runoff through a wetland
system. By acting as a natural filter for
the pollutants that remain even in
advanced treated wastewater effluent,
wetland systems can polish the effluent
so that it can be safely returned to fresh
water sources.
One of the largest constructed
wetland treatment systems built to date
is the Orlando Easterly Wetlands
Reclamation Project. Post, Buckley,
Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) served
as design engineers for the City of
Orlando, Florida. Background issues,
special considerations, and performance
results from this award-winning facility
are discussed next.
In operation since 1987, the
Orlando Easterly Wetlands
Reclamation Project has
demonstrated its success as
a treatment facility, reuse
project, and wildlife habitat.
Iron Bridge
Regional Water
Pollution Control
Facility
Orlando Easterly
Wetlands Project
Project Location
96
-------
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Little Econlockhatchee (Little
Econ) is a primary tributary to
the Econlockhatchee River
(Econ), which in turn is a primary
tributary to the St. Johns River (SIR).
The SIR system drains portions of the
middle and upper east coast of Florida
to the Atlantic Ocean. Over the years,
much of the floodplain around both
the SJR and the Econ system has been
altered by drainage systems and subse-
quently converted to grazing lands for
cattle. By 1980,16 wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) in the eastern Orange
County area, discharged either primary
or secondary effluent to the Little Econ.
The effects of these WWTP dis-
charges on the Little Econ included
decreased dissolved oxygen levels and
the occurrence of Eichhornia crassipes
(water hyacinth), Hydrilla verticillata,
Najas guadalupensis, the duckweeds,
and Panicum spp. which at times com-
pletely covered sections of the channel
in the Econ system, and also contributed
to frequent algae blooms in Lake
Harney, a node within the SJR. (Located
about one mile downstream of the
confluence with the Econ, Lake Harney
serves as a key indicator of water quality
conditions in the Econ watershed.)
As part of a commitment to improve
water quality conditions in the Little
Econ, the City of Orlando began
construction of an advanced wastewater
treatment (AWT) plant which would
replace a number of the existing pack-
age plants. By 1980, Phase I of the
Iron Bridge Regional Water. Pollution
Control Facility (WPCF) was underway.
Permit regulations
imposed on the Iron
Bridge WPCF by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
were very stringent. Limitations for
both effluent concentrations and load-
ings were based on the Phase I flow rate
of 24 MOD. This meant that the
capacity of future expansions to
the treatment plant would be
severely limited by the allowable
effluent loading criteria in the
USEPA National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and FDEP permits, or
the City would have to find an
alternative discharge point.
Faced with a growing popula-
The Orlando 'Easterly
Wetlands was constructed on
pasture land in an area which
had been a natural wetland
prior to human settlement
and cattle grazing.
Iron Bridge WPCF
Original Permit Conditions
BOPS
TSS
TN
TP
5 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
1 mg/L
(1001 Ib/d)
(1001 Ib/d)
(600 Ib/d) '
(200 Ib/d) ;
tion and the need for additional waste-
water treatment capacity, the City sought
alternative effluent disposal options.
An analysis of potential options was
completed in 1984. The overall scope
of the study included an investigation
of such disposal options as deep well
and aquifer injection, spray irrigation,
moving the discharge point to another
sub-basin of the SJR system, water
hyacinth treatment, and both natural
and constructed wetlands treatment.
The conclusions of this study ranked
the construction of a wetland for
effluent disposal adjacent to the flood-
plain of the SJR as the number one
alternative. Selection criteria included
economics, restoration of previously
lost wetlands, and creation of a wild-
life habitat.
97
-------
SITING CONSIDERATIONS
Critical to the successful design of
the City's wetland system was
the selection of an appropriate
location. The site selected was about
1,640 acres in size and located about
two miles west of the main channel of
the SJR. Review of historical data,
including surveys conducted in the late
1850s, indicated that much of the site
was previously part of the wetland
system adjacent to the SJR. An elab-
orate series of ditches had been used
to drain the site when it was converted
to pastureland shortly after the turn of
the century. Since this conversion, it
had been operated as a cattle ranch.
Using this site meant that more than
1,200 acres of land would be restored
to its natural wetland state.
Soil characteristics were another
important consideration in site location.
The surficial soils at the City's wetland
system are generally fine sands under-
lain by clayey soils. The depth of the
clayey soils range from the surface to
several feet below the soil surface,
and tend to restrict water movement
downward to the groundwater.
A hydraulic gradient that exists
across the site directs groundwater flows
toward the east, away from residential
wells located west of the site.
At the time the City acquired the
site, most of the on-site surface waters
were routed to a main canal that
drained to a backwater area of the SJR.
The course of the main canal bisected a
natural wetland owned by the St. Johns
River Water Management District
(SJRWMD) known as Seminole Ranch.
This canal formed part of a stormwater
98
management system on the SJRWMD
land that altered the natural wetland
such that transitional and upland
vegetation were invading the site.
By using the discharge waters from
the City's wetland treatment system,
wetland hydrology on about 600 acres
of the Seminole Ranch is being
restored. Today, the water discharged
from the City's wetland moves by sheet
flow through Seminole Ranch prior to
discharge into the SJR.
Existing topography was also a key
consideration in selecting the project
site. With a topographic gradient of
about 15 feet across the site, the land
slopes downward from the west to the
east. The wetland design used this
gradient to divide the site into seven-
teen cells such that the average drop
in elevation across each cell was limited
to approximately three feet. This allows
each treatment cell within the wetland
system to be operated at dry season
and wet season water depths that could
range from sheet flow to a maximum
depth of three to five feet.
Berms divide the 1,220-acre
wetland system into treatment
cells which provide additional
nutrient removal to treated
effluent passing through the site.
-------
PERMITTING
CONSIDERATIONS
WILDLIFE
CONSIDERATIONS
Factuating water levels are critical
'or the maintenance of desired
plant communities within wetland
treatment systems. The primary objective
in designing the City's system was to use
macrophytic communities to facilitate
additional nutrient removal for up to
20 mgd of treated effluent from the Iron
Bridge WPCF. The original permit issued
by FDEP limited flow to 8 mgd, due in
part to the untested nature of the system.
Flow increases of about 3 to 5 mgd to a
maximum of 20 mgd are being permitted
by FDEP as the system demonstrates its
ability to operate successfully at each
increase. The current system is operating
at a flow rate of 13 mgd, and the City
has received approval from FDEP to
increase flow to 16 mgd.
FDEP and USEPA did not allow the
City to use existing permit conditions
or wasteload allocations as the basis
for nutrient limitations of the wetland
discharge. This situation was largely due
to the continued degradation of water
quality conditions in Lake Harney. The
USEPA NPDES and FDEP permits
require that the wetlands' discharge
meets existing background water quality
conditions in nearby natural wetlands as
well as complies with the loadings estab-
lished under the wasteload allocation
for discharges to the Little Econ.
The City conducted a 2.5-year water
quality study in conjunction with the
SJRWMD and FDEP to estimate the
nitrogen and phosphorus limits for
the wetland's operating permits. The
nitrogen and phosphorus permit limits
generated by this study are 2.31 mg/L
and 0.2 mg/L, respectively.
A secondary objective of the
Orlando Easterly Wetlands
project was the creation of a
wildlife habitat. During the conceptual
design phase, the wildlife management
area was thought of as a function of
the wetland treatment process rather
than as a specific plan for specific
wildlife species. However, as permitting
and design proceeded, wildlife issues
shifted from simple descriptions of
potential species occurrences in the
general area of the wetland to the design
of specific habitat types. This inclusion
of areas designed as a wildlife habitat
within the City's wetland system allows
the project to serve as a valuable wildlife
refuge and opens up the site for other
uses in addition to wastewater treatment
and disposal.
Anhingas and other bird
species find the Orlando
Easterly Wetlands to be a safe
haven for raising their young.
99
-------
DEVELOPING THE WETLANDS
Approximately 1,220 acres of the
project site were developed into
the Orlando Easterly Wetlands
project. The system is divided into
seventeen cells oriented across the site
so that the first twelve cells comprise
about one-third of the total project area.
The mixed marsh includes three cells
that also comprise about one-third of
the total area. The remaining two cells
form the hardwood swamp. The cells
were defined by constructing a series of
earthen berms and were planted using
about 2.1 million aquatic wetland plants
Vegetation originally planted hi the
wetland are shown hi Figure 2.
All fill material used to
construct the berms was
excavated from a borrow pit
(shown as the lake in Figure
1) located in the eastern part
of the site. The habitat poten-
tial of the lake is enhanced by
the use of an irregular shore-
line, the varied slope of the
littoral zone, the varied water
depths (e.g., the rim ditch
used to de-water the site was
left in place and now averages
up to 45 feet deep), and the
placement of construction
debris within the lake for
fisheries habitat.
The system began opera-
tion in September 1987. AWT
effluent is pumped about
17 miles from the Iron Bridge
WPCF to a three-way splitter
box at the wetland system,
after which the water flows
HS1
by gravity to the outfall structure.
Rectangular weir structures are used
to control the flow internally; two-inch
flash boards are removed or inserted
as needed. The berm design includes a
three-foot freeboard capacity for storage
of stormwater inputs. This design allows
the operators to control the flows into
and out of any given cell without influ-
encing the operation of the remaining
areas of the wetland treatment system.
The average travel time through the
Orlando Easterly Wetlands varies from
about 21 days during the dry season to
about 65 days during the rainy season.
Figure 1
N
Legend
•"] Small Mammal Grid -123m x 123m
H Lake Shoreline
© Herpetofaunal Pitfalls - 7.7m
X Fish Seining Sites
© Invertibrate Sites
-—• Berm
—^** Water Flow
100
-------
WETLAND COMPONENTS
Figure 2
Orlando Easterly Wetlands
Reclamation Project
Species Planted
Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
Water hyssop (Bacopa caroliniana)
Canna (Canna flaccida)
Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense)
Spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa)
Pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine)
Blue flag (Iris hexagona)
Soft rush (Juncu s effusus)
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Sweet bay (Magnolia virginica)
Stone wort (Nitella sp.)
Cow lily (Nuphar luteum)
Water lily (Nymphaea odorata)
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon)
Knot grass (Paspalum distichum)
Smartweed (Polygonum punctatum)
Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata)
Pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis)
Swamp laurel oak (Quercus iaurifolia)
Arrowhead (Sagittaria graminae)
Arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia)
Three-square bulrush (Scripus
americanus)
Gaint bulrush (S. californicus)
Soft stem bulrush (S. validus)
Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens)
Bald cypress (T. distichum)
Thalia (Thalia geniculata)
Cattail (Typha domingensis)
Cattail (T. latifolia)
Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
Water enters the Orlando
Easterly Wetlands system
through the 12 cells that form
the deep marsh. The deep marsh cells
generally have an average depth of 3 to
3.5 feet and were planted with cattails
(Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.).
These areas were planned as cattail
communities at the conceptual design
stage, because the scientific literature
at the time provided more information
about using this species than any other
species for wastewater treatment.
Because cattails are potentially
capable of competitively eliminating
other native plant species and conse-
quently reducing the diversity of the
emergent plant communities in the
SJR basin, the SJRWMD voiced
concern about the formation of such a
large cattail community so near to the
SJR. In response, PBS&J designed a
large-scale in-situ experiment for the
Bulrush and Cattail
communities remove and
store most of the nutrients
from effluent entering the
wetland system.
101
-------
City to test the treatment capabilities
and competitive effects of cattail versus
bulrush communities. As a result, the
first 12 cells of the City's system are
planted with either cattails, bulrush,
or a combination of the two.
To date, the results indicate there
are subtle differences between the two
plant species relative to water quality
improvement. The bulrush cells appear
to have a slightly greater nutrient
uptake capacity than the cattail cells.
The bulrush also have proven to be
more tolerant of water level fluctua-
tions than the cattails. The deep marsh
cells are designed to take advantage of
the microbial communities associated
with the littoral zones within the cattail
and bulrush communities to remove
and store most of the nutrients entering
the wetland system.
The deep marsh cells are followed
by three mixed marsh cells. The mixed
marsh is designed as a transition point
between the water treatment aspects of
the wetland treatment system and those
associated more closely with wildlife
habitat. Approximately 30 plant species
were planted in the mixed marsh cells,
and approximately 100 other species
have become self established from the
seed bank or off-site wetlands since
system start-up.
Overall, the vegetative communities
within the mixed marsh cells provide
a very diverse habitat structure. The
mixed marsh cells act as a nutrient
polishing step to the deep marsh cells
and maintain nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations at lower levels than
those found in the
deep marsh. An
apparent differ-
ence in the nutri-
ent removal
processes in the
deep marsh and
mixed marsh cells
is that the former
relies more on
bacterial uptake
while algae are
more dominant
in the latter.
The final
component of the
Orlando Easterly
Wetlands system
is the hardwood
swamp. This area
is specifically designed as a wildlife
habitat area. About 160,000 trees were
planted throughout the cells, intermixed
with an understory similar to that
typical of the mixed marsh. In addition,
an existing cypress (Taxodium spp.)
head was preserved, and the lake,
developed from the borrow pit, was
located within these cells. Although
the hardwood swamp cells were not
expected to play a significant role in the
nutrient uptake before system start-up,
they have since proven to produce a
net release of phosphorus back into
the water column. This release of
phosphorus can be partially attributed
to the number of rookeries located
within these cells. The nesting bird
species typically found in the rookeries
include several heron and egret species.
More than 200 animals species
use the Orlando Easterly
Wetlands as habitat today.
102
-------
MEASURING SUCCESS
In 1984, at the conclusion of the
initial study which examined
disposal alternatives, the City
established the goal of creating a
wetland treatment system that would
provide both effluent polishing and a
wildlife management area. Since
system start-up, the performance of the
Orlando Easterly Wetlands relative to
nitrogen and phosphorus uptake and
storage has been better than originally
predicted by the design (see Table 1).
The data in Table 1 show that the
Orlando Easterly Wetlands project has
consistently discharged a water quality
that is better than the permit require-
ments. The discharge has, in fact, been
statistically equal (|i < 0.05) to the water
quality conditions in the SIR, both
upstream and downstream of the
discharge point (see Table 2). These data
indicate that the system has acted to
recover a resource—fresh water—that
Table 1
TN and TP Discharge
Concentrations*
Flow TN TP
(mgd) (mg/L) (mg/L)
FDEP
1988
1989
1990
1991
13.00
10.00
13.33
13.28
12.90
2.31
0.84
0.92
0.93
0.80
0.200
0.095
0.076
0.090
0.087
This table compares the first four years of
compliance data for the Orlando Easterly
Wetlands project with the current FDEP permit
criteria for TN and TP discharges . Rows
shown represent influent discharges to the
wetland system.
now is being used to
hydrologically restore the
SJRWMD wetland site.
The annual perform-
ance of the system is
shown by the data in
Tables 3 and 4, with refer-
ence to Figure 1 for the
station locations. These
data indicate the system
has performed very well
for the first four years of
operation. This can be
partially attributed to the
level of commitment by
the City of Orlando to
operate the system as a
treatment process and
as a wildlife habitat area.
Operational procedures,
such as varying water depths, employed
by the project have attempted to mini-
mize nutrient releases while maximizing
the ability of the wetland treatment
system to remove and store nutrients.
The data in Table 4 also show that
phosphorus concentrations are reduced
to about 0.05 mg/L at the discharge
point from the mixed marsh.
Water quality data are only one
indication of the success of the Orlando
Easterly system. Another measure of
success is the diversity of the system
and the array of wildlife species
attracted by this diversity.
The system has demonstrated that if
properly managed, a constructed wet-
land can be used for water treatment,
water quality improvement, and diverse
wildlife habitat. In fact, data collected
to date indicate that the system may
Wetland system designers
included an operational plan
for maintaining target
communities and refuges
for forage species.
103
-------
attract more species than surrounding
natural wetlands and generally may
support a higher resident population
than similar natural habitat areas
(see Figure 3). The latter can be directly
attributed to the higher productivity
rates within the system.
The design of the Orlando Easterly
Wetlands includes the preservation of
upland areas around the site. Main-
tenance of the upland/wetland ecotone
has increased the value of the potential
habitat for wetland-dependent species.
The design also included an opera-
tional plan, i.e. managing water depths
for maintaining the hydroperiod
(optimal water depths and duration)
for targeted vegetative communities in
the system. This plan addresses proce-
dures for maintaining the refuges for
the forage species, which ultimately
will lead to stabilizing the habitat of
higher wildlife species such as birds,
alligators, and otters.
Another measure of the Orlando
wetlands success is the number of listed
species which use the site (shown in
Figure 4). To date, 145 bird species have
been observed on site and 10 of these
species are state or federally listed and
are currently utilizing the system as part
of their habitat. The sandhill crane and
Everglades kite have successfully nested
in the wetlands and fledged young
during the third and fourth years of
operation. This usage pattern of the
wildlife habitat also serves as an on-
going natural bioassay of the system,
showing that the water quality goals
have been met in full.
Table 2
Comparison of TN and TP Discharge Concentrations
with the Annual Averages of Receiving Waters
(First Four Years)
TN (mg/L)
1988 1989 1990 1991
1988
TP (mg/L)
1989 1990 1991
HS10
SJR1
SJR5
SR
0.84
0.87
0.87
0.95
0,
0,
0,
1.
.92
.88
.89
.00
0.93
1.08
0.89
1.09
0
1
1
1
.80
.05
.09
.06
0.095
0.137
0.149
0.117
0.076
0.074
0.071
0.070
0
0
0
0
.090
.098
.084
.080
0.087
0.053
..0.116
0.067
HS10 = Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project Discharge
SJR1 = Station in the St. Johns River Upstream of HS10
-SJR5= Station in the St. Johns River Downstream of HS10
-SR = Average Annual Concentration for Seminole Ranch Monitoring Stations
Tables
Comparison of TN Annual Averages Through the
Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project
(Fjrst Four Years)
Nitrogen (mg/L)
Station1
'-WP1
WPS
WP4.5
WP6
MM8
HS10
1988
4.18
1.53
1.51
1.27
0.96
0.84
1These stations include influent and
^2Area equals the percent of wetland
1989
5.52
1.92
1.74
1.59
1.22
0.92
1990
2.83
0.98
1.00
1.09
1.19
0.93
1991
2.44
2.20
1.02
1.11
1.25
0.90
effluent samples in addition to four internal
area upstream of the listed sample station.
Area2
0
11
16
32
67
100
strat.
Table 4
Comparison of TP Annual Averages Through the
Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project
(First Four Years)
Station1
1988
Phosphorus (mg/L)
1989 1990
1991
Area2
WP1
WPS
WP4,5
WP6
MM8
HS10
0.572
0.103
0.102
0.106
0.091
0.095
0.720
0.080
0.065
0.070
0.050
0.076
0.41
0.16
0.14
.0.1.1
0.05
0.09
0.23
0.37
0.12.
'" o.ii 7
0.06
0.087
0
11
16
;...'. 32
',; 67 '„;
100
'These stations include influent and effluent samples in addition to four'.internal str^t.
?Area equals the percent of wetland area upstream of the listed sample station.
104
-------
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
•••he success of the Orlando Easterly
I Wetlands Reclamation Project is
• attributed not only to its success .
as a wastewater treatment facility and
reuse project, but also to the benefits
it offers surrounding communities.
For visitors who wish to enjoy the
beauty of Florida wildlife in a natural
habitat, a portion of the project func-
tions as a wilderness park with nature
Orlando Easterly Wetlands
Reclamation Project Costs
Land Acquisition $4,411,000
Wetlands Development
Structural 4,232,000
Vegetation 750,000
Force Main 8,491,000
Effluent Pump Station 1,982,000
Engineering 1,659,000
Total $21,525,000
Orlando Easterly Wetlands
Reclamation Project Awards
1987
1988
1990
PBS&J Project Excellence Award
Florida Institute of Consulting
Engineers Excellence Award
ACEC Excellence in Engineering
Award
FDEP Secretary's Award, Florida
Department of Environmental
Regulation
1990 State of Florida Governor's
Environmental Award
1992 Water Environment Federation
Outstanding Achievement
Award (included with other
City achievements) over the
past 10 years)
trails and seasonal camping facilities
which are open from mid-January
through September.
For area schools with environmental
educations programs, it serves as a
natural laboratory and research
facility. The result is a project which
exemplifies the current trend toward
socially responsible environmental
management.
Figure 4
Orlando Easterly
Wetlands
Reclamation Project
Observed State and
Federally Listed
Animal Species
Roseate spoonbill
Limpkin
Green-backed heron
Little blue heron
Snowy egret
Tricolored heron
Peregrine falcon
Florida sandhill crane
Woodstork
Everglades snail kite
American alligator
Eastern indigo snake
Orlando
Easterly
Wetlands
Figure 3
Comparison of Wildlife Diversity
Lake Lake Winter (BW) Resident (BW) Expected
Conway Tohopekalica Fauna
za
Amphibians Lizards Turtles Snakes Fishes Birds Mammals
105
-------
Acknowledgements
Numerous individuals have shared in the
efforts to create and implement the Orlando
Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project.
Listed below are some of the key groups
and individuals:
USEPA
Robert K. Bastian
Office ofWastewater Management
Washington, D.C.
City of Orlando, FL
Bill Frederick, Mayor
Robert C. Haven, P.E.
Chief Administrative Officer
Thomas L. Lothrop, P.E.
Director, Environmental Services
Elizabeth T. Skene, P.E.
Assistant Bureau Chief, Wastewater
Alan R. Oyler, P.E.
Assistant Bureau Chief, Wastewater
William P. Allman
Manager, Iron Bridge WPCF
FDEP
Alex Alexander, P.E.
Disrtrict Director, Central District
Carlos Rivero deAguilar, P.E.
Program Administrator for Water Facilities
Christianne Ferraro, P.E.
Program Manager for Domestic Waste
James Hulbert
Environmental Administrator
PBS&J
Phillip E. Searcy, P.E.
Senior Executive Vice President
JoAnn Jackson, P.E.
Project Engineer
Seth B. Blitch
Project Biologist
John S. Shearer, P.E.
Director of Environmental Services
Prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh
& Jernigan, Inc.
1560 Orange Ave.,
Suite 700
Winter Park, FL 32789
(407) 647-7275
Editors:
Jon C, Dyer, P.E.
Kathe Jackson
EPA Project Officer:
Robert K. Bastian
Photo courtesy of Seth Blitch
106
-------
-------
A CASE HISTORY:
LAKELAND WETLAND TREATMENT SYSTEM
Introduction
The City of Lakeland (City)
operates a 1,400 acre wetland
treatment system located just least
of the town of Mulberry, Florida. The
wetland system serves as the final treat-
ment process for the City of Lakeland's
10.8 mgd Glendale Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant and their 4.0 mgd Northside
Wastewater Treatment Plant. These
treatment plants serve a combined
population of approximately 79,000
people within the city limits, as well
as portions of the unincorpo-
rated areas of Polk County.
Many of the natural
upland and wetland commu-
nities within Polk County
and the surrounding coun-
ties have been replaced by
agricultural and industrial
development. Citrus and
phosphate mining industries
iiave altered the landscape
around Lakeland to a
greater extent than any
other development activity.
The phosphate mines have
provided the most dramatic
changes to the lands in
Polk County by not only
eliminating the natural
ecosystems, but also by
significantly altering the
topographic nature of
these areas.
Restoration efforts within
most of the abandoned mine
sites have been limited in
scope at best, since no real
efforts generally are made
108
to restore the original topography
and vegetative communities. Instead,
upland areas are normally replanted as
monoculture pine forests, while most
aquatic areas are comprised of lakes
formed in unfilled mine pits. Most
emergent wetland communities are
restricted to the littoral zones of the lakes
or are usually dominated by monocul-
ture stands of cattails (Typha spp.) and/
or Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana).
Figure 1. Plan view of the site
showing the relative locations
of the internal cells.
-------
Project Background
Originally, the City began treating
wastewater on the Glendale site
in 1926 using a 2.5 mgd primary
treatment plant. This plant began
discharging effluent to Banana Lake
via Stahl Canal, a practice that continued
for more than 65 years. In 1939 the City
upgraded the treatment plant with trick-
ling filters to achieve secondary treat-
ment. In the late 1950's and 1960's, the
City rebuilt the trickling filters and
expanded the facility to 10 mgd. The
City began diverting up to 5.5 mgd of
effluent from the Glendale treatment
plant to the newly constructed C.D.
Mclntosh Jr. Power Plant for use as
cooling water. In 1981 effluent pumped
to the power plant was further treated
on the power plant site and discharged
(rapid infiltration) to the surficial
aquifer adjacent to Lake Parker, thereby
reducing the flows and loadings to
Banana Lake. In 1988, the City
expanded the wastewater treatment
Figure 2. The influent
structure aerates the water
as It enters the wetland.
109
-------
system to include its newly constructed
4.0 mgd Northside plant. When the
Northside plant went on-line, it became
the primary source of cooling water for
the power plant.
The sustained effluent discharge to
Banana Lake, along with agricultural .
development in the Banana Lake
watershed, severely degraded the water
quality of the lake and down stream
waterways. Early in 1983, the Florida
Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (FDEP) indicated that the City's
discharge permit to Banana Lake would
not be renewed due to water quality
problems in the lake. For this reason,
both FDEP and the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (USEPA)
negotiated compliance schedules with
the City to cease discharging effluent
to Stahl Canal and Banana Lake.
Faced with compliance schedules to
cease discharging to Banana Lake, the
City retained Post, Buckley, Schuh &
Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) to develop and
evaluate viable effluent disposal alterna-
tives. Analysis of these alternatives
indicated that disposal via an artificial
wetland system would be the most cost
effective method of effluent disposal
for the existing Glendale plant. The
Glendale facility has since been rerated
to 10.8 MGD. The wetland site selected
includes 1,600 acres that were formally
used by W.R. Grace Inc. as a phosphate
settling area. The site is characterized
by a series of seven cells surrounded by
levees. (See Figure 1.) Process waters
from the previous mining operation were
recycled through the cells to settle solids
out of the water column. Overflow from
the recycle system is discharged to the
Alafia River. This process created a soil
gradient across the cells where course-
grained sands settled on the influent side
of cells 1,2, and 3, while fine clayey
sediments settled on the effluent side
of the cells. The settling process also
created a significant topographic gradi-
ent in the first three cells that slope
downward from the influent to effluent
sides of the cell. The sediments in cells 4
through 7 are predominately nearly level
fine clayey soils. A shallow lake still
exists on the downstream side of Cell 5,
while cells 6 and 7 remain as deep lakes.
One of the lakes located
at the downstream end
of the wetlands.
110
-------
WETLAND DESIGN
Since 1987, approximately 1,400
acres of the project site have
been used as part of the wetland
treatment system. This area provides a
permitted treatment capacity of 14 mgd
of secondary effluent, although the
current flows average approximately
8.0 mgd. Effluent is pumped from the
Glendale plant polishing ponds through
6.4 miles of force main to the wetland
system. In 1989, the influent to the
wetland system was augmented by
the inclusion of blow down waters from
the Unit No. 3 cooling tower at the
Mclntosh Power Plant, along with
periodic discharges from the ash ponds.
Blow down waters from the power
plant are mixed with effluent from the
wastewater treatment plants at the
Glendale plant and are then pumped
to the wetland.
The introduction of the cooling
waters and the ash pond effluent
has significantly increased the total
dissolved solids concentrations to the
wetland. As an example, the average
annual influent conductivity levels
have increased.
The influent enters the wetland
through a cascade inlet structure, as
shown in Figure 2. The inlet structure is
designed to aerate the influent waters
through turbulent fall down the struc-
ture's 13 steps. The flow is split at the
inlet structure between two Fabriform
lined ditches that lie along the eastern
boundary (influent side) of Cell 1.
Water is discharged from the distribution
ditches through weirs located every 100
feet along the ditch. Flow rates through
individual weks can be controlled by the
addition or removal of flash-boards. Once
the water passes through the cell it is
collected and discharged to Cell 2. This
general pass through and collection
system is repeated in cells 2 and 3. These
three cells have the greatest change in
topography. This system helps better
distribute flow in these cells.. Cells 4
through 7 do not have distribution
ditches. An H-flume outlet structure
located at the south end of Cell 7 is used
to monitor and control flows leaving the
wetland site. A meteorological station
provides data to assist in the preparation
of annual water budgets for the wetland.
Weirs located along berms
covered with grout-filled fabric
revetments distribute flow into
the cells 2 and 3.
The H-flume outlet structure
controls flows leaving the
wetlands.
Ill
-------
SITE CONDITIONS
V M Jfhen the City assumed control
vnv of the wetland site, much of
•i •» the interior of cells 1 through
4 were covered by cattails and Carolina
willow. Upland islands within the cells
generally were vegetated by undesirable
grass/herbaceous species, and in some
areas by pine (Finns spp.) and live oak
(Quercus virginiana) tree species.
Vegetation in the upstream areas of Cell
5 was a mixture of cattails and Carolina
willow, while the downstream half of
the cell was a shallow lake system that
was ringed by a dense population of
water hyacinths (Eichhornia
crassipes). Densities of algal
populations in this lake often
created a lime green color in
the open water areas.
Although minimal disruption
of the existing wetland vegetation
within the treatment cells
resulted from the construction
activities, restoration grant
monies received by the City from
the Florida Department of
Natural Resources were used
to plant trees including black
gum, red maple, sweet bay,
swamp laurel oak, bald cypress,
dahoon holly, and pop ash, within
certain areas of cells 1 through 5.
Secondly, the water hyacinths
were removed from Cell 7 in
response to concerns, voiced by
the Polk County Environmental
Services Division, that operation
of the wetland system would
increase mosquito production in
areas covered by water hyacinths.
112
The areas along the eastern sides of
cells 1 and 2 were originally barren
sands or sparsely covered by upland
grass species. These were the only
areas planted with herbaceous wetland
vegetation during construction. In both
cells the pre-construction vegetation
was cleared to allow the site to be
graded. Initially, the highly permeable
sandy soils made it difficult to establish
wetland vegetation in these areas.
However, after five years of operation
both areas now support dense commu-
nities of wetland vegetation.
In operation since 1987, the
Lakeland Wetland Treatment
System offers wildlife a
natural habitat.
' ,.' '„ ' „•:,„ , ', J :'",- ','• ' !," ,!,r,,!"hf^,-'h ,- ! ,|,*,,,»;,,, Is lL|S,^|ii,J" , 4'iLlnfc' ii,"l J'J-^^'-JljiV^ ,/ 'S' .lii1'!'."!'^'^*,! I, 'C'A '..'ji.'l.i.'l'-ii'l^ilJ,!!!' '!f^'(, ,''•>,'„ !'li,r\'^ f^i^^f'^jlJ^jM^^Slg!6^'l^^l!'
„,, i, ,u ii, • 'Nj.ilfc i,,,1' „ I, i i ,n iMM.iL.ili ...lifcilJiiiii'i1,,: ,: wpmfs! nit ' 'i',i!"N«iij a^ft^af^ii'ilf^f'if' ffSm,* S,, p isj rairiii|.liiii|.JMi*iiHi!niii,pi!!||rf^isi;j'i;>id^^|iiiJjj*^hiiiiiijii«»hffi(ii»iiiil'| i]!' .i'sn^ijiiW'ii]!1 'rt 'ihSiltoS^j sl'iTiil!!1! !™';,,i;;iiii,liiii;iiNiHiiii,rrt,1« nSJuSAffiJIM11 ffliiiiEi^'ir^^fS-^."!!*''^'!;!1
|;Njnii:,;K,r;,j|!- clpiiji, liftfliret^iliSi;!^ li|J(!B .iWi^ijJjlS^^
,V ^i „ ''/•&. J ^^'"^A^^^'^f^^11"^?^^
iifSSi||»pp>^!^
-------
OPERATIONAL RESULTS
The original design objectives for
the wetland treatment system
were to improve the City's efflu-
ent quality beyond the secondary level
(shown in Table 1 as Original Goals).
Since start-up of the wetland system,
state legislation was enacted that
required the wetland to meet even
more advanced wastewater treatment
levels (also shown in Tablel as Existing
Permit Conditions). Table 1 provides a
summary of the influent BOD, TSS,
TN & TP concentrations, water quality
after passing through the first two cells
(represented by station G3) that are
primarily emergent wetlands, and the
final effluent discharge structure. The
average annual concentrations for the
first four years of operation are
presented, as well as the FDEP and
USEPA permit limits. As shown, the
wetland effluent quality has consistently
met the permit limits, with the exception
of TSS for 1990 and 1991. This can be at
least partially attributed to increased
algal populations in the last four cells
within the wetland. Cell 7 previously was
covered by water hyacinths, which
served to limit the concentration of
algae near the effluent structure. The
removal of the water hyacinths in
response to county concerns has allowed
the algal concentrations to increase
which appears to interfere with the
wetlands ability to maintain TSS
concentrations below permit limits. The
City currently is working with FDEP,
USEPA, and PBS&J to lower water
levels in cells 3 through 6, and to
increase the density and distribution of
macrophytic vegetation in cells
Table 1.
Water quality results for the
first four years of operation.
Parameter
BOD TSS TN TP
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Influent
G3
Effluent
Original
Goals
Existing
Permit
Conditions
3.88 5.60 10.36 9.05
1.14 1.74 2.79 6.54
3.12 4.70 1.99 4.22
4 through 7. Increased
densities of macrophytic
vegetation in the latter four
cells should help limit the
density of algae in these
cells and, consequently,
reduce their contribution
to TSS in the effluent.
The wetland also has
provided habitat for a variety of
wildlife species. Most notable are
the large rookeries formed by wood
storks (Mycteria americana), white
pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos),
cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus)
anhingas (Anhinga anhinga), white ibis
(Eudodmus albus), and several egret
and heron species on the upland islands
within cells 5, 6, and 7. In addition, there
are several bobcat (F&lix rufus) and otter
(Lutra canadensis) families now living
within the boundaries of the wetland.
5.0 10.0 3.0 Exempt
5.0 5.0
3.0
mpt
* Effluent phosphorus limits are exempted
due to the high background phosphorus
levels in the receiving stream.
Project Capital
Costs
Wetland
Pipeline
Pump Station
Total
$3,100,000
$2,800,000
$780,000
$6,680,000
,**&?fe;4S»Ai*:2«fr:-- '4:V J^tefev; .--
113
-------
Acknowledgements
The wide variety of wildlife
Numerous individuals have contributed to the
Robert K. Bastian
inhabiting the wetlands
success of the Lakeland Wetland Treatment
Office of Wastewater Management
includes anhinga and
System. Listed below are some of the key
Washington, D.C.
numerous other waterfowl.
groups and individuals.
City of Lakeland
John K. Allison, former Public Works Director
Virgil Caballero, Wastewater Superintendent
David Hill, Project Biologist
FDEP
Edward G. Snipes Jr., Permit Coordinator
GJ. Thabaraj, Engineer
Bhupendra Vora, Grants Coordinator USEPA
PBS&J
R. Morrell, Project Director
M. Walch, Project Manager
K. Keefer, Project Engineer
J. Jackson, Project Engineer
Prepared by Post, Buckley,
Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
1560 Orange Ave., Suite 700
Whiter Park, FL 32789
(407) 647-7275
Editors:
Jon C. Dyer, P.E.
John S. Shearer, P.E.,
Director, Environmental Services
114
-------
v'vns£4r;i
-------
BACKGROUND
Incline Village, Nevada, uses a
constructed wetland for disposal
of secondary effluent. Starting with
an existing, mineralized, warm-water
wetland near Minden, Nevada, the
Incline Village General Improvement
District developed a system which uses
natural processes both to renovate
wastewater and benefit wildlife. With
this system, Incline Village can meet
several goals to protect the environment:
• dispose of treated effluent effectively
and economically
• expand the existing wetland habitat
for wildlife
• provide an educational experience
for visitors
Until 1975, effluent treated at the
Incline Village General Improvement
District's 3.0-mgd activated sludge plant
was exported from the Lake Tahbe
Basin and discharged into the Carson
River during the winter and used for irri-
gation of hay fields during the summer.
A discharge permit issued in 1975
required either more stringent treat-
ment standards or a year-round, land-
based disposal system. In 1979, a facility
plan funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and prepared
by CH2M HILL recommended meeting
a zero surface discharge standard by
using land application during the grow-
ing season and constructed wetland
enhancement during the remainder of
the year. Local agency reviews and
public hearings were held, and the
wetland concept was finally approved
in 1982. The project was designed by
the environmental engineering firm,
Gulp »Wesner«Culp, with technical
assistance from Dr. Robert Kadlec of the
Wetlands Research Group. The design
was completed in 1983 and construction
was finished in November 1984.
The Incline Village Wetlands
Enhancement Facility is
located south of Carson City,
Nevada, about 10 miles east
of Lake Tahoe.
Incline
A Village
Wetlands
116
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
20-mile pipeline carries the
treated effluent from the treat-
t plant to the Wetlands
Enhancement Facility. Constructed
wetland cells, berms, a flood dike, and a
distribution ditch are the main compo-
nents of the system. The 770-acre site
is made up of several distinct areas:
• constructed wetlands
• natural warm-water wetlands
• seasonal storage/waterfowl areas
• effluent storage area
• upland area •
Eight constructed wetland cells are
the primary disposal
area for the treated
effluent. There is no
surface discharge from
the wetland disposal
area because of
evaporative water
losses. Each cell has a
deep channel down its
center that discourages
growth of emergent
vegetation and
furnishes a landing
area for waterfowl.
Islands within this
channel serve as
nesting sites.
The natural warm-
water wetland provides
a natural habitat for
plants and animals and
is not part of the
disposal process.
The seasonal storage/waterfowl
areas store excess water during periods
of low evaporation and high rainfall.
They are dry during summer and fall,
except for a small ponded area fed by
warm-water springs. Three islands in
this area provide nesting habitat for
waterfowl. Each of the islands was
planted to provide food, screened
areas, and trees for birds.
The 2.8-million-galldn effluent
storage area is used only during high
flows or heavy rainfall. The 200-acre
upland area is used to dispose of
effluent by spray irrigation during
extended rainy weather.
A resident population of
Canada geese use the berms
and islands for nesting.
Wetland treatment cells with
islands were constructed
around the existing warm-
water wetlands.
117
-------
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
The treated effluent passes through
the 390-acre system of wetland
cells and is disposed of through
evaporation, transpiration (evaporation
through plants), and percolation (seep-
age through soil). The system works in
harmony with the existing warm-water
wetlands, adapts well to year-round fluc-
tuations in weather and temperature,
and meets state and EPA water-quality
requirements while avoiding surface
discharge to the Carson River.
Effluent flows from Cell 1 through
Cells 2,3, and 4 before overflowing to
the distribution ditch. Overflows from
Cells 3 and 4 are diverted to Cell 5 for
storage and evaporation. Water that
must be stored is held in Cells 6,7, and 8.
Using weather instrumentation and
monitoring equipment, plant operators
determine rainfall, evapotranspiration
and percolation rates, and groundwater
quality. These data are used to estimate
the evaporation rates at the site and to
determine compliance with groundwater
quality standards.
The size of the constructed wetland
needed for evapotranspiration and
percolation of effluent was determined
by calculating several water balances
for the site. Evaporation rates were
estimated with the Penman method
and were based on limited data available
for the area. Subtracting the evapo-
transpiration and percolation from the
rainfall yielded the net water loss from
the site. Dividing the net water loss into
the effluent volume gave an estimate
of the required acreage.
Percolation is critical to successful
operation of the project. At least
1.1 inches of percolation per month
is required at the projected flow rate.
If percolation occurs at this rate, only
175 acres are needed to treat the efflu-
ent. If percolation does not occur, as
much as 450 acres would be required.
The Incline Village Wetlands
Enhancement Facility includes
a total of 770 acres of wetlands
and uplands.
Vicki Lane
Saratoga
Operations, Building Hot Springs
14" Effluent
Pipeline
Seasonal Storage
Waterfowl Area
Natural Warm
Water
ands
Observation Trail
Weather
Station
Site
Boundary
Cell 6
Distribution
14" Effluent
Pipeline j Warm Water
Extension I Outlet Sewer
14" Effluent
/ Pipeline
118
-------
PERFORMANCE
3000 -,
! ecause there is zero discharge
> to surface waters from the
'Incline Village Wetlands
Enhancement Facility, no surface water
quality criteria must be met. However,
many parameters of regulatory interest
are monitored in the wetland cells.
Even though all surface water evapo-
rates or is lost to percolation, water .
quality improvements can be observed
as the water passes through the cells
in a serial pattern.
For seven years, nitrogen and phos-
phorus levels have been reduced in the
water, even during the winter. Nutrients
in the last cells display only 2 to 3
percent of the concentration values in
the incoming wastewater effluent.
The effect of evaporation can be seen
in the increases of total dissolved solids
(TDS) and chloride ion as water moves
through the cells. The evaporites in the
original desert soils are rearranged by
water movement, with increases in
concentrations in the downstream cells.
However, there is no evidence of a
continuing buildup of these ions in
the downstream cells. Apparently,
transport of solutes from upstream
to downstream cells has reached a
balance with other processes.
CelM
Cell 2
CellS
Cell 4
Cell 5*
Cell 6 Cell? Cells
* Average of Cells 5A and 5B
The concentration effect of evaporation can be seen in the increase of total
dissolved solids as water moves through the cells.
CelM Cell 2 CellS Cell 4 Cells* Cell 6 Cell? CellS
* Average of Cells 5A and 5B
The concentration of ammonium nitrogen is reduced as the water flows
through the cells.
Wetlands Design Criteria
Flow, Average Annual .1.66 mgd
Flow, Maximum Daily 2.68 mgd
Influent Quality
Suspended Solids.....*. 20 mg/l
— BODs 20 mg/l
TDS 240 mg/i
Total Phosphorus as P ..6.5 mg/l
Total Nitrogen as N 25 mg/l
Constructed Wetland Area
Cell 1 37.9 acres
Cell 2 33.2 acres
CellS....... 27.3 acres
Cell 4 23.4 acres
Cell 5 (overflow area) 117.3 acres
Cells 6 & 7 (floodplain area)_....... 105.6 acres
Cell 8 (seasonal storage).. .42.5 acres
Wetland Depth
Emergent Marsh 0.5 feet
Open Water ,...~ 2.0-3.0 feet
119
-------
ANCIILARY BENEFITS
Plant Communities
Wildlife Habitat
Vegetation is essential to the
success of the wetland. Plants
increase evapotranspiration by
as much as 20 percent in the summer
and improve water quality. Wetland
vegetation includes rush meadow, three-
square bulrush, tule cattail, and willow
thickets. Upland vegetation consists
primarily of sagebrush, rabbitbrush,
greasewood, and salt grass, which
tolerate the alkaline soils. Floodplain
vegetation includes rabbitbrush and salt
grass, plants which can exist in saline,
silty loam, and clay soils.
Project implementation has allowed
existing plant species to flourish.
Careful planting of hundreds of trees
and bushes added a new component to
the ecosystem, with taller vegetation
providing new perching and nesting
areas for hawks and eagles.
The wetlands provide three types
of wildlife habitat: permanent
wetlands, seasonal wetlands,
and uplands.
Many types of aquatic and nonaquatic
wildlife coexist at the site. Aquatic
invertebrates such as insects, worms,
snails, and crayfish eat algae and other
plants and serve as food for larger
organisms. Fish such as largemouth bass,
black bullhead, green sunfish, mosquito
fish, and carp were identified before
construction and were transferred to
several areas within the site.
Birds occupying the site include
ducks and geese, shore birds, raptors
(hawks and eagles), and passerine
(such as blackbirds). Many migratory
species travel through the Carson
Valley and nest on the islands in the
seasonal storage/waterfowl area or
the grassy areas along the edges of the
cells. Animals common to the area
include deer, coyote, skunk, mink,
muskrat, rabbit, squirrel, chipmunk,
and the western yellow-bellied racer.
The natural warm-water
wetlands provide a year-round
habitat when the constructed
wetland cells are dry.
The yellow-headed blackbird
prefers nesting in the emergent
marsh areas.
120
-------
Recreational Uses
n observation area is provided
at the operations building in the
theast corner of the site to
encourage the public to enjoy and learn
about man's use of his natural environ-
ment. Observation trails traverse the
warm-water wetlands and created
wetlands so that visitors may experience
the diverse wildlife and vegetation at the
site and see how the project operates.
Migratory trumpeter swans find winter habitat at the wetlands enhancement facility.
^^^^^^§"^S?S^"^^^^~^S!^^^^^^^^^^^^fe^^^^^^^^^5^S?^:^=5":-P;S!r^:
121
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Incline Village General Improvement District
Elected Trustees
Robert Wolf, Chairman
Pamela T. Wright, Vice-Chairman
Roberta Gang, Secretary
Jane Maxfield, Trustee
Greg McKay, Trustee
Professional Staff
Robert A. Hunt, General Manager
John F. Shefchik, District Engineer
Don N. Richey,
Sr., Operations Superintendent
Grant Funding
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9
Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection,
Construction Grant Section
Design Team
CH2M HILL
Facilities Plan and Conceptual Design
Robert Chapman, Project Engineer
Richard Mishaga,
Environmental Scientist
Gulp •Wesner»Culp, Design
Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group,
Wetlands Consultation
Robert Kadlec, Senior Consultant
This brochure was prepared by
CH2M HILL for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Project Cost
Description
Amount
Engineering/Inspection... $ 623,493
Land $772,503
Construction $ 3,568,000
Total Project $4;963,996
Innovative/Alternative grants funded
85 percent of the project.
122
-------
Created
my Northern Arizona
BSSH8ralH^s®B83Kag^»st!iaffiie5«Sp»«s«i^^
^!^fi*r4?^£^1^-^ ;-::''^'v--: :-^*-:-^"LV-V>1y/--.t
fi;
-------
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
The City of Show Low built its
first wastewater collection and
treatment system in 1958. It
consisted of sewer lines, serving the
original townsite and contiguously
built up areas of the city, and two
stabilization ponds for treatment.
Effluent was discharged directly into
Show Low Creek, adjacent to the treat-
ment plant, eventually reaching Fool
Hollow Lake. Nutrient loading resulted
Treated municipal wastewater is being used in
N.E. Arizona to create some very interesting
wetlands. Wildlife response to this new habitat
has been dramatic with over 120 species
of birds using them. The local community
is justly proud of this example of
environmental innovation and cooperation.
in accelerated lake eutrophication,
algae blooms, and resulting fish kills.
In 1970, with the cooperation of the
U.S. Forest Service, wastewater discharge
into the creek was halted. The effluent
was pumped two miles north to a
natural depression known as Telephone
Lake where it contributed to the
development of wildlife habitat. In 1977,
due to increasing population and result-
ing effluent flows, the treatment system
Pintail Lake in winter.
124
-------
TREATMENT FACILITY
was expanded to include additional
natural depressions to the East which
became known as Pintail and South
Lake Marshes. In Pintail Lake the U.S.
Forest Service began to construct islands
to enhance waterfowl reproduction.
By 1982 wastewater flows exceeded
the treatment plant's design capacity.
Discharges directly into Show Low
Creek and decreased quality of effluent
delivered to the marsh treatment areas
resulted in degraded habitat quality
and sharply decreased waterfowl
populations. In 1985 the City began
to work on a long term solution to the
problems of treatment plant capacity
and providing high quality effluent to
the created wetlands.
The solution selected was to deepen
and improve the existing treatment
lagoons by adding aeration, increase
pumping capacity, add stabilization
ponds for secondary treatment, increase
the capacity of Telephone Lake for efflu-
ent storage, and add additional marsh
capacity for final treatment and reuse.
The City of Show Low wastewater
treatment facility now consists
of two aerated lagoons that may
be operated in series or parallel, a lift
station with two 1,150 gpm pumps, four
biological stabilization ponds that may
also be operated in series or parallel, a
chlorination contact chamber, effluent
storage and clarification in Telephone
Lake, nutrient removal in constructed
riparian areas, and eventual reuse in
constructed waterfowl marshlands.
Aerial view.
125
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
The created wetlands at Pintail
Lake and Redhead Marsh are
located 4 miles north of the City
of Show Low, Arizona. This is in the
high country of northeastern Arizona.
The wetlands are on National Forest
Service Lands administered by the
Apache/Sitgreaves National Forests.
The climate has a dominant influence
on the functions of the created wetlands.
This area has four definite seasons.
Spring is very windy with gusts over
50 mph. This can cause severe bank
erosion if vegetation isn't established.
Net evaporation can exceed 12 inches
per month in May and June. Summer
is characterized by the onset of a
monsoon type pattern with frequent
showers and high night time tempera-
tures. Fall is ushered in as the rainfall
diminishes and nights get colder. Winter
is marked by colder temperatures and
the wetlands freeze over. Ice may occur
1 to 2 months of winter. Snow depths
of 3 to 12 inches are common.
The soils of this area are heavy clays
with low water permeability. The natural
vegetation is typical pinyon-juniper
woodland. This is a very common
vegetation type in this area. The topog-
raphy is flat to moderately sloping with
some natural basins which form Pintail
and Telephone Lakes. The elevation
above sea level is 6,350 to 6,380 ft.
Evaporation from wetland surfaces
is a key factor affecting their functions.
Total evaporation exceeds precipitation
by 48 inches per year. The evaporative
loss is greatest during the months of
May and June which account for one
half of the year's total. During winter
months evaporation is near zero, so
ponds fill up and total storage capacity
becomes a concern.
Water control structure at
Redhead Marsh.
Weather Summary
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average
High Temp.
44.2°F
48.3°F
53.8°F
63.9°F
73.0°F
82.8°F
85.5°F
82.9°F
79,4°F
68.5°F
55.3°F
45.6°F
Average
Low Temp.
17.7°F
21.0°F
25.4°F
32.1 °F
38.5°F
47.6°F
55.5°F
54.1°F
47.6°F
35.7°F
24.8°F
18.9PF
Historic
Record Low
-25°F
-11 °F
-7°F
11F
14°F
27°F
42°F
37°F
25°F
10°F
-9°F
-16°F
Average
Precip.
1 .40"
.96"
1.25"
.60"
.31"
.50"
2.47"
2.25"
1.22"
1.46"
1 .06"
1.87"
126
-------
DESIGN AND LAYOUT
Since the construction of the first
wetland at Pintail Lake in 1978,
there has been a gradual evolu-
tion of the wetlands. In 1985 a major
expansion occurred with the construc-
tion of Redhead Marsh. This surge of
construction was required as effluent
volumes produced began exceeding
treatment and disposal capacities. The
present system is designed to handle
1.42 million gallons of wastewater per
day to serve a population of 13,500.
The system was designed to integrate
several lakes and marshes into an
effective wetlands complex. Flexibility
in management options was built in to
accommodate changes from year to
year. The water delivery system was
designed to provide additional treat-
ment before the effluent reaches
Redhead Marsh.
Size of Wetlands
Telephone Lake ........ 45 acres
Pintail Lake. 57 acres
South Marsh 19 acres
Redhead Marsh ........ 49 acres
Bullseye Marsh ...... — 1 acre
Ned Lake. ,15 acres
Riparian Area. 15 acres
Total Acres = 201 acres
N .
<„.,<, < < ,<
Legend
Unpaved Access Road
=Paved Access Road
Sewerline
Open Channel
APS Powerline
Fence
To Snbwflake
(Pintail Marsh)
(Redhead Marsh)
1760 3520 5280
i _
scale in feet
Riparian
Area
127
-------
OPERATION AND MONITORING
The main techniques used in
operating the wetland complex
involve the management of the
water. The quantity, quality, and
delivery routes are varied to manage the
wetland habitat. The flexibility designed
into the system allows a variety of
management options. For example,
water control structures with adjustable
water boards are used to hold water
levels at desired levels. Water can be
diverted away from some ponds to
allow them to dry up. This is desired to
allow for maintenance arid to accomplish
vegetation management goals.
Monitoring of the wetlands is
conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the Arizona Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality by
the City of Show Low. Additional
monitoring is conducted by the
Arizona Game and Fish Department
and the U.S. Forest Service.
As water progresses through the
system, water quality improves. For
example, secondary effluent coming
from the polishing ponds flows into
Telephone Lake, then into an open
channel which delivers it to the riparian
area. After the riparian area, the water
flows into another open channel and
is finally delivered to pond one of the
Redhead Marsh. During this delivery.
process the water quality greatly
improves. The following charts show
the removal rates for nitrogen and
phosphorus as water moves through
the system.
I
I
z
1
54
32-
28_
24-
20-
16 _
12 J
8-
4-
Dec., Jan., Feb.
March, April, May
June, July, August
Sept., Oct., Nov.
Influent
Contact
Basin
Telephone
Lake
Redhead
Marsh
12-
10-
D)
I
I
O
a.
n
•s
8-
6-
4-
2-
Dec., Jan., Feb.
- March, April, May
June, July, August
Sept., Oct., Nov.
Influent
Contact Telephone Redhead
Basin Lake Marsh
128
-------
RESPONSE
Pintail Lake and Redhead Marshes
have exceeded the original
objectives and expectations.
What started out as a project to favor
waterfowl has developed into a complex
of wetland ecosystems with a wide
range of benefits. Similar projects in.
other areas have been developed as a
result of the success here.
Vegetation
Experience has shown that the
addition of water to these previously arid
sites brings on dramatic vegetation
changes. A prime objective has been the
establishment of a vigorous vegetative
cover. Cattail, water grass, spike rush,
and various sedges have become estab-
lished naturally in the created wetlands
while others such as hardstem, softstem,
and alkali bulrushes and sego pondweed
have been successfully planted.
Animal
The response of animals to the new
wetlands, has been exciting. After 3 years
of data collection on Pintail Lake,
L. Piest (1981) stated: "The response
of breeding waterfowl has been
dramatic. I estimated that 1,544 duck-
lings or 76.4 ducklings per hectare
(30.93 per acre), were produced in
1981." The response of other birds has
been similar with the establishment of
cormorant and black-crowned night
heron rookeries in the new wetlands.
To date ten bird species which are
classified as endangered, threatened,
6f sensitive have been seen using the
wetlands. These include the bald eagle,
peregrine falcon, osprey, northern
goshawk, snowy egret, belted kingfisher,
American avocet, sora rail, black-
crowned night heron, and the double-
crested cormorant. Four of these species
(the avocet, sora rail, blackcrowned
night heron, and cormorant) have been
found nesting here. A survey done in
1991 to document total bird use on a
weekly basis found 120 different species
of birds using the created wetlands.
Some of the birds are predators, feeding
on fathead minnows, a small fish that
inhabits part of this wetland system.
Other animals found in the wetlands
include rocky mountain elk, mule deer,
pronghorn, black bear, coyote, raccoon,
and various kinds of amphibians.
People are also attracted to these
wetlands for a variety of reasons—
to relax and watch animals is probably .
the intent of most people. Facilities
were provided to improve wildlife
viewing at Pintail Lake. School groups
often use these wetlands for environ-
mental field trips. The concepts of
wastewater cleanup and recycling have
more meaning after experiencing the
created wetlands.
Shorebirds using
Telephone Lake.
129
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Since the first wetland was built
at Pintail Lake in 1978 to the
present, the wetlands have been
a cooperative effort. The "core team,"
which started the project and continues
to make it successful today, include
the City of Show Low, the Arizona
Game and Fish Department, and the
U.S. Forest Service.
Other groups have also played a
major role. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has provided
guidance and funding for this innova-
tive wastewater treatment project. The
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality is involved in the monitoring
and operational permitting process.
The wetland project is also supported
by the local communities. This includes
the local schools with their field trips.
The White Mountain Chapter of the
Audubon Society with the field trips
and work projects.
REFERENCES
L. Piest, 1981. "Evaluation of Waterfowl
Habitat Improvements on the
Apache/Sitgreaves National Forests,
Arizona." USD A/Forest Service.
119pp.
Newly established cormorant rookery.
130
-------
-------
HISTORY
Cooperation between public agencies and nature
can have amazing results. The innovative decision
to use treated municipal wastewater to create
wetland wildlife habitat continues to pay off for
the local community. Like a biological magnet, the
new wetlands attract a wide variety of wildlife
and of course people to watch them.
Jacques Marsh is a constructed
wetland that is a component of
the wastewater management
system of the Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary
District. It is the result of a cooperative
effort between the U.S. Forest Service,
Arizona Game and Fish Department,
and the Pinetop Lakeside Sanitary
District. The manmade marsh was
constructed on National Forest Service
Lands in an area with no historical
ponds, lakes or wetlands. However,
once established the marsh closely
represents a natural wetland in terms
of plants and wildlife present at the site.
The surface and groundwaters of the
community were considered to be con-
taminated in the 1970's and the Pinetop-
Lakeside Sanitary District was formed in
1973 to clean up these waters. With assis-
tance of an EPA construction grant the
wastewater collection system, a 2 million
gallon per day secondary treatment plant
and Jacques Marsh were completed in
1980. The 127 acres of marsh and ponds
currently receive about one million
gallons of treated wastewater per day.
The community is proud of its deci-
sion to construct Jacques Marsh to
recycle their reclaimed water rather
than discharge effluent from the treat-
ment plant into Billy Creek which runs
through the area. Many worries about
pollution and human contact were elim-
inated and a striking wildlife area was
created. The use of Jacques Marsh for
recreation, outdoor education, and
wildlife has been well worth the effort.
Jacques Marsh 1990.
' ""*':" '. "a&F **«
''T
*S7wap«^^^^^^^^«^
•^•^vSg^ggig*
S - '---^-.^f™*—Kii.-!^-?-'^^-'*'^ H'«, • . ^.^
»j|»-"," :.it-H;^*?S£k.«f1'#*f-i^-r.rw^ '•'•-Tt
132
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
The wastewater treatment plant
operated by the Pinetop-Lakeside
Sanitary District is a 2 million
gallon per day activated sludge plant.
Treatment consists of comminutors,
hydrostatic screens and a vortex grit
system followed by aeration in a
2 million gallon oxidation channel.
Organic material in the wastewater is
stabilized during this part of the process.
Following aeration for 24 hours in the
channel, the flow is directed into two
secondary clarifiers (sedimentation
tanks) for separation of the organic
solids from the treated wastewater. In
the secondary clarifiers, solids are settled
out by gravity and recycled to the
oxidation channel, or removed. The
effluent is drawn from the top of the
secondary clarifiers, chlorinated and
pumped to the Jacques Wetlands
Marsh System.
The sludge that is removed is pumped
to an aerobic digester. Following
digestion, the sludge is dewatered
(concentrated) by Somat Dewatering
Screws and pumped to an Eweson
Co-Composting digester to be mixed
with municipal solid waste. This 12 week
process reduces 20 tons of material
(14 tons of municipal solid waste plus
6 tons of sludge) to around 11 tons of
marketable compost. Since this co-
composting facility became operational,
it has utilized 100% of the sludge from
the wastewater treatment plant and 80%
of the residential solid waste produced
by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside.
PLSD's on-site testing lab.
133
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
The created wetlands at Jacques
Marsh are located 1 mile north
of the town of Pinetop-Lakeside,
Arizona. This is in the high country of
northeastern Arizona. The wetlands
are on National Forest Service Lands
administered by the Apache/Sitgreaves
National Forests.
The climate has a dominant influence
on the functions of the created wetlands.
This area has four definite seasons.
Spring is very windy with gusts over
50 mph. This can cause severe bank
erosion if vegetation isn't established.
Net evaporation can exceed 7 inches
per month in May and June. Summer
is characterized by the onset of a
monsoon type pattern with frequent
showers and high humidities. Plants
respond quickly to the higher night time
temperatures. Fall is ushered in as the
rainfall diminishes and nights get colder.
The first frosts occur during the last
part of September. Winter is marked by
colder temperatures and the wetlands
freeze over. Ice may occur for 1 to
2 months of winter. Snow depths of
6 to 16 inches are common.
The clay soils of the Jacques Marsh
site are of volcanic origin. They have
low permeability to water. This is a
key factor in the wetland design. The
natural soils were used to form the
marsh basins.
The natural vegetation of the site
was ponderosa pine, Utah juniper and
pinyon pine. This is a very common
vegetation type in this mountain area.
The animals occurring in this area
include rocky mountain elk, mule deer,
Merriam turkey, black bear, and coyotes.
Common birds are Stellers jay, western
bluebird, redshafted flicker, and raven.
Waterfowl are common where water
occurs. The Intermountain Biotic
Province is the greatest source of
waterfowl using this site.
Weather Summary
---,-- .- --._,, . ,, i,. , , . .. .., ,,» .„ T . , . , ,.. : .- .: i fii „, , ,LI
Month
iLJan
Feb
Mar
Apr
^May
: Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
- Nov
; Dec
Average
High Temp.
44.3°F
46.1 °F
50.0°F
59.7°F
69.0°F
78.1 °F
80.5°F
77.5°F
74.4°F
65.6°F
53.6°F
46.5°F
Average
Low Temp.
16.0°F
18.1°F
21.7°F
27.9°F
33.8°F
40.7°F
49.T°F
48.i°F
41.6°F
32.6°F
23.4°F
..._.: i8,2°F ; :
Historic
Record Low
-23°F
-18°F
-13°F
0°F
8°F
20°F
30°F
32°F
21°F
6°F
/-3°F ''
-18°F
Average
Precip.
1.92" :
1.30"
.1.91"
_g3,,
.43"
.57" V"
3.'l3"
3.40"
1.82"
..1.99"
V.34"
1 .96"
134
-------
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Jacques Marsh is different than
most constructed wetlands
because it doesn't occupy a
natural basin or drainageway. The
relatively level site was selected because
it has a clay soil of sufficient depth to
provide material for dike construction
and a low percolation rate.
Several hundred soil borings were
made to map the size and thickness of
the clay layer. Heavy earth moving
equipment performed the necessary
cut and fill to create the dikes and
islands which form the physical features
of the marsh.
A pipeline was installed to carry the
reclaimed water which is pumped up
hill from the treatment plant to the
marsh. Outlets allow for water to be
pumped directly into 5 of the 7 ponds.
Interpond concrete structures allow
water to flow from one pond into
another. These structures are equipped
with water boards to maintain predeter-
mined water levels in each pond. This
flexibility of managing water levels is
a key factor in operating the marsh.
The "V" shaped nesting islands were
designed to retard wave erosion. The
points of the islands face the prevailing
wind and the back sides provide back
water areas for resting waterfowl. The
purpose of the islands is to provide
nesting sites which are safe from
predators such as skunks and coyotes.
The perimeter of the area was fenced
to keep out domestic livestock.
JACQUES MARSH
Perimeter Fence
-—Reclaimed
Water Distribution
• Control Valve.
Nesting Island
Net
Evaporation
Month Inches
Jan
Feb
Mar
-Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
-Dec
Total
+.32
-1.33
-3.75
-6.22
-7.62
-8.49
-4.34
-3.29 .
-3.74
-2.55
-1.31
+.57
-41.75
Pond
Pond
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Equalization
Basin
Total Acres
Sizes
Surface
Acres
16.36
21.86
18.56
4.66
7.70
10.95
12.08
35.0
127.17
135
-------
OPERATION AND MONITORING
The effluent produced by the
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary
District's treatment plant has
the following characteristics:
Biological
Oxygen
Demand
Total
Suspended
Solids
Turbidity
Range
2-3 mg/l
1-13mg/l
2.1-5.4ntu
Mo. Avg.
2.4 mg/l
6.4 mg/l
3.6 ntu
The treated wastewater is provided
to a combination of the 7 ponds each
year in accordance with the habitat
management plan. Waterfowl habitat
needs and plant requkements are the
primary factors affecting management
of the ponds and marsh.
As water proceeds from one pond
to another in the marsh, nitrogen and
phosphorus are removed from the
water. These nutrients are taken up by
plants and animals and contribute to
the overall productivity of the marsh.
The following summarizes the removal
rates for nitrogen and phosphorus for
the months of February, March, April
and May 1991:
Effluent
Pondt
PondS
Total N
(mg/l)
20.35
6.23
5.35
Total P
(mg/l)
7.90
4.10
4.75
Aerial view of treatment facility.
In addition to monitoring surface
water quality, the Pinetop-Lakeside
Sanitary District samples 3 shallow
wells on a quarterly basis to insure
groundwater quality is not being
impacted.
136
-------
RESPONSE
B • Mhat started out as a curiosity,
^••M putting wastewater to good
^§ W use, has now become an
attraction to many forms of life. Visitors
are usually treated to a surprise package
of sights and sounds provided by a
vibrant marsh ecosystem.
In the winter bald eagles are a
common sight and in the summer
peregrine falcons are occasionally
seen. The peak periods of waterfowl
use occur during the spring and fall
migration. The islands provide excellent
duck nesting habitat. Elk are attracted
to the1 marsh in the fall and winter
where they consume the dry vegetation.
Of course the diversity of plants and
animals attracts many human visitors.
The area is popular with the viewing and
hunting public. Jacques Marsh is a point
of local pride. The residents of the cities
of Pinetop and Lakeside have supported
the project since it's inception.
A major side benefit of the created
marshes has been the opportunity for
interaction with the local schools. The
marshes now function as outdoor class-
rooms where many environmental
principles are taught including recycling
and water cleanup. In 1989 a local group
of 140 fourth graders were treated to
the sight of a peregrine falcon hunting
shore birds as they toured the wetland.
Elk using Jacques Marsh.
137
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Jacques Marsh is the result of
many agencies and individuals
working toward common goals.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency provided much of the funding
under the Clean Water Act. The
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District
provided funding and constructed the
system. The Arizona Game and Fish
Department agreed to maintain the
wetland after construction. The Apache/
Sitgreaves National Forests provided
255 acres of land and developed the
habitat. The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality provided
technical guidance and operational
permits for the facility.
The wetland came together as a result
of dedicated effort, and a vision of the
future held by several people. Adrian
Hill, District Forest Ranger of the
Apache/Sitgreaves National Forests,
and Jack O'Neil, Game Specialist for the
Arizona Game and Fish Department,
worked hard at garnering their respec-
tive agencies support for the project.
U.S. Forest Service Wildlife Biologists
Leon Fager and James McKibben
provided the technical and planning
support to make the project viable.
The Board of Directors of the Pinetop-
Lakeside Sanitary District played a key
role in obtaining the support of the local
communities. This group of dedicated
individuals didn't permit doubt, policy,
politics, or the "but it's never been done
nere before" attitude to stop them.
Jacques Marsh is a tribute to them and
to many others who followed for the
past 17 years.
138
<3^^e*;3^
-------
Fort Deposit. Alabama
; , --.. \ r?r. , , r+ , ;;? ;.
Constructed Wetland Treatment System,
Case History m *
-------
BACKGROUND
The town of Fort Deposit, located
south of Montgomery, Alabama,
has a population of slightly more
than 1,500. Until 1985, the town's waste-
water was treated in a 10-acre waste
stabilization pond and consistently met
discharge limits. In 1985, a new discharge
permit was issued by the Alabama
Department of Environmental Manage-
ment. This permit required the town
to meet more stringent standards based
on water quality limitations in the
receiving water. Since the town's
stabilization pond was unable to meet
the new standards, an administrative
order requiring the town to upgrade
its system was issued.
An engineering analysis of treatment
alternatives was conducted by the
environmental consulting firm
CH2M HILL to compare a variety of
conventional and innovative technolo-
gies. On the basis of an evaluation of
environmental benefits, reliability, and
"cost, treatment by constructed wetlands
was selected as the most cost-effective
approach for compliance with the new
permit limitations.
The use of constructed wetlands to
remove impurities in wastewater and
to consistently achieve treatment levels
that meet permit requirements was an
emerging technology in 1985. To assist
with funding their new system, the town
applied for and was awarded a $610,000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Innovative/Alternative
Technology grant for its wetland project.
This additional funding, coupled with
low construction and maintenance costs
associated with the wetland system,-
140
reduced the financial impact of the
upgrade on the community and provided
it with a system that would require only
slightly more maintenance than the
existing stabilization pond.
Post-aeration is essential for
compliance with the effluent
standard for dissolved oxygen.
-------
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A
s designed, the Fort Deposit wet-
land treatment system intrudes
the following main components:
• An 8.9-acre aerated pond
• Two 7.5-acre constructed wetland
cells
• A 0.1-acre post-aeration pond
The town's existing stabilization pond
was modified to provide more effective
pre-treatment. The modifications
included relocating the influent and
effluent points and adding floating
mechanical aerators. Seven acres of the
pond were aerated, leaving the remain-
ing area to serve as a settling, basin.
These modifications improve 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N)
removal efficiency, reduce organic
and solids loading to the wetland cells,
and provide additional flexibility in
the overall treatment process.
The wetland cells are configured side
by side. Each cell covers 7.5 acres and
has an aspect ratio (length to width) of
4.6:1. The cell floors are slightly sloped
for easy draining during maintenance.
Although most of the 15 acres of wet-
land cells are less than 2 feet deep, each
cell has three "deep zones," which are
4 feet deep and about 20 feet wide.
The deep zones remain free of rooted
marsh vegetation, thus allowing effluent
'to be redistributed through the system
and providing atmospheric aeration.
The deeper water in these zones also
furnishes year-round habitat for aquatic
life, particularly mosquito fish and
wetland birds.
, The parallel operation of the two
wetland cells gives the town the ability
to direct all flow through a single cell
during wetland resting and maintenance
periods. Moreover, the rate of flow
to each cell can be varied to allow
flexibility in operations and to aid in
testing or research.
The treated effluent enters a post-
aeration pond after passing through the
wetland cells. This system component
is used to meet the effluent dissolved
oxygen limits specified in the permit.
This 75,000-gallon earthen pond is
equipped with a floating mechanical
aerator. Final effluent flow rate from
the post-aeration pond is continuously
measured by a Parshall flume.
The Fort Deposit constructed
wetland treatment system
uses an aerated lagoon for
pretreatment followed by two
parallel wetland cells.
Post-Aeration Pond
141
-------
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
In the Fort Deposit wetland system,
wastewater is treated by the naturally
occurring bacteria and fungi that
colonize the sediments on the bottom
of the cells and the stems and leaves of
the wetland vegetation below the water
level. These microorganisms help trans-
form and remove organic matter and
nutrients that might otherwise degrade
adjacent surface waters.
The vegetation in the two wetland
cells was selected to simulate a natural
wetland and included an initial planting
of 68,000 cattail and bulrush plants.
Influent from the aerated pond is
distributed to the cells by pipes with
1-inch holes drilled at 10-foot intervals.
This method of distributing influent
starts the flow through the treatment
system and reduces the buildup of solids
at the head of the wetland cells.
The system is designed so that the
effluent takes up to 30 days to flow
through the wetland cells. The actual
retention time varies seasonally to
account for changes in the reaction
rate of microorganisms in the cells.
Because the microorganisms react more
quickly at higher temperatures, the
retention tune can be decreased during
the summer and still provide the
required contact time for effective
removal of impurities. Conversely,
during the winter's colder temperatures,
the reaction rate of the microorganisms
is lower and the retention tune is
increased by raising water levels.
Aluminum stop logs, located in three
outlet structures along the width of each
wetland cell, control cell water depth
and promote the flow of effluent
through the treatment system.
After treatment by the wetland cells,
effluent is conveyed to the post-aeration
pond, where it receives supplemental
aeration from a floating aerator.
Influent distribution to the
wetland cells is enhanced by
perforated pipes on a rip-rap
slope across the width of the
wetland cells.
142
-------
Outlet weir structures allow
water level control for
adjustment of hydraulic
Dense stands of submerged
cattail stems and leaves
serve as growth media for
microorganisms that feed on
impurities in the influent. The
natural transfer of atmospheric
oxygen to these microbes is
essential in removing organic
matter and ammonia from
the wastewater.
143
-------
PERFORMANCE
Construction of the cells began in
June 1989, with planting starting
during May 1990. By August
1990, the vegetation provided almost
complete cover, and operation of the
wetland cells began. Since then, with
only one exception for NH3, the Fort
Deposit constructed wetland treatment
system has consistently achieved permit
compliance and has caught the attention
of others seeking a low cost, dependable
natural treatment system. Because of
its outstanding contribution to water
resource conservation, the Fort Deposit
system received several awards including
the Alabama 1991 Governor's Conserva-
tion Achievement Award, the Alabama
Engineering Excellence Award, and
the Grand Award from the American
Consulting Engineers Council.
Month
1990 August
September
October
November
December
1991 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1992 January
February
March
April
BODs
In
102
27
30
27
15
20
13
26
22
21
29
33
56
24
30
32
33
39
22
34
31
Out
5
8
3
3
4
5
4
7
10
9
10
7
7
4
8
4
12
4
4
4
4
TSS
In
137
101
168
127
71
52
18
40
97
52
72
69
183
87
125
106
64
83
32
58
119
Out
10
18
18
10
9
10
4
8
15 -
20
25
10
7
12
18
7
16
19
4
5
3
Nitrogen
TKN In
20.0
11.0
19.0
14.0
10.0
8.0
11.0
19.0
10.0
8.0
5.0
21
20.0
10.0
6.0
11.0
11.5
10.0
6.7
10.0
12.0
NHs Out
.0.57
0.66
0.78
0.93
2.60
1.10
0.74
0.89 !
0.70
0.35 ;
0.94
6.43
0.90
0.99
0.75
0.21
0.87
0.38
0.15
0.22
0.51
Wetland effluent BODS and total suspended solids (TSS) are consistently in compliance with permit limits
despite variable inflow quality to the wetland cells. Total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is mineralized In the wetland
ce//s to NH3 and then nitrified to achieve the low discharge limits. !
Deep zones In the wetlands
provide open water for ducks
and wading birds, enhance
flow distribution in the
wetland cells, serve as a sump
for settling solids, and provide
additional hydraulic residence
time in the wetland cells.
144
-------
ANCILLARY BENEFITS
In addition to improving the quality
of the effluent discharged to the
receiving stream, the creation of
the Fort Deposit constructed wetland
treatment system has significantly
increased wildlife. This new habitat
provides cover and food for various
types of wetland-dependent vertebrate
and invertebrate life including a
variety of ducks and wading birds and
their prey.
As a result of the wetland's success
and the desire of others to adopt similar
technology, the town is receiving
visitors from other areas of the state
and the nation.
Fort Deposit
Wetland Design Criteria
Average Daily Flow 0.24 mgd
Influent Quality
BOD 5
TSS
TN
NHs-N
Effluent Criteria
BOD 5
TSS
NHs-N
pH
Areas
Lagoon
Wetland
Cells (2)
40 mg/L
100 mg/L
20 mg/L
10 mg/L
10(18)a mg/L
30 mg/L
2(5)a mg/L
6-9 units
10 acres
7.5 acres each
()a winter limits December-April
The Fort Deposit wetlands
continue to diversify as new
plant species colonize the cells.
145
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Waterworks and Sewer Board of
the Town of Fort Deposit
Henry Crenshaw, Chairman
Leo Goldsmith, Board Member
W.O. Ward, Board Member
David Edwards, Manager
Consulting Engineers
Dennis A. Sandretto,
CH2MHILL
Project Manager
Robert L. Knight,
CH2M HILL Project
Environmental Scientist
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Truman Green,
Chief, Municipal Branch,
Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Freeman,
Municipal Grants Program,
Region IV
This brochure was prepared by
CH2M HILL for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
146
-------
*3ftj
West Jackson Cdu nty,
Gonstrted Wetlan
-------
BACKGROUND
The West Jackson County
Constructed Wetland Treatment
System (CWTS) was built in two
phases between 1990 and 1991 to
provide additional effluent treatment
and disposal capacity for the Mississippi
Gulf Coast Regional Wastewater
Authority's (MGCRWA) regional land
treatment facility. Located north of
Ocean Springs, Mississippi, the West
Jackson County constructed wetlands
consist of three parallel treatment
systems that cover 56 acres.
The land treatment facility was
originally designed to treat an annual
average daily flow of 1.6 million gallons
per day (mgd). Initially, this capacity
Costapia Bayou
Post-Aeration Facility
(Effluent Sampling Station)
CWTS2
(215 Acres)
CWTS2
(125 Acres)
: Influent
• -Sampling
-Station
Seaman
Road
North Spray Field
(170 Acres)
CWTS1
(22 Acres)
Building
Compound
Faculative
Lagoon/Storage
Facilities
South Spray Fields
(245 Acres, Total)
(Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife
Refuge Property)
was sufficient to treat the wastewater
produced within the service area, which
is primarily from household sources.
However, following heavy rainfall
events, hydraulic capacity of the land
treatment facility was exceeded, and
excess flow was bypassed directly into
Costapia Bayou. Wetlands were
constructed to increase the site's overall
treatment capacity to 2.6 mgd and to
eliminate this periodic bypass.
Spray irrigation is used for
effluent treatment and disposal
at West Jackson County
during dry weather.
148
-------
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
s designed, the West Jackson
County Natural Land Treatment
tem includes the following
main components:
• a 75-acre lagoon/storage facility
• a 380-acre land application system
• three constructed wetland treatment
systems, CWTS1, CWTS2, and
CWTS3, with a combined area of
56 acres
• a 0.2-acre post-aeration pond
Wastewater is conveyed to the
regional land treatment facility by a
pressurized force main. Initial treat-
ment is provided as the effluent moves
through the three cells of the lagoon,
which remove grit and settleable solids
and reduce suspended and dissolved
organic materials. The effluent flows by
gravity to the distribution pump station
where debris is removed by two travel-
ing screens. The effluent is then
pumped to the distribution system.
The partially treated effluent is
applied to crops on two sites: a 245-acre
southern site, located on Mississippi
Sandhill Crane National Wildlife
Refuge lands, and a 170-acre northern
site, located on MGCRWA-owned land.
Permanent big-gun sprinklers are used
to apply the effluent. Underdrains on
the land treatment fields transfer excess
percolate to wetland ponds on the
Refuge that provide nesting habitat for
the endangered sandhill cranes. These
birds have also benefited from this
project through their use of the spray
fields as feeding habitat.
Alternatively, the effluent can be
pumped to the 22-acre CWTS1 or be
gravity fed to the 34-acre CWTS2 and
CWTS3 sites. CWTS1 consists of two
cells that operate in series. Effluent
from Cell 1A flows over eight adjust-
able weirs into Cell IB. From there,
Cell IB effluent flows into an open
collection ditch where it flows by
gravity to the post-aeration pond
north of CWTS2. .
CWTS2 and CWTS3 are two separate,
parallel treatment trains that operate
in series. CWTS2 has three cells and
CWTS3 has two cells. CWTS2 and
CWTS3 are directly downgradient
from the lagoon; therefore, influent
flows by gravity at a constant rate up
to 1.0 mgd. After being measured, the
influent is split between the two treat-
ment trains by a concrete flow splitter.
Approximately 65 percent of the
flow goes to CWTS2, and the rest to
CWTS3, resulting in a uniform loading
per acre to the treatment trains even
though they are different sizes.
After treatment in the three CWTS,
all wetland outflows are combined in
the effluent collection ditch and
conveyed to the post-aeration pond,
which is equipped with two floating
aerators. The post-aeration pond efflu-
ent passes through a Parshall flume for
flow measurement, then through the
outfall pipe where it is discharged into
Costapia Bayou.
149
-------
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
Cattails are the primary
wetland species used for
water quality treatment.
Constructed wetland systems can
provide a high level of waste-
water treatment with low opera-
tion and maintenance requirements and
low energy costs. In the West Jackson
County CWTS, wastewater is treated
by the naturally occurring bacteria and
fungi that colonize the sediments on
the bottom of the cells as well as the
stems and leaves of the vegetation
below the water's surface. These
microbes help transform and remove
organic compounds and nutrients that
might otherwise result in pollution of
adjacent surface waters.
The bottoms of the CWTS cells are
slightly sloped for easy draining during
maintenance. Each wetland cell has
three or more "deep zones," which
are 5 feet deep and about 20 feet wide.
The deep zones remain free of rooted
marsh vegetation, allowing them to
redistribute effluent through the system
and provide atmospheric aeration. The
deeper water in these zones furnishes
year-round habitat for aquatic life,
particularly mosquito fish and wetland-
dependent birds such as waterfowl.
Operation of the West Jackson
County CWTS is based on shallow,
overland flow conditions in the first
half of the wetland cells. Water depth
increases to a maximum of about 1 foot
at the downstream end of the cells. This
operational strategy takes advantage
of the fact that higher dissolved oxygen
(DO) occurs in shallow, higher velocity
areas of the wetland cells.
The West Jackson County CWTS was
initially planted with cattail and bulrush
150
-------
plants. The CWTS also has been
naturally colonized by 43 other wetland
plant species, providing a high level of
biological diversity.
Influent from the pretreatment
lagoon is distributed to the wetland
cells by pipes with 2-inch holes drilled
at 10-foot intervals. This method of
distributing influent begins the flow-
through the treatment system and is
critical for effective use of the CWTS
for water quality treatment.
The effluent flows through the cells
for up to 12 days to provide a high
quality effluent. To account for seasonal
changes in the reaction rate of micro-
organisms in the cells, the retention
time is varied by changing water depths.
Because the microorganisms react
more quickly at higher temperatures,
the retention time can be decreased
during the summer and still provide
the required contact time for effective
treatment. Conversely, during the
winter's colder temperatures, the
reaction rate of the microorganisms is
lower; therefore, the retention time is
increased by raising water levels. Deep
water zones provide effective redistrib-
ution of water flows along the length of
the wetland cells. Stainless steel outflow
weirs control cell water depth and
promote the flow of effluent through
the treatment system. After it is treated
in the CWTS, effluent is conveyed to
the post-aeration pond, where the flow
rate and water quality are measured
before final discharge.
Post-aeration is essential for
consistent compliance with
the dissolved oxygen permit
limit of 6.0 mg/l.
151
-------
PERFORMANCE
Construction of Phase I of the
CWTS began in February 1990.
The earthwork and planting
were completed in July 1990, and
startup and flows to this phase began
in August 1990. Plant cover was fully
established in Phas,e I by October 1990.
Construction of Phase II began in
June 1990 and was completed about
8 months later. Influent flows to this
phase began in October 1990 and plant-
ing was completed in April 1991. Plant
cover was fully established in Phase II
by June 1991.
Water quality measurements made
since June 1991 following complete
plant establishment indicate that the
West Jackson County constructed
wetlands will effectively reduce BODS
and TSS concentrations to less than
8 mg/L. These reductions occur in
spite of variable BODS and TSS
inflow concentrations.
One of the key goals of the West
Jackson County CWTS is ammonia
nitrogen (NH3-N) reduction. Perform-
ance of the CWTS has been variable
to date, with 3 out of 12 months having
outflow NH3-N levels above the limit.
High outflow NH3-N concentrations
have been associated with either high
TKN loadings (over 3 pounds per acre
per day) or with high flows (over 2 mgd).
Operational control of peak flows,
TKN loading, and water level adjust-
ment are currently being used to
optimize this wetland system's nitrogen
removal potential.
West Jackson County
Constructed Wetland Design Criteria
Wetland Design Flow 1.6 mgd
Influent Quality
BODS 45 mg/L
TN 12.5 mg/L (167 Ib/d)
Effluent Criteria
BOD5 10(13)a mg/L
TSS 30 mg/L
NH3-N .2.mg/L .
pH 6-8.5 units
DO 6 mg/L
Fecal 2200 col/100 ml
coliforms
Areas (acres)
CWTS1
CWTS 2
CWTS 3
Cell A
CellB
Cell A
"Cell B
CellC
Cell A
CellB
12
10
9.7
7.8
4.0
9.2
3.3
a() December-April,
BOD5 = Five-day biochemical
oxygen demand,
TN = Total nitrogen,
TSS = Total suspended solids,
NH3-N = Ammonia nitrogen,
DO = Dissolved oxygen
Water Quality Measurements
Month
; 1991 June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1992 January
: February
March
April
May
BOD5
In
28
13
23
19
27
46
39
23
19
19
28
24
Out
9
5
4
2.5
4
3
4
4
5
5
4
4.5
TSS
In
40
41
49
35
35
36
29
17
12
16
18
31
Out
15
15
10
5
4.5
4
7
8
4
5
4
6.5
Nitrogen
TNIn
7.3
4.4
15.2
17.7
14.5
13.5
6.9
11.1
14.5
15.4
12.2
6.9
NHs Out
•,:J,2,.,,,
1,3
1.0
2,3
is
3.9
i.3 '7;
1-4
1,6 ....
1.7
1-2
0.05
BOD5 outflow concentrations have remained below 5 mg/L since vegetation colonization
was completed in June 1991. TSS outflow concentrations have settled to less than 8 mg/L
since September 1 991 . NH3 outflow concentration is dependent on the mass loading of
TN and has remained below 2 mg/L as long as TN loading is less than 167 Ib/d (3 lb/ac/d).:
. . :.'.,,... '/.;.. '. : , .. :i
152
-------
ANCILLARY BENEFITS
In addition to improving the quality
of the effluent discharged to the
receiving stream, the creation of the
West Jackson County CWTS has
resulted in significant wildlife benefits.
This new wetland habitat provides food
and cover for various types of wetland
dependent vertebrate and invertebrate
life. The aquatic invertebrate popula-
tions throughout the wetlands provide
food for fish and birds.
The 45 wetland plant species identi-
fied to date, combined with open water
zones and shallow edge areas, have
resulted in a diversity of wildlife
habitats and high populations of wild-
life species. Sixty-two bird species were
identified in or around the wetlands
during 1991. About 37 of these species
are considered to be wetland-depen-
dent. Bird populations during the
winter, spring, and fall seasons are
dominated by ducks, sora rails, swamp
sparrows, and wading birds. Summer
bird population studies indicate the
presence of at least 7 nesting bird
species and a total of 30 species in
and around the wetlands.
Winter bird populations
include ducks, rails, sparrows,
coots, herons, egrets, and
many other wetland species.
153
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Regional Wastewater Authority
Curt Miller, General Manager
Donald Schorr, Senior Engineer
Linwood Tanner, Chief Operator
Consulting Engineers
Clay Sykes,
CH2M HILL Project Manager
Robert Knight,
CH2MHILL
Project Environmental Scientist
Carl Easton,
CH2M HILL Resident Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bob Freeman,
Municipal Grants Program,
Region IV
This brochure was prepared by
CH2M HILL for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
154
-------
-------
Working together
for water quality,
wildlife habitat,
education and
passive recreation.
At the south edge of Hillsboro,
Oregon, lies the damp, tranquil
sanctuary of the Jackson Bottom
Wetlands Preserve. Nearly 650 acres of
low-lying floodplain on the edge of the
Tualatin River, about 80 percent of the
area is classified as wetlands.
Early mapmakers dismissed the
damp bottomlands as a "mirey swamp"
suitable only for dredging, draining, and
farming. Over the years, agricultural
and sewage disposal practices created
a highly degraded landscape of limited
value for wildlife use, dominated by
introduced grasses.
Since 1979, the Jackson Bottom
Steering Committee has been working
together on an innovative project aimed
at changing those conditions and
transforming this "mirey swamp" into a
wildlife and water quality "living labora-
tory." The Steering Committee, made
up of a unique alliance of economic
The Jackson Bottom Steering Committee
• City of Hillsboro
• Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Greater Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce
• Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District
• Portland Audubon Society
• Friends of Jackson Bottom
• Oregon Graduate Institute
• Washington County Education Service District
• The Wetlands Conservancy
* Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
• Pacific University
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
156
-------
interests, environmental groups and
public agencies, spent the first 10 years
on efforts directed primarily toward
improving the area's wildlife habitat
and passive recreation values.
In 1989, the coalition broadened
its efforts and began investigating
the use of natural and constructed
wetland systems for water quality
management as part of the Unified
Sewerage Agency's effort to improve
water quality in the Tualatin River.
At the Jackson Bottom Wetlands,
the Steering Committee has a unique
opportunity to manage the wetland's
multiple goals. Jackson Bottom provides
a chance to increase the diversity of
resident and transient wildlife, improve
water quality, provide rich research and
educational experiences, offer passive
and non-consumptive forms of recrea-
tion, and attract tourists in an area of
rapidly expanding urban population.
157
-------
The 1989 Jackson Bottom Concept
Master Plan clearly outlined the
main goals of the Jackson
Bottom Wetlands Preserve.
Enhancement for .Wildlife: Attract a
more diverse wildlife population by
expanding and restoring the preserve
to provide food and shelter to a variety
of birds and animals.
Water Quality Management: Develop
the Jackson Bottom Experimental
Wetland to investigate the feasibility of
using wetlands to "polish" effluent from
a secondary wastewater treatment
plant for the removal of phosphorus
and nitrogen before discharging to the
water quality-limited Tualatin River.
Passive Recreation: Provide access to
areas of the wetland and the Tualatin
River for hiking, bird watching, angling
and other passive natural resource-
associated activities.
Education and Research: Encourage
educational use through interpretive
signs and displays, development of
educational materials for schools and
groups, providing site tours and assist-
ing researchers with research projects.
Wetlands Water Source
Historically, the damp landscape
of Jackson Bottom owes its source of
water to the regular flooding of the
Tualatin River. The flooding creates the
bottomland wetlands which make up
the majority of Jackson Bottom.
Today, water from regular winter
flood is supplemented in the summer
by secondarily treated effluent from a
nearby Unified Sewerage Agency treat-
ment plant. This cleaned wastewater
helps to maintain the restored wildlife
habitat. In return, the wetlands
filter the effluent before it's
returned to the river.
Since 1979, enhancement
projects have created and
restored several types of
wetlands once typical
in the basin. The
additional wetland
types include deep
and shallow ponds,
wet meadows,
riparian wetlands and
fresh-water marshes.
Edging the east side are
also forested wetlands and
upland habitat.
Where the Water Goes
Outflow
21.6
Seepage
27.0
Evaporation
Total: 57.1 Million Gallons
158
-------
Putting the Polish on
Wetlands for Water
Quality Management
Wetlands, ponds and lagoons have
long played a role in wastewater treat-
ment. In many areas, partially treated
wastewater is filtered through wetlands
for suspended solids (SS) and biochemi-
cal oxygen demand (BOD) removal.
The Jackson Bottom Experimental
Wetland (JBEW) is taking this process
one step further. Using secondarily
treated effluent from the Unified
Sewerage Agency's (USA) Hillsboro
Wastewater Treatment Plant, USA's
researchers are investigating the use of
wetlands to "polish" the wastewater for
removal of phosphorus and nitrogen.
These nutrients are abundant in the
effluent of conventional secondary
treatment plants. This experimental
program is part of USA"s comprehen-
sive effort to reduce loads of phospho-
rus and nitrogen entering the water
quality-limited Tualatin River.
Built in the summer of 1988 with
operation beginning in 1989, the JBEW
occupies about 15 acres on the eastern
edge of the Jackson Bottom Wetlands
Preserve. The Experimental Wetland is
actually a series of 17 parallel cells, each
built to contain effluent for varying
amounts of time, with different soil
types and different vegetation patterns.
Since July 1989, testing has been
conducted to measure the success rates
of the soils and vegetation to "polish"
the effluent.
Jackson Bottom Experimental Welland
Design and Operational Criteria
Cell Design Criteria; 15.6 Acre Wetland (17 Parallel Cells)
Cell Size, Capacity Total
Width. :. 18.3 to 22.4 ft,
Length 1250 to 1280ft.
Depth...... 46 percent at 1 ft.
54 percent at 3 ft.
Surface Area.......;........ 22,000 to 30,600 sq. ft 430,600 sq. ft
0.5to0.7acres— ..9.9 acres
Water Level... 0.5to2.75ft.
Volume 254,000 to 427,000 gal, 4.8 mil gal.
Introduced Cattail (Typha latifolia)
Vegetation Sago pondweed
(Potamogeton pectinatus)
Soil
Cove Series. 5.4 acres
Wapato silty loam ....... 6.2 acres
Lavish mucky clay 3.4 acres
JBEW Operational Parameters
1989 1990
1991
Days..
Operational Period
Hydraulic
Loading Rate
Average Flow/cell
Detention Time ;
Mass Loading Rates
Phosphorus....
— Nitrogen —
cm/d
in/d
rgpm
.days
kg/ha/da
ib/ac/da
kg/ha/da
Ib/ac/da
77
July 25
Oct17
7.0
,2.8
30
5-10
5.2
4.6
14.9
13.2
108
June 25-
OcMO
4.0
1.6
19
5-27
3.4
3.0
7.7
" 6.9
118
June 19-
OctlO
5.5
2.6
24
4-12
2.4
2.1
11.0
9.8
JBEW Outflow Data, Three Year Average
Influent Effluent
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) .............. 5.1 3.0
Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) 42 47
Alkalinity (mg/L) .86 126
Total Solids (mg/L) 312 .326
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) .304 316
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 7.7 .9.6
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 8.4 3.0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen-N (mg/L) 11.9 4.8
Nitrate/Nitrite-N (mg/L) 7.3 0.5
Total Phosphorus-P (mg/L) .6.3 .3.8
Soluble Orthb Phosphorus-N (mg/L) 5.0 ,. 3.0
Chloride (mg/L) 59 66
Enterococcus (#7100 ml) , 3. 75
Chlorophyll a(ug/L). .0.9.... 28.7
Groundwater Monitoring Data
Shallow Wells Within JBEW
Nitrite/Nitrate (mg/L).
Chloride (mg/L)
pH
Drinking Water Std
. ....10
250
...... 6.0-9.0
1989
. . 0.39
...102
. ... 7.2
1990
0.04
63
6.4
1991
0.02
49
6.6
159
-------
JBEW Phosphorus Concentration JBEW Phosphorus Load
Influent/Effluent Influent/Effluent
8.0 r
7.0
6.0
5.0
13,4.0
E
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1989
1990
1991
After three years of testing and
extended research on JBEW, interesting
results have surfaced. The Experimental
Wetland is improving the quality of the
effluent—it is lower in both phosphorus
and nitrogen when it leaves the cells.
Research has shown, although plants
serve important functions in the
filtering, the soils have proved to be
the main elements in binding up the
phosphorus, thereby preventing it from
reaching the nearby Tualatin River.
Water quality is the focus of the
JBEW, but education and wildlife have
also benefited from this innovative
4000 r
3500
3000
2500
w
§2000
o
a.
1500
1000
500
1989
1990
1991
project. The construction of the
wetlands has provided food, nesting
and rich habitat for many wetland
species. The Experimental Wetland
has also provided valuable educational
opportunities for teachers, students
and researchers from schools and
universities throughout the region.
As research continues to determine
how to best meet the state's water
quality standards, the Jackson Bottom
Wetlands Preserve serves as a model
for improving water quality and
managing multiple goals.
160
-------
The Dynamics of a
Real-World Experiment
Gathering data from a dynamic, real-
world experiment presents challenges.
Variables that can easily be controlled
in a lab, may be unpredictable in a
dynamic process.
JBEW researchers have worked to
carefully control the variables within
their reach, yet remain flexible enough
to adjust for changes in a dynamic
system. Among the impacts that have
affected the JBEW are:
• Non-native vegetation. Planted
vegetation (cattails, sago pondweed)
struggled to compete with the non-
native plants (reed canary grass,
Lemna, Azola) that dominate much
of Jackson Bottom.
• Phosphate detergent ban.
In 1991, a region-wide phosphate
detergent ban dramatically
reduced the concentration of
phosphorus in USA's effluent. As
a result, the amount of phosphorus
entering JBEW dropped as did
the percent removal.
• Plant operations. In 1991, the
Hillsboro Treatment Plant was no
longer able to operate in nitrification
mode due to a 25 percent increase
in service area. This resulted in
higher ammonia and lower nitrate
effluent entering JBEW.
Enhancement for Wildlife
Jackson Bottom is part of a larger
Tualatin River wildlife/wetland corri-
dor. This rich corridor provides essen-
tial stop-over feeding and resting spots
for migrating waterfowl traveling the
Pacific Flyway. It is also an important
habitat for other species of wildlife.
Much of this habitat has been lost
to agriculture and development. But
with projects like the Jackson Bottom
Wetlands Preserve, crucial links in
this increasingly fragmented ecosystem
are being reconnected, enhanced
and protected.
Though degraded by past human
practices, Jackson Bottom is coming
alive with a newly developed diversity
thanks to the dedicated efforts of
Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, the Friends of Jackson
Bottom, Ducks Unlimited and'other
groups. What was once a flat meadow
of exotic reed canary grass, with little
feeding or nesting opportunities for
native species of wildlife, is now being
transformed into a complex patchwork
of wetlands and upland habitat. The
wildlife ponds and marshes created
using recycled wastewater are bordered
by cattails, reeds and rushes, native
willows, dogwood, ash and elderberry.
This increased diversity of plants
provides food and shelter for migratory
waterfowl, shorebirds and other
wetland wildlife. Resident populations
now include Canada geese, many
species of ducks, rails, herons, osprey,
bald eagles, nesting red tailed hawks,
harriers, and several owl species. Larger
161
-------
mammals include rare sightings of deer,
elk, mink, beaver, coyote and fox.
Until the habitat has sufficiently
recovered, nesting sites are supple-
mented with floating goose platforms
and boxes for swallows, bats, wood
ducks and kestrels. The enhancement
projects offer the opportunity to
become involved with wildlife agencies
and provide rich habitat for wildlife.
Education, Research and
Passive Recreation
From early morning walks in the thick
morning fog to sophisticated research by
soil scientists, there are many opportuni-
ties to enjoy and learn from this natural
resource without harming it.
Research, education and passive
recreation activities are a major compo-
nent of the 1989 Jackson Bottom
Concept Master Plan. Research efforts
conducted by the Unified Sewerage
Agency, the Oregon Graduate Institute
and other regional colleges and univer-
sities are providing answers and posing
new questions about ecosystems and
their role in water quality management.
Education is a top priority, too.
Spearheaded by the Wetland Coordina-
tor and Friends of Jackson Bottom,
students and teachers are learning
about this astonishing natural system
through tours and field work. The
Friends group has developed wetlands
curriculum and sponsors a variety of
events year-round. In 1992, a state grant
enabled Jackson Bottom to hire a part-
time Wetlands Educator to coordinate a
pilot educational program.
Trails, viewsites and viewing
shelters offer visitors a glimpse
into the workings of this rich
ecosystem. The Kingfisher Marsh
Interpretive Trail, designed and
built by the Friends group, offers
visitors a mile long walk through
wetland and upland habitat along
the rarely seen Tualatin River. Future
plans call for more trails and improved
river access.
For information on the
Jackson Bottom Wetlands
Preserve and the Jackson
Bottom Experimental
Wetlands, please contact:
Jackson Bottom
Wetlands Coordinator
CityofHillsboro
123West Main Street
Hillsboro, OR 97123
(503) 681-6206
Unified Sewerage Agency
155 North First Street
Hillsboro, OR 97124
(503) 648-8621
Acknowledgments
This publication was funded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Special thanks to the Unified Sewerage
Agency of Washington County, City
of Hillsboro and Linda Newberry for
their contributions.
Nest photo on page 156 and family
photo on page 161 courtesy of Friends
of Jackson Bottom. The salamander
photo on page 157 courtesy of Audubon
Society of Portland, Oregon. "
162
-------
-------
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The Des Plaines River Wetlands
Demonstration Project is
designed to produce the criteria
necessary for rebuilding our river
systems through the use of wetlands and
for developing management programs
for the continued operation of the new
structures. The research program is
assessing wetland functions through
large-scale experimentation, controlled
manipulation of flow rates and water
depths, testing of soil conditions, and
the employment of a wide variety of
native plant communities.
Four wetlands have been constructed
near Wadsworth, Illinois, for purposes
of river water quality improvement. The
river drains an agricultural and urban
watershed, and carries a non-point
source contaminant load of sediment,
nutrients and agricultural chemicals.
The site is located 35 miles north of
Chicago. It incorporates 2.8 miles of the
upper Des Plaines River and 450 acres
of riparian land. The river flows south,
draining 200 square miles in southern
Wisconsin and northeastern Illinois.
Eighty percent of the watershed is
agricultural and 20 percent urban.
The river is polluted with non-point
source contaminants from a variety of
land use activities, and point source
contaminants from small domestic
treatment plants. In support of previous
agricultural uses, low-lying portions of
the site were drained by means of tiles.
Past uses of the site included pasture
and a Christmas tree farm which
resulted in the demise of most of the
original wetlands and associated
fauna and flora.
164
Water is pumped from the river to
the wetlands, from a point just south of
Wadsworth Road. This energy intensive
alternative was necessary because of
site constraints, and because of the
desire to explore a wide range of
hydraulic conditions. Gravity diversion
would be a preferred alternative in
most applications of this technology.
Water leaving the wetlands returns to
the river via grassy swales
Wetlands EW3 and EW4 are
encircled by access roads, and
bordered by US Highway 41
(bottom) and Wadsworth
Road (left). Flow enters EW3
from the left, and enters EW4
from the bottom. Both
discharge to a swale (top
right), which is connected to
the Des Plaines River. On this
aerial infrared photo, water is
black and cattails are dark red.
-------
Hydrology
The Des Plaines River enters the
site from the north, passing under
the Wadsworth Road bridge. It
is relatively wide and shallow under
normal flow conditions—100 feet wide
and about 2 feet deep. This reach
exhibits channel stability, primarily
because of the low energy state of the
river. Stream velocities average less
than 1 foot per second. The gradient is
1.2 feet per mile.
About 15% of the variable stream
flow is pumped to the wetlands, and
allowed to return from the wetlands to
the river through control structures
followed by vegetated channels. Native
wetland plants have been established,
ranging from cattail, bulrushes, water
lilies, and arrowhead to duckweed and
algae. Pumping began in the 1989, and
has continued during the ensuing
spring, summer and fall periods. The
experimental design provides for differ-
ent hydraulic loading rates, ranging
from 2 to 24 inches per week. Intensive
wetland research began in late summer
1989, and continues to present.
The hydrology of the wetland
complex has been studied extensively.
Groundwater investigations showed a
relatively complex local flow pattern,
with some groundwater interactions
with the river. Wetland EW5 leaks to
groundwater, as does wetland EW5 to
a minor extent. For WY1990 (October
1989-September 1990), precipitation
and evapotranspiration were equal.
Pumping occurred for all weeks in
1990, but was discontinued in winter in
subsequent years. The pump is run on
weekdays, for a prescheduled period.
The river is a "good old
muddy midwestern stream."
Shown here at average flow,
it regularly floods a large
amount of bottom land. In
the summer of 1988, a severe
drought caused it to dry to a
disconnected string of pools.
River enters the site from the north, passing under the Wadsworth Road bridge.
It is relatively wide and shallow under normal flow conditions —100 feet wide
and about 2 feet deep. This reach exhibits channel stability, primarily because
of the low energy state of the river. Stream velocities average less than 1 foot
per second. The gradient is 1.2 feet per mile.
165
-------
In WY 1990, it was run 10.5% of the
time. Outflow from the wetlands is
controlled by weirs. Thus the hydrologic
regime is cyclic, with increasing water
levels and flows during the few daily
hours of pumping, followed by a
lowering of water levels and a slowing
of flows during the off hours.
Annual Average Water
WY1990 (cm/day)
Inflows
Surface Inflow
Precipitation
Outflows
Discharge
Evapotranspiration
Seepage
Budget Components,
EW3 EW4
5.36 1.46
0.26 0.26
5.36 1.46
0.26 0.26
0.00 0.00
EW5
5.01
0.26
4.80
0.26
0.21
EW6
2.78
0.26
0.35
0.26
2.43
Pumping creates a fountain
effect at the inlet to each
wetland.
166
-------
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Distribution of Detention Times, Wetland EW3
0.20
The wetland internal flow
patterns are not ideal in any
sense of the word. The nominal
detention times in the wetlands range
from one to three weeks under moder-
ate to high flow conditions. Some of
the pumped water moves quickly
toward the outlet, and reaches it in
about one days time. Other portions of
the pumped water are trapped in the
litter and floe near the wetland bottom.
Still other portions are slowed by plant
clumps, or blown off course by the
wind. The net effect is that some water
takes three times as long as the average
to find its way out of the wetland.
Tracer studies have been run at
Des Plaines, using lithium chloride as
the tracer material. A sudden dump
of dissolved lithium is made into the
wetland inflow. The outflow is then
analyzed for the lithium, which appears
at varying concentrations and at
various times after the dump. These
tests have established that the degree
Mean Detention=6.5 Days
5 10 15
Detention Time, days
of mixing within the wetlands is
higher than expected. But surprisingly,
there is not a great deal of difference
between wetlands, even though they
differ in shape.
The primary water quality problem
of the river is associated with turbidity.
With a mean concentration of 59 parts
per million, over 5,000 tons of suspended
solids enter the site per year via the
Des Plaines River and Mill Creek.
Seventy-five percent of these solids are
inorganic and 95 percent are less than
63 microns in size. Sediment removal
efficiencies ranged from 86-100% for
the four cells during summer, and from
38-95% during winter.
Suspended Solids In and
FA 89
WI89
SP90
SU90
FA90
SP91
SU91
FA91
AVG
% Removal
Inlet
8.0
7.1
24.2
47.7
50.1
63.9
123
66.0
48.8
Out of the Des Plaines Wetlands (mg/l)
EW3
2.0
5.0
5.5
5.7
10.8
5.8
6.0
10.8
6.5
87%
EW4
2.4
3.6
4.5
14.9
7.4
7.4
6.8
6.7
6.7
86%
EW5
2.6
4.2
2.9
4.3
5.4
2.4
3.2
25.8
4.9
90%
EW6
3.0
3.0
3.3
13.9
4.4
6.2
7.7
NF
6.1
87%
167
-------
Suspended Solids Wetland EW4
A fish story developed in 1990.
The solids in the wetland
effluents were steadily increas-
ing with each passing week. The source
of the problem was found: a large
number of carp were growing up in
the wetlands. These fish foraged in the
wetland sediments, causing resuspen-
sion of solids. They entered as fry in the
pumped water, and grew to 8-10 inches
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Weeks From October
over the first two years of the project.
The solution was to draw down the
wetland water levels, in winter 1990-91,
and freeze out the carp. Solids removal
returned to the previous high levels
of efficiency.
Carp rooted up sediments and
impaired sediment removal
efficiency. They were frozen
out and removed.
168
-------
WATER QUALITY RESPONSES
Other observed river water
quality problems included
violations of the state water
quality standards for iron, copper, and
fecal coliforms. These pollutants are
found only occasionally, and not in
dangerously high concentrations.
Although not detected in amounts
exceeding the federal Food and Drug
Administration's criteria, dieldrin, DDT
and PCBs have been found in fish flesh
samples. DDT, DDE and PCBs were
also found in low concentrations in the
river borne sediments. The old pesti-
cides are pervasive everywhere else in
the environment, and so will be in these
wetlands. The river bears a significant
nutrient load, as evidenced by nitrate
and phosphorus. These fertilizers peak
seasonally, corresponding to runoff
timing and land use practices within the
watershed. Agricultural practices within
the basin produce pollution with
atrazine, at concentrations which peak
in excess of the federal drinking water
standard. According to the results of
benthic surveys, the stream is classified
as semi-polluted.
Phosphorus removal efficiencies
average 65-80%. However, efficiency is
lower in winter and higher in summer.
That is partly because the riverine
concentrations of phosphorus are very
low in winter, and partly because
biological processes slow in the cold
temperatures. Winter runoff in the
watershed is overland, over frozen
soils or ice and snow. The result is low
phosphorus in the river in winter.
Most phosphorus enters the wetlands
associated with mineral suspended
solids. These solids settle quickly, and
may not freely exchange their phospho-
rus with the wetland waters. In addition,
there is a large biotic cycle of growth,
death and decomposition at work,
which leaves a residual of organic
sedimentary material. The deposition
from this cycle exceeds the deposition
of incoming river solids by a wide
Total Phosphorus Reduction, (mg/l)
FA 89
WI89
SP90
SU90
FA 90
SP91
SU91
AVG
AVG%
Inlet
0.052
0.073
0.057
0.117
0.131
0.089
0.119
0.091
EW3
0.018
0.053
0.044
0.038
0.024
0.003
0.010
0.027
65%
EW4
0.013
0.030
0.015
0.055
0.007
0.002
0.010
0.019
78%
EW5
0.014
0.058
0.017
0.035
0.017
0.001
0.010
0.022
73%
EW6
0.018
0.024
0.023
0.062
0.011
0.002
0.009
0.021
75%
169
-------
Nitrogen Forms Entering Wetland EW3
margin. Both processes immobilize
phosphorus in these wetlands. During
the early years, phosphorus is also tied
up in the new biomass associated with
these developing ecosystems.
There are a variety of nitrogen forms
in the river water. About 0.6 mg/1 of
organic nitrogen enter the wetlands,
and the same amount leaves. Very low
ammonium nitrogen concentrations are
found in both river and wetland waters:
about 0.05 mg/1. Nitrate varies seasonally
in the river, in response to urban and
agricultural practices. High spring and
fall concentrations are echoed by similar
variations in the nitrate content of the
wetland effluent waters. However, in the
warm seasons, a considerable amount
of the incoming nitrate is removed,
presumably due to denitrification. This
microbially mediated process appears to
be more efficient in the wetlands with
lower hydraulic loading rate, which is
equivalent to increased detention time
since depths are comparable. Thus the
overall effect of the wetlands is to
control the nitrate in the water when
sufficient contact time is available.
Ammonium
Organic
Nitrate
Oct20
3 10 17 24 31 38 45 51 59 197204212218225
Days From October 1,1990
Atrazine Reduction in EW4,1991
.a
ft 3
50 60 70 80 90 100 1110 120 130 140
Days from April 1
Atrazine, a triazine herbicide, exists
in many streams in the upper midwest-
ern part of the United States, including
the Des Plaines River, due to use
patterns in the watershed. The atrazine-
wetland interaction is very complex,
including removal from the area by
Nitrate Nitrogen Reduction, (mg/1)
FA 89
WI89
1990
1991
AVG
AVG%
Inlet
2.46
2.15
1.87
1.22
1.80
EW3
1.46
0.67
0.54
0.23
0.61
66%
EW4
0.04
0.17
0.24
0.10
0.15
92%
EW5
1.27
1.51
0.53
0.18
0.70
61%
EW6
0.08
0.25
0.32
0.18
0.22
88%
170
-------
VEGETATION
RESPONSES
convection in the water, loss of chemical
identity by hydrolysis to hydroxytriazine
and dealkylation, and sorption on
wetland sediments and litter. Atrazine
transport, sorption and identity loss
were studied at the site, and in accom-
panying laboratory work. Sorption was
effective for soils and sediments, but the
more organic materials, such as litter,
showed a stronger affinity for atrazine
than the mineral base soils of the
wetland cells at Des Plaines.
Atrazine was found to degrade on
those sediments according to a first
order rate law. Therefore, outflows
from the Des Plaines wetland cells
contained reduced amounts of atrazine
compared to the river water inputs.
During 1991, atrazine peaked in the
river due to two rain events. Only about
25% of the incoming atrazine was
removed in wetland cell EW3, but 95%
was removed in wetland cell EW4. The
explanation is that the detention time
in EW4 is longer than in EW3.
Number of Species of
Wetland Plants
1988
1989
1990
1991
EW3
2
9
26
25
EW4
21
19
28
33
EW5
22
14
20
22
EW6
29
17
26
27
Efforts at vegetation
establishment were
initially thwarted by the
extreme drought conditions of
1988. The planting of white
water lily (Nymphea odorata)
showed small success, and
American water lotus (Nelumbo
lutea) did not survive.
The development of the
macrophyte plant communities
has been monitored from
project startup. Sixteen 2m x 2m
permanent quadrats were
established in each wetland cell.
Data were acquired on species composi-
tion and biomass for all plants in each
quadrat. Plants were individually
measured, and a correlation between
dry weight and leaf size was developed.
Thus biomass could be determined
non-destructively. There was an overall
increase in species as volunteer wetland
vegetation replaced the terrestrial
vegetation of pre-pumping . Fourteen
species were observed in 1990 that were
not present in 1989, and ten species
from 1989 did not reappear; these later
being mostly upland species.
The first year of inundation caused
the death of many upland species, such
as cottonwood (Populus deltoides). The
growing seasons of 1989,1990 and 1991
all displayed an increase in the amount
of cattail (Typha spp.). Productivity
increased from 200-400 dry grams per
square meter in 1989 to 600-800 in 1990.
The growing season of 1990 produced
extensive blooms of macrophytic algae,
predominantly Cladaphora.
Water clarity is generally
excellent at the wetland
outflow.
Ill
-------
WILDLIFE USE
I ird populations have grown
I much larger than in the pre-
" wetlands period for the site.
For migratory waterfowl, there has
been a 500% increase in the number
of species, and a 4500% increase in
the number of individuals from 1985
to 1990. Forty-seven species of birds
nested on the site in 1990, a 27%
increase over preproject numbers.
The fall 1990 bird survey turned up a
number of interesting species, including
the state endangered pied-billed grebe
and black-crowned night heron, and also
the great egret, American bittern, and
the sharp-shinned hawk. The state-en-
dangered yellow-headed blackbird and
least bittern nest successfully at the site.
Muskrats have moved in, and
constructed both dwelling houses and
feeding platforms. And, beaver are
now resident in the wetlands. They
chewed off quadrat corner posts—most
of the 256 posts initially placed. They
attempted to dam the wetland EW3
outflow nearly every night in 1992.
Waterfowl Species
60
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
Migratory Waterfowl Species
Breeding Species
Breeding Wetland Species
1985
1990
Bird Counts at the Des Plaines Wetlands
800-
Migratory Waterfowl
Breeding Pairs
172
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support for the project has been
provided by a large number of
both private and governmental
agencies. Contributions have been
both in-kind and financial.
Abbott Laboratories
AMOCO Foundation
Annexter Brothers
Atlantic Richfield Foundation
Badger Meter Co.
Borg-Warner Foundation
Campanella & Sons, Inc.
Caterpillar Foundation
Chauncey and Marion Deering-
McCormick Foundation
Commonwealth Edison Company
Exxon Company USA
Garden Guild (Winnetka)
Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelly
Hartz Construction Co., Inc.
Illinois Department of Energy
and Natural Resources
International Minerals and
Chemical Corporation
J. I. Case
Kelso-Burnett Co.
Lake County Forest Preserve District
Land and Lakes Company
Material Service Corporation
Midcon Corporation
Morton Arboretum
National Terminals Corporation
Olson Oil Company
Open Lands Project
Prince Charitable Trust
R. R. Donnelly & Sons
Sidney G. Haskins
Sudix Foundation
The Brunswick Foundation
The Indevco Group
The Joyce Foundation
The Munson Foundation
U. S. E. P. A.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USX Foundation, Inc.
ISPE Outstanding Engineering Achievement of 1991:
The Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project
Ecological Society of America: Special Recognition Award, 1993
SOCIETY OF
CO
0
z
_l
J
S
-n
0
>
ENGINEERS
173
-------
RESEARCH GROUPS
Project research has been
conducted by several
organizations:
College of Lake County
Wetlands Research, Inc.
Iowa State University
M. C. Herp Surveys
North Dakota State University
Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission
Northern Illinois University
Northwestern University
The Illinois State Water Survey
The Illinois Institute of Technology
The Illinois State Geological Survey
The Morton Arboretum
The Ohio State University
The University of Michigan
Western Illinois University
For the project bibliography,
project reports or other information,
contact the not-for-profit coordinating
organization:
Wetlands Research, Inc.
53 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Phone 312-922-0777
Fax 312-922-1823
Blue horizon marker particles
just after placement. As
sediments accumulate, these
marker particles become buried.
The amount of overlying
sediment may then be
determined at later times.
174
-------
CONCERNED CITIZEN QUESTIONAIRE
In order for the Municipal Technology Branch to be
effective in meeting your needs, we need to under-
stand what your needs are and how effectively we
are meeting them. Please take a few minutes to tell us
if this document was helpful in meeting your needs,
and what other needs you have concerning wastewater
treatment, water use efficiency, or reuse.
Indicate how you are best described:
[ ] concerned citizen [ ] local official
[ ] consultant [ ] state official
[ ] other [ ] Federal official
[ ]researcher
[ ] student
[ ]teacher
Name and Phone No. (optional)
[ ] This document is what I was looking for.
[ ] I would like a workshop/seminar based on this document.
[ ] I had trouble [ ]finding [ jordering [ jreceiving this document.
[ ] The document was especially helpful in the following ways:
[ ] The document could be improved as follows:
[ ] I was unable to meet my need with this document. What I really need is:
[ ] I found the following things in this document which I believe are wrong:
[ ] What other types of technical assistance do you need?
We thank you for helping us serve you better. To return this questionnaire, tear it out, fold it, staple it,
put a stamp on it and mail it. Otherwise, it may be faxed to 202-260- 0116.
MTB
Office of Wastewater Management
MUNICIPAL TECHNOLOGY BRANCH
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND
WILDLIFE HABITAT:
17 CASE STUDIES
-------
STAPLE HERE
FOLD HERE
Municipal Technology Branch (4204)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
FOLD HERE
-------
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS
US. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-2713
Connccileiit, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
US. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-2515
Ne\v Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands
US. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-9825
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virsitiia, District of Columbia
US. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, G A 30365
(404) 347-3004
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina
VS. EPA Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2072 or (800) 621-8431
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin
US. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-2200
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas
US. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7003
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
US. EPA Region 8
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 1300
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 294-1120
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
U.S. EPA Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1585
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American
Samoa, Guam, Trust Territories of the Pacific
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1200 or (800) 424-4EPA
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Information on wetlands can also be obtained
from:
U.S. EPA Wetlands Protection
1-800-832-7828
Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, DC 20240
Regulatory Branch, CECW-OR
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of Commerce
Washington, DC 20035
For copies of wetland maps, call
1-800-USA-MAPS.
------- |