United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
EPA 904/9-85-135
September 1985
FRESHWATER WETLANDS
FOR
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
HANDBOOK
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1,V
345 COURTLANP STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
Freshwater Wetlands for Wastewater^Management
^Environmental Assessment Handbook
The Freshwater Wetlands Handbook provides i^ution.1.^ ^
scientific and engineering 9^a2fraanaqement . Wetlands have
freshwater wetlands for wastewatermanagemenovai capabilitie«
reconized .for her po).,i« 3 ome
ov
long been recognized .for ^hejr po).,i« 3 t for some
and many have been used ^.^^^^^nal guidance currently
time. Little technical or^inatit^tionai g ^ systems>
exists for regulating -these ayfltems ..or. r v federal regulatory
^kpoten^r?isch^ersreva?uating wetlands for
moval.
c po
^tewater disposal or pollutant removal
wetlands are al,o known
pf of^h se^tland^f unctions and
values are the basis of this guidance,
The Handbook presents a variety of proce ^
tools that can assist in Baking "*"°
s s^
are
Please forward your comments to:
Robert B. Howard, Chief
NEPA Compliance Section
EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 881-3776
September 30,.1985
Date
jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
-------
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV - ATLANTA, GEORGIA
FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
HANDBOOK
September 1985
CTA Environmental, Inc.
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
-------
-------
FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Preface 12
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Use of the Handbook 1-1
1.2 Relationship of the Handbook to Wetland Issues i_5
and Regulatory Procedures
1.3 Why Use Wetlands In Wastewater Management? 1-7
2.0 Wetlands Functions and Values
2.1 Distribution of Wetlands in Region IV 2-2
2.2 Overview of Functions and Values 2-7
2.3 Endangered or Unique Wetlands 2-14
3.0 Institutional Issues and Procedures
3.1 Wastewater Management Programs and Applications to Wetlands 3-2
3.2 Water Quality Standards Program 3-16
3.3 NPDES Permit Program 3^37
3.4 Construction Grants Program 3-60
3.5 User's Guide 3-72
4.0 Site Screening and Evaluation
4.1 Relationship to Institutional, Scientific and Engineering Practices 4-2
4.2 Preliminary Site Screening 4-4
4.3 Comparison of Wetlands Use to Other Alternatives 4-17
4.4 Detailed Site Evaluation 4-22
4.5 User's Guide 4-40
5.0 Water Quality Criteria and Discharge Characteristics
5.1 Relationship of Criteria to Program Requirements 5-2
5.2 Water Quality Standards Criteria 5-3
5.3 Discharge Loading Limits 5-7
5.4 Effluent Limits 5-19
-------
FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
6.0 Engineering Planning and Design
6.1 Relationship to Regulatory Programs 6-2
6.2 Engineering Planning 6-3
6.3 Structural Options for Wetland-Wastewater Systems 6-9
6.4 Engineering Design 6-19
6.5 Created Wetlands 6-30
6.6 User's Guide 6-37
7.0 Project Implementation
7.1 Relationship to Planning and Design 7-2
7.2 Construction and Installation 7_3
7.3 Operation-rMaintenance-Replacement 7-7
7.4 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts 7-21
7.5 Post-Discharge Monitoring 7-24
7.6 User's Guide 7_29
8.0 Wetland Response to Wastewater Loadings
8.1 Relationship to Planning and Design 8-2
8.2 Impacts to Wetlands Functions and Values 8-6
8.3 Impacts to Wetland Types 8-18
8.4 Uncertainty and Risk 8-20
9.0 Assessment Techniques and Data Sources
9.1 Relationship to Decision Making 9-2
9.2 Sampling Program Design 9_7
9.3 Data Assessment Techniques 9_2i
9.4 Data Synthesis Methods 9_56
9.5 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources 9-69
9.6 User's Guide 9-143
10.0 References
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title
2-1 Relationship Between Common Wetland Types 2-5
and the National Wetlands Inventory
Classification System
2-2 Primary Wetland Functions and Values 2-7
2-3 Endangered or Unique Wetland Types in 2-15
EPA Region IV States
3-1 State Water Use Classifications 3-21
3-2 Summary of Current State Practices 3-23
Associated with the WQS Program ,;
3-3 Comparison of Commonly Identified Wetlands K 3-27
Functions and Values with Use Classification
3-4 Elements of NPDES Permit Compliance < 3-43
3-5 Tiering Approach for Information Requests 3-47
3-6 Summary of Current States' Practices 3-64
Associated with the Construction Grants
Program
4-1 Features Affecting Wetlands Values and Uses 4-28
4-2 Major Processes Affecting Wetland Assimilative 4-39
Capacity
4-3 Preliminary Site Screening Work Tasks 4-44
5-1 WQS Criteria Associated with Wetlands 5-3
5-2 WQS Criteria for Prospective Wetlands Use 5-6
Classifications or Modifiers
5-3 Summary of Engineering Considerations at 5-8
Selected Wetlands Discharge Sites
5-4 Hydraulic Loading Rates (cm/week) for 5-9
Different Wetland Types
5-5 Range of Observed Hydraulic Loading Rates 5-14
(in./week) for Different Wetland Types
5-6 Removal of N and P from Wastewater and 5-15
Fertilizer Applied to Natural Wetlands
5-7 Recommended Limits for Pollutants in 5-18
Reclaimed Water Used for Irrigation
5-8 Current State Policies and Procedures 5-20
Affecting Establishment of Effluent
Limitations
5-9 Current Use of Aquatic Models for 5-25
Establishing Effluent Limits in Region IV
States
5-10 Major Types of Freshwater Wetlands in North 5-26
America and Degree to Which Simulation
Models Are Available
5-11 Wetland Simulation Model Types 5-27
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number Title
6-1 Wetlands-Wastewater System Design Issues 6-8
6-2 Effluent Discharge Configurations 6-13
6-3 Design Parameters for Various Types of 6-21
Structural Options
6-4 Wetlands Development and Management Guidelines 6-25
for Waterfowl Enhancement
6-5 Detailed Capital Cost Estimate for a Typical 6-27
Wetland-Wastewater System
6-6 Specification for Wetland-Wastewater Facilities 6-28
that Help Control Adverse Effects of
Construction
6-7 Specifications for Pipelines in Wetlands 6-29
6-9 Artificial Wetlands Use for the Treatment of 6-33
Wastewater or Stormwater
6-10 Role of Aquatic Organisms in Renovating Wastewater 6-34
6-11 Preliminary Design Parameters for Planning Artificial 6-35
Wetlands-Wastewater Treatment Systems
6-12 Reported Removal Efficiencies in Natural and 6-35
Artificial Wetlands
7-1 Potential OMR Objectives as Basis for OMR Decisions 7-8
7-2 O&M Options for Natural Wetland-Wastewater Systems 7-14
7-3 Assessment of O&M Options for Natural 7-15
Wetlands-Wastewater Systems
7-4 Potential Elements of an OMR Manual for a 7-16
Wetlands-Wastewater System
7-5 Elements of NPDES Permit Compliance 7-18
7-6 Mitigation Measures for Site-Screening/Engineering 7-22
Planning
7-7 Mitigative Measures for Construction and O&M 7-23
7-8 Post-Discharge Monitoring Components and Frequency 7-26
of Sampling - Tier 1 Analyses
7-9 Post-Discharge Monitoring Components and Frequency 7-28
of Sampling - Tier 2 Analyses
8-1 Relationship of Wastewater Additions to Wetlands 8-3
Functions and Values
8-2 Wetland Ecosystem Responses to Various 8-8
Hydrologic Factors
8-3 Wastewater Management Considerations for Various 8-19
Wetland Types
9-1 Components of Wetlands Assessment Programs 9-3
9-2 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Planning 9-22
9-3 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Geomorphology 9-28
9-4 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Hydrology/Meteorology 9-33
9-5 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Water Quality 9-37
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number Title
9-6 Relationship of Parameters and Tiering to Ecology 9-44
Components
9-7 Frequently Measured Parameters for the Ecology 9-45
Component of Wetlands
9-8 Common Parameters and Methods for the Analysis of 9-47
Wetland Vegetation
9-9 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Ecology/Vegetation 9-48
9-10 Common Parameters and Methods for the Analysis of 9-51
Aquatic Fauna
9-11 Comparative Matrix Methods - Ecology/Aquatic Fauna 9-52
9-12 Common Parameters and Methods for the Analysis of 9-54
Terrestrial Fauna
9-13 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Ecology/Terrestrial 9-55
Fauna
9-14 Parameters and Methods for the Analysis of the Wetlands 9-57
Functions and Values Component
9-15 Factors and Methods for the Analysis of Wetland Habitat 9-60
9-16 Federal List of Protected Species Associated with 9-63
Wetlands
9-17 Alabama Protected Species Related to Wetlands 9-64
9-18 Florida Protected Species Related to Wetlands 9-65
9-19 Georgia Protected Species Related to Wetlands 9-66
9-20 Kentucky Protected Species Related to Wetlands 9-66
9-21 Mississippi Protected Species Related to Wetlands 9-27
9-22 North Carolina Protected Species Related to Wetlands 9-67
9-23 South Carolina Protected Species Related to Wetlands 9-68
9-24 Tennessee Protected Species Related to Wetlands 9-68
9-25 Data Requirements and Sources for a Basic Analysis 9-75
9-26 Representative Values of Manning's for Wetlands 9-93
9-27 Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Results 9-83
for Bill's Marsh (Form 9-A)
9-28 Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Results 9-112
for Soggy Bottom
9-29 Data Requirements and Sources for a Seasonal Analysis 9-121
9-30 Dew Point Temperataure as a Function of Relative 9-128
Humidity and Temperature.
9-31 Maximum Solar Radiation Reaching the Ground for 9-132
Various Atmospheric Transmission Coefficients.
9-32 Data Requirements for a Refined Analysis 9-138
9-33 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - ALABAMA 9-144
9-34 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - FLORIDA 9-146
9-25 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - GEORGIA 9-148
9-36 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - KENTUCKY 9-150
9-37 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - MISSISSIPPI 9-151
9-38 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - NORTH 9-152
CAROLINA
9-39 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - 9-154
SOUTH CAROLINA
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number Title
9-40 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - TENNESSEE 9-156
9-41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Program Contracts 9-158
9-42 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Habitat Resources 9-158
Field Offices
9-43 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts 9-159
9-44 State Conservationists 9-159
9-45 U.S. Geological Survey, District Offices - 9-160
Southeastern Region
9-46 State Natural Heritage Programs 9-160
9-47 Common Data Sources 9-161
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
1 Major Elements of the Freshwater Wetlands for
Wastewater Management Environmental Assessment,
EPA Region IV
1-1 Basic Technical and Regulatory Issues Associated 1-2
with Wastewater Discharges to Wetlands
1-2 Use of the Handbook 1-4
1-3 Relationship of the Handbook to the 1-6
Decision Making Process
2-1 Overview of Wetlands Functions and Values 2-1
2-2 Wetland Acreages for the Eight States in 2-4
the Southeast
2-3 Relationship Between Wetland Functions 2-13
and Values
3-1 Overview of Institutional Programs and Issues 3-1
3-2 Overview of the Water Quality Standards Program 3-18
3-3 Overview of the NPDES Permit Program 3-38
3-4 Determination of Effluent Limitations 3-39
3-5 Overview of the Construction Grants Program 3-61
3-6 Relationship of the Handbook to the Decision 3-73
Making Process
4-1 Overview of Site-Screening and Evaluation 4-1
4-2 Important Issues Addressed by Preliminary 4-5
Site-Screening
4-3 Potential Permitting Issues Affecting Preliminary 4-15
Site Screening and Engineering Planning
4-4 Examples of Cost Comparisons Using Wetlands 4-20
for Wastewater Management
4-5 National Wetlands Inventory Map for an Area Near 4-24
Clearwater, Florida
4-6 Values and Uses Associated with Different Wetland 4-26
Characteristics - Nutrient Removal
4-7 Values and Uses Associated with Different Wetland 4-27
Characteristics - Recreation
4-8 Values and Uses Associated with Different Wetland 4-27
Characteristics - Sediment Trapping
4-9 Use of Topographic Map to Evaluate Watershed 4-30
Characteristics and Hydrologic Connections with
Surface Waters
4-10 Components of a Water Budget 4-31
4-11 Typical Hydroperiods of Six Southeastern Wetland 4-32
Types
4-12 Variety of Wetland Aquatic Vegetation 4-36
4-13 Use of Soil Conservation Maps for Identifying 4-37
Wetland Soils and Boundaries
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Number Title Page
4-14 Relationship of Site-Screening and Evaluation 9-41
to Decision Making
5-1 Loading Criteria Considerations for Wetlands 5-1
Discharges
5-2 Schematic of the Zone of Affected Soil and Biomass 5-10
6-1 Overview of Engineering Planning and Design 6-1
6-2 Importance of Distance to Wetland and Effective 6-4
Wetland Area to Engineering Planning
6-3 Typical Wetland-Wastewater System 6-7
6-4 Distribution Methods for Wetland Wastewater Systems 6-14
6-5 Overland Flow Treatment/Discharge System 6-15
6-6 Components of a Created Marsh Treatment System 6-31
6-7 Relationship of the Handbook to Decision Making 6-38
7-1 Overview of Project Implementation 7-1
7-2 Value of Discharging to Areas of Vegetation 7-10
7-3 Relationship Between Hydroperiod, Vegetation and 7-11
Frequency of Fire
7-4 Example Flow Pattern Diagram 7-19
7-5 Relationship of the Handbook to Decision Making 7-30
7-6 Process Flow Chart and Decision Diagram for 7-31
Construction and O&M
8-1 Wetlands Responses to Wastewater 8-1
8-2 Use of Natural Wetlands for Wastewater Management 8-7
9-1 Overview of Assessment Techniques for Wetlands 9-1
9-2 Outline of Sampling Program Design 9-11
9-3 Potential Sampling Program Design for Tier 1 Discharge 9-18
9-4 Potential Sampling Program Design for Tier 2 Discharge 9-19
9-5 Flow Chart for a Basic Analysis 9-72
9-6 Detailed Flow Chart for Wetland Hydrologic and 9-77
Hydraulic Analyses
9-7 Detailed Topographic Map for Bill's Marsh 9-80
9-8 Detailed Topographic Map for Soggy Bottom 9-81
9-9 Cross-section Diagrams for Bill's Marsh 9-82
9-10 Mean Annual Total Precipitation in Inches 9-85
9-11 Mean Annual Pan Evaporation in Inches 9-89
9-12 Wetland/Channel Geometric Shapes with Defining Lengths 9-91
9-13 Nomograph for Determining Depth of Flow for Rectangular 9-95
and Trapezoidal Cross-Sections
9-14 Charts for Estimating Headwater on Box Culverts 9-105
and Circular Culverts
9-15 Flow Chart for a Seasonal Analysis 9-117
9-16 Shallow Lake Evaporation as a Function of Solar Radiation, 9-134
air Temperature, Dew Point and Wind Movement
-------
LIST OF FORMS
Number Title
3-A Summary of Water Quality Standards Program 3-75
3-B Summary of NPDES Permit 3-77
3-C Summary of Construction Grants 3-80
4-A Preliminary Site Screening Checklist 4-47
4-B Detailed Site Evaluation Assessment 4-53
6-A Engineering Planning and Design 6-40
7-A Installation/ Construction and O&M 7-32
7-B Post-Discharge Monitoring 7-34
-------
-------
FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert B. Howard Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
Ronald J. Mikulak Project Officer, NEPA Compliance Section
Robert J. Lord Environmental Scientist, NEPA Compliance Section
JohnT. Marlar Chief, Facilities Performance Branch
James S. Kutzman Chief, Water Quality Section
Robert F. McGhee Chief, South Area Permits Unit
Daniel B. Ahern Chief, North Area Grants Management Section
Leomdas B. Tebo, Jr. Chief, Ecological Support Branch
Delbert B. Hicks Ecologist, Ecological Support Branch
CTA Environmental, Inc. (Prime Contractor)
Claude E. Terry, Ph.D. President
R. Gregory Bourne Project Director/Senior Environmental Engineer
Robert J. Hunter Senior Environmental Scientist
Milady A. Cardamone Environmental Engineer
James R. Butner Environmental Engineer
Walt Floyd Graphics
Nancy M. Matthews Word Processing
Gretchen Hastings Editor
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Thomas M. Rachford, P.E., Senior Project Manager
lr JTl • LJ •
David B. Babcock, P.E. Project Manager
WAPORA. Inc. (Section 9.5 - Wetland Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses)
Steven D. Bach, Ph.D. Program Manager/ Biologist
William T. March, Ph.D Project Director/Hydrologist
-------
FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following individuals composed the Institutional and Technical
Review Committees formed for peer review of this Environmental Assessment.
Institutional Review Committee
James Mclndoe
J. Thabaraj
Mork Winn
Bob Ware
Robert Seyfarth
Forrest Westall and
Randy Dodd
Chester Sansbury
Larry Bowers
Mary Ann Cooper
Technical Review Committee
JohnW. Day, Jr., Ph.D.
Edward J. Kuenzler, Ph.D.
William J. Mitsch, Ph.D.
Curtis J. Richardson, Ph.D.
Robert Bastian
Jay Benforado
John Hefner
DonShultz, Ph.D.
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Protection Cabinet
Mississippi Department of Natural
Resources
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Louisiana State University
University of North Carolina
University of Louisville
Duke University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Municipal Pollution Control
Washington, DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Atlanta, GA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Atlanta, GA
Additionally, the Task Force on Wastewater Discharges into Wetlands
organized by EPA's Office of Federal Activities provided review and
comment. The following Task Force members should be acknowledged for
their contributions: Anne Miller and Joe Montgomery, OFA; Lowell Keup,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards; Bob Bastian, Office of Municipal
Pollution Control; Cathy Winer, Office of General Counsel; Cathy Garra,
Region V.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECDTIVE SUMMARY
1. What is the purpose of this Handbook?
The Freshwater Wetlands for Wastewater Management Envi-
ronmental Assessment's purpose is to respond to difficulties
encountered by EPA-Region IVs regulatory personnel when
evaluating and permitting domestic wastewater discharges to
natural, freshwater wetlands in the Southeast. This Handbook
Section addresses the institutional, scientific and engineering issues
important to the use of wetlands in wastewater management, and
1.1 it is designed to provide guidance in evaluating wetlands for this
purpose. This Handbook is not a statement of policy supporting
the use of wetlands for wastewater management under any or all
conditions; but it is an acknowledgement that wetlands are cur-
rently being used as such by over 400 communities in the
Southeast, and for many other communities such use may be a
cost-effective wastewater management alternative. The Hand-
book is a tool by which the planning, implementation and
regulation of wetland wastewater management projects in Region
IV can be improved.
2. Who should use the Handbook?
The Handbook provides assistance for a wide range of users,
including state and federal regulatory and wetland resource
personnel, potential grant applicants or permit applicants,
environmental and engineering planning personnel, etc. For
ease of use, the Handbook is divided into nine major chapters.
Section Each chapter addresses an important aspect of wetlands-waste-
water management issues. As an example, Chapter 3 (Institu-
l.l tional Issues and Procedures) is designed primarily for state/
federal regulatory personnel. Chapter 4 (Site Screening and
Evaluation) is designed primarily for wetland scientists and
engineers assessing the use of a wetland for wastewater manage-
ment; and Chapters 6 (Engineering Planning and Design) and 7
(Project Implementation) are directed toward engineers involved
with planning, designing, constructing and operating wetland
wastewater systems.
3. What is a "wetlands discharge"?
The use of natural wetlands in wastewater management in-
volves the discharge of wastewater treated to at least secondary
treatment levels (or greater if required to meet water quality
standards). Discharge of treated wastewater is then applied via
overland flow, single or multiple outfalls, spray irrigation,
channel discharge, etc., to a wetland such as a marsh, swamp
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section
3.1
Section
1.3
or bog. Objectives in using a wetland for wastewater manage-
ment include: (1) disposal, in which the wetland is used
primarily as a receiving water body to assimilate wastewater; or
(2) treatment and disposal, in which the wetland is used to
improve wastewater quality.
It is important to note that most wetlands are waters of the
U.S. (i.e., wetlands that are adjacent to other waters of the
U.S., or wetlands whose use, degradation or destruction of
which could affect interstate or foreign commerce), and as such
are afforded the protection under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Water Quality
Standards Programs, as are other waters of the U.S.
4. Why use wetlands in wastewater management?
Historically, the use of wetlands in wastewater management
in the Southeast occurred because of convenience or the lack of
other reasonable alternatives. Only in the past decade have
wetland systems incorporated design elements to optimize the
wastewater renovation capabilities of wetlands. Currently, the
use of wetlands in wastewater management is gaining increased
attention for several reasons, such as:
- An alternative for communities with limited surface water
discharge opportunities and soils not conducive to land
application of wastewater;
- An affordable alternative for communities faced with
expensive advanced treatment surface water discharge
requirements;
- A wastewater management option that could also serve to
restore altered wetlands.
5. Are there situations in which the use of wetlands should be
avoided?
Sections
1.3
2.4
The use of wetlands for wastewater management may not be
appropriate in all cases. Most situations will require
site-specific analyses to determine site feasibility and accept-
ability based on wetland types, size, condition and sensitivity.
In general terms, the use of wetlands should be avoided when:
- The wetland being considered is a pristine wetland and
representative of a unique wetland type;
- Projected impacts to the wetland would result in changes that
would threaten the viability of the system;
- Conflicts with other uses could not be adequately mitigated.
6. What laws or regulations apply to the use of wetlands for waste-
water management?
Since most wetlands are waters of the U.S., they are
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section
3.1
Section
2.3
regulated primarily under the programs of the Clean Water Act.
Additionally, other wetland protection programs must be
considered when evaluating the use of a wetland. Under the
Clean Water Act, the four programs that affect wetland
waste water management decisions are:
- Construction Grants (Section 201)
- Water Quality Standards (Section 303)
- NPDES Permits (Section 402)
- Discharge of Dredge/Fill Permits (Section 404) .
For each program area, there are existing specific program regu-
lations, guidance and procedures; however, the use of wetlands
for wastewater management has not been addressed specifically
by any program, and clear guidelines do not exist. Minimum
criteria relating to waters of the U.S. that can be applied to
wetlands discharge require that:
- Water quality standards must be maintained
- A minimum of secondary treatment is required for discharges
from municipal treatment facilities to natural wetlands
considered to be waters of the U .S.
- An NPDES permit is required for each discharger
- A 404 Permit would be required for the discharge of dredge
and fill material into wetlands.
7. How are wetlands different from other waters of the U.S.?
The regulations for EPA's three major wastewater manage-
ment programs (Water Quality Standards, NPDES Permit and Con-
struction Grants) are designed for facilities discharging to
rivers, streams or other free-flowing surface waters. Wetlands
are different from most aquatic systems due to their nature as a
transition between fully terrestrial and fully aquatic systems.
As such, wetlands are often hydrologically slow-moving sys-
tems, as opposed to the free-flowing nature of most streams and
rivers. Additionally, the functions and uses of wetlands cover
a broad range of ecological, water quality and hydrological
values. Since the regulatory guidelines and programs developed
under the Clean Water Act's wastewater management programs
did not acknowledge or address wetland specific considerations,
they usually are not applicable to wetlands wastewater
management systems.
8. How do Water Quality Standards apply to wetlands and wetlands
discharges?
The water quality standards program is co-administered by
EPA and each state's water quality agency. Water quality stand-
ards serve as the regulatory basis for establishing controls on
treatment processes needed to protect established uses. Stream
segments are delineated, and associated use classifications are
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section
3.2
Section
3.3
established as part of a state's water quality standards pro-
gram. Numeric and/or narrative water quality criteria are
established to assure that designated uses will be maintained and
protected. Uses and criteria are, therefore, the two compo-
nents of water quality standards.
Typically, wetlands in each state fall under the criteria
associated with the use classification of the adjacent water
body. Wetlands are commonly classified for fish and wildlife
uses. As a result, water quality criteria for wetlands based on
adjacent water body classifications can be insensitive to inher-
ent differences in wetland types. Establishing new use classifi-
cations, wetland subcategories for existing uses or generic or
site-specific criteria are alternatives for addressing situations in
which established uses and criteria are generally not appro-
priate for wetlands.
Although wetlands that are waters of the U.S. cannot be clas-
sified for "waste transport," they can be used in wastewater
management as long as established uses are protected. Many
wetland functions and values (e.g., storm buffering, water
storage, etc.), however, are not covered by existing use classi-
fications. Additional qualitative or quantitative criteria
addressing wetland characteristics (e.g., hydroperiod, water
depth, seasonal influences, etc.) mav be appropriate to protect
wetland uses.
9. How are wetland discharge permits issued under the NPDES
Permit Program?
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA and
delegated states to administer the NPDES Permit Program. This
program requires a permit for the discharge of pollutants from
any point source into waters of the U.S. Where wetlands are
waters of the U.S., the discharge of wastewater to the wetland
requires the issuance of an NPDES permit.
Important elements of the permitting process include the
permit application process, establishing effluent limits,
establishing permit conditions and requirements, permit
issuance and compliance monitoring. Alternatives contained in
the Handbook for application of the NPDES program to wet-
lands-wastewater systems include the use of a tiered approach
for information requests and monitoring requirements based
primarily on wetland type and hydraulic loading. The use of
performance criteria as a permit requirement to monitor wetland
and downstream water quality also is suggested.
10. How are effluent limits for wetland discharges determined?
An important step in establishing effluent limits is determin-
ing whether the stream segment (or in this case the wetland) to
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sections
3.3
5.4
Section
3.4
Section
3.4
which a discharge is proposed is effluent limited (for which tech-
nology based limits or secondary treai i?n'\ }•-. required of muni-
cipalities) or water quality limited (for which treatment greater
than secondary levels is needed) . In water quality-limited situa-
tions, the task of establishing effluent limits is not straight-
forward. The use of water quality models may not adequately
predict a wetland's response to a wastewater discharge, and the
use of an on-site wetland assessment likely will be necessary.
The qualitative results of an on-site assessment then need to be
related to quantitative or qualitative effluent limits.
On-site assessments should consider geomorphology, soils,
hydrology, water quality and ecology as well as the interaction
of these components.
11. How does the Construction Grants Program address wetlands dis-
charges?
EPA is authorized by Section 201 of the Clean Water Act to
provide federal grants to eligible municipalities for the planning,
design and construction of wastewater facilities. Through the
Construction Grants program, a great deal of technical informa-
tion has been prepared that provides guidelines on various
aspects of facilities planning, design and construction. The
concept of wastewater management in wetlands is still an emerg-
ing wastewater management practice; and, as such, wetland
specific components have not yet been incorporated into the Con-
struction Grants program guidelines.
When wetlands are being considered for use in wastewater
management, the wetlands discharges should be considered as
one of several alternatives that could satisfy the wastewater
management objectives of a community. Construction grants
guidelines addressing wetlands-specific components would,
therefore, be helpful for potential wetland dischargers.
12. Are wetland discharge projects fundable under EPA's grants
program?
Funding the purchase of land (or wetlands) through the
Construction Grants process depends on the purchase item
being an integral part of the treatment process. Since many
natural wetlands are waters of the U.S., wastewater discharges
to such wetlands may be permitted but are not considered
"treatment." The purchase of natural wetlands which are
waters of the U.S. to serve as part of the treatment process
cannot be funded under the grants program based on current
Interpretations.
While in many cases funding for the purchase of a natural
wetland may not be grant eligible, demonstrated control or
access of'the wetland may be a necessary element of the project
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
to assure uninterrupted use of the wetland in wastewater
management. Funding decisions related to the treatment
facilities or discharge structures would be made as are other non-
wetland related funding decisions.
13. How can wetlands be assessed for their use in wastewater
management?
Preliminary site screening and detailed site evaluation are
two components in assessing wetlands that will determine if a
wetland site is appropriate to be used in wastewater manage-
ment. The site screening/evaluation process depends on the
interrelationships of institutional, scientific and engineering
considerations. Limitations in any one area can result in a wet-
lands site being dismissed from further consideration.
Preliminary site screening is a relatively quick and
cost-effective procedure for an initial determination of site
feasibility. Components of preliminary site screening include
wastewater management objectives, wastewater characteristics,
wetland type, wetland size and shape, availability and access,
environmental condition and sensitivity, and permitting
Sections considerations. By examining these components, it will become
evident early in the planning process if the wetlands alternative
' is not feasible. If the site clears preliminary site screening, the
wetlands alternative warrants comparison with other potential
4-4 alternatives.
The second level evaluation is detailed site evaluation, in
which a wetlands discharge site is assessed fully. In addition to
determining the feasibility of using a particular wetlands site,
this evaluation provides the basis for engineering design and
background information for assessing wetland impacts. Compo-
nents of this evaluation include: defining wetlands boundaries,
determining values and uses, establishing watershed character-
istics and connections, assessing water budget and hydroper-
iod, determining background water quality conditions, assessing
wetland vegetation and evaluating soil characteristics. The
extent of these analyses varies with the degree of uncertainty
associated with a proposed discharge.
As noted in the response to question 9, a tiered approach for
information requirements is suggested in this Handbook. Based
on the degree of uncertainty and risk associated with a dis-
charge, information requirements vary by hydraulic loading and
wetland type. With increased loadings to sensitive wetland
types, additional information may be required.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section
4.5
14. Under what circumstances should a discharge to a wetland be dis-
allowed?~~
By going through preliminary site screening and the detailed
site evaluation, conditions will be identified under which a
waste water discharge to a wetland is not recommended. The
following conditions may preclude a wetlands discharge:
- The wastewater contains a significant industrial component
(e.g., salts, metals, toxics, etc.)
- The wetland type or area to be used is considered threatened
or unique
- Threatened or endangered species are present in the wetland
- A wetland is particularly sensitive to alterations due to
wastewater discharges (e.g., pH, flow, etc.)
- The size of the wetland to be used is not adequate to
accommodate the proposed volume of wastewater (including
projected future flows)
- Control or ownership of the wetland is not possible.
In some cases these circumstances can be mitigated, thereby
allowing further consideration of the wetlands discharge.
15. What loading criteria or discharge criteria exist for wetlands
discharges?
Discharge loading limits for wetlands should be based on the
wetland's ability to assimilate wastewater. Loading rates
observed from existing wetland studies and ongoing wetland
discharges provide guidance on discharge levels that do not
appear to degrade wetlands and those that do lead to wetland
stress or degradation. Site specific assessments are necessary
to determine the applicability of existing knowledge to a
Section particular wetland.
5.3 Observed wastewater loading data can be grouped by wetland
types (e.g., bottomland hardwoods, cypress strands, marshes,
bogs, pocosins, cypress domes, etc.) fora range of parameters,
including hydraulic loading, nutrient loading and organic
loading. Additional information on metals, toxins, pathogens
and pH levels are also available, but to a lesser extent. Some
systems, such as cypress swamps, have been studied quite
extensively related to wastewater additions; whereas other
systems, such as bogs and bottomland hardwoods, have not been
studied to the same extent.
Transfer of knowledge from one wetland type to another is
not necessarily valid because wetlands respond differently to
wastewater additions. The site-specificity of loading rates is
important" to wetland wastewater system decisions and modifi-
cations based on on-site assessments, pilot studies and system
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
performance are likely to be appropriate.
16. What engineering options apply to wetlands discharge systems?
Proper engineering of wetlands systems and management of
system operations can serve to overcome some wastewater
management obstacles, mitigate potential adverse impacts and
optimize the ability of a wetland to renovate wastewater.
Engineering options are available which can assist in meeting
water quality objectives of a wetlands alternative. These
options are both structural and operational. The wide variety
of wetland types requires an evaluation of the site-specific
conditions for each wetland-wastewater system to ensure
selection of the most appropriate engineering options.
Some of the structural options that are available for use in
wetland discharge systems include:
- Wastewater storage to allow desired application rates and
avoid overloading
- Flow distribution mechanisms to assure uniform distribution
of wastewater, avoid short circuiting and control discharge
velocities
Sections _ Back-up systems for use during times when wetlands
application is limited (winter or wet-weather periods)
~7 *5 — *°*
" control water flow and flow patterns
c*.ppjj.\^cii, AV^II 4.0 J.AUIJ. i.c;vj \ VVJ.IILC.L \JL VT c i w camci. |-/C4. MSJU.O./
Water regulation through the use of berms, dikes or levees to
- Disinfection by chlorination-dechlorination or alternative
methods to avoid wetland impacts related to chlorination
Facilities installation techniques to avoid wetland impacts
(e.g., above ground piping).
Operational options in managing wastewater in wetlands are
related to specific system objectives. The protection of wetland
uses, optimizing system start-up and maximizing system life are
system objectives to be considered. Operational options to help
meet these objectives involve:
Construction timing to minimize wetland impacts
- Quality control of installation procedures to assure wetland
dependent design components are constructed
- Coordinating start-up to avoid naturally sensitive periods
- Start-up procedures to plan for gradual build-up of flow and
optimal discharge schedule and flow pattern
- Seasonal operation to avoid or minimize impacts during
critical seasons
- Periodic inspections in conjunction with a monitoring
program.
17. How are constructed wetlands different from natural wetlands?
The focus of this Handbook is the use of natural freshwater
wetlands for wastewater management. The concept of artificial
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section
6.5
Section
7.4
or created wetlands merits discussion because some technical
information from created wetlands may be applicable, and
created wetlands may be a viable alternative for communities
that do not have access to a suitable natural wetland.
Since wetlands created for wastewater treatment are not
waters of the U.S. (so long as they were not originally created in
waters of the U.S.), they are not regulated to the same extent
as natural systems. Created wetlands can be used to provide
treatment. Additionally, a variety of structural engineering
options that would not be appropriate for natural systems are
available for created systems (e.g., periodic flushing,
harvesting vegetation, installing a liner,. recirculating
wastewater, etc.). They can also involve the purchase of land
which is eligible for Construction Grants funding since the land
would serve as an integral part of the treatment system.
With the use of created wetlands in New York, Pennsylvania,
Iowa, Nevada, California, and other states, the inventory of
design and operating data is increasing; and created wetlands
mav offer a potential alternative in which the use of natural
wetlands is neither possible nor practical.
18. What mitigation practices can be used in a natural wetlands
discharge system?
Wetlands protection should be a prime objective of any
wastewater discharge to a natural wetlands and therefore is a
fundamental element of the Handbook. The entire Handbook
addresses mitigation practices in terms of what can be done to
prevent or reduce impacts to wetlands from a wastewater
discharge.
The engineering design options (e.g., type of discharge
structure), construction practices (e.g., use of boardwalks)
and O*M procedures (e.g., discharging following natural
hydroperiod) discussed by the Handbook incorporate mitigation
concepts. Mitigation is also provided by preliminary and
detailed site evaluations based on the protective function
afforded by these evaluations through identifying unacceptable
sites.
19• What is required for post-discharge monitoring?
All discharges to waters of the U.S. that have an NPDES
permit require that effluent quality be monitored. The purposes
of effluent quality monitoring are to determine: if permit limits
are being attained, if water quality standards criteria are being
maintained, if water quality standards uses are being protected
and if the established effluent limits are sufficient to allow the
maintenance of water quality standards. Monitoring wetland
discharges also should be viewed in terms of assessing wetland
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10
Section
7.5
Section
8.4
Section
9.6
impacts, long-term viability of the wetland and the response of
the wetland to a wastewater discharge.
Much of the post-discharge monitoring of existing wetland
projects has been conducted in conjunction with research pro-
jects. These programs do provide an indication of the major
parameters and general design of a monitoring program that could
be implemented fora wetlands discharge.
Elements of a post-discharge monitoring program could
include: pollutant assessments, hydrological measurements
(water budget, hydroperiod, flow patterns), water quality
measurements (basic analyses, elective analyses, water quality
assessments) and ecological meastirements (vegetation, aquatic
and terrestrial fauna, ecological assessments). The level of
detail required in a post-discharge monitoring program will be
determined by a number of factors, including the background
condition of the wetland, the sensitivity of the wetland to
discharges, the size of the wetland, the volume of wastewater
discharged, etc.
20. What are the risks and uncertainties associated with natural
wetland discharges?
Change is inevitable when wastewater is introduced to a
natural wetland. Regardless of how well planned, designed,
constructed or managed, some degree of system alteration will
occur. The task at hand is to avoid wetlands degradation,
protect wetlands uses, and to minimize adverse environmental
effects while optimizing use of the wetland for wastewater
management. The impacts of wastewater on wetlands are inter-
active. While the data base for understanding natural systems
has increased in recent years, certain data limitations and
uncertainties remain. Uncertainties and risks pertain primarily
to assessing a wetlands assimilative capacity, predicting wetland
impacts, establishing effkient limits, determining downstream
impacts and evaluating the long-term potential of a wetland
receiving wastewater.
21. Who should be contacted for more information on wetland
discharges?
Within EPA, Region IV, the point of contact depends upon
the program issue involved. The NBPA Compliance Section
(404/881-3776) in the Office of Policy and Management has lead
responsibility for preparing the Handbook and should be
contacted for general procedtiral and multi-program questions.
The Water Quality Section (404/881-3116) in the Water Manage-
ment Division should be contacted for water quality standards
issues. The Permits Section (404/881-3012) in the Water
Management Division should be contacted for NPDES permitting
questions. The North Area (404/881-2005) and South Area
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(404/881-3633) Grants Management Sections in the Water Manage-
ment Division should be contacted for Construction Grants
issues. Other important federal agencies are the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). The COE is responsible for construction activities in
wetlands and the FWS is responsible for the ecological review of
projects receiving federal funds. The FWS can also provide
assistance concerning wetlands identification, delineation,
mapping and values. State water quality and environmental
agencies are important since they typically administer Clean
Water Act program.
-------
-------
PREFACE 12
PREFACE
In 1981 the Environmental Protection Agency (Region IV)
initiated an Environmental Assessment on the use of freshwater
wetlands for municipal wastewater management. This study
primarily grew out of the difficulties being encountered by
regulatory personnel in evaluating and permitting discharges to
wetlands, a wastewater management alternative receiving
increased attention and being practiced on a widescale basis.
The scope of the study focuses on the use of natural,
freshwater wetlands for wastewater management in the eight
Region IV states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missis-
sippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Figure 1
depicts the major tasks involved with this study. A separate,
companion study (EPA 1984) investigated the use of saltwater
wetlands for wastewater management.
The initial phase of the Environmental Assessment included
an inventory of existing discharges, wetland types and extent,
wetland classification systems, regulatory procedures and poli-
cies, wetland functions and values, and engineering considera-
tions associated with wetlands discharges. The inventory phase
involved conducting a literature search, sending questionnaires
to each identified wetlands discharger in the eight states,
reviewing regulations and policies pertaining to wetlands
discharges, and contacting numerous regulatory agency person-
nel. Two review committees provided additional guidance: an
Institutional Review Committee (IRC), composed of one state
regulatory agency representative from each Region IV state and
federal agencies with wetland responsibilities (Corps of Engi-
neers, Fish and Wildlife Service); and a Technical Review
Committee (TRC), composed of individuals with direct exper-
ience with wetlands or wetlands discharges, primarily indivi-
duals from academic institutions involved with wetlands
research. The first phase report of the Environmental Assess-
ment was a compilation of material representing the state of
current knowledge about wetlands used for wastewater
management (EPA 1983).
The second phase of the study involved an analysis of
current Clean Water Act regulations that influence wetlands.
Practices affecting regulation or the use of wetlands for waste-
water management were categorized into the three broad areas
of institutional, scientific and engineering issues. Three draft
reports summarized this second phase of the Environmental
Assessment, which concerned regulatory requirements, their
applicability to wetlands and wetlands discharges, and their
relationship to current state programs.
-------
Figure 1. Major Elements of the Freshwater Wetlands for Wastewater
Management Environmental Assessment, EPA Region IV.
13
Natural Wetland
Characteristics
Profile of
Existing Wetlands
Wastewater
Discharges
Managed Wetland
Characteristics
Wetlands
Inventory
Institutional
Considerations
Phase I Report
Task Reports
Analyzing Regulatory
Requirements Related
to Wetlands Wastewater
Discharges
Freshwater Wetlands for
Wastewater Management Handbook
A guide to the institutional, scientific
and engineering aspects of using wetlands
for wastewater management
Assessment
of Handbook
Applicability
(Anticipated)
Environmental
Assessment
Supplement
-------
PREFACE 14
This Handbook represents the culmination of the Environ-
mental Assessment by addressing the relationship between exist-
ing regulatory requirements and the institutional, scientific and
engineering issues critical to the use of wetlands for wastewater
management. However, this document is not a statement of fed-
eral or state policy supporting the use of wetlands for waste-
water management under any or all conditions. Rather, this
document is an acknowledgement that wetlands are being used as
such; and, for many communities in the southeast, it may be a
cost-effective wastewater management alternative. As major
regulatory guidelines are developed and technical information is
obtained, Handbook updates will be provided.
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND USE OF THE HANDBOOK l_1
1.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE HANDBOOK TO WETLAND ISSUES AND
REGULATORY PROCEDURES 1-5
1.3 WHY USE WETLANDS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT?
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND USE OF THE HANDBOOK
In recent years the use of natural wetlands for municipal
waste water management increased dramatically, despite the lack
of formal regulatory, scientific or engineering guidelines. The
absence of guidelines placed pressure on those who would use,
or must regulate, wetlands discharges. As a result, EPA Region
IV initiated the compilation of this Handbook to provide guidance
to potential wetlands dischargers and regulatory personnel.
With the increased attention given wetlands, the functions
and values of natural wetlands systems now are widely recog-
nized; hence, their protection is receiving added emphasis. Can
wetlands be used for wastewater management and still be ade-
quately protected? This question is really at the heart of the
wetlands use issue and is one of the leading questions this
Handbook attempts to answer through examining the institu-
tional, scientific and engineering considerations of using
wetlands for wastewater management. Figure 1-1 shows some of
the technical and regulatory issues associated with wastewater
discharges to wetlands that are addressed by the Handbook.
Technical contents of the Handbook are based on the
available information from recent wetlands research and existing
wetlands discharges. Some questions posed about wetlands
discharges and their impacts cannot be answered absolutely to
the satisfaction of either wetlands scientists or regulatory
personnel. An attempt has been made to respond to the critical
issues as thoroughly as possible. When available information on
a specific topic is limited, this will be noted; and if an issue
cannot be resolved, the reasons will be discussed. The Hand-
book should not be interpreted as unqualified support for using
natural wetlands for wastewater management. In fact, alterna-
tives such as land application, small community innovative
systems and created wetlands might better suit a community's
needs. The Handbook is intended to provide guidance for
determining when using a natural wetlands system for
wastewater management may be appropriate, as well as when it
is not.
For ease of use, the Handbook is divided into nine major
chapters. Beginning each chapter is a section describing how
that chapter's contents relate to the decision making process
based on current regulations, policies and practices. This
should interest potential users, since it provides the rationale
behind information or procedural requirements. The User's
Guide ending most chapters is designed to lead a potential user
-------
Most wetlands are "waters of the U.S."
What does that mean?
How are wetlands
beneficial to society?
Storm water
buffering
Water purification
, Over 400 communities ' , •
in the Southeast discharge
;*.„. to wetlands. Is there a set _,
of procedures that all states
consistently follow to evaluate
or permit wetland discharges?
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
Do we know enough to
design a wetlands system
and predict impacts to
the wetland?
Figure. 1-1. Basic Technical and Regulatory Issues Associated with
Wastewater Discharges to Wetlands.
-------
PURPOSE AND USE OF THE HANDBOOK
through the analyses needed for decision making based on the
information presented in a chapter. Figure 1-2 shows a general
approach to using the Handbook.
The Handbook should be considered as a guidance document
to be used and interpreted by the appropriate state or federal
regulatory agencies, rather than as a self-contained list of
requirements. Upon considering the use of a wetland as part of
a wastewater management system, a potential user should be
sure to contact the appropriate agencies (see Section 9.6) to
assure that efforts are coordinated and properly directed. Due
to the evolution of policies and guidelines concerning wetlands,
contacting the appropriate agencies is important to ensure that
the proper procedures are followed and the required information
is collected and submitted.
-------
Figure 1-2. Use of the Handbook.
1-4
Read Chapter 2 - Wetlands
Functions and Values
If interested in:
Regulatory requirements and issues
Evaluating a potential wetlands site
Establishing effluent limits
or discharge criteria
Designing a wetlands-waste water system
Implementing or monitoring a
wetlands wastewater system
A summary of potential
wastewater impacts to wetlands
Assessment techniques or data
sources for wetlands
Read Chapter 3
Read Chapter 4
Read Chapter 5
Read Chapter 6
Read Chapter 7
Read Chapter 8
Read Chapter 9
Use appropriate User's Guides
to develop needed information
for decision making
I
Develop project if appropriate
wetland site is found and
permit .can be obtained
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE HANDBOOK TO WETLAND ISSUES AND
REGULATORY PROCEDURES
Any discharge to a natural wetland must meet the
requirements set forth by the Clean Water Act and its
wastewater management programs, just as any other water body
receiving a discharge. The three major wastewater management
programs that will be addressed are the Water Quality
Standards, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and
Construction Grants Programs. The Dredge and Fill Permit
Program is most often associated with wetlands. Its impact on
the use of wetlands for wastewater management primarily is
related to construction activities.
Without wetlands-specific guidance as part of the regulatory
framework, evaluation and permitting processes are left open to
interpretation, leaving current regulatory practices inconsis-
tent or incomplete. Improving the thoroughness and consistency
of assessing wetlands for wastewater management is one of the
purposes of the Handbook. The Handbook can help achieve this
only by providing guidance on issues that should be incorpo-
rated into the regulatory framework. The responsibility of
regulatory reform lies with the federal and state agencies which
administer the identified Clean Water Act programs.
Many issues identified should be addressed on the regulatory
level (e.g., the adequacy of existing use classifications for
wetlands) . The manner in which the issues are addressed, how-
ever, needs to be flexible: each state administering the program
may have different needs and objectives. Since the use of
wetlands for wastewater management is a developing "technol-
ogy," a potential user should work closely with the agencies
responsible for regulating activities in wetlands. The User's
Guide sections should assist the creation of this liaison.
Figure 1-3 indicates how the various chapters of the
Handbook relate to decision making and the regulatory process.
-------
State/Applicant
State/Applicant
Consideration
of
Wetlands for
Wastewater
Management
1 Wetlands
Functions and
Values
Chapter 2
State/Applicant
Funding
Available
through Construction
Grants
Chapter 3
WQS
use/criteria
Chapters 3 & 5
Discharge
Guidelines
Chapter 5
Compile Information
for Permit Application
and Submit Application
Chapter 3
Review
Application
Effluent 1
Limitations 1
Chapters3&5 1
»
Engineering
Design
Chapter 6
Engineering Planning
Chapters 4*6
Detailed Site Evaluation
Chapter 4
Applicant/State
Issue
Permit
Chapter 3
Applicant
Construction
and O&M
Chapter 7
Applicant
Applicant/
' State
Compliance
and
Monitoring
Chapter
ce^V
lg J
IS
Figure 1-3. Relationship of the Handbook to the Decision Making Process.
-------
INTRODUCTION l~7
1.3 WHY USE WETLANDS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT?
Historically, natural wetlands were used for waste water man-
agement in the Southeast because of convenience or due to the
lack of other reasonable alternatives. Few of these discharges
were initiated because of the wetland's abilities to renovate
wastewater. Some of the wetlands-wastewater systems imple-
mented during the past decade, however, have incorporated
design elements to optimize wastewater renovation and preserve
wetland integrity.
So, what are the reasons for using wetlands for wastewater
management?
1. For a community in the coastal plain and not adjacent to a
water course, wetlands may be the only aquatic system avail-
able for discharging wastewater. Since groundwater levels
and soils may not be conducive to land application, the
wetland may be the only reasonable remaining alternative.
2. For communities with a choice between advanced treatment
with a surface water discharge and secondary treatment to a
wetland, the use of the wetland may be the most affordable
alternative.
3. If a community has a partially developed or altered wetland,
discharging wastewater might serve to restore flows to the
wetland, thereby achieving wastewater management objec-
tives and wetlands restoration/preservation.
4. A wetlands discharge might be the optimal alternative for a
small community due to available revenues, wetland
proximity or system design.
Other scenarios exist for which the use of wetlands for
wastewater management may be reasonable. But not all cases
merit such wetlands use. These situations are outlined in the
Handbook. The use of wetlands should be avoided when:
1. The wetland under consideration is a pristine wetland and
representative of a unique wetland type.
2. Projected impacts to the wetland would cause changes threat-
ening the viability of the wetland (i.e., prevent vegetation
reproduction or alter water chemistry characteristics upon
which the wetland depends) .
3. Conflicts with other uses cannot be mitigated adequately
(e.g., preservation of protected species and their habitat) .
If these situations are encountered, other sites or management
alternatives should be evaluated and selected.
-------
-------
WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
2.0 WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
2.1 PURPOSE AND CONSIDERATIONS 2-2
2.2 DISTRIBUTION OF WETLANDS IN THE SOUTHEAST 2-2
2.3 OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 2_7
2.3.1 Geomorphology
o Erosion Control
2.3.2 Hydrology / Meteorology
o Flood Control
o Saltwater Intrusion Control
o Groundwater Supply
o Microclimate Regulation
2.3.3 Water Quality
o Water Quality Enhancement
2.3.4 Ecology
o Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species
o Waterfowl Breeding and Habitat
o Wildlife Habitat
o Freshwater Fish
o Aquatic Productivity
o Nutrient and Material Cycling
2.3.5 Cultural Resources
o Harvest of Natural Products
o Recreation and Aesthetics
2.4 ENDANGERED OR UNIQUE WETLANDS 2-14
2.4.1 General Regions
2.4.2 Specific Wetland Areas in the Southeast
-------
-------
WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
2.0 WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
Who should read this chapter? Anyone involved with any aspect of a
wetlands-wastewater discharge.
What are some of the issues addressed by this chapter?
o How are wetlands different from other receiving waters?
o What are wetlands functions and values?
o Are unique or endangered wetlands located in the Southeast?
Understanding
Wetlands Function*
and Value*
o Wetlands types
o Wetlands locations
Overview of
Functions and
Values
o Erosion control
o Flood control
o Saltwater intrusion control
o Ground water supply
o Microclimate regulation
o Water quality enhancement
o Habitat for protected species
o Waterfowl breeding and habitat
o Wildlife habitat
o Freshwater fish
o Aquatic productivity
o Harvest of natural resources
o Recreation and aesthetics
Endangered
or Unique
Wetlands
o National danger areas
o State specific areas
Figure 2-1. Overview of Wetlands Functions and Values
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF WETLANDS 2-2
2.1 PURPOSE AND CONSIDERATIONS
Before any wetlands-wastewater management system is
considered seriously, the major functions and values of
wetlands should be understood. While not all wetlands display
all the functions and values discussed below, every wetland is
characterized by some combination of the functions and values
presented. Since wetlands protection should be a prime
objective of any wetlands-wastewater management system, and
the basis for wetlands related water quality standards, a broad
understanding of how wetlands function and what values they
provide is essential. Figure 2-1 provides a brief overview of the
important elements of this chapter.
2.2 DISTRIBUTION OF WETLANDS IN THE SOUTHEAST
In the mid-1970's, approximately 99 million acres of wetlands
existed in the continental United States (excluding Alaska and
Hawaii). This represents about 5 percent of the nation's land
surface. Inland freshwater wetlands accounted for almost 94
million acres of the total. These acreages represent the wet-
lands remaining after more than 20 years of losses, during which
time about 450,000 acres per year were destroyed in the entire
United States (U.S. FWS 1984). As a result, it is important that
wetlands functions and values are clearly understood, particu-
larly if they are to be subject to human-induced development or
management.
The Southeastern United States has an abundance of natural
wetlands. In fact, 35 percent of the wetlands remaining in the
lower 48 states occur in the eight states of EPA Region IV. Of
the 9 million wetland acres lost from the mid-1950's to
mid-1970's, 8 million were lost in the Southeast. This acreage
incorporates major losses in Louisiana outside EPA Region IV but
a significant amount of these losses occurred within the Region.
The greatest losses within the Region occurred in the
Mississippi River floodplain of Mississippi and Tennessee, the
coastal plain of North Carolina, and the inland and coastal areas
of south Florida.
In the Southeast, most wetland losses are the result of
agricultural drainage, especially in the Lower Mississippi Delta,
Florida and the North Carolina coastal plain. Clearcutting of
bottomland hardwoods for timber is followed by draining soils
for crop production, primarily soybeans. Also, many inland
wetlands are being converted to pine plantations throughout the
Region. In Florida and North Carolina, phosphate mining also is
destroying extensive wetland areas. Specific to North Carolina,
pocosin wetlands are being drained for agricultural use and
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF WETLANDS 2-3
mined for peat (U.S. FWS 1984). In most coastal areas in the
Region, development is resulting in either the direct destruction
of wetlands through draining or filling, or increased stress
resulting from modified hydrologic/flow patterns, and runoff
from impervious areas and construction sites.
Bottomland hardwood wetlands are the most common Region
IV wetland type, found in all eight states. Inland marshes, bogs
and freshwater tidal marshes are limited in extent. Other
wetland systems such as wet savannahs, Carolina Bays and
Atlantic White Cedar Bogs are even more limited. Figure 2-2
indicates the amount of wetlands acreage in each Region IV state
and the percentage of the state that acreage represents. The 11
million acres of wetlands in Florida, for example, represent 30
percent of the area of Florida. Florida has the highest
percentage, followed by South Carolina. North Carolina is
second to Florida in the actual amount of wetlands acreage.
All the states in Region IV with the exception of Kentucky
and Tennessee, contain large areas of wetlands. Kentucky has
the fewest acres and lowest percentage of wetlands in the
Region. The relatively low occurrence of wetlands in these two
states, however, does not reduce their importance. In fact, the
limited distribution of wetlands in these states increases their
value.
For ease of use, Table 2-1 lists some common wetland types,
their National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification (Cowar-
din et al. 1979) counterparts and associated characteristic
vegetation since these relationships are important to wetlands
management. Although the NWI system is the most thorough and
widely accepted classification scheme, these wetland classifica-
tions may not directly coincide with the definition of wetlands
contained in EPA's Clean Water Act regulations (40 CFR 122.2).
The distinctions between definitions of wetlands and classifi-
cation of types should be noted.
-------
ACRES
(1000)
1ZUUU
i nnnn
1UUUU
onnn
uOOU -•"
4f\nn
nnnn
ZUUU
n
11,334
(30.2)
5,690
(16.9)
5,298
(14.1)
, 4,659
(23.4)
(13.3)
3,069
(9.3)
787
(" 0">
STATE FL
NC
GA
SC
MS
AL
TN
KY
Source: Adapted from
Figure ? Wetland Acreages for the eight states in the Southr
-------
Table 2.1. Relationship Between Common Wetland Types and the National Wetlands Inventory (CowardIn et al. 1979). Classification System.
National Wetlands Inventory
Common Wetland Types*
Syst
Hydrologlcally Isolated Sysf5i
(FTsn ang wildlife Service)
am Type Class ""
Subclass
Characteristic Flora
Common name (Botanical name)
Wooded swamp
Pa lustrine Forested wetland
Broad-leaved
deciduous
Water tupelo (Nyssa aquetlce); swamp black gum (N. blflora);
Ogeechee plum (N. oqeche); water elm (Planera aquatlca);
Carolina ash (FTFxInus carol Inlana); bald cypress (Taxb-
dlum dlstlchum); fetter bush (Lyon'la luclda); leather bush,
Pa lustrine Forested wetland
Pa lustrine
Scrub-shrub
wetland
Need Ie-1eaved
deciduous
Broad-Ieaved
deciduous
Paulstrlne Scrub-shrub
wetland
tltl (CyrlI la racemlflora); common alder (Alnus serrulate); wax
myrtlecRyrlca cerlfera); black wl I low (Sallx nlgra); but'tonbush
(Cephalanthus occidental Is); Virginia willow (I tea vlrglnlca);
over cup oak ((juercus lyrata); red map I e (Acer TuBFum var. drummond i I)
Bald cypress (Taxodturn dlstlchum); pond cypress (T. ascendens)
Leatherbush, tltl (CyrlI la racemlflora); fetterbush (Lyonla luclda);
Inkberry, holly (Ilex glaEra); Zenobla (Zenobla pulverulenta);
pond pine (Plnus serotina); red maple (Acer rubrum); bay
magnolia, white bay (Magnolia vlrglnlana); loblolly bay (Gordon I a
I as Ianthus); southern white cedar (Chamaecypar Is thyoIdes); swamp
bay (Persea borbonla); wax myrtle (Myrlea cerlfera); pepperbush
(Clethra aTnlfolla)
Common alder (Alnus serrulate); swamp privet (ForestIera acuminate);
black willow (Sal Ix "nlgra); buttonbush (Cepha I anthus occ"l denta I Is);
Carolina wlI low (57 carolInlana); Virginia wlI low (Itea vlrglnlca)
Pond pine (Plnus serotina); loblolly pine (P. taeda); slash
(P. elllottll); long leaf pine (P. palustrlsT; wax myrtle (My
cerlfera); tltl, leatherbush, (Cyril la racemlflora)
Cattail (Typha spp.); bulrush (Sclrptis spp.); maldencane
(Pan I cum 'hem I toman); 11 zards tall (Sau'rurus cernuus);
alllgatorweed (XTFernanthera philoxeroldes); sedge (Carex spp.,
Cyperus spp., Rhynchospora spp.); rush (Juncus spp., Fleocharls
spp.); reed (Arundo donax. Phragmltes communls); aster (Aster);
beggartlck, stick-tight (BI dens spp.); water hemlock (Clcuta
maculate); sawgrass (CI ad I urn Jama1cense); barnyard grass
(Echlnochloa crusagalll); splkerush (Eleocharls spp.); joe-pye
weed, late boneset (Eupatorlum spp.), mallow (Hibiscus spp.); Iris
(Iris vlrglnlca. Iris spp.); purslane (Ludwlgla spp.); maldencane.
swltchgrass (Pan I cum spp.); Joint grass~TPaspalum dlstlchum);
pelandra (Peltandra vlrglnlca); smartweed (Polvgonum spp.);
pickeraI weed (Pontederla cordate); arrowhead (SagltTarla spp.)
•Wooded swamps, marshes, wet prairies and bogs can be either hydrologlcally Isolated from or connected to other surface waters.
Cypress dome
Bog, pocosln, Carolina
bay, evergreen shrub-
bog, bay head
Shrub swamp
Pine flatwoods, pine
swamp
Shal low freshwater
marsh, deep freshwater
marsh. Inland marsh,
bogue, prairie, savannah
Pa lustrine
Pa lustrine
Forested
wetland
Emergent
wetland
Broad-Ieaved
deciduous
Needle-Ieaved
evergreen
Persistent;
non-persIstent
ro
I
-------
Table 2.1. Continued,
Common Wetland Types
National Wetlands Inventory
(Fish and Wildlife Service)
System Type
Characteristic Flora
Common name (Botanical name) ~~~
Grass pink (Calopogon spp.); coastal milkweed (Ascleplas spp.);
pitcher plant (Sarracenla spp.); St. Johns' wort (HyperTcum spp.)
toothache grass (Ctenjum spp.); club-moss (Lycopodlum prostratum);
bog-button (Lachnocaula anceps); sea pinks ISabatla spp.);
yel low-eyed grass (XyrTs spp.); meadow-beauty (Rhex'la spp.); marsh
fleabane (Pluchea spp.); muhly (MuhIenbergI a spp.); Arlstjda spp.;
lobelia (Lobelia spp.); nutrush (Sclerla spp.); sun dew (Drosera
spp.); Pagonla spp.; mllkwort (Polygala lutea); plpewort (Erlocaulon
spp. ); bog-orch Id (Habenerla spp. ); sedge (D fchromena spp.l
Sedge (Carex spp.); flat sedge (Cyperus spp.); rush (Juncus spp.);
beaked sedge (Rhynchospora spp.) tlckweed. beggartlck, stick-tight
(BI dens spp.); aster (Aster spp.); goldenrod (So11 dago spp.); joint-
grass, para grass (Pan I cum spp.); broom straw (Andropoqon spp.)
Waters hi eld (Brasenla schreberl); fanwort, cabomba (Cabomba
carol(nlana); hornwort (Ceratophylum spp.); water hyacinth
(Elchornla crasslpes); Elodea spp.; duckweed (Lemna spp.); penny-
wort (Hydrocotyle spp.); southern nfad (Najas spp.); lotus (Nelumbo
lutea); spatterdock (Nuphar advena); Whitewater Illy (Nymphaea
oderata); pondweed (Potomoqeton spp.); duckmeat (Splrodela poly-
rrhlza); bladderwort (Utrlcularla spp.); salvlnla (Salvlnla
aurlculata); mosquito fern (Azolla carol Inlana)
Laurel oak (Quercus taurlfolla); willow oak (Q. phellos); swamp
chestnut (Q. mlchauxll); cherry bark oak, swamp Spanish oak (Q.
pagoda); loblolly pine (P. taeda); American white elm (Ulmus amerlcana);
sweetgum (Llquldambar styraclflua); river birch (Betula nlgra); Iron-
wood, blue beech (Carplnus carol(nlana); palmetto, dwarf palmetto
(Sabel minor); cabbage palm (Sabel palmetto)
Lizards tall (Saururus cernuus); alligator weed (Alternanthera
phi IoxeroIdes); sedge (Eleocharls spp.); Iris (Iris vlrglnlca);
pelandera (Peltandra vlrglnlca); smarfweed (Polygonum spp.); ~
plckeral weed (PonTederla cordata); wild rice (ZlzanTa spp.);
buI rush (Sclrpus spp.); rush (Juncus spp.)
Bald cypress (Taxodlum d1st I chum); pond cypress (T. ascendens)
Class
Savannah, wet prairie
Pa lustrine Emergent
wetland
Meadow, wet meadow
fresh meadow
Hydrologies!ly Connected
Marsh, bayou, brake,
ox-bow, swamp creek,
flat, pralrle-marsh,
slough
MIxed bottomland
hardwood, hardwood
strand
Marsh
Cypress Strand
Palustrine Emergent
wetland
Palustrlne Aquatic bed
Lacustrine
Riverine
Palustrlne Forested
Riverine Emergent
Lacustrine wetland
Palustrlne Forested
wetland
Subclass
Persistent;
non-persistent
dependent on
dominants
Pers I stent;
Non-persIstent
(dependent on
dominant)
Various
dependent on
dominants
Broad-leaved
deciduous
Persistent;
non-persistent
(dependent on
dominants)
Need Ie-leaved
deciduous
CO
I
-------
OVERVIEW OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 2~7
2.3 OVERVIEW OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
Wetlands have many important roles in the maintenance of
ecosystems and watersheds. The terms function and value are
often used together to describe or characterize a wetland. Wet-
land functions are the inherent processes or capabilities of
wetlands. Most of the values of wetlands relate directly to these
functions: for example, the water quality enhancement func-
tions of wetlands are one of their great values. Some wetland
values, such as visual-cultural values, are somewhat inde-
pendent of wetland function. Typically the functions and
values of wetlands are interrelated.
The following 16 functions and values of wetlands summarized
in Table 2-2 are widely accepted.
Table 2-2. Primary Wetland Functions and Values
Geomorphology
Erosion control
Hydrology /Meteorology
Flood control
Saltwater intrusion control
Groundwater supply
Microclimate regulation
Water Quality
Water quality enhancement
Ecology
Habitat for threatened and endangered species
Waterfowl breeding and habitat
Wildlife habitat
Freshwater fish (and some marine species)
Aquatic productivity
Nutrient/material cycling
Cultural Resources
Harvest of natural products
Recreation and aesthetics
-------
OVERVIEW OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 2-8
2.3.1 Geomorphology
Erosion Control. Located between watercourses and up-
lands, wetlands help protect uplands from erosion. Wetland
vegetation can reduce shoreline erosion in several ways, includ-
ing: (1) increasing stability of the sediment through binding
with its roots, (2) dampening waves through friction and (3)
reducing current velocity through friction. These processes
reduce turbidity and thereby improve water quality. Rich,
alluvial soils, which build up in wetlands, also contribute to
productivity.
Wetland vegetation has been successfully planted to reduce
erosion along U.S. waters. While most wetland plants need calm
or sheltered water for establishment, they will effectively con-
trol erosion once established. Willows, alders, ashes, cotton-
woods, poplars, maples and elms are particularly good stabil-
izers. Successful emergent plants in freshwater areas include
reed canary grass, reed, cattail, and bulrushes. Sediment
deposition in freshwater wetlands also acts to decrease siltation
in downstream systems such as estuaries.
2.3.2 Hydrology/Meteorology
Flood Control. Wetlands temporarily store flood waters and
thus reduce downstream losses of life and property. Since de-
struction from floods in the U.S. runs from $3 to $4 billion each
year, the damage-diminishing function of wetlands is vitally
important.
Rather than having all flood waters flowing rapidly down-
stream and destroying private property and crops, wetlands
slow the flow of water, store it for some time and slowly release
stored waters downstream. In this way, flood peaks of tribu-
tary streams are desynchronized and all flood waters do not
reach the mainstem river at the same time. This function
becomes more important in urban areas, where development has
increased the rate and volume of surface water runoff and the
potential for flood damage (U.S. FWS 1984) .
Saltwater Intrusion Control. The flow of freshwater through
wetlands creates ground water pressure that prevents saltwater
from invading public water supplies. This is important only
where freshwater wetlands interface with an estuarine environ-
ment (U.S. FWS 1984).
Groundwater Supply. There is considerable debate over the
role of wetlands in groundwater recharge. Recharge potential
of wetlands varies according to numerous factors, including
wetland type, geographic location, season, soil type, water
table location and precipitation. Depressional wetlands like
cypress domes in Florida and prairie potholes in the Dakotas may
-------
OVERVIEW OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 2~9
contribute to groundwater recharge. Floodplain wetlands also
may do this through overbank water storage (U.S. FWS 1984).
As a result, the protection of this function could be a factor in
addressing current and future water supply problems.
Microclimate regulation. Although less is known about the
role of wetlands in regulating climatic conditions than about
many other wetlands functions, available data indicate this may
be a significant wetland function. In some cases wetlands
appear to modify air temperatures, affect localized precipitation
and maintain global atmospheric stability. Most available
information concerning the modification of air temperatures and
regional precipitation is pertinent for Florida wetlands, which
comprise such a large percentage (30%) of the state. It has been
suggested that thunderstorm activity could decrease in Florida
as a result of draining wetlands, thereby modifying water
budgets (EPA 1983).
2.3.3 Water Quality
Water Quality Enhancement. Wetlands act as natural water
purification mechanisms. They remove silt, and filter out and
absorb nutrients and many pollutants such as waterborne toxic
chemicals.
Water quality enhancement is dependent on wetlands soils,
vegetation, flow through time, water depth and related pro-
cesses. Many communities throughout the United States, includ-
ing more than 400 communities in the Southeast, have benefitted
from the capabilities of wetlands to enhance water quality by
incorporating wetlands into their wastewater management
systems (EPA 1983).
2.3.4 Ecology
Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. More than
20 percent of all the plant and animal species on the Federal
Endangered or Threatened Species list are dependent on wet-
lands for food and/or habitat. Fifteen wetlands dependent
species on the federal list are found only in the Southeast. Addi-
tionally, each state has a list of protected species and many of
these in each state are wetlands dependent: Alabama - 25
species; Florida - 31 species; Georgia - 6 species; Kentucky - 14
species; Mississippi - 14 species; North Carolina - 8 species,
South Carolina - 13 species; Tennessee - 13 species (EPA 1983).
Waterfowl Breeding and Habitat. Over 12 million ducks nest
and breed annually in northern U.S. wetlands. This area, when
combined with similar habitats in the Canadian prairies,
accounts for 60 to 70 percent of the continent's breeding duck
population. Waterfowl banded in North Dakota have been recov-
ered in 46 states, 10 Canadian provinces and territories, and 23
-------
OVERVIEW OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 2~10
other countries. Some 2.5 million of the 3 million mallards in the
Mississippi Fly way and nearly 100 percent of our 4 million wood
ducks spend the winter in flooded bottomland forests and
marshlands throughout the South.
Bottomland forested wetlands of the South are primary win-
tering grounds for North American waterfowl areas, as well as
important breeding areas for wood ducks, herons, egrets and
white ibises. Even wild turkeys nest in bottomland hardwood
forests. Other common bird inhabitants include barred owls,
downy and redbellied woodpeckers, cardinals, pine warblers,
wood peewees, yellowthroats and wood thrushes (U.S. FWS
1984).
Wildlife Habitat. Wetlands provide food and shelter for a
great variety of furbearing animals and other kinds of wildlife.
Louisiana marshes alone yield an annual fur harvest worth $10 to
$15 million (U.S. FWS 1984).
Muskrats, beavers and nutria are the most common fur bear-
ers dependent on wetlands. Muskrats are the most wide ranging
of the three, inhabiting both coastal and inland marshes
throughout the country. In contrast, beavers tend to be re-
stricted to inland wetlands, with nutria limited to coastal
wetlands of the South. Other wetland-utilizing furbearers
include otter, mink, raccoon, skunk and weasels. Other mam-
mals also frequent wetlands, such as marsh and swamp rabbits,
numerous mice, bog lemmings and shrews. Larger mammals may
also be observed. Black bears find refuge and food in shrub
wetlands in South Carolina, for example (U.S. FWS 1984).
Turtles, snakes, reptiles and amphibians are all common
residents of wetlands in the Southeast. Alligators range from
Florida to North Carolina to the north, and Texas to the west.
Freshwater Fish. Many of the 4.5 million acres of open water
areas found in inland wetlands are ideal habitat for such sought
after species as bass, catfish, pike, bluegill, sunfish, and
crap pie.
Most freshwater fishes can be considered wetland-dependent
because: (1) many species feed in wetlands or upon wet-
land-produced food; (2) many fishes use wetlands as nursery
grounds and (3) almost all important recreational fishes spawn in
the aquatic portions of wetlands. Bottomland hardwood forests
of the South serve as nursery and feeding grounds for young
warmouth and largemouth bass, while adult bass feed and spawn
in these wetlands. River swamps in Georgia produce 1,300
pounds of fish per acre. The bottomlands of the Altamaha River
in Georgia are spawning grounds for the hickory shad and
blueback herring. Southern bottomland forested wetlands are
also the home of the edible red swamp crayfish, which burrow
-------
OVERVIEW OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 2-11
down to the water table when flooding waters recede (U.S. FWS
1984).
Aquatic Productivity. Wetlands are among the most produc-
tive ecosystems in the world. Wetland plants are particularly
efficient converters of solar energy. Through photosynthesis,
plants convert sunlight into plant material or biomass and
produce oxygen as a by-product. This biomass serves as food
for a multitude of animals, both aquatic and terrestrial. For
example, many waterfowl depend heavily on seeds of marsh
plants, while muskrat eat cattail tubers and young shoots.
Generally, direct grazing of wetland plants is limited, so the
vegetation's major food value is produced when it dies and frag-
ments, forming detritus. This detritus forms the base of an
aquatic food web which supports higher consumers. Wetlands
can be regarded as the farmlands of the aquatic environment,
producing great volumes of food annually. The majority of
non-marine aquatic animals depend, either directly or indirect-
ly, on this food source (U.S. FWS 1984).
Nutrient and Material Cycling. Implicit in the discussion of
several other wetland functions and values is the importance of
wetlands to downstream ecosystems. Wetlands that are hydro-
logically connected to surface waters often serve as an import-
ant source of nutrients and organic matter. Wetlands serve to
break down organic matter, such as dead vegetation, and to
cycle nutrients so these materials are useable in downstream
ecosystems. This function is essential to many freshwater and
marine organisms in downstream waters and estuaries (Day
1981).
2.3.5 Cultural Resources
Harvest of Natural Products. A variety of natural products
are produced in freshwater wetlands, including timber, fish,
water fowl, pelts and peat. Wetland grasses are hayed in many
places for winter livestock feed. During other seasons, live-
stock graze directly in wetlands across the country. These and
other products are harvested by man for his use and provide a
livelihood for many people. The standing value alone of south-
ern wetland forests is $8 billion. Conversion of bottomland
forests to agricultural fields (e.g., soybeans) in the Mississippi
Delta has reduced these wetlands by 75 percent.
Wetlands also support fish and wildlife for man's use. Com-
mercial fishermen and trappers make a living from these
resources. Many commercial species (catfish, carp and buffalo
fish) depend on freshwater wetlands for habitat, nutrients or
organic matter. Furs from beaver, muskrat, mink, nutria and
otter yielded roughly $35.5 million in 1976. Louisiana is the
largest fur-producing state, and nearly all furs come from
wetland animals.
-------
OVERVIEW OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 2-12
Many wetlands produce peat, a resource used mainly for
horticulture and agriculture in the United States. Peat mining,
however, destroys wetlands and their many associated values
(U.S. FWS 1984).
Recreation and Aesthetics. Many recreational activities take
place in and around wetlands. Hunting and fishing are popular
sports. Waterfowl hunting is a major activity in wetlands, and
big game hunting is also important locally.
Other recreation in wetlands is largely non-consumptive:
hiking, nature observation and photography, swimming, boating
and ice-skating. Many people simply enjoy the beauty and
sounds of nature and spend their leisure time walking or boating
in or near wetlands observing plant and animal life. The
aesthetic value of wetlands is extremely difficult to evaluate or
place a dollar value upon. Nonetheless, it is very important. In
1980 alone, 28.8 million people (17 percent of the U.S. popula-
tion) took special trips to observe, photograph or feed wildlife.
Figure 2-3 graphically depicts many of the major wetlands
functions and values. These functions and values are important
to the use of wetlands for wastewater management for several
reasons. First and foremost, they provide the basis for water
quality standards and the nondegradation of existing uses.
Existing uses, as represented by the list of beneficial wetland
functions and values, must be clearly identified and protected
by a wastewater management plan incorporating wetlands.
While few wetlands will exhibit all 16 attributes listed, the
existing values must be identified for each prospective site. Not
only do these functions and values serve as a basis for regula-
tory considerations, they also impact site screening, engineering
design, operation and monitoring of a prospective wetlands dis-
charge. Wastewater management objectives must be considered
in light of environmental protection. The Handbook emphasizes
the importance of wetlands functions and values in each of the
three major subject areas addressed: institutional, scientific
and engineering considerations.
-------
Figure 2-3. Relationship Between Wetland Functions and Values.
2-13
Periodic Inundation Wetland Functions Ecological Services
Nutrients and
suspended material
Trapping of suspended material
Toxics cycling
Soil anchoring
Food and habitat
Food chain support
Floodpeak reduction
recharge
ater quality improvement
Shoreline erosion control
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
-------
ENDANGERED OR UNIQUE WETLANDS
2.4 ENDANGERED OR UNIQUE WETLANDS
In the past, endangered or unique wetlands were not
acknowledged because little value was placed on wetlands. As
wetlands have been lost to a variety of competing uses through
the years, their distribution and occurrence has been examined
more thoroughly. Now, in conjunction with the acknowledged
values of wetlands, the concept of endangered or unique
wetlands is not only valid, but also essential to their use and
protection.
2.4.1 General Regions
Four of the nine regions classified by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as "national problem areas" are located in Region
IV (U.S. FWS 1984).
The three freshwater wetland areas classified as such are:
o Forested Wetlands of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain
o Pocosins of North Carolina
o Palustrine (inland) wetlands of South Florida.
As a result of the development pressures and land use altera-
tions affecting these areas, any additional development around
or management of these wetlands must be carefully evaluated and
closely monitored.
In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently
prepared a regional strategic plan (U.S. FWS 1984b) which tar-
gets animal and plant species that are endangered, threatened or
of special concern and establishes a plan of action to protect
those species. Many of these species are wetland-dependent.
In the Region IV EPA area, the Fish and Wildlife Service identi-
fied the following wetland areas as containing significant
concentrations of these protected plant and animal species:
o Tennessee River Drainage Area - has 24 listed endangered or
threatened species, all endemic to the area
o Coastal wetlands of the Atlantic and Gulf states
o South Florida - has 20 listed endangered or threatened
species.
This survey led to the identification of endangered or unique
wetland types within each state. Table 2-3 shows unique and
endangered wetland types for each state, along with some clari-
fying comments. Endangered wetlands are defined here as those
areas being impacted by development pressures or other
stresses. Unique wetlands refers to those wetland types which
are limited in extent and/or act as habitats for endangered, rare
or threatened species. It should be noted that several of these
-------
Table 2-3. Endangered or Unique Wetland Types In EPA Region IV States
State
Endangered
Unique
Comments
Source
Alabama
o Bottomland hardtoods
Cypress-tupelo stamps
Coastal marshes
Pitcher Plant bogs
o Extent of these types has been severely U.S. FWS, AL
reduced In last 30 years due to human
activities, Including agriculture and forestry.
BLH and coastal marshes are sensitive to
hydroperlod change.
o Pitcher plant bogs
o Most limited In distribution and also
sensitive to hydroperlod change.
U.S. FWS, AL
Florida o Riverine systems
(excluding the
Everglades &
Big Cypress
Stamp areas)
o Wet prairies o Wet prairies are the habitat for endangered
plant species Harper's Beauty,
Harperoca 1 1 Is flava.
U.S. FWS, FL
o Cypress stamps
that are toodstork
rookerIes
FL Natural Areas
Inventory
Georgia
o Fresh teter tidal marshes
o Black water stamps
o Those associated tilth major rivers and
tidal rivers should be protected from being
drained or converted to other uses.
6A DNR
Marsh & Beach 01v.
Game & Fish Olv.
o Lime sinks
o Caro11na Bays
SC Natural Heritage
Trust
Kentucky
o Bottomland Hardtoods
o Cypress sloughs
o Oxbows
KY Nature Conservancy
U.S. FWS, TN
Univ. of Louisville
Kentucky has a small percentage of tetlands. This fact makes these wetlands valuable In as much as they are of
limited distribution and continue to be stressed by development pressures. Including forestry, strip mining of coal
and agriculture.
Mississippi
o Bottomland Hardtoods
o Coastal marshes
o Pitcher plant bogs
o Savannahs
o Extent severely reduced In last 30 years
due to human activities, Including agri-
culture and forestry. BLH and coastal marshes
are sensitive to hydroperlod change.
o Limited In distribution and sensitive to
hydroperlod change.
U.S. FWS, AL & MS
o Limited In distribution.
MS Natural Heritage
Program
r-o
I
-------
Table 2-3. Continued.
)d
Unique
Comments
Source
~**-'- : KISS as:: ^ °° srssr-Mp: K-.SS- »u-s- F"s> NC
o Non-alluvial swamp development In varying degrees.
forests _,
o Mountain bogs o These are of limited occurrence and may NC Natural Heritage
o White cedar forests contain many disjunct, threatened or Program
o Freshwater wetlands endangered natural communities and
on barrier Islands species.
o Freshwater tidal
wetlands
o Seepage bogs
o Nonrlverlne swamp
forests
o Vernal pools
o Clay-based Carolina
Bays
o Peat-filled Carolina o These have been extensively subjected to NC Natural Heritage
Ba?s carollna drainage, farming, road building, etc. Program
o Pocoslns
o Pine savannahs
o Pond plnewood lands
and forests
o Brown water a I luvlal
wetlands
o Black water al luvlal
wetlands
South Carollna ° Grass-sedge o These are habitats for significant rare SC Natural Heritage
South Carollna dominated Carollna plant species. Trust
Bays
o Lime sinks
o Continuous seepage o Habitat for the endangered species--
bogs Bunched Arrowhead.
o Carollna Bays o Limited In distribution, habitat for pond U.S. FWS, SC
pine-scrub community.
o Piedmont streams/
rocky shoals
o Pocoslns
o Habitat for the spider Illy (HymenocalI Is
coronarla).
o Limited In distribution.
o Cypress-tupelo communities are extremely
sensitive to hydroperlod change.
I
*-*
o^
-------
Table 2-3. Continued.
State Endangered
Unique
Comments
Source
Tennessee
o Perched wtlands
o Limited distribution of these ground »ter
seep wtlands, located along the Highland
Rim. Have highly sensitive blotlc communities
and Interact with groundteter due to karst
topography.
U.S. FWS, TN
o Bottomland Hard toods
o Bogs & bogponds
o BLM
o Cypress stamps
o Maldencane marshes
o Buttonbush marshes
o Sphagnum ponds
o All wetlands In Tennessee are considered
of high value. Lo«er priority Is given to
the Coastal Plain tetlands In »stern
Tennessee.
TN Natural Heritage
Program
NJ
I
-------
ENDANGERED OR UNIQUE WETLANDS 2-18
wetland types could fall into both categories. They are not
listed as such in Table 2-3. Wetland types vary in distribution
in each state, so what may be unique in Tennessee may not be in
Mississippi. The use of unique wetland types listed in Table 2-3
as waste water management systems is discouraged. Those listed
as endangered are generally not good candidates for use as
wastewater management systems; however, specific sites might
be considered for use after thorough environmental assess-
ments. Some systems endangered by development might actually
be enhanced or protected by a wastewater discharge.
2.4.2 Specific Wetland Areas in the Southeast
Identification and evaluation of the unique or endangered
levels of specific wetlands is an ongoing process. Information on
specific wetlands within Region IV was gathered from U.S. Fish
and Wildlife field offices, State Natural Heritage Programs and
the Nature Conservancy. Maps showing unique or endangered
wetlands may be obtained from the State Natural Heritage
Program offices. If a proposed wetland-wastewater management
system is located near such an area, a potential discharger
should work closely with the appropriate regulatory agencies.
These agencies, identified in Section 9.6, will help determine if
the wetland is of special concern.
There are 83 National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S. FWS South-
east Region (which includes Louisiana and Arkansas). Many of
these lands are wetlands and are managed for the benefit of
migratory birds. Wetland areas in these refuges should be
considered protected and not available for wastewater use
unless a wastewater discharge can be shown to maintain or
enhance habitat.
The Nature Conservancy identifies "priority aquatic sites
for biological diversity conservation." The areas included in
this list must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. Best intact remnants of damaged or declining systems
2. Best opportunities for protection of representative viable
examples of major regional systems
3. Sites of endangered species
4. Sites of endangered natural communities.
The list of these sites is in draft form (1984), yet is extensive
and includes many wetland areas in the Southeastern U.S. The
state or National Nature Conservancy office should be contacted
to identify these sites (see Table 9-46). Each state (except
Georgia) has a Natural Heritage Program which identifies rare,
endangered or significant plant and animal species, natural
communities and other natural features.
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES
3.0 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES
3.1 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND APPLICATIONS TO 3-2
WETLANDS
3.1.1 Purpose and Background
3.1.2 Waste water Management Programs
3.1.3 Other Federal Programs and Policies
3.1.4 Fundamental Institutional Considerations
3.1.5 Existing State Policies/Programs
o Alabama
o Florida
o Georgia
o Kentucky
o Mississippi
o North Carolina
o South Carolina
o Tennessee
3.1.6 Local Regulatory Responsibilities
3.2 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM , .. ,
3.2.1 WQS Purpose and Background
o Use Attainability
o Natural Background Conditions
o Site-specific or Generic Criteria
o Variances
o Antidegradation
3.2.2 WQS Program Requirements and Current Practices
3.2.3 WQS Wetland Discharge Considerations
3.2.4 Alternatives for WQS Wetland Discharge Considerations
3.3 NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3.37
3.3.1 NPDES Purpose and Background
o Permit Application
o Effluent Limitations
o Permit Requirements
o Compliance/Monitoring
3.3.2 NPDES Program Requirements and Current Practices
3.3.3 NPDES Wetland Discharge Considerations
3.3.4 Alternatives for NPDES Wetland Discharge Considerations
3.4 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3_60
3.4.1 Construction Grants Purpose and Background
o The Facilities Planning Process
o The Design and Construction Processes
3.4.2 Construction Grants Program Requirements and Current
Practices
3.4.3 Construction Grants Wetland Discharge Considerations
3.4.4 Alternatives for Construction Grants Wetland Discharge
Considerations
o Incorporation of Wetland Specific Components into the
Construction Grants Program
3.5 USER'S GUIDE 3_72
-------
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES
3.0 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES
Who should read this chapter? Regulatory agency personnel.
What are sone of the issues addressed by this chapter?
o How do water quality standards apply to wetlands and wetland
discharges?
o How are wetland discharges permitted under the NPDES permit
program?
o Are wetlands discharge projects fundable under EPA's Construction
Grants program?
Institutional
Issue* and
Procedure*
Water Quality
Standard*
Program
Wetland
Discharge
Consideration*
Current
Practice*
Wetland
Discharge
Considerations
Current
Practices
Wetland
Discharge
Considerations
o Promote, passively permit or discourage use of wetlands for
wastawater Management
o Clarify regulatory definition* of wetland aa water* of the U.S.
o Wetlands delineation and wetlands discharge definition
o Program guidance) for wetlands waatewater management
o Stream classifications and segments
o Assessment of use classification
o BstsbUshment of criteria
o Administrative guidelines
o Incorporation of wetland functions and values In WQS use
classifications
o Parameter* to support wetland uses or subcategoiies
o Type* of criteria to support wetland parameter*
o Establishment of wetland specific standards
o Designation of wetland standards
o Permit application o Implementation
o Effluent limitations
o Additional permit information
o Potential effluent limitations parameters
o Techniques for determining effluent limitations
o Wetland specific permit requlremente/conditions
o Permit compliance for wetland* discharges)
o Facilities Planning
o Design
o Construction
o Operation and
Maintenance
o Incorporation of wetland apedfie component*
o Funding of wetlands for waatewater management
o Extent of wetlanda control required for funding
Figure 3-1. Overview of Institutional Program* and Issues.
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3~2
3.1 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND APPLICATIONS TO
WETLANDS
3.1.1 Purpose and Background
Wastewater management facilities are regulated primarily by
programs of the Clean Water Act. The application of these pro-
grams often is not specified and, therefore, unclear for wet-
lands discharges. While most wetlands are considered waters of
the United States and are under the jurisdiction of the Clean
Water Act, the three major programs addressing wastewater man-
agement are designed primarily for free-flowing surface waters.
As a result, regulatory guidelines which address issues unique
to wastewater discharges to systems such as wetlands have not
been thoroughly developed.
This section describes the three major EPA programs
addressing wastewater management and their relationship to
wetlands discharges. Ways in which these programs might more
fully address the goals of the Clean Water Act as they relate to
wetlands systems also are discussed. As currently planned,
updates to this chapter will be provided as clarification of
policies and program requirements is achieved.
3.1.2 Wastewater Management Programs
The Water Quality Standards (WOS), National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits and Construction
Grants programs are the primary Clean Water Act programs con-
cerning wastewater management. The WQS program is designed
to protect water quality through the definition of uses and
development of numerical or narrative criteria to protect those
uses. The NPDES Permit program is responsible for permitting
wastewater discharges to waters of the U.S. In conjunction
with the WOS program, effluent limitations are established
through the permitting process for each point source surface
water discharge to waters of the U.S. The Construction Grants
program has been the impetus for the planning, design and
construction of wastewater treatment facilities under the Clean
Water Act by providing federal funding for approved facilities.
Figure 3-1 provides an overview of the regulatory practices
relating to wetlands use for wastewater management.
3.1.3 Other Federal Programs and Policies
The programs of the Clean Water Act are the major programs
affecting the use of wetlands for wastewater management. The
three programs described typically are administered by the state
counterparts of the EPA, as delegated by the EPA. The U.S.
Army Corps of Enginers (COE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice (FWS) are the other federal agencies with major wetlands
responsibilities.
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3~3
Some of the federal programs and policies potentially
affecting wetlands management issues in addition to the three
Clean Water Act programs previously discussed are:
1. Section 404, CWA (dredge & fill)
2. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
3. Endangered Species Act
4. Executive Order 11990 (wetlands protection)
5. Executive Order 11988 (floodplains protection)
6. EPA Statement of Policy on Protection of Nation's Wetlands.
The COE administers the Federal 404 Dredge and Fill Permit
Program. The program may be delegated to the states; however,
there has only been one such delegation thus far. Any action
involving discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the
U.S., including wetlands, requires a 404 permit. For waste-
water management, some construction activities in wetlands
could require a 404 permit. The COE has issued nationwide
permits which cover discharges of dredged or fill material into
isolated wetlands or wetlands above the headwaters (less than 5
cubic feet per second) subject to certain conditions, size
limitations and reporting requirements.
The FWS has review responsibilities for assuring wetlands
and habitat protection. They also supported the wetlands
classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) which
is widely recognized as the most comprehensive system and
which has been used in the National Wetlands Inventory to
delineate and map wetlands throughout the United States. The
FWS actually seeks to preserve or create natural habitat and,
under some circumstances, has supported wetlands-wastewater
discharges to achieve these goals.
The U.S. Department of Interior has been given respon-
sibility to identify threatened and endangered species through
the Endangered Species Act. Fifteen species native to the
Southeast that rely on wetlands during some part of their life
cycle are listed. The act emphasizes the need to preserve
critical habitats upon which protected species depend. Every
state in Region IV also has a list of unique state species that are
endangered, threatened or of special concern.
Executive Order 11990 was issued in May 1977 to emphasize
the need for wetlands protection. Federal agencies were
required to develop policies for enhancing wetlands protection
and minimizing wetlands impacts. The Executive Order sug-
?ested that federal assistance or financial support be withheld
rom any activity not in keeping with its goals. Executive Order
11988 was issued to curtail developmental activities in
floodplains. It is similar to the wetlands Executive Order in its
goals and means for obtaining those goals.
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3~4
The EPA policy to protect the nation's wetlands issued in
1973 recognizes the inherent values of wetlands. The policy has
four major elements:
1. To evaluate a proposal's potential to degrade wetlands and
preserve and protect them in decision processes
2. To minimize alterations and prevent violation of applicable
water quality standards
3. In compliance with NEPA, withhold Construction Grants
funds for municipal waste treatment facilities except where
no other alternative of lesser environmental damage is found
to he feasible
4. Advise applicants who install waste treatment facilities
under a Federal grant program or federal permit to select the
most environmentally protective alternatives.
Currently, EPA wetlands protection policies are being
updated. The Office of Federal Activities within the EPA has
convened a multi-program task force to consider further the use
of wetlands for waste water management.
3.1.4 Fundamental Institutional Considerations
Regulatory guidelines have not been developed for certain
issues unique or important to wetlands systems. Further, some
issues influence the interpretation or procedures of all three
wastewater management programs. These issues are extremely
important to the implementation and regulation of wetlands
wastewater management systems and include such items as those
listed below.
1. Promote, passively permit or discourage the use of wetlands
for wastewater management.
The lack of clear direction from EPA national program offices
concerning the use of wetlands for wastewater management
has resulted in some confusion. Some EPA programs dis-
courage the use of wetlands for wastewater management.
Other EPA programs actively promote the use of properly
designed and managed natural and constructed wetland sys-
tems as innovative wastewater treatment alternatives.
These differences in approach indicate the need for EPA to
develop further and enunciate a coordinated program
direction. EPA should evaluate when and how to promote,
passively permit or discourage the use of wetlands for
wastewater management. The Clean Water Act and asso-
ciated EPA regulations need to address more clearly the use
of wetlands for wastewater management to allow for greater
consistency in project specific decisions.
Because a clearly established national EPA policy is lacking,
the Water Quality Standards, NPDES permitting and Con-
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
struction Grants programs are not being applied consistently
to wetland discharges. The resultant problems are evident
at both the federal and state level. Since federal programs
are being delegated largely to the states, close coordination
between federal and state agencies responsible for
administering programs impacting wetlands discharges is
essential. In addition, better coordination between federal
agencies with wetlands responsibilities will be necessary if
wetlands wastewater management is to be consistent with
the goals and intent of the Clean Water Act.
2. Clarify regulatory definitions of waters of the United States
related to wetlands and wastewater treatment facilities
(including wetlands treatment versus wetlands disposal).
Most wetlands are waters of the U.S. Some have interpreted
this to mean that wetlands that are waters of the U.S.
cannot be used for treating wastewater. Others,
acknowledging the well-documented assimilative capabilities
of wetlands, have promoted the use of wetlands for treat-
ment under EPA's Innovative and Alternative (I/A)
wastewater technologies program. The exact role of wet-
lands in wastewater management is important since the
interpretation affects several permitting and funding
decisions.
Several issues relate to the Clean Water Act definitions and
EPA interpretations of waters of the U.S. and of wastewater
treatment systems. EPA's consolidated permit regulations
(40 CFR 122.3, May 19, 1980) defined many wetlands as
waters of the U.S. These regulations also state that waste
treatment systems (such as ponds and lagoons) are not
waters of the U.S. (except where those waste treatment
systems are, or were previously, waters of the U.S.). The
preamble to the regulations notes that the Act was not
intended to license dischargers "to freely use waters of the
U.S." as waste treatment systems. These definitions made
clear that treatment systems created in waters of the U.S.
remained waters of the U.S. with all the protection afforded
such waters under the Act.
However, on July 21, 1980, EPA's definition of waters of the
U.S. was changed based on arguments that the definition
was too broad. Several industry petitioners argued that the
language of the regulations would require them to obtain
permits for discharges into existing waste treatment
systems, such as power plant ash ponds, which had been in
existence for years and were originally created by impound-
ing waters of the U.S. In many cases, EPA had issued
permits for discharges from, not into, these systems. EPA
reviewed the issue and then suspended the language in
question based on the impoundment-ash pond issue. The
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3-6
wetlands issue, as a result, became unclear. As they now
exist, the regulations state that wetlands are waters of the
U.S. and waste treatment systems are not. This could be
interpreted to mean that if wetlands were defined as part of
the treatment process, they would lose their status as
waters of the U.S.; a minimum of secondary treatment would
not be required, nor would water quality standards need to
be met. However, this interpretation does not appear to be
consistent with the goals of the Clean Water Act.
Recent agency decisions have been rendered concerning the
use of wetlands for treatment and the eligibility of the
purchase of wetlands for federal grant funding. These
decisions state that the removal of pollutants in natural
wetlands is assimilation and not treatment. Therefore, if
wetlands are considered to provide assimilation and not
treatment, secondary treatment would be required prior to
discharge to wetlands, and water quality standards would
need to be met in the wetland. However, assimilation of
pollutants in the wetland could be considered in meeting
downstream standards.
Specific implications of wetlands being used for treatment or
assimilation are related to the point of discharge for permit
issuance, assigning responsibility for assuring the
treatment/assimilation and determining eligibility for federal
Construction Grants funding of wetland purchases. For
assimilation, the point of permit would be jo the wetland;
the regulatory agency would be responsible for ensuring
that wetland and downstream uses are maintained through
permit issuance and reissuance, and Construction Grants
funds would not be available for the purchase of the
wetland. For treatment, however, the point of permit could
be _to and from the wetland; the discharger would be
responsible for assuring the maintenance of the uses and
functions of the wetland and in obtaining the degree of
desired treatment in the wetland. In this instance, the
purchase of the wetland would be eligible for funding under
the Construction Grants program as part of the treatment
process.
The current EPA position is that wetlands are waters of the
U.S., discharges to wetlands must be permitted to the
wetland, any pollutant removal is assimilation and wetlands
purchase is not eligible for funding. There are some
situations, however, in which the treatment capabilities of
wetlands can be considered in engineering design. One
example is a situation in which no nutrient criteria apply to
the use classification of a wetland, but nutrient removal is
important due to the nutrient sensitivity of downstream
waters. In this case, nutrient removal might be a permit
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3-7
condition, and the system could be designed so nutrient
removal is enhanced in the wetland. This situation, how-
ever, would not be eligible for Construction Grants funding.
3. Wetlands delineation and wetlands discharge definition.
Limitations in delineating wetlands and defining what is or is
not a wetlands discharge affect the application of the Water
Quality Standards and NPDES Permit programs to wetlands.
The relationship of wetlands delineation to the WQS program
stems from the need to apply a designated use and associated
criteria to defined areas. Some states have adopted a
wetlands-related use designation to reflect the functions and
background conditions of wetlands. If all wetlands in a
state were delineated, this use designation could be applied
to all such areas in one administrative action. Most states do
not have all their wetland areas completely delineated or
mapped and, as a result, would need to designate wetlands
individually as they were identified and delineated. The
lack of having delineated and mapped wetlands requires
site-specific standard changes for all proposed actions in
wetland areas. Administratively, this is burdensome and
the value of establishing wetlands-related use designations
or use subcategories is diminished. Some states have found
that having a wetlands use designation or subcategory at
least highlights the differences in wetland systems and
provides guidelines for the application of site-specific
standards.
Defining a "wetlands discharge" is also important to admin-
istering wetlands-related guidelines. Currently, no clear
method exists for defining when a discharge is a wetlands
discharge. As a result, applying wetlands-specific guide-
lines is difficult. This issue will become more important if
wetlands-related standards or protective guidelines are
adopted. Procedures for differentiating between discharges
to wetlands and other surface waters would be helpful.
This is an important step in assuring that wetlands dis-
charges are properly considered and, if feasible, properly
designed, implemented and monitored.
Wastewater discharges can enter wetlands by three primary
pathways:
1) Waters upstream from the wetland
2) Overland flow to the wetland
3) Direct discharge into the wetland.
Defining direct discharges to wetlands is straightforward.
Overland flows to wetlands are a little more difficult to
classify. A small land buffer used primarily to achieve
uniform sheet-flow to the wetland should be considered a
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3~8
wetlands discharge since the overland flow component acts
only as a discharge mechanism to the wetland. If a suffi-
cient land area is allocated to provide treatment prior to
entering a wetland, the overland flow system would be
considered part of the treatment process. The determination
of whether this is a wetlands discharge might then depend on
soil type, slope and other variables (such as vegetation)
that affect the movement and amount of water flowing into
the wetland. Situations where a high proportion of the
wastewater enters the wetland and potentially affects
wetland uses should probably be considered a wetlands
discharge.
Even more ambiguous are discharges to upstream surface
waters that flow through the wetland. Where is the demar-
cation line determining whether the discharge should be
considered a wetlands discharge? Due to variations in flows
and flow patterns, establishing an arbitrary distance
upstream from a wetland is not feasible. Two methods that
might be useful involve identifying: 1) impacts from
hydraulic loading and 2) relationship to the dissolved oxygen
sag. A combination of both approaches might be reasonable
as well. When evaluating impacts from hydraulic loading,
the main criterion would be the percentage of flow in the
wetland attributable to the wastewater. If the wastewater
will cause a significant increase in water depth in the
wetland or a significant impact on hydroperiod, it may be
appropriate to evaluate such a discharge as a wetlands
discharge.
Relating the definition to the position of the dissolved oxygen
sag would be appropriate only when a definable channel
which can be modeled flows directly into the wetland. In
this situation, if the wetland lies below the point of recovery
from the DO sag, the discharge would not be considered a
wetlands discharge under most circumstances. Exceptions
would be when: 1) the hydraulic loading factor is important
or 2) when nutrients or other constituents are addressed by
standards in downstream waters (in this case, the wet-
land). If the wetland lies at or upstream from the predicted
DO sag recovery point, the discharge would be a wetlands
discharge. Situations where the channel does not intersect
the wetland or where flows stay within the channel except
during peak flood conditions probably should be excluded
from this approach.
4. Program guidance for wetlands wastewater management.
Regulations and guidance for EPA's three major wastewater
management programs (Water Quality Standards, NPDES Per-
mit and Construction Grants) are primarily designed for
facilities discharging to free-flowing streams and rivers,
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3~9
lakes and estuaries. As a result, program guidelines
typically are not appropriate for wetlands wastewater
management alternatives and need refinement. Specific
standards, permits and grants issues for which program
guidelines would prove valuable are discussed in Sections
3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of this chapter.
3.1.5 Existing State Policies/Programs
This section summarizes the policies and programs of each
state concerning the use of wetlands for wastewater manage-
ment. Subsequent sections of this chapter describe state
practices as they relate specifically to the three wastewater
management regulatory programs.
Alabama. The state of Alabama does not have an explicit nor
separate policy regarding the use of wetlands for wastewater
management. The potential use of wetlands for treatment of
effluent is not officially recognized. The Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) has the administrative
authority for the NPDES permit program. ADEM does not, how-
ever, distinguish wetlands from other waters of the state.
Wetlands are delineated and defined by ADEM using the Corps of
Engineers definitions in conjunction with Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (dredge and fill) permitting activities. Wetlands
definitions and mapping programs have been undertaken in
recent years in the coastal areas (Alabama Marine Environmental
Consortium), the Gulf Rivers Basin and the Alabama River Basin
(USDA Soil Conservation Service) and the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway (National Wetlands Inventory) in response to other
resource management needs.
The ADEM is responsible for setting the monitoring require-
ments of each discharge. These monitoring requirements may
vary according to specific conditions at each discharge. For
most discharges, flow, pH, dissolved oxygen, biochemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids and ammonia are monitored.
Other parameters may be required at the discretion of the
ADEM. Alabama regulations recognize that because of natural
conditions in wetlands, state water quality criteria may not be
met. Exceptions in these cases may be granted for dissolved
oxygen and pH limits.
Florida. The state of Florida has provided for specific
modifications and exemptions to the State Water Quality Stand-
ards in order to permit and manage wetlands discharges.
Recently, legislation was passed to enable state regulatory
agencies to consider the use of wetlands for wastewater
treatment.
By state law, wetlands are considered waters of the state
and under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Environ-
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3~10
mental Regulation (FDER) . To distinguish between upland areas
and wetland waters of the state, FDER has developed a wetland
vegetation index. This index also is used in some cases to
determine the landward extent of the "waters of the state" and,
thus, the jurisdictional boundaries of FDER.
Florida, differing from other Region IV states, has
non-jurisdictions! wetlands which are not considered waters of
the state. These are wetlands that: 1) are entirely confined on
privately owned lands and 2) have no connections to downstream
waters or groundwater. These wetlands, however, still may be
considered waters of the U.S., and if so would be regulated as
such. Although new regulations increase state jurisdictional
waters based on vegetation, the difference between state and
federal jurisdiction should be addressed.
When compared with other Region IV states, Florida has
much greater areas of wetlands mapped and classified. This
data base provides a good foundation for describing the various
wetland types in Florida. In December 1984, a map of Florida
wetlands became available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Generally, wetlands contiguous with another body of water
are considered as part of that water body and subsequently are
assigned the same water quality standards as the "parent" water
body. If waters do not meet criteria due to natural conditions
(low DO or pH, for example), Section 17-3.031 FAC provides for
site-specific alternative criteria. These criteria offer a
permanent relief mechanism for a given set of background
conditions.
Exceptions to existing criteria also are granted for experi-
mental use of wetlands for recycling effluent. Thus, under cer-
tain conditions wetlands can be used for further treatment of
effluent beyond secondary. These experimental uses of wet-
lands are designed to evaluate the feasibility of wetlands use and
to develop proper guidelines for effluent discharges to wet-
lands. Requirements for such experimental uses are generally
more comprehensive than that required for ordinary discharges.
Monitoring requirements vary from site to site and may
include the usual parameters (pH, DO, suspended solids, etc.)
in addition to other parameters such as chloride, sulfate,
benthic macroinvertebrates, vegetation surveys or annual aerial
infrared photography.
Predictive modeling is not used by FDER to assess the poten-
tial impacts of wastewater discharges on wetlands and to set
permit limits. Where ambient conditions warrant site-specific
criteria or special exemptions, baseline water quality studies
are used to determine appropriate critiera.
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Legislation passed in 1984 requires that wetlands be
considered for their potential in "treating" wastewater (Section
17-3 FAC). Rules are being established in response to these
questions and should be adopted during 1985. Issues concern-
ing wetlands standards and discharge requirements also are
being addressed.
Georgia. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(EPD) does not define or distinguish wetlands from other waters
of the state for the purpose of permitting wastewater dis-
charges.
The Georgia EPD does not have an official policy concerning
the discharge of treated wastewater to wetlands. Provisions are
made within the Georgia Water Quality Regulations for certain
natural water conditions which may not be within criteria. The
regulation allows for "alternative effluent limits" to be
established for such waters.
The water quality criteria and permit limitations for
wetlands discharges usually are established on a case-by-case
basis. In setting effluent limitations for wetlands discharges,
the Georgia EPD generally does not use predictive modeling;
instead, it relies on site analysis and qualitative judgements.
Swamp creeks sometimes are modeled if a definable channel
exists. The greatest concern for setting effluent limits involves
the low flow swamp streams of southern Georgia. Consistent
decisions regarding modelable versus non-modelable streams and
reproducible field survey results are of related interest. Moni-
toring requirements for wetlands discharges do not generally
differ from other wastewater discharges in Georgia.
Kentucky. Water quality programs in Kentucky are adminis-
tered by the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). Although
KDOW does not differentiate wetlands from other waters of the
Commonwealth for the purposes of permitting effluent dis-
charges, wetlands are classified and identified by the Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife using the USFWS classification
system. Mapping of wetlands generally has been done in con-
junction with surface mining reclamation studies.
Since wetlands are not distinguished from other waters of
the Commonwealth, a specific policy concerning wastewater dis-
charges to wetlands has not been developed by the KDOW. Ken-
tucky Environmental Law provides for a variance of criteria to
account for natural background conditions, and the Waste Dis-
charge Law provides for special considerations for effluent moni-
toring requirements should the need arise. KDOW has indicated
that stream segments characterized as marshes are assumed to
respond as natural channels under critical flow conditions. In
any case, determinations of appropriate criteria are made on a
case-by-case basis and are subject to review every three years.
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3~12
Mississippi. In Mississippi wetlands are considered waters
of the state. The Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control
(MBPC) defines and delineates wetlands using COE definitions
and maintains jurisdiction over these waters, except those
which are wholly landlocked and privately owned. The MBPC,
however, does not distinguish wetlands from other waters of the
state for the purposes of permitting wastewater discharges.
The MBPC requires a minimum of secondary treatment for dis-
charges to waters classified as "Fish and Wildlife." Wetlands
most frequently are classified for fish and wildlife. When deter-
mining appropriate criteria for wetland discharges, the MBPC
considers uses and whether the wetland is isolated or contig-
uous to other state waters. Wasteload allocation and effluent
limitations for wetlands discharges are established in the same
manner as are other non-wetland discharges. Where distinct
channels or discernable flows are observed, stream models gen-
erally are applied to obtain effluent limitations. In some wet-
lands, particularly the oxbow wetlands, a model is not applied,
but on-site biological assessments are made that include factors
such as size and type of wetland and potential for eutrophi cation
problems. No special monitoring requirements are applied to
wetlands discharges, but MBPC may exercise discretion in this
area.
North Carolina. The North Carolina Division of Environ-
mental Management (NCDEM) recognizes wetlands as unique and
specific water bodies. Extensive water body segments have
been classified as Swamp Waters, especially in the Coastal Plain,
for the purpose of applying appropriate water quality stand-
ards. Swamp Waters are defined as waters having "low veloci-
ties and other natural characteristics which are different from
adjacent streams." Designation of a stream segment as Swamp
Waters, therefore, does not require a stream segment to be
dominated by acknowledged wetlands.
The NCDEM does not have a specific policy to encourage or
prohibit wastewater discharges to wetlands. The NCDEM has
permitted several "wetlands discharging systems." These
systems are being designed to utilize the assimilative capacity of
the wetland through a diffuse outfall, while maintaining wetland
functions and values. Professional judgement has been used to
determine effluent limits for unmodelable systems, with the aid
of a site visit and field work. To date, secondary limits have
been assigned to all designated wetlands discharging systems.
The NCDEM is considering a policy requiring a freeze on
designating wetlands discharging systems. During this period,
the NCDEM will research and review existing wetlands
dischargers. Wetlands are not allowed to be considered as
treatment or buffering devices.
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3-13
South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (DHEC) has jurisdiction over waters
of the state, including wetlands. Swamp waters specifically are
defined for the purpose of assigning wasteload allocations and
permitting wetland discharges. Wetlands discharges are distin-
guished from other wastewater discharges, and DHEC has speci-
fically developed a policy concerning permitting and setting
wasteload allocations for wetlands discharges.
Wetlands discharges currently are authorized only as a last
resort, when there are no other reasonable alternatives. Addi-
tionally, DHEC advises that wetlands used should be owned by
the discharger or that an easement should be required. Al-
though specific water quality standards have not been estab-
lished for wetlands, separate numeric or narrative criteria may
be established for waters with natural characteristics outside
established limits. Specific exceptions may be made in Class A
(direct contact) and Class B (fish and agricultural) waters,
where natural conditions have lowered dissolved oxygen and pH
levels.
The policy adopted by DHEC for developing wasteload allo-
cations recognizes that waters vary in their ability to assimilate
nutrient loadings; that it is difficult to define average water
quality conditions in wetlands, and that the predictive capabil-
ity in estimating assimilative capacity in these waters is poor.
At a minimum, DHEC requires secondary treatment for publicly
owned treatment works and Best Available Treatment (BAT) for
privately owned treatment works. A site investigation of the
proposed wetlands discharge is recommended to determine if
modeling techniques can be applied. Nutrient loadings and
specific nutrient standards for these waters must be addressed
on a case-by-case basis.
Tennessee. The state of Tennessee does not have a specific
policy or regulatory practice relating particularly to wetlands
discharges. Discharges are permitted to wetlands under the
same conditions as are discharges to other waters of the state.
Wetlands have been mapped by the FWS and COE agencies. Of
great concern to the state is the 404 permitting process and
which wetlands fall under those jurisdictional limits.
When treatment beyond secondary is required, a modified
Streeter-Phelps equation is utilized to assist in determining
wasteload allocations if there is a discernable channel. Low flow
conditions are modeled, and overbank flooding to associated wet-
lands is ignored. Where the flow is slow or nonexistent, or
when a distinct channel is not distinguishable, a lake model is
used.
Permit requirements may be modified for dissolved oxygen
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
levels on a case-by-case basis if natural conditions warrant such
decisions. No specific monitoring requirements have been
established for wetlands discharges in Tennessee.
Recently, attention has been given to maintaining and man-
aging wetlands which could affect wetlands-wastewater dis-
charges. A draft Governors Executive Order on Wetlands Main-
tenance and Management stresses the need for wetlands protec-
tion, particularly due to wetland losses and degradation over
the years. Every aspect of wetlands activities from recreation
to construction would be addressed by the Executive Order and
regulatory mechanisms. Specifically, use of wetlands for
"effluent and solid waste dumping" would be discouraged. If
adopted as such, the Executive Order and other regulatory
guidelines could influence whether or how wetlands are used for
wastewater management. Guidelines have also been proposed
for identifying wetlands for regulatory purposes.
3.1.6 Local Regulatory Responsibilities
In addition to federal and state practices and policies,
certain local considerations must be recognized. The implemen-
tation of wetlands discharges may be encouraged or discouraged
at the local or regional level. Activities in some wetlands may be
limited because of the restrictive or jurisdictional powers of
local agencies or organizations.
Agencies with planning and land use functions have signi-
ficant ability to control land use decisions. Site-specific rulings
or blanket ordinances may restrict activity via flood plain
ordinances. Some localities have city, county or regional
wetlands protection laws that may make wetlands utilization for
other than preservation oriented uses an impossibility. The
flexibility of such ordinances varies as does the authority of
local commissions and planning groups.
Although coastal commissions usually are concerned with
saltwater marshes, they sometimes have juris dictional powers
over freshwater wetlands adjacent to saltwater wetlands. In
these cases, approval would be needed from the commission for a
wetlands discharge.
Utility companies are also in a position to limit wetlands
utilization for wastewater discharge. In one instance, a
proposed wetland treatment system for a new subdivision in
Florida was considered feasible from a technical standpoint.
The local water and sewer authority, however, would not grant
a building permit to the subdivision unless they agreed to utilize
both water and sewerage services supplied by the authority.
Since the community was committed to centralized sewerage in
order to build, the wetlands option was no longer feasible from
an institutional standpoint.
-------
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 3-:
In the instance where federal funds may be involved in
financing part of a wetlands discharge, local opinions expressed
at public hearing on these matters may influence the feasibility
of a wetlands discharge.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
3.2 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
3.2.1 W QS Purpose and Background
The purpose of the Water Quality Standards Program (40 CFR
131) is to: (1) protect the public health and welfare; (2)
enhance the quality of waters of the U.S.; (3) provide suffi-
cient water quality for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agri-
cultural and industrial purposes, and navigation, and (4)
specify vises and appropriate numeric or narrative water quality
criteria which establish water quality goals for a specific water
body. Water quality standards serve as the regulatory basis for
establishing controls on treatment processes, beyond secondary
treatment, necessary to support designated uses.
Stream segments are delineated and associated use classifi-
cations are established as part of a state's Water Quality
Standards Program. Water quality criteria then are established
to assure that designated uses will be maintained and protected.
Uses and criteria are the two components of water quality
standards. States set water quality standards and review them
triennially. EPA reviews the state adopted standards and may
promulgate federal standards where the state fails to correct
inadequacies or where necessary to serve the purposes of the
Clean Water Act.
Effluent limitations are established for each wastewater
management facility that discharges to waters of the U.S. to
meet established water quality criteria. Typically, receiving
waters are classified as effluent- or water quality-limited. An
effluent-limited segment describes a receiving water body where
water quality standards will be met if Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) provide secondary treatment of effluent. A
water quality-limited segment occurs when standards will not be
met by POTWs providing secondary treatment alone, necessitat-
ing implementation of more advanced treatment controls or
strategies.
Revisions to the water quality standards regulations were
made in November 1983 (40 CFR 131). These regulatory revi-
sions and associated handbooks provide increased guidance for
determining use attainabilitv, utilizing site-specific criteria,
applying an anti-degradation policy, varying (upgrading or
downgrading) levels of aquatic protection and applying general
policies on mixing zones and variances.
The current water quality standards regulations do not estab-
lish specifically a rigid procedure for the technical review and
revision of water quality standards. Specific procedures are
left to the discretion of the individual states. The requirements
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-17
of the federal regulations provide a general procedural frame-
work based on the allowable considerations for the revision of
water quality standards.
Key decision points in Figure 3-2 focus on use attainability,
natural background conditions, site-specific or generic criteria,
variances and antidegradation/protection of downstream uses.
Each of these points is discussed individually in the following
sections.
Use Attainability. A major emphasis in the standards review
process is placed on the attainment or attainability of the water
body's designated use as well as ensuring that the highest
attainable use is designated. The 1983 revisions include
increased guidance for determining appropriate application of
use attainability studies. The determination of the appropriate
use classification, use-attainability studies and the subsequent
assignment of water quality criteria may have important
implications for the use of wetlands for wastewater management.
Natural Background Conditions. When natural background
conditions preclude the attainment of a designated use either by
naturally occurring pollutant concentrations, low flow condi-
tions or other physical conditions, the state may establish a
more appropriate use classification. In many wetlands, natural
background water quality may be below the criteria set for cer-
tain parameters in flowing streams, including dissolved oxygen
(DO) and pH. Regulations provide the mechanism to establish
different criteria based on natural background conditions.
Site-specific or Generic Criteria. Once the appropriate use
classification has been determined, water quality criteria are
set to protect the designated use. States can apply the criteria
developed by EPA under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act
or develop their own generic or site-specific criteria. Generic
criteria apply to all waters in the state with the associated
designated use. Site-specific criteria are established for a
specific water body when generic criteria would be either
inappropriate or insufficient to protect the designated use.
Criteria may be numerical or narrative, but numerical
criteria are preferred because they are interpreted more easily
in defining specific control requirements. Establishment of cri-
teria less stringent than the 304(a) criteria requires adequate
technical justification to the EPA Regional Administrator. Some
degree of instream water quality/biological monitoring often will
be necessary for establishing site-specific criteria and
reviewing the effect of their implementation.
Variances. A general water quality standards variance
policy in the standards regulations recognizes that EPA has
approved state-adopted variances in the past and will continue
-------
3-18
Figure 3-2. Overview of the Water Quality Standards Program.
Statewide stream
classifications and
associated
WQ criteria
H
State reviews WQS for
each stream segment
every 3 years or
as needed
6
Yes
Is the designated use
not attainable because
of natural background
conditions?
11
(Revise use
dassiflcatton WOS to
reflect highest
attainable use
H
JNO
Is the designated use
not attainable because
of irretrievable man-
induced conditions?
8
JNO
8 Would the application
of more stringent
ffluent limitations result
in substantial and
widespread adverse
economic impact?
13
Will existing water
quality criteria
support designated
use and
downstream uses
No
Is the existing
data base adequate
for the segment
being reviewed?
Conduct a survey and
assessment of the
water body segment
K
Yes
Are designated
uses being met?
10
Is a higher use
being attained?
Upgrade use
classification to
reflect use actually
being attained
12
H
JNO
Maintain existing
designated uses
15
14
Determine if
seasonal criteria
are appropriate
K
Determine whether
site-specific
or generic criteria
are necessary
qHold public hearings
on proposed water
luality standards (use
and criteria) and
adopt standards
16
I
17
Determine if proposed
WQ criteria modifications
meet antidegrsdatlon/
downstream impact
provisions
H
Specify site-specific
or generic criteria
to support
designated uses
(Section 304(a).CWA)
I
Submit revised water
quality standards to
EPA for approval
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-19
to do so under certain conditions. Each variance is to be
included as part of the water quality standard and is subject to
public review, as are other standards changes. Each variance
is to be based on demonstrating that meeting the standard would
cause substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
The application of a water quality standards variance to a
wetland alternative, although possible, does not address the
primary issue of potentially inappropriate use and criteria
designations due to natural conditions.
Antidegradation. The underlying objective of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of our nation's waters. A
specific goal of the CWA is to achieve, where attainable, that
level of water quality which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the waters of the U.S. Accordingly, water
quality standards regulations require states to develop and
adopt a state-wide antidegradation policy. It is the purpose of
this policy to assure that existing instream uses and the level of
water quality necessary to protect those uses are maintained and
protected. Existing uses are defined as those uses actually
attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975,
whether or not they are included in the water quality
standards. States must determine the existing uses of their
waters and the level of water quality necessary for their
protection.
Each situation should be considered on its own merits.
Where significant resources are involved and a significant
degree of uncertainty exists regarding the success of main-
taining a use, regulators should assure protection of the existing
use. Where irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
resources would be involved, erring on the side of protecting
existing uses is appropriate (EPA 1984a) .
Since most wetlands are waters of the U.S., they are
afforded protection under the anti-degradation policy. The
existing uses of a wetland or of downstream waters should,
therefore, not be altered by a wastewater discharge. Since a
wetland's natural processes may affect or determine an existing
use, alterations to natural processes that change existing uses
may not be allowable based on the state's antidegradation policy.
3.2.2 WQS Program Requirements and Current Practices
EPA directs and administers the standards program through
the EPA regional offices. EPA Regional Administrators have the
authority to review and approve state standards in accordance
with national policies and guidelines; however, each state has
the responsibility of developing its own standards.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-2(
The WQS program has many facets, as is indicated by Figure
3-2. Some elements of the program can be directly applied to
wetlands discharges, while adaptations are required for other
program elements due to the nature of wetlands. Those elements
requiring clarification are discussed in detail in Section 3.2.3.
Current program requirements and state practices provide the
framework for assessing additional considerations.
The steps outlined in Figure 3-2 are procedures that should
be followed for assessing water quality standards in any stream
segment. Note the two distinguishing parts of the program, uses
and criteria, that form water quality standards. Each state has
defined different use classifications, as shown in Table 3-1.
Once uses are defined and approved through the public hearing
process, they become part of the standards program. Numerical
or narrative criteria are then adopted for the identified uses.
Typically, criteria are defined for the following water quality
indicators: dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature and fecal
coliforms. Sometimes organic, nutrient or toxic parameters are
specified as well.
In practice, the WQS program has four major components
represented by Figure 3-2. Activities one through four involve
establishing stream classifications and segments and reviewing
their standards. Activities 5 through 12 assess the attainment
and potential change in use classification for a stream segment.
Activities 13 through 17 establish criteria to protect identified
uses. Finally, activities 18 and 19 are the administrative
requirements necessary to implement a change, including the
public hearing process. These are the procedures Region IV
states followed prior to recent revisions to the WQS program.
Most likely they will be the procedures followed in the near
future as well. The potential implications of the revisions on
wetlands discharges will be discussed in Section 3.2.3.
Typically, wetlands in each state fall under the standards
associated with the adjacent water body, commonly classified
fish and wildlife. A specific wetland type could be required to
meet different criteria within a state and between states,
however, depending on adjacent water body classifications and
differences in associated water quality criteria. As a result,
criteria for wetlands based on adjacent water bodies can be
insensitive to inherent differences in wetland types. Most
states are now assessing wetlands criteria on a site-specific
basis when a wetlands discharge is considered. Florida water
law provides guidance for setting site-specific criteria for stream
segments where existing criteria are not appropriate nor
protective of the designated use classification. North Carolina
has a specific "swamp" designation, or subcategory, which
allows for pH and DO criteria to based on natural, background
conditions. Such a designation provides greater flexibility in
water quality standards for segments with significantly
-------
Table 3-1. State Water Use Classifications
Alal
Pub I Ic W&ter Supply
Swimming and Other Whole Body Water Contact Sports
SheI IfIsh Harvesting
Fish and Wildlife
Agriculture and Industrial Water Supply
Industrial Operations
Navigation
Florida
Class I: Potable Water Supplies
Class II: Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting
Class III: Recreation, Propagation and Management
of Fish and Wildlife
Class IV: Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply
Class V: Navigation, Utility and Industrial Use
Georgia
Class A: Drinking Water Supplies
Class B: Recreation
Class C: Fishing, Propagation of Fish, Shellfish,
Game and Other Aquatic Life
Class D: Agricultural
Class E: Industrial
Class F: Navigation
Class 6: Wild River
Class H: Scenic River
Class I: Urban Stream
Kentucky
Aquatic Life
1. Warm water aquatic habitats
2. Cold wter aquatic habitats
Domestic Water Supply Use
Recreational Waters
1. Primary contact
2. Secondary contact
Outstanding Resources Waters
Mississippi
Public Water Supply
Shellfish Harvesting Areas
RecreatIon
Fish and Wildlife
Ephemeral Stream
North Carolina (fresh surface waters only)
Class A-1: Source for drinking, culinary and
food processing purposes (uninhabited
watersheds)
Class A-ll: Source for drinking, culinary
and food processing purposes
Class B: Bathing and any use except A-1 or A-ll
Class C: Fishing, boating, wading and any use
except B, A-1 or A-1 1
South Carolina
Class AA:
Class A:
Class B:
(fresh waters only)
Waters suitable for domestic and food
purposes or waters Wilch are an outstanding
recreational or ecological resource
Waters suitable for direct contact use
Waters suitable for domestic supply after
conventional treatment, for propagation of fish,
Industrial and agricultural use and other
uses requiring lesser quality
Tennessee
Domestic Raw Water Supply
Industrial Water Supply
Fish and Aquatic Life
RecreatIon
IrrIgat Ion
Livestock Watering and Wildlife
NavI gat Ion
North Carolina has subclasses for nutrient sensitive waters, trout and swamps.
u>
I
NJ
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3~22
different natural or background conditions. Subcategories can
be adopted through the triennial review process or on an
as-needed basis. Specific water quality criteria associated with
these subclasses can be based on documented natural levels.
The eight Region IV states administer the WQS program in
different ways, particularly for wetlands discharges. Table 3-2
summarizes state water quality standard procedures for wet-
lands discharges in relation to wetlands use classifications, use
attainability for wetlands discharges, criteria for wetlands
discharges and modified standards criteria for wetlands. State
agencies currently are utilizing only a few of the procedures
available to them under the WOS program. The use of other
procedures for assessing or administering a potential wetlands
discharge is presented in the next section.
One administrative consideration of the WQS program
encountered by each state is the need for a public hearing for
changes in water quality standards. This means that with
current program policies, a public hearing and the associated
administrative requirements would be required for any wetlands
discharge. Administratively, this is cumbersome and may act to
discourage wetlands use. On the other hand, the current
svstem was designed to protect waters of the U.S. from
inappropriate use. Some of the alternatives suggested in the
following section are intended to provide a means for balancing
the administrative and protective requirements of the WQS
program.
3.2.3 WOS Wetland Discharge Considerations
Legitimately, the question can be asked, "What makes
wetlands different from any other type of aquatic system?";
and, therefore, "Why do wetlands require distinct regulatory
guidelines?" In response, the following should be noted:
1. Wetlands are different from most aquatic systems due to
their nature as a transition between fully terrestrial and
fully aquatic systems.
2. During the past ten years, the values and functions of
wetlands have been recognized not only for their
ecological value, but also for their benefit to society.
3. Wetlands systems are often hydrologically sluggish in
comparison to free-flowing waters and have different
water quality requirements for maintaining their functions
and values.
4. Wetlands were not the prototype system used when waste-
water management-related regulatory guidelines were
adopted under the Clean Water Act. Regulatory clarifica-
-------
Table 3-2. Summary of Current State Practices Associated with the WQS Program.
State
Has use-
classification
for vetlands?
Activity 1
Has adopted additional
uses that are
unique to vet lands?
Activity 2,11
Has used use-
attalnablllty In
conjunction with a
tetlands discharge?
Activities 11,13
Spec! f leal ly ac-
knowledges use of
vetlands for WWM?
Activities 1, 13
Has criteria
for Wat lands
discharges?
Activity 13
Has modified standards
criteria for
vetlands due to
natural conditions?
Activities 14,15,17
Alabama
Florida
GeorgI a
Kentucky
Mississippi
North CarolIna
South Carolina
Tennessee
'Had a "natural voters" use modifier rfilch MS rescinded recently.
Florida acknowledges "experimental" uses of vetlands for vesteveter discharges; recent regulatory changes will lead to rules specifically
governing the use of vetlands for wastewater management.
I
ISJ
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3~24
tion or program guidance is needed to adequately address
wetlands use.
In the case of wetlands used for waste water management,
two essential elements must be balanced and considered in devel-
oping regulatory guidelines: protection and use. Neither area
is considered fully by current guidelines. One important dis-
tinction should be noted concerning the word "use." Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act mentions several "uses." While
the statutory listing of uses is not a limitation, EPA does not
recognize waste transport as a beneficial use. When wetland
protection and use are discussed, "use" refers to the inherent
functions and values of wetlands.
If wetlands are to be used as part of wastewater management
systems, their uses must be fully identified and protected.
Wetland-specific regulatory guidelines are needed to accomplish
this. Even though waste transport cannot be a classified use for
waters of the U.S, wetlands can be used for wastewater manage-
ment as long as the identified beneficial uses incorporated into
the use classifications and existing uses are protected.
Preeminent to water quality standards issues is the extent of
acceptable change In the wetland. This is one of the major
issues that must be addressed in assessing a potential wetlands
project. Not only is this important in helping to define potential
impacts from a discharge, but it is also important in assessing
the long-term potential of using a wetland. From a wastewater
management perspective, the latter assessment is dependent on
the objectives of wetlands use (i.e., treatment or disposal) and
the sensitivity of a wetland to change from hydrologic or water
chemistry alterations.
Experience from existing discharges indicates that although a
wetland's functions and values may be primarily maintained,
changes will occur as a result of a wastewater discharge. If the
objective is to maintain a wetland just as it is, or at least to allow
it to go through successional changes naturally, that wetland
should not be used for a continuous wastewater discharge.
Potentially, however, a wetland receiving only a seasonal dis-
charge (aligned with the wetland's natural hydroperiod) at a low
discharge rate (e.g., under 1.0 inch/week) would experience
few changes. But for the vast majority of practical applications
of a wetlands discharge, alterations in the existing vegetation
assemblage, hydrology and water chemistry should be expected.
The question is, then, "How much change is acceptable?"
Water quality standards criteria, in essence, define the amount
of acceptable change for those water chemistry parameters
identified by the standards program. But unless water quality
standards are expanded, the extent of acceptable change in
many wetland parameters will not be defined. Parameters in
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3~25
this category include vegetation assemblages, hydrology and
some water chemistry parameters. Guidelines concerning accept-
able change should be addressed through the Water Quality
Standards program. If modifications to the WQS program are not
forthcoming, the determination of acceptable change could be
established through the NPDES Permit process by permit condi-
tions, performance criteria or states' anti-degradation policies.
Regardless, the final decision of how much change is acceptable
remains subjective.
An important concept relating to changes in wetlands is the
variable advancing front or zone of impact. This recognizes that
wetland changes resulting from wastewater will not be uniform,
but will progress down gradient from the point of discharge.
Water quality will change down gradient; for example, nutrients
and metals are removed, DO levels decrease and recover, pH is
buffered and bacterial indicators die off. Some changes result
from dilution or base flow down gradient. Vegetation impacts
and stimulation vary as the wastewater moves away from the
point of discharge. Species shifts can range from slight to
extensive. In essence, changes do not occur uniformly, but at
variable distances from the discharge and at various times. As
the discharge continues, this zone of influence where change
occurs advances away from the discharge point. Stabilization
continues where change already has occurred. The variable
zone of influence not only affects the discussion of the extent of
change, but also planning and design decisions concerning the
size of wetland needed and loading rates.
To many wetlands specialists, the idea of change in the wet-
land is not in itself alarming. Many believe that properly
managed change can be positive (e.g., vegetation types that
provide better habitat, hydrologic modifications that
re-establish diminished flows). A negative change is perceived
primarily to be associated with a complete change in the system
(e.g., from a wooded system to a marsh or from sheet flow to
channelized flow). The functions and values of a wetland must
be understood as a basis for selecting a wetlands site. Choosing
unique, highly sensitive or pristine wetlands should be avoided.
Changes also should be avoided in wetlands providing
well-defined, beneficial functions if the potential changes will
diminish the ability of the wetland to perform that function.
The degree of acceptable change is defined or measured by
several factors, some outlined by regulatory programs and some
left to judgement. The latter should be made as objectively as
possible; one must understand the functions and values of a
particular wetland, and addition of wastewater will lead to some
changes. If changes are not desired, a discharge should be
avoided. If such changes are considered acceptable, changes
should be managed as much as possible; and it should be
understood that the exact type and extent of change is difficult
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
to predict. Two options exist for dealing with changes to a
wetland: let the changes follow a "natural" course or manage
the changes to optimize assimilation, habitat, etc. Chapter 7
discusses some of the management options available and Chapter
8 summarizes the types of wetlands impacts resulting from
wastewater discharges.
To be responsive to the regulatory questions concerning wet-
lands use, several considerations (which are related to the
activities from Figure 3-2) should be addressed by the WQS
program for wetlands discharges. These include:
1. Incorporation of wetland functions and values into water
quality standards use classifications
2. Parameters to support wetland uses or subcategories
3 . Types of criteria to support wetland parameters
4. Establishment of wetland specific standards
5. Designation of wetland standards.
Most of these considerations apply to the early stages of the
water quality standards review process when assessing the
classification of stream segments and adequacy of use designa-
tions, or toward the end of the process when evaluating the
adequacy of criteria to protect uses. An evaluation of each of
these WQS program considerations is presented in the following
section.
3.2.4 Alternatives for WQS Wetland Discharge Considerations
To enhance the protection afforded wetlands by the Clean
Water Act, modifications to the Water Quality Standards program
may be necessary. These changes could also improve the
consistency in interpreting how the Program is applied to
wetlands. The major considerations suggested involve use
classifications and associated protective criteria.
Consideration 1 —
Incorporation of Wetlands Functions and Values into Water
Quality Standards Use Classifications. Currently, many wetland
functions and values are not protected by existing use classifica-
tions. The common uses discussed in the CWA include: public
water supplies; protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and
wildlife; recreation; agricultural and industrial water supplies,
and navigation. Table 3-3 indicates how, if at all, these common
use classifications relate to the primary wetland functions and
values. Some can be categorized under a typical use classi-
fication. Even when this is possible, however, wetland specific
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-27
values must be acknowledged and incorporated into the decision
making process if the WQS program is to consider and protect
wetlands appropriately.
Table 3-3. Comparison of Commonly Identified Wetlands
Functions and Values with Use Classifications
Wetland Relationship to Water Quality
Function /Value Standards Use Classifications
Storm Buffering
Water Storage
Water Purification
Natural Resource Extraction
Groundwater Recharge
Nutrient/Material Cycling
Aesthetics
Habitat Protection and propagation
of fish and wildlife
Protected Species Protection and propagation
of fish and wildlife
Recreation Recreation
A new use classification or a subcategory of an existing use
are options for addressing the important wetland uses not
defined by existing categories. Storm buffering, water storage,
groundwater recharge and material cycling are valuable uses
that could comprise a new category or subcategory. This could
be combined to form a collective, broader use category or could
individually be the basis for protecting specific uses. Each of
these uses has a direct relationship to water quality in a wetland
and, importantly, to uses and water quality downstream from
the wetland. Criteria delineating the parameters that help
define and protect these uses could be either narrative and
numeric.
How does a new use classification or subcategory relate to
the use of wetlands for wastewater management? First, it would
acknowledge that some wetlands do not or cannot support a
level of water quality to provide for the protection and
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-28
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and
on waters of the U.S. some or all of the time in their natural
state. Their condition needs to be protected, yet approached
from a different perspective. A wetlands related use classifica-
tion or subcategory would acknowledge and protect the inherent
values of wetlands not relating to existing use classifications.
Criteria might be significantly different than those for fish and
wildlife or recreation. Second, wastewater discharge loadings
might be assessed differently if criteria more realistically related
to the actual uses and water quality conditions of a wetland.
The natural waters clause present in the WQS regulations of
most states is a method of addressing the inherently different
qualities or background conditions in wetlands. Sometimes the
water quality levels required by standards criteria cannot be
met in a water body due to natural conditions. This discrepancy
can be addressed by invoking the natural waters clause. In this
situation, site-specific criteria are required, but the adminis-
trative actions typically required of a site-specific standards
change is not necessarv.
The following options are available for addressing the consid-
erations of incorporating wetland functions and values into
water quality standards use classifications.
o Adopt a new WQS wetland use classification that broadly
addresses all wetland functions and values.
Significant Features
- Requires a WQS change
- May be too broad by addressing some uses already covered
by existing use classification
- Could address the issue in one administrative action
- Could add a significant level of wetlands protection
- Could improve procedures for evaluating wetlands
- Could be difficult to implement
o Adopt new use classifications based on specific uses that are
not currently protected for wetlands (e.g., flow regulatkmT
water purification).
Significant Features
- Requires a WQS change
- Could address the issue in one administrative action
- Could be applied to numerous types of water bodies
- Could improve procedures for evaluating wetlands
- Could have significant implications to other waters
- Questions may exist regarding the applicability of the CWA
to the protection of these uses
-------
100
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
o Use wetland subcategories under existing use classifications.
Significant Features
- Requires a WQS change
- Could address the issue in one administrative action
- Offers flexibility
- Would be sensitive to wetland variation and adjacent water
bodies with different criteria for different uses
- Subcategories may be administratively easier to accomplish
than the creation of a new use classification
o No Change
Significant Features
- Leaves many important water quality related wetland
functions unprotected
- Makes application of WQS goals and objectives more
difficult
- Addressed by "natural waters" clause and antidegradation
but without wetlands specific guidance
- Maintains current administrative impediments to wetlands
wastewater management
Consideration 2 —
Parameters to Support Wetland Uses or Subcategories. If a
new use classification or subcategory were adopted to
incorporate important wetland functions and values in the water
quality standards program, parameters to support that use
would be required. Protective criteria could then be developed
for the parameters identified.
The list of parameters ultimately selected and their
protective criteria would depend on the wetland functions and
values protected by the new classification or subcategory. The
following parameters might apply to a use intended to maintain
the water quality and ecological integrity of wetlands.
Physical Biological Chemical
o Water depth o Composition opH
o Hydroperiod o Diversity o Metals/Toxics
o Suspended o Productivity o Dissolved oxygen
solids o Pathogens o Nutrients
o Water temperature
The parameters selected should reflect the hydrologic
variability of wetlands. Some wetland systems will have little or
no standing water except during flood conditions. Other wet-
lands typically have standing or flowing water conditions.
Parameters traditionally used as an indication of water quality
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-30
and to measure assimilative capacity and impacts, such as
dissolved oxygen, may be less appropriate for wetlands. Cer-
tainly this is true for wetlands that have little or no standing
water most of the time. This characteristic of wetlands adds a
level of uncertainty to selecting the appropriate parameters for
protecting wetlands, since some of the parameters listed above
have not previously been used to help define standards. For
wetlands, more than water chemistry parameters are related to
protecting wetland uses.
Some options which could be considered in addressing this
issue follow.
o Use of physical parameters
Significant Features
- Some physical components may not have been applied in
WOS previously (hydroperiod, water depth, etc.)
- May have implications beyond wetlands application (i.e.,
flow regulation)
- Are important to protect wetland functions and values
- Establishment of numeric criteria would be difficult for
some parameters due to lack of relevant data
- Narrative criteria probably would be required for some
parameters
- Compliance may be difficult to monitor due to lack of
regulatory experience
o Use of biological parameters
Significant Features
- Biological parameters have been used to a limited degree by
some states in their WOS
- Are important to protect wetland functions and values
- Would require biological monitoring
- Establishment of criteria may be difficult due to lack of
relevant data
- Compliance may be difficult to monitor due to lack of
regulatory experience
o Use of chemical parameters
Significant Features
- Now serves as the basis for WOS criteria
- Have specific application, but cannot protect wetland
functions and values without other parameters
- Specific wetland needs not well defined
- Typical indicator parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen) may
not be applicable
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-31
o No Change
Significant Features
- Fails to recognize and protect significant wetland values
and functions (e.g., aquatic productivity, erosion
control, water quality enhancement, storm buffering,
etc.)
- Maintains current administrative impediments to wetlands
wastewater management
Consideration 3—
Types of Protective Criteria to Support Wetland Parameters.
If a new wetland use classification or subcategory is adopted,
parameters and criteria necessary to protect acknowledged uses
must be identified. Numeric criteria have traditionally been
preferred because acceptable loading rates, or effluent limita-
tions, are derived more easily and violations can be more easily
detected. For some of the parameters and conditions character-
istic of wetlands, however, numeric criteria may not be so
appropriate as narrative criteria. The uncertainty associated
with establishing the "acceptable" levels of certain wetland
parameters may be handled more appropriately by narrative
criteria. Numeric criteria are probably more applicable to
wetlands if site-specific standards are employed. Narrative
criteria may be applicable on a generic scale if written to
acknowledge the inherent variability in wetlands (i.e., base the
standard on the ambient conditions in the wetland being
evaluated).
The use of seasonal criteria may also be appropriate. Many
wetlands, by nature, have wide variations in flow or water
level throughout the year. Bottomland hardwoods, for example,
mav be dry year around except when storm events cause flood
conditions. Water levels in cypress domes, which are hydro-
logically isolated from outside flows, vary with rainfall and
ground water levels. Many other important functions and
values occur on a seasonal basis, such as waterfowl breeding,
waterfowl habitat, vegetative reproduction, and organic and
nutrient cycling. Therefore, hydroperiod and other parameters
may require seasonal criteria; and for wastewater discharges,
seasonal loading rates may be needed to protect wetland water
quality and uses, and to meet antidegradation criteria.
Selecting the mechanisms for describing criteria is the last
major consideration. Typically, minimum (or maximum) values,
average values or a combination of both have been used to define
protective criteria. For example, from the Florida
Administrative Code (17-3):
Dissolved oxygen—in predominantly fresh waters, the
concentration shall not be less than 5 milligrams per liter. In
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
predominantly marine waters, the concentration shall not
average less than 5 milligrams per liter in a 24-hour period
and shall never be less than 4 milligrams per liter.
This approach may be feasible for numeric criteria describing
water chemistry in well-defined wetlands systems. For narra-
tive criteria, the use of "ranges of acceptable modifications" may
be more appropriate.
The major options for developing protective criteria for
wetland parameters are summarized below.
o Adopt numeric criteria
Significant Features
- Easier to relate to effluent limits
- Difficult to establish for parameters other than water
chemistry
- Poor data base for some parameters in some systems
- May need specificity to wetland type
- Uncertainty exists about capability to protect wetlands
functions and values
o Adopt narrative criteria
Significant Features
- Reflects wetland variability
- Accounts for unknowns and uncertainties
- More difficult to translate to effluent limits
- More dependent on the permit program for protecting
wetland functions and values
- Uncertainty exists about capability to protect wetlands
functions and values
o Adopt a combination of numeric and narrative criteria
Significant Features
- Provides greatest flexibility
- Can be easily tailored to specific wetlands
- Realistically may provide greater protection
- Poor data base on many wetlands systems may be limiting
- Uncertainty exists about capability to protect wetlands
functions and values
o Adopt seasonal criteria
Significant Features
- Sensitive to wetland variability and seasonal cycles
- Complicates permit writing, monitoring and compliance
o Adopt minimum, maximum and/or average guidelines for
numeric criteria
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
Significant Features
- Minimum criteria may have applicability for D.O.
- Average criteria may be useful for longer term effects
- Combined minimum/average criteria may have greater
applicability and may be more sensitive to wetland
variations
- Maximum criteria may be necessary to address acute
effects
- Maximum criteria could be easily translated to effluent
limits
o No change
Significant Features
- Fails to recognize and protect wetland functions and
values (e.g., aquatic productivity, erosion control, water
quality enhancement, storm buffering, etc.).
Consideration 4 —
Establishment of Wetland Specific Standards. Through the
existing WQS framework, standards can be established on either
a generic or site-specific basis. Uses are always generic in that
they apply on a state-wide basis. They may be designated, how-
ever, on a site-by-site basis as permitting or other administra-
tive actions are required for a water body.
Criteria to support designated uses can be either generic or
site-specific. Generic criteria apply to all water bodies with a
given use classification within the state. For wetlands, the
applicability of numeric generic criteria may be limited due to the
variable characteristics of wetlands. Narrative modifiers are
probably more appropriate for generic criteria. Site-specific
criteria typically are applied only to individual sites where
generic criteria are not appropriate. They are currently used
for wetlands because existing standards do not adequately apply
to wetlands in most cases.
The following features pertain to establishing wetland
specific standards. Establishing standards and designating
standards, while two separate actions, need to be considered
together. In essence, a new water quality standard only takes
on significance when particular water bodies are assigned a
designated use. The subsequent section addresses those
issues.
o Establish use or subcategory with generic narrative and /or
numeric criteria'
Significant Features
- Requires a WQS change
- Could be accomplished in a single administrative action
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-34
- Would be sensitive to wetland variability
- Would acknowledge differences between wetlands and
free-flowing waters
- Development of site-specific effluent limits would be
necessary and may be resource and time intensive for
narrative criteria
- Would be difficult to develop numeric criteria on generic
basis because of wetland variability
- Numeric criteria would be easier to translate to effluent
limits.
o Establish use or subcategory and site-specific criteria where
generic narrative or numeric criteria are not appropriate
Significant Features
- Requires a WOS change each time site-specific criteria are
established
- Would be time and resources intensive
- Would be Sensitive to wetland variability
- Easier to translate to effluent limits
o No change (invoke natural waters clause)
Significant Features
- Invoking a state's natural water clause does not require a
WOS change
- Would be time and resource intensive
- Would be sensitive to wetland variability
- Easier to translate to effluent limits
- Discourages wetland discharges due to institutional
obstacles
o No change (employ site-specific criteria)
Significant Features
- Employing site specific criteria requires a WQS change for
each site-specific standards action
- Would be time and resource intensive
- Would be sensitive to wetland variability
- Easier to translate to effluent limits
- Discourages wetland discharges due to institutional
obstacles
Consideration 5 —
Application of Wetland-Specific Standards. If a wetland use
classification or subcategory and its associated parameters and
criteria are established, they can be applied in several different
ways. How they are applied influences their effectiveness in
meeting Clean Water Act objectives as well as administrative
procedures.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-35
A use classification or subcategory can be developed without
designating all appropriate wetlands as such. In this situation,
wetlands would be designated under the use classification only
when an action or activity required it. In essence, although a
use classification existed, it would be implemented on a
site-specific, as-needed basis. Since each action would be a
WOS change, public hearings and other administrative require-
ments would be necessary.
Another approach would be to designate all appropriate
wetlands under the new use classification or subcategory upon
its establishment. At that time, associated parameters and
criteria also would be applied to the wetlands. This could
reduce the need to have public hearings on each individual
subsequent action, but it would do so effectively only if
adequate technical information was available to classify wetlands
on other than a site-specific basis.
Wetland use subcategories have been established in a few
states, but they have been designated only on a site-specific
basis due to the lack of data documenting the location and extent
of various wetland types. As National Wetlands Inventory maps
become available for more areas, this approach may change. The
development of this technical information could improve
administrative procedures significantly.
The existing "natural waters" clause included as part of a
state's water quality standards regulation could be used to
address wetland specific conditions without a water quality
standards change. Administratively, this appears to be a
straightforward approach. Potential constraints occur because
it does not provide general guidance for assessing wetlands dis-
charges to wetlands. Further, it does not incorporate the
concept of extent of acceptable change reflected in established
standards criteria.
o Designate wetland use classifications or subcategory on
National Wetlands Inventory mapping or other wetlands
inventory system
Significant Features
- NWI mapping could provide technical basis for delineation
- NWI maps available for limited areas
- Resource requirements would be reduced with use of NWI
maps
- Could be accomplished in one administrative action
- Would obviate the need for site-specific WOS changes
- Would emphasize differences between wetlands and
free-flowing waters
- Could facilitate wetland permit decisions
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM 3-36
o Designate wetland use classification or subcategory on a
site-specific basis
Significant Features
- Resource requirements related to delineating all wetlands
could be reduced
- Would shift significant responsibilities to the permit
program
- Limited experience available in permit staff related to
wetland discharges
- Higher degree of overview could be needed to assure
protection of wetland functions and values
- Would require a WQS change
o Use existing "natural waters" clause
Significant Features
- Would use existing WQS and NPDES infrastructure
- Would not require a WQS change
- Would shift significant responsibilities to the permit
program
- Limited experience available in permit staff related to
wetland discharges
- Higher degree of overview could be needed to assure
protection of wetland functions and values
- Needs site-specific assessment
- Would not incorporate the extent of acceptable changes as
would a new classification or subcategory.
o No change
Significant Features
- Requires a WQS change for each action
- Is time and resource intensive
- Requires a site-specific approach and fails to address the
issue on program wide basis
- Maintains current administrative impediments to wetlands
wastewater management.
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-37
3.3 NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM
3.3.1 NPDES Purpose and Background
The NPDES Permit Program requires a permit for the dis-
charge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the
United States. The program is authorized under Section 402 of
the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500 as amended). The provisions of
the Clean Water Act mandate that administration of the NPDES
Permit Program be delegated to those states whose program has
been approved by EPA. All states within Region IV with the
exception of Florida have been delegated primary responsibility
for administering the NPDES Permit Program. Although the EPA
may require certain NPDES permit conditions, the states are not
precluded from adopting more stringent permit conditions.
An NPDES permit should include at a minimum: (1) effluent
limits (maximum daily loadings or concentrations in treated
effluent), (2) a schedule for complying with the effluent limits,
(3) monitoring and reporting requirements for which the dis-
charger is responsible and (4) sludge disposal requirements.
Figure 3-3, outlining the NPDES process, was developed
based on EPA experience with assisting permit applicants in
complying with NPDES Permit regulations. Permits may be
issued to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) for any
length of time up to five years. Water quality standards and
subsequent effluent limits on which permit conditions are based
are reviewed every three years. If effluent limits or water
quality standards are modified after a permit is issued,
subsequent alterations to permit requirements also may be made.
The general framework for the NPDES permitting process is
organized into four major sections: permit application, effluent
limitations, implementation and special permit conditions.
Figure 3-3 illustrates how these sections are coordinated in the
overall NPDES permitting process. Figure 3-4 outlines the gen-
eral procedures followed to establish effluent limitations. Each
of the four major sections is described below.
Permit Application. The permit application process, Activ-
ities 1-4 on Figure 3-3, requires identification of all pollutants
that may be present within a wastewater stream and those that
must comply with water quality standards. Hence, a proposed
discharger must know the constituents of the wastewater and
their importance. Average and maximum quantities of waste-
water to be discharged also must be established, and the
frequency and volume of discharge must be provided. Permit
applicants are required to provide different levels of detail
depending upon individual state requirements as well as size,
location and type of discharge. Permit applications do not cur-
-------
3-3i
Figure 3-3. Overview of the NPDES Permit Program
PERMIT APPLICATION
AND REVIEW
/7 /
— —. — --_»/ Permit / ^/
x*"—""~~—•""•"-~^v Application / *l
Issue 308 letter
requiring
additional information
to process permit 4
Application
Complete
Acknowledge
Receipt
Review of
Application
• Regional Commission,
if applicable
•State
•EPA
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
5
I
Determination
of Effluent
Limitations
PERMIT
ISSUANCE
24
Permit
Issuance
COMPLIANCE
25
28
*
Compliance
Inspections
30
Adjudicatory
•^| hearing if
necessary
26
/Monitoring/ / I
Periodic /^ ^ I
Reporting / I
Review and
Approval of
Reports
27
Is treatment
Adequate?
29
Amend permit
if necessary
Legend
(State/Federal \
Responsibility I
Decision Block
(State/Federal
Agency)
Permittee
r Responsibility/
-------
3-39
Figure 3-4. Determination of Effluent Limitations
Review existing
water quality standards
(use and criteria)
Review categorization of
stream segment as effluent
or water quality limited
Effluent
limited
1
11
Analyze Stream to
determine appropriate
discharge limitations
Water quality
limited
18
Uncategorized due
to lack of adequate
data base
(e.g., wetlands)
Technology based
treatment required
(Secondary)
12
Assess all
pollutant sources
to the segment
19
Assess all
pollutant sources
to the segment
10
Permit
Issued
13
Apply analytical
procedure to assess
loadings to segment
20
Use biological or
qualitative analy-
ses if necessary
14
Develop wasteload
allocation for
segment
21
Establish
effluent limits
15
Establish
effluent limits
for discharge(s)
22
Permit
issued or denied
16
Permit(s)
issued or denied
23
Adjudicatory
hearing if
necessary
17
Adjudicatory
hearing if
necessary
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-40
rently require the identification of wetland discharges and,
therefore, may not address wetland requirements.
Effluent Limitations. The determination of effluent limi-
tations is indicated by Activities 5-23 on Figure 3-4. Each state
environmental agency is responsible for establishing total maxi-
mum daily loads (TMDLs) for discharges to all surface waters.
These maximum daily wasteloads are established to assure water
quality standards can be met and designated uses protected by
taking into account background conditions and all other sources
of pollution along a designated segment of a water body.
The receiving water of a discharge is determined to be either
an effluent-limited stream segment or a water quality-limited
stream segment. If the water body is effluent-limited, then tech-
nology-based treatment is required by the permit. For POTWs,
technology-based treatment is defined as secondary treatment.
The requirements for secondary treatment are a 30-day average
concentration of five-day biochemical oxygen demand and
suspended solids not to exceed 30 milligrams per liter. For other
than POTWs, best available technology economically achievable
is required for pollutant control.
If water quality standards for a water body or wetland can-
not be met with secondary treatment (or other applicable tech-
nology-based limits), then it is a water quality-limited segment;
more stringent control of wastewaters and/or runoff must be
designated by the state agency. Effluent limits dictate the level
of treatment (above secondary) required to protect designated
uses and to avoid the violation of associated water quality
criteria.
Permit Requirements. Other requirements as specified by
federal and state guidance may be included in the NPDES process
as indicated by Activities 24, 29-30 on Figure 3-3. The regula-
tory agency can, at its discretion, include special requirements
for a discharger to meet. Such requirements can be considered
necessary for other-than-conventional discharges (i.e., a
wetlands discharge). Conceivable special requirements could
include:
o Seasonal variations in discharge or monitoring requirements
o Maximum discharge rates
o Outfall design to enhance wastewater dispersion
o Special treatment, operation or maintenance practices
o Wastewater disinfection requirements
o In-stream monitoring requirements
o Sludge management requirements
o Special operator training.
Inspections by the regulatory agency may be more frequent or
more detailed if special requirements are included.
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3~41
Compliance/Monitoring. The discharger must inform the
agency controlling permitting procedures of the schedule for
commencing a discharge and any other aspects of implementation
that may affect the quality of the receiving waters. Design
plans for the location and type of outfall, construction
procedures, and start-up and monitoring activities should be
established in conjunction with the regulatory agency prior to
implementation of a wetlands discharge. The discharger is
responsible for most compliance and monitoring requirements,
Activities 25-28 on Figure 3-3. The regulatory agency periodi-
cally will inspect discharge facilities to determine whether
implementation procedures are properly conducted. Monitoring
reports are submitted to the agency by the discharger to attest
that permit requirements for discharge loadings are being met.
3.3.2 NPDES Program Requirements and Current Practices
The NPDES program is tied closely to the WQS program since
the latter establishes the uses and criteria for protecting a
water body. Effluent limitations are established through the
NPDES permitting process to assure wastewater dischargers will
not degrade designated uses nor violate standards criteria.
Effluent limits often are based on mathematical equations that
predict responses of a water body to wastewater discharges and
runoff. Most of the available models for predicting these
responses, however, are variations of dissolved oxygen models
originally developed for free-flowing streams. While Region IV
states rely on these models to some extent, most acknowledge
the shortcomings of the models when applied to wetland sys-
tems. If analytical models cannot be modified to provide accept-
able reliability, then on-site biological, chemical and physical
assessments are conducted, and effluent limitations are based on
best professional judgement. Biological assessments are receiv-
ing increased use in setting effluent limitations for wetland
discharges. The states and EPA, however, are concerned about
"a reasonable scientific basis" and assurances of "reproducible,
confident and defensible" water quality decisions.
All states in Region IV with the exception of Florida have the
delegated authority to administer their own NPDES Program.
The overview role EPA maintains for the delegated states results
in the review of a selected 10 percent of major discharges of the
state NPDES permits. For non-delegated states, EPA issues a
draft permit for states to review and certify before final permits
are issued. Although some procedural differences exist for
issuing permits and adopting permit reuqirements in each Region
IV state, the greatest difference is in the approach used for
determining effluent limits for discharges to wetland areas. At
present, a formal agreement exists between the states and EPA
Region IV on how wastewater permit limitations are to be
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-42
established. Both EPA and the states have defined
responsibilities for the development of appropriate effluent
limitations. Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the
states are charged with developing allowable wasteloads that
will insure the attainment of water quality standards. This
section of the Act also requires EPA to approve or disapprove
these wasteloads within 30 days of submission. Although a
general agreement exists between the states and EPA Region IV,
differences occur in the method of establishing effluent limits for
wetlands.
Table 3-4 summarizes the current practices of state agencies
in implementing the NPDES program for wetlands discharges.
Some procedures or requirements are applied to wetlands
discharges that are not applied to more conventional discharges
to free-flowing streams.
3.3.3 NPDES Wetland Discharge Considerations
The WQS and NPDES programs are linked closely. Effluent
limitations, which are necessary to obtain a wastewater
discharge permit, are based on defined water quality standards
(uses and associated criteria). In essence, the requirements of
both programs must be met before a discharge can be permitted.
The Construction Grants program has been an integral part
of the NPDES process by providing guidelines for planning,
design and construction. With the decreasing role of this
program, particularly for smaller communities, the NPDES
programs could incorporate some of the Construction Grants
guidelines pertaining to water quality and performance criteria.
Several wetland discharge considerations are presented that
may help achieve the purpose of the NPDES permitting programs
for wetlands discharges (Activity numbers refer to activities
outlined in Figure 3-3 and 3-4):
1. Additional permit information
2. Potential effluent limitations parameters
3. Techniques for determining effluent limitations for a
wetlands discharge
4. Wetland specific permit requirements/conditions
5. Permit compliance for wetlands discharges.
Most of the issues raised relate primarily to the permit appli-
cation process, and permit conditions and the determination of
effluetn limits. These issues will be evaluated in the following
section.
-------
Table 3-4. Summary of Current State Practices Associated with the NPDES Program.
State
Use of special
permit conditions
for «etlands
discharge?
Application of
site-specific
effluent IImlts
for net I and?
Activity 6
Application of
"parent" stream
segment effluent
limits?
Activity 7
Use of models
to determine
effluent limits?
Activity 15
Use of biological Use of special
assess, to detarmlng wetlands
effluent limits? monitoring?
Activity 20 Activity 25
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South CarolIna
Tennessee
Refers to Figure 3-3 or 3-4.
U)
I
OJ
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM
3.3.4 Alternatives for NPDES Wetland Discharge Considerations
In the implementation of the NPDES permitting program, a
wetlands discharge basically is considered the same as any other
discharge. Due to the many important functional differences
between wetlands and continuous, free-flowing aquatic sys-
tems, some modifications to the program should be considered.
Potential alternatives for incorporating wetlands-specific
adaptations to the NPDES program are discussed below.
From a practical viewpoint, it probably is not necessary for
every potential wetlands discharger to provide the same amount
of information. If the wetland being considered has not been
classified unique or endangered, and loading rates are conser-
vatively low based on existing information, less information may
be needed for permit decisions than if the wetland area is unique
or endangered, considered sensitive to modifications or would
receive a relatively high loading rate. The technical aspects of
this "tiered" approach are discussed further in section 4.4, 5.4
and 7.4. Section 5.4 pertains specifically to the technical
aspects of administering the NPDES program. Sections 4.4 and
7.4 describe technical requirements for decision making.
One approach to "tiering" information requests for wetlands
discharges is based on two primary determinants: wetland type
and hydraulic loading (incorporating wastewater flow and
wetland size). For purposes of classifying wetland type relative
to wastewater discharges, three distinctions are proposed:
Typel:
Altered; encroached upon by development; or widespread in
distribution.
Type 2:
Pristine: endangered; or sensitive to hydrologic or water
chemistry changes.
Type3
Unique; or classified as a critical habitat
Type 1 wetlands typically should be given first consideration
for a wetlands discharge. Often wastewater discharges can be
used to restore altered wetlands if the hydrologic regime of a
natural wetland has been altered significantly. Discharges also
could serve to maintain or preserve wetlands being surrounded
or stressed by nearby development. While these enhancement
features may not be common to all Type 1 wetlands, they should
be considered whenever possible. Wetlands that have wide-
spread distribution and that are not highly sensitive to
hydrologic or water chemistry modifications also would be
included in this wetland type.
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3~4
Type 2 wetlands are those: 1) in their natural state with
few, if any, impacts from development, 2) endangered in extent
or 3) are especially sensitive to hydrologic or water chemistry
changes. The use of these wetlands for a wastewater discharge
should be avoided if possible. An endangered wetland type is
one that has been subjected to development or has otherwise
been reduced in extent.
Type 3 wetlands are those that are unique or classified as a
critical habitat. Unique wetlands are those extremely limited in
extent. A wetland commonly found in one state or region of the
country may be unique to another state or region. Some wet-
lands are considered to be critical habitat for protected species,
migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. Modifications of such
wetlands could have widespread ecological impacts. As a result
of the value of these wetlands, their use for wastewater manage-
ment is discouraged, along with all other developmental
activities that could threaten their condition.
The second determinant in differentiating wetland
information requests for dischargers is hydraulic
loading—combining wastewater flows with wetland size. Two
hydraulic loading levels are suggested.
Level 1:
Less than or equal to 1.0 inch per week with flows from
single pipe discharges less than or equal to 0.250 mgd
(33,425 ft3/day).
Level 2 :
Less than or equal to 1.0 inch per week with flows from
single pipe discharges greater than 0.250 mgd, or
Greater than 1.0 inch per week.
The rationale for establishing two levels, and their distinc-
tion, should be understood. The tiered approach primarily is
intended to acknowledge within the decision making framework
the differences between those potential discharges with a
relatively low degree of uncertainty and risk, and those with a
higher degree of uncertainty and risk. The establishment of
tiers, and their differences, can be based only on the best
information available. This is done with the understanding that
as the data base expands, modifications in the approach might be
necessary. The benefits of establishing such an approach
within the decision making framework must be balanced against
the associated uncertainty.
A hydraulic loading rate standard of 1.0 inch/week was
selected as a conservative rate for most wetland systems in the
southeastern United States based on information from existing
wetlands discharges. The maximum flow rate for single pipe
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM
discharges was included to limit this level to relatively small
discharges. The value of 0.250 mgd was selected as
representative of small discharges. The flow ceiling also is
included because hydraulic loading alone does not describe fully
impacts to a wetland. When wastewater is discharged to a
wetland, it does not fully mix with the entire water body. An
expanding zone of influence develops around the discharge
point. Without a flow ceiling, a relatively large discharge could
have a small hydraulic loading if the wetland is also large; yet
only a relatively limited area near and downgradient from the
discharge is likely to be impacted. The use and determination of
the "effective" wetland area is described in subsequent
chapters. The flow ceiling would not apply to wetland
discharges that incorporate distribution systems such as
multi-point diffusers, overland flow, etc., since these systems
encourage better and more uniform distribution of wastewater
throughout the wetland. Therefore, if hydraulic loadings or
flow rates exceed 1.0 inch per week or single pipe discharges
exceed 0.250 mgd, respectively, the discharge is classified as
Level 2. This means that the discharger should provide more
information than for a Level 1 discharger. The permit writer
should have flexibility to request information commensurate with
the extent the hydraulic loading or flow exceeds the suggested
values, or when more valuable wetland types are used.
The proposed method of tiering is summarized by Table 3-5.
A Level 1 discharge to a Type 1 wetland represents the conserva-
tive discharge conditions fundamental to the suggested tiering
approach. The relative degree of acceptability of discharge
levels and wetland types is indicated. The tiered approach
affects the permit information requested, the establishment of
effluent limits and the post-discharge monitoring requirements.
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-47
Table 3-5. Tiering Approach for Information Requests.
Level 1 Level 2
Hydraulic
Loading
and
Flows
Loading _< l"/wk
with Q <_ 0.250 mgd
for single pipe
discharges
Load ing _< l"/wk
with Q > 0.250 mgd
for single pipe
discharges or
Loading > l"/wk
Type 1
Altered
or
widespread
wetland
- Tier 1 -
Preferred, with
minimum informa-
tion requirements
- Tier 2 -
Mostly acceptable,
with some additional
information required
Type 2
Pristine,
Endangered
or
Sensitive
Wetland
- Tier 2 -
Acceptable in
some circumstances
with additional
information required
- Tier 2 -
Discouraged
Type 3
Unique
or
Critical
Habitat
Wetland
- Tier 2 -
Discouraged
- Tier 2 -
Not Recommended
This tiering scheme is based on the approach that the
primary wastewater management objective of a Tier 1 discharge
is disposal/assimilation. If nutrient removal or some level of
renovation is expected in the wetland, more detailed analyses
will be necessary than those proposed for a Tier 1 discharge in
later chapters. More information would be required for a permit
application and for assessing the assimilative capacity of the
wetland and downstream impacts. Tier 1 represents the mini-
mum information requirements associated with wetland dis-
charges. Tier 2 represents an additional level of risk or
uncertainty for which additional information is warranted. The
exact nature of Tier 2 information requests would be determined
by the state/federal regulatory agency.
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-48
Another method for handling this situation would be to
establish 0.5 inch per week as the preferred hydraulic loading
rate for those discharges desiring enhanced nutrient removal in
the wetland. Some studies (Nichols 1983) indicate this hydraulic
loading rate would facilitate greater than 50 percent nutrient
removal.
This tiering approach also assumes that effluent limitations
or performance criteria are met. The suggested analyses for
post-discharge monitoring (Section 7.5) are based on this
assumption. If the expected conditions are not met in the wet-
land or downstream waters, additional analyses may be
necessary to identify the source of the problem.
Additional Permit Information. Since every discharge to
wetlands considered to be waters of the U.S. will require a
NPDES permit, the required permit information may be the best
mechanism for characterizing wetlands discharges. Several
options are available to responsible agencies which might
optimize the process for permitting wetlands discharges and
assure their compliance.
The first alternative is obtaining supplemental information to
the existing permit application through the permit review pro-
cess. The NPDES application form for municipal waste water dis-
charges has two formats. Short Form A is to be used for
discharges less than 1 million gallons per day (mgd). Standard
Form A - Municipal is to be used for discharges greater than 1
mgd. While the standard form requires more information than
the short form, neither requires sufficient information for
examining wetlands discharges. With the existing format, how-
ever, additional information can be required of a discharger on
the standard form. This may be the easiest means of obtaining
wetlands-specific information.
The standard form is divided into four sections: Applicant
and Facility Description, Basic Discharge Description, Sche-
duled Improvements and Schedules of Implementation and Indus-
trial Waste Contribution to Municipal System. Since this better
approaches the level of detail needed to adequately assess a
wetlands discharge, applicants should be encouraged to use this
form regardless of size. The following information could be
requested in the appropriate sections of the application form.
NPDES STANDARD FORM A - WETLAND OPTIONS
1. Applicant and Facility Description
- USGS map showing treatment facility and discharge
point (s)
- Wetland type
- Wetland size
- Wetland ownership and availability
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM
- Wetland access
- Wetland environmental sensitivity and uniqueness
(obtained from state or federal agencies)
2. Basic Discharge Description
- Type of discharge structure
- Predominant vegetation type
- Seasonal wastewater flow characteristics (in conjunction
with hydroperiod)
- Ambient water quality conditions in wetland
- Protected species habitat or presence
- Hydroperiod (normal period of inundation) (Tier 2)
- Current wetland uses (WQS program) (Tier 2)
- Inflows to and outflows from wetland (Tier 2)
- Soil types within wetland (Tier 2)
3. Scheduled Improvements and Schedules of Implementation
- Wetland specific construction considerations, e.g., use of
boardwalks, minimizing soil compaction, runoff/erosion
control, scour control, minimizing vegetation disturbances
- Method of mitigating construction impacts
- Relationship of construction activities to seasonal vari-
ability in wetland (particularly hydroperiod, reproduc-
tive cycles of vegetation, wildlife and waterfowl) (Tier 2)
4. Industrial Waste Contribution to Municipal System
- Acute toxicity potential to wetlands or wildlife
- Chronic toxicity potential to wetlands vegetation or wild-
life (Tier 2)
These wetlands-specific information requests suggested are in
addition to the standard information required. They also could
be requested as part of a 308 letter (request by the permitting
agency for more information) designed specifically for a
wetlands discharge. The map showing the facility location and
proximity to wetlands, in conjunction with established
parameters (e.g., presence of channels, distance of discharge
from wetland), also could provide a more definitive basis for
identifying wetlands discharges. This could be important to
administering the requirements applied specifically to wetlands
discharges.
The following options are available for addressing the issue
of wetlands-specific permit information.
o Use the Standard Form A NPDES permit application for any
potential wetlands discharge, regardless of size
Significant Features
- Requires regulatory change
- Would provide early, implementable mechanism for obtain-
ing additional wetlands information
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3~50
- Would allow for the identification of wetland discharges
o Modify all NPDES permit application forms to include a map
displaying proposed discharge location
Significant Features
- May be more difficult to implement due to federal Office of
Management and Budget requirements
- Would standardize wetland discharge information requests
- Would facilitate the application review process for all
discharges
- Would allow for the identification of wetland discharges
o Modify all NPDES permit application forms to include wetlands
discharge information
Significant Features
- May be more difficult to implement due to federal Office of
Management and Budget requirements
- Would standardize wetland discharge information requests
- Would facilitate the application review process for all
discharges
- Specifying appropriate information for all applicants could
be difficult
o Modify existing review procedures to require additional
wetland discharge information
Significant Features
- Requires procedural change
- Could be accomplished through a standardized 308 letter
- May not be applied consistently unless guidelines defined
wetlands discharge
- Cannot now identify wetland dischargers
o Establish tiered approach for obtaining information based on
loading rate and wetland type
Significant Features
- Requires development of tiers
- Requires procedural change
- Uncertainty of tiering levels based on limited data base for
some wetlands
- Allows for level of information requested to be dependent
upon loading rates, wetland type, etc.
- Difficult to identify when a wetland discharge is proposed
and when to require additional information
o No change
Significant Features
- Fails to allow the identification of wetlands dischargers
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-51
- Fails to provide sufficient information to write permits to
protect wetland functions and values
Consideration 2—
Potential Effluent Limitation Parameters. Several parameters
typically not addressed by water quality standards are impor-
tant to the functions and values of wetlands. The most
important of these is hydroperiod, the cycle of natural
hydrologic fluctuations. Many wetland processes and
characteristics are based on its hydroperiod. Although
hydroperiod is not a conventional water quality parameter, its
relationship to water quality and the condition of the wetland
itself is well documented. A list of wetland functions and values
not addressed by current use classifications was presented in
Section 3.2. If these uses ultimately are to be protected under
the WQS program, criteria need to be established for and permits
need to protect these wetlands functions and values. In
essence, a physical parameter such as hydroperiod or water
depth may be as necessary to assure protection of wetlands uses
as chemical parameters such as BOD and dissolved oxygen.
Effluent limitations must be established for the parameters
addressed by water quality standards criteria. The list of
effluent-limitation parameters ultimately will be related to water
quality standards adopted for wetlands. Likely parameters
could include flow (including seasonal variations) to maintain
hydroperiod, pH, suspended solids, BOD, nutrients, heavy
metals, and fecal coliforms. Nutrient and heavy metal
assimilation occur in wetlands but cannot be assumed to be total
sinks. If biological diversity must be maintained for wetland
water quality standards, effluent limits should be established
for parameters affecting biological diversity (e.g., flow,
nutrients, toxics). Additionally, effluent limitations or
performance criteria could be delineated to meet downstream
standards as well.
The question has been raised concerning the mechanism for
setting limits for a non-water chemistry parameter such as
hydroperiod. The mechanism would be the same as for any
other parameters; that is, establishing ambient conditions and
then prescribing the amount of variability from those conditions
that is acceptable. As a result, understanding cause and effect
in a wetland is important. For example, a narrative criterion
may be established to maintain biological diversity. But how is
this addressed by effluent limits? It is essential that the causes
of change in biological diversity be understood; then, effluent
limits can be established for these parameters. Due to the
importance of hydraulic loading to wetland maintenance and
water quality, wastewater flows into wetlands should be con-
trolled by effluent limits in most cases. The following actions
could be taken to address this issue.
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-52
o Adopt wetlands-specific guidelines for use of physical
parameters (e.g., velocity, hydraulic loading rates, etc.)
Significant Features
- WQS criteria do not typically address physical
parameters, WQS change may be needed
- Would be more protective of wetland uses
- Guidance is needed to assist permit writers
- Although important to protect wetland values and
functions, the basis for physical parameters may not be
well known
o Adopt wetlands-specific guidelines for using chemical para-
meters (e.g., DO, nutrients, pH)
Significant Features
- Now serves as basis for effluent limits
- Easily related to WQS
- Use of chemical parameters alone may not be sufficient to
protect wetland functions and values
- Basis for chemical parameters for all wetland types may
not be well known
o Use combination of physical, biological and chemical
parameters
Significant Features
- Would best protect or maintain wetland uses
- Guidance is needed for some parameters
- The basis for using some parameters may not be well
documented
o No change
Significant Features
- Water chemistry parameters and fecal coliform alone do
not protect some important wetland functions and values
Consideration 3 —
Techniques for Determining Effluent Limitations for a
Wetlands Discharge. When a wastewater discharge permit appli-
cation is received, the permit writer evaluates existing waste-
load allocations as a preliminary assessment of effluent limits. If
wasteload allocations do not exist, the water quality standards
must be reviewed and a site-assessment conducted to establish
effluent limits. Currently, this is required of most wetland
discharges. As a result, effluent- and water quality-limited
designations have less applicability to wetlands. This explains
the third category displayed in Figure 3-4: those water bodies
that essentially are unclassified.
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-53
Wetlands discharges, however, also should be understood in
context of effluent- and water quality-limited designations since
these terms typically are used. If a wetland is designated as
effluent-limited, the establishment of effluent limitations is
simplified, since effluent-limited segments require tech-
nology-based effluent limitations. Technology-based effluent
limitations are defined and set by regulations (40 CFR part 133
September 20, 1984). Effluent quality varies for different types
of facilities (e.g., 30 mg/1 for both biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and suspended solids (SS) are required for activated
sludge facilities, while 45/45 is required for trickling filter
facilities). Nutrients sometimes are included on a site-specific
basis.
If the wetland is classified as water-quality limited, it can
be more difficult to establish effluent limitations. Modeling or
on-site assessments may be necessary to define effluent limita-
tions. These methods have some limitations for wetlands dis-
charges, including how to establish effluent limitations from
qualitative analyses. Chapter 5 addresses the technical aspects
of determining whether a wetland is effluent- or water
quality-limited and options for defining effluent limitations in
wetlands classified other than effluent-limited.
The essential aspect of establishing effluent limits is meeting
standards in the receiving water and downstream waters.
Related to this, should a wetland have the same designation as
its adjoining stream segment? Often this is the method used for
establishing effluent limits in wetlands. But under some
conditions this designation might not be accurate. Site-specific
assessments will help resolve the potential discrepencies of this
method.
Another reason the effluent- and water quality-limited
designations have restricted application to wetlands is the need
to have effluent limits for parameters other than the water
chemistry constituents affected by treatment. In wetlands, the
scheduling and rate of flow can be essential to assimilation and
protection of the wetland. The effluent- and water
quality-limited designations do not address these physical
parameters.
Despite the problems encountered, effluent limitations still
must be developed. Region IV states have two basic methods for
establishing effluent limitations for a wetlands segment classified
other than effluent-limited: modeling and on-site assessments.
They often are used together for wetlands. Both have defici-
encies for adequately defining effluent limitations to a wetland.
Mathematical models typically are constraining because they
were not developed for use with wetlands systems, where chan-
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3~54
nels are poorly defined and low-depth sheet flow of water is
common. Most models used to define effluent limitations in
free-flowing watercourses are based on Streeter-Phelps
dissolved oxygen models, which predict the dissolved oxygen
reduction based on factors such as organic loading (BOD),
water temperature and velocity. Many versions of dissolved
oxygen models are available, but most are not adequate for
application to systems with the hydraulic characteristics common
to most wetlands. With some adaptation these models might be
more useful, but constraints still would exist because wetland
flows usually are not confined to channels, have sluggish flow
characteristics (including intermittent flows) and have
extensive interactions with vegetation, which affects reaeration
and the removal of organic matter.
More sophisticated models have been developed that could
assess wetland discharges and define effluent limitations more
clearly. These models, however, require an extensive data
base and are more difficult to apply. Further, such models
would have to be adapted to specific wetlands systems.
Some problems also have been encountered with on-site
assessments. Specific guidelines have not been developed, so
such assessments often are incomplete or not reproducible. To
assess the level of treatment required beyond secondary, water
quality or vegetative analyses often are required. Typically,
water chemistry characteristics include dissolved oxygen, BOD,
pH and suspended solids. Nutrient analyses might be required.
However, if the wetland is connected to downstream systems,
the effects of discharges on downstream uses also would be
necessary. Water and nutrient budgets may be necessary in
some situations. In addition to a vegetation analyses, the onsite
survey in support of determining effluent limits for wetlands
should include an assessment of other pollutant sources, water-
shed modifications, hydrologic interconnections, and current
and future wetland uses. Due to the seasonal variability in the
water quality characteristics of wetlands, seasonal influences
should be addressed by any method of establishing effluent
limitations. Options for establishing effluent limits for wetlands
discharges include the following:
o Classify all wetlands as effluent-limited, requiring only
secondary treatment, unless other major discharges exist
Significant Features
- Method currently most used
- Simplifies determination of effluent limits
- May need to include other parameters, such as loading
rates and seasonal limits
- May not protect certain sensitive wetland types
- May not be responsive to WQS requirements
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3~55
o Use a tiered approach of establishing effluent limits based on
loading rates
Significant Features
- Simplifies determination of effluent limits
- May not protect certain sensitive wetland types
- Requires development of tiers
- Uncertainty of tiering levels based on limited data base
- May be insensitive to other parameters and wetland
responses
o Adapt currently used models or use more sophisticated
models to establish effluent limits for wetland discharges
Significant Features
- Can be labor or data base intensive
- Model calibration and verification could be difficult or
expensive
- Could improve assessment of wetlands discharges
- May not be applicable to all systems
- Requires site-specific analysis to develop data base
specific to each discharge
- Requires an experienced modeler
- May require development of model algorithms
o Develop a standard method for performing qualitative
analyses
Significant Features
- Would improve consistency
- Would require adoption of guidelines
- Would improve reproducibility of current methods
- May be difficult to translate to effluent limits
- Requires site-specific analysis to develop data base to be
used in establishing effluent limits
o No change
Significant Features
- Does not address need for reproducible and protective
methods
- Uncertainties in establishing effluent limitations would
remain
Consideration 4—
Permit Requirements and Conditions. The permitting process
is the primary mechanism for assuring water quality standards
are met in waters receiving wastewater and in protecting
downstream and groundwater water quality. It is also the
means for meeting antidegradation requirements. Downstream
impacts are an important aspect of antidegradation. Effluent
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3~56
limits are the primary permitting mechanism for assuring
maintenance of water quality criteria. For wetlands, however,
additional permit requirements and conditions may be equally
important to meeting standards criteria and antidegradation
requirements and assuring that downstream uses are maintained
and protected.
Additional permit requirements that could be considered for
wetlands discharges include:
1. Prescribed pretreatment, particularly if a portion of the
wastewater emanates from industrial sources
2. Seasonal operation variability
3. Implementation schedule for construction, discharging,
and operation and maintenance
4. Specific details for monitoring requirements and reporting
5. Ownership or access requirements
6. Back-up discharge alternatives
7. Performance criteria - instream water quality levels which
should be met in downstream waters.
The actual permit requirements or conditions placed on a
wetland's discharges would relate to the information requested
on the permit application. This again introduces a tiered
approach to implementing permit conditions. For example,
permit conditions probably would be more extensive for a
wetland receiving a relatively large hydraulic load than for one
receiving a conservative load. Likewise, more requirements
would be placed on a discharge to a pristine wetland than to a
wetland which had been previously degraded. This might also
serve to encourage "restorative" discharges. Monitoring re-
quirements, discussed in Section 7.4, also could be established
using a tiered approach based on flow, hydraulic loading and
wetland type.
The Water Duality Standards Program defines protective cri-
teria. Performance criteria established through the permitting
process augment effluent limits established to meet standards
criteria. Instream performance criteria may be related to
parameters not addressed specifically by the standards criteria,
but which are essential to protecting identified uses and asso-
ciated water quality. Performance criteria are related specifi-
cally to the levels of wastewater loading and expected assimila-
tion and, therefore, provide an additional means of assessing
instream water quality and wastewater impacts. Performance
criteria could be established and enforced to assure that
downstream standards are met. They are based on a calculated
level of assimilation in the receiving water or wetland.
Potential options for wetlands permit requirements and
conditions include the following:
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3~57
o Use of prescribed levels of pretreatment
Significant Features
- Reduces levels of industrial components (metals, salts,
toxics) in wastewater discharges
o Use of seasonal operational requirements
Sjgnficant Features
- Would be sensitive to wetland needs and variability
- Acknowledges additional requirements may be appropriate
for wetland discharges to ensure protection of wetland
functions and values
- Provides flexibility for different wetland systems
o Use of implementation schedule
Significant Features
- Would be responsive to natural wetland cycles
- Would be sensitive to wetland needs and variability
- Acknowledges additional requirements may be appropriate
for wetland discharges to ensure protection of wetland
functions and values
o Use of monitoring and reporting requirements
Significant Features
- Improves the ability to regulate wetlands discharges
- Requires development of relevant monitoring program
components
- Enhances ability to mitigate detrimental wetland impacts
- Would increase knowledge base concerning wetland
responses to wastewater discharges
- Monitoring programs need to be related to specific report-
ing requirements to assist compliance reviews
- Acknowledges additional requirements may be appropriate
for wetlands discharges to ensure protection of wetland
functions and values
- Level of detail required could be tiered, based on loadings
o Use of ownership or access requirements
Significant Features
- Would ensure uninterrupted use of wetland - Improves
ability to regulate wetland discharges - Enhances ability to
mitigate detrimental wetland impacts
- Acknowledges additional requirements may be appropriate
for wetland discharges to ensure protection of wetland
functions and values
- May discourage wetlands use in some cases if CG funding is
unavailable for wetlands purchase
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-58
o Use of in-stream performance criteria
Significant Features
- Improves ability to regulate wetlands discharges
- Requires development of relevant in-stream or downstream
performance criteria
- Enhances ability to mitigate detrimental wetland impacts
- Would increase knowledge base concerning wetland
responses to waste water discharges
- Acknowledges additional requirements may be appropriate
for wetland discharges to ensure protection of wetland
functions and values
- performance criteria need to be specific and related to
reporting requirements to assist compliance review
o No change
Significant Features
- Fails to provide guidance or consistency
- May not be sufficient to protect wetland functions and
values
- May lead to vaguely written permits which may limit
compliance reviews
Consideration 5 —
Permit Compliance. Permit compliance is related specifically
to the effluent limits and conditions of the permit and the way it
is written. A vaguely written or non-specific permit provides
little basis for compliance review. A specific permit, with
well-defined permit conditions or performance criteria, provides
a solid foundation for compliance review.
The compliance process also might be improved by increasing
the scope or frequency of review. Compliance inspections could
be conducted more frequently, at least during the construction/-
installation phase and first year of operation, to assess the
overall operation of the facility and wetlands discharge impacts.
Mitigation of construction/installation impacts can be critical in
wetlands.
For permit compliance review to be effective, the permit
writer should state explicitly the conditions and requirements of
the discharge. As an example, if performance criteria for down-
stream waters or biological surveys are to be included as permit
requirements, they should be identified by parameters, have
specific locations for compliance and be included in the monitor-
ing program. The key to adequate review in the compliance
phase of the permit process is specificity by the writer in
setting permit requirements and conditions.
-------
NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM 3-59
Permit compliance options for wetland discharges include the
following:
o Increase the level of EPA/state compliance inspections for
wetlands discharges
Significant Features
- Improves the ability of regulatory agencies to assure
protection of wetland functions and values
- Acknowledges that uncertainties may exist with wetland
wastewater management systems
- Enhances ability to detect significant changes to wetland
functions or values
- Would increase the knowledge base concerning wetland
responses to wastewater discharges
o No change
Sjgnficant Features
- May not be sufficient to protect wetland functions and
values
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3-60
3.4 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
3.4.1 Construction Grants Purpose and Background
The primary purpose of the Construction Grants (201)
program is to assist communities in meeting the goals of the Clean
Water Act by providing funds for wastewater treatment facil-
ities. This program is authorized by Section 201 of the Clean
Water Act. Wastewater facilities planning, design and construc-
tion are Steps 1, 2 and 3 of the Construction Grants program,
respectively. These three steps take place in consecutive
order, as shown in Figure 3-5, except when Steps 2 and 3 are
blended together as one step. Communities potentially eligible
for a construction grant are assigned a position on the state's
priority list by the appropriate state agency. Priority is based
primarily on the extent of existing documented water quality
and/or public health concerns. States may add other factors
into the priority formula which could affect the position of the
project on the priority list (e.g., Kentucky intends to add an
operational factor in the formula which will give credit to
applicants with demonstrated good plant operation).
The importance of the Construction Grants program to the
use of wetlands for wastewater management currently is limited
for the following reasons:
1. Funding for the program has been reduced
2. With limited funds, only the highest priority projects obtain
funding, and most small communities are low on the priority
list
3. Lack of wetlands-specific guidelines
4. The use of funds for the purchase of a wetland is applied
inconsistently.
Regardless of current funding levels, the Construction
Grants program is potentially valuable because of its planning
requirements and guidance. Primary among facilities planning
requirements are the cost-effectiveness analysis guidelines that
address the requirements of developing, evaluating and select-
ing cost-effective wastewater management alternatives.
Based on recent amendments to the program, separate Step 1
and Step 2 grants are no longer given; instead, allowances are
included in the Step 3 grant for facilities planning and design
activities (EPA 1982). Financial advances for the Step 2 grant
may be obtained by small communities from the state environ-
mental agency. Any municipality that received a Step 1 grant
prior to December 29, 1981, will complete the facilities planning
process according to its original grant agreement. Step 2 plus 3
or Step 3 grants must meet the requirements of the amendments.
-------
STEP 1 : FACILITIES PLANNING
/Development/ ^/Eyaluation of / ^ / Public / ^/
/ Alternatives / 7 Alternatives/ ^Participation/W
' •* L /•> L /i Z
Implementation
Plan
o Preplanning Conference o Environmental Evaluation
o Establishing Needs o Financial Evaluation
o Effluent Limitations o Innovative * Alternative
o Flows, I/I.SSES Technologies (I/A)
STEP 2: DESIGN PHASE
o Predesign conference o User Charge System
o Design Consideration o Sewer Use Ordinance
o Value Engineering
o Specifications
STEP 3: CONSTRUCTION PHASE
/
for
State Certification
rio
o Bidding Process
o Preconstruction
Conference
o Grant Changes
o Onsite inspections
o Change orders
,•»-,
rii
Begin
Operation &
Maintenance
Program
o Plan of operation
o Performance
evaluation
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
// / NPDES Post /
On Line / i>/ Implementation /
^ / Program
o Continued
Operation
o Monitoring
o Permit Renewal
Figure 3-5; Overview of the Construction Grants Program.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3-62
Other changes that affect basic facilities planning considera-
tions have been made to the Construction Grants process since
1381. First, after October 1, 1984, construction grants will be
available only for secondary or more stringent treatment, new
interceptors and connecting sewers, and infiltration/inflow cor-
rections. Second, after October 1, 1984, grants will only be
made to handle existing needs, not to exceed year 1990 projec-
tions, rather than capacity for 20 to 40 years into the future.
Finally, the definition of secondary waste water treatment has
been expanded to include oxidation ponds, lagoons, ditches and
trickling filters. Regulations addressing the new definition of
secondary treatment currently are being developed by EPA.
The Facilities Planning (Step 1) Process. The EPA document
Construction Grants 1985 (CG-85) (EPA 1984b) summarizes the
Step 1 process clearly. The two basic technical efforts of the
facilities planning process are: (1) the development and
evaluation of alternatives, and (2) the environmental evalua-
tion. Public participation, an additional element of the planning
process, usually includes two to three public meetings while the
facilities plan is being drafted and a public hearing after the
preferred alternative is selected. Once the facilities plan has
been drafted, federal, state and local agencies must be given an
opportunity to provide review comments. The federal role
varies from state to state, depending on whether a state has
been delegated the authority for review of facilities plans.
The analysis of costs for various wastewater management
alternatives should include the estimated grant amount and local
costs with and without the possible grant. The applicability of
funding to wetland projects will be discussed later in detail.
Local costs should be discussed in terms of EPA's affordability
criteria and whether or not the project has a high cost. The EPA
funded as much as 75 percent of grant-eligible project costs
until October 1, 1984, and will fund as much as 55 percent there-
after. For phased projects that were initiated and received a
Step 3 grant before October 1, 1984, subsequent phases may be
"grandfathered" and receive the higher 75 percent federal
grant. The EPA grant may be increased to as much as 85 per-
cent before October 1, 1984, and 75 percent thereafter for
innovative or alternative technologies. Some state funding for
local wastewater management needs may also be available.
The Design (Step 2) and Construction (Step 3) Processes.
Most of the design and construction procedures do not vary
greatly from project to project. Once a planned project is high
enough on the state priority list to receive funding, a grant
application, state/EPA review, grant offer and acceptance, and
other procedures (as shown in Figure 3-5) need to be followed
to assure construction grants funding eligibility. Field testing
of innovative or alternative technologies is one type of design
effort that is eligible for Construction Grant funds.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3-63
The development of construction specifications, a plan of
operation and an operation-maintenance manual are prerequi-
sites for the award of a Step 3 grant. Construction specifica-
tions can include methods to minimize wetland disturbance,
erosion and sediment control techniques and requirements to
avoid activities within a wetland during certain time periods, if
appropriate. Other types of mitigative and enhancement mea-
sures can also be included. Considerations for construction,
start-up and operation are included in the required plan of
operation. Start-up and maintenance procedures associated
with the use of wetlands can be included in the required opera-
tion and maintenance manual.
Monitoring of construction activities also must be provided
by the local waste water/public works agency or by a consult-
ant. Following construction, one year of engineering services
must be provided to supervise and train operators and to
troubleshoot serious problems that the operators are unable to
solve.
3.4.2 Construction Grants Program Requirements and Current
Practices
The Construction Grants (201) program is divided into four
general phases as depicted in Figure 3-5. Its purpose is to
provide federal funding for the planning (activities 1-5), design
(activities 6-8), construction (activities 9-13) and start-up
(activities 14-15) of wastewater management facilities. Current-
ly, however, no wetland specific guidelines have been issued as
part of the program. Table 3-6 summarizes the current
Construction Grants practices concerning wetlands discharges
in the Region IV states. If wetlands are part of a wastewater
management plan, eligibility for and level of federal funding,
ownership or control requirements and cost effectiveness
analyses should be assessed.
Each state is allocated a portion of the federal budget
designated for the Construction Grants Program. The program
is implemented on the state level, but all plans must be reviewed
and approved by the EPA prior to the applicant receiving a
grant unless the program has been delegated to the state. In
Region IV, the 201 Program has been delegated to all eight
states. Each state must certify the 201 Plan and then prepare
the draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) for EPA's
review, approval and distribution. EPA performs these tasks
for states that have not been delegated 201 responsibility.
All states are responsible for establishing a priority list
which determines the order of importance of wastewater manage-
ment problems within the state and, therefore, the order of fund-
ing. Projects are funded based on this priority list and the
amount of funds available. Under current budget conditions,
-------
Table 3-6. Summary of Current State Practices Associated with the Construction Grants Program
Wetland-specific Have applied Have wetlands- Have required
guidelines as Access or I/A designation specific environmental special construe-
part of fad 11- control of to wetlands review components tlon practices for
ties planning? wetland required? discharge? function? wetlands discharges?
State Activity 1 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 2 Activity 11
Alabama - X - - -
Florida -
Georgia -
Kentucky -
Mississippi - X1 - -
North Carolina -
South Carolina X - X
Tennessee -
'Required only If wetland Is needed for wastewater renovation; If assimilation (disposal) only, access or
control Is not required.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3~65
only a limited number of projects on the priority list realistically
can be funded. The result is a long list of applicants (over 200
applicants in some Region IV states) who will not receive
funding.
Some projects can receive funds for Innovative and Alter-
native (I/A) waste water systems even though they are not
ranked high on the priority list. A 4 percent I/A set-aside is
provided in each state for IIA projects. This is a major incen-
tive when considering IIA systems. In addition, a higher
percentage of project funds can be obtained for I/A projects.
3.4.3 Construction Grants Wetland Discharge Considerations
Facilities planning issues include siting, estimating discharge
characteristics, evaluating alternatives, assessing specific envi-
ronmental impacts and financing. Chapter 3 presents a detailed
assessment of most of these elements. Engineering design,
construction, operation and maintenance, and mitigation are
addressed by Chapters 6 and 7. Several issues, however,
affect the applicability of the Construction Grants program to
wetlands discharges. All discussions of the applicability of the
Construction Grants program assumes the proposed project has
a sufficiently high priority to be funded. Otherwise, the
Program has little influence, although 201 guidelines potentially
could provide useful information for planning and implementing a
wetlands discharge.
The issues requiring attention are:
1. Incorporation of wetland specific components into the
Construction Grants Program
2. Funding of wetlands for wastewater management
3. Extent of wetlands control required for funding.
3.4.4 Alternatives for Construction Grants Wetland Discharge
Considerations
Three major issues have been raised in the previous section
concerning the applicability of the Construction Grants program
to the use of wetlands for wastewater management. The main ele-
ment of the Construction Grants program is funding; therefore,
interpretations concerning funding of wetlands wastewater sys-
tems are probably the most important. The other important
aspect of the program is the guidance provided for planning,
designing and evaluating wastewater management alternatives.
Guidance provided on wetlands-specific elements could be help-
ful to an applicant regardless of funding if the program
guidelines adequately consider wetlands systems.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3-66
Consideration 1 —
Wetland Specific Components Incorporated into Construction
Grants Guidelines. Construction Grants (CG) Guidelines pro-
vide the basis for assessing wastewater management projects.
Not only do the Guidelines outline the tasks that should be con-
ducted by the applicant to evaluate wastewater management
alternatives, they also are the basis for regulatory decision
making. Presently, CG Guidelines do not specifically address
the use of wetlands for wastewater management. Components
for which guidance is needed for wetlands-waste water manage-
ment include:
1. Engineering options
2. Alternatives evaluation
- Environmental effects
- Costs
- Implementability
- Operability
3. Access/Control
4. Construction
5. Operation and Maintenance
Technical guidance for each of these components is provided
by subsequent sections of the Handbook.
One of the important aspects of the Construction Grants
program has been the assessment of environmental impacts, as
mandated by NEPA for wastewater management projects receiv-
ing federal funds. This asessment has been the primary
mechanism for reviewing the potential environmental impacts of
wastewater management alternatives and has been an important
consideration in the selection of the preferred alternative. For
communities meeting their wastewater management needs inde-
pendent of the Construction Grants program, an environmental
review may not be required but remains valuable. The following
wetlands-specific components could be applicable to the
environmental review procedures of the Construction Grants
program.
Planning
Land use in the watershed
Modifications to the wetland (e.g., road through wetlands,
construction in wetlands)
Development trends and secondary impacts
Wetland ownership and access
Funding sources and requirements
Existing uses of wetland
Cultural resources
Recreation/Aesthetics
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
Geomorphology
Soils types
Substrate (e.g., Karstic areas)
Proximity to other wetlands
Wetlands boundaries
Wetland type and size
Hydrology
Water budget
Hydroperiod
Hydrologic interconnections
Sensitivity to alterations
Water Quality
Basic analyses
- Dissolved oxygen
-pH
- Suspended solids
- BOD
- Fecal coliforms
Elective Analyses
- Color
- Metals
-Nutrients (C.N.P)
- Alkalinity
- Total coliforms
- Fecal streptococci
Seasonal fluctuations (e.g., nutrient uptake vs. release)
Sensitivity to alterations (e.g., pH in bogs)
Assimilative capacity (involves soils vegetation, hydrology)
Ecology
Vegetation species composition
Protected species habitat
Wildlife habitat
Waterfowl breeding and habitat
Value to downstream habitats
Sensitivity to alterations
Elective ecological analyses
If CG Guidelines are expanded to provide specific guidance
for wetlands wastewater systems, regulatory agencies and
applicants could use these guidelines regardless of whether
Construction Grant funds are involved. Other elements such as
design of discharge structures and back-up systems, construc-
tion practices and operation and maintenance could be addressed
by Construction Grants guidelines to assure wetlands dis-
charges are properly considered.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3-68
The following alternatives address the incorporation of
wetland specific components into Construction Grants
guidelines.
o Modify CG guidelines to address wetlands specific issues
Significant Features
- Requires development and adoption of guidelines
- Would improve consistency in considering wetland-waste-
water projects
- May have limited influence on wetland projects due to
limited number of potential wetland projects which will be
funded
- Elevates the knowledge base of wetlands wastewater
management
o Develop technical guidance for considering wetland-waste-
water projects
Significant Features
- Provides flexibility to states that administer CG Program
- May be useful for cases where CG funding is not involved
- Would improve consistency in considering wetland
projects
- Elevates the knowledge base of wetlands wastewater
management
o Use the Freshwater Wetlands for Wastewater Management
Handbook to provide needed guidance
Significant Features
-Could provide the basis for additional CG specific guidance
-Addresses the interrelationships of CG, NPDES and WQS
issues
-As additional information becomes available, programs
change and issues become resolved, the Handbook will
periodically be updated
-Portions of the Handbook are specific to Region IV
o No change
Significant Features
-Retains void in CG review process and guidelines for
wetlands wastewater systems
-Provides no guidance for considering wetlands wastewater
systems
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
Consideration 2 —
Funding of Wetlands for Wastewater Management. Funding
land purchases through the Construction Grants program is
dependent on the land being an integral part of the treatment
process. Standards must be met at the point of discharge_to the
wetland where wetlands are waters of the U.S. Because of the
current interpretation that waters of the U.S. cannot be part of
the treatment process even if water quality standards are met
while providing treatment, wetlands cannot be purchased with
CG funds. The issue of funding other parts of a wastewater
management plan through the Construction Grants program is
discussed with the next issue.
In examining practices throughout the country, other
interpretations of the funding issue are noted. In Oregon, for
example, a natural wetlands discharge apparently has been con-
sidered part of the treatment process, and funding of the
project has proceeded. Implementation of the project was tied
closely to monitoring wetland impacts. In Iowa, a natural
wetlands discharge has apparently been considered part of the
treatment process and received funding under the Innovative
and Alternative Technologies (I/A) program. Other examples of
funding wetlands purchase as part of the treatment process also
exist.
In Region IV, funding has not been made available for
wetlands purchase, but ownership may be essential to funding
the remainder of the project. This simply means that ownership
must be obtained by other funding sources or land acquisition
options. The EPA Assistant Administrator for Water issued a
memorandum denying funding eligibility for the purchase of a
wetland in South Carolina. The ramifications of this as it applies
to other cases are not yet clear. This could result in a
disincentive for wetlands wastewater systems compared to other
wastewater management alternatives.
While funding through the CG program may be an important
issue to some communities, many communities wanting to use
wetlands for wastewater management will not be high enough on
the state priority list to receive Construction Grant funding.
Other state and regional funding sources (e.g., community
development block grants) might be available, but their policies
concerning the necessity of ownership and the eligibility of
purchasing the wetland would need to be investigated.
Options available for the funding of wetlands for wastewater
management follow.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3~70
o Reconsider Construction Grants eligibility for wetlands
providing pollutant removal necessary to meet downstream
standards
Significant Features
Requires a new interpretation from EPA's Office of
Water Programs concerning funding treatment facilities
Provides a mechanism for recognizing wetlands1 ability
to
renovate wastewater
Depending on the interpretation, funds for wetlands
purchase might be allowed
If CG funds were available, the use of wetlands, where
feasible, could be promoted
Would require regulations changes concerning waters of
the U.S.
I/A funding may be available
o No change
Significant Features
Discourages wetlands use when CG funds are available
Seems inconsistent with land treatment funding policy
Avoids problems associated with land purchases through
the CG program
Consideration 3 —
Extent of Wetlands Control Required for Funding. Based on
EPA's current position, wetlands are not considered part of the
secondary treatment process; therefore, their purchase cannot
be funded as part of the Construction Grants Program. A wet-
land discharge, however, still can be part of a wastewater
management plan. The pertinent question is, then, "What
extent of wetlands control or access is necessary for a project to
receive Construction Grants funding?" Demonstrated control or
access to a wetland may be necessary for a wetlands wastewater
management project to be grant eligible, even though purchase
of the wetland is not grant eligible.
In South Carolina, ownership of the wetland is necessary to
demonstrate control. Therefore, purchase of the wetland is
required regardless of whether Construction Grants funding is
sought. Alternatives to obtaining land through direct purchase
are land donations or land exchanges. In states where purchase
is not necessary, demonstrated control might be achieved
through long-term leases or rights-of-way. Construction
Grants guidelines stress the need for assured control or access
of all land associated with the wastewater management plan.
This is the reason control is required by some states inde-
pendent of the Construction Grants program. The importance of
wetland control is related to assuring wetland integrity and
assimilation are maintained. Without control, a property owner
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM 3~71
potentially could alter a wetland's uses and, therefore, reduce
the system's assimilative capabilities.
The following options should be evaluated when considering
the extent of wetland access or control required for CG funding.
o Require control in order to receive CG funds
Significant Features
- Assures long-term access to wetland
Could be essential to wetlands maintenance
- Control may require ownership
- If purchase/easement is not funded by CG program, it
could cause local funding problems and discourage
wetlands use
o No change
Significant Features
- If control is currently required or promoted, few
difficulties associated with no change
- If control is not currently required or promoted, no
change could result in difficulties with multiple use
characteristics of wetlands
- Failure to maintain wetland could result in revocation of
permit or development of new effluent limits
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES USER'S GUIDE
3-7
3.5 USER'S GUIDE
The Chapter 3 User's Guide is intended to highlight the major
institutional issues and provide guidance for decision making.
This Handbook is designed to present the major issues and some
of their solutions, so that programs regulating the use of
wetlands for wastewater management might be more efficient,
comprehensive and consistent. The objectives of the Clean
Water Act form the foundation for the guidance provided.
The User's Guide is divided into the three program areas
discussed in the chapter: Water Quality Standards, NPDES
Permits and Construction Grants. Technical support for
addressing the issues presented is found in subsequent chap-
ters. These are cross-indexed where appropriate for easy
access.
While the primary user of the User's Guides in Chapters 4, 6
and 7 is a potential discharger, this guide is designed primarily
for regulatory agency personnel and includes:
1. Presentation of the major issues identified for each of the
three major wastewater management regulatory programs
2. Questions to assess the pertinence of that issue to each
state regulatory program
3. Potential alternatives to help resolve ambiguities or lack
of program guidance.
Figure 3-6 provides an overview of the decision making
process for any wastewater management system. Highlighted on
the figure are the wetlands-specific considerations that should
be assessed. The NPDES permitting process is the common
denominator of any discharge to waters of the U.S., regardless
of Construction Grants eligibility. The permitting process is the
practical application of the WQS program to a wastewater dis-
charge. Therefore, if consistent procedures for evaluating,
planning, designing and protecting wetlands-wastewater
systems are desired, each of these components must be
addressed by regulatory programs. If a wastewater project is
not involved with the Construction Grants program, and asso-
ciated guidelines, one of the other pertinent regulatory pro-
grams should provide such guidance.
Forms 3-A, 3-B and 3-C summarize the issues raised for each
regulatory program and provide an outline for assessing the
relevance of the issue and potential alternatives for providing
regulatory guidance. Ultimately, three major options exist for
resolving outstanding issues:
-------
Wetlands
Functions and
Values
Chapter 2
State/Applicant
Consideration
of
Wetlands for
Wastewater
Management
Applicant
Discharge
Guidelines
Chapter 5
State/Applicant
State /Applicant
r State Ik
^Compile Information^
/for Permit Application
and Submit Application
Application
X Limitations
Chapters3&5
Funding
Available
through Construction
Grants
Chapter 3
Engineering
Design
Chapter 6
h
//Permit
'. Chapter 3x
'///////A
Applicant
Engineering Planning
Chapters 4 & 6
Detailed Site Evaluation
Chapter 4
Construction
and O&M
Chapter 7
Applicant/State
Applicant/
State
I Assessment
—J Techniques .-
/ Chapter 9 /
Compliance
and
Monitoring
Chapter 7
)
Figure :{-6. Relationship of the Handbook to the Decision Making Process.
U)
I
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES USER'S GUIDE
1. Changes in Clean Water Act guidelines or regulations
2. Modifications of state guidelines responding to Clean Water
Act programs
3. Adoption of state policies specific to wetlands discharges
and consistent with Clean Water Act objectives.
In addition to this Handbook, other federal and state
activities recently have been initiated to provide guidance on the
use of wetlands for wastewater management. Emanating from
the Environmental Assessment, and a similar effort in EPA
Region V, the EPA has established a task force composed of Head-
quarters and Regional personnel to address many of the
institutional issues raised in this chapter. Recommendations
related to specific program issues that need to be addressed by
EPA's program offices are expected to result from the task
force. The state of Florida passed legislation in 1984 requiring
rules to govern wetlands use for wastewater management. The
first draft of these rules is anticipated in August 1985.
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES MO PROCEDURES USER»S GUIDE 3~7
REGULATORY PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
FORM 3-A. SuMm-y of Water Quality Standards Program Considerations
Consideration 1—Incorporation of wetland functions and values Into water quality
standards use classifications.
Adopt a new WOS wetland use classification that broadly addresses all wetland
functions and values
Adopt new use classifications based on specific uses that are not currently
protected for wetlands (e.g., flow regulation, water purification)
Use wetland subcategorles under existing use classifications
- No change (use natural waters clause)
Consideration 2—Parameters to support wetland uses or subcategorles
Use of physical parameters
Use of biological parameters
- Use of chemical parameters
No change
Consideration 3—Types of criteria to support wetland parameters
Adopt numeric criteria
Adopt narrative criteria
Adopt a combination of numeric and narrative criteria
Adopt seasonal criteria
Adopt minimum, maximum and/or average guidelines for numeric criteria
No change
Consideration 4—Establishment of wetland specific standards
Establish use subcategory with generic narrative and/or numeric criteria
Establish use or subcategory and site-specific criteria where generic narrative
or numeric criteria are not appropriate
No change (I.e., no new use classification, employ site-specific criteria or
Invoke natural waters clause)
Consideration 5—Designation of wetland standards.
Designate wetland use classifications or subcategory on National Wetlands
Inventory mapping or other wetlands Inventory system
Designate wetland use classification or subcateogry on a site-specific basis
Use existing "natural waters" clause
No change
Does your state currently have standards criteria (generic) specifically for
wetlands? Yes No
If yes, does this alleviate the need to apply site-specific criteria? Yes
No
Is your current policy to require site-specific standard analyses for potential
wetland discharges? Yes No
Would the process of defining standards criteria for wetlands be made more efficient
if guidelines for determining site-specific standards were established? Yes
No
Which existing use classification most closely represents wetlands?
What are the main uses or functions protected by this use classification?
What other Important functions of wetlands are under your jurisdiction?
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES USER'S GUIDE 3-
FORM 3-A. Continued
Would protecting these uses or functions be consistent with the intent and qoals
of the Clean Water Act?
If the answer to the last question of the assessment Is yes, you may need to
consider either a new use classification or a use classification modifier to
define wetlands fully and protect them as waters of the U.S.
Have wetlands-related criteria been developed for your state? Yes
No
What are the criteria currently applied to wetlands?
Do these criteria protect the major wetlands functions and uses that have been
Identified? (See Chapter 2.)
What parameters define wetland functions and uses for which criteria are needed?
What criteria could be Instituted to support wetland use classifications? (See
Chapter 5.)
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES A» PROCEDURES USER'S GUIDE 3-7;
FORM 3-B. SiMMM-y of HUES Penalt Program Considerations
Consideration 1—Additional Permit Information
Use the Standard Form A NPDES permit application for any potential wetlands
discharge, regardless of size
Modify all NPDES permit application forms to Include a map displaying proposed
discharge location
Modify all NPDES permit application forms to Include wetlands discharge Information
Modify existing review procedures to require additional wetland discharge Information
Establish tiered approach for obtaining Information based on loading rate and wetland
type
No chanqe
Consideration 2~Potenttal Effluent Limitation Parameters
Adopt wetlands-specific guidelines for use of physical parameters (e.g., velocity,
hydraulic loading rates, etc.)
Adopt wetlands-specific guidelines for using chemical parameters (e.g., DO,
nutrients, pH)
Use combination of physical, biological and chemical parameters
No change
Consideration 3—Techniques for Determining Effluent Limitations for a Wetlands Discharge
Classify all wetlands effluent-limited, requiring secondary treatment, unless other
major discharges exist
Use a tiered approach of establishing effluent limits based on loading rates
Adapt currently used models or use more sophisticated models to establish effluent
limits for wetland discharges
Develop a standard method for performing qualitative analyses
No change
Consideration 4—Wetland Specific Permit Requirements/Conditions
Use of prescribed levels of pretreatment
Use of seasonal operational requirements
Use of Implementation schedule
Use of monitoring and reporting requirements
Use of ownership or access requirements
Use of In-stream performance criteria
No change
Consideration 5—Permit Compliance for Wetlands Discharges
Increase the level of EPA/state compliance Inspections for wetlands discharges
No change
Have guidelines been established for defining what Is or Is not a wetlands discharge?
(See chapter 4.) Yes No
Do you require additional Information on a permit application for a wetland
discharger Yes ^^^^^ No
If yes, what Information Is required?
Do you Impose additional compliance constraints or permit conditions for a wetlands
discharge? Yes No
If yes, what are they?
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES USER'S GUIDE 3-7?
FORM 3-B. ContInued
What methods are currently used In your state to obtain effluent limitations for
wetlands discharges?
What modifications have you made to conventional modeling applications?
What comprises an on-slte wetlands assessment?
How are analyses used to establish effluent limitations?
What Is the procedure for establishing limits for parameters not addressed by
standards (e.g., nutrients, metals, etc.)?
Do you establish permit conditions for parameters not addressed by water quality
standards? Yes No
If yes, what parameters?
Has your state established policies or guidelines for assessing parameters or
functions that are Important to wetlands protection? Yes No
Must permit requirements currently be met at the point of discharge to the wetlands
or from the wetland? To From Both
Do you allow variances In permitting wetlands discharges? Yes No
Do you delineate a wetlands mixing zone which Is exempt from meeting standards?
Yes No
Have the assimilative or treatment capacities of wetlands been Incorporated Into the
engineering design of any wetlands discharge In your state? Yes No ______
Have any wetlands In your state not been classified as waters of the U.S.? Yes
No
Since most wetlands are waters of the U.S., they are to be afforded all the
associated protective measures. As such, permit conditions must be met at the point
of discharge _to_ the wetland.
Is any amount of change acceptable as long as the wetland remains viable? Yes
No
Are any wetland changes acceptable? Yes No
Has this Issue been addressed by your state regulatory guidelines or policies?
Yes No
Does the wetland being considered for a wastewater discharge have any other direct
pol lutant sources? Yes No
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES USER'S GUIDE 3-
FORM 5-B. Continued
Does the wetland have any Indirect pollutant sources? Yes No
If yes, how many and how much flow?
Is the wetland classified the same as Its adjoining stream segment? Yes
No
If so, does the classification adequately characterize the wetland? Yes
No
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES USER'S GUIDE ^
FORM 3-° Suwwry of Construction Grants Program Considerations
Consideration 1--Incorporation of Wetland Specific Components
Modify CG guldelnies to address wetlands specific Issues
Develop technical guidance for considering wetland-waste water projects
Use the Freshwater Wetlands for Waste water Management Handbook to provide needed
guidance
No change
Consideration 2—Funding of wetlands for wastewater management
" r^ovaS!d^aCe«fr+Ctl°n^rantS e"9lbillty for wetlands providing pollutant
removal necessary to meet downstream standards
No change
Consideration 3— Extent of wet land s control required for funding
Require control In order to receive CG funds
No change
Has a •tl.nd^.a.i.t.r project In your state „„,,,,«, ,„ ,„„„,„,, Y.,
project were eligible for funding? - - ' aspects of the
use of tetlands been for treatment or disposal Of
;°rreyatmentCypr"eCss?teYrees ^ »£l~ '" the >^*> <* "«"- « P-rt
__
What current aspects of CG Guidelines directly pertain to watlands?
Are wetlands-specific design options delineated? Yes No
If yes, what are they?
system
9U'de a" aPP|Icant In P'a""'"9 »nd designing
What guidance is available for a community not eligible for Construction Grants
TundIng?
apply to wetlands? enylronmenta' revle" components outlined by CG Guidelines that
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURES USER'S GUIDE 3
Form 5-C Continued
Do these provide information on the full range of potential impacts to a vetland?
i e s No
If not, what components should be Included?
Based on existing guidelines, can a wetland- vastewter system currently be planned
and designed in conjunction with environmental concerns? Yes _ No P'annea
prc^ect is not grant-eligible, what environmental guidance Is
rov. , guance s
sstems? Programs for the design and protection of tetlandi- wstewater
sstems?
What extent of wetland control is required by your state?
purchase of all waste water discharge and treatment
I* It Important Aether the land is used for disposal or treatment? Yes
What are the funding sources available for purchase?
How are the boundaries or area requirements of land purchases determined?
What alternatives to purchase are acceptable for e
-------
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION
4.0 SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION
4.1 RELATIONSHIP TO INSTITUTIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEER-
ING PRACTICES 4_2
4.2 PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING
4.2.1 Considerations and Current Practices
4.2.2 Screening Components
o Wastewater Management Objectives and Wastewater
Characteristics
o Wetland Type
o Wetland Size and Topography
o Wetland Availability and Access
o Environmental Condition and Sensitivity
o Permitting Considerations and Effluent Limitations
4.3 COMPARISON OF WETLANDS USE TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES 4_17
4.3.1 Cost Analysis
4.3.2 Environmental Impacts
4.3.3 Operational Features
4.3.4 Implementation Factors
4.4 DETAILED SITE EVALUATION 4-22
4.4.1 Considerations and Current Practices
4.4.2 Evaluation Components
o Wetlands Identification
o Wetlands Values and Uses
o Watershed Characteristics and Connections
o Water Budget and Hydroperiod
o Background Water Quality Conditions
o Vegetation Species Composition
o Soils Characteristics
4.4.3 Wastewater Assimilation and Long-term Use Potential
4.5 USER'S GUIDE 4-40
-------
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION
4.0 SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION
Who should read this chapter? Anyone involved with evaluating potential
wetland sites for a wastewater discharge.
What are some of the Issues addressed by this chapter?
o How can wetlands be assessed for their use in wastewater
management?
o What components comprise wetlands site screening and evaluation?
o What level of analyses are reasonable?
Site Screening
and
Evaluation
Comparison of
Wetlands use to
Other
Alternatives
o Wastewater management
objectives and wastewater
characteristics
o Wetland type and size
o Availability and access
o Environmental condition
and sensitivity
o Permitting considerations
o Wetlands delineation
o WvOjind* values and uses
o Background water quality
o Vegetation/habitat survey
o Watershed characteristics
o Soils characteristics
o Archeological/historic resources
o Aesthetic/recreational values
o Public health
o Seasonal influences
o Assimilative capacity/
long-term potential
Figure 4-1. Overview of Site-Screening and Evaluation
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO PRACTICES 4-2
4.1 RELATIONSHIP TO INSTITUTIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEER-
ING PRACTICES
The screening and evaluation of potential wastewater treat-
ment facilities and disposal sites are essential elements of any
wastewater management project. Wetlands-specific guidance for
site screening and evaluation is limited although policies and
procedures governing the use of wetlands for wastewater man-
agement are now developing. As guidelines are developed, they
must incorporate the objectives of the Clean Water Act, parti-
cularly concerning water quality standards and antidegradation.
This chapter describes what parameters could compose pre-
liminary and detailed site screening analyses, why they are
important to the decision making process and when or under
what circumstances the screening and evaluation elements
apply. Of equal importance is how the analyses should be
conducted; these technical elements are described in Chapter 9.
The Chapter 4 User's Guide provides guidelines for assessing
each aspect of preliminary and detailed site screening.
Few comprehensive, long-term studies offer technical guide-
lines. Two potential sources of information are: 1) existing
wetlands discharges and 2) wetlands research projects. Guid-
ance from these sources of widely varying objectives has limited
applicability. Most existing wetlands discharges in the South-
east began because wetlands were the only or most accessible
alternative. Little, if any, site evaluation was conducted for
most of these discharges. At the other end of the spectrum,
most wetlands research projects have examined a broad range of
physical, chemical and biological parameters as part of site
evaluation and monitoring. Most municipal dischargers, how-
ever, do not have the financial or personnel resources to
conduct such exhaustive studies.
Several recent studies have addressed the evaluation of wet-
lands processes and values (Brown and Starnes 1983, Adamus
and Stockwell 1983, McCormick and Somes 1982, Michigan Dept.
of Natural Resources, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
1983), but few of these have been specifically applied to
wetlands used for wastewater management. If wetlands are to
be used as part of wastewater management systems, their uses
should be adequately evaluated prior to being permitted.
The guidelines proposed in this chapter are designed
primarily to meet permitting and water quality standards objec-
tives and are based on existing knowledge of wetlands systems
used for wastewater management. This chapter also addresses
several facets of engineering planning. The components of engi-
neering planning that do not influence directly the evaluation
and selection of a wetlands site are described in Chapter 6.
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO PRACTICES 4-3
The first step in evaluating a site is preliminary site
screening. The intention is to provide a relatively quick and
cost-effective procedure for determining when the use of a
wetland site does not appear to be appropriate nor feasible.
If the wetlands alternative appears to be feasible after the
preliminary screening, the most common or immediate obstacles
do not preclude discharging waste water to wetlands. The com-
parison of the wetlands alternative with the other potential
alternatives should then be conducted. This includes a compar-
ision of costs, operation and maintenance, long-term viability,
monitoring and permit requirements (including effluent limita-
tions). If the wetlands alternative still appears feasible, a
detailed site evaluation may be warranted. Although this evalua-
tion might indicate that the wetlands alternative is not feasible,
many obstacles at this level can be overcome by mitigation.
Figure 4-1 provides an overview of the site-screening process.
The use of indicator parameters (selected parameters that
clearly and simply depict conditions) would be desirable for
wetlands assessments. At this time, a technically-sound basis
for the use of indicator parameters is not available. However,
this chapter, by dividing site screening into preliminary and
detailed phases, attempts to identify the critical components and
provide an evaluation mechanism that is straightforward and
only as complicated as the conditions being evaluated. The
parameters identified in these phases are those critical to
decision making, engineering planning and wetlands protection.
The ultimate selection of a wetland site depends on meeting
the minimum requirements established for the three major topi-
cal areas: institutional, scientific and engineering. Site-selec-
tion is not based on any one of these, but all three. Limitations
in any one area (e.g., permitting difficulties, habitat for
endangered species, insufficient wetland area for wastewater
distribution) can result in a potential wetlands site being
considered not feasible or inappropriate. Therefore, equal
attention is required to each area.
The concept of a tiered approach to evaluating wetlands
discharges is presented in Section 3.3.4. Its main purpose is to
establish administrative and evaluative requirements commen-
surate with the degree of risk or uncertainty presented by a
proposed wetlands discharge. Regardless of the proposed dis-
charge, all site screening components should be conducted. The
only impact of a tiered approach might be in determining the
number of parameters evaluated and the extensiveness of
analysis for the detailed site evaluation. The evaluation
components are the same, but a Tier 2 discharge might benefit
from or need to conduct a more detailed evaluation than a Tier 1
discharge. Table 3-4 summarizes the classification of Tier 1 and
Tier 2 discharges. These potential differences are discussed
with sampling program design in Section 9.2.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4_4
4.2 PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING
This section provides a checklist of variables that will indi-
cate readily if the wetlands alternative is not feasible. The
determination of whether a wetland Js_ feasible generally cannot
be made until additional analyses have been completed. This
approach provides a cost-effective means for conducting prelim-
inary feasibility analyses such that significant obstacles are
identified early in the planning process. The potential
discharger can then direct resources to other alternatives if the
wetlands alternative is judged to be infeasible.
The previous section indicated that screening and evaluation
guidance is needed that recognizes and responds to objectives of
the Clean Water Act. On a more practical level, engineering
planning issues also are essential to the screening process and
may impact the feasibility of using wetlands. Therefore, guide-
lines should incorporate not only the concerns of regulatory pro-
grams, but also engineering planning concerns such as size re-
quirements, availability and access, waste water characteristics
and cost effectiveness.
4.2.1 Considerations and Current Practices
None of the Region IV states has specific guidelines for
evaluating wetland wastewater discharge sites. Each state
typically requires a site-specific analysis of a proposed
wetlands discharge site. The composition of these site-specific
analyses varies, so a standard list of parameters or procedures
is not available. Regulatory agency personnel conduct the
site-specific analyses, observing vegetation type, general
watershed characteristics and existing conditions.
4.2.2 Screening Components
The preliminary screening process suggested by this Hand-
book involves analyses in six areas:
1. Wastewater management objectives and characteristics
2. Wetland type
3. Wetland size and topography
4. Wetland availability and access
5. Environmental condition and sensitivity
6. Permitting considerations.
Each of these has a fundamental influence on the feasibility or
appropriateness of a wetlands discharge. If one component
proves to be limiting, sufficient cause may exist to consider the
wetlands alternative unacceptable. The discussion of each area
of analysis is followed by a summary of potential limitations and
their possible mitigation.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING
In the course of conducting preliminary site screening, a
diagram of the proposed site with the approximate location of the
treatment facility and conveyances should be prepared. Use of
a topographic map is suggested. This should be helpful not only
in visualizing considerations such as wetland access, but also in
conducting the comparison of alternatives.
Wastewater Characteristics and Management Objectives. The
first element of the screening process involves an assessment of
wastewater characteristics and the role of wetlands in the
wastewater management plan, as depicted in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2. Important Issues Addressed by Preliminary Site Screening
-€f±>
•^3^ _*^^*^^^
How much wastewater wfll be discharged?
What are waste water sources?
What is the reason for Using wetlands?
What type of wetland is being used?
How large is the wetland?
What area will be affected by the discharge?
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
Characterizing the wastewater influent to the treatment
facility and the general quality of the wastewater effluent after
treatment is important to planning and, ultimately, design deci-
sions. This Handbook addresses only domestic municipal waste-
water discharging to wetlands systems. If an influent contains
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4-6
large quantities of potentially toxic substances such as heavy
metals, pesticides, herbicides, dyes or salts, then special care
must be taken if a wetland is part of the wastewater management
system. Pretreatment may be mandatory. The few cases of docu-
mented tree kills in wetlands resulting from discharges have
been associated with industrial or commercial discharges. High
concentrations of salts and solvents have been suspected of
causing damage to wetlands into which they discharged (EPA
1983).
Even when wetlands are to be used primarily for domestic,
municipal sewage, it is still important to characterize the
effluent based on the type of treatment anticipated prior to
discharging to the wetland. High levels of un-ionized ammonia
entering wetlands have caused fish toxicity problems in some
systems (Mt. View Sanitary District 1983). Other nutrient
forms and metals entering a wetland can affect its character-
istics as well. Also, major changes in pH resulting from waste-
water can be detrimental to certain wetland systems (Kadlec
1985).
This leads to the importance of defining the wetland's role in
a wastewater management system. Effluent limits based on a
minimum of secondary treatment must be met at the point of dis-
charge to the wetland. The required secondary treatment must
be achieved prior to discharging to the wetland.
Two primary roles can be served by the wetland. If
additional wastewater renovation is not required to meet
downstream standards, the wetland simply acts as a receiving
water. The normal assimilative capabilities of the wetland are
incorporated into the standards criteria and effluent limits
established to meet those criteria. In this instance, efforts to
enhance the renovation capabilities of the wetland are not
necessary. The second role is that of seeking additional
renovation or treatment. Standards criteria still must be met in
the wetland. But if downstream waters have more stringent
standards criteria for certain parameters, e.g., nutrients, the
wetland could be used to achieve this additional polishing. In
such a case, system design might be tailored to enhance the
nutrient removal capacity of the wetland. Therefore, it is
important to define what role the wetland will serve in the
wastewater management scheme.
Following are some of the major limitations to wetlands use
which could be encountered in assessing wastewater charac-
teristics. Potential mitigation options also are listed.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4-7
Wastewater Characteristics -
Major Limitations to Wetlands Use
Limitation
1. Wastewater stream
contains potentially
toxic pollutants.
2. Wastewater flows may
significantly alter
the existing hydroperiod
(seasonal water level
fluctuations).
3. Water chemistry changes
(e.g., pH) are
detrimental to wetland
viability.
Potential Mitigation
o Verifiable pretreatment
or reject use of wetland
site.
o Sufficient area to alternate
discharging and resting.
o Incorporation of seasonal
fluctuations in opera-
tion schedule to match
natural fluctuations.
(e.g., storage of
wastewater).
o Alter water chemistry
of effluent.
o If not possible, reject
wetland site.
Wetland Type. The identification of wetland type is a
fundamental element in screening because so many other screen-
ing components depend on the characteristics of the wetland.
Wetland sensitivity, uniqueness and wastewater management
capabilities vary, and often are evaluated by wetland type.
Identification of wetland type is not always straightforward and
in many instances will require the assistance of a field biologist.
Some state and federal agencies (particularly fish and wildlife
resource agencies) have qualified personnel who can assist with
wetlands identification. Additionally, Table 2-3 provides
information on identified unique and endangered wetland types.
Classifying wetlands has been the subject of extensive study
for many years. Different agencies have used different classifi-
cation schemes for identifying wetland types. In recent years,
more agencies have adopted the approach proposed by the Fish
and Wildlife Service (Cowardin 1979). Many states still are
using and developing techniques, however, that pertain speci-
fically to the wetland types under their jurisdiction. For
example, the state of Florida has developed a vegetation list for
defining wetland boundaries and type. A variety of classifi-
cation techniques continues to be used.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4-8
The Cowardin system is probably the most exhaustive tech-
nique of those currently available. The major determinant with
this system is the predominant vegetation type (as it is with
most classification schemes); other important determinants are
soils and hydrology. Nearly all classification systems are based
on a combination of these three characteristics. Simplified
techniques relating to visual field analyses of soils, for example,
are being developed in an attempt to make wetland classification
easier.
How does the classification of wetlands relate to wastewater
management issues? The ability of wetlands to accept a waste-
water discharge varies significantly. Primarily, this ability is
based on the hydrology and hydrologic sensitivity of wetlands.
Some wetlands react poorly to the addition of flows that alter
their hydroperiod (the normal water level fluctuations) or water
chemistry. Table 8-3 lists some of the limitations of certain
wetland types for receiving wastewater.
Since not all wetland types or wetlands react the same to
wastewater additions, it is not prudent nor possible to make
universal pronouncements concerning the acceptability of a
certain wetland type for use under any conditions. For
example, a cypress dome may be acceptable for use under some
conditions but not others, depending on uses, hydrology, soils,
hydrologic interconnections, water chemistry or habitat for
endangered species.
On the other hand, it may be possible on a state-by-state
basis to exclude a particular wetlands type for use based on
distribution, uniqueness or sensitivity to additional flows. If,
for example, a wetland type is unique to a state and only locally
distributed, this wetland type might be considered unacceptable
for use. State fish and wildlife agencies should be contacted to
determine uniqueness and distribution. Section 2.4 indicates
the unique or endangered wetland types identified by district
Fish and Wildlife Service offices or state natural heritage
programs for Region IV states.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4~9
Wetland Type -
Major Limitations to Wetland Use
Limitation
1.
Wetland type considered
highly sensitive to
added flows or changes
in water chemistry.
2.
Wetland type locally
distributed, only habi-
tat for endangered species,
considered unique.
Acceptability of type
uncertain due to lack
of available information
or knowledge of the
system.
Potential Mitigation
o Maintain waste water flows
below those levels that
are considered critical through
the use of storage capability,
multiple wetland cells or
increasing the area of
wetland to be used.
o Select another alterna-
tive.
o Pursue other alternatives;
assess feasibility only if
this is the sole
alternative.
o Conduct a pilot project
in a controlled area,
as required by regulatory
agencies, including assess-
ment of hydrology, vegetation
and water quality.
Wetland Size and Topography. If an acceptable wetland type
is located near the community (e.g., within 1-10 miles, depend-
ing on size of flow), the size and topography of the wetland are
the next considerations. Size is important since it controls the
maximum flows that can be applied. Sufficient size to maintain
conservative loading rates (for wetlands protection) and allow
resting or drying periods is desirable. Proposed sizing guide-
lines of 1) sixty people per hectare (2.47 acres) (for 50 percent
nutrient removal) (Nichols 1983) or 2) one inch per week can be
used as preliminary indicators (Odum 1976). Larger loading
rates, requiring less area are appropriate under some
circumstances. More detailed analyses are necessary, however,
to determine the amount of wetland area required for achieving
proper assimilation and meeting standards. An important
consideration in estimating size is the "effective" size of the
wetland. Since total mixing may not occur in a wetland due to
hydraulic gradients and loadings, the portion of the wetland
involved in renovation or impacted by the discharge should be
evaluated. How this relates to design decisions is discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 6. General guidelines considered for
preliminary screening are discussed in the User's Guide.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING
The topography of a wetland also should be considered as it
pertains to wastewater management objectives. If disposal/assim-
ilation is the major objective, then the topography of the wetland
primarily will affect engineering planning (e.g., determination
of discharge mechanism as it controls distribution and velocity).
Wetland topography also affects certain uses. A wetland with
irregular boundaries would enhance wildlife habitat values,
while a wetland with contrasting relief might increase recrea-
tional potential. If enhanced wastewater renovation is the main
objective then the topography of the wetland also could affect
the feasibility assessment. In this case the shape, slope,
channelization pattern and bottom surface need to be assessed
since they affect the stated objective (e.g., nutrient removal,
sediment trapping). Adamus and Stockwell (1983) provide some
discussion of the relationship of wetland topography to wetland
processes and values. Impacts of wetland size and topography
on engineering design are discussed further in Chapter 6.
Listed below are some of the major limitations to wetlands
use which could be encountered in assessing wetland size.
Potential mitigation options also are listed.
Wetland Size and Topography -
Major Limitations to Wetland Use
Limitation
1. Area not sufficient
for flows of one
inch/week.
2. Size requirements
uncertain due to lack
of available information.
3. Effective size difficult
to determine.
4. Topography unsuitable
for wastewater management
objectives.
5. Effects of topography
uncertain.
Potential
Mitigation
o Consider multiple cells
or adjacent wetland that
would allow for resting of
wetland.
o Use wetland to treat only
part of the wastewater flow.
o Demonstrate that greater
flows will maintain wetland
standards and prevent
degradation.
o Conduct pilot study, if
feasible.
o Propose increased monitoring
and backup system.
o Propose additional monitoring
to establish area of influence.
o Conduct pilot study,
including tracer analysis.
o Locate another wetland.
o Modify objectives.
o Propose additional treatment/
engineering practices.
o Conduct pilot study.
o Reassess objectives.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4-1
Wetland Availability and Access. A proposed wetland site
may meet other requirements; but if availability and access are
constraining, the project may not be feasible. Availability
refers in part to the ownership of the wetland. Many wetlands,
particularly hydrologically isolated systems such as Carolina
Bays or cypress domes, often are owned privately. If the
wetlands being considered are waters of the U.S. and are owned
privately, are they available through purchase, land trade or
long-term lease? Access or control of privately held wetlands
must be demonstrated in most states for wastewater management
use.
If the wetland is owned publicly, availability is less of a
problem if the potential discharger is a public utility. Avail-
ability of a publicly owned wetland as a discharge site for a pri-
vate discharge may require mechanisms similar to those discus-
sed for privately held wetlands.
Access to a wetland has two components: access from the
treatment facility and access to the wetland. The major cost
associated with using wetlands for wastewater management is
typically that of conveying effluent to the wetland. Therefore,
the distance of the wetland from the treatment facility is import-
ant. If the wetland is too far from the treatment facility, the
wetland alternative may prove to be too expensive because of
pumping costs. In the case where adjacent wetlands are requir-
ed to have sufficient wetland acreage, one wetland may be close,
whereas the second system may be too distant to be cost-effec-
tive. These issues are discussed further in Chapter 6.
The other aspect of access relates to access to the wetland
itself. From a public health standpoint, will access by the
public to the wetland be controlled if used for wastewater
management? In cases of smaller, isolated wetlands, this may be
possible. For interconnected systems, this may be impractical.
Also, for operational and monitoring purposes, is the wetland
easily reached, or will special vehicles be necessary for access
under some conditions?
Additionally, a wetland should have ease of access for con-
struction, monitoring and maintenance. Distance, underbrush,
wet soils and lack of stream channels can limit access under
certain conditions. Such limitations need to be considered in
evaluating a potential wetlands site.
Listed below are some of the major limitations to wetlands
use which could be encountered in assessing wetland availability
and access. Potential mitigation options also are listed.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4~! 2
Wetland Availability and Access -
Major Limitations to Wetland Use
Limitations
1. Privately owned wet-
land not for sale.
2. Publicly owned wetland
has other uses.
3. Access to a wetland
receiving waste water
cannot be controlled.
4. State requires ownership
for adequate control
of site, but ownership
is not possible nor
affordable.
5. Access to wetland is
difficult during wet
periods.
Potential Mitigation
o Long-term lease, land swap,
easement with use rights.
o Design discharge to min-
imize effects to other
uses. If not possible,
wetland is not
appropriate for use.
o Work with public health
department to provide
adequate safeguards.
o Check legal options
(e.g., condemnation).
If not appropriate,
evaluate another site
or pursue other options.
o If affordable, purchase
equipment necessary.
Environmental Condition and Sensitivity. At the preliminary
screening stage, a detailed analysis of environmental conditions
including vegetation, macroinvertebrates, water quality, water
budget and seasonal characteristics is not necessary. At this
stage, however, the general environmental condition and
sensitivity of the proposed wetland site should be examined.
This can be accomplished primarily from maps and a field visit.
The environmental condition of a wetland refers to its
current state and functions. Primary considerations are other
pollutant sources to the wetland, visible signs of stress to
vegetation, changed use patterns and hydrologic interconnec-
tions. A general consensus exists among most wetland scientists
that using wetlands which already have experienced some modifi-
cations or influences from development would be preferential to
using a wetland in its pristine state. In other words, in
searching for wetlands discharge sites, systems that have some
prior modification should be evaluated first. A higher degree of
protection should be afforded those wetlands that are in or near
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4-1:
pristine condition. Land use maps often can assist in defining
existing or projected development affecting wetlands.
Environmental sensitivity is an equally important element in
assessing the long-term ability of a wetland to receive waste-
water, yet maintain its functions and vahies. Table 8-3
indicates the general sensitivity of certain wetland types to
perturbations. Some wetlands in their natural state are more
vulnerable to changes in water levels or water chemistry than
others. Potential changes in hydroperiod resulting from a
wastewater discharge is probably the most important consider-
ation. Also, little is known about the sensitivity of some
wetlands types that have not been studied extensively. A
higher level of protection should be afforded these systems
(e.g., Atlantic White Cedar bogs, Carolina bays).
Environmental sensitivity needs to be considered on a
site-specific basis for many of the reasons discussed above.
Wetlands having experienced modifications need to be examined
for stress to assess additional impacts from discharging
wastewater. Table 2-3 provides information on unique and
endangered wetland types.
It is widely accepted that changes will occur in a wetland
receiving wastewater. The key consideration is whether the
wetland can remain viable after initiating hydrologic or chemical
modifications. The importance of wetland changes resulting from
wastewater discharges further depends on the extent of change
that is considered acceptable.
Listed below are some of the major limitations to wetlands
use which could be encountered in assessing environmental
condition and sensitivity. Potential mitigation options also are
listed. The suggested mitigation for limitations 1 and 2 actually
could serve to reverse wetland stress caused by other
activities.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING
Environmental Condition and Sensitivity -
Major Limitations to Wetland Use
Limitations
1. Flows into a wetland
have been affected by
modifications in the
watershed.
2. Flows from a wetland
have been affected by
modifications in the
watershed.
3.
Wetland has been
channelized.
4.
5.
The only wetland avail-
able is sensitive to
changes in flow.
The only wetland
available is sensitive
to changes in water
chemistry.
Potential Mitigation
o Wastewater flows might
actually restore flows
that have been diverted,
o In the case where modi-
fications to the outlet
have caused ponding,
obstructions may need
to be removed.
o Return spoil to channel,
as feasible, to permit
normal flooding and
flow patterns through
the original flood plain.
o If possible, schedule
flows to reflect the
natural wet and dry
seasons. Storage ponds
or multiple cells
may be necessary.
o If additional treatment
steps to minimize the
expected changes cannot
be provided, the
site should be rejected.
Permitting Considerations and Effluent Limitations. In the
practical application of assessing the use of wetlands for waste-
water management, the preliminary screening phase is the appro-
priate time for evaluating the permit considerations of the
specific project being proposed. Figure 4-3 displays some of
these considerations.
Regardless of the applicability of Construction Grants
guidelines, permit requirements and conditions always will be
applicable to any discharge to wetlands considered waters of the
U.S.
-------
4-15
Figure 4-3. Potential Permitting Issues Affecting Preliminary Site
Screening and Engineering Planning.
Step 1. IDENTIFY PROTECTED USES:
AI Wetland use classification or
A£ Adjacent water body use classification
Step 2. ESTABLISH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO
MAINTAIN PROTECTED USES:
Bj Wetland Water Quality
82 Downstream Water Quality (if applicable)
Step 3. DETERMINE WASTE WATER DISCHARGE LOADING
CRITERIA WITHIN WETLAND TOLERANCE LIMITS.
C Point of Discharge
Step 4. ESTABLISH EFFLUENT LIMITS BASED ON WETLAND
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND DISCHARGE
LOADING CRITERIA.
D! Usual Point of Discharge into Wetland
D2 Leaving the Wetland if Wetland is used for
its Assimilative Capacity.
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
-------
PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING 4-16
Permit considerations potentially could eliminate the use of a
particular wetland for wastewater management even if the prelim-
inary screening technical appraisal appears positive. The
applicant should work closely with the regulatory agency respon-
sible for permitting. Before the wetlands alternative and the
proposed wetlands site can be considered viable, the applicant
must understand thoroughly permit requirements and condi-
tions, including the setting of effluent limits, design factors,
wetlands construction guidelines and monitoring.
-------
COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES 4-Li
4.3 COMPARISON OF WETLANDS USE TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Before efforts are made to gather detailed site evaluation
information, the wetlands alternative should be compared and
evaluated with other wastewater management systems (e.g., sur-
face water discharge, land application, wastewater reuse,
etc.). If the project is being funded by Construction Grants
program, the alternative comparision process is included as part
of the 201 Facilities Plan. The core method used, and that which
meets EPA requirements, is a cost-effectiveness analysis. This
type of analysis involves determining and comparing:
o Costs
o Environmental Impacts
o Operational Features
o Implementation Factors.
Information on these factors should be gathered for each
alternative to determine if that alternative meets wastewater
management needs of the community. The list of viable alter-
natives can then be analyzed to establish the most cost-effective
alternative. The least-cost alternative is not necessarily the
most cost-effective alternative.
The first phase of the process is determining project
viability. It is obvious that a project is viable only if the
benefits derived exceed the project costs. For wetland-
wastewater alternatives some costs and benefits include:
Benefits Costs
o Wetlands preservation o Capital Costs (design,
o Maintenance of wetland equipment, installation)
values for flood o Operation, maintenance & replace-
control, timbering, etc. ment costs (energy, labor,
o Possible harvested chemicals)
commodities (timber, o Land access & legal costs
fish, forage) o Monitoring
o Enhanced wastewater o Possible costs to home & busi-
assimulation, improving ness from lowered property
downstream or adjacent values
waters. o Environmental loss in land,
o Avoiding public health or air and water systems
environmentally damag- a) Water quality
ing problems of other b) Aquatic habitat
wastewater alternatives o Possible adverse public reaction
o Possible receipt of grant
funding (e.g., I/A funds)
o Relatively low technology
system
-------
COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES 4-1 fi
Most of the benefits and certain types of costs cannot be
quantified in one numerical value. One of the key aspects of a
cost-effectiveness analysis is comparing ranges of values and
qualitative descriptions with quantifiable dollar costs. The
n son n yzing costs and benefits needs to consider carefully
why certain benefits and costs cannot be quantified and how
quantifiable factors can be equated to qualitative factors. In
determining project viability and comparing alternatives, a
decision matrix or other method that systematically compares
alternatives could be used. These methods allow for subjective
information and qualified judgement to enter the decision
process.
4.3.1 Cost Analysis
Cost analyses for wetlands-wastewater systems are largely
dependent on the thorough identification of wetlands uses and
interconnections with other water bodies. The proximity of
. proposed wetlands sites to the treatment facility and community
also is a primary element of a cost analysis. Other engineering
options which might affect costs of a wetlands-wastewater
system, such as dechlorination or distribution systems, should
be assessed as well. Hyde et al. (1982) and Southerland (1985)
discuss economic aspects of using wetlands for waste water
management.
Of special interest to wetlands systems is the concern for
appraising the wetland resources that are either lost or gained
by utilizing the wetland as a waste water management system.
Many wetlands functions and values have a direct cost valua-
tion, such as timber removed from bottomland hardwoods or com-
mercial fish and shellfish harvesting. Other values may be
indirectly tied with the wetland under consideration: for
example, in many wetlands, fish migration up and down asso-
ciated streams is important not only to andromous fishes in the
lower Coastal Plain, but also to resident freshwater species that
move into the headwaters for spawning. Also, wetlands with
unused hydraulic storage can act as valuable flood control
systems for downstream areas.
A wetland used as a wastewater management system may con-
tinue to function in other commercially valuable roles if properly
designed and managed, or valuable roles may be lost. The value
placed on these roles can be converted to dollars if a harvestable
product is involved, an equivalent facility construction cost can
be determined or projections of cultural gains or losses can be
made (e.g., timbering, flood damage, eutrophication preven-
tion, recreational usage). This evaluation should be conducted
for all potential wetlands discharges, with emphasis on Tier 2
discharges. Dollar costs which can be quantified should be
determined with traditional engineering cost estimating pro-
cedures. Two methods are available for assessing one-time and
-------
COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES 4-19
periodically-occurring costs, allowing for the time lag between
planning and construction and equating the cost value of dif-
ferent service lives of equipment and facilities: present worth
and equivalent uniform annual costs. These costing methods can
be used for comparing wetland-wastewater management systems
with other treatment/disposal system alternatives in the same
manner as they are applied to other types of wastewater sys-
tems. Figure 4-4 displays the type of cost-comparison that is
helpful in evaluating alternatives.
4.3.2 Environmental Impacts
Environmental impact evaluations include determining the
effects of the proposed systems on natural factors (e.g., water
quality and quantity, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, ground-
water, geology, air quality) and man-made factors (e.g., public
health, recreation and land use). Environmental benefits and
disadvantages pertinent to feasibility can be described and
assessed qualitatively. Significance, duration, seasonal
variation and reversibility of environmental impacts merit
evaluation. For some environmental factors, such as surface
water quality in relation to treatment requirements, input from
state environmental agencies is needed. Measures to mitigate
environmental impacts also should be considered.
Potential environmental impacts that should be assessed and
compared for wastewater management alternatives which include
wetlands are:
o Stress imposed due to wastewater quantity or quality
(e.g., hydraulic overloading or industrial constituents)
o Alteration of economic value or land use near selected
site and/or surrounding upland area due to wastewater
input
o Possible channelized flow through the wetland down-
stream of the discharge
o Possible generation of odors and propagation of
disease-transmitting organisms
o Potential production of chlorinated hydrocarbons
associated with some wetland soils
o Changes in vegetation species, productivity or diversity
o Impacts to wildlife or their habitat
o Impacts on sensitive or unique wetlands
o Impacts to downstream water quality and uses.
A valid alternatives comparison requires assessing the
impacts of all potential alternatives. Land application, stream
discharges and small community systems all have potential bene-
fits, as well as potential adverse environmental impacts. The
size of the discharge, the amount of land or streamflow, existing
environmental conditions, sensitivity to wastewater flow,
assimilative capacity, public health concerns and ecological
-------
4-20
Figure 4-4. Examples of Cost Comparisons Using Wetlands for Waste water
Management.
1,400
Wetland
Costs
vs
Distance
from Ponds
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8
POND-WETLAND DISTANCE (nrilM), D
1.4
Wetland:
Spray Irrigation
Cost Raio
vs
Wetland Distance
1.0
I"
0.4
r*-o.6»
12345678
POND-WETLAND DISTANCE (mllM),D
Source: Southerland 1985.
-------
COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES 4~21
characteristics should be evaluated for each alternative. A
discussion of potential wetlands responses to wastewater
application is presented in Chapter 8.
4.3.3 Operational Features
Operational features for wastewater management alterna-
tives include reliability of system performance to maintain
effluent limitations and permit requirements (e.g., biological
monitoring, instream performance criteria, post-discharge
monitoring), maintenance needs (e.g., energy requirements,
variable climate conditions, vegetation maintenance or harvest-
ing) and flexibility in operating the wastewater system (e.g.,
controlling flows to wetlands, variable discharge schedules,
seasonal operation). As with environmental effects, operational
factors are not easily quantifiable, but they can be described
qualitatively. Operation features and options for wetlands
discharges are discussed in Chapter 7.
4.3.4 Implementation Factors
Implementation determinants include the ability of a muni-
cipality to pay for a proposed project (user charges, wetland
purchase if required), public acceptance as measured through-
out the facilities planning/EIS process, possible institutional
constraints (such as zoning, land ownership or existing muni-
cipal debt) and planning flexibility (e.g., space for treatment
plant expansion, multiple wetlands cells for resting periods).
Wetland-wastewater systems may find diverse and confusing
public acceptance. Many people view wetlands as valuable and
highly sensitive systems; others consider wetlands as nuisance
areas that breed mosquitoes. People with these attitudes could
resist wastewater application in wetlands, expecting it to
worsen existing conditions (more mosquitoes) or to worsen the
already damaged or limited ecosystem. Public education based
on increasing knowledge of wetlands used for wastewater
management and experience with impact-reducing engineering
options may be a necessary aspect of wetlands-wastewater
system implementation. Uncertainties and risks still associated
with wastewater discharges also would need to be addressed in
" " unction with potential mitigation alternatives.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION 4-2;
4.4 DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
If the use of wetlands as part of a wastewater management
plan still is feasible after preliminary site screening and
comparison with other alternatives, the detailed site evaluation
should be conducted. This evaluation builds on information
gained from the previous tasks and serves the following
furwjions:
1. It is the primary scientific determination of wetlands site
feasibility
2. It is the basis for engineering design
3. It provides background information for assessing wetlands
impacts.
This section highlights the major scientific and cultural
aspects of wetlands critical to understanding and assessing
wetlands use fully, which provides the basis for decision making
and engineering design. After this evaluation, the primary
institutional and scientific issues should have been addressed,
leaving engineering design considerations as the final step for
determining wetlands site feasibility. The scope of work for the
detailed site evaluation will be determined on a project specific
basis. It will depend on elements such as wastewater loading,
wetland type, wetlands processes and uses, wetland sensitiv-
ity, etc. Differences in the scope of evaluations for wetland
discharges are suggested in Section 3.3.4, based on the concept
of tiering information requests depending on the relative uncer-
tainties associated with the proposed discharge. Generally, if a
wetland discharge incorporates conservative features (i.e., low
loading rates, small volume, altered wetland, disposal only) less
information would be required. Discharges presenting greater
risk or uncertainty would be asked to provide more information.
The impact of a tiering system for information requests depends
on whether a state adopts such a system, the criteria on which
it is based and associated guidance. Section 9.2 provides
information on how to perform the evaluations discussed.
4.4.1 Considerations and Current Practices
Most Region IV states conduct site investigations for wet-
lands proposed for wastewater management use. These analyses
typically include an assessment of the visual condition of the
wetland, potential pollutant sources, existing uses and general
hydrologic characteristics. Procedures for conducting site
investigations typically are not well-defined. From a regulatory
perspective, the detailed site evaluation could serve to provide
needed information concerning site-specific standards and
effluent limitations. Therefore, it is recommended that the
scope and detail of site investigations be considered in light of
these potential regulatory needs. The applicant and regulatory
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION 4-23
agency should work closely when designing the detailed site
evaluation to assure that the needs of both are met. Information
for permit applications which leads to permit conditions could be
obtained from the detailed site evaluation or state-conducted
on-site assessments.
4.4.2 Evaluation Components
Seven components of a detailed site evaluation are discussed
below. These components represent the range of information
necessary to assess fully a potential wetlands discharge site,
including:
1. Wetlands identification
2. Wetlands values and uses
3. Watershed characteristics and connections
4. Water budget and hydroperiod
5. Background water quality conditions
6. Wetland ecology
7. Soils characteristics.
The need to evaluate these components and their importance to
decision making is discussed below. Using the proposed tiering
system, some elements of the components presented would be
considered Tier 1 discharge assessments and others Tier 2
discharge assessments. Tier 1 assessments would be conducted
for all discharges. Tier 2 assessments will be categorized as
basic or elective. Basic Tier 2 assessments would be conducted
for all Tier 2 discharges and elective assessments only as
conditions warrant. Chapter 9 discusses the different levels of
analyses associated with Tier 1 and Tier 2 information requests,
and appropriate methods.
Wetlands Identification. Wetlands identification is composed
of two major elements: wetlands classification and wetlands
boundaries. As part of the preliminary site screening, a gen-
eral assessment of wetland type, size and topography is con-
ducted. This evaluation should confirm the wetland classifica-
tion and boundaries as a basis for assessing wetlands functions
and values and to meeting regulatory requirements. Ultimately,
engineering design will be based on characteristics associated
with specific wetland types.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) method for clas-
sifying wetlands generally is regarded as the most thorough and
accurate method. The distinction should be understood, how-
ever, between wetlands defined by Clean Water Act regulations
and the classification of wetland type. The former defines
wetlands that are waters of the U.S., the latter classifies the
type of wetland. Through the National Wetlands Inventory,
many wetlands within Region IV states have been mapped. If
maps have not been developed for a particular area, the field
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
4-24
offices of the FWS can be contacted for assistance in classifying
a wetland. Figure 4-5 provides an example of a National
Wetlands Inventory map and its potential use for identifying
wetland types and boundaries. Methods that have been used on
a local or state-wide basis offer another means for assessing
wetland type and boundaries. Table 2-1 shows the relationship
between common names for wetlands types and the FWS counter-
part. From a regulatory viewpoint, it is helpful to identify a
wetland by both descriptors. Wetland types respond in a
variety of ways to wastewater additions. In some wetlands the
hydraulic loads will be most important; in others the potential
changes in water chemistry wfll be critical. The timing or
scheduling of discharges also will be more crucial in some
wetlands than others. Table 8-3 presents some known sensitiv-
ities of different wetland types.
Figure 4-5. National Wetlands Inventory Map for an Area near
Clearwater, Florida.
Example Legend: National Wetlands Inventory, Oldsmar, FLi.
PEM5C - Palustrine, emergent, narrow-leaved, persistent, seasonal
water regime
PF02F - Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved deciduous,
semipermanent water regime
POWH - Palustrine, open water, permanent water regime
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
The definition of wetland boundaries is a topic of continuing
debate among various regulatory agencies. Some agencies base
the determination of wetland boundaries on soils, some on vege-
tation and others on A combination of both. Florida is the only
Region IV state that has developed a state-authorized system for
determining wetland boundaries based on a list of wetlands
vegetation. Other states use methods adopted by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The issue of boundaries is important to the use of wetlands for
wastewater management for several reasons. For design pur-
poses, it is necessary to know the size of the wetland and the
amount of the wetland that will be impacted by the discharge.
From a regulatory perspective, identification of wetland boun-
daries is important to the definition of what is, or is not, a
wetlands discharge. Wetlands boundaries determine jurisdic-
tional responsibilities which could affect access, availability and
ownership issues.
Wetland boundaries determined by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers are typically used by the U.S. EPA. Three criteria
are used to establish boundaries: 1) vegetation, 2) soils, and 3)
hydrologic indicators (such as water marks on trees, crayfish
holes, etc.). Each district office of the U.S. COE has a vegeta-
tion list developed for wetlands under their jurisdiction. For
waters defined as waters of the U.S., the National Wetlands
Inventory might also be used to assess wetland boundaries in
conjunction with topographic and soils maps and aerial
photographs.
Wetlands Values and Uses. It is important to identify the
major values and uses of any wetland being considered for waste-
water management. If the wetland area is addressed adequately
by the WQS program, its major uses and use potential should be
identified. States' antidegradation policies relating to existing
uses may also affect wastewater management decisions.
Assessments should be made on a site-specific basis to
estimate the degree to which the primary wetland functions and
values listed in Table 2-2 will be impacted by a wastewater
discharge. Table 4-1 summarizes the relationship between
various wetland characteristics and wetland functions. Such
relationships should be evaluated in the decision-making pro-
cess. Multiple uses also should be recognized and, if necessary,
addressed by the design and mitigation planning processes. A
potential wetlands discharger should contact the appropriate
regulatory agencies prior to developing a sampling program to
determine which parameters will be required by regulatory
guidelines (i.e., either incorporated into the WQS program or
NPDES permit conditions). Also, it should be determined
whether the state or applicant is responsible for evaluating
certain parameters. Figures 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8 display how
different wetland characteristics can affect wetland values and
uses.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION 4~26
Figure 4-6. Values and Uses Associated with Different Wetland Characteristics.
Hypothetical example of one type of wetland whose probability of
being effective for nutrient retention and removal might be high.
Source: Adapted from Adamus and Stockwell 1983.
Watershed Characteristics and Connections. The presence
or absence of hydrologic interconnections between a wetland and
surface or ground waters is important to the consideration of
using wetlands for wastewater management regardless of
tiering. Most wetlands are hydrologically connected; i.e., they
have a direct connection to or from surface waters. Some
wetlands, e.g., cypress domes, are isolated with no connections
to surface waters. A topographic map, as shown in Figure 4-9,
or aerial photography often can be used in this assessment.
Hydrologic interconnections, or the lack thereof, influence
assimilative capacity, residence time in the wetland and
nutrient/materials transport. Wastewater flows to a hydrologi-
cally open wetland will impact downstream aquatic systems.
Storm events can cause flushing of a wetland, reducing resi-
dence time and, ultimately, assimilative capacity. If the wetland
is being used to polish wastewater, the potential for "short-
circuiting" normal wetlands processes must be incorporated into
decision making. If the wetland is not being used for polishing,
but merely disposal, this is of less concern. Regardless, the
impacts of hydrologically-connected wetlands systems to down-
stream waters and their designated uses needs to be addressed
by the permitting process.
-------
4-27
Figure 4-7. Values and Uses Associated with Different Wetland Characteristics.
Hypothetical example of one type of wetland whose probability of
providing good opportunities for passive recreation might be high.
Source: Adapted from Adamus and Stock well 1983.
Figure 4-8. Values and Uses Associated with Different Wetland Characteristics.
Hypothetical example of one type of wetland whose probability
of being effective for sediment trapping might be high.
Source: Adapted from Adamus and Stock well 1983.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
4-2
Table 4-1. Features*^ feet ing Wetlands Values and Uses.
Wetland Function
Factors Determining
How Wetlands Perform Function Importance of Function
Concern
Flood Conveyance
Wave Barriers
Flood Storage
Sediment Control
Pollutlon Control
Fish and Wildlife
Habitat
Some wetlands (particularly
those Immediately adjacent
to rivers and streams)
serve as floodway areas by
conveying flood flows from
upstream to downstream
points.
Wetland vegetation, with
massive root and rhizome
systems, bind and protect
soil. Vegetation also acts
as wave barriers.
Some wetlands store and
slowly release flood
waters.
Wetland vegetation binds
soil particles and retards
the movement of sediment In
slowly flowing water.
Wetlands act as settling
ponds and remove nutrients
and other pollutants by
filtering and causing
chemical breakdown of
pollutants.
Wetlands provide water,
food supply, and nesting
and resting areas. Coastal
wetlands contribute
nutrients needed by fish
and shel IfIsh to nearby
estuarlne and marine
waters.
Stream characteristics,
wetland topography and
size, vegetation, location
of wetland In relationship
to river or stream,
existing encroachment on
flood-plain (dikes, dams,
levees, etc.).
Location of wetland
adjacent to coastal waters,
lakes, and rivers, wave
Intensity, type of
vegetation, and soil type.
If flood flows are blocked
by fills, dikes or other
structures, Increased flood
heights and velocities
result, causing damage to
adjacent, upstream and
down-stream areas.
Removal of vegetation
Increases erosion and
reduces capacity to
moderate wave Intensity.
Wetland area relative to Fill or dredging of
watershed, wetland position wetlands reduces their
within watershed, flood storage capacity.
surrounding topography,
soil Infiltration capacity
In watershed, wetland size
and depth, stream size and
characteristics, outlets
(size, depth), vegetation
type, substrate type.
Depth and extent of
wetland, wetland vegetation
(Including type, condition
density, growth patterns),
soil texture type and
structure, normal and peak
flows, wetland location
relative to sediment of
vegetated buffer.
Type and size of wetland,
wetland vegetation
(Including type, condition,
density, growth patterns),
source and type of
pol lutants, water course,
size, water volume,
streamflow rate,
microorganisms, etc.
Wetland type and size,
dominant wetland vegetation
(Including diversity of
life form), edge effect,
location of wetland within
watershed, surrounding
habitat type, juxtaposition
of wetlands, water
chemsltry, water quality,
water depth, existing uses.
Destruction of wetInad
topographic contours or
vegetation decreases
wetland capacity to filter
surface runoff and act as
sediment traps. This
Increases water turbid!t
and slltatlon of downstre^
reservoirs, storm drains,
and stream channels.
Destruction of wetland
contours or vegetation
decrerases natural pollution
capability, resulting In
lowered water quality for
downstream lakes, streams
and other waters.
Fills, dredging, damming,
and other alterations
destroy and damage flora
and fauna and decrease
productivity. Dam
construction Is an
Impediment to fish
movement.
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS 4-2'
Table 4-1. Continued.
Wetland Function
How Wetlands Perform Function
Factors Determining
Importance of Function
Concern
Recreation (water-
based)
Wetlands provide wildlife
and later for recreational
uses.
Water Supply
(surface)
Aqulfer Recharge
Some vietlands store flood
waters, reducing the timing
and amount of surface
runoff. They also filter
pollutants. Some serve as
sources of domestic water
supply.
Some vet lands store water
and release It slowly to
ground water deposits.
Ho waver, many other
wetlands are discharge
areas for a portion or all
of the year.
Wetland vegetation, wild-
life, water qua I ity,
accessibility to users,
size, relative scarcity,
facilities provided,
surrounding land forms,
vegetation, land use,
degree of dlstrubance,
availability of similar
wetlands, distribution,
proximity of uses,
vulnerablIity.
Precipitation, watershed
runoff characteristics,
net I and type, si ze, outlet
characteristics, location
of wetland In relationship
to other water bodies.
Location of net I and
relative to water table,
fluctuations in wter
table, geology including
type and depth of
substrate, permeability of
substrate, size of vet I and,
depth. Aquifer storage
capacity, ground water flow,
runoff retention measures.
Fill, dredging or other
interface with wst lands
will cause loss of area for
boating, swimming, bird
watching, hunting and
fishing.
Fills or dredging cause
accelerated runoff and
Increase pollution.
Fills or drainage may
destroy vet I and aquifer
recharge capability,
thereby reducing base flows
to streams and ground water
supplies for domestic,
commercial or other uses
Source: Adapted from Henderson et at. 1983.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION 4-30
Figure 4-9. Use of Topographic Map to Evaluate Watershed
Characteristics and Hydrologlc Connections with Surface Water.
Legend: Oldsmar, FL Quad
Contour interval - 5 feet
—... - intermittent flow
Hydrologically isolated wetlands present a different type of
concern. Flushing in such systems is dependent wholly on
evapotranspiration, rainfall and groundwater interactions; overr
loading the system with excessive flows or pollutants is a higher
risk than for most open systems. Groundwater recharge may be
more likely and should be considered in perched, isolated
systems. Estimation of discharge rates and the area of wetland
needed must be given added attention.
Measuring groundwater interactions with either type of
system is typically a difficult task. Few wetlands have direct
connections with deep aquifers used for drinking water sup-
plies. Some wetlands, however, are located in recharge or
karstic zones and could have an impact on groundwater quality.
This should be evaluated in selecting a wetlands site. Examining
topographic maps, aerial photography and substrate maps
usually provides the level of information needed. Sometimes
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
tracer techniques are useful for following the flow of water
through a wetland.
As is evident, hydrologic and watershed characteristics
affect engineering design, discharge loading rates, estimation of
impacts on downstream uses, wetlands protection and the
permitting process.
Water Budget and Hydroperiod. Assessing a wetland's
water budget is an important element of detailed site screening.
A water budget is basically an accounting of the inflows to and
outflows from a wetland as indicated in Figure 4-10. Such
information may be needed for engineering planning to determine
when and how much water a given wetland might be able to
accept without severe stress.
Figure 4-10. Components of a Water Budget.
Precipitation
Surface
Water
Outflow
v
Surface
water
I inflow
-. -Percolation to Ground water. '.
Source: Adapted from Hammer and Kadlec 1983.
— Seepages into-
Wetland, if any
Hydroperiod is the natural, seasonal fluctuation of wetland
water levels. Important aspects of hydroperiod are timing,
depth and area of inundation. The broad variability in hydro-
period for different wetland types is shown in Figure 4-11.
Since hydroperiod is one of the major components of site selec-
tion and engineering planning and varies with wetland type and
other site-specific characteristics, a hydroperiod analysis
should be conducted for each potential wetland site.
-------
Figure 4-11. Typical Hydroperiods of Six Southeastern Wetland Types.
4-3:
Bottomland Hardwood
Bog/Fen
Inland Marsh
Freshwater Tidal Marsh
Savannah
M
M
O
N
D
Description*
Seasonally
Flooded
Nontidal
Intermittently
Exposed
Nontidal
Saturated
Nontidal
Semipermanently
Flooded
Nontidal
Regularly
Flooded
Tidal
Saturated
Nontidal
* Source: Adapted from
Adamus and
Stock well 1983.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION 4-33
The water budget equation may be written as:
A St = P + Q! + OL + G i + W - 02 - G2 - E
where:
A Sj. = volume change of water stored in the wetland during a
specified time interval, t
P = precipitation volume falling on the wetland during t
Q! = surface water volume flowing into the wetland at its
upstream end during t
OL = Lateral overland flow volume flowing into the wetland
during t
GI = groundwater volume flowing into the wetland during t
W = wastewater volume applied to the wetland during t
©2 = surface water volume flowing out of the wetland at its
downstream end during t
62 = groundwater volume flowing out of the wetland during t
E = evapotranspiration volume leaving the wetland during t
By calculating the water budget, the major hydrologic inter-
connections and source of inflow become clear, and residence
time can be calculated. For hydrologically open or connected
wetlands, estimations of depth, velocity, area of inundation and
residence time may be made using a derivation of Manning's equa-
tion. Section 9.5 (Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses) dis-
cusses the water budget and Manning's equation analyses, data
requirements and the application of these methodologies to
various wetland situations. Suggestions for assessing a wet-
land's hydroperiod are included in this chapter's User's Guide.
Background Water Quality Conditions. The assessment of
background water quality conditions provides information for
both the regulatory process (site-specific criteria, permit condi-
tions, monitoring) and engineering design (assimilative capacity,
acceptable loading rates). Further, determination of back-
ground water quality provides the benchmark against which
impacts and future changes can be compared.
It is important to assess the distinction, if applicable,
between ambient water quality and natural, background condi-
tions. This involves determining, to the extent possible, if
ambient water quality conditions represent natural conditions or
modifications caused by other pollutant sources. If other point
or nonpoint flows have entered the wetland, the background
conditions documented may not be the natural conditions. This
may indicate a lower capacity to assimilate wastewater
additions. It also may lead to a better determination of
wastewater impacts to the wetland and indications of stress.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
It is also necessary to make the distinction in water quality
between low water and high water conditions. In other words,
a hydrologic assessment must be coordinated with the water
quality assessment. Has the wetland recently been impacted by
storm event runoff? When was the last precipitation event? It
is of value to know if the water quality assessment reflects
conditions typical of a low flow or non-storm event flow, or a
high flow resulting from stormwater. Water quality character-
istics vary considerably with different flows. Seasonal
influences also impact water quality conditions.
Based on the tiering approach to optimize the water quality
information collected, standard analyses have been divided into
Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 constituents are those that should be
assessed as part of any backgroiind water quality analysis.
These analyses are targeted primarily for those situations in
which a small discharge is anticipated for a relatively large,
hydrologically open wetland system, where the effluent is
composed entirely of domestic effluent. Where a discharge is
planned for a hydrologically isolated system, or a relatively
large flow wfll be discharged into a small "affected wetland
area," or an industrial wastewater component is present, cer-
tain Tier 2 constituents should be analyzed as well. All Tier 2
constituents are elective since the specific constituents chosen
for analysis will depend on the characteristics of the effluent,
wetland, established wastewater management objectives (e.g.,
nutrient removal) or downstream waters.
Potential Tier 1 constituents include:
o Dissolved oxygen o BOD
o pH o Water temperature
o Suspended solids o Fecal coliforms
o Nitrate o Orthophosphate
o Ammonia
Potential Tier 2 constituents include:
o Total nitrogen (nutrient removal, nutrient budget, down-
stream waters)
o Total phosphorus (nutrient removal, nutrient budget,
downstream waters)
o Metals (zinc, mercury, lead, iron, copper) (Industrial
component, toxicity, bioaccumulation)
o Priority pollutants (Industrial component, agricultural
runoff component)
o Total coliforms (public health, disease vectors)
o Fecal Streptococci (bacterial source assessment)
o Un-ionized ammonia (fish toxicity)
o Sulphur (nutrient cycling, bacterial population)
o Chloride (tracer)
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
Many elective constituents relate to integrative analyses such
as nutrient budgets, assimilative capacity, potential water
movement through the soil profile, etc.
Wetland Ecology. The determination of predominant wetland
vegetation helps classify a wetland. The mix of vegetation also
affects habitat and the type of wildlife that will be found in the
wetland. Further, the condition and type of vegetation pro-
vides a good indicator of assimilative capacity and changes in a
wetland. Each of these characteristics of wetlands vegetation is
described in greater detail in the Phase I, Freshwater Wetlands
for Wastewater Management Report (EPA 1983).
Wetlands vegetation is composed of trees and aquatic vege-
tation. The latter can be divided primarily into the following
three categories: emergent, floating and submergent. Figure
4-12 identifies these three major vegetation types. All three
forms play an important role in slowing the flow of water through
a wetland, leading to settling of suspended sediments and
organic matter, nutrient uptake and oxygen exchange. Vegeta-
tion also acts as media for microorganism growth for the
breakdown of nutrients and organics.
Several aspects of the vegetational assemblage should be eval-
uated. The predominant vegetation can be identified through
the use of transects or other methods described in Chapter 9.
Based on the inventory of vegetation type and distribution, the
following vegetational characteristics should be evaluated.
1. Sensitivity of vegetation to hydrologic or chemical alterations
2. Correlation of vegetation type and percent open water to
breeding potential and habitat
3. Effect of vegetation on nutrient uptake rates and
productivity.
The first assessment would be a Tier 1 analysis and the follow-
ing two would be Tier 2 analyses. Predominant vegetation, or
species composition, should be determined for any potential
wetand site. Other biological analyses such as chlorophyll a_ and
benthic macroinvertebrates also may be beneficial as an indica-
tion of nutrient loading (algal composition and productivity) and
water quality conditions (benthic macroinvertebrates) .
Sofl characteristics. Soils processes are an important
component of the assimilative or treatment characteristics of a
wetland due to associated microbial processes, exchange capa-
cities and effects on permeability. Soils characteristics,
therefore, influence assimilation by biological, chemical and
physical processes. Soils analyses would be required primarily
for Tier 2 discharges and those seeking nutrient removal.
-------
Figure 4-12. Types of Wetland Aquatic Vegetation
EMERGENTS
SURFACE PLANTS
•:,'&
SUBMERGENTS
1
Tall
Meadow
Emergents
Robust
Emergents
Short
Meadow
Emergents
Narrow -
Leaved
Marsh
Emergents
Broad-
Leaved
Marsh
Emergents
7\
Floating
Plants
Sub-Shrubs
4
>J\I
^H
Floating
Leaved
Plants
I
Submergents
Source: Adapted from Golet 1973.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION 4_37
Microbiai processes affect nutrient uptake and control de-
nitrification under anaerobic (oxygen lacking) conditions. The
cation exchange capacity influences the uptake of certain ele-
ments, and soil structure affects phosphate binding. Permeability
affects percolation rates, which control residence time in the
wetland. In a hydroiogicaiiy isolated wetland, permeability
controls whether interaction with groundwater or evapotrans-
piration is the major influence on the water budget. Figure 4-12
indicates the distinction of soil types and wetiand areas based on
soils types from soil conservation service maps.
Figure 4-13. Use of Soil Conservation Service Maps for Identifying
Wetland Soil Types.
Example Legend: Soil Survey of Pinellas County, FL
Au - Astor soils
Mn - Manatee loamy fine sand
My - Myakka fine sand
The two major distinctions of soil types in wetlands are
mineral and organic. Most soils in southeastern wetlands are
organic. Pocosins, Carolina Bays, cypress domes, Atlantic White
Cedar swamps and some river floodpiains typically are charac-
terized by peat soils (EPA 1983). Such soils typically have higher
cation exchange capacities than mineral soils; however, they are
also more sensitive to pH. This needs to be considered when
determining whether a wetiand can receive wastewater without
deleterious effects.
Richardson (1985) also has shown that organic soils with low
amounts of extractabie aluminum may be less able to remove phos-
phorus than mineral soils. If nutrient removal is an objective of
using wetlands, this should be considered. A soils assessment may
be required to not only analyze impacts to wetlands, but aiso the
degree of uptake or assimilation that can be achieved.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION 4-3)
4.4.3 Wastewater Assimilation and Long-term Use Potential
Predicting a wetland's ability to assimilate wastewater is
complex. Soil characteristics, vegetation and microorganisms
affect assimilation and vary from one wetland to another as well as
within one wetland. Water depths and detention times can
fluctuate if the wetland receives runoff from upstream or upland
areas. Furthermore, inputs of precipitation and other climatic
parameters, such as temperature, are not predictable. Hence, the
various wetland processes that result in wastewater assimilation,
such as biological uptake and sedimentation, can be fluctuating
constantly.
Scientists and engineers have studied the ability of certain
wetlands to assimilate or retain nutrients. Removal of nutrients is
limited largely by detention time within the wetland and by the
type of soil and vegetation. The ability of wetland soils to retain
phosphorus seems to decline as wastewater continues to be
applied. According to Nichols and Richardson (1983), nutrients
can be retained during the growing season and be subsequently
released during periods when either little vegetation growth takes
place or when physical forces such as high water velocities
encourage resuspension of soil particles. Nutrient removal is only
effective, according to Nichols (1983), if large wetland areas are
available for small wastewater flows (e.g., 50 percent removal
with one hectare (2.47 acres) of wetland per 60 people served by
the wastewater system). While these quantitative relationships
provide general guidelines, nitrogen and phosphorus assimilation
are affected by wetland specific characteristics indicating the
need to assess assimilative capacity on a site-specific basis.
Efforts to predict the ability of wetlands to retain heavy metals
and other pollutants have not been so extensive, but many of the
same variables, namely pH, soils and vegetation, affect the
assimilation of metals and other constituents.
Assessment of assimilative capacity needs to be conducted for
specific wetlands, particularly under the conditions of a Tier 2
discharge. The major processes responsible for wetlands
assimilative capacity are summarized in Table 4-2.
Management strategies, as wella s structural engineering
options, continue to be developed to enhance assimilation and the
long-term potential for a wteiand's use. Analysis of the evaluation
components described in the previous section will improve the
ability to assess assimilative capacity. This, in turn, will help
identify those wastewater management and structural options that
help maintain natural wetland functions and values. The better
the natural wetland is maintained, the greater its potential for
long-term use.
-------
DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
Table 4-2. Major Processes Affecting Wetland Assimilative Capacity
Geomorphology
Soils:
Mineral soils with extractable aluminum have greater potential for phosphorus
assimilation than organic soils with little extractable aluminum
Soils with higher mlcroblal activity provide greater nitrogen assimilation
Anaerobic soil conditions are essential for denltrlfIcatlon, which can be a
major N removal pathway
Hydro Iogy/MeteoroIogy
Flow patterns:
- Meandering channels with slow moving water and large surface areas Increase
pollutant removal by sedimentation
Shallow, sheet flow patterns enhance some assimilative processes
Deeper pools can sometimes Improve the potential for denltrlfIcatlon
Mixed flow patterns, such as Indicated by the above characteristics, have higher
potential for ass I ml I at I Ion
ClImate:
Runoff from precipitation events can Increase flow through times and short
circuit assimilative processes
Seasonal cycles affect growth and die-off patterns which control uptake and
release of pollutants
Temperature affects reaction kinetics and mlcroblal activity
Water Qua 11ty
Chemistry:
The form of nutrient entering a wetland can affect Its assimilation by
biological components
pH and dissolved oxygen levels can affect assimilation processes; dissolved
oxygen must be present for some processes (nitrification) and absent for others
(denltrlfIcatlon)
Ecology
Vegetation:
- Thickly vegetated wetlands are useful for filtering suspended solids and
organ I cs
Vegetation helps achieve sheet flow, which enhances other assimilative processes
Mixed stands of vegetation may be more effective In assimilating metals due to
selective uptake
Nutrient and metal uptake by vegetation can be Important, but may not be a final
sink due to seasonal die-off and cycling
Provides a substrate for some microbes Important to assimilative processes
Microbes:
In anaerobic soils, provide for N removal by denltrlfIcatlon
Primarily responsible for BOD removal, optimal removal Is obtained where large
surface areas are available for mlcroblal growth and an adequate supply of
dissolved oxygen exists.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE
4.5 USER'S GUIDE
The primary user of the Chapter 4 guidance is the potential
discharger. Chapter 4 contains three major sections:
Preliminary Site Screening, Alternatives Comparison and
Detailed Site Evaluation. If a wetlands discharge is to be con-
sidered seriously, these tasks must be conducted sequentially.
The tasks outlined are essential to:
1) Information required by permit application
2) Engineering planning
3) Engineering design
4) Determination of effluent limitations
5) Environmental review components of the Construction
Grants Program
6) Post-discharge monitoring.
The importance of thoroughly conducting the tasks outlined in
this chapter, in conjunction with contacting the appropriate
regulatory agencies, is evident. Since some of the information
may be needed by regulatory agencies as well, the applicant and
regulatory agency should be able to achieve some economies by
coordinating data gathering and analysis functions.
The focus of the User's Guide is the preliminary and detailed
site evaluation. The User's Guide for Preliminary Site Screening
should lead, through a series of checklists, to a relatively quick
(and cost-effective) determination of feasibility. If certain con-
straints are identified for a particular wetland site, its infeas-
ibility can be ascertained readily. If the site still appears
feasible after the preliminary screening, the more detailed analy-
sis should be conducted. Figure 4-14 indicates how preliminary
and detailed site screening relate to the decision making
process.
4.5.1 Preliminary Site Screening
The five elements listed in Section 4.2.2 comprise analyses
that can be easily and cost-effectively conducted to determine
obvious constraints to using wetlands for wastewater manage-
ment. Table 4-3 presents the work tasks providing the informa-
tion necessary to fill out Form 4-A and to assess the feasibility
of the wetlands discharge alternative. Form 4-A is the basis for
the preliminary site screening assessment. Permitting and
effluent limitation considerations also are introduced at this
point in the planning process. Immediate regulatory obstacles
should be identified at this stage. Other regulatory issues are
raised in later sections as they affect more detailed evaluations,
engineering design, determination of effluent limitations and
monitoring.
-------
State/Applicant
State/Applicant
Consideration
of
Wetlands for
Wastewater
Management
1 wetlands
Functions and
Values
Chapter 2
State/Applicant
Funding
Available
through Construction
Grants
Chapter 3*
WQS
use/criteria
Chapters 3 & 5
Discharge
Guidelines
Chapter 5
Compile Information
for Permit Application
and Submit Application
Chapter 3
Review
Application
Effluent 1
Limitations 1
Chapters3&5 1
*
Engineering
Design
Chapter 6
Engineering Planning
'// Chapters 4 & 6
Detailed Site Evaluation
Chapter 4
Applicant/State
Assessment
Techniques
Chapter 9
Issue
Permit
Chapter 3
Applicant
Construction |
and OfcM I
Chapter 7 J
Applicant
Applicant/
State
Compliance
and
Monitoring
Chapter 7
Figure 4-14. Relationship of the Handbook to the Decision Making Process.
i
-F-
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE
Mitigation of potential detrimental impacts to the wetland also
needs to be considered early in the planning process. Mitigation
is addressed implicitly by several of the issues presented:
e.g., improving flow patterns where they have been modified,
designing flows to parallel normal hydroperiods, awareness of
wetland sensitivity. As the design, construction and implemen-
tation phases are pursued, mitigation of potential adverse
impacts should be addressed. Inability to mitigate certain
impacts could prevent wetlands use. All of the preliminary
screening components should be assessed for any potential
wastewater discharge.
4.5.2 Detailed Site Evaluation
Preliminary site screening is designed to identify obvious
technical or regulatory obstacles to using wetlands for waste-
water management. Detailed site evaluations will be conducted
only if the wetlands alternative still appears feasible after the
preliminary screening and alternatives comparison. Alterna-
tives comparison, as described in Section 4.3, should be con-
ducted prior to the detailed evaluation. Even if the wetlands
alternative initially appears feasible, however, additional
information obtained from the detailed evaluation may be
necessary before the final alternatives evaluation determination.
Another difference between the preliminary and detailed
evaluations are the methods available to compile and analyze
data. Simplified techniques are proposed for the preliminary
screening, but a wide range of more sophisticated techniques
may be required for the detailed evaluation. Therefore, the
assessment techniques presented in Chapter 9 should be
reviewed in planning and designing a detailed evaluation. Fur-
ther, Section 9.2 presents the concepts that should be included
in sampling program design, incorporating the tiering approach
of requiring different levels of analyses based on the
uncertainty or risk associated with a proposed project.
Understanding the overlap of information collected from the
detailed site evaluation, Construction Grants environmental
review components, on-site assessments and post-discharge
monitoring is important. The sampling components are only
recommendations until adopted by regulatory agencies.
Coordination with regulatory agencies can present duplication in
later collection efforts and help identify the necessary
components of detailed site screening. Since a regulatory agency
may need to collect some information for on-site assessments or
determination of effluent limitations, agreements may be
possible; so the applicant and regulatory agency can assist each
other.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE 4-42
Detailed site screening provides the information necessary
for engineering design decisions. Several alternative
approaches to design may be available, based on wetland type
and sensitivity. In other cases, only one design option may be
appropriate. If a wetland is particularly sensitive to flow or pH
changes, for example, the detailed site evaluation needs to iden-
tify that sensitivity so it can be incorporated into engineering
design. Some wetlands may have an existing data base, whereas
others will not. Each wetland, therefore, needs to be assessed
on a site-specific basis, and the level of analyses designed
accordingly.
Given the variability needed for different levels of analysis,
Chapter 9 summarizes available assessment techniques. Chapter
9 indicates when a technique might be used, how it relates to
decision making, resource requirements and several other attri-
butes that could determine the optimal technique to apply. Form
4-B leads a potential applicant through the elements of a detailed
site evaluation.
-------
SITE SCREENING AMD EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE 4
Table 4-3. -fVel Imlnary Site Screening Work Tasks.
A. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES.
1. Determine population served.
2. Identify sources of wastewater In the area to be served.
3. If residential sources, use the accepted value for the study area
for water consumption per person to estimate peak flow.
4. If commercial sources, estimate peak flow based on use.
5. If Industrial sources, estimate peak flow based on type of process
and historical flow records.
6. If Industrial source, determine the extent of pretreatment and
procedures for handling effluent when pretreatment process Is not
functioning.
7. Based on the sources of Influent, estimate wastewater
characteristics for each.
8. Identify wastewater treatment processes anticipated to provide a
minimum of secondary treatment prior to discharge.
9. Check the functions you would like the wetland to perform:
Disposal
Nutrient removal
If so, what constituents
Disinfection
Sol Ids Reduction
OrganIcs Reduction
Neutralization of:
Low pH
High pH
Blocldes
Dyes
Other
B. WETLAND TYPE.
1. Contact wetland biologist with either the state Department of
Natural Resources (or equivalent) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service district office.
2. Determine through above contacts If the wetland area being
cons Idered has been mapped.
If so, Identify wetland type using Cowardln classification system.
If not, determine type through use of photographs or field trip.
3. If state has an adopted method of Identifying wetland type, use that
system In addition to above.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE 4
Table 4-3. Continued
4. Based on classification of wetland type, determine If wetland Is an
endangered or unique wetland (seer Section 2.4).
5. Determine If the wetland Is habitat for protected species (contact
stata agencies or U.S. FWS).
C. WETLAND SIZE AND TOPOGRAPHY.
1. Determine the general size of the wetland area.
2. Estimate what portion of the wetland will be Impacted by the
dlscahrge.
3. Use topographic maps to evaluate the topography of the wetland.
4. Characterize the topography of the watershed containing the wetland.
5. Using a reference such as Adamus and Stockwell (1983) relate
topography to potential wetland functions and uses.
D. WETLAND AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS.
1. Determine who owns the wetland area being considered. For large
systems, such as cypress strands, check for multiple owners. See
the maps provided with city or county tax records, Identifying
owners of wetland parcels proposed for use.
2. Assess the general availability of the wetland as a receiving water
with the owner.
3. Determine the distance to the wetland(s) from the existing or
proposed treatment facility.
4. Assess the feasibility for controlling access to the wetland area.
5. Identify access points such as roads, bridges, rtghts-of-way and
stream channels.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION AND SENSITIVITY.
1. Topographic and land use maps for the wetland area should be
obtained. Contact the nearest U.S. Geological Survey office for
topographic maps and the local or regional planning commission for
land use maps.
2. Conduct a site Investigation with the maps obtained above. Noting
when the maps were produced, mark areas that have changed since the
maps were produced and Indicate the types of change.
3. Identify obvious pollutant sources to the wetland (e.g., connected
Impervious areas, treatment facilities).
4. At the prospective site, take pictures of the wetland and adjacent
areas.
5. Examine the wetland for signs of Impacts (e.g., modified flow
patterns from roads Intersecting wetland, dying vegetation, algal
scum on water surface, odors, etc.). Document Indications of
Impacts.
6. Review Chapter 8 and, based on wetland type, assess the potential
sensitivity of the wetland to the projected flows and effluent
characteristics.
7. Identify and characterize water bodies Into which the wetland
discharges.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE
Table 4-3. Continued
F. PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS AND EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.
1. Contact the state regulatory agency responsible for permitting
municipal wastewater discharges.
2. Identify what information will be required from an applicant to
obtain a permit for wetlands-wastewater discharge.
3. Through discussions with agency personnel, ascertain the process for
obtaining a wetlands discharge permit and how effluent limitations
wl I I be established.
4. Evaluate the permit application Information required, likelihood of
obtaining effluent limitations, what treatment levels will likely be
required to meet effluent limitations, the schedule for obtaining
effluent limitations In light of data availability and the project
Implementation schedule.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE
FORM 4-A -Mtft-laMls-ttasteHater Management System—Pro I !•! nary Site Screening Checklist
A. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES.
1. What Is the projected wastewater flow to the wetland?
2. What percentage Is derived from the following sources?
Domestic (residential)
Commercial
Industrial
3. What are the projected treatment plant Influent characteristics for the
following parameters?
BOD Suspended solids
Feca I co 11 forms
Others
If Industrial component, list characteristics
4. Are you expecting to consider the wetland as part of the treatment process?
Yes No
If yes, check feasibility with state regulatory agencies.
Assessment:
If the Influent has a significant Industrial component, a wetland Is not
for use. Exceptions are:
1) Industrial effluent Is relatively low percentage of total flow (e.g., less
than 10*).
2) Pretreatment process can be verified as sufficient, and an emergency
back-up for pretreatment exists (e.g., holding ponds).
3) Contains no toxics or hazardous materials that can bloaccumulate, with
remaining characteristics being similar to domestic effluent.
All three of these conditions should be met for the wetland alternative to be
considered further.
* If the wetland Is planned as part of the secondary treatment process, abandon
the alternative. Most wetlands are waters of the U.S. and require an effluent
discharge to have a minimum of secondary-treatment.
* If the wetland Is proposed as part of advanced treatment, check with state
regulatory agencies and EPA to determine If such use Is feasible. In most cases
It Is not approval)I*.
B. WETLAND TYPE.
1. What type of wetland Is being considered for use?
Common name
Cowardln classification
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE 4
FORM 4-A Continued
State-approved classification (If applicable)
2. Is the wetland endangered or unique (based on Section 2.4)7
Yes No Uncertain
3. What, If any, protected species are potentially found In this wetland type In
this area (see Section 9.4)7
Assessment:
* If the wetland area Is considered endangered or unique Its us* Is dlscowraged.
* If the presence of protected species Is suspected, field confirmation should be
conducted. If evidence of protected species or their habitat exists, another
sit* should be found.
C. WETLAND SIZE AND TOPOGRAPHY
1. What Is the "effective" size of the wetland?
Total area of wetland
Area downgradfent from location of proposed discharge (If a measurable hydraulic
gradient exists)
Estimate of percent of that area Impacted by discharge
2. What Is the proposed hydraulic loading rate to the wetland In Inches per week?
Effective size of wetland acres sq ft
Flow rate mgd cubic ft/day
cubic ft/week
Flow rate = ftVwk = ft/wk
s ize rT-2
In/wk
3. Based on these calculations, potential depths and residence times can be
estimated under some conditions. See Section 9.5 for a discussion of the
methodologies. What topographic features (e.g., shallow, meandering, circular,
etc.) help meet Identified wastewater objectives? (See Adamus and Stockwel I
1983)
4. Does the proposed wetland site have the topographic features Identified In #3
above? Yes No
If yes, what features are Important, and why?
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE
FORM 4-A Continued
Assessment:
One Inch per week serves as a general, conservative hydraulic loading rate. If
the loading rate Is greater than five Inches per week, however, additional area
likely Is needed. Detailed site evaluation of additional sites will be needed
In this situation to determine feasibility of the wetlands alternative.
Topographic features will likely not preclude further Investigation of the
wetland site although Incompatible features for wastewater management objectives
could require additional engineering considerations.
D. WETLAND AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS.
1. Who currently owns the wetland being examined?
2. Wl I I the owner consent to have the wetland used for wastewater management?
Yes No
3. What methods will be used to assure availability and access?
Purchase Long-term lease ____________
Easement Land-exchange
Other
4. Does the state require ownership of the wetland If It Is to be part of a
wastewater management system?
5. What type of access to the wetland Is available?
None (fenced)
Limited (wet soils, stream channels)
Easy (roads, bridges)
6. What Is the distance from the existing or proposed treatment facility to the
wetland?
If more than one wetland or wetland areas are being used, what are the distances
to these systems? _______
Assessment
If arrangements for the use and, ultimately, control of wetland cannot be made,
another wetland site or alternative should be pursued.
If the state requires ownership of a wetland that Is part of a wastewater manage-
ment system, owiershlp by soae Mediants* wtst be achieved.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE_
FORM 4-A Continued
* A flrTJposed wetland site should be adjacent to existing or proposed facilities to
minimize pumping costs. Pumping costs to a proposed site should b* evaluated to
assess site feasibility.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION AND SENSITIVITY.
1. Based on an analysis of topographic and land use maps, and a site visit, what
changes have occurred In the wetland's watershed that might have affected the
wetland?
Roads Fill
Draining Adjacent Impervious area
Construction Timbering
Other
2. Have any of the above caused obvious changes In flow patterns?
Flows In the wetland , Yes No
Flows to the wetland , Yes No
Flows from the wetland , Yes No
3. What Is the nature and extent of potential pollutant sources to the wetland?
Effluent discharges Flows
Type
Nonpolnt sources
Impervious area Proximity of Impervious area
Percentage of watershed
Construction activity Erosion
Other
4. Is there evidence of a water line on trees or other vegetation?
Yes No
If yes, what Is the height above the ground?
5. Are any trees or other vegetation dying?
Yes No
6. Do vegetation appear stressed, based on dying branches or other signs?
Yes No
7. Are algal mats or other floating vegetation (e.g., duckweed) predominant on the
water's surface?
Yes No
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE
Form 4-A Continued
8. Based on type, to what changes might the wetland be most sensitive?
Flow pH
Nitrogen Phosphorus
DO Other
Assessment
* Use of pristine wetlands should be dlseowagad, particularly If nearby wetlands
already have been Influenced by development, road building, etc.
* A wetland that has experienced changes In natural flow patterns, resulting In
the wetland drying out, should be given higher priority for a wetlands
discharge.
* Wetlands already exhibiting signs of stress should be evaluated carefully and In
more detail to determine If a wastewater discharge would Improve or Intensify
existing stress.
* If a wetland Is sensitive to a factor(s) associated with wastewater (e.g., flow
or pH adjustments), Its use Is dlscowagad unless the detrimental effects can be
mitigated.
F. PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS AND EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.
1. Is It within your capabilities to obtain the Information required for a
discharge permit application?
Yes No
2. Has the state regulatory agency Indicated that the discharge can be permitted?
Yes No
3. If yes, have the potential permit conditions been Identified?
Yes No
If yes, 11st
4. Can effluent limitations be obtained to coincide with design and Implementation
schedules?
Yes No Uncertain
Assessment
If questions remain about the ability to obtain a permitted wetlands discharge,
and associated permit conditions, proceed with this alternative with cart Ion.
Effluent limitations and the point where the permit will be enforced are
Important to design decisions and can conceivably affect feasibility. While
other scientific or engineering considerations might appear positive, regulatory
concerns could affect I «p I •Mutability.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE
4-
Form 4-A C«*i*lnued
G. SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT
If this assessment presents no constraints, the Alternatives Comparison task should
be conducted. If the wetlands alternative remains feasible, the detailed site
evaluation, Form 4-B, should be completed.
If this assessment Indicated the prospective wetland site may not be feasible,
mitigation of some constraints (as Indicated) may be possible. If mitigation Is not
possible, preliminary screening should be conducted for other potential wetland
sites, If available. If they also exhibit limitations for wastewater management use,
the wetlands alternative should be abandoned and other alternatives pursued.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE 4-
FORM 4-B. DETAILED SITE EVALUATION ASSESSMENT
A. WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION.
1. Identify wetland boundaries.
Approaches
a. Use U.S. FWS classification with modifiers (Cowardln 1979).
b. Use state-approved methods based on vegetation, soil types or hydrology.
2. Define determination of "effective wetland area." (Must consider likely
discharge location and structure.)
Approaches
a. For an Isolated system, the wetland area Impacted by a discharge depends on
the size of flow and wetland.
b. If sheet flow, tracer studies can be used to Indicate flow paths.
c. If channelized flow, the wetland downgradlent from the discharge will be
affected.
d. Interconnecting channels and direction of hydraulic gradient should be
Identified.
Indicate these determinations on a map, which may be Included with a permit
appi I cat Ion.
B. WETLANDS VALUES AND USES.
1. Estimate wetland values.
Approaches
a. For a preliminary assessment, relate Information In Chapter 2 to the
wetland being evaluated. Techniques In Section 9.4 may also be useful.
b. For a more detailed assessment, use technique developed by Adamus (1983) or
equivalent In Section 9.4. The Adamus technique has been accepted jointly
by the U.S. FWS, EPA and Corps of Engineers as the preferred system for
determining wetland values.
The assessment of wetland values Integrates land use, geomorphologlcal, soils,
water quality and ecological considerations.
2. Define potential wetland uses, existing and future. Use techniques discussed In
Chapter 9 to ascertain which functions and values listed In Table 2-2 are
Important In the wetland being Investigated.
The potential for a wetland to provide one or more of these uses In the future
should be evaluated, In addition to those currently exhibited.
C. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND CONNECTIONS.
1. General watershed characteristics should have been Identified by previous tasks.
At a minimum, the following should be evaluated:
a. Existing land use
b. Development trends
c. Topography
d. Proximity to Impervious areas
e. Drainage patterns within watershed
f. Area of land draining Into wetland
g. Culverts, ditches or other structures Influencing drainage patterns
n. Type and quality of water body Into which the wetland discharges.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE
FORM 4-B Contjnued
2. DetermI nation of whether the wetland Is connected hydrologlcally to or Isolated
from surface water flows.
Approaches
a. Use a topographic map and/or aerial photography to Identify channelized
flows Into or out of the wetland.
b. Use the same tools to assess overland flow Into or out of the wetland.
c. Supplement with a site visit to field truth maps and estimate flow
patterns.
d. If development has occurred around the wetland, Identify what ways, If any,
hydrologlc connections have been affected.
e. Note presence of berms, levees or other flow modifiers.
3. Determination of whether wetland Is hydrologlcally connected to or Isolated from
groundwater flows.
Approaches
a. Obtain subsurface maps from the USGS and estimate substrate underlying the
wetland. Determine If area Is karstlc.
b. Obtain groundwater maps Indicating primary recharge areas.
c. Analyze maps or determine hydrologlc gradient for Indicating general
direction of groundwater management.
d. Collect and evaluate core samples for evidence of hardpan, or clay layer.
e. If the system Is connected hydrologlcally to surface waters, characterize
downstream systems that could be Impacted by a wastewater discharge
f. If the system Is connected to groundwater flows, Identify groundwater uses
downgradlent from the wetland and distance to wells, If any.
The use of wetlands located In karstlc areas that serve as prime groundwater
recharge areas may need to be avoided. The soil characteristics and presence or
absence of a hardpan are more Important In karstlc areas.
D. WATER BUDGET AND HYDROPERIOD.
1. Determination of the water budget.
Approaches
a. Collect the Information necessary to determine water storage, based on the
following formula:
AS = P + 0) + Q2 + GI + w -
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE 4-
FORM 4-B Continued
b. Hydroperlod relates primarily to the length of Inundation, but also to the
depth. Certain wetlands may not dry out totally, but the depth of standing
water varies and could be Important to certain wetland functions (e.g.,
could affect whether aerobic or anaerobic conditions exist). Therefore,
some estimate of the variability of water depth should be made.
c. Well data, water marks on trees, historical stream gage records from nearby
streams, historical precipitation patterns and historical - aerial
photographs can all provide Insights or Information relevant to hydroperlod
and/or water budget. The following process could be helpful In estimating
hydroperlod:
o Examine USSS stream flow records from adjacent water bodies, If
hydraulleally connected.
o Examine groundwater logs of nearby wells. If available.
o Analyze National Weather Service precipitation and evapotransplratlon
records for the watershed.
o Estimate If conditions examined are representative of normal, wet or
dry conditions (based primarily on historical precipitation records)
o Assess how hydroperlod would change under different hydrometeor-
ologlcal conditions.
o Evaluate one year of data. If possible, to estimate seasonal changes.
o Verify analysis with field Investigations, If possible.
d. Ideally, hydroperlod would be determined based on long-term monthly
evaluations of the water budget.
e. Flooding from adjacent surface waters should be considered carefully.
3. Depth and Residence Time. These may be Important for some wetlands-wastewater
systems, particularly hydrologlcally connected Tier 2 discharges. As part of
preliminary design, estimations of these two variables might be Important.
Section 9.5 discusses approaches to their evaluation, using Manning's equation.
E. BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.
1. Based on the presence of other pollutlon sources, development of the watershed
or modifications to the wetland, estimate the extent to which existing water
quality conditions reflect natural background conditions or modified conditions.
2. Determine what parameters should be analyzed to define background conditions.
Approaches
a. The design of the sampling program should Incorporate seasonal Influences
(see Section 9.2).
b. Flow should be measured In conjunction with collecting water quality
samples. Interpretation of water quality data Is dependent on knowing the
flow at the time of sampling.
c. Recent precipitation events and flow patterns are also helpful In
Interpreting water quality data. What was the precipitation pattern, and
associated flows, for the two weeks prior to sampling? Are sampling
conditions Indicative of low or high flows? What Influence does stormwater
have on water quality conditions existing at the time of sampling?
d. Selection of parameters will depend on tiering, wastewater characteristics,
wetland values and uses, and downstream conditions. Also assess what
parameters may be necessary for environmental review criteria (If Construc-
tion Grants are Involved), site-specific standards or effluent limitation
analyses (conducted by state) or post-discharge monitoring.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE 4-
Form 4-B Continued
F. WETLAND ECOLOGY.
1. Identify predominant vegetation species and associated habitat.
Approaches
a. Use techniques for determining the diversity of submergent, emergent and
floating vegetation.
b. Note the pattern of vegetation growth, particularly In conjunction with
Identifiable flow patterns In the wetland.
c. Use the determination of predominant vegetation types to help confirm the
Identification of wetland type and boundaries.
2. Relationship of vegetation type to wildlife.
Approaches
a. Use the tables suggested by Chapter 9 to Identify the types of wildlife
typically found In association with certain vegetation.
b. Determine the percent of open water (that amount not covered by vegetation)
as It affects waterfowl breeding and habitat.
c. Conduct the vegetation survey In conjunction with the projected species
assessment, Identifying where present typical habitat and/or evidence of
protected species.
3. Determine the effects of vegetation type on assimilative capacity based on the
documented ability of certain vegetation for nutrient uptake (see Section 9.4)
and adjusting to changes In hydrology.
Approaches
a. Evaluate the sensitivity of vegetation types to changes In hydrology or
water chemistry (see Chapter 8).
b. Assess nutrient uptake potential based on vegetation type If nutrient
removal Is being sought.
Many factors combine to affect the assimilative capacity of a wetland. Including
soil type, density and type of vegetation, geomorphology and flow patterns.
Assimilative capacity Is discussed further In Chapter 5, as It affects the
determination of effluent limitations, and Chapter 9.
G. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Determine soil type as organic or mineral.
Approaches
a. Use the list of wetland soils provided by the U.S. FWS to help determine If
soils of the proposed site are wetland soils.
b. Use soils maps provided by the Soil Conservation Service to estimate the
predominance of mineral or organic soils.
c. Obtain core samples and analyze grain size and organic content.
2. Evaluate the hydraulic and assimilative capacity of soils, Including aluminum
and Iron fractions.
Approaches
a. Determine the soils' permeability and potential percolation rates through
the soil profile.
b. In conjunction with earlier analyses, confirm the presence or absence of a
hardpan or clay layer underlying the wetland.
c. Estimate the cation-exchange capacity of the soils and extract able aluminum
content.
d. Determine the depth of soil saturation to assess whether, and the condi-
tions under which, soils are aerobic or anaerobic.
-------
SITE SCREENING AND EVALUATION USER'S GUIDE 4
Form 4-B Cwi+lnued
e. Based on the characterization of soil type, estimate the nitrogen and
phosphorus removal potential of the soils.
f. Evaluate the pH sensitivity of wetland substrates (e.g., bog).
The assessment of seasonal Influences and potential assimilative capacity affect
both sampling program design and Interpretation of data. Ultimately, this
Information affects engineering design, construction, O&M and post-discharge
monitoring decisions.
H. SUMMARY OF DETAILED SITE EVALUATION
Figure 4-13 Indicates how the detailed site evaluation coincides with other assess-
ments In determining the feasibility or design of a wetlands wastewater system.
Information gained from the evaluation (related primarily to wetland values and uses,
and watershed characteristics and connections) could still prove the wetlands
alternative to be Infeaslble. If the evaluation does not lead to eliminating the
wetlands alternative, however, It provides the basis for design, construction, O&M
and post-discharge decisions.
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
5.0 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 RELATIONSHIP OF CRITERIA TO PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 5-2
5.2 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS CRITERIA 5-3
5.2.1 Criteria for Existing Wetland Modifiers
5.2.2 Protective Criteria for Wetlands
5.3 DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS 5-7
5.3.1 Hydraulic Loading
5 .3 .2 Nutrient Loadings
5.3.3 Organic Loadings
5.3.4 Metals/Toxins Loadings
5.3.5 pH Levels
5.4 EFFLUENT LIMITS 5_19
5.4.1 Classification of Wetlands as Effluent- or Water Quattty-
Limltcd
5.4.2 Determination of Effluent Limitations for Effluent-Limited
Wetlands
5.4.3 Determination of Effluent Limitations for Water Quality-
Limited Wetlands
o Mathematical Modeling
o On-Site Assessments
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
5.0 WATER QUALITT CRITERIA AND DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
Who should read this chapter? Primarily, regulatory personnel dealing
with standards and effluent limits. Secondarily, engineers determining
loading rates, required wetland size, etc.
What are some of the Issues addressed by this Chapter?
o What water quality standards criteria apply to wetlands?
o Are conventional standards criteria appropriate for wetlands?
o How do on-site assessments relate to effluent limits?
Water Quality
Standard!
and
Discharge
Criteria
Water
Quality
Standards
Criteria
Discharge
Loading
Limits
Effluent
Limit*
Use
Classification
Protective
Criteria
Loading Limits
Used in Existing
Wetlands
Discharges
/" Wetlands N L
I Discharges I r
I Experimental I I
^ Determination J *
Experimental
Determination
of
Loading Limits
Technology
Based
Effluent Limits
Water Quality
Based Effluent
Limits
o Current Use Classifications for Wetlands
o Proposed Use Classifications for Wetlands
o Protective Criteria for Proposed Wetlands Uses
- Numeric Criteria
- Narrative Criteria
General
I Wetland-Type
Specific
Site Specific
o Hydraulics
o Nutrients
o Metals/Toxic Materials
o Chlorine
o Organic*
opH
o Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits
- BOD - Nutrients
- S3 -DO
o Mathematical Models Used
o On-sit* Assessments
o Professional Evaluation
Figure 5-1. Loading Criteria Considerations for Wetlands Discharges
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 5-2
5.1 RELATIONSHIP OF CRITERIA TO PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Criteria established to protect water use classifications are
an integral part of the Water Quality Standards (WQS) program.
From a waste water management standpoint, these criteria
ultimately control the degree of treatment required and loadings
to the receiving water. When considering the use of wetlands,
criteria are important to three major areas of decision making.
First, criteria to protect wetland uses are established
through the WQS program. Conventional use classifications or
associated criteria may not be applicable to wetlands or fully
represent wetlands. Criteria established by the WQS program
must be used as guidelines, but the applicability of these
criteria to wetlands needs to be assessed as part of the
standards review process.
Second, data have been collected from numerous research
projects to assess "acceptable" loadings to wetlands. Loading
rates and design criteria based on these data are intended to
optimize renovation of wastewater and protect wetlands func-
tions and values. While these criteria have not been confirmed
through long-term and widespread use, they are used to provide
a basis for planning and design decisions.
Third, effluent limitations must be established to maintain
WQS criteria, downstream uses and acceptable loading rates to
wetlands. While effluent limitations have been difficult to
establish, they are essential to any wastewater management
project. Ultimately, the permitting process, of which the
determination of effluent limitations is an integral part, is the
primary regulatory program incorporating both WQS criteria and
loading limits designed to maintain wetlands functions and
values.
Information necessary to establish effluent limitations is
derived from three primary sources:
1) Water quality standards criteria
2) Existing wetland discharge loading limits
3) Site-specific analyses.
These are discussed in the following sections and are outlined in
Figure 5-1.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS CRITERIA 5-3
5.2 WATER DUALITY STANDARDS CRITERIA
5.2.1 Criteria for Existing Wetland Modifiers
Existing water quality standards criteria are the basis for
establishing loading rates, or effluent limitations, for any
wastewater discharge. In the case of wetlands use certain
limitations are encountered when applying existing standards
criteria. Basically, the limitations relate to the applicability of
existing criteria to wetlands.
In most instances the criteria applied to wetlands are those
of the adjoining stream segment. These criteria may be obtained
from state regulatory agencies. As indicated in Table 5-1, only
Florida, North Carolina and Tennessee have established numeric
criteria for wetlands systems; however, the numeric criteria do
not account for the variability among wetlands. As a result,
most states have the mechanism for establishing site-specific
criteria, but this has proven to cause some administrative
difficulties. North Carolina has used this approach through use
attainability analyses. Florida and South Carolina have made
some site-specific standard assessments but typically do not
conduct such analyses. Where site-specific criteria differ from
already promulgated criteria that may be applicable to that site,
any criteria changes must go through the procedures as outlined
in Section 303(c) of the CWA.
Table 5-1. WQS Criteria Associated with Wetlands
DO pH
Alabama
Floridal
- Experimental use
Georgia
Kentucky
North Carolina
- Swamp water
Subclass
Mississippi
South Carolina
Tennessee
- Fish and Aquatic Life
<4.0 4.3
>3.0
6.5 -
8.5
Other
Hydraulic loading
-6.5 - 1.0 in/wk
If "nutrient sensitive"
no increases in N or
P over ambient
conditions
The process of reviewing regulations concerning wastewater
discharges to wetlands and associated criteria began during
September 1985.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS CRITERIA 5-4
5.2.2 Protective Criteria for Wetlands
Establishing criteria to protect wetlands uses can be accom-
plished through existing generic regulations (Section 304(a),
CWA) or through site-specific water quality analyses. The
Water Quality Standards Handbook (EPA 1983) describes
methods for developing general and site-specific water quality
criteria.
An important consideration when establishing protective
criteria for wetlands use clasifications or modifiers is the
applicability of conventional parameters for measuring water
quality. The parameter generally regarded as the best water
quality indicator in free-flowing streams and lakes, dissolved
oxygen, may not be an appropriate measure of water quality in
wetlands. The reason is that many wetlands are intermittently
wet and dry. During dry conditions, moisture may be in the
form of soil saturation only, with no standing water. In such
cases, water quality criteria based on dissolved oxygen has
little meaning.
This situation raises several other questions. Should
criteria for wetlands be based on low-flow or wet conditions?
The assimilative capacity of many free-flowing streams, for
example, is based on low-flow conditions and meeting criteria
under those conditions. Will a discharge to a wetland system
have more impact on the wetland and downstream waters in
dry-periods or wet-periods, and how is this reflected in criteria
and associated effluent limitations? How should naturally-
fluctuating, intermittent moisture levels be incorporated into the
water quality standards program?
Potential solutions to the situation include measuring water
quality conditions by parameters other than dissolved oxygen or
by considering seasonal criteria. If current use classifications
such as fish and wildlife are applied to wetlands, then a
dissolved oxygen of 5 mg/1 probably would be required to meet
fish and wildlife conditions. But, what about the situation
found in a savannah, which is waters of the U.S., or in a
swamp, where short-term natural dissolved oxygen levels reach
zero? The fish and wildlife standards criterion of 5 mg/1
probably is not appropriate in either situation; both require
site-specific criteria which incorporate natural fluctuations or a
new use classification or use subcategory that more closely
depicts the uses to be protected.
If a new use classification or subcategory is developed,
criteria to protect uses such as storm water buffering or water
purification may not require a dissolved oxygen level greater
than 5 mg/1. Perhaps the most important parameter for
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS CRITERIA
protecting water quality and wetland processes is hydroperiod.
Another method of protecting water quality may be through the
use of biological indices, indicating the range of acceptable
change. A combination of narrative and numeric criteria may be
best, with numeric water chemistry parameters applied on a
site-specific basis. Table 5-2 illustrates alternative approaches
for establishing protective criteria for wetlands use classi-
fications or modifiers by incorporating a combination of narra-
tive and numeric criteria.
For a new wetland use classification or subcategory, other
parameters and associated criteria may be required to protect
those uses based on wetland type, conditions and downstream
water bodies. North Carolina, for example, has a qualitative
criterion of no increases in nitrogen or phosphorus in nutrient
sensitive waters. These criteria need to be established on a
site-specific basis. For a wetlands modifier such as Class B -
Wetlands, criteria for standards parameters associated with
Class R waters, such as water temperature or fecal coliforms,
may be applied to the wetland as appropriate.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS CRITERIA 5-6
Table 5-2.
Parameter
Illustrative WQS Criteria for Prospective Wetlands
Use Classifications or Modifiers.
1. Flow/Depth
2. Flow/Hydro-
period
3. Biological
Assemblage
4. Dissolved
Oxygen
5. PH
Criteria
- Seasonal water depths (monthly average)
should not be modified by more than 20
percent.
- Wet and dry cycles within a wetland
shall not be modified so as to cause loss
of predominant species or wetlands
processes. Natural drawdown periods will
not be modified by more than 10 percent.
- The Shannon-Weaver diversity index of
benthic macro-invertebrates shall not be
reduced to less than 75 percent of
established background levels.
- Predominant wetland vegetation (those
comprising over 25 percent of population)
shall not be reduced to less than 75
percent of established background
levels in affected area.
- During periods with standing or flowing
water, established levels of daily DO
fluctuations should not be modified more
than 20 percent.
- The maximum daily DO (monthly average)
shall not be modified more than 20
percent.
- Anoxic periods will not be increased by
more than 20 percent.
- During naturally dry periods, no DO
criteria will apply.
- For seasonal levels (monthly average of daily
levels) : levels of 6 or below will not be
decreased below background levels or increased
more than 1 unit; levels of 8.5 or above will
not be increased above background levels or
decreased more than 1 unit.
-------
DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS
5-7
5.3 DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS
Discharge loading limits for a wetland are based on the
wetland's ability to assimilate wastewater. Studies have been
undertaken to assess loading limits to various wetland types. A
primary objective of such studies has been to document safe
discharge levels (those that do not appear to degrade the system)
and excessive discharge levels (those that lead to wetland stress
or degradation).
The concept of generic loading limits, or those that apply to
all discharges, is not appropriate for wetland systems due to the
variation in wetland types. Some general guidelines, however, can
be based on information from currently operating natural and
created wetland systems. Hammer and Kadlec (1983), Chan et ai.
(1981) and Gearheart et ai. (1983) provide information on design
factors for meeting discharge objectives.
Ongoing wetland-wastewater systems in Florida, Michigan and
elsewhere have been reviewed for loading criteria and removal
efficiencies. These projects provide an example of the varying
conditions and experimental activities that have taken place,
hydraulic loading rates used and nutrient removal rates obtained.
For the existing information on loading rates and removal
potentials to be extrapolated to other wetlands systems,
differences in wetland types, climate, vegetation assemblages,
hydraulic loading, engineering features, water chemistry
characteristics and uses should be evaluated.
Table 5-3 describes site screening, loading criteria and design
options for several ongoing wetlands wastewater projects.
5.3.1 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Variables
Hydraulic loadings usually are described in terms of depth of
water for a given period of time: for example, inches per week or
gallons per week per acre (liters per week per hectare). Table
5-4 lists the hydraulic loading rates to several well-studied
wetland-wastewater management systems throughout the country.
Several aspects of this information are noteworthy. Many wetland
types found in the Southeast are not represented on this list, indi-
cating the lack of available information. The range of loadings
shown for each wetland type, however, offers guidance for
planning purposes.
The existence of an "effective" wetland area or zone of
influence resulting from wastewater applications also should be
considered in hydraulic analyses (see Figure 5-2). When
wastewater is discharged to a wetland it may or may not impact the
entire wetland depending on hydraulic gradient, location of
-------
Table 5-3. Summary of Engineering Considerations at Selected Metlands Discharge Sites
Site Screening
Loading Criteria
Design Options
Clermont, FL1
(1977-1979)
Gainesville, FL1
(1973-1982)
Jasper, FL1
(1916 - present)
Waldo, FL1
(1935 - present)
Mlldwood, FL1
(1957 - present)
JSU, FL2
(1967 - present)
GSMSA, SC3
(proposed)
RCID, FL4
(1971 - present)
Lake City, SC
Ongoing discharge when studies began
Site selection was based on experi-
mental design of project. Factors
Included distance from mstwater
source, size of net land, represen-
tation of typical systems and access.
Many other factors Mere Included based
on research orientation of project.
Field surveys were conducted.
Ongoing discharge when studies
began
Ongoing discharge when studies
began
Ongoing discharge when studies
began
Ongoing discharge when studies
began
Considered seven factors: land
cost, ownership, distance from
wastewater source, site preparation,
minima depth to water table, soil
permeability and habitat considera-
tions
Space available, proximity to
wastewater source, distance from
other land uses.
Surveys by state archeologlst and
registered forester required prior
to construction. Floodplaln mapping
required.
Flow - 0.011 mgd. Experimental
design examined loadings of 0.6,
1.5 and 3.8 Inches/week.
Flow - 0.016 mgd
Flow - 0.221 mgd
Flow - 0.092 mgd
Flow - 0.400 mgd
Flow - 0.66 mgd; BOO; - 20 mg/l
(max) TSS - 20 mg/l (max); TKN -
II mg/l (max) Flow equivalent
to 0.3 Inches/week.
Effluent limitations Into the
wetlands have not yet been
established. Planned flows
could reach 3.7 mgd, not exceed-
ing annual average of 1 Inch/week.
Flow - 2.12 - 3.5 mgd to
cypress swamp - 0.85 mgd to
overland flow wetland system
Secondary standards adapted for
BOO - 20 mg/l and TSS - 20 mg/l.
Flow - 4.2 mgd; BOD, - 15 mg/l;
TSS - 20 mg/l; NH, - 2 mg/l; DO
5 mg/l; Fecals - 200/100 ml.
Secondary treatment followed by three
cell lagoon and chlorI nation. Dis-
tribution via gated pipe, 98 feet long.
Secondary treatment Including lagoon
and chlorlnatlon. Distribution via
point discharge In middle of cypress
dome.
Secondary treatment followed by two
cell lagoon system prior to gravity
flow Into cypress strand. Only
primary treatment for several years.
Disinfection by chlorlnatlon.
Secondary treatment fo11 owed by
gravity flow to a cypress strand.
Only primary treatment for several years.
Secondary treatment followed by discharge
to percolation pond. Overflow discharges
to canal leading to wetland. Disinfec-
tion by chlorlnatlon.
Secondary treatment followed by dis-
charge to mixed-hardwood swamp via
channelized tributary (approxi-
mately 2800 feet long). Disinfection
by chlorlnatlon.
Raw wastewater would be pumped Into a
multlcellular aerated lagoon system;
a completely suspended cell followed by
three partially suspended cells.
Disinfection by chlorlnatlon. Storage
pond for emergency situations. Distri-
bution via gated pipe. Detention time
In cells - 7.5 days. Storage pond capa-
city - 2 weeks of average dally flows.
Secondary treatment with four methods
of disposal; cypress swamps (102 acres),
flow through wetland, spray Irrigation
and water hyacinth system. Polishing
percolation and holding ponds are also
part of the system. Disinfection by
chlorlnatlon. Single point discharge to swamp.
Advanced treatment facility with micro-
screen filters and blo-dlscs. Disinfection
by chlorlnatlon. Oxygen steps provide
reaeratlon and dechlorlnatlon of effluent.
Discharge by gravity flow Into mixed
hardwood swamp.
'Project undertaken by city/Univ. of Florida
'Jacksonville Suburban Utility
^Grand Strand Mater and Sewer Authority
'Reedy Creek Improvement District
'includes only effluent/water quality monitoring - See Table 111-1 for other types.
Ln
CO
-------
Table 5-4. Hydraulic Loading Rates to Selected Wetlands-Wastewater Systems.
Natural Wetlands
Project
Whitney Mobile Home Park, Florida
City of Waldo, Florida
Reedy Creek Utilities, Florida
City of Wlldwood, Florida
Jacksonville Suburban Utility, Florida
Village of Bellalre, Michigan
Hamilton Township, New Jersey
Town of Concord, Massachusetts
City of Brill Ion, Wisconsin
City of Clermont, Florida
Houghton Lake Sewer Authority, Mich.
Town of Drummond, Wisconsin
Wetland Type
Cypress dome
Cypress strand
Cypress strand
Swamp
Swamp
Forested
Freshwater tidal marsh
Shrub, deep marsh
Marsh
Marsh
Peat land
Bog
Influent
Type'
S
P
S
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Wetland
Area*
(ha)
6
1602
41
202
15
500
19
l,6193
-
2434
10
Average Dry
Weather Flow*
(m3/day)
227
454
7,570
946
2,574
1,1365
26,495
2,309
757
42
379
379
Inches/
Week
1.03
0.07
(3.36)6
5.1
0.13
0.3
2.1
1.44
3.24
0.013
(0.135)6
0.6
1.5
3.8
0.043
(3.76)6
1.02
1) Influent Types: P - primary effluent; S - Secondary effluent
2) Effective treatment Is achieved within 4 ha, but the total stand Is approximately 160 ha.
3) Study area 156 ha
4) Effective area 3 ha
5) May-November only
6) Effective loading
Conversion factors: 1 m3 = 264.2 gal; 1 ha = 2.47 acres.
"Approximate sizes and flows
Source: Adapted from Hyde, et al. 1982.
-------
5-10
Figure 5-2. Schematic of the Zone of Affected Soil and Biomass.
Wastewater
i,, Discharge
tfft Point
SS:
Principle of an "effective" wetland
area where: 1) wastewater may
not impact entire wetland and
2) zone of influence increases
with time.
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
-------
DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS 5-11
distribution system and size of discharge related to size of the
wetland. Further, a zone around the discharge serves to
assimilate the wastewater most effectively. This zone grows
larger as wastewater continues to be discharged and the assimi-
lative capacity of the immediate area saturated. The major
hydraulic and hydrologic variables that should be addressed by
discharge guidelines are:
1) Discharge loading rates
2) Hydroperiod (timing and duration of wet and dry
periods)
3) Area of inundation during wet and dry periods
4) Depth of inundation
5) Velocity
6) Average residence time
7) Estimation of sensitivity to hydraulic fluctuations.
Section 9.5 presents potential approaches for estimating
water flows, velocities, depth, residence time and area of
inundation in wetlands under natural conditions and with the
addition of wastewater.
Discharge Loading Rates. Two hydraulic loading rates
governing wastewater flows to wetlands often are used as
guidelines. One is the application rate of 1 inch per week over
the area of the wetland (Odum 1976) and the other is 60 people
per hectare (2.47 acres) (Nichols 1983, Richardson and Nichols
1985). The latter, which equates to approximately 0.6 inch per
week, is intended more as a determinant for nutrient removal;
nonetheless, it addresses hydraufic loading. Based on the
assessment of hydraulic loading rates to other systems, these
rates may be low for some open systems. If a higher percentage
of nutrient removal is desired, however, these rates are more
appropriate. The basis for their use depends on specific objec-
tives and the wetland system. Some cypress strands continue to
function well at slightly higher levels, indicating the importance
of whether a system is hydrologically isolated or open. Yet as a
conservative basis to begin an assessment of loading rates
during engineering planning, these loading rates are suggested.
In establishing hydraulic loading rates based on an annual load-
ing (e.g., inches/week), the effective size of the wetland needs
to be determined as well as the total wetland size. The effective
size also is known as the zone of influence or the area of impact
of the discharge. Discharge loading limits should be based on
the effective size if it differs from the total size.
Hydroperiod. The seasonal water level fluctuations in a
wetland is known as its hydroperiod. One of the major aspects
of evaluating a wetlands hydroperiod, if historical records are
not available, is correlating the observed hydroperiod with
long-term averages. Once a wetlands hydroperiod has been
assessed, the hydraulic loadings can be scheduled to coincide
with the natural hydroperiod. This can be important in
-------
DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS 5-1;
wetlands where drawdown is essential to vegetative
reproduction. Hydroperiod also impacts the species found in a
wetland and competition between species. A significant
alteration of hydroperiod can modify species composition.
Cypress domes need a period of drawdown for reproduction
whereas some marsh vegetation requires the continual presence
of water. The calculation of hydroperiod is discussed in the
Chapter 4 User's Guide.
Area of Inundation. In some hydrologically connected
wetland systems, the addition of water will not cause a major
increase in the area of wetland inundated. In hydrologically
isolated systems, hydraulic loadings can significantly affect the
area of inundation. Determination of the area of inundation is
important for determining the residence time of waters in
wetlands which is calculated from hydraulic loading and area.
This, in essence, requires an understanding of wetland
topography and hydrologic interconnections. See Section 9.5 for
methods to estimate area of inundation.
Depth of Inundation. The depth of surface waters varies
with hydroperiod and hydraulic loading. It also is related to the
topography and the area of inundation. Hydraulic loadings to
wetlands with constricted flow paths can result in greater
depths or a greater area of inundation. Changes in depth of
inundation can alter vegetation species and wildlife habitat.
Water depth also can affect the denitrification process.
Differences in the normal depth and depths during runoff or
flooding conditions also should be noted. Typically, for streams
and rivers the cross-sectional area is determined for different
stages. Then, for varying relocations, the flow can be calcu-
lated. This approach has applicability to wetlands for estab-
lishing the relationships between area, depth (stage), velocity,
retention time and hydraulic loading. See Section 9.5 for
methods to estimate water depths.
Velocity. Velocity is important to discharge rates for several
reasons. Velocity from the discharge point(s) should be kept
below the level that could lead to scour of sediment and damage
to vegetation. This velocity needs to be balanced with that
necessary to create scour in pipes to prevent clogging. Once in
the wetland, velocities should be reduced if solids removal and
sedimentation are desired. The upper limits of velocity for
settling depend on particle size and type of solids. Velocity
within a wetland depends on some of the relationships discussed
earlier (hydraulic loading, area) as well as the roughness, or
amount of vegetation and contour of wetland. See Section 9.5 for
methods to estimate velocity.
Residence Time. To prevent the confusion in terminology
between detention and retention time, residence time is used to
-------
DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS 5.13
express the length of time a water particle remains in the
wetland, or its time of travel through the wetland. Residence
time depends on the interrelationship between area if inunda-
tion, hydraulic loading and velocity. This may not be an
important consideration if wastewater disposal is the primary
management objective. But if enhanced renovation is desired,
the residence time is important. Many of the assimilative
processes in wetlands depend on slow moving, sheet flow condi-
tions. Typically, residence times in the range of 7-14 days are
sought for enhanced treatment.
It is a good practice to calculate residence times for different
hydraulic conditions, from low flows to flood flows. This might
serve as an indicator of when flows might be increased (e.g.,
during low flow, long residence conditions) and when flows
might be decreased due to shorter than acceptable residence
times (e.g., high or stormwater flow conditions). See Section
9.5 for methods to estimate residence times.
Estimation of Sensitivity to Hydraulic Fluctuations.
Estimating wetland sensitivity to hydraulic variables is difficult
based on the currently available data. The importance of flow
and hydroperiod on vegetation species, wildlife habitat and
reproductive cycles has been discussed. Since the effects of
hydraulic fluctuations on specific wetlands is difficult to
generalize, site-specific estimates will be necessary in most
cases. The interrelationships between hydrology, geomor-
phology, water quality and ecology also make the task of assess-
ing sensitivity more difficult. Table 8-3 provides some general
indications of sensitivity by wetland type. Although general,
these wetland sensitivities should be considered in establishing
hydraulic loading limits.
Hydrologic Interconnections. The classification of a system
as hydrologically open or isolated is important. Open systems
are typically less sensitive to hydraulic loadings than isolated
systems, since the latter have greater flushing ability. Addition-
ally, groundwater connections (i.e., groundwater recharge or
discharge) may differ between hydrologically open and isolated
systems. Therefore, a determination of whether the wetland is
hydrologically isolated or connected should be conducted. Table
5-5 summarizes observed hydraulic loading by hydrologic type.
Note that these are observed and not recommended rates. For
some of the rates observed, detrimental impacts have resulted.
The maximum loading rates to hydrologically isolated systems are
less than for connected systems. This is due largely to the
restricted outflows and flushing in isolated systems.
Site-specific assessments will be necessary regardless of a
wetlands hydrologic classification to assess sensitivity to
hydraulic loading.
-------
DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS
Table 5-5. Range of Observed Hydraulic Loading Rates
(in/week) for Different Wetland Types*
Open Systems Isolated Systems
Bottomland hardwoods Bog/Pocosin
0.04-3.8 0.04-1.02
Cypress strands Cypress dome
0.9-5.1 1.0-3.0
Marsh
0.01 -3.8
*These are observed, not recommended, ranges. A rate not
exceeding 1 in/wk is recommended unless a higher rate can be
shown not to degrade the wetland or exceed water quality
standards.
When developing acceptable hydraulic loading rates, all
inflows and outflows of the wetland system (i.e., the water
budget) should be delineated. The inflow/outflow rates of
precipitation, evapotranspiration, surface water and ground-
water can vary daily, weekly and seasonally. The hydraulic
loading rate of wastewater must adapt to these variations. It is
recommended that weekly or monthly averages be used as guide-
lines for design. Operation rates can be refined in response to
actual site conditions. Variable hydraulic loadings based on
natural wet and dry periods should be incorporated into design.
5.3.2 Nutrient Loadings
One of the valuable functions of wetlands is their uptake and
release of phosphorus, nitrogen, sulfur and carbon. Most wet-
lands can assimilate the nutrient levels present in secondary
treated wastewater with little impact other than increased
growth of vegetation. Nutrient loading rates are important for
wetland systems designed to provide removal of nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus) from wastewater. In these cases,
the nutrient loading rate is related directly to the wetlands'
adsorption abilities. Nutrient loading rates must be developed in
connection with hydraulic loadings so that residence times are
adequate for nutrient removal mechanisms. Table 5-6 lists some
nutrient loadings applied to various wetland systems and the
resulting removal efficiencies.
Ultimately, nutrient loading limits should be based on the
nutrient sensitivity of the wetland and downstream waters as
reflected by water quality standards criteria. Typically,
standards criteria are not established for nutrients in wetlands.
-------
Table 5-6. Removal of N and P from Wastewater8 and Fertilizer Applied to Natural Wetlands
Types of Wetland
1 ) Shrub-sedge fen
2) Forest-shrub fen
3) Blanket bog
4) Hardwood swamp
5) Cattail marsh
6) Cattail marsh
7) Cattail
8) Deep water marsh
9) Glycerla marsh
10) Cypress dome
Location
Michigan
Michigan
Ireland
Florida
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Ontario
Ontario
Florida
Size
(ha)
1"
18.2
-
204
156
19.4
2.4
162
20
1.0
Years
Nutrients
were
App 1 1 ed
1C
1e
2f
39
4h
5"
1
2
3
20
55
69
69
55
55
4
Nutrient
Total
P
(g/mi
1.7
0.9
2.6
1.7
1.8
1.7"
5.0
13.1
8.1
0.9
15.2
7.1
63.6
11.6
77
17.2
Load 1 ng
Total
£/y)
1.9d
1.5d
6.5d
9.3d
6.2d
9.3*1, d
1*5.4d
10.3d
-
-
53.6
428
78.6
404
-
Nutrient
Total
P
(*)
95
91
88
72
64
65"
96
72
43
87
32
47
20
58J
24J
4)k
Remova 1
Total
N
96d
75d
80d
80d
77d
75h,d
82d
87d
68d
-
-
31
1
4lJ
38J
-
"Secondary effluent
bArea affected by study, entire wetland Is 710 ha
°May - September
dlnorganlc N only, organic N not measured
eAugust - October
fMarch - November
9Aprll - November
"June - November
'Chemical fertilizers, not wastewater, applied
JWastewater applied year-round, but percent removal measured during the growing season only. Percent removal
would likely have been much less If calculated on a year-round basis.
klnflltratlon accounts for 50% (8.6 g/m2) of output while runoff accounts for 9.3? of output.
Conversion factors: 1 ha = 2.47 acres; 1 g/m^ = 8.91 Ib/acre.
Source: Adapted from Richardson & Nichols 1985.
I
I—*
t_n
-------
DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS
Therefore, on-site assessments may be necessary to establish
nutrient limits. Also, generalized nutrient loading information is
of limited value. The main purpose of Table 5-6 is to show a
range of nutrient applications and nutrient removal potentials.
This may be helpful as a general guide to reasonable loading and
performance criteria.
Effluent limits based on these criteria depend on the
hydraulic loading, form of nutrients, nutrient assimilative or
removal mechanisms and which nutrient is limiting. Wetland size
and residence time also affect acceptable nutrient loading levels.
Nitrogen is generally more effectively removed than phosphorus.
5.3.3 Organic Loadings
Wetland systems effectively assimilate organic loads from
wastewater, typically measured in the form of BODs (EPA
1983b, Stowell et al. 1980). Removal capability depends on
vegetation type, growth patterns, and temperatures. Aquatic
systems can be overloaded with organic material, especially in
winter months when microbial activity is slowed.
Much of the documentation concerning BOD loadings is for
created aquatic systems. Created systems' loading rates range
from 20 to 100 kg/ha.day (18 to 88 Ibs/ac.day). Middlebrooks
(1980) suggests using organic loading rates of 30 kg/ha.day (26
Ibs/ac.day) or less to prevent odor production; however, the
applicability of this information to natural wetland systems may
be limited. The organic loading to most existing natural wet-
land-wastewater systems is typically based on secondary
treated effluent quality, or 30 mg/1 of BOD5. A 0.25 mgd (million
gallons per day) discharge with an effluent containing 30 mg/1
(milligrams/liter) BOD would discharge 63 Ibs. of BOD per day.
Based on the above loading suggestions, about 2.5 "effective"
acres would be necessary for such a discharge. Assuming 100
gallons per person per day, this would require about 1 acre per
1000 persons, which is significantly higher than the 60 persons
per acre Nichols (1983) cited for 50 percent nutrient reduction.
This indicates the need to address wastewater management objec-
tives in the design process. It also shows that a loading rate
based on one constituent is not the proper way to design a
system. The person per acre figure given above also suggests a
loading of over 20 inches per week, which would not be an
acceptable hydraulic loading rate.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are directly affected by
organic nutrient and loadings. Increased organic loadings
typically lead to lower dissolved oxygen levels. Natural
background DO levels vary through the day, responding to the
rate of photosynthesis, respiration, reaeration and to water
temperature. Since some wetlands become periodically anoxic
(very low DO levels), wetlands can have low DO levels without
-------
DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS 5-17
the addition of wastewater organics and nutrients. Wetland
organisms have adapted to these widely fluctuating DO
conditions. Organic loadings should not be large enough to
overload the wetland, causing increased anoxic periods.
5.3.4 Metals/Toxins Loadings
Heavy metals and other toxins found in wastewater can have
damaging effects on wetland systems. Richardson & Nichols
(1985) found that the movement of heavy metals in the natural
cycles of the wetland vegetation and sediments implies that
wetlands are not final sinks for these metals. As a result,
effluents with high metals concentrations such as would be
introduced by industrial wastes should not be applied to wetland
systems.
Little information is available on the level of toxicity of
various metals that can be assimilated by wetlands. As a guide,
Table 5-7 lists maximum concentrations of various heavy metals
in irrigation water that have been recommended for protection of
crops and those life forms that consume raw crops. For wetland
vegetation, upper limits may or may not be lower than those
indicated; little research has been conducted relating the stress
caused by specific pollutants to the many types of wetland
vegetation.
Due to the potential long-term, detrimental impacts from
heavy metals, salts, biocides and other toxins, wetlands
discharges should be limited primarily to domestic effluent. An
applicant for a discharge with an industrial component should
demonstrate that the effluent is non-toxic through the use of
bioassays, pilot studies or available literature. An assessment
of long-term loadings and bioaccumulation should also be
conducted before loading limits can be established.
5.3.5 pH Levels
Most wetland waters in the Southeast are naturally acidic
(pH less than 7.0). Wetland types that have minimal buffering
influences tend to be even more acidic due to the formation of
organic acids and the breakdown of organic compounds in the
water. This is true of Sphagnum-type bogs, pocosins, cypress
domes and others.
Generally, the pH of treated wastewater is around the
neutral level (6.0 to 8.0). The application of wastewater with
neutral pH levels is acceptable for most wetlands. However, dis-
charges to wetlands that are pH sensitive may require modifica-
tions to the pH of wastewater prior to discharging. Site-specific
decisions on pH effluent levels should be made.
-------
DISCHARGE LOADING LIMITS 5-18
Table 5-7. Recommended Maximum Concentrations for Trace Metals in Reclaimed Water Used for Irrigation.
Long-Term Use3 Short-Term Use13
Constituent (mg/l) (mg/l) Remarks
Typical Concen-
trations In Secondai
Treated Municipal
Wastexater (mg/l)
AI urn I n urn
Arsenic
BeryI I I urn
Boron
Cadm i urn
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Tin, Tungsten
and Titanium
Vanad turn
Zinc
5.0
0.10
0.10
0.75
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.2
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mol ybdenum
Nickel
Se 1 en 1 urn
1.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.02
15.0
20.0
10.0
2.5
10.0
0.05
2.0
0.02
0.1
2.0
20.0 Can cause nonproductlv ity In acid soils, but
soils at pH 5.5 to 8.0 will precipitate the
ion and eliminate toxiclty.
2.0 TcKlcity to plants varies widely, ranging from 0.002
12 rag/1 for Sudan grass to less than 0.05 mg/l '
for rice.
0.5 Toxiclty to plants varies widely, ranging from
5 mg/l for kale to 0.5 mg/l for bush beans.
2.0 Essential to plant growth, with optimum yields
for many obtained at a few-tenths mg/l In
nutrient solutions. Toxic to many sensitive
plants (e.g., citrus plants) at I mg/,
0.05 Toxic to beans, beets and turnips at concen- 0.01
tratlons as low as 0.1 mg/l In nutrient solution.
Conservative limits recommended.
1.0 Not generally recognized as essential growth 0.09
element. Conservative limits recommended due
to lack of knowledge on tox Iclty to plants.
5.0 Toxic to tomato plants at 0.1 mg/l in nutrient
solution. Tends to be Inactivated by neutral
and a I kal Ine sol I s.
5.0 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0 mg/l 0.05
In nutrient solution.
Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.
Not toxic to plants In aerated soils, but can
contribute to soil acidification and loss of
essential phosphorus and molybdenum.
Can Inhibit plant cell growth at very high 0.02 to
concentrations. 0.03
Tolerated by most crops at up to 5 mg/l;
mobile In soli. Toxic to citrus at low doses—
recommended limit is 0.075 mg/l.
Toxic to a number of crops at a few-tenths to a 0.05
few mg/l In acid soils.
Not toxic to plants at normal concentrations in
soil and water. Can be toxic to livestock If
forage Is grow in soils with high levels of
available molybdenum.
Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 to 1.0 0.2
mg/l; reduced toxiclty at neutral or alkaline pH.
Toxic to plants at low concentrations and to
livestock If forage Is grown In soils with low levels
of added selenium.
Effectively excluded by plants; specific tolerance
level s unknown.
1.0 Toxic to many plants at relatively low concen-
trations.
10.0 Toxic to many plants at widely varying concen- 0.3
tratlons; reduced tox (city at Increased pH (6
or above) and In fine-textured or organic soils.
"For water used continuously on all soils.
"For water used for a period of up to 20 years on fine-textured neutral or alkaline soils.
"-Depends upon extent of disinfection.
Sources: U.S. EPA (1980) and data from North Carolina and California.
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS
5.4 EFFLUENT LIMITS
The determination of effluent limitations for wastewater
discharges to wetlands is complicated by the lack of appropriate
models, the typical tool used for most receiving waters, and the
difficulty in extrapolating from biological assessments to quan-
titative loading values. It is also important to establish the
relationship between parameters that fundamentally affect water
quality in wetlands, yet are not related to the level of treat-
ment; hydraulic loading, velocity, water depth and hydroperiod
are such parameters.
Several elements are necessary to assess effluent limits for
wetlands wastewater discharges, including:
1 ) Review of existing water quality standards criteria and
their applicability to wetlands
2) Downstream water quality requirements
3) Review of discharge loading limits and their apparent
effects to similar wetland types
4) Site-specific classification of a wetland as efflu-
ent-limited or water-quality limited, including
assessment of cumulative effects
5) Determination of effluent limitations including the use of
mathematical models or on-site assessments.
Elements 4 and 5, those actually involved in establishing
effluent limitations, will be discussed in the following sections.
Table 5-8 indicates the current state policies and procedures for
determining effluent limitations in wetlands.
Water quality criteria are established to protect the identified
uses of waters of the U.S. Effluent limitations are intended to
protect receiving waters and maintain standards criteria by
preventing their assimilative capacities from being exceeded.
For wetlands, the initial step in assessing effluent limitations is
evaluating the applicability of existing criteria to wetlands. If
generic or site-specific standards have been developed for the
wetland, the determination of effluent limitations is simplified.
If such standards are not available, a site-specific assessment
likely will be needed. Information gained from studies of
discharge loading rates to wetlands also might provide guidance
in establishing effluent limits.
-------
Table 5-8. Current State Policies and Procedures Affecting Establishment of Effluent Limitations
Methods Used to Develop
State Effluent Limits for Wetland Discharges Existing Policies on Wetland Discharges
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
D.O. model
Biological assessment for
advanced treatment cases
D.O. model plus biological
assessment for advanced
treatment cases
DO model or qualitative analyses
Mathematical model
D.O. model modified by
by best professional
j udgement
No specific policy, best professional judgement
used .
Wetland discharges allowed under a< per I mental
projects. Recent legislation requires assessing
use of wetlands for waste water treatment.
A minimum of secondary treatment for POTWs and BAT
for nonmuniclpal discharges.
No current policy, no wetland discharges.
Secondary treatment generally required.
Existing criteria modified based on background
conditions and best professional judgment.
Natural background
d I scharge.
levels not I o wared by
All reasonable alternatives considered
before swamp discharge allowed. A minimum
of secondary treatment for POTWs and BAT for
nonmuniclpal discharges.
No specific policy, although WOS criteria
modifications for natural conditions are
employed.
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1984.
ui
I
NJ
o
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS 5~21
5.4.1 Classification of Wetlands as Effluent- or Water Quafity-Limited
In determining the classification of the wetland as
effluent-limited or water quality-limited, several factors are
involved:
1) Should the wetland be given the same designation as the
adjoining stream segment?
2) Under what conditions is a wetland effluent limited?
3) Under what conditions is a wetland water quality
limited?
This determination is important since the process is simplified
if the wetland is classified as effluent-limited. If the wetland is
effluent-limited, effluent limitations are established by
regulatory guidelines as technology based. This means that the
effluent characteristics are based on the typical effluent
qualities associated with secondary treatment. The questions
and complexities concerning effluent limitations for wetlands
discharges are simplified if a wetland is designated
effluent-limited.
Should wetlands be designated the same as the adjoining
stream segment (for interconnected wetlands)? A general
practice to do so may be inappropriate. Due to a wetland's
assimilative capacity, water discharging from a wetland may not
reflect the pollutant sources entering a wetland. Likewise,
pollutant sources entering an adjacent stream may have little or
no impact on the wetland. For these reasons, it appears that a
wetland should, in most cases, be classified on a site-specific
basis, independent of the adjoining stream segment
classification.
The main issue is defining the conditions which prescribe a
wetland as effluent- or water quality-limited. Ideally, most
states make this determination based on a site-specific
assessment of the receiving water at the time a discharge is
proposed. If more than one facility discharges to the receiving
waters, the cumulative effects of the discharges influence the
stream classification. At a low application rate, a wetland might
be effluent-limited; whereas, at some higher application rate, it
would be classified water-quality limited.
The problem encountered when classifying the wetland is
determining the assimilative capacity. For most free-flowing
streams, this is accomplished through the use of mathematical
models to simulate dissolved oxygen levels. The problem in
wetlands is twofold. First, few of the models used for stream
assessments can be applied to wetlands. Second, dissolved
oxygen may not be the best indicator of assimilative capacity in
wetlands (or protection of wetland functions and values) .
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS 5-22
One approach to defining effluent- and water quality-limited
segments is conducting a site-survey to evaluate the effects of a
discharge. The following questions should be considered when
evaluating a wetlands' assimilative capacity.
1) Is the wetland receiving significant point or nonpoint
sources (e.g., runoff from impervious surfaces or con-
struction, other wastewater discharges)?
2) Are downstream waters sensitive to nutrients (wetlands
assimilate nutrients, but some nutrients may be flushed
from the wetland)?
3) Is the wetland itself highly sensitive to water or
nutrient additions?
4) Does the wetland currently show signs of stress
(including algal blooms, dying or dead trees, etc.)?
5) Will protected uses be impaired or existing uses be
degraded by a secondary discharge?
These questions should be answered in association with the
narrative, and perhaps numeric, standards criteria established
for the wetland. If the response to the questions is no, the
wetland could be designated as effluent-limited, and secondary
treatment would be appropriate. If one or more responses are
yes, the classification might be water quality-limited, with
specific attention given to the parameters which would not
comply with criteria (e.g., nutrients). The situation could
arise that a wetland was considered effluent limited for water
quality parameters affected by treatment processes, but not for
other parameters such as hydraulic loading. These and other
issues pertaining to the determination of effluent limitations are
discussed in the following sections.
5.4.2 Determination of Effluent Limitations for Effluent-Limited
Wetlands
By definition, secondary treatment levels are sufficient to
meet water quality standards criteria in effluent-limited
segments. If secondary treatment was not sufficient, the
segment would be classified water quality-limited. For an
effluent-limited segment, then, the effluent limitations are
typically those concentrations or loadings that can be obtained
from secondary treatment; e.g., BOD and suspended solids
concentrations of 30 mg/1 for certain treatment processes. For a
free-flowing stream nothing further would need to be
addressed. For wetlands, however, other parameters may need
to be considered.
Whether or not hydraulic loading, hydroperiod or biological
conditions are defined by standards criteria for wetlands, a
wetland could be designated effluent-limited relative to conven-
tional water chemistry parameters. However, these three addi-
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS
tional parameters may have a fundamental influence on the water
quality and long-term capability of using the wetland for waste-
water management. As a result, some minimum guidelines should
be established for these parameters by the NPDES process.
If standards criteria are modified to include such parameters
as has been suggested, then a discharge needing to limit its
hydraulic loading might be considered water quality-limited for
that reason; that is, criteria would not be met by secondary
treatment alone. The mechanism by which such parameters are
controlled is not as important as recognizing the current
limitations which exist in applying effluent- and water
quality-limited terminology to wetlands.
5.4.3 Determination of Effluent Limitations for Water Quality-Limited
Wetlands
Unlike effluent-limited segments, site-specific effluent
limitations must be established for water quality-limited
segments. The methods currently used by regulatory agencies
to derive effluent limitations include:
o Mathematical modeling
o On-site assessments.
If water quality-limited wetlands are to be considered for
wastewater discharges, techniques must be employed that
assess wetlands discharges thoroughly and that lead to effluent
limitations which accurately portray the wetlands assimilative
capacity. Effluent limitations should also reflect the antide-
gradation policies and standards criteria designed to protect
wetlands functions, values and uses. In addition, the cumu-
lative effects of all potential point and non-point pollutant
sources and wetland impacts must be considered in any
assessment, modeling or evaluation method.
The potentially limiting approach of using dissolved oxygen
levels for assessing assimilative capacity and assigning effluent
limitations also applies to water quality-limited wetlands. Other
parameters should be used in the determination regardless of
being specifically addressed by water quality standards.
In a water quality-limited situation where downstream water
quality may be a concern, effluent limitations for certain
parameters could be tied to the standards criteria of the
adjacent water body or stream segment, as long as standards
criteria in the wetland still are met. This may provide impetus
to use qualitative criteria for wetlands, particularly during dry
periods, to assure wetlands protection.
The two primary reasons a segment might be classified as
water quality limited are:
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS
1) Sensitivity to pollutants, either inherently or due to other
pollutant sources
2) Sensitivity of downstream waters.
The key is determining for which parameters the segment is
water quality-limited. It may be water quality-limited relative
to all the conventional wastewater characteristics: BOD,
suspended solids, pH, water temperature, fecal coliforms and
nutrients. The segment may only be limited in relation to one or
two parameters; in such cases secondary treatment is sufficient
for the other constituents, and more stringent limits are applied
selectively.
Mathematical Modeling. Many types of mathematical models
are available for predicting the effects on a system from internal
or external changes. Models can be general in nature or site-spe-
cific. Three types of aquatic system models exist (Mitsch 1983) :
o Watershed models
o Transport-fate models
o Ecosystem effect models.
Watershed models address stream flows and watershed run-
off. The quality of water in terms of sediments nutrients or
pesticides can be predicted by these models. An example is the
Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) developed by EPA.
Transport-fate models predict the changes in water quality at
points downstream from a pollutant source or at various
segments of open water bodies. Ecosystem-effects models
predict the effects of pollutants on a biological component of the
overall ecosystem.
Further, some models provide information on wetland
processes that are not intended to assess assimilative capacity.
For reasons stated above, the use of dissolved oxygen as a
measure of assimilative capacity upon which effluent limitations
are based, has significant limitations in its application to some
wetlands. Nonetheless, the evaluation of assimilative capacity
in some wetlands with more defined channels and with standing
or flowing water throughout the year might be assisted by model-
ing applications.
The most commonly used water quality models for determining
wasteload allocations and effluent limits are of the trans-
port-fate type. These models predict the dissolved oxygen
(DO) sag in water bodies resulting from the introduction of
organic loadings (BOD). General models such as DOSAG, Street-
er-Phelps, and Qual I have been utilized. Table 5-9 identifies
the current modeling usage of Region IV states. These trans-
port-fate models are most applicable to one-dimensional water
bodies and are not appropriate for most wetland systems. Wet-
lands tend to be ever changing in flow conditions, biochemical
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS 5-25
conditions and boundary limits. Most existing models do not
account for these types of changes. The use of an existing
general water quality model for directly developing efflu-
ent-limits for wetland-discharges is not recommended. Models
may give some guidance, however.
Site-specific models have been developed to determine the
effects of wastewater application on specific wetland systems.
The wetland geomorphology, hydrology, ecology and water qual-
ity must be identified adequately to produce accurate results.
The model should emphasize those aspects of the wetland system
that are of major concern. The use of site-specific models for
determining effluent limits is possible and may be useful in
special cases, such as when significant debate over wastewater
impacts warrants the cost of developing a site-specific model.
These site-specific models result in numerical predictions.
Caution should be taken when using these numbers because they
are merely predictions. Common sense and professional evalua-
tion must be applied along with model results to establish
reasonable and environmentally protective effluent criteria.
Table 5-9. Current Use of Aquatic System Models for Establish
ing Effluent Limits in Region IV States
AL No wetlands modeling to establish effluent limits at
present. Two-dimensional "link-node" model being
developed for future use.
FL No wetland modeling to establish effluent limits.
GA Modified version of DOSAG for unbranched river
segments, has not been used for wetlands.
KY Broadbased dissolved oxygen model, that has not been
used to date.
MS AWFRESH for streams; use professional judgement for
bayous.
NC Limits determined in unmodelable systems based on a
site visit, field study and/or best professional
judgement.
SC DOSAG II used for swamps with definable channel
geometry and flow patterns.
TN A modified form of Streeter-Phelps model is used for
streams and flow-through type wetlands. A lake model
is used for wetlands where little or no flow exists.
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1984.
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS 5-2
Many mathematical models have been prepared specifically
for freshwater wetlands. Table 5-10 lists general wetland types
and the degree to which simulation models have been applied to
them. These models are usually site-specific. Although model-
ing may not currently have great applicability for determining
effluent limits, certain models may be helpful for planning and
design. Ecosystem and water management simulation models
offer benefits for system and impact analysis.
Some wetland models have been developed by utilizing and
adapting existing general models such as SWMM (Hopkinson and
Day 1980). Mitsch et al. (1982), provide an overview of wetland
models. Table 5-11 describes wetland simulation model types.
Only a few of these models directly address the effects of waste-
water application on the specific wetland. A hydrodynamic
transport model, as described in Table 5-11, could be used to
provide guidance in establishing wetland effluent limits. This
model type has not been applied as such, however, and would
require training concerning data requirements, calibration and
application.
Table 5-10. Major Types of Freshwater Wetlands in North America
and Degree to Which Simulation Models are Available.
Modeling Effort
Type of Wetland High Moderate Low or None
Forested Swamps X
Bottomland Hardwood Forest X
Marshes and Shallow Ponds
Emergent Vegetation X
Floating Vegetation X
Bogs and Fens X
Agricultural Wetlands X
Source: Mitsch et al. 1982.
-------
Table 5-11. Wetland Simulation Model Types
Example of Model
Model Type
Description
Simulation
ConceptuaI
I. Energy/nutrient
ecosystem
2. Hydrology
a. Ecosystem
*«
b. Regional
c. Hydrodynamlc
transport
3. Spatial ecosystem
4. Tree growth
5. Process
-Related to energy, nutrients or
other materials cycling, non-spatial
-Water budget description of a wetland
without regard to connections with
external water bodies
-Considers water budget for larger
watershed or regional areas
-Describe hydrology and spatial
pollutant transport
-Hydrology with wastewater Inputs
for a fen
-A combination of ecosystem modeling
concerns with spatial transport
models
-Simulates the growth of trees
-Describes Individual processes
occurring within the wetland such
as photosynthesis
-Nutrient dynamics
Mltsch (1976)
Huff & Young (1980)
Brown (1978); Llttlejohn
(1977)
Hopklnson & Day (1980b)
Hammer and Kadlec (1985)
Parker & Kadlec (1974)
Phlpps (1979)
Miller et al (1976)
Kadlec and Hammer (1985)
Kuenzler et al. (1980)
Ryklel (1977)
Mltsch and Ewel (1979)
Source: Adapted from Mltsch et al. 1982.
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS 5-28
On-Site Assessments. All eight Region IV states conduct
on-site assessments as part of permitting discharges to wet-
lands. The components of these assessments are project-depend-
ent. Based on a survey of state practices, no formal guidelines
seem to exist for these assessments. On-site assessments are
used not only to classify wetlands (effluent- or water quality-
limited) , but also as a basis for professional judgement in
determining effluent limitations. Two important aspects of
on-site assessments need to be addressed:
1) Guidelines to improve the reproducibility, consistency and
thoroughness of on-site assessments
2) The translation of results from on-site assessments to
effluent limitations.
To improve the reproducibility or consistency of results a
standard approach to on-site assessments should be adopted.
On-site assessments may be necessary to establish site-specific
standards criteria, to designate the wetland as effluent- or
water quality-limited and/or to establish effluent limitations.
The approach adopted should meet the objectives of each. It is
anticipated the state will conduct these analyses; whereas, the
applicant will conduct site-screening and engineering planning
analyses. Since similar data collection efforts may be required
from these programs, the adoption of standard guidelines and
approaches should improve the efficiency of data collection.
The characteristics of wetlands and their abilities to
renovate wastewater are sometimes masked by the diurnal and
seasonal changes in wetlands. These and other factors affecting
data collection programs are discussed in Section 9.2. These
considerations should be incorporated into the design and
implementation of data collection efforts. The tiered approach
presented in Chapters 3 and 4, to differentiate between the
level of analyses required of discharges with different degrees
of uncertainty, also applies here. The following elements should
be assessed in relation to criteria discussed in Section 5.2, and
the establishment of effluent limitations. The analyses to be
conducted for Tier 2 discharges are indicated.
Geomorphology
o Type of wetland
o Watershed condition and development
o Soil characteristics (Tier 2)
Hydrology (see Section 9.5)
o Hydrologic interconnections
o Hydroperiod assessment (timing and degree of
fluctuations)
o Flow patterns within wetland
o Presence of water line on trees or shrubs
o Recent flow conditions prior to assessment (high or low
flow)
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS 5-2 <
Water Quality
oBasic water chemistry (see Section 4.4)
o Nutrient cycling assessment (periods of uptake and
release, if any) for nutrient sensitive wetlands or
downstream waters (Tier 2)
Ecology
o Visible condition of the wetland
o Predominant vegetation
o Presence of floating vegetation
o Presence of protected species or habitats
Planning
o Inventory of other pollutant sources
o Potential impairment of uses resulting from a wastewater
discharge
o Potential downstream impacts
The second important aspect of on-site assessments is how
they can be translated to effluent limitations. This is parti-
cularly important for water quality-limited segments but may
also be a consideration for effluent-limited segments when
limitations are needed for parameters other than water
chemistry.
If the wetland is sensitive to water chemistry changes either
naturally (e.g., bogs to pH) or because of other pollutant
sources, those parameters can be addressed specifically so that
the effluent wfll not adversely affect the wetland. The same is
true in situations where downstream waters may be nutrient
sensitive. In these situations, however, the effluent limitations
could be based on the criteria of the downstream water body. If
nutrient removal is the objective, it may need to be achieved at
the treatment plant. This may be true for many wetlands, which
either are limited in their ability to retain a nutrient or release
nutrients in the non-growing season. Some wetlands have
similar characteristics to land application systems.
A hierarchical approach for translating on-site assessment
results to effluent limits could include the following steps:
Step 1;
Review applicable water quality standards criteria for
wetland and downstream waters
Step 2;
Begin effluent limit analysis by assuming standard secondary
treatment levels for each constituent (e.g., 30 mg/1 of BOD
and suspended solids)
Step 3;
Based on wetland type and on-site assessment, evaluate
sensitivity of wetlands and downstream waters to waste-
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS 5-3(
water additions, giving particular attention to flow, pH,
BOD, suspended solids and nutrients. Assess sensitivity in
conjunction with background conditions and potential
wastewater additions.
Step 4;
Determine other pollutant sources to wetland, i.e., other
point sources and nonpoint sources.
Step 5;
Calculate the percent of total wetland flow or volume of the
proposed discharge. Compute for low water, normal and
high water (stormwater runoff) conditions.
Step 6:
Using average flow or volume values, calculate loadings to
wetland. Determine constituent concentrations in "effec-
tive" wetland area assuming no assimilation (i.e., resulting
from dilution alone).
Step 7:
Apply a conservative removal percentage that reflects
average assimilative capacity of wetland for the constituent
of concern under normal flow regime. Assess impacts of low
or high flows on residence time and assimilative processes;
evaluate effects on instream conditions.
Step 8;
If other pollutant sources discharge to wetland, determine
percentage of flows and constituent concentrations attri-
butable to proposed discharge. Employ the total maximum
daily load concept to determine acceptable loadings of
proposed discharge.
Step 9:
Estimate contribution of point sources versus nonpoint
sources on an annual basis, assuming secondary treatment
levels for point sources. Evaluate the percent reduction in
total point and nonpoint loadings on an annual basis if
treatment greater than secondary is required for certain
constituents. If reductions are not significant, nonpoint
source abatement controls may need to be initiated before
additional wastewater treatment can be justified.
Step 10;
If downstream waters are sensitive to a particular con-
stituent, effluent limits can be based on meeting downstream
criteria or instream performance criteria, provided wetlands
standards also are met. It may be more practical relating a
numeric loading to the downstream criteria.
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITS 5-31
Step 11:
If downstream waters require nutrient reduction, evaluate
proposed loadings based solely on dilution versus down-
stream standards criteria. Then apply a conservative
nutrient removal potential, if appropriate (i.e., based on an
understanding of nutrient uptake, release and reduction
processes).
Step 12;
Based on an assessment of all pollutant contributions, wet-
land and downstream water sensitivity and applicable water
quality standards criteria, identify the constituent(s) which
require additional treatment above secondary. If
necessary, confirm the assessment by repeating steps 6
through 11 for the new constituent levels.
Expected removal efficiencies are difficult to project. It is
suggested that information on removal processes and percent-
ages discussed in this Handbook and the Phase I report (EPA
1983b) be reviewed and conservative estimates established.
The determination of nonpoint source pollutant loadings also can
be difficult to estimate. One approach to this task is to use
generic nonpoint loading based on land use and soils. Some
models are designed specifically for this purpose and have been
calibrated for numerous land use types and community sizes.
Typically, 208 projects developed this information, so it is likely
that land use/nonpoint source relationships have been developed
in your region that may be applicable.
The difficulty or ease in translating the results of on-site
assessments to effluent limitations also is related to whether
standards criteria are qualitative or quantitative. The task is
more difficult when numeric standards criteria are involved,
particularly when the wetland being considered has periods of
no standing or flowing water. Seasonal criteria might be
appropriate for such wetlands.
-------
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN
6.0 ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN
6.1 RELATIONSHIP TO REGULATORY PROGRAMS 6-2
6.2 ENGINEERING PLANNING 6-3
6.2.1 Relationship to Site Screening and Evaluation
6.2.2 Planning Methodology
6.2.3 Engineering Design Considerations
6.3 STRUCTURAL OPTIONS FOR WETLAND-WASTE WATER SYSTEMS 6-9
6.3.1 Purpose and Considerations
6.3.2 Structural Options
o Wastewater Storage
o Disinfection
o Wastewater Discharge/Distribution
o Water Regulation
o Backup System
o Facilities Installation
o Other Structural Options
6.4 ENGINEERING DESIGN 6_19
6.4.1 Purpose and Considerations
6 .4 .2 Detailed Design Parameters
6.4.3 Detailed Cost Estimates
6.4.4 Specifications and Drawings
6.5 CREATED WETLANDS 6-30
6.6 USER'S GUIDE 6-37
-------
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN
6.0 ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN
Who should read thia chapter? Mainly potential wetland discharge
applicants and their engineers
What are some of the Issues are addressed by this chapter?
o What paraneters are important in planning/designing a wetlands-waste-
water discharge?
o What options are available for preventing adverse environmental
impacts of a wastewater discharge to a wetland?
o What have engineers and scientists learned from past and current
wastewater discharges to wetlands?
Engineering
Planning
and Design
Site Screening
and Evaluation
Planning Methodology]
Design
Considerations
Considerations
Design Methodology
and Parameters
Cost Estimates
Specifications
and Drawings
o Wastewater storage
o Flow distribution
o Backup system
o Water regulation
o Disinfection
o Installation
o Other options
Figure 6-1. Overview of Engineering Planning and Design.
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO REGULATORY PROGRAMS 6-2
6.1 RELATIONSHIP TO REGULATORY PROGRAMS
The engineering process inclvides planning; design; instal-
lation or construction; and operation, maintenance and monitor-
ing programs. These four steps are sequential. Engineering
activities, when conducted with a sensitivity toward environ-
mental impacts, can help control and mitigate potential impacts.
Both discharge permit requirements and the potential use of
federal funds for wastewater facilities directly encourege
environmentally sensitive engineering activities.
Each of the three regulatory programs, Water Quality
Standards (V/OS), NPDES Permitting and Construction Grants,
influence engineering planning and design. The Water Quality
Standards program ultimately will determine the level of
treatment required prior to discharging to a wetland. The
NPDES Permit program actually establishes the effluent
limitations, but they are based integrally on the WQS program.
The NPDES program probably will have the most influence on
engineering planning and design through required application
information, permit review and permit conditions.
Types of permit requirements for wetland discharges can
include: locations where wastewater enters a wetland, outflow
restrictions during certain time(s) of the year, monitoring
elements (e.g., frequency, types of analyses and monitoring
locations), quality assurance procedures, use of treatment
plant by-pass pipes and operation-maintenance-repair elements
(e.g., a procedures manual and operator training) .
During the past decade, the Construction Grants program
provided large amounts of funding for wastewater facilities;
hence, federal regulations provided additional incentive to
incorporate environmental considerations in the construction of
wastewater facilities. With the decrease in funding and the
fewer projects that will receive funding, the Construction
Grants program probably will have less influence on wastewater
facility planning and design. The WOS and NPDES programs
should provide increased guidance and controls to assure the
environmental acceptability of wastewater facilities, particularly
for wetlands discharges. Regardless of the applicability of the
Construction Grants program to an applicant, careful use of this
handbook can provide meaningful guidance toward meeting insti-
tutional requirements and safeguards.
This chapter discusses Steps 1 and 2 of the engineering
process: engineering planning and design. Chapter 7 discusses
the engineering aspects of project implementation: construc-
tion, operation and. maintenance, and post-discharge monitor-
ing. Figure 6-1 provides an overview of the engineering
planning and design considerations.
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING 6-3
6.2 ENGINEERING PLANNING
6.2.1 Relationship to Site Screening and Evaluation
Wetland-wastewater engineering planning involves defining
the objectives and needs for a facility, assessing key engi-
neering questions and determining alternative solutions. Engi-
neering planning may lead to eliminating the possibility of a
wetlands discharge; on the other hand, it may suggest the use
of engineering design options not previously considered.
Two important criteria that should be assessed early in the
planning phase are distance of the community/treatment plant to
the wetland and the area of wetland needed for wastewater man-
agement use as portrayed in Figure 6-2. These and other pre-
liminary site screening concerns are addressed in Chapter 4.
Refined estimates of these factors must be obtained in the
engineering planning stage. Excessive distance in conjunction
with pumping costs (if needed) and/or the need for a larger
wetland area than is available can eliminate the wetlands
discharge option.
Many components of engineering planning involving site evalu-
ations, alternative systems evaluation and preliminary cost-ef-
fectiveness analyses have been discussed previously in Chapter
4. The information gathered through the Chapter 4 User's Guide
should be the basis for engineering planning and design.
6.2.2 Planning Methodology
The first step in the planning process is establishing system
design objectives. The two primary functional objectives of
natural wetland-waste water systems are:
o Disposal/assimilation, emphasizing antidegradation. The
wetland is utilized as a receiving water body without
interest in optimizing its treatment capabilities.
o Disposal/assimilation and treatment, emphasizing
antidegradation and enhanced renovation. The wetland
is used as a receiving water body with added emphasis on
optimizing its treatment capabilities.
Optimizing wastewater assimilation within a wetland is a
consideration, for example, when water quality standards (and
associated wasteload allocations) for waters downstream of a
wetland require advanced wastewater treatment.
Wetland antidegradation refers to maintaining a wetland's
natural processes and preventing degradation by any waste-
water or other type of pollutant input. Effects of wastewater on
-------
6-4
Figure 6-2. Importance of wetland distance and area of
wetland impacted.
What is the distance
from the community to
the treatment facility?
And to the wetland?
r-/3S / -^1 . .. >*b
E?
What is the effective
wetland area?
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING 6-5
the wetland itself, just like wastewater assimilation, are
difficult to predict with a great deal of certainty. The same
environmental fluctuations and seemingly random water move-
ments complicate predictions of wetlands impacts and waste-
water assimilation. Wetland preservation depends on the
wetland's level of sensitivity and the quality and quantity of
wastewater applied to it. Loading rates and pollutant limits for
wastewater discharged to wetlands are discussed in Chapter 5.
Planning and designing a wetlands-wastewater system are
integrally related to several wetland characteristics. Design
parameters such as hydraulic loading depends on the size of the
wetland and its sensitivity to hydrologic or water chemistry
modifications. Therefore, wetland characteristics must be
thoroughly evaluated, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, to
assure adequate design and the incorporation of appropriate
safeguards. System design is also affected by wetlands
functions within the drainage basin, its other uses and values
and the treatment required by water quality standards.
Other system objectives also should be considered when
assessing the use of wetlands for wastewater management.
These objectives include needs for:
1. Intermittent discharges
2. Seasonal discharges
3. Partial discharges.
Intermittent discharges are those necessary only at times during
the year, e.g., if the capacity of percolation ponds was exceed-
ed and another discharge mechanism was required. Seasonal
discharges refer to those situations in which discharges may be
necessary only for one or two seasons due to population fluxes.
They could also refer to discharges which would be allowed only
during certain seasons with associated hydrologic and water
quality conditions. Partial discharges may be desirable in
situations in which wetlands could receive part, but not all, of a
facility's effluent due to wetland size or other restrictions.
Under such circumstances, additional wastewater discharge
alternatives would be necessary for the remainder of the
effluent.
After all potential wastewater management alternatives have
been defined, they should be compared and evaluated. The
preferred alternative is selected based on community needs,
financial costs, environmental impacts and implementation
capability. Other alternative evaluation processes may include
comparing alternative wetland sites or comparing engineering
design options. Section 4.3 discusses the evaluation of
alternatives.
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING 6-6
Uncertainties concerning the effects of wastewater on
wetlands performance should be incorporated into engineering
planning and design. These are discussed in Section 8.4 and
include:
o Long-term capacity for assimilation of wastewater (especially
phosphorus)
o Effects of wetland flow patterns and changing boundaries on
hydraulic design variables
o Ability to predict ecological changes from wastewater
discharges. This is complicated by:
Variable and seasonal weather conditions
Other inflows to the system
Wastewater quality variations
Limited long-term information from existing wet-
land-wastewater systems
The following sections examine structural options and design
considerations intended to address these and other concerns.
6.2.3 Engineering Design Considerations
Traditionally, wastewater facilities design has included
plant siting, process design, construction staging, plant layout
and facilities structures. These activities also must be
conducted for a wetlands-wastewater system, since wetlands
are only one part of the wastewater management system. The
use of wetlands introduces potential benefits and risks,
however, so design practices should incorporate some additional
features. A typical wetland-wastewater management system is
illustrated in' Figure 6-3. The design concerns specifically
addressing the use of wetlands will be discussed in this section;
design of the primary and secondary treatment systems and
sludge disposal methods are not included.
Table 6-1 lists the basic design concerns for a wetlands
wastewater system. Addressing these design concerns involves
analyzing the trade-offs among costs, environmental impact3.
operating needs and implementing procedures. The method by
which these issues can be addressed and used for system design
is presented by the Chapter 6 User's Guide.
Once alternative discharge methods, locations and predis-
charge requirements are developed, the various facets of costs,
impacts, operation and implementation should be considered care-
fully. Design decisions should be based on both cost-eftec-
tiveness analyses and qualitative judgements of available
scientific and engineering information. Wetland scientists
should be consulted while the alternatives are being evaluated
and throughout the design stage.
-------
Untreated
Wastewater
Primary
Treatment
Secondary
Treatment
Clarifier
Trash & Grit
Removal
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING 6-8
Table 6-1. Wetlands-Wastewater System Design Issues
o The need for additional treatment or existing treatment plant
modifications prior to the wetlands discharge
o Where to apply the treated wastewater
o How to apply the treated wastewater
o The need for wastewater storage
o The degree of renovation expected from the wetland
o What type of disinfection to employ
o Structural options available to meet wastewater objectives
o Methods of accessing the wetland for operation and mainte-
nance purposes
o Design safety factors
o System reliability and need for backup treatment/disposal
methods
The design of a wetlands-wastewater system depends
ultimately on several key elements discussed in engineering
planning sections, including:
1. System objectives
2. Wastewater flow and quality
3. Wetland size and distance from treatment facility
4. Assimilative capacity and long-term potential
5. Discharge loading limits
6. Maintenance and protection of wetlands functions and
values.
The maintenance of wetlands functions and values should be an
integral part of engineering design. It is an element that is not
always considered in the design phase. With a wetlands dis-
charpe, however, this should be explicitly included in design.
Ideally, effluent limitations establish discharge loading limits
that will allow protective water quality standards to be met.
However, several parameters important to wetland functions and
values are not currently part of the Water Quality Standards
program. These parameters should be addressed in system
design, though, since the long-term capabilities of wetlands to
receive and assimilate wastewater depend on the maintenance of
natural functions. This stresses the need to incorporate the
considerations addressed in Chapter 4 and 5 into system design.
-------
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS 6-9
6.3 STRUCTURAL OPTIONS FOR WETLAND-WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
6.3.1 Purpose and Considerations
The wide variety of wetland types in Region IV and their
varying hydrologic conditions requires a discriminating use of
the engineering options presented in this chapter. It is
recommended that the design of existing and potential waste-
water discharges to wetlands co'nsiders all the benefits and
costs of the technology presented here. Selection of the best
engineering options requires the evaluation of the site-specific
conditions for each wetland-wastewater management system.
The details of design and performance available for
conventional wastewater management systems are not readily
available nor time-tested for the wetlands wastewater systems.
Nonetheless, information from existing natural and created
wetlands-wastewater systems can be used for guidance, if
properly applied. Chapters 5 and 8 present additional
information gained from existing systems.
Most of the structural options encourage uniform distribution
of wastewater flow throughout the wetland and describe modifi-
cations to wastewater treatment systems prior to the wetlands
discharge. It is recommended that all options discussed in this
section be considered by municipal wastewater planners prior to
installing a new system or renovating an existing system.
Given the current limited ability to predict the extent of
optimizing wastewater assimilation and the requirements for
wetland protection, it might be appropriate when uncertainty is
high (e.g., for large discharges to unstudied wetland systems)
to test specific applications prior to full-scale implementation.
Such tests could include bench-scale laboratory tests or field
tests.
6.3.2 Structural Options
Structural options are intended to protect wetlands
functions and values and, in selected cases, to enhance the
wastewater renovation capability of a wetland. To meet these
objectives, design and operation/maintenance guidelines are
necessary. The latter are discussed in Chapter 7. Six
structural design elements should be assessed for
wetlands-wastewater systems. The selection of which options
are most appropriate for a given wetland depends on such
site-specific variables as wetland type and sensitivity, effluent
quality, wetland size and system objectives.
-------
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS
The primary structural design options are:
Wastewater Storage
- retention basins
- aeration ponds
Disinfection
- chlorination/dechlorination
- alternative methods
(ozone, ultraviolet light)
- no disinfection
Wastewater Discharge/Distribution
- multiple locations
- multi-port
- gated pipe
- overland flow
- spraying
- single pipe
Water Regulation
- levees/berms/dikes
- multiple-cells
- vegetation
Backup System
- other wetland sites
- other receiving waters
- land application
Facilities Installation
- on-ground
- suspension from boardwalks
Wastewater Storage. Wastewater storage ponds or basins
prior to a wetlands discharge can be used to:
o Assure consistent application and avoid hydraulic
overload
o Store wastewater during winter months, storms and wet
periods, if necessary
o Store wastewater during stress periods, critical breeding
times, accidental spills of toxins, or introduction of heavy
concentrations of other pollutants from runoff.
Operation of storage ponds must be responsive to the chang-
ing climatic conditions and to other events in the watershed (for
hydrologically connected wetlands). A wetland scientist should
be consulted in the design phase to gather general information on
seasonal watershed characteristics in order to properly size the
storage facilities.
Aeration of the storage pond may be necessary if retention
times are long and pretreatment is inadequate. The available
methods for aerating ponds are described in wastewater treat-
ment lagoon design literature.
-------
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS 6~n
Disinfection. Chlorination of wastewater prior to discharge
into wetland areas raises concern over the possible production
of chlorinated hydrocarbons. The production of these chlorine
by-products could severely affect the health of wetland plants
and animals, and alter the wetland ecosystem. Chlorinated
hydrocarbons result from the reaction of chlorine residuals with
organics in an acidic environment. Therefore, it is possible that
hydrocarbons would be produced from chlorinated wastewater
discharges into the highly organic and naturally acidic waters of
wetland areas.
One option for reducing chlorine residuals or inhibiting
production of chlorinated by-products is to dechlorihate the
wastewater following chlorine additions. Dechlorination
methods include:
o The addition of sodium metabisulfite or sulphur dioxide to
the chlorinated wastewater
o Use of a detention pond to allow time for the natural
dissipation of chlorine residuals
o Oxygen steps that help dissipate chlorine residual.
Another option is using alternative disinfection methods such
as:
o Chlorine dioxide
o Ultraviolet light
o Ozone.
Throughout recent decades, chlorine has been utilized for
disinfection at well over 95 percent of all wastewater treatment
facilities. Hence, experience with these alternative methods is
relatively limited in the United States, although their effec-
tiveness in killing microorganisms in wastewater has been well
proven. A cost analysis comparing the different disinfectants
and associated O&M is highly recommended prior to design.
No disinfection is a third possibility. The cost savings and
avoidance of chlorinated by-products associated with no disin-
fection, however, could be outweighed by the risks of pathogen
transmission. Disinfection typically is considered part of
secondary treatment and necessary to meet water quality stan-
dards. Where a bacterial water quality standards criterion does
not exist or where the criterion can be achieved without
disinfection, no disinfection may be feasible.
Wastewater Discharge/Distribution. Experience has shown
that the more evenly wastewater is distributed over the surface
area of the wetland, the greater the assimilation of flows,
organics and nutrients (i.e., more complete mixing as opposed to
plug flow from single pipe discharges). Uniform flow
-------
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS 6-12
distribution should be achieved to protect the wetland from
wastewater disposal and enhance renovation.
The options for flow distribution include:
o Multiple discharge locations
o Multi-port pipe
o Gated pipe
o Overland flow
o Spraying
o Single pipe
o Channel overflow.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of these discharge
methods are presented in Table 6-2. The use of multiple
discharge points is recommended to enhance distribution of flow
and maximize the effective area of the wetland. Having more
than one discharge location within the wetland can also add
flexibility to operation and maintenance. This option also helps
maintain' sheet flow and reduces the likelihood of creating
effluent channels through the wetland.
Once the discharge locations are identified, the configuration
of piping to distribute wastewater flow must be considered.
Figure 6-4 illustrates several configurations. Critical concerns
in choosing a distribution piping method include:
o Optimizing use of wetland area
o Reducing short circuiting through the wetland in the
event of storms, high velocity flows or runoff
o Preventing damage to localized areas of the wetland if
improperly treated wastes or a slug of industrial wastes
enters the system.
Multi-port piping or gated piping are also good methods for
distributing flow throughout the wetland. Using these methods,
now is distributed along the length of the discharge pipe through
the wetland. If hydraulic gradients are known, placement ot
pipes can direct flows to certain areas of the wetland.
Overland flow is an excellent method of discharging to a
wetland. Resides serving as a means of flow distribution, such
systems also can be designed to provide treatment. They can be
designed as part of the treatment system in conjunction with a
wetlands discharge. Figure 6-5 indicates the components of an
overland flow system. Regardless of whether treatment is
desired, the effluent enters the wetland evenly and without
causing channelization. It does not provide the flexibility of
multi-port discharges into the wetland; but in those cases where
laving pipes in the wetland or from boardwalks may need to be
avoided, or when additional treatment is desired, overland flow
should be considered.
-------
Table 6-2. Effluent Discharge Configurations
Advantages
Effluent Application
Configurations
Disadvantages
Mitigating Measures
Multi-port distribution to
wetland, gravity
flow
Overland Flow
Distribution within
wetland, spray flow
Point discharge at
edge of wetland, or Into
the wetland, gravity flow
Channel discharge,
gravity flow
More uniform wastewater
distribution
Relatively low O&M
requirements (no moving
parts)
More uniform flow
distribution of
wastewater
Wetlands act as a
secondary disposal area
In some circumstances
More uniform distribution
of wastewater
May provide some
dechlorlnatlon
Low erosion potential
via spraying
Low cost
Low O&M requirements
Low energy use
Can be Installed with
minimal Impacts to a
natural wetland
Low O&M requirements
Installatlon Impacts
11ml ted to edge of
wetland
May provide some
dechlorlnatlon within
channel (cascade effect)
Installation Impacts to
natural wetlands If built past
the edge of the wetland
Installation costs
Little control over flow
reaching the wetland
May be difficult to monitor
Erosion could occur If flow
rates not properly calculated
Aerosols may cause public
health Impacts
Energy required
Nozzles may clog
O&M requirements higher
than for other alternatives
Installation Impacts to natural
wetlands
Installatlon costs
Often poor or unknown distribution
of wastewater
Erosion & channelization may occur
If wastewater velocity Is high
Solids may accumulate near
discharge If wastewater velocity
is low
Often poor or unknown distribution
of wastewater
Erosion or channelization may occur
If wastewater velocity Is high
Solids may accumulate near discharge
If wastewater velocity Is low
Requires more frequent maintenance
Distribution may be accomplished
within by pipe outfalls at a variety
of points within wetland, or by
perforated or grated pipes
Pipes can be Installed on the
surface, burled or elevated
Surface pipes will have less
Installation Impacts and costs
but will have greater O&M
requirements.
Potential Increase In number of
monitoring wells & sites
Erosion control techniques
(contouring overland flow area)
Control storm runoff volume by
controlling extent of drainage area
of overland flow systems, and by
vegetation.
Piping may be laid on the surface,
burled or elevated
Surface piping will have fewer
Installatlon impacts and costs
but will have greater O&M
requirements
Distribution may be Improved by
selection of discharge point to
take advantage of natural flow
paths, Increasing the number of
discharge points or enhancing
mixing within the wetland by
mechanical or physical devices
Erosion control techniques are
aval(able.
Grass-lined channel may be
used
Erosion control techniques are
aval table.
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA 1980,
I
H-*
u>
-------
_!l
»k" iHo1' )k
SINGLE PIPE
DISCHARGE
OVERLAND
FLOW
WASTE
WATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
CHANNEL
DISCHARGE
^ift|f
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985. Figure 6-4. Distribution methods for wetland-waste water systems.
i
h-1
J>
-------
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS 6-15
Rgure 6-5. Overland Flow Treatment/Discharge System
OVERLAND FLOW (SURFACE DISCHARGE)
APttlf D WASTIWATM
MASS
Spraying is a discharge option often utilized for land appli-
cation but relatively infrequently for wetlands. Nonetheless, it
is a good mechanism for distributing the flow evenly and reduc-
ing channelization of flows. However, such a system may
require additional piping and O&M. Also, spraying could impact
vegetation and wildlife habitat more than ground spreading
techniques.
Single pipe or direct channel flows have been used most often
by existing wetlands dischargers. They are probably the least
desirable due to their channelizing effects and short-circuiting
of flows through the wetland. They also cause the greatest
impact to the immediate vicinity of the discharge.
The design of discharge structures also should be based on
the hydraulic loading considerations discussed in previous
chapters. Knowledge of hydraulic loading, timing, velocity,
residence time and water depth requirements for the wetland
should be a major determinant in the selection and design of
discharge structures, as well as water regulation structures.
Section 5.4 discusses the importance of these hydraulic
variables to discharge loading criteria. Section 9.5 presents
potential methods for estimating these hydraulic and hydrologic
variables.
Water Regulation. Regulated water flow into and out of the
wetland can improve the use of a wetland system as a treatment
method. Water regulation options include the use of 1) berms,
levees and wiers, 2) multiple cells and 3) vegetation. The use
of berms, levees and wiers is suitable in some situations, but
often it leads to changes that could impact significantly the
wetland. They typically are used in created systems to control
-------
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS 6-16
water depth, retention time and flow patterns. However, berms
(e.g., Cannon Beach, Oregon) and wiers (Reedy Creek, Florida)
have been used for some natural systems to provide water
regulation. The use of berms or levees should be carefully
controlled to minimize adverse impacts on hydroperiod and other
wetland characteristics. A 404 Permit from the Corps of Engineers
for the discharge of dredge and fill material would likely be
required for these wetland modifications. The use of wiers has
much less impact on the wetland, since typically the structures
are placed on the wetland boundary and can be controlled more
easily not to impact the wetland.
Another major water regulation option is the use of multiple
"ceils" or areas for discharge. In natural wetlands, "cells" are
difficult to delineate due to the structural variation of wetlands
and difficulty in determining wetland boundaries. With some know-
ledge of wetland flow-through patterns, the engineer should be
able to define distinct flow areas, so that "ceils" can be
designated. This has been accomplished for a project utilizing
wetlands in Oregon (Humphrey 1984). Having a minimum of two
cells, or two distinct wetland systems, would be beneficial for
wetland types that require a dry-down period in order to reseed.
Also, multiple cells allow for a resting period to reduce the stress
load on the wetland. If distribution system repairs are needed,
the second ceil can be used during repair times. Multiple cell
design provides a safety factor for design uncertainties.
The design of more than one wetland ceil and/or several
discharge locations within the wetland provides the opportunity
for intermittent operation. An intermittent operation requires a
mechanism for alternating discharge locations. This can be done
mechanically or manually. A storage pond or equalization basin is
necessary as part of an intermittent operation. Intermittent
application helps buffer the hydraulic and organic/nutrient stress
on the wetland. Alternating flows can be on short term or longer
term cycles, depending on the anticipated "resting" times for the
specific wetland type. Chapter 7 provides more information on
intermittent operation and Figure 7-4 portrays the use of multiple
ceils.
Flows also can be regulated in the wetland by using of natural
vegetation. The presence of vegetation slows and distributes
flows. When selecting discharge locations, it is recommended that
sites within the wetland with clumps of dense and diverse types of
vegetation be used. The vegetation also acts as a filter and
increases the assimilative capacity of the wetland (Gearheart et
ai. 1983).
A combination of using water regulation options and/or backup
systems can be important during times when dry or resting periods
are essential to wetland processes or habitat values.
-------
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS 6-17
Backup System. Backup disposal systems become critical in
areas where winter operation might limit the assimilative
capacity of the wetland, when seasonal flow conditions might
prevent a discharge or when long-term impacts are being
detected. System backups include: 1) other wetland areas, 2)
other receiving waters or 3) land application. In cases where
long-term impacts have been documented, the use of other
wetland areas might also be limiting, depending on the reason for
the impacts.
The purpose of a backup system is to assure the wetland will
be protected and its assimilative capacity will not be overloaded.
Due to the uncertainties associated with wetlands discharges
under some circumstances, backup systems or alternatives to
the wetlands discharge could be developed as a contingency.
This is particularly important when little is known about
wastewater impacts to the wetland type being used or when
wastewater flows exceed the generally adopted conservative
loading rate of one inch/week.
Facilities Installation. The installation of distribution
facilities and other structural elements should limit wetland
disturbance during and after installation.
Above ground piping, for instance, has been used and is the
preferred option for minimizing wetland disturbance. Piping can
be suspended along boardwalks, walkways or adjacent to
roadways. This method provides access to the distribution
system as well.
Pipelines above the ground can be more costly, however, and
are susceptible to storms, cold temperatures and other external
effects. They also can cause wildlife impacts as well as affect
the hydraulic gradient if not properly planned and designed.
Pipelines below ground are not easily monitored nor
maintained and are susceptible to differential soil movement
common in a wetland area. Environmental impacts from installa-
tion are less significant for above-ground pipelines. The
specific site conditions must be assessed to determine the best
method of piping installation.
Other Structural Options. Wetlands are often part of a
greater system of waterways and drainage areas. In these
cases, wetlands used as wastewater management systems are
subject to other upstream or offsite inflows. These inflows may
contain pollutants (sediments, herbicides, pesticides, organics)
from agricultural, urban or silvicultural (tree harvesting)
runoff. State regulatory agencies could help to control the
quality of these inflows by enforcing the best management prac-
tices for agriculture, tree removal and urban runoff. A
structural option available for minimizing the effects of inflow
-------
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS 6-18
pollutants on the wetland-wastewater system is the construction
of upstream retention ponds or sediment traps. These facilities
would act as collection basins for sediments and other pol-
lutants. Such modifications should not affect the natural hydro-
logic regime of the wetland. The use of wetlands for waste water
management should he evaluated and, if implemented, operated
in relation to other existing or potential inflows of pollutants.
The inclusion of artificial substrate in natural wetland
systems is a structural option specifically geared toward improv-
ing the treatment capabilities of the wetland. Ustially the
material is placed in the wetland to provide more surface area
for microbial organisms which conduct waste assimilation. It
may be a usable option for situations in which the wetland type
is not diversely vegetated (previously degraded) and enhanced
treatment is needed.
Structural options exist which are used to limit public access
in a wetland to which wastewater is being discharged. Warning
signs can be posted, fences erected or the wastewater discharge
could be located far from residences and parks. The munici-
pality may not have the authority to carry out the most effective
options for limiting access, such as erecting a fence; however,
in some situations it may be important to consider implementing
some type of system to inhibit public access.
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN 6~19
6.4 ENGINEERING DESIGN
6.4.1 Purpose and Considerations
The design phase involves consideration of the structural
options discussed in Section 6.3, collection of additional site
information (see Detailed Site Evaluation Section 4.4) and deter-
mination of loading criteria needed to meet the prescribed
effluent limitations. Section 5.3 discusses loading criteria used
for current wetland discharges and the development of
site-specific loading rates.
Prior to the design stage, most limitations to utilizing the
wetland should be eliminated. Any remaining limitations should
be those that are mitigated easily. Design procedures result in
detailed decisions concerning all aspects of the wetland-waste-
water system. Contract drawings and written specifications
concerning how to install the system also are results of the
design effort.
Use of safety factors to ensure that all wastewater
management objectives are met also is encouraged, such as
additional capacity and more conservative design criteria (e.g.,
lower loading rates and longer detention times) than would
otherwise be designed.
Other safety factors to be considered during engineering
design could include the following:
o Storage facilities to provide storage capability for
excessively wet periods, cold periods (if nutrient and
metal uptake are significant and desired in the system)
o Nutrient removal at the treatment plant
o Buffer zone around the wastewater discharge
o System isolation
o Chlorination followed by dechlorination, or some other
method of disinfection
o Monitoring of system discharge and receiving waters
(surface and groundwater)
o Extra monitoring of wetland vegetation for 1) metal or
toxin accumulation and 2) changes in natural vegetation
o In-wetland management, if needed (e.g., harvesting of
wetland vegetation).
These measures can help assure that a wetland system is not
overloaded, that wastewater is properly assimilated and that
wetland functions are maintained. The costs of implementing
safety factors need to be compared with the degree of site-spe-
cific uncertainties in order to assess the value of applying safety
factors.
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN 6-20
6.4.2 Detailed Design Parameters
Most design parameters will be related in some way to the
structural options. As has been described, hydraulic variables
are the major determinants for not only the structural options
but also wetlands protection and assimilative capacity. Table
6-3 describes many of the design parameters that should be
considered for wetlands-wastewater systems.
. The detailed calculations of all design parameters important
to wetlands-wastewater systems are not addressed by this Hand-
book. Reaction kinetics, sedimentation rates and other pro-
cesses are the subjects of numerous publications. Several
references (Tchobanoglous and Gulp 1980, Hammer and Kadlec
1983, Heliotis 1982) discuss the calculation of wetland design
parameters in detail. Since hydraulic and hydrologic variables
are basic to any engineering planning and design process, and
are often difficult to determine for wetlands, they are addressed
more thoroughly by the Handbook. Chapter 4 introduces the
importance of defining the water budget and hydroperiod for
some wetlands receiving wastewater. Ultimately, this informa-
tion is used as a basis for detailed engineering design if a
wetlands-wastewater system is feasible and a NPDES discharge
permit can be obtained.
Hydraulic and hydrologic variables will affect the design of
wastewater storage and back-up systems based on the waste-
water flow, effective size of the wetland, climatic conditions,
soils conditions and assimilative capacity of the wetland.
Wastewater storage needs could vary from hours to weeks. The
design of wastewater distribution and water regulation systems
are also directly affected by velocities, depth, area of inun-
dation and residence time. These hydraulic and hydrologic
variables directly influence assimilation processes such as
sedimentation which are enhanced by sheet flow, low velocities
and longer residence times. Likewise, this could affect the
design and use of other structural options, e.g., floating
substrate for microorganisms.
Hydraulic Loading and Velocity. Wastewater loading and
velocity are important hydraulic variables. The rate of
wastewater loading (WL), the flow per unit area, controls all
other hydraulic parameters. It is simply calculated as:
WL = Flow of wastewater (e.g.. mgd) X unit conversions
Effective area of wetland
From this equation the calculation of inches per week is derived
(see Chapter 4 User's Guide).
Velocity is important for several reasons. High velocities
can lead to scour, whereas low velocities can lead to settling and
-------
Table 6-3. Design Parameters for Various Types of Structural Options
Option Type
Design Parameters
OperatIon-MaIntenance-RepIacement Needs
Need for additional
treatment at plant
Wastewater Storage
Flow Distribution
a) Distribution
Piping
Maximum dally wastewater flows
and quality
Wetland assimilative capacity
for pollutant of concern
(organlcs, nutrients and/or
metals)
Dally and hourly variations In
flow reaching the plant
Estimated effects of fluctuating
flows and quality on wetland
Storage volume and depth (to
Inhibit shock loadings to wet-
land and/or to dechlorlnate
wastewater}
Basin side slopes
Basin IIner needs
Need for aeration In the basin.
I f aerators are needed, the aerator
size and motor horsepower
Length and location of piping
Dlameter(s)
Number of branches
Size of opening at disposal
location
Pumping requirements (If needed)
Use of sprayers (If used)
Method of Installation—burled
or suspended
Need for Insulation of piping
(If above ground)
Dewataring needs
Chemical addition (for phosphorus
removal)
Routine treatment process maintenance
and repair
Water release operating program
Periodic drainage of basin for cleaning
Routine maintenance and replacement of
aeration equipment
Periodic pipeline Inspection, particularly
at disposal location
PI pelIne markers
Energy for pumping (If needed)
Spray nozzle cleaning & repair
Replacement costs for piping, and discharge
fixtures (spray nozzles, gates, etc.)
I
NJ
-------
Table 6-3. Continued.
Option Type
Design Parameters
b) Multiple dis-
charge points
c) Multiple eel Is
Chlorlnatlon or any other
chemical additions
Dechlorlnation
a) Retention
b) Aeration
Size and location of flow
splitting equipment
Location of discharge points
based on density & diversity
of vegetation
Restlng/drydown time needed
for wetland type
Detention time of each cell
Definition of boundary based
on flowthrough patterns
Flow control equipment
Wastewater detention time In
chlorine contact chamber
(size of chamber based on
maximum dally flow)
Chlorine dosage given desired
level of disinfection and
chlorine residual
Retention time of storage
facilities for chlorine
dlssI pat I on
Level of acceptable chlorine
residual
If aeration used, air require-
ments In cubic feet/sec (m-Vsec)
If DO steps used; flow capacity,
and height of steps
OperatIon-MaIntenance-RepIacement Needs
Routine maintenance & replacement of
equipment
Periodic vegetation control
Periodic sediment removal around
discharge outlets
Routine operation i maintenance 4
replacement of flow control equipment
Periodic vegetation control (If needed)
Energy for mixing
Energy for chlorlnator
Chlorine (In gaseous or liquid form)
Maintenance of pond
Monitoring of chlorine residual
Energy requirements
Maintenance & replacement of equipment
I
NJ
txJ
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN
sedimentation. Low velocity sheet flow in a wetland enhances
settling and other assimilative processes. It has been suggested
that scour velocities could be achieved to flush a wetland
periodically of accumulated sediment. The danger of high
velocities are excessive erosion, undermining of vegetation and
short-circuiting wetland processes. All of these can occur
normally under flood conditions but would require careful
management if implemented as part of an O&M program.
Settling and scour are largely dependent on particle size.
Generally, a velocity greater than 0.50 m/sec (approximately 1.5
ft/sec) is needed to keep small sand particles in suspension. At
lower velocities they settle out. For organic solids, velocities
below 0.20 m/sec (approximately 0.66 ft/sec) are necessary for
settling. Velocities in the range of 0.30 to 0.50 m/sec can
resuspend or scour organic solids (Rich 1973). More detailed
analyses based on particle size should be conducted if settling is
an objective of the system.
Given a constant flow, Q, the velocity (V) is a function of
cross-sectional area (A) as shown by the equation:
V = O (ft3/sec)
A (ft?)
Wastewater applied through a larger area, as can be achieved by
the distribution system, will have a lower velocity. To
determine velocity, the roughness coefficient and slope need to
be determined. A derivation of Manning's equation, as
presented in Section 9.5, can be used under some circumstances
to assess velocity. The values used for Manning's roughness
coefficient are important, and a method for estimating
adjustment factors based on watershed characteristics is also
discussed in Section 9.5. These calculations are particularly
applicable for flow-through type wetlands. Systems that are
hydrologically isolated such as cypress domes are not effectively
analyzed by these equations. Systems with irregular shaped
bottoms may require special considerations in these calculations
to exclude wetted areas and to vary the roughness coefficient.
A discharge in South Carolina provides a good example of the
potential effects of velocity on a wetland. A channel has cut
through the wetland from the point of discharge as a result of a
large flow at high velocities, short-circuiting normal wetland
processes. Had the wastewater been discharged through a
multi-port system the formation of a channel, with resulting
open-channel flow, may have been averted.
Residence Time. The determination of residence time
depends on knowledge of the area of inundation. Field
generated relationships between depth and area of inundation
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN 6-24
could be established, similar to stage/cross-secional ^ area
correlations for free-flowing streams. If a _ reliable,
representative cross-section of a wetland can be obtained, this
should be helpful for estimating the area and volume of water at
different stages or depths. Residence time depends on flow
velocity and length of flow path in free-flowing systems. For
systems with regulated flow, the control structure influences
residence times. Section 9.5 discusses potential methods for
estimating residence time and area of inundation in wetlands
receiving wastewater.
Depth. The depth of water in a wetland is dependent on the
flows to the wetland, area of inundation, storage capacity
(before overflow or discharge occurs), soils and other
geomorphologic characteristics (e.g., irregular bottom surface).
The depths that will result from a wastewater discharge are
important to wetland maintenance and processes. Section 9.5
discusses potential methods for estimating water depths in
wetlands receiving wastewater.
Additional Design Parameters. Hydraulic variables affect
assimilative processes and control another important design
consideration, constituent loading. This can be determined by
knowing the flow and effluent concentration. To determine
total nitrogen loading (NL), for example, the following formula
can be used:
NL = (Flow of wastewater) X (Total nitrogen concentration)
Effective area of wetland
This assessment should be conducted for all constituents of
importance (e.g., phosphorus, BOD). The analysis should
incorporate an evaluation of other major sources to the wetland
(i.e., other point and nonpoint sources) .
Another aspect of design could be the incorporation of
habitat enhancement characteristics. Table 6-4 lists design
criteria for increasing the waterfowl habitat potential of a
wetland. These criteria could be useful for areas that are
important habitat (e.g., near flyways, protected species) or
that have experienced habitat losses. Habitat enhancement
design criteria have been applied successfully to several
projects and should be considered for areas of high recreational
value. The importance of considering disease vectors (e.g.,
continued management or disinfection options) is increased for
these systems.
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN
Table 6-4. Wetlands Development and Management Guidelines
for Waterfowl Enhancement
Parameter Criteria
Size o Watershed to wetland ratios of 20:1 (rolling
hills) to 30:1 (feather terrain) commonly are
recommended by U.S. SCS. Local climatic
factors and watershed character may cause
significant variation.
o Several small impoundments have greater
positive effect on waterfowl than one large
marsh.
Soils o Most desirable locations are poorly drained
soils with high water table or an underlying
impermeable layer.
o Additions of gravel or inorganic soil to existing
organic soils can improve stability for wetland
vegetation.
Slope o <1 percent wetland slope recommended.
Configuration o Irregular shorelines offer substantially
greater support for wildlife than small
symmetrical impoundments.
Water depth o Not deeper than about 4 feet for fish and
wildlife needs.
o Lower quality soils (in terms of productivity)
should be flooded at shallower depths, with
poorest soil flooded <1 foot.
Composition o Mix of open water and emergent vegetation
stands.
o 50-75 percent of open water shallow enough to
achieve emergent plant growth (roughly 2 foot
depth).
Source: Adapted from Adams and Dove 1984.
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN 6-2
6.4.3 Detailed Cost Estimates
Project or capital costs and operation-maintenance-replace-
ment costs should be revised and finalized by the design engi-
neer once the preferred wastewater management configuration
has been selected. The engineer is in a much better position to
verify bid prices after developing detailed cost estimates.
For wetland-wastewater systems the major project costs
include:
o Preapplication treatment and storage (if used)
o Transmission piping and pumping (if needed)
o Distribution system installation
o Method of access to distribution system (boat,
walk-ways, etc.)
o Minor earthwork
o Trench dewatering (if distribution system is buried)
o Above ground installation may require pipe insulation.
Operation, maintenance and replacement costs include the
energy, labor and chemicals to operate and maintain the pre-
application treatment system, the storage facilities (with or
without aeration), transmission facilities (with or without
pumping), distribution piping and equipment, as well as
possible vegetation control, sediment removal and mosquito
control within the wetland. Table 6-5 provides an example
format for developing detailed cost estimates for the wetland
related facilities of a typical wetland-wastewater system with a
storage pond, wastewater transmission by pumping and distri-
bution piping.
Most capital and O&M costs can be estimated based on cost
curves available from either EPA publications (such as U.S. EPA
1980) or past contracting bids. When estimating costs, one
important element is to be sure the estimates are current. Many
available cost curves are based on information from the late
1970's, which are lower dollar estimates than the capital
currently needed for the same facilities.
6.4.4 Specifications and Drawings
The primary outputs of a detailed design effort are written
specifications that outline a contractor's procedures and draw-
ings of the proposed facilities. The purposes of providing
specifications and drawings are traditionally to guide the
contractor in establishing construction costs and to assure that
the installed facilities are located and situated precisely as
desired by the municipality or regulatory agency.
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN 6-27
Table 6-5 Detailed Capital Cost Estimate for a Typical Wetland-Wastewater System.
Alterations or Supplemental Facilities at the Treatment Plant
Storage Pond/basin *
Earthwork *
Pond Liner (If needed) *
Aerators (if needed) •
Disinfection Facilities J
Additional site pumping and valves I
Access roads and other site work *
Instrumentation and electrical *
S u btota I
Transmission to Wetland
Pumping facilities (If needed)
Piping (forcemaln or gravity)
Subtotal
Wetland and Distribution System
Distribution piping
Pipe (Instal led) $
Fixtures (If used) J
Flow splitting facilities (if used) *
Access walkways *
Access roadway to wetland site *
Fencing and signs *
Mon I tor I ng we I I s *
Pipeline markers *
Subtotal
Architectural and engineering fees $
Legal and administrative V
Contingencies *
Subtotal »
Land for additional facilities at the treatment plant
Easements for transmission facilities
Wetland purchase (If needed)
Subtotal S
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN 6-28
Specifications also can be utilized to aid construction require-
ments that enhance the project. Such additional requirements can
include requiring construction to take place during certain months
of the year and requirements to avoid certain locations that may be
very environmentally sensitive. A list of the items that can be
specified to control adverse effects of construction is included as
Table 6-6. Typically, such items are not included in contract
specifications. Regulatory agencies can encourage facility owners
to incorporate at least some of the ideas listed in Table 6-6 to help
assure a wetland is not disturbed unnecessarily by construction
activities.
Drawings can be simple, but they should include alignments,
locations and elevations of the proposed facilities. A licensed
sanitary engineer can assist with preparing drawings and with any
other engineering activities associated with wastewater facilities.
Some general specifications recommended for pipelines installed in
wetlands are included in Table 6-7.
Table 6-6. Specifications for Wetland-Wastewater Facilities that Help Con-
trol Adverse Effects of Construction.
o Permit construction to occur only during periods that a wetland scientist
determines are least damaging to the local wetland ecology.
o Use access vehicles and boats that minimize wetland disturbance.
o Employ construction methods to minimize spills of fuels and oils.
o Establish the maximum time a pipeline trench is allowed to be open at any
one location (if piping is buried) .
o Minimize vegetation disturbance, especially disturbance to trees in
forested wetlands.
o Require that all soil disturbed during construction be replaced to
original contours and to its original location.
o Protect wetland from sediments resulting from offsite construction by
using runoff control technique.
o Minimize the wetland surface area disturbed.
o Place all ancillary construction facilities on upland areas such as field
office and equipment storage areas.
-------
ENGINEERING DESIGN 6-29
Table 6-7. Specifications for Pipelines in Wetlands
o Specify aluminum irrigation pipe or plastic (PVC) pipe.
o For pipelines lying on soil, provisions are needed to prevent
sinking when bearing strength of soil is weakest and pipe is
full (log or platform support, or elevated).
o Trenches are not recommended due to wetlands alteration, the
possibility of required approval from the Army Corps of
Engineers and short-circuiting of wetland inflows.
o Install when soil has most bearing strength and vegetation is
least damaged.
o Drain during cold weather to prevent ice damage.
o Specify low maintenance equipment (equipment manufacturers
vary in the types of pipes, gates, diffusers and sprayers they
offer).
o Specify materials that maintain structural stability in wet
environments.
Specifications for installing a wastewater system within a
wetland that promote effective operation, maintenance and replace-
ment are discussed in Chapter 7 of this Handbook.
-------
CREATED WETLANDS 6-30
6.5 CREATED WETLANDS
While natural freshwater wetlands are the primary focus of
this Handbook, wetlands created for the purpose of wastewater
treatment merit discussion. Created wetlands are currently
being used for wastewater management in New York, Iowa, On-
tario, Pennsylvania and California. They are being considered
for use in Florida and offer a potential alternative for the other
Region IV states as well. The use of created wetlands for
wastewater management is addressed here because:
1. Some scientific and engineering information from created
systems may be applicable to natural systems.
2. Created wetlands may be a viable alternative to communities
that do not have a suitable natural wetland.
The use of natural and created wetland alternatives typically
is land-intensive compared to conventional treatment systems
that discharge to receiving waters. In comparison to other
alternatives, however, wetlands use can prove cost effective
depending on relative land costs, distance to an appropriate site
and other site-specific factors. Figure 6-6 shows an example of a
created wetland system.
Given a natural wetland of adequate size and reasonable
proximity to a wastewater treatment plant, the created wetlands
treatment system is generally more capital and energy intensive
than a natural wetland of equivalent capacity. This, however,
would depend greatly on the design of the created system and
largely on its degree of mechanization. The O&M costs of created
systems also tend to be higher.
Some cost-recovery may be obtained from both natural and
created wetlands used for wastewater management. Increased
growth rates have been cited in some natural forested wetlands
receiving wastewater, leading to increased timber harvests. The
water conservation achieved by recycling wastewater through
wetlands has also been noted. Created wetlands often are
composed of harvestable biomass which can then be used for food
(primarily for cattle or other grazers) or energy production.
Unless this biomass is used as such, it is probably more
cost-effective not to harvest, unless harvesting is essential to
optimize treatment processes.
Typically, created wetlands can be more precisely planned
and designed for wastewater management use than natural wet-
lands. Further, created wetlands are not "waters of the U.S."
and, therefore, are not regulated to the same extent as natural
wetlands. The objective of created systems clearly can be
defined as treatment of wastewater and be designed to optimize
treatment processes.
-------
6-31
Figure 6-6. Components of a Created Marsh Treatment System
PRODUCTION PRETREATMCNT
TREATMENT
DISPOSAL
Evapotrantpiratlen
Cvapotransplratton
M jb, I
•tr*am»,
Source:Adapted from C.W.Fetter, W.E.Sloey and F. L.SpangLer 1976,
-------
CREATED WETLANDS 6-32
defined as treatment of wastewater and be designed to optimize
treatment processes.
Table 6-9 summarizes the types of created wetland systems.
Marshes and trenches are the two basic types of wetlands used
in conjunction with ponds and/or meadows.
Some engineering options which usually are not suitable for
use in natural wetlands may be quite suitable for use in created
wetlands:
o Periodic flushing of the wetland
o Selection and planting of vegetation
o Harvesting vegetation
o Covering the wetland with a greenhouse-type solar
cover
o Installing a liner beneath the wetland
o Recirculating wastewater through the wetland.
Water levels in a created wetland can also be more easily
controlled than in a natural wetland. Aquatic plant and animals
also can be introduced to achieve enhanced treatment. Table
6-10 indicates some of the available options and their value.
Typical design parameters for various types of artificial
wetland treatment systems are shown in Table 6-11. Typically,
wastewater detention times are relatively long compared to con-
ventional wastewater treatment processes: 6 to 10 days. For a
wastewater flow of 1 million gallons per day (mgd), a water
depth of 3 feet and a treatment time of 6 days, 6 acres of
wetlands are needed. Similarly, the hydraulic loading rates
shown in Table 6-11 vary from 0.2 to 12 acres per mgd of waste-
water.
Other typical design considerations for an artificial wetland
are listed below.
o Wetland width—suitable for mechanical harvesting
o Bottom slope (inlet to outlet) —0.0025 feet per foot
o Soil depth—-6 inches of native sediment
o Clay liner (if any)—6 inches of compacted, native clay
o Pipe material: perforated, 6-inch PVC
Created systems are reported to be more efficient in
removing phosphorus, nitrogen and COD from wastewater than
are natural wetlands. Table 6-12 indicates general removal effi-
ciencies in natural and created wetlands receiving wastewater.
The low phosphorus removal reported for both systems suggests
that some type of pre-treatment for phosphorus may be neces-
sary where phosphorus removal is important, particularly for
natural systems.
-------
CREATED WETLANDS 6~33
Table 6-9. Artificial Wetlands Use for the Treatment of Wastewater or
Stormwater.
Type Description .
Marsh Areas with impervious to semi-pervious bottoms planted
with various wetlands plants such as reeds or rushes.
Marsh-pond Marsh wetlands followed by pond (and perhaps a
meadow).
Pond Ponds with semi-pervious bottoms with embankments to
contain or channel the applied water. Often, emergent
wetland plants will be planted in clumps or mounds to form
small subecosystems.
Seepage wetlands Wastewater irrigated fields overgrown with volunteer
emergent wetland vegetation as a result of intermittent
ponding and seepage of wastewater.
Trench Trenches or ditches planted with reeds or rushes. In
some cases, the trenches have been filled with peat.
Trench (lined) Trenches lined with an impervious membrane usually filled
with gravel or sand and planted with reeds.
Source: Chan et al. 1982 (derived in part from U.S. EPA 1979) .
-------
CREATED WETLANDS 6-34
Table 6-10. Role of Aquatic Organisms In Renovating Wastewater.
Organism Remarks
Floating aquatic plants
Water hyacinth
(Elchhornla spp.)
Water primrose
(Ludwlqla spp.)
Emergent aquatic plants
Cattails (Typha spp.)
Bulrush (Sclrpus spp.)
Submerged aquatic plants
Algae
Pond weeds
(Potamogeton spp.)
Aquatic animals
ZoopIankton
Fish
Blackfish
Carp
Catfish
Mosquito fish
Its extensive root system has excellent
filtration and bacterial support potentials,
but extends less than 8 In. (200 mm) below
the water surface In most wastewater
treatment appI I cat Ions. Hyaclnths wlI I not
winter-over In cooler climates.
The filtration and bacterial support potentials
of the primrose's submerged stems and roots
are less than those for the hyacinth. Primrose
roots may extend to over 2 ft (600 mm) below the
water surface. This plant survives in colder
climates but is winter dormant even In mild
clI mates.
The submerged portion of the stems of these
plants has less filtration and bacterial support
potential than the roots of floating plants,
but has the advantage of extending through
the entire water column. These plants survive
In colder climates. Though they tend to be
winter dormant, their physical structure remains
Intact during dormancy.
Algae release oxygen to water at the expense
of creating SS and BOD. Algae respire at night.
Algae can be grown to raise the pH to volatilize
ammonia and then be removed. Successions In
algal population, particularly In fall, cause odors.
The filtration and bacterial support potentials
of this category of plant are unknown. Other
effects of submerged macrophytes are similar
to those described for algae, except that SS
problems are not created.
These organisms feed on algae and other
suspended partlculates. Their presence and
effect are difficult to manage.
Fish serve In a role similar to that described
for zooplankton. Fish can also be used to
reduce the vegetative standing crop and -
control mosquitoes. Fish populations are
manageable.
Source: Stowel I et al,
1981,
-------
CREATED WETLAWS 6-35
Table 6-11. Preliminary Design Parameters for Planning Artificial Wetlands
Waste water Treatment Systems3
Detention Depth of
Time, days Flow, m (ft)
Type of System Range
Trench (with reeds 6-15
or rushes)
Marsh (reeds 8-20
rushes, others)
Marsh-pond
1. Marsh 4-12
2. Pond 6-12
Lined trench 4-20
Typical Range
10 0.3-0.5
(1.0-1.5)
10 0.15-0.6
(0.5-2.0)
6 0.15-0.6
(0.5-2.0)
8 0.5-1.0
(1.5-3.0)
6
Typical
0.4
(1.3)
0.25
(0.75)
0.25
(0.75)
0.6
(2.0)
Hydrau 1 Ic
Load Ing Rate
ha/1000 m'/day
(acre/mgd )
Range
1.2-3.1
(11-29)
1.2-12
(11-112)
0.65-8.2
(6.1-76.7)
1.2-2.7
(11-25)
0.16-0.49
(1.5-4.6)
Typlca 1
2.5
(23)
4.1
(38)
2.5
(23)
1.4
(13)
0.20
(1.9)
aBased on the application of primary or secondary effluent.
Source: U.S. EPA 1979.
m - meters; m^ - cubic meters
ha - hectares
mgd - millions of gallons per day
Table 6-12. Reported Removal Efficiency Ranges for the Constituents In Wastewter
In Natural and Artificial Wetlands.
Removal efficiency
Constituent
Total solids
Dissolved solids
Suspended sol Ids
BOD 5
TOG
COD
Nitrogen (total as N)
Phosphorus (total as P)
Refractory organ Ics
Heavy meta 1 sa
Pathogens
Naiural wetlands Artificial wetlands
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
40-75
5-20
60-90
70-96 50-90
50-90
50-80 50-90
40-90 30-98
10-50 20-90
20-100
aRemoval efficiency varies with each metal.
Source: Tchobanoglous and Culp. 1980.
-------
CREATED WETLANDS 6-36
Operation of created wetlands usually incorporates
treatment as the main objective with size requirements
potentially being less than natural systems and regulatory
constraints lessened, the operator of a created system has more
latitude than the operator of a natural system. However,
because created wetlands are used primarily for treatment
rather than for polishing or disposal, as is common for a natural
system, continued monitoring of the created system must be
undertaken. As with any treatment system that relies on
biological processes, the organisms achieving the treatment must
be kept viable. Although the use of created wetlands for
wastewater management is receiving increased attention and
being practiced at an increasing rate, it remains a new tech-
nology requiring higher levels of monitoring and management.
Natural and created wetlands have demonstrated their value
in many instances as effective alternatives for upgrading the
quality of domestic effluents. The overall advantage of one
system over the other depends on many site-specific variables
and general treatment objectives. Where wetlands protection
issues discourage the use of natural wetlands, where wetlands
have been totally destroyed or where no suitable natural site
exists, the use of created wetlands is encouraged.
Additionally, the use of created wetlands in conjunction with
natural wetlands may offer advantages or opportunities not
otherwise available and can increase wetlands areas.
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE 6-37
6.6 USER'S GUIDE
Chapter 6 provides the information needed to proceed from
the planning stages through engineering design utilizing informa-
tion developed from Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 outlines the
planning and assessment involved with screening potential
wetland sites for wastewater management use. Chapter 5
presents standards and loading criteria that apply to a
wetlands-wastewater system. Ultimately, effluent limitations
will determine the loading rates of most important wastewater
components. The information contained in Chapter 5 should
assist with determining loading rates of components not
addressed by effluent limitations.
Figure 6-7 illustrates how engineering planning and design
relate to other institutional and scientific elements. The
information requisite to these decision points must be gathered
and interpreted accurately to make well-informed decisions.
These tasks are related to community conditions, existing or
proposed treatment plant needs and wetland characteristics.
Important wetland-wastewater engineering elements include:
o Wastewater management objective(s)
o Wastewater characteristics
o Pretreatment requirements
o Environmental restrictions, including wetland uses,
sensitivity, uniqueness
o Vegetation
o Overall cost effectiveness
o Special measures to enhance system performance
o Contract specifications
o Contract drawings
Another important engineering decision is whether the system
will be designed to optimize wastewater renovation or simply to
dispose of wastewater. The institutional aspects of this question
are addressed in Section 3.3; the technical aspects are discussed
in Section 6.2. Wetlands maintenance and protection are
management objectives that should be incorporated into all
engineering planning and design decisions.
The main user of Chapter 6 is the applicant or applicant's
representative (engineer) who must develop a wetland-waste-
water system. Regulatory agency personnel should find this
chapter helpful in establishing engineering guidelines that
optimize both wastewater management objectives and wetlands
protection.
-------
State/Applicant
State/Applicant
Consideration
of
Wetlands for
Waste water
Management
Wetlands
Functions and
Values
Chapter 2
State/Applicant
Funding
Available
through Construction
Grants
Chapter 3
Discharge
Guidelines
Chapter 5
WQS
use/criteria
Chapters 3 & 5
Applicant
Applicant
Compile Information
for Permit Application
and Submit Application
Chapter 3
Applicant/State
/ Assessment
Techniques
/ Chapter 9 /
Applicant
Applicant
Applicant/
t State
and
Monitoring
Chapter?
Figure 6-7. Relationship of the Handbook to the Decision Making Process.
LO
oo
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE 6-39
Form 6-A leads a potential wetlands discharger through a
series of questions and data collection tasks that provide
guidance for planning and designing a wetlands wastewater
system. The user is reminded that the engineering planning and
design process is concurrent with the permit application
process. Contact and frequent communication between the
applicant and regulatory agency personnel is necessary to
assure that the information required for decision making is
efficiently obtained.
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE 6-40
FORM 6-A. Wetlands-Wastewater Management System, Engineering Planning and Design
ENGINEERING PLANNING
A. WASTEWATER FLOW.
1. Discharge Is continuous _ , periodic
2. Describe flow volume: Average dally flow
Average monthly flow
Average annual flow
or seasonal
mgd
mgd
mgd
3. Chart wastewater flow variations over time (If applicable):
Flow
(mgd)
JFMAMJJASOND
Time (months)
4. Describe effluent (flow leaving the treatment plant) quality:
Concentration (mg/l) Loadings (Ibs/day)
OrganIcs (BOD5, COD)
Suspended Sol Ids
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Metals
Others (explain)
aalIons.
5. Total volume of storage at treatment plant
6. What water quality standards need to be met In the wetland and downstream from the
wetland?
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE
FORM 6-A Continued
B. WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS.
1. Type of wetland
2. Size of wetland
3. Is this wetland unique, endangered or of special concern? (See Section 2.3)
If yes, and It has received preliminary approval for use as a wastewater management
system In discussions with concerned agencies, describe methods to be used to
mitigate Impacts on plant and animal communities.
4. Typical natural hydroperlod. In terms of water depth:
a. Minimum _____________ feet
b. Maximum feet (allow for peak wet weather flows)
c. Chart variation In hydroperlod with time.
Water
depth
(ft)
M S J A
Time (months)
5. Most prominent wetland vegetation types
6. Typical flow-through pattern observed In wetland:
Channel I zed _____________________________________
Sheet flow
Other (explain)
7. Estimate and delineate effective area of wetland. This determination depends on
anticipated flow patterns and distribution method used, as well as the wetland
vegetation and soils. (See Form 4-B.)
8. Estimated hydraulic residence time within the wetland
days.
Section 9.5 discusses derivations and application of the Manning's equation, where
depth and residence times can be estimated. Section 9.5 also Includes a discussion
of adjustment factors for Manning's n, dependent on site-specific watershed charac-
teristics.
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE 6-42
FORM 6-A Continued
ENGINEERING DESIGN
A. TRANSMISSION TO WETLAND.
1. Length of transmission piping or channel from treatment plant to wetland feet.
2. Piping:
a) Minimum flow velocity
Initial flow__ fps
Design flow _fps
Peak flow fps
b) Pipe diameter Inches
c) Pipe material .
3. Channel:
a) Cross-sectional channel area ____sq ft
b) Flows In channel:
Initial flow cfs
Design flow cfs
Peak flow cfs
4. Pumping needs _ gpm df applicable)
Pump s i ze "P
Standby pump
B. DISTRIBUTION SYSTB*.
1. If two or more distribution areas (multiple cells) are to be used, delineate areas on
a map and their approximate flow-through patterns.
2. Determine discharge frequency and application pattern __—•
3. Location of outfall(s) In wetland:
a) Distance from edge of wetland
b) Locate on map
4. Distribution type:
Single pipe
Multiple pipes
Overland flow _
Spray system _
Multiple ports or gates
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE 6-4:
FORM 6-A Continued
5. Method of Installation:
Above ground ; Insulation needed yes
Below ground ; discuss Impacts and methods to mitigate Impacts.
6. Method of access to distribution system:
Boardwalks
Roadways
Boat
Other (explain)
7. Method of marking pipe location:
8. Have resting periods been designed Into system? Yes No
I f not, why not? _____________________
C. ALTERATIONS TO TREATMENT PLANT.
1. Need for additional storage gals
2. Storage ponds to be aerated yes no
If yes, air volume needs cfm
3. Disinfection used:
Chlorlnatlon
Ozonatlon
Ultraviolet light
Other (explain)
None *
*lf no disinfection used, explain how pathogen transmission will be limited and
control led.
4. Dechlorlnatlon method (If applicable):
Detention in storage
Oxygen steps
Other (explain)
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE 6-44
FORM 6-A Continued
D. WETLAND MODIFICATIONS.
1. If levees, dikes, or berms are constructed to control water flow In the wetland,
describe:
Height ft
Side slopes ^^
Method for maintaining flow-through patterns
Slope erosion control
2. Artificial substrate (If used):
a) Type and material
b) Delineate area of wetland to receive substrate
3. If vegetation Is to be planted, describe:
a) Plant types and level of water tolerance
b) Location of plantings on map
c) Estimated area to be planted sq ft
4. Discuss the expected Impacts from these In-wetland modifications and how they will be
minimized to a point where they are more beneficial than harmful.
E. BACK-UP SYST94.
1. Is the wetland to be used during winter and wet weather conditions, as well as summer
months? Yes No
2. What changes, if any, are anticipated in treatment plant performance during these
periods?
3. What changes, if any, are anticipated In wetland performance, impacts or processes?
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE 6-45
FORM 6-A Continued
4. If wetland is not usable at certain times, describe the back-up disposal
sy stem pro po sed :
Storage
Other (explain)
F. OTHER ITEMS.
1. Methods for limiting public access:
Fencing
Signs
Other (explain)
2. Methods for protecting wetland area from upstream pollutant inflows,
causing additional stress on the wetland:
Sediment traps
Flow storage during times of external stress
Other (explain)
3. Methods for maintaining or improving habitat potential of wetland:
Use of design criteria for habitat enhancement? Yes No
Proposed planting of vegetation with specific habitat functions? Yes
No
Designing system so as to reduce vegetation impacts? Yes
No
4. If optimal renovation of wastewater is anticipated, what assimilation
mechanisms have been evaluated?
Soils uptake potential? Yes No
Hydraulic variables?
Retention time Yes No
Velocity Yes No
Depth Yes No
Loading rates based on assimilative capabilities: Yes No
Understanding of water chemistry In wetlands? Yes No
Kinetics affecting water chemistry? Yes No
If a pilot study is anticipated have:
Objectives been defined? Yes No
(e.g., nutrient removal, acceptable hydraulic loading rates)
Specifications have developed? Yes No
A monitoring program been designed to account for variables affecting
water quality and/or assimilation? Yes No
The studies been coordinated with regulatory agency? Yes No
Quality control specifications been met? Yes No
-------
-------
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
7.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING AND DESIGN ?_2
7.2 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION 7_3
7.2.1 Purpose and Considerations
7.2.2 Protection of Wetland Uses
7 .2 .3 Optimizing Start-op
7.2.4 MMrinrfirfTig System Life
7.3 OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT 7_7
7.3.1 Purpose and Considerations
7.3.2 Wetland OMR Options
7.3.3 Operation and Maintenance Manual
o Operation Plan
o Management Plan
7.4 MITIGATION OF WETLAND IMPACTS 7-21
7.5 POST-DISCHARGE MONITORING 7-24
7.6 USER'S GUIDE 7-29
-------
-------
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
7.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Who should read this chapter? Primarily, potential applicants and their
engineers. Also, regulatory personnel charged with monitoring
construction activities and wetlands protection.
What are some of the Issues addressed by this chapter?
o How can a wastewater system be installed without damaging the
wetland?
o What are cost-effective operation-maintenance-replacement options
that can enhance system performance?
o Which monitoring procedures can be utilized cost-effectively to assess
system performance?
Project
Implementation
Relationship to
Planning a Design
Protection of
Wetland Uses
Optimizing
Start-up
Maximizing
System Life
Operation-
Maintenance
Replacement
Wetland O-M-R Options |
Comparison and
Evaluation of Options
Operation Plan
Management Plan
O»M Manual
Fig. 7-1. Overview of Project Implementation.
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING AND DESIGN 7-2
7.1 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING AND DESIGN
The user of this chapter is presumed to have already re-
viewed Chapter 6.0, Engineering Planning and Design. Proper
planning and designing are the first two of the four essential
engineering steps: the last two steps, installation and opera-
tion-maintenance-replacement, are covered in this chapter.
Post-discharge monitoring also is addressed.
The benefits of an effective wastewater management plan and
design can be entirely negated by improper installation or
inadequate operation and maintenance. Therefore, project imple-
mentation should be closely associated to planning and design.
In many instances project implementation is based on planning
and design (e.g., multiple cell use and schedule). Figure 7-1
outlines the major elements of project implementation.
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION
7.2 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION
7.2.1 Purpose and Considerations
The objective of construction and installation is to set a
system into place at minimum costs, including environmental
effects as well as monetary costs. There are several construc-
tion-installation procedures which can minimize environmental
damages without unnecessary expenditures.
A well-conceived design with clear drawings and well-written
specifications is of great help to system installers and will
minimize construction costs. Section 6.4.5 specifies important
items for effectively controlling wastewater system installation or
construction within a wetland.
Installation and construction techniques must respond to the
characteristics of the wetland site including:
o Type of wetland (e.g., peat bog versus reed meadow)
o Soil depth to stable material
o Erodability of wetland material
o Water velocities and circulation patterns
o Ecological sensitivity of the wetland system.
In the pre-construction meeting, specific installation
techniques should be developed, discussed and agreed upon by
the discharger, regulatory personnel and construction con-
tractor. Specific wetland concerns to be addressed include:
protection of wetland uses, optimizing start-up and maximizing
system life.
7.2.2 Protection of Wetland Uses
The range of wetlands functions and values, or uses, are
presented in Chapter 2. Since these vary for different wetlands,
the specific attributes of each wetland should be identified. Two
areas of action can be taken to protect wetland uses during
construction. The first is to employ techniques that minimize
short and long term impacts from construction. The second is to
assure that the system is installed or constructed as it was
planned and designed.
The degree of impact on a wetland site during construction is
related to the spatial relationship (how close the wetland is to
the construction), the length of time construction continues and
the seasonal timing of construction. Darnell (1976) has explored
these factors. Clearly, if construction occurs directly in the
wetland, major disturbance can result. However, the distur-
bance can be minimized if the timing of construction is selected
during low productivity periods (e.g., winter months when
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION 7.4
most vegetation is dormant) and not during sensitive breeding
periods. Although short term impacts on the wetland may be
significant, long term impacts are minimized, and the wetland
recovery period is shortened.
In addition to proper timing, there are some construction
techniques that may be helpful in minimizing both short term and
long term impacts including:
o Minimizing all construction slopes to reduce erosion
potential
o Avoiding soil compaction where not required
o Revegetating disturbed wetland areas with water-tol-
erant species
o Constructing levees at least ten feet wide and one foot
above the highest water level for ease of access (ASCE
1978)
o Maintaining strict control of water entering and leaving
the site during installation to avoid unnecessary soil
erosion and inhibition of installation activities
o Installing sediment traps in areas that receive runoff
from upstream
o Offsite construction of wastewater facilities
o Avoiding the installation of pipelines or facilities directly
adjacent to a wetland during ecologically-sensitive period
(e.g., during reproductive periods for sensitive wetland
species).
Long term impacts generally result from damage to systems
that have long life cycles, such as wildlife, trees and human use
functions (flood storage and others). Also, long term impacts
result from a permanent and major system change, such as a
significant change in water levels. Construction and installation
techniques should be established to minimize impacts on long
life-cycle systems and to prevent major permanent change.
Quality control of installation procedures is necessary to
assure that what was intended is actually constructed and that
the wetlands are protected. Some general quality control
guidelines include:
o Assure that specifications include materials, equipment
and timing of installation
o Select a contractor or pipeline installer that is exper-
ienced with wetland installations or wet soil conditions
o Include a wetland scientist in the pre-construction con-
ference to discuss and plan specific actions to minimize
impacts
o Provide an installation inspector (perhaps a wetland
scientist) experienced in evaluating wetlands systems,
construction activities and impacts
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION 7-5
o Regulatory agencies may choose to have a wetland scien-
tist periodically inspect progress as the site work
continues
o Test the installed system before the installer leaves the
site to minimize system breakdowns
o Require the installer to regrade the disturbed area as
closely to pre-installation conditions as possible.
7.2.3 Optimizing Start-up
The major concern during start-up is minimizing the impact of
overloading the wetland capacity from accidental discharges,
imbalanced flow distribution or other system failures. The
following considerations are recommended for general start-up
conditions. However, the needs of the specific wetland site
should be addressed in developing a start-up procedure.
The determination of start-up time for a wetlands discharge
includes the following four components.
1. The time lag between the end of construction and
start-up should be minimized to avoid prolonged periods
in which in-place facilities are unused.
2. Avoid startup during sensitive wildlife breeding periods
or during periods of wetland stress from other
disturbances.
3. Coordinate start-up with the natural hydroperiod of the
wetland. Apply when dilution capacity exists, but not
when a hydraulic overload might occur. Also, avoid
start-up during natural dry-down periods.
4. Start-up during low productivity seasons would tend to
lessen the impact of a system failure on wetland vege-
tation. However, start-up during the highest produc-
tive time will act to improve wetland treatment ability
and protect downstream waters.
After the appropriate timing is established for initiating the
discharge, the following procedures should be followed.
o A gradual buildup of wastewater flow volumes should
take place over a several week to six month period, to
allow the wetland time to adjust. Close monitoring dur-
ing this start-up period is strongly encouraged to
observe proper system functioning and impacts on the
wetland (see Section 7-4) .
o Variation in flow distribution patterns (if facility is
designed for flexible flow patterns) should be carried
out to determine the pattern that optimizes uniform dis-
tribution or meets the goals of the design.
o Equipment testing should be carried out as is done with
other wastewater treatment systems.
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION 7-6
7.2.4 Maximizing System Life
During construction/installation, certain procedures can
simplify future operation-maintenance-replacement and extend
system life. These include:
o Installation of visible pipeline markers for easy location
of both above ground and buried piping.
o Utilizing flexible pipe that will reduce maintenance and
replacement needs.
o Utilizing water tolerant materials for pipe support struc-
tures, access walkways and distribution systems.
o Avoiding the erection of barriers either from earth mov-
ing or from installing facilities that may interfere with
wetland flow patterns.
o Removing all leftover construction materials from the
site.
As discussed with design considerations, maximizing system
life relates primarily to monitoring natural functions and values.
System life is threatened if natural processes are significantly
altered. Major changes in the system, e.g., a vegetation species
shift, can in some cases alter the system from that originally
incorporated in design. This can lead to modifications in assim-
ilative capacity as well. The primary mechanism for maximizing
system life may be in the design of the system (e.g., maintaining
conservative loadings, sheet flow). Operation practices are
equally important, however, by maintaining wetland hydroper-
iod through flow regulation, providing "resting periods" for
wetlands, assuring sheet flow is obtained and recognizing the
natural ecological functions of the wetland throughout the
operation of the system.
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT 7-7
7 .3 OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT
7.3.1 Purpose and Considerations
The operation-maintenance-replacement (OMR) program for
the wetland-wastewater facility should be geared to meet the
treatment and disposal system's level of need. Equipment and
facilities used in a wetland system should not be complex, but
longlasting with proper and routine maintenance.
The types and amounts of OMR to be conducted can vary
widely depending upon decisions made while the system is being
designed. For example, if wastewater storage facilities and/or
alternative wastewater disposal techniques have been designed
and installed, operation can be more flexible than if these
options for controlling wastewater flows are not available.
Water flow paths can be altered if multiple discharge points to a
wetland are available. Vegetation may also be controlled via
harvesting or the use of some other type of vegetation control.
Other types of OMR activities include periodic inspections and
preventive maintenance of facilities.
The development of an OMR program includes the preparation
of an operation plan, a management plan and an operation and
maintenance manual. These tasks are discussed in more detail
later in this section. Some general recommendations for
promoting proper OMR are as follows.
o Limit changes in water levels and flow patterns resulting
from wastewater flow fluctuations by controlling appli-
cation rates. This recommendation is based on the
knowledge that hydrologic levels are important to
wetland functions.
o Combine operating requirements of the wetland waste-
water system with treatment plant operations. A
combined OMR manual for the treatment plant and the
wetland could be developed. In addition, the same
personnel could operate the treatment plant and monitor
the wetland.
o Follow maintenance intervals for equipment recommended
by manufacturers (e.g., for sprayers).
o Conduct periodic inspections in conjunction with a
monitoring program.
o Let the natural wetland manage itself as long as no
visible stress occurs. Generally, naturally occurring
processes result in less adverse effects than if
man-induced processes are introduced.
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT 7-8
7.3.2 Wetland OMR Options
Specific OMR activities vary widely depending upon the
objectives being sought. From an engineering perspective,
several different OMR objectives could be considered. Table 7-1
lists several of the objectives that could influence OMR
decisions.
Table 7-1. Potential OMR Objectives as Basis for OMR Decisions
1. Maximize waste water assimilation.
2. Minimize OMR costs.
3. Maintain engineered facilities.
4. Minimize adverse effects on downstream water quality.
5. Minimize odor production and public health concerns.
6. Minimize stress on the wetland.
Ultimately, OMR objectives should match those of engineering
design, which are based on water quality standards and
effluent limits. Hence, decisions made during planning and
design affect (and largely dictate) the OMR activities to be
conducted. A detailed list of actions that respond to each objec-
tive is included in the User's Guide (Section 7.6). Selection of
the most beneficial operation methods must be based on know-
ledge of the particular wetland receiving wastewater. Dis-
chargers are encouraged to work continuously with state
permitting agencies and the state fish and wildlife agencies.
Operation and maintenance options, at a minimum, should
meet objectives similar to those discussed for construction:
o Protect of wetland uses and public health
o Optimize assimilation
o Maximize system life.
Several O&M alternatives have been employed for existing
discharges, and results suggest they might be useful in meeting
these objectives. O&M alternatives include:
1. Storage to avoid shock loadings.
To maintain the desired flow characteristics of properly
treated wastewater, storage may be necessary at times due
to treatment plant upsets, I/I problems or other system
failure. The use of storage, power failure alarms and a
standby power source help avert potential problems. Auto-
matic monitoring of dissolved oxygen, turbidity and pH also
might be desired. Evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and
cost of providing 12 to 24 hours or more of wastewater
storage volume.
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT 7-9
2. Adjusting residence time by hydraulic loading.
Assimilative capacity is largely dependent on the retention
time in the wetland. Given wetland size and vegetation type
on which initial determination of residence times are based,
the primary management tool is adjusting hydraulic flows. If
stormwater or other water sources change the residence time
upon which system design is based, wastewater flows could
be altered to maintain the prescribed flow. Diversions of
upstream or stormwater flows under some conditions might
also be considered to maintain designed residence times.
Berms or wiers are also used for this purpose in some situa-
tions. The key is maintaining natural flow levels and flow
through times to the extent possible.
3. Intermittent discharges.
Another method of maintaining the natural hydroperiod to
the extent possible is intermittent flows. Some communities
may only need a summer or winter discharge depending on
population fluxes. Such intermittent discharges should be
matched with the natural hydroperiod. If a year-round
discharge is needed, intermittent discharges or resting
periods may be necessary to maintain the wetland. Three
primary options are available: multiple cells within the
wetland, rotating flows from one cell to another allowing for
resting periods; use of more than one wetland; and storage.
The determination of which option is best depends on
wetland availability, flow volumes and the need for a resting
period (depending on the proposed hydraulic loading and
wetland type).
4. Discharging to areas of dense vegetation.
While not essential to wetlands maintenance, the use of
discharging to vegetated "clumps" within a wetland (as
shown in Figure 7-2) may improve assimilation. The
vegetation acts to slow down the water, enhancing settling
and other assimilative mechanisms. The vegetation also
traps particulate matter and solids. Such a practice may
require managing the area of discharge; but it could result in
improved assimilation, particularly where retention times
may not be as long as desired.
5. Nitrogen removal by controlling water depth.
One major pathway for nitrogen removal in a wetland is
denitrification, which occurs only in anaerobic (oxygen
lacking) environments. Denitrification occurs primarily in
the soil rather than the water column, and it has been shown
an aerobic water column can prevent the loss of nitrogen gas
produced from denitrification. One management approach
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT
7-10
suggested is controlling water depth, thereby limiting the
amount of aerobic water above anaerobic sediments and
enhancing the loss of nitrogen via denitrification. This can
be achieved with wetlands-wastewater systems that have
flexible hydraulic loading regimes. Other management
options exist for controlling the form of nitrogen such as
aeration or pH adjustment (Gearheart 1983).
Figure 7-2.
For better filtering action,
1 ocate discharge outlets
in clumps of dense and
diverse vegetation
Source: CTA Environmental. Inc. 1985.
6. Vegetation Planting.
Planting vegetation that may be more water tolerant, pro-
vide greater filtration or increase vegetative diversity is an
option for various wetland conditions. Wetlands that have
been previously degraded can be improved over time through
planting. Increased density of vegetation near outlet points
in the wetland can improve the wetland's assimilative capa-
city. Often, however, allowing natural vegetation to
develop will decrease the likelihood of nuisance vegetation
becoming dominant.
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT
7-11
7. Harvesting/Burning.
Depending on wetland conditions and waste water quality,
the type and growth rate of vegetation will vary. Often a
vegetative monoculture will develop due to natural competi-
tion of wetland vegetation. Harvesting these plants
periodically will allow for greater diversity. A second use
of vegetation harvesting is to remove nutrients or toxins from
the system while they are bound up in the physical vegeta-
tion structure and before they are released to the system.
Also, periodic harvesting of rooted and floating plants can
enhance wastewater assimilation.
Burning is used to control monocultures and to provide the
"burn" environment needed periodically by some wetlands as
part of their natural regeneration processes. The frequency
of burning depends on the type of wetland. Figure 7-3
shows the natural relationships between vegetation, hydro-
period and frequency of fire.
Figure 7-3. Relationship Between Hydroperiod, Vegetation and
Frequency of Fire.
u
06
**
b
b
O
O
U
D
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT 7-12
8. Maintenance of open water.
The maintenance of open water within a wetland has been
shown to be important to some water quality characteristics.
The amount of open water is controlled by the presence of
emergent vegetation, floating vegetation and land masses
within a wetland. As noted in Gearheart et al. (1983), open
water is beneficial to phytoplankton communities, an
important oxygen source during daylight hours. Open water
is also valuable to the control of mosquitoes and die-off of
bacteria. Too much open water can lead to phytoplankton
blooms and increased suspended solids. Twenty to forty
percent open water with vegetative barriers are suggested.
Other studies suggest up to 50 percent open water for
wildlife enhancement. Management strategy objectives
should help define the optimal percent of open water for a
given wetland.
9. Introduction of moaquitoe fish.
If mosquitoe populations become a problem as a result of a
wastewater discharge, the introduction of mosquitoe fish
may be beneficial for control. The technique has been used
primarily in created wetland systems or lagoons but has been
shown to be effective in some controlled wetland areas.
10. Sediment removal.
Sediment removal has been helpful in some situations to
maintain flow patterns, decrease benthic oxygen demand
and remove nutrients, metals, biocides and other material
that has collected in the sediment. Primarily, applications
have been for created wetlands. With natural wetlands,
caution would be required to prevent compaction and other
disturbances. Further, a 404 Permit may be necessary.
Nonetheless, in some limited circumstances this may prove
to be a beneficial option for enhancing assimilation and
maintaining the wetland and life of the system.
11. Maintaining effluent quality.
Frequent testing of effluent quality should be conducted
when a particular characteristic is of concern. For
example, if pH levels must be maintained in a certain range,
pH should be monitored on a regular basis. Effluent
monitoring also might be conducted if the wastewater has an
industrial component. Monitoring pretreatment processes
also could be utilized in these cases.
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT 7-13
12. Facility Inspections .
Since wetlands-waste water systems still are relatively
untested, increased inspections might be appropriate.
Monthly inspections of the treatment, storage and
disinfection (dechlorination, if used) facilities, as well as
discharge mechanisms or other in-wetland structures, are
recommended for at least the first year of operation.
The first five alternatives all relate to hydraulic loading in
some capacity, indicating its importance to a properly managed
wetland-wastewater system. Alternatives 6 through 8 are man-
agement options reflecting natural wetland processes. To the
extent possible, providing for the occurrence of natural
processes and following natural cycles might reduce the O&M
required in a wetland. The last two alternatives are
non-natural processes, but they might be beneficial to a wetland
receiving wastewater.
Table 7-2 lists these operation and maintenance options and a
description of where these methods already have been used.
Table 7-3 presents a general evaluation of these options. Other
options are available, but these have been used and
documented.
7.3.3 Operation and Maintenance Manual
To provide consistent and standardized procedures for
operation, maintenance and replacement, a brief OMR manual is
recommended. Several of the manual's benefits are listed below.
o A "blue print" for applicable O&M procedures is provided.
o The schedule for proposed O&M activities is established.
o The flexibility designed into the system can be described to
assure use of the system's full potential.
o The party(ies) responsible for the discharge know what the
operator is doing.
o New operators can understand past activities much more
easily.
o The state regulatory agency can be aware of the discharger's
wetlands management activities.
Such a manual can be part of the operation and maintenance
manual for the wastewater treatment plant.
An OMR manual should provide direction for operating any
facilities directly affecting the wetland including effluent
treatment plant processes, storage facility, pipelines and other
facilities within the wetland. The manual can include daily
procedures, equipment, infrequent but periodic procedures and
contingency plans in case specific occurrences arise. Table 7-4
lists typical items to include under each of these elements.
-------
Table 7.2. O&M Options for Natural Wet I and-Waste water Systems (not Including environmental monitoring techniques)
Opt 1 on
Periodic sediment
Description
Dredging of fine sediment
Example Locations Where Utilized
Ponds In the Netherlands
Perceived
Effectiveness
of Option
Effective If water
removal within
wetland
Use of certain
vegetative species
Harvesting (H) or
burning (B) of
vegetation
Nitrogen removal
via control of
waste water Inflow
to wetland
Intermittent
waste water
applIcatlons
Mosquito control
Avoiding shock
loadings to wetland
(In conj unction
with use of
storage)
to promote Infiltration to
underlying soil.
Introduction and mainte-
nance of species which promote
assimilation with minimal
ecologlc dlstrubance
Removing accumulated bfomass,
spawning Increased
productivity.
Promotion of anaerobic
conditions In a wetland (e.g.,
controlling Inflow or channel
deepening).
Periodic reduction or avoidance
of discharge to a wetland. The
option usually Includes waste-
water storage, multiple cells,
multiple discharge locations.
Multiple discharge locations.
Chemical additions, biological
controls or controlling water
levels (via dredging or dikes)
Sediment traps, storage volume
or use of a different method for
disposing waste water.
Calumet County, Wl
H - Lake Buena Vista, FL; Hercules, CA; Hamilton, NJ;
May River, Canada; other artificial systems
B - Gainesville, FL (accidental); Arcata, CA
(proposed)
Lake Buena Vista, FL
Bellalre, Ml; Houghton Lake, Ml; Drummond, Wl;
Hercules, CA; Cannon Beach, OR; Humboldt, Canada
Gainesville, FL; Lake Buena Vista, FL;
Martinez, CA
Fremont, CA (proposed)
would move dowi ward and
underlying soil produc-
tivity Is relatively high.
Considered a< perlmental;
effectiveness Is difficult
to monitor If vegetation grows
due to climatic and seasonal
variations.
Some nutrients are reclr-
culated; however, wetland
must adj ust.
Difficult to measure because
waters released from wetland are
dispersed; process Is sensitive
to environmental fluctuations.
Dependent upon when and to
extent discharges are
red uced.
Biological control (fish) at
Martinez, CA has not been
satisfactory to state officials
(Stowell et at. 1981).
Traps can store waste water
flows for up to 10 days.
Different disposal methods
may not be economical.
I
I—*
*«
-------
Table 7-3. Assessment of MM Options for Natural Metland-Nastettater Systens (not Including environmental monitoring).1
Option Principal Cost Factors Impacts Methods of Operation
Needs Prior to or During Imp IementatI on
Periodic sediment
removal within
«et land
Size of area to be dredged,
frequency of dredging, site
access from upland location.
Resuspenslon of some sediment and
and disruption of bottom habitat.
Dredging equipment and operator
In addition to wetland ecologlst.
Depths of sediments to be dredged, size
of dredged area, spoil disposal locatlon(s),
approval from wildlife officials and OOE.
Introduction of
certain vegetative
species
Harvesting or
burning of vegetation
Size of wetland area to be
planted, availability of
vegetation.
Size of wetland area, needs
for controlling fire, and
accessibility of affected
wetland area.
Variable depending upon success
of use, size of affected area and
type of vegetation. Could cause
changes In wildlife.
Decreased vegetation diversity
and disruption of wildlife habitat
and flow patterns, at least
temporarily.
Botanist to monitor growth, water
quality and ecological monitoring.
Low-water conditions and structural
controls (e.g., trenches surrounding
area).
Method tor Introducing seeds or plants;
knowledge of optimal environmental charac-
teristics; approval by state wildlife officials.
State approval, fire control measures and
assessment of wet lend I gn I tab I llty.
Nitrogen removal
via control of
wastewater flow
to wetland
Provision of either storage
facilities or alternative
disposal method for water
flow control.
Disruption of ecology following
channel dredging, potential
Impacts on vegetation.
Dredging equipment, operator and
wetland ecologlst for channel
deepening; operating rules for
Inflow control.
Approval for channel deepening by state
and Corps of Engineers.
Intermittent waste-
water applications
Storage capacity or number
of discharge locations (Table
6-3) and their distance.
Generally beneficial due to
reduced stress of wastewater on
wetlend site. Allows dry periods
and may be best method for
following normal hydroperlod.
Operating rules for when and to whet
extent discharge Is altered. Consult
with state wildlife officials.
Storage or an acceptable alternative method
for disposing wastewater Is needed.
Mosquito control
Metlend size, chemical or fish
availability, access to
portions of wetland.
Water quality Is adversely altered
If chemicals are utilized. Ecology
can be adversely altered by
controlling water levels.
Hater quality and ecological moni-
toring In addition to chemical
additions, fish monitoring or water
level controls.
Assess need for control vs. feasibility of
each available method. Consult with state or
federal wetland scientists.
Avoid shock loadings
to wetland
Design flow, lend availability
for storage, location for
different disposal.
Could significantly alter
wetland vegetation and wildlife
If persistent or If shock
load contains toxics.
Operating rules for when and to what
extent discharge to wetland Is
altered. Consult with state wildlife
officials. Sediment traps would
need to be cleaned periodically.
Amount of storage volume, size of trap,
or design of alternative disposal method.
State environmental agency approval Is
needed for any alternative disposal method.
(I) See Table 7-2 for a brief description of each option.
I
(—»
Ln
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLAC84ENT 7-16
Table 7-4. Potential Elements of an OMR Manual for a Wetland-Wastewater
System
A. Dally Procedures
o Visual Inspection of effluent
o Flow monitoring
o Recording Inflows from Industries
o Managing stored water volumes
o Visual Inspection of the wetland for stress Indicators
B. Equipment Needs
o Lightweight, wede-tracked "Mud-Cat" bulldozer (for excavating
wetland sot Is)
o Site access vehicle
C. Operation Plans and Periodic Maintenance Procedures
o Matching discharge schedules wtfh system response
o Equipment maintenance procedures
o Periods of time during the year to avoid certain activities
o Re-evaluation of operating rule for storage facility
o Re-evaluation of disinfectant dosage
o Effluent monitoring (based on NPDES permit)
o Wetland monitoring (see Section 7.4)
o Preventive maintenance
o Altering location of discharge within the wetland
o Intermittent application procedure
D. Management Plan
o Planting of vegetation
o Harvesting schedule
o Burning schedule
E. Contingency Plan
o In case secondary treatment Is not achieved (for example, a back-up
disposal method)
o In case of extreme weather conditions
o In case of peak contributions from Industries
o In case average flows Increase substantially over a period of a few
years (for example, revise the system design)
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT 7-17
Table 7-5 lists the elements of NPDES Permit Compliance that
also should be addressed by the manual.
An OMR Manual for a wetland-wastewater system should be
periodically reviewed and revised as the wetland ecology is
better understood, as development around the wetland occurs
and as regulations may change. Many factors affect performance
of a wetland; these are incorporated into design of the system.
As these factors change, however, OMR activities should be
reassessed. The two main sections of the wetlands OMR manual
are operation and management. Maintenance and repair or
replacement will be determined primarily by the specifications of
the equipment being used. The major maintenance tasks for
wetlands discharges are for storage facilities, disinfection,
transmission to the wetland and discharge ports. Management
options introduced also will require maintenance.
Operation Plan. An operation plan should be developed and
tested to maximize the full potential of the wetland system as it
starts up and as it continues to operate. The operation plan
must be responsive to changing wastewater flow volumes and
wastewater quality, as well as changing conditions in the wet-
land. To be responsive, the operation plan depends on feedback
from the post-discharge monitoring system (see Section 7.5).
The major components of an operation plan for a wetland-
wastewater system relate to the 1) method, 2) frequency and
3) quantity of wastewater discharged to the wetland. If there
are multiple discharge points within a wetland or multiple
wetland cells, the number of operation combinations increases.
The engineer should prepare a detailed valve diagram to
describe how each flow pattern available within the system is
achieved (See Figure 7-4). Also, these system flow patterns
should be related to the natural seasonal variations in the
wetland.
Management Plan. A wetland-wastewater system differs from
other wastewater management systems in several ways: vegeta-
tion cycles, changes in types of vegetation, organic and nutrient
cycling and variations in flow patterns within the wetland. In
addition to inherent changing conditions of a wetland, many
changes can result from the application of wastewater. Given
this constantly changing system, the user of the wetland can
choose to allow the wetland to respond naturally (self-man-
agement) or to develop a management plan providing more
control over some of the changing wetland conditions.
If the wetland shows little or no signs of stress, the
self-organizing ability of the wetland is the best management
option. Signs of stress can be observed and measured by gross
production of biomass and total ecosystem consumption (Odum
1978). Changing vegetation, wildlife losses, accumulation of
-------
ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN USER'S GUIDE
7-18
Table 7-5 Elements of NPDES Permit Compliance
Genera I Effluent Characteristics
Records and Reports
Permit expiration
date
Outfall locations
Date of last In-
spection
Description of
special permit
requirements, If
any
Permit Verification
Concentrations or loadings for
each parameter (minimum,
maximum)
Flow measurements
Operation and Maintenance
Sample times and
locations
Lab analyses times
and locations
Analytical methods
History of records
Equipment calibration
Fac111ty operatIng
records
Quality assurance
records
Sources of wastewaters
Self Monitoring
Fac III ty descrip-
tion
Treatment process
descriptions
Notification of
revised flows
or qua! Ity
Number and loca-
tion of outfal Is
Standby power
Alarm system
Sludge disposal
Qualified Staff
Availability of consulting
engineer
Training procedures
Parts and equipment file
Operating Instructions file
Operation and maintenance
manual
Treatment by-passing
Treatment overloads
Men ItorIng
Flow measurements
Sampling locations and
frequencies
Sample collection and
transport
Laboratory methods
Laboratory certifica-
tion
Instrument calibration
Receiving water obser-
vations and monitoring
(as required)
-------
Multi-port piping^ ^ * ^ * We*nd ^
M Cell No. 1
Storage
Pond
y
=o
Valves
Possible System Flow Patterns
A. All valves opened — full system use
B. Rest Cell No. 1 : Close Valve(D
C. Rest Cell No. 2: Close Valve®
D. Rest part of Cell No. 2 : Rotate Valve®
E. Store wastewater/No discharge. Close Valve®
^=
Air. *
41*
.lift 41ft )Ur
dl/l ^ il*
o,
\\\t,
M Wetland
I Jllf, Cell No. 2
41* All.
dill flto
Afar
A
fllft
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
Figure 7-4. Example Flow Pattern Diagram
-------
OPERATION-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT 7-20
organic material, algal blooms, stunted tree growth and reduced
vegetative reproduction also can indicate stress on the system.
An active plan to manage the changes in wetland-wastewater
systems must respond to the wetland type and its characteris-
tics, such as natural hydroperiod, predominant vegetation,
dry-down or burn cycles. It should be clear that the application
-------
MITIGATION OF WETLAND IMPACTS 7-2:
7.4 MITIGATION OF WETLAND IMPACTS
One of the goals of this Handbook is to present the potential
use of wetlands for wastewater management in the context of
wetlands maintenance and protection. Ultimately, this assumes
that wetlands can be used for wastewater management while
maintaining basic wetlands functions, with the understanding
that some changes will occur. Only those systems that can
accept properly applied wastewater without detrimental effects
to basic processes should be used. The use of some systems
under some conditions should be avoided.
The mitigation of impacts is a primary concern of using
wetlands for wastewater management and a fundamental compo-
nent of this Handbook. Procedures for selecting an acceptable
site are based on reducing the potential for wetlands impacts.
Discharge limits proposed are those that have been used with
apparent reduction of wetlands impacts. Conservative limits
have been presented for critical loading parameters when the
uncertainty of impacts is greater. Engineering, construction
and O&M options discussed all have mitigation of impacts as their
basis.
Mitigation is integrated throughout this Handbook. Table
7-6 summarizes important mitigation practices for wetlands site
screening and engineering planning. Table 7-7 lists important
construction and O&M mitigative measures.
Nelson and Weller (1984) summarized a series of variables
that can further affect mitigation and the magnitude of impacts.
The four major variables are:
1. Operations variables
Distribution, scale and type of activity
Frequency, duration and season of activity
Location of activity within an ecosystem
2. Physical and chemical variables
Hydrologic regime and flow dynamics
Particulate composition of soil and sediments
Chemical composition of water and sediments
3. Biological and ecological variables
Habitat diversity and carrying capacity
Population abundance, diversity and productivity
Ecosystem stability, resistance and resilience
Presence of key species important to an ecosystem
-------
MITIGATION OF WETLAND IMPACTS 7-22
4. Public interest variables
Regional scarcity of affected habitat types
Abundance of sport and commercial populations
Presence of protected species
While this is not an all inclusive list and some of these
variables may be difficult to measure, it does provide insight
into the types of characteristics which can influence the
severity of impacts and that should be incorporated into system
design and operation.
Table 7-6. Mitigation Measures for Site Screening/Engineering
Planning.
1. Selection of unique or endangered wetlands is discouraged.
2. Use of conservative hydraulic rates is recommended.
3. Discharges into a wetland should follow natural hydroperiod
as much as possible.
4. Upstream diversions or retention ponds might be used for
reducing excessive sediment input from developing areas
within the watershed.
5. Pretreatment should be conducted to remove trace metals and
toxics from influent to treatment plant.
6. Removal of phosphorus within the treatment facility should
be considered for wetlands discharges with phosphorus
sensitive downstream waters.
7. Discharge points should be varied to improve assimilation
and maintain hydroperiod.
8. Discharge mechanisms should be used which prevent erosion
or channelization of wetland.
Source: Adapted from Nelson and Weller. 1984.
-------
MITIGATION OF WETLAND IMPACTS 7-23
Table 7-7. Mitigative Measures for Construction and O&M
1. The top and outside bank of dikes should be vegetated.
2. A vegetative buffer strip should be used at the outer limits
of construction to stabilize the soil surface.
3. Wetland crossings should be built on elevated structures
that preserve natural drainage patterns; pilings are better
than fill to ensure passage of water, nutrients and
organisms.
4. Banks and disturbed upland slopes should be stabilized with
vegetation.
5. Construction should be timed to avoid breeding, spawning
and nesting seasons, and to coincide with low flows.
6. Clearing of vegetation for construction should be restricted.
7. Exposed soil should be protected through revegetation,
mulching or filter cloth.
8. Alternate routes around wetlands should be employed for
pipeline crossings when possible.
9. Existing access trails, natural corridors, pipeline
rights-of-way and ditches should be used where possible.
10. Heavy equipment should be operated atop mats or barges
(where feasible).
11. Pipeline ditches should be backfilled as near as practicable
to the original marsh elevation with original dredged
material.
12. Pipeline corridors and other disturbed sites should be
revegetated with wildlife food and cover crops that also
prevent erosion.
Source: Adapted from Nelson and Weller. 1984.
-------
POST-DISCHARGE MONITORING 7-24
7.5 POST-DISCHARGE MONITORING
All discharges to waters of the U.S. require monitoring the
effluent quality. Sometimes additional monitoring in the
receiving water is required as well under thee NPDES Permit
program. Chapter 3 discusses, from a regulatory perspective,
the need to monitor wetlands discharges carefully to assess
impacts and long-term viability of the wetland. This requires
not only monitoring the effluent, but also the conditions within
the wetland.
Few pre- or post-discharge monitoring programs have been
implemented on wetlands used for wastewater management. As
such, a joint effort between the community and the regulatory
agencies may be required until more data are collected on the
response of various wetlands to wastewater discharges. Joint
efforts in obtaining required data could be advantageous to both
parties, given the variety of data requirements needed to assess
a wetlands discharge.
Most monitoring projects to date have been research-related.
The scope of these studies probably is not practical for smaller
communities with limited funds. However, these programs do
provide an indication of the major parameters and general
sampling design applicable to a wetlands discharge. A few
monitoring programs have been conducted by utility authorities
using wetland wastewater systems, and these programs provide
additional insights into the type of sampling programs that may
be reasonable for a community to undertake.
The regulatory program requiring post-discharge monitoring
is the NPDES Permit program, through permit conditions and/or
compliance requirements. The objectives of monitoring wetlands
discharges include:
o Assuring maintenance of water quality standards and
attainment of effluent limitations.
o Assessing a wetland's ability to transport or assimilate
wastewater on a long-term basis. This incorporates
assessment of organic, nutrient and metal uptake by soils
and vegetation.
o Determining discharge impacts on wetlands ecology,
including changes in vegetation or wildlife assemblages.
o Evaluating viral contamination and potential disease vectors.
If chlorination is used, potential adverse effects of
chlorinated compounds should be assessed.
The objectives of wetlands-wastewater systems vary from one
system to another. Regardless of system specific objectives
-------
POST-DISCHARGE MONITORING 7.25
(e.g., nutrient removal or disposal only), all wetlands
discharges must have wetlands maintenance as an objective.
This should be the minimum criterion in selecting monitoring
parameters.
Chapter 3 presented the concept of a tiered approach to
assessing and potentially permitting a wetlands discharge. If
conservative loadings to an acceptable site are used, the scope
of the evaluation process would be less than for higher loadings
or the proposed use of a sensitive or endangered wetland area.
The same approach is applicable to post-discharge monitoring.
Actually, the required monitoring would be related to the
parameters evaluated in site-screening, the permit application
and in establishing effluent limitations.
As the design of the post-discharge monitoring program is
considered, the spatial and temporal sampling features described
in Section 9.2 should be reviewed. Regardless of the scope of.
the monitoring program, these features should be incorporated
into program design. Since the detailed site screening provides
the background information for comparison with post-discharge
monitoring data, its design wfll be an integral part of the
post-discharge monitoring program.
Based on a tiered approach, Table 7-8 lists the parameters
that should be assessed initially for any discharge. The
applicable water quality standards (uses and criteria) and
effluent limitations could modify this general listing. Some
parameters may be deleted following sufficient demonstration
that they are not significant. Further, the frequency of
sampling certain parameters might be altered depending on
waste water characteristics and concentrations observed in the
wetland.
-------
POST-DISCHARGE MONITORING 7-26
Table 7-8. Post-Discharge Monitoring Components and
Frequency of Sampling - Tier 1 Analyses.
Geomorphology
None
Hydrology
Wastewater flow
Water depth
Surface water flow
Water Quality (surface waters)
Dissolved oxygen
BOD
Suspended solids
PH
Water temperature
Fecal coliforms
Treatment plant effluent
Ecology
Visible stress, change
in growth patterns
or nuisance conditions
mete red, continuous
weekly
monthly (with water
quality sampling)
monthly, diurnals
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
- monthly
The parameters listed in Table 7-8 would be required of a
Type 2 discharge as well as Type 1 discharge. Other analyses
required of a Type 2 discharge would be dependent on several
elements, including:
1. Wastewater management objectives (e.g., nutrient removal)
2. Scope of detailed site-screening/site-specific effluent
limitation assessments
3. Effluent quality (nutrient levels, industrial component)
4. Type of wetland (water level or pH sensitive) .
Permit conditions and performance criteria, based on water
quality standards, would be the basis for additional analyses.
Table 7-9 lists parameters that could be considered or required
for more detailed analyses based on the elements listed above.
The suggested frequencies of sampling also could be affected by
these elements. Also, all of the parameters listed would not
necessarily be required of each discharge.
If the existing data base is limited or nonexistent, monitoring
prior to initiation of the discharge is highly recommended,
regardless of the size of the discharge. Post-monitoring data
will be of significantly less value without documentation of
-------
POST-DISCHARGE MONITORING 7-27
background conditions. Ideally, premonitoring should occur
during different seasonal and flow conditions. If not possible, a
thorough survey of each post-discharge monitoring parameter
should be conducted based on the time and/or funds available.
Emphasis should be given to certain parameters varying on a
diurnal basis (e.g., dissolved oxygen) and other parameters
varying with flow.
Suggestions for the location, frequency and duration of
sampling are discussed in Section 9.2, as well as the need for
monitoring wells, weirs or other sampling mechanisms. The
regulatory agency responsible for compliance monitoring should
inspect each wetland discharge once a year to monitor wetland
changes and assess current reporting and monitoring
requirements.
-------
POST-DISCHARGE MONITORING 7-28
Table 7-9. Potential Post-Discharge Monitoring and Sampling
Frequencies - Tier 2 Analyses
G eomorph ology
Sediment accumulation
Changes in watershed
(e.g., due to development,
other uses)
Hydrology
Water budget,
residence time
Precipitation
Water Quality
(surface waters)
Nitrate (NO3)
Un-ionized ammonia
(primarily for non-acidic
waters)
Total nitrogen (TN)
Orthophosphate (PO4)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total coliforms
Fecal Streptococci
TOG
COD
Chlorine residual
Chloride
Metals (lead, iron, mercury,
cadmium, etc.)
Biocides
Nutrient budget
(ground waters)
Nitrate (NO3)
Fecal coliforms
Chloride
Biocides
Metals
Ecology 1
Vegetation species composition
Vegetative diversity
Relative abundance
Wildlife surveys
Productivity
Litter fall
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Insect populations (mosquitoes)
Semiannually
Semiannually
With any major change of
inflows
Daily
Quarterly; different seasons
Quarterly; different seasons
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
seasons
seasons
seasons
seasons
seasons
seasons
seasons
seasons
seasons
seasons
Quarterly; different seasons
With any major change of inflows
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
Quarterly;
different seasons
different seasons
different seasons
different seasons
different seasons
Semiannually;
Semiannually;
Semiannually;
Semiannually;
Semiannually;
Semiannually;
Semiannually;
Semiannually;
growing seasons
growing seasons
different seasons
different seasons
different seasons
different seasons
pre/post emergence
different seasons
iMost sampling early and late in the growing season;
non-growing season data also would be valuable for most
components.
-------
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION USER'S GUIDE 7-29
7.6 USER'S GUIDE
Chapter 7 discusses the three basic steps that follow
engineering planning and design, leading to project implemen-
tation :
1. Construction and installation - See Section 7.2.
2. Operation, maintenance and repair (OMR) - See Section 7.3 .
3. Post-discharge Monitoring - See Section 7.4
The wetland-specific topics and issues discussed in this chapter
are those that should be addressed for any wetlands-waste-
water system, in addition to the typical procedures conducted
for any wastewater treatment facility. Figure 7-5 shows the
relationship of construction and O&M to the decision making
process.
Chapter 6 provides guidance on the type of considerations
that must be examined in planning and designing a wetlands-
wastewater system. Chapter 7 incorporates these design deci-
sions into the installation/construction, O&M and post-discharge
monitoring programs. Design decisions from Chapter 6 deter-
mine construction and O&M requirements. How they are accom-
plished is a primary purpose of Chapter 7.
Figure 7-6 illustrates the process of putting a facility
on-line, from the point of having design plans and specifications
approved, and a NPDES discharge permit issued. It is assumed
that if this user's guide is being employed, design plans and
specifications have been approved and an NPDES permit issued.
Preparation of the O&M Manual and the post-discharge
monitoring program should begin in the engineering design phase
and be finalized before construction is complete.
Form 7-A outlines the types of questions that should be
addressed at the pre-construction conference. The construc-
tion elements should be thoroughly planned before construction
is begun. The O&M and monitoring sections of Form 7-A should
be conducted in conjunction with preparation of the O&M
manual. These elements are essential to operating the plant
properly, assessing wetland impacts and, in essence, protecting
the wetland. As a result, O&M and monitoring should be
planned, reviewed and approved prior to issuance of the NPDES
permit. Some O&M and monitoring elements may be enforced as
permit conditions.
-------
1 State/Applicant
State/Applicant
Consideration
of
Wetlands for
Wastewater
Management
] Wetlands
Functions and
Values
Chapter 2
State/Applicant
Funding
Available
through Construction
Grants
Chapter 3
WQS
use/criteria
Chapters 3 & 5
Discharge
Guidelines
Chapter 5
Compile Information
for Permit Application
and Submit Application
Chapter 3
Review
Application
Effluent 1
Limitations 1
Chapters 3*5 1
Engineering
Design
Chapter 6
Issue .
Permit
Chapter 3
Applicant
Engineering Planning
Chapters 4 & 6
Detailed Site Evaluation
Chapter 4
Construction
and OkM
Chapter 7
Applicant/State
Compliance
/; and '
Monitoring
Chapter 7
- -
Assessment
Techniques
Chapter 9
Applicant
Applicant/
State
Figure 7-5. Relationship of the Handbook to the Decision Making Process.
LJ
O
-------
Funding
Procedures fc
Bidding Process
Final Permit
Inspection &
Site Approval
Approved
Engineering
Design Plans
and
Specifications
(see
Chapter 6.0)
Preconstruction
Conference
Can
Impacts
be Mitigated
or
Minimized?.
Determine
Installation
Methods
Construction
Completion
Start
up
Process
Construction and
O&M Processes
Operation
and
Maintenance
Plan
Wetland
Management Plan
Contingency
Plan
Refine
OfcM Plan
During
Start up
Post-discharge
Monitoring
Plan
Close
Monitoring
During
Start up
Process
System
in
Full
Operation
Continuing
O&M
Activity
Throughout
Life of
System
Continuing
Monitoring
Program
Throughout
Life of
System
Figure 7-6. Process Flow Chart and Decision Diagram for Construction and O&M.
U>
-------
PROJECT llfLWEMTATION USER'S GUIDE 7-3
FORM 7-A. Wetlands-Wastemter Managewnt System, Installation/Construction and OIM
INSTALIATIOH/CONSTRUCTION
A. SCHEDULES.
I. What Is the construction schedule?
2. What period of time Is anticipated between design and Installation/construction?
3. How long should Installation/construction take?
4. How does the construction schedule coincide with hydroperlod, breeding periods
and other natural wetland occurrences?
B. METHODS.
1. What Installation/construction methods are anticipated for:
Distribution system
Control structures
Placement of equipment
2. What methods wl I I be used to minimize soil compaction?
3. What techniques will be used to reduce erosion?
4. What methods of transportation or access wlI I be used?
5. What approaches will be taken to minimize changes In natural flow patterns?
-------
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION USER'S GUIDE
FORM 7-A Continued
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
A. SCHEDULE.
1. What ts the anticipated flow schedule to the wetland?
Continuous
Intermittent
Seasonal
2. What plans will be Implemented to minimize changes to natural hydroperlod?
3. Are resting periods anticipated for the wetland? Yes No
If yes, when will they occur? Regularly Seasonally
4. What period of time Is anticipated between construction and Initiating
wastewater flows to the wetland?
B. SYST04 COMPONENTS.
1. Distribution System
a) How often will discharge port(s) be checked and/or flushed?
b) How often will the area around the discharge polnt(s) be checked for
excessive erosion?
2. Vegetation
a) Is planting of vegetation Incorporated Into system design? Yes
No
b) Is harvesting of vegetation planned? Yes No
If yes, will selective harvesting or replanting be done?
If replanting, what will be the source and type of vegetation for
replanting?
Source
Type
c) How often will the wetlands water surface be checked for excessive build-up
of floating vegetation or algae?
d) What practices are anticipated at what frequency for maintaining the
planned amount of open water?
3. Other (as specified by Regulatory Agency)
4. What routine OiM will be done on equipment or other structural aspects of the
Wetlands-wastewater system?
-------
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION USER'S GUIDE 7-3'
FORM 7-B. Nfttlands Nastoimtar MmagoMnt System, Post-01 scharg* Monitoring
1. Did compilation of the NPDES permit application require any primary source data
col lection?
Yes No
If yes, what data were collected: (Hydrology, water quality, ecology and soils)
Parameter Frequency Number of Samples
2. Was pre-dlscharge monitoring required?
Yes No
If yes, what data were collected: (Hydrology, water quality, ecology and soils)
Parameter Frequency Number of Samples
3. What are the potential sources of existing data for the wetland or watershed?
Do existing background data exist?
Yes No
If yes, what data were collected: (Hydrology, water quality, ecology and soils)
Parameter Frequency Number of Samp Ies
What do data Indicate about:
Existing water quality?
Assimilative capability of soils or vegetation?
-------
PROJECT UPLENENTATION USER'S GUIDE
FORM 7-B Continued
Bm^B^^BB
Hydrologlc sensitivity?
Ecological stability?
Others
4. What are monitoring requirements established by the NPDES Permit?
Parameter Location Frequency Method
5. Has a plan been established to monitor wetland changes?
Hydroperlod?
Vegetation composition?
Tree growth?
Water chemistry?
PH
DO
Fecal conforms?
Nutrients
Others?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
-------
PROJECT IMH.MENTATION USER'S GUIDE 7-3'
FORM 7-B Continued
6. Describe the components of the proposed monitoring program (see Section 9.2 for
assistance).
Parameter LocatI on Frequency/Duration Methods
Surface Waters
Groundwaters
Soils
Ecology
Responses to the first five questions will form the basis for designing the
post-discharge monitoring program.
-------
WETLAND RESPONSE TO WASTEWATER LOADING
8.0 WETLAND RESPONSE TO WASTEWATER LOADING
8.1 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING AND DESIGN 8-2
8.2 IMPACTS TO WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 8-6
8.2.1 Hydrology
8.2.2 Water Quality
o Organics
o Nutrients
o Metals
o Public Health
8.2.3 Ecology
o Vegetation
o Wildlife
8.3 IMPACTS TO WETLAND TYPES 8_18
8.4 UNCERTAINTY AND RISK 8-20
-------
-------
WETLAND RESPONSE TO WASTEWATER LOADING
8.0 WETLAND RESPONSE TO WASTEWATER LOADING
Who should read this chapter? Anyone involved with planning, designing
or implementing a wetlands-wastewater discharge.
What are some of the issues addressed by this chapter?
o How do wastewater additions affect wetland functions and values?
o How do certain wetland types respond to wastewater discharges?
o What are the uncertainties and risks associated with a
wetlands-wastewater system?
Wetlands
Response to
Wastewater
Relationship to
Manning
and Design
Impacts to
Wetlands Functions
and Values
Hydrology
Water Quality
Ecology
o Residence Tine
o Hydropertod
o Water Depth
° Area of Inundation
o Nutrients
o Metals
o PubUc Health
o Vegetation
o Wildlife
Figure 8-1. Wetlands Response to Wastewater.
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING AND DESIGN
8.1 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING AND DESIGN
Changes occur in a wetland as a result of wastewater
discharges or other management practices. It is important to
understand the potential changes resulting from wastewater
additions if wetlands discharges are to be well planned and
managed. More importantly, the information presented in this
chapter (summarized in Figure 8-1) concerning wetlands
response and sensitivity to wastewater is essential to site
screening and evaluation. The use of wetlands particularly
sensitive to hydraulic or water chemistry alterations should be
avoided. Since the engineering design process is intended to
optimize both wastewater assimilation and wetlands protection,
information concerning wetlands responses and sensitivity is an
integral part of decision making. Table 8-1 summarizes the
relationship of wastewater loadings to wetlands functions and
values.
-------
Table 8-1. Relationship of Wastewater Additions to Wetlands Functions and Values
Component
Areas of Importance
Functional Role and Importance
GaoMorphology
-Geology
-Sol Is
Hydro I ogy
-Budget
-Inundation
-FloodIng
Effects
-Evapotrans-
pI ratIon
Karstlc Areas
Drainage Basin Characteristics
form
Drainage Basin Characteristics
types
Organic Sol Is
Mineral Soils
Precipitation Component
Groundwater Component
Surface water/Runoff Component
Frequency and Duration
-Infiltration Capacity of Vertical Water
Movement
Nutrient Import/Export
Buffer Capacity
Groundwater Interactions In limestone areas uncertain; pose potential benefits
(recharge) and hazards (contamination).
Areas of high topographic relief create potential for strong flood
pulses resulting In undesirable flushing of effluent out of wetland
without treatment.
Carolina Bay and other formations have intrinsic scientific, cultural
and hydrologlc values which may be threatened by wastewater application.
Nutrient retention potential low, permeability may also be low.
High nutrient retention potential, permeability may be low.
Clay pan Impermeability protects groundwater resources but may Impede
surface water loading capacity.
Limits loading rates of wastewater.
Groundwater discharge area places limits on loading rates of wastewater.
Groundwater recharge area may prohibit wastewater application if effluent
quality Is poor and detrimental Impacts are expected.
Sources, rates and timing of Inflow critical to maintaining wetland vegetation,
detrltal sediment and nutrient loading.
Outflow characteristics define seasonal pattern of surface water storages,
location of outflow may limit acceptability of wastewater application.
Dominant force in shaping distribution and character of wetland vegetation.
Changes in catachment size and shape, antecedent moisture and watershed
topography will alter flooding characteristics.
Infiltration capacity Important In determining loading rates, treatment capacity
and efficiency.
Major source of nutrients for some wetlands, and downstream ecosystems
may be dependent on wetlands exports for nutrients and food supply.
Wetlands have value as regional flood buffering devices and aid In low-flow
augmentation. Wastewater addition may lower this hydrologic buffering capacity.
Not Important unless drastic ecosystem alteration takes place. Wastewater may
increase evapotransplratlon.
00
I
LJ
-------
Table 8-1. Continued.
Component Areas of Importance
Functional Role and Importance
Mater Quality
-Chemical
-Physical
-Biological
Ecology
-Plant
EcoIogy
-Vegetative
types
-Succession
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Nutrients
Metals/Toxins/Refractory Organ Ics
Turbidity/Suspended Solids
Temperature
Mlcroblal Respiration
Public Health Vectors
Algae blooms
Increase In macrophytes
Material Cycling
Adaptations
Fire Frequency
Dominant vegetation
Subdomlnant vegetation
Community equilibrium
Plant and fish life tolerate low DO; but zero DO Is detrimental.
Controls type of mlcroblal respiration and organic matter degradation.
Some plants present (Sphagnum) depend on low pH. Nutrient and metals release
from sediments Is pH dependent. Wastewater addition may Increase pH, and
carbonate buffering capacity.
Nutrient cycles need to be balanced for proper ecosystem production. Productivity
may be limited by nutrient availability. Nutrient exports by open wetland
ecosystems create Important links to downstream ecosystems.
Direct - acute and chronic effects from exposure to detrimental concentrations
Indirect - bloaccumulatlon.
Important source of partlculate organic matter. Sedimentation of these
particles provides basis for sediments, detrltal food chain.
Effluent extends growing season In cooler climates and may promote frost damage.
Breakdown of organic matter, nutrient cycles.
Maintain or Increase reservoir of Imported or endemic water or arthropod borne
disease.
Odor, aesthetic, toxic producing nuisance.
Short term, seasonal storage of nutrients. Influences subcanopy
ecology In swamp forests.
General ecosystem functioning; wastewater addition may possibly augment
or create Imbalance.
Plants specialize to grow and successfully compete In wetlands; modifi-
cations In nutrient and hydrologlc regimes may alter species assemblages.
Fire Is Important In maintaining the character of some wetlands; con-
tinuous wastewater application may prevent necessary dry-down for fire to
occur.
Essential In determining community structure and productivity, habitat
value, and Influences water quality, surface water flows.
Important In filling and creating specialized ecological niches.
Necessary to maintain a stable and productive ecosystem.
oo
-------
Table 8-1. Continued.
Component
Areas of Importance
Functional Role and Importance
-Productivity
-Rare and
endangered
species/
ecosystems
-Habitat
Rate of production and
respiration
Habitat loss - Species Mainte-
nance Interference
Edge Effect/Niche Separation
Controls nutrient uptake and storage capacity; determines quality and
quantity of detritus and Influences evapotransplratlon values. Diurnal
pattern may be of sufficient Intensity to alter water quality parameters
of DO and pH.
The location, range and Inherent scientific and cultural values of these
ecotypes/species require that these genetic pools are maintained Intact and
In place.
Maintains trophic levels productivity for ecological balance.
Source: EPA 1983.
00
I
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 8-6
8.2 IMPACTS TO WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
To consider wetlands for waste water management, analyses
of wetland functions and values must be conducted. First, the
type and extent of change that can occur in a wetland should be
assessed. Second, the degree to which wetlands assimilate or
renovate waste water should be evaluated. Using wetlands for
wastewater discharges is contingent upon the understanding of
these issues. Figure 8-2 indicates some of the concerns related
to the extent of acceptable change (see Chapter 3 also). Some
changes that may lead to unacceptable conditions and that can
serve as indicators of change are listed below (Schwartz 1985) :
o Changes in species composition
o Nuisance growth of algae
o Alteration of organic accumulation rates
o Dissolution of organic soils
o Heavy metal accumulation in food chains
o Reduction in natural bacteria populations
o Presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons
o Net export of nutrients and suspended solids
o Groundwater contamination
o Indication of pathogen problem
o Damage to adjacent ecosystems
o Downstream eutrop hi cation.
While the data base for understanding natural systems has in-
creased, certain data limitations remain. Unfortunately, many
wetlands systems have not been studied for their capacity to
receive wastewater. The following sections summarize available
information on impacts of wastewater discharges to the
hydrology, water quality and ecology of a wetland.
8.2.1 Hydrology
The impacts of wastewater on wetland systems are inter-
active. Changes in hydrology, water chemistry and vegetation
often are inseparable. Typically, however, impacts to the
hydrologic regime of a wetland are most profound. Section 5.3
summarizes the importance of hydraulic variables in wetlands
wastewater system design. Chan et al. (1980) summarized the
responses of ecosystems to shifts in hydrologic regime related to
velocity, renewal rate (residence time) and timing. Table 8-2
indicates the influence of hydrology on species composition,
primary productivity, organic materials flux and nutrient
cycling.
Excessive changes to the hydraulic loading of a wetland
system can either convert the wetland to a different type of
wetland or ecosystem, or severely damage the wetland to the
point at which plant and animal assemblages are threatened.
-------
8-7
Figure 8-2. Concerns Related to the Use of
Natural Wetlands for Waste water Management.
Wetland Functions
and
Values
Wetland
Responses
to Wastewater
o Fish and Wildlife Habitat
o Biomass Production/Silviculture
o Flood Control and Storage
o Erosion Control
o Ground water Storage
o Water Quality Improvement
o Aesthetic / Recreational/ Educational Value
o Increased Hydraulic Loading
o Suspended Solids Filtration,
Increase in Organic Sediments
o Organics Reduction in Water Column
o Nutrient Cycling/Removal
o Wastewater Flow Detainment
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
-------
Table 8-2. Wetland Ecosystem Responses to Various Hydrologic Factors.
Ecosystem
Character I sties
Hydrologic Influences
Velocity
Residence Time
Timing
Species composition
and richness
Primary
productivity
Organic deposition
and flux
Nutrient eye I Ing
o Affects distribution
i deposition of sedi-
ments, Influencing ele-
vation and plant zonatlon
o Species richness found to
Increase directly with
velocity
o Increased velocity related
to greater sediment input
and Increased plant growth
o "Edge-effect"—stimu-
lation of production
along channels due to
increased velocity
availability of water
o Affects flow and avail-
ability of toxins
o Stagnant waters linked
to anaerobic conditions
and plant stress
o Dissolved oxygen related
to velocity
o Rate of total part leu-
late and total organic
export directly propor-
tional to flow rate (and
velocity)
o Provides vehicle for water
movement and circulation
o Uniform mixing leads to
monospeclflc stands of
vegetation
o Diversity tends to Increase
with elevation, which is
Influenced by flooding
duration & depth
o Availability of water
seems to control lat-
eraI spread of ombro-
trophlc bogs
o Availability of nutri-
ents for plant
growth related to
aval lab) I Ity of water
o Regular renewal of water
In tidal areas minimizes
salt accumulation and
plant stress
o Regular renewal supplies
02, minimizing stressful
anaerobic conditions; depth
& duration of flooding most
Important
o Increased flow rate
related to greater si It
Input and organic matter
outflow
o Influences mass loading,
transport and flux of
nutrients
o Timing or seasonal Ity
of rain Input may affect
lateral and vertical spread
of ombrotrophlc bogs
o Frequency of flooding
Influences availability
of toxins to wetland
flora and fauna
o Flooding frequency directly
related to silt Input and
organic matter outflow
o Soil organic concentration
Increases on gradient from
actively flooded stream banks
to less actively flooded
Inland high marshes
o Nutrient flux related to
timing of flooding with respect
to plant growth cycle.
Source: Adapted from Chan et a 1. 1980.
00
oo
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES »_Q
Some wetland systems are more tolerant (wider range of water
level change) than others; a bottomland hardwood is highly
tolerant to flooding conditions. A study of flooding on trees in a
bottomland hardwood system showed that trees apparently were
unaffected by over 190 days of impoundment resulting from
abnormally high reservoir levels (Carter et al. 1978). This study
exemplifies the hydraulic flexibility of a bottomland hardwood
wetland, but does not show the long range impact of regular
prolonged flooded conditions. Teskey and Hinckley (1977)
indicate impacts on trees not tolerant to flooding could be
serious. Carter et al. (1978) also indicate that water tolerance of
tree seeds and seedlings largely controls species distribution in
relation to flooding.
Groundwater, surface area and soil pore space are the sig-
nificant storage areas for water inputs to wetlands. Continuous
wastewater addition would decrease the degree of seasonal fluc-
tuations occurring in these storage reservoirs through uniform
effluent application. Infiltration and percolation of effluent to
groundwater depends on the physical components of the soil.
Significant increases in surface water force changes in plant
species composition and distribution which, in turn, may affect
wildlife species abundance and diversity.
Velocity and depth are two other important hydraulic
elements. The velocity of wastewater discharges can have
detrimental impacts if it is great enough to undermine vegetation
or cause erosion. Scour and sedimentation naturally occur in
wetlands under different flow conditions but can be disruptive if
they exceed natural levels or frequency of occurrence. The depth
of water is associated closely with the hydroperiod of a wetland.
Marked changes can result in species shifts and affect
reproduction. Depth also can influence the dissolved oxygen
levels and many processes related to dissolved oxygen
concentration (e.g., metals releases, nitrogen releases to the
atmosphere, etc.). The potential impacts of velocity and depth
emphasize the importance of hydrologic conditions of a wetland.
8.2.2 Water Quality
The water quality impacts of wastewater loadings to wetlands
pertain primarily to organics, nutrients, metals and public
health. The impacts of biocides are not discussed in detail, since
their primary sources are industrial effluent and runoff from
agricultural lands.
Organics. The major concerns with organic loading to
wetlands are: 1) excessive loadings of settleable organic matter,
2) excessive loadings of floating organic matter and 3) impacts to
dissolved oxygen. Detrimental conditions can be avoided in most
cases by providing secondary treatment and the accompanying
reduction in solids and organic matter. Excessive buildup of
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
bottom sediments and floating material has been noted by some
studies (Ewel and Odum 1984), but these conditions can be
avoided by more conservative loading rates (e.g., less than 1
inch/week) or improved BOD and solids removal by the treatment
facilities. A well-functioning secondary treatment facility, in
conjunction with appropriate hydraulic loading rates, should
prevent excessive organic matter build-up. Nutrients associated
with wastewater can enhance growth of algae or floating
vegetation, however, leading to an increased oxygen demand. In
this case, the hydraulic loading is important again. If normal
wetland processes are not impacted adversly by excessive
loadings, the organic and nutrient inputs from a secondary
treatment facility are likely to be adequately assimilated by the
wetland. These inputs and their effects should be monitored,
since they are a indicator of wetland function.
Nutrients. Natural nutrient transformation processes enable
many wetlands to assimilate and store increased levels of
nutrients from wastewater sources. In wetlands managed for
wastewater renovation, conditions which maximize nitrogen and
phosphorus removal are important.
Nitrogen and phosphorus in domestic wastewater are present
in several organic and inorganic forms. The natural nitrogen to
phosphorus ratio of approximately 10:1 is frequently much lower
(1:1 to 2:1) in domestic wastewaters, causing an excess in phos-
phorus for biological assimilation. This ratio varies with the
source of sewage, and level and efficiency of pretreatment. The
impacts of nutrients are minimized by maintaining a high quality
(low nutrient) effluent. Wetlands have been shown (Sloey et al.
1978) to act as natural nutrient traps: some permanent (domes),
and others on a seasonal or intermittent basis (tidal marshes,
riverine swamps). The reported nutrient removal rates for those
wetlands receiving sewage effluent indicate the wetland's capacity
to assimilate nutrients above the natural levels.
The principal pathways by which nitrogen can be permanently
removed from a wetland is by denitrification or by hydrologic
export. Wetland hydraulics, e.g., residence time and depth, can
affect the presence of anaerobic conditions (necessary for
denitrification) and other nutrient removal processes. Other
chemical processes which are important in nitrogen and phos-
phorus removal are co-precipitation and sorption reactions.
These reactions are important in nitrogen and phosphorus
retention in the soil profile. The pathways for phosphorus and
nitrogen removal are significantly different. As a result, the
ability of wetlands to retain phosphorus and nitrogen varies. For
example, one wetland may remove nitrogen and phosphorus,
whereas another wetland may remove only nitrogen.
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 8-11
Concern has been expressed over the ultimate retention capa-
city for nutrient storage. Several long term studies have given
conflicting results. Florida sites have demonstrated long term
assimilative capacity for nitrogen and phosphorus (Nessel 1978,
Tuschal 1981), but a California site displayed a reduction in
phosphorus removal efficiency (Whigham and Bayley 1979). The
variability in nutrient retention or removal pertains primarily to
phosphorus. Recent work by Richardson (1985) has indicated
that the ability of wetlands to retain phosphorus depends on the
content of extractable aluminum and iron, primarily the former.
Further, Richardson indicates that although phosphorus reten-
tion may be observed during the first few years of application,
eventual release of the stored phosphorus can occur. Some
systems, as reported by McKim (1984), never retain significant
quantities of phosphorus.
Craig and Kuenzler (1983) and Brinsen and Westall (1983)
also have emphasized one of the views presented by Richardson
which should be acknowledged. Many water bodies downstream
from wetlands depend on nutrient removal for maintaining a
balanced ecosystem. Excessive nutrient discharges can overload
a wetland's natural capacity to filter nutrients; thus, it can
increase the rate of eutrophication and degrade water quality
downstream. Wetlands should not be thought of as final sinks
for all nutrients discharged to them. Rather, they transform,
remove, store and release various forms. In view of the evi-
dence being compiled for several different wetland systems,
phosphorus removal at the treatment plant or via land applica-
tion may be necessary under some circumstances prior to a
wetland's discharge, particularly when downstream water
quality is nutrient-sensitive.
Heavy Metals. Heavy metals are of concern because of their
potential adverse impacts on ecosystems. Opinions differ as to
the definition of heavy metals from a toxicological standpoint.
The most common heavy metals include arsenic (As), cadmium
(Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), man-
ganese (Mn), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), tin (Sn),
titanium (Ti), vanadium (V) and zinc (Zn). The aquatic-related
fate of these metals has been included in a review of this subject
by Callahan et al. (1979). The health impacts, allowable limits
related to acute, subacute and chronic toxicity, synergistic or
antagonistic actions, teratogenicity, mutagenicity and careino-
genicity have been summarized by Sittig (1980).
Heavy metals entering wetland ecosystems may experience
three immediate pathways of transport and translocation: (1)
plant or animal uptake, (2) movement to surface or ground-
waters and (3) immobilization into the soil matrix. Boyt et al.
(1977) reported low concentrations of zinc, copper and lead in
the effluent of the Wildwood, Florida, sewage treatment plant
and in the receiving swamp. The concentrations of metals in the
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ft_!
surface water and sediment cores in a marsh receiving effluent
since 1919 (Murdoch and Capobianco 1979) were low and vari-
able, and no trends were detected. Carriker and Brezonik
(1976) reported elevated levels of metal associated with surficial
sediments of cypress domes receiving secondary effluent.
Aquatic plants undoubtedly assimilate heavy metals from the
water (Kadlec and Kadlec 1979, Binges 1978). The leaves of
hyacinth culture receiving treated sewage were found to contain
high levels of Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni and Zn. However, silver,
cadmium and lead concentrations were below detection limits
(Binges 1978) . Roots are also known to assimilate metals (Lee et
al. 1976). Metals also are complexed by organic compounds such
as fulvic and humic acids found in wetlands (Boto and Patrick
1978) and may reduce bioavailability and uptake by insects,
plants and animals.
Changes in pH and Eh influence the solubility of metals and
determine whether metals are retained or released by the sedi-
ments. For example, the release of Al, Mn, Fe, Zn from the sed-
iments was observed when the range was lowered to pH 5-6, but
Cs (cesium), Hg and Se (selenium) showed reduced solubility
(Schindler 1980). Metals loosely adsorbed to the surficial
sediments have not been shown to migrate to groundwaters, but
may be mobilized to surface waters (Tuschall et al. 1981). Boto
and Patrick (1978) suggested that wetland systems can act as a
high capacity sink for heavy metals deposited in the sediments.
They warn that natural or man-made alterations of the system
(lowering the water table, dredging, etc.) can result in the
release of metals trapped in anaerobic sediments. Best et al.
(1982) indicate that heavy metal transport in an ecosystem
depends on the species of metal, thereby adding another degree
of uncertainty to their fate.
The rate of metal accretion and the degree of burial in the
sediments are critical factors in determining the loadings which
can be endured by wetlands without damage. While the natural
attributes of some wetlands provide a sink for some metals, such
storage is variable and depends on many factors. As with phos-
phorus, some wetlands have limited capacity for storing metals.
Bischarging high levels of bioavailable metals to an ecosystem in
which they can be circulated and accumulated should be avoided.
Public Health. The public health implications of wastewater
recycling in wetlands have not been evaluated fully for all
natural wetland types in Region IV. Potential adverse impacts
include increasing the threat of waterborne disease (via surface
or groundwater contamination) and increasing the incidence of
insect-, bird-, or mammal-vectored diseases. Several Florida
wetland types have been studied in this regard, and much cur-
rent knowledge is derived from these studies. No study to date
has been designed to provide direct epidemiological evidence on
this subject.
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 8-l
A substantial reduction (90-99 percent) in bacteria (Fox and
Alison 1978, Zoltec et al. 1979) and viruses (Scheuerman 1978)
has been observed in wastewater passed through typical marsh
and cypress dome soil profiles of peat, sand and clay mix. How-
ever, Sheuerman (1978) demonstrated that binding was not per-
manent, and viruses could be released from the soil profile
under certain conditions. Wellings (1978) isolated viruses from
a well at the same cypress dome experimental site, demonstrat-
ing that although the soil profile retained viruses and bacteria,
it was not a fail-safe system.
Those wetlands receiving wastewater that interconnect with
other bodies of water (lakes, streams, etc.) could potentially
transmit bacteria and viruses. At the Jasper, Florida, experi-
mental site, fecal and total coliforms were exported at variable
rates, depending on the detention time of the strand (Brezonik
et al. 1981). Generally, the longer the detention time, the
greater the sedimentation and die-off of coliform populations.
Wells monitored at this site indicated a limited sphere of
contamination extending vertically in the limestone surrounding
the swamp, but ground water supplies basically were protected
(Brezonik et al. 1981).
Concern has been expressed over the possible amplification
of the eastern encephalitis (EE) virus in swamps receiving
sewage (Davis 1975). Possible increase in bird and mosquito
populations associated with EE was the basis for concern.
Subsequent study (Davis 1978) of EE vectors of mosquitos and
sentinel birds demonstrated that EE activity was not substan-
tially greater in cypress domes receiving sewage than in natural
domes. Although known EE mosquito vectors (Culiseta mela-
nura, Culex nigropalpus) increased, human nuisance mosquitos
(Aedes infirmata, Aedes atlantica) declined due to elimination of
habitat in this case. Mosquito populations elsewhere may react
differently and concern has been expressed over the amplifica-
tion of nuisance mosquito populations.
Other public health aspects of wastewater discharges to
wetlands remain uncharacterized. For example, the persistance
of nitrate resulting in contamination of drinking water supplies
presents potential toxicity problems, especially for infants
(methemoglobinemia) . Un-ionized ammonia compounds are direct-
ly toxic to fish and other creatures (Huffier et al. 1981). The
effects of adverse weather conditions (storm events, freezing,
etc.) on treatment efficiency are unknown, and the long-term
capability of soil layers to protect groundwater resources is not
fully understood. While data exist to indicate the potential for
public health problems arising from wetlands discharges, no
incidences of disease resulting directly from such discharges
have been identified.
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 8-14
8.2.3 Ecology
The important biological components of wetlands include
vegetation (terrestrial and aquatic), benthic macroinver-
tebrates, fish and wildlife.
Vegetation. The magnitude and severity of the effects of
wastewater on wetland plant communities depends on the quality
of the effluent, the amount of wastewater applied, changes in
depth or hydroperiod, the manner in which wastewater is
applied and the ability of the wetland ecosystem to assimilate
wastewater.
The best documentation of impacts of wastewater on wetland
vegetation is derived from the Florida wetland studies (Odum et
al. 1984). Impacts were noted in the structure, productivity
and biomass components of wetland vegetation. Differences in
structural characteristics between cypress domes receiving
sewage effluent and control domes were most easily detected in
those compartments with short turnover times. For example,
leaf biomass in the sewage dome was 1.4 times higher than in
control domes. The total leaf area index was more than twice
that in the control area due to a dense cover of Lemna
(duckweed).
Comparisons of biomass, structure and productivity of
domes receiving effluent and other natural systems were made
by Brown (1981). She found the chlorophyll a. values for the
sewage dome were similar to the values reported for flood plain
forests, tropical rain forests (2.3 g/m2, Odom 1920) and a cove
forest in the Smokey Mountains (2.2 g/m2, Whittaker and
Woodell 1969) . The high overall chlorophyll a_ in natural systems
resulted from a combination of high leaf area index (LAI) and
average leaf chlorophyll £ content. Conversely, the sewage
dome achieved its high overall chlorophyll ji value as a result of
an average LAI and high leaf chlorophyll a^content.
A marsh near Clermont, Florida, showed increased peak
biomass in plants receiving wastewater over those that did not.
The presence of standing water resulted in significant physical
and chemical changes that affected plant growth. Extensive
growth of algae and floating plants was noted. Some species,
especially shorter grasses (Panicum spp.), declined in density
from increased competition, thus altering community structure.
The unavailability of soil oxygen may have limited some plants.
Emergent plants such as Sagittaria spp. are not limited by this
factor, since they are capable of supplying atmospheric oxygen
to their roots through their porous stems, rhizomes and roots.
Micronutrients, phosphorus availability and the generation of
hydrogen sulfide (toxic to root metabolism) were other factors
considered as important deterrents or stimulants to plant growth
in this study. These factors are applicable in evaluating impacts
to vegetation in other wetlands.
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 8-15
Wastewater was reported to increase the Typha (cattails)
and Lemna (duckweed) biomass approximately 30 percent at the
effluent outfall in a Michigan marsh, and changed succession
patterns (Kadlec et al. 1980). Algae was abundant, but effects
declined away from the outfall. Some species shifts were noted
as Polygonum spp., Utricularia spp. and Myriophyllum spp.
densities declined, possibly outcompeted by Typha and Lemna.
No effects on woody vegetation were detected in the short-term
study.
Significant impacts on wetland vegetation receiving sewage
effluents have been demonstrated in several instances. In a
pilot project with sawgrass marshes having limited nutrient
uptake ability (Stewart and Ornes 1975), the addition of
wastewater severely upset the natural equilibrium of this marsh
vegetation. Tree ring analysis showed depressed growth rates
of cypress trees during the addition of raw and primary sewage
to a hardwood swamp near Jasper, Florida, over a period of 20
years. Data from other systems receiving wastewater, how-
ever, indicate increased growth rates.
An Andrews, South Carolina, gum-tupelo swamp receiving
wastewater effluent has been reported to be severely damaged
(Jones 1982). It has not been determined whether the sewage
effluent directly affected the swamp. Indirect hydroperiod
stress and catastrophic chemical discharge also have been
suggested as causes.
A hardwood swamp receiving effluent continguous with
Pottsburg Creek near Jacksonville, Florida, was reported to
have a high number of tree crown kills. Winchester (1981)
found that the distribution of tree kills in the swamp was
unrelated to effluent discharge points in the swamps. It was
suggested that hydroperiod alteration, rather than effluent
characteristics, was the cause of vegetation impacts.
From these two situations the importance of wastewater
characteristics and hydrologic modifications are corroborated.
Most stress observed in wetlands systems has related to
hydrologic modifications, the introduction of industrial
wastewater components or increased sediment from stormwater
runoff from uncontrolled development sites.
On a long-term basis, subtle effects have been difficult to
detect in the sites studied, but several have been suggested on a
generic level. Long-term matinenance of a vegetation community
requires replacement of mature organisms. Concern has been
expressed that a prolonged hydroperiod may prevent seed
germination for cypress and perhaps other woody species.
Changes in water chemistry may influence successional trends.
Monk (1966) suggested changes from low calcium, pH and water
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
levels to high calcium, pH and water levels (similar to
wastewater addition effects) will encourage shifts from
ergreen to deciduous vegetation dominants in Florida
wetlands. The presence of wastewater also affects the rate of
litter fall decomposition in wetlands (Deghi 1976), and the
long-term effects on peak composition and accumulation are
speculative. Other potential long-term impacts on vegetation
include the effects of wastewater on the frequenty and severity
of fire in wetlands. Some wetlands are dependent on fire for
maintaining their vegetation composition (Monk 1969, Richardson
1980, Ewel and Mitch 1980) .
Since vegetation is such an essential component of wetlands,
impacts from wastewater additions should be minimized by care-
fully managing the quality and quantity of effluent introduced to
wetlands.
Wildlife. A complicated array of interrelated biological and
chemical changes in natural wetlands receiving wastewater may
force change on the existing wildlife community. These changes
are difficult to quantify, but usually result from changes in the
flow rate and water level, and the structure and composition of
vegetation. In general, major wildlife impacts can result from
changes in:
o Flow rates and water level
o Structure and composition of vegetation
o Amount of edge
o Availability of food.
Changes in flow rates may change the types and densities of
escape cover. Water level changes may force changes in the
distribution and composition of plant species. Thus, changes in
flow rates and water levels determine, in part, changes in
structure and composition of vegetation and availability of food.
Changes in water quality after subsequent discharge of
treated effluent may cause indirect changes in the wildlife com-
munity. Increases in nutrient levels can alter macroinverte-
brate, algal and insect populations. Changes in pH and alka-
linity may impact fish populations and plant species composition,
distribution and biomass. Increased sedimentation may eliminate
submerged plants, and reduction in levels of dissolved oxygen
may depress normal levels of algal and invertebrate populations.
The above impacts could eventually lead to changes in species
richness and species diversity through alterations in the quality
and quantity of available food.
Wildlife impacts can also be controlled by the quality of
wastewater treatment prior to disposal. Poorly treated effluent
may contain excessive heavy metal concentrations and viral or
bacterial pathogens. Absorption of these constituents by plants
-------
IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES a_T 7
and invertebrates may lead to bioaccumulation and increases in
the occurrence of wildlife diseases, respectively.
In the Southeast, few long-term studies have been conducted
on wildlife impacts resulting from wetland disposal of treated
effluent. Harris (1975) studied the effect of sewage effluent on
wildlife species endemic to Florida cypress domes. Most benthic
invertebrates, fish and juvenile amphibians were eliminated from
a dome receiving effluent rich in organic material. Insects con-
centrated in the center of the dome, which increased the number
of frogs present, but anaerobic conditions limited tadpole devel-
opment. Several migrating bird species increased drastically in
numbers during the winter and spring because fly populations
increased.
General estimates of the effects of wastewater discharge on
wildlife may be inferred from studies outside the Southeast.
Kadlec (1979) reported no major shifts in species richness or
species diversity at a Michigan lake treatment site after two
years of wastewater discharge. Possible long term effects,
however, could not be quantified.
-------
IMPACTS TO WETLAND TYPES 8-18
8.3 IMPACTS TO WETLAND TYPES
The impacts of wastewater discharges vary significantly from
wetland to wetland. As a result, it is not possible to make
predictions about the impacts of wastewater on a specific
wetland without examining the characteristics of the wetland.
Hydraulic and nutrient loading, relative to the specific
hydroperiod, vegetation types and flow patterns of a wetland,
control the scope and significance of impacts. Some broad
generalizations can be made to provide some assistance, based on
whether a system is hydrologically isolated or connected. This
does not preempt the need to examine wetlands on a site-specific
basis. Table 8-3 summarizes the types of impacts that should be
evaluated for different wetland types. Known sensitivities to
specific alterations are indicated.
-------
IMPACTS TO WETLAND TYPES g_
Table 8-3. Wastewater Management Considerations for Various Wetland Types.
Systems
Wastewater Management Concerns
Hydrologlcally Isolated
Cypress Domes
CarolIna Bays,
Pocoslns, Marshes,
Wet meadows,
Savannahs, White
Cedar Bogs
Cypress Domes
Carol Ina Bays,
Pocos I ns
General Description
Hydrologlc characteristics, soil types and vegetative
cover Influence capacity to assimilate and adapt to
hydraulic and pollutant loadings. Soil structure relation-
ship to retention capacity of wastewater constituents Is
Important. Long term maintenance of dominant vegetation
Is a concern as well as preservation of ecotype In regions
where they are uncommon. As habitats are subjected to
development pressures, concern exists for preserving the
Integrity of these systems. Including habitat, recreational
and wildlife values, threatened and endangered species and
alteration of success I on a I trends.
Specific Considerations
The applicability of established wastewater management
techniques established for domes that have been studied
should be evaluated. Potentially sensitive to hydrologlc
modif(cations.
Effects and/or limits of other pollutant loadings (bacterial,
metals, toxin) are not well quantified, and effects of Increased
hydrologlc loadings are not well studied.
Marshes, Wet Meadows,
Savannahs
White Cedar Bogs
Hydrologlcally Connected
Bottomland Hardwood
Forests, Cypress and
Mixed Hardwood Strands,
Marshes, Freshwater
Ttdal Wetlands, Bogues,
Sloughs, Oxbow Wetlands
Bottomland Hardwood
Forests
Cypress and Mixed
Hardwood Strands
Marshes
Freshwater Tidal
Wetlands
Bogues, Sloughs and
Oxbow Wetlands
Species shifts of macrophytes may be of concern.
Effects of Increasing ambient pH Is a concern. Inadequate
knowledge of ecosystem structure and function. May be
precluded from use due to limited distribution. Ability to
retain phosphorus may be limited.
General Description
The critical concern Is linkages with downstream water
bodies and ecosystems. The abilities of these systems
to adapt to Increased hydraulic and pollutant loadings
Is Important, although limits of adaptability are
uncertain. Retention of wastewater constituents Is
sometimes difficult to predict. Drainage basin charac-
teristics and orientation of the wetland are critical
to nutrient and sediment retention during peak flows.
Groundwater Interactions can also be Important.
Preservation of high wildlife and recreational values
should be emphasized.
Specific Considerations
Damage to hardwoods may be more difficult to reverse
than damages to vegetation with short life cycles. Concern
has been expressed about nutrient retention or washout
during hydrologlc surges. Impact on vegetation growth and
species composition.
Management of wastewater flows Is critical to wetland maintenance
and functional elements of the ecosystem. The applicability of
studies In Florida should be evaluated.
Short circuiting of wastewater flow through the marsh
Is a potential concern as well as macrophyte species shifts.
Retention of wastewater constituents, Immobilization of
toxins, pathogens, metals within wetland site Is Important.
Linkages with adjacent systems are critical, especially
for maintaining estuarfne water quality and quantity.
Changing drainage basin characteristics have degraded many
of these habitats. Wastewater additions may exacerbate
this problem. Loss of wildlife habitat and eutrophlcatlon
problems must be mitigated. Retention or fate of major
wastewater constituents Is unstudied.
-------
UNCERTAINTY AND RISK
8.4 UNCERTAINTY AND RISK
Due to the limited information base available concerning
wetlands responses to wastewater loadings, the uncertainties
and risks of using wetlands for wastewater management should
be evaluated. The lack of information is exacerbated by the
variability of wetland types and their varying responses to
hydrologic or water chemistry changes. This document attempts
to portray the state-of-the-art of wetlands use for wastewater
management. Nonetheless, significant uncertainties and risks of
using wetlands-wastewater systems remain. To the extent
possible, these should be understood and incorporated into
design and the decision-making framework.
Most guidelines presented by this Handbook recognize
uncertainty and risk. Discharge and design guidelines are
intended to be conservative based on existing information to
account for uncertainties. Suggested construction, operation
and maintenance practices are intended to enhance wetland
protection and maintenance, thereby reducing risks to the
long-term ability of the wetland to assimilate wastewater. This
in turn reduces the risks of using wetlands for wastewater
management. Uncertainties and risks also are incorporated in
the site-selection process. Institutionally, the responsibility of
reducing uncertainty and risks lies with the regulatory agencies
responsible for implementing wetlands-related standards and
issuing wastewater discharge permits.
The degree of uncertainty and risk can be reduced by
collecting more information on wetlands receiving wastewater.
Specifically, monitoring a proposed or existing wetlands
discharge could be expanded to produce sufficient data to
reduce the level of uncertainty. From a practical standpoint, a
discharger may not have the labor and monetary resources
necessary to collect the amount of information suggested. In
other situations, however, a modest data collection program
might significantly reduce the uncertainties. A tradeoff may be
necessary between the level of acceptable uncertainty and risk,
and the benefits to be gained through reducing the uncertainty
from data collection programs.
Primarily, the uncertainties and risks that should be
addressed relate to the following:
1. Assessing the short and long term assimilative capacity of a
wetland.
2. Predicting short and long term impacts to the wetland from
wastewater loadings.
-------
UNCERTAINTY AND RISK 8-21
3. Engineering design criteria enhancing short and long terra
wastewater assimilation and wetlands protecting.
4. Establishing effluent limits to meet standards or other
protective guidelines.
5. Evaluating secondary environmental impacts to the water-
shed, other wetland uses and wildlife.
6. Determining downstream impacts.
7. Defining the scope of monitoring programs.
The concept of tiering information requests as presented in
this Handbook is based on uncertainty and risk. Under condi-
tions where uncertainty and risk are greater (Tier 2) due to lack
of knowledge, sensitivity or uniqueness of wetland, or waste-
water discharge characteristics, more information may be appro-
priate for decision making and monitoring.
To the extent possible, each of the considerations presented
above should be evaluated in the wetlands feasibility assessment
process. If the uncertainties or risks are considered too great
for either the adequate protection of wetland uses or the
successful long-term operation of the wastewater management
system, another site or alternative should be considered.
-------
-------
ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND DATA SOURCES
9.0 ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND DATA SOURCES
9.1 RELATIONSHIP TO DECISION MAKING 9-2
9.2 DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS FOR WETLANDS 9-7
9.2.1 Define the Decision Making Framework
9.2.2 Project Specific Objectives
9.2.3 Collect and Review Existing Data
9.2.4 Sampling Program Design
o Component Selection
o Temporal Considerations
o Spatial Design
9.2.5 Evaluate Sampling Program
9.3 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES q
9.3.1 Planning Element
o Land Use Parameters
o Pollutant Assessments
o Cultural Resources
9.3.2 Geomorphology Component
o Wetland Identification
o Relationship to Watershed
o Soils
o Geology
9.3.3 Hydrology/Meterology Component
o Hydroperiod
o Flow Patterns
o Water Budget
9.3.4 Water Quality Component
o Microbiological Parameters
o Chemical
9.3.5 Ecology Component
o Vegetation Subcomponents
o Aquatic Fauna Subcomponents
o Terrestrial Fauna Subcomponents
9.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
9.4.1 Wetlands Functions and Values
9.4.2 Assimilative Capacity
9.4.3 Habitat Evaluations
9.5 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
9.5.1 Basic Analysis
9.5.2 Seasonal Analysis
9.5.3 Refined Analysis
9.5.4 Glossary of Variables
9.6 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AND DATA SOURCES 9.143
-------
-------
ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND DATA SOURCES
9.0 ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND DATA SOURCES
Who should read this chapter? Those interested in developing an adequate
data base for evaluating a wetlands site or designing a wetlands wastewater
system, and those involved with pre- or post-monitoring for a wetlands
discharge.
What are some of the issues addressed by this chapter?
o What is involved with designing a wetlands sampling program?
o What methods are most applicable to wetlands parameters?
o How are analyses important to the information base?
o What methods are available to estimate the impacts of wastewater
additions on wetland hydraulic and hydrologic variables?
o What are available data sources?
Aaaeaaaent
Techniques
Define Objectives
Oedgn ProgriB
Inpltaent Program
Planning
Geomorphotogy
Hydrology
Water Cheotatry
Ch«pter»4. 5. ». a 7
Wetland Function*
and Vahiea
AaaiaOattve Capacity
Chapter* 4 i 6
\ Chapter 4.6*7
I Chaptera 4 t 7 j
[ Chaptera 4*5 |
Chaptera 4. 5, a 7
J
Figure ».l Overview of Chapter 9. Aaaeeaaent Teohniquea.
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO DECISION MAKING 9-2
9.1 RELATIONSHIP TO DECISION MAKING
The proceeding chapters of the Handbook have discussed the
issues, programs, constraints and incentives associated with
the use of freshwater wetlands for wastewater management.
They define the decision making framework. This chapter
presents methods of data acquisition and evaluation which
support the decision making process (Figure 9-1). Further, it
provides information for selecting the appropriate assessment
technique for a particular situation. In order to select and
apply an appropriate technique, a comprehensive data evalu-
ation process is important. Section 9.2 outlines a planning
procedure for data acquisition and assessment to support
wetland wastewater management decisions. It defines a com-
plete process including 1) definition of objectives, 2) secondary
data acquisition, 3) sampling programs, 4) data analysis, 5)
interpretation of program results, and 6) the integration of
these results into the decision making process. The cost
effective acquisition, interpretation and integration of data
requires attention to each step in the process.
Five potential data collection and assessment programs have
been identified by the Handbook. They are:
1. Preliminary site screening (Section 4.2)
2. Detailed site screening (Section 4.4)
3. Environmental review components (for Construction
Grants program) (Section 4.3.2)
4. On-site assessments (for evaluating water quality
standards and establishing effluent limitations)
(Section 5.4.3)
5. Post-discharge monitoring ( Section 7.5).
Table 9-1 lists the parameters associated with these data col-
lection programs, shows the relationships between the programs
and differentiates between the information requirements for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 discharges. Section 3.3.4 discusses the
rationale and the application of tiered information requests.
Note that the environmental review components of the Construc-
tion Grants Program are addressed by one of the other data
collection programs. Regardless of Construction Grant funding
these elements are assessed.
While Section 9.2 outlines the design of wetland sampling
programs, Section 9.3 lists assessment techniques for specific
parameters or components, defining how data will be collected.
Section 9.4 presents some of the methods available to evaluate
wetland functions and values. Section 9.5 presents potential
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Section 9.6 identifies
available data sources and the agencies which are responsible
for collecting and reviewing the data.
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO DECISION MAKING 9-3
Table 9.1 Components of Wetlands Assessment Programs.
DATA COLLECTION/ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS*
Tier ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS PS5 DSS OSA POM
Planning
1. Land use
1 - Existing land use X X
1 - Basin land use change X XX
(watershed modification)
1 - Future land use X X
1 - Wetland ownership/availability X
1 - Accessibility X
1 - Distance to wetland X
2. Pollutant assessment
1 - wastewater managemenr objectives X
1 - Population estimates X
1 - Wastewater flow projection X X
I - Wastewater characteristics X X
1 - Other wetland polnt/nonpolnt
pollution sources X XX
3. Cultural resources
1 - Archeologlcal resources X
1 - Historical resources X
2 - Natural resources estimation/use X
2 - Recreation X
2 - Visual/aesthetic X
4. Institutional
1 - Permitting feasibility X
1 - Funding sources X
1 - Existing/future wetlands uses X X
1 - Potential Impairment of existing/
future uses X X
1. Wetland Identification
1 - Wetland classification (type) X X
1 - Wetland boundaries/del I neat Ion
(size, topography) X X
2. Relationship to Watershed
2 - Watershed morphome-fry X
2 - Wetland morpheme try X
3. Soils
2 - Type X X
2 - Distribution X
2 - Depth/hardpan X
2 - Other descriptive characteristics X
4. Geology
1 - Sensitive areas (e.g.,
Karstlc, recharge) " XXX
2 - Surface strata X
2 - Subsurface strata X
HydroIogy/MeteoroIogy
1. Water budget
2 - Surface water Inflows/outflows XXX
2 - Precipitation XXX
2 - Evapotransplration XXX
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO DECISION MAKING
9-4
Table 9.1. Continued.
DATA COLLECTION/ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS*
Tier ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS PSS D5$ OSA PPM
Hydrology/Meteorology (Continued)
2 - Groundwater Interactions XXX
2 - Storaqe/fIood control XXX
2 - Residence times XXX
2. Hydroperlod
1 - Sensitivity X X
2 - Inundation levels (depth) XXX
2 - Area of Inundation X X
2 - Duration XXX
2 - Flushing ability XXX
2 - Seasonal wetland relationships XXX
3. Flow patterns
1 - Hyaroiogic interconnections X XX
1 - Flow patterns/channelization XXX
I - Recent flow characteristics XXX
2 - Downstream Impacts XXX
Water Quality
1. Basic analyses
1 - TTowXXX
1 - Dissolved oxygen (DO) XXX
1 - pH XXX
1 - Suspended solids XXX
1 - Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) XXX
1 - Water temperature XXX
1 - Fecal collforms XXX
1 - Nitrate XXX
1 - Ammonia XXX
1 - Ortho-phosphate XXX
2. Elective Analyses XXX
2 - Tota I n I trogen
2 - Total phosphorus
2 - Metals
2 - Toxics/Bloc Ides
2 - TotaI co11 forms
2 - Fecal streptococci
2 - Chloride
2 - Chlorine residual
2 - Conductivity
2 - Turbidity
2 - Alkalinity
3. W.Q. Assessments
1 - Sensitivity X X
2 - Seasonal Influences XXX
2 - Assimilative capacity XXX
2 - Nutrient cycling/budget X
2 - Acute/chronic toxic potential X
Ecology
1. Vegetation
1 - visible stress X
2 - Species composition XXX
2 - Distribution XXX
2 - Productivity X X
2 - Other descriptive analyses X X
2 - Percent open water XXX
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO DECISION MAKING
9-5
Table 9.1 Continued.
DATA COLLECTION/ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS*
Tier ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS PSS DSS OSA POM
2. Aquatic fauna
2 - species composition XXX
2 - Species diversity XXX
2 - Other descriptive analyses X X
3. Terrestrial fauna
2 - Species composition XXX
2 - Frequency of occurrence XXX
2 - Species diversity XXX
2 - Other descriptive analyses X
2 - Waterfowl breeding and habitat X X
2 - Wildlife habitat X X
4. Integratlve assessments
1 - rrorected species X X
1 - Sensitivity X X
1 - Uniqueness X X
2 - Acute/chronic toxic potential XXX
2 - Seasonal Influences Including
reproductive cycles X X
2 - Vegetation/habitat evaluations X X
PSS - Preliminary Site Screening
OSS - Detailed Site Screening
OSA - On-slte Assessments
PDM - Post-discharge Monitoring
-------
RELATIONSHIP TO DECISION MAKING
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Section 9.R identifies
available data sources and the agencies which are responsible
for collecting and reviewing the data.
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS
9.2 DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS FOR WETLANDS
Sampling program design is an important aspect of any data
collection effort, yet it is often given only cursory attention.
The major reason that many sampling programs yield insufficient
information is the lack of time and effort given to design. The
same can be said for the program that yields an abundance of
data but does not provide a basis for management decisions.
Many sampling programs have been initiated without addressing
fully the major objectives of the program and how the data will
be used or interpreted. The design of the program should be
based on the decision making processes. The concepts pre-
sented in this section are primarily designed for use with
wetlands systems. The basic elements of sampling program
design have nearly universal application.
Two excellent references on comprehensive environmental
sampling programs are Green (1979) and States et al. (1978).
These references point out the differences between three types
of environmental studies: baseline surveys, monitoring studies,
impact assessments. The five data collection programs detailed
In previous sections of the Handbook require all three study
tvpes. Baseline surveys are intended to define the current
state of the wetland system. Monitoring studies are designed to
detect long term changes from current conditions as defined by
the baseline survey. Impact studies assess the changes caused
by a specified impact or activity. Additional references on
sampling design include Steel and Torrie (1960), Cochran
(1963), Elliott (1977) and Cairns and Dickson (1971).
9.2.1 Define the Decision Making Framework
Sampling programs, data collection and data analysis should
provide information required for the decision making process.
These processes include feasibility assessments, project siting,
engineering design, construction, operation and maintenance
and long-term monitoring. The common error of not relating
decision making requirements to sampling program design can
lead to inappropriate sampling efforts, the waste of project
resources and the collection of unuseable data.
Defining the general objectives of a sampling program
requires coordination and planning between the applicant and
federal, state and local agencies. The Water Quality Sandards
and NPDES Program requirements and engineering planning
considerations provide the basis for general objectives.
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS 9-8
9.2.2 Project Specific Objectives
Initially, the general objectives of a data collection program
should be based on decision making requirements. Secondly,
project specific objectives should be identified. The following
determinations help indicate project specific considerations.
1. Determine how collected data will be used with existing data
(if any exists).
2. Determine if data are needed only to fill specific voids in the
existing data base.
3. Identify what data are needed to assess the condition of the
wetland.
4. Determine if the data will be used to assess the assimilative
capacity of the wetland.
5. Evaluate what data are needed to assess the impacts of
seasonal influences on wetland functions and values.
6. Decide if the data will be used for computer modeling, as a
data base for model calibration and verification.
T. If modeling will be conducted, identify the data require-
ments of the model that wfll be used.
Project specific objectives determine the parameters to be
measured, the location of sampling sites and the fre-
quency/duration of sampling.
The use of a tiered information requirements system based
on discharge size and wetland type might also be incorporated
into project specific objectives. The following tasks should help
determine how sampling program design will be affected if a
tiered information request system has been initiated by your
state.
Step 1;
Conduct preliminary site screening (Section 4.2) to assess
wetlands site acceptability, define general wastewater
management objectives and characterize wastewater.
Step 2;
Define the discharge (e.g., a Tier 1 or Tier 2 discharge)
based on the tiering system adopted, if any (see Section
3.3).
Step 3;
Examine the NPDES permit application information requested
for your discharge type (Tier 1 or Tier 2).
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS 9-9
Step 4;
IF the major objectives of the wetlands discharge is
disposal/assimilation, and you have a Tier 1 discharge, the
information requirements should be established. Go to Step
6.
If you have a Tier 2 discharge or a Tier 1 discharge with
wastewater renovation as an objective, additional analyses
will probably be required. Proceed to Step 5.
Step 5;
Additional analyses required depend on hydraulic loading
and size of discharge. Basic Tier 2 analyses (e.g., as
defined in Section 9.3) should be conducted for any Tier 2
discharge. Elective analyses conducted will depend on:
1. Sensitivity of wetland or downstream waters to changes
in hydroperiod or water chemistry
2. Other wetlands uses that need to be protected
3. Design for nutrient removal
4. Design for other renovation (e.g., solids removal)
5. Necessity of determining mechanisms for assimilative
capacity (e.g., effect of soil type on assimilation of
phosphorus)
6. The degree of uncertainty for discharging a particular
quantity of wastewater or discharging to a particular
type of wetland (e.g., a relatively unstudied wetland
type).
Step 6;
The results of Step 4 or Step 5 should help define the
information needed for an NPDES permit application. If
additional information is needed for engineering planning it
should be identified at this point.
Step 7:
Compliance requirements, including post-discharge monitor-
ing, are based on the level of information requested on the
permit application and water quality standards applicable to
the wetland and downstream waters. Tiering of information
requests should parallel that required for the NDPES permit
application. Exceptions would be when water quality
standards require additional monitoring or effluent limits are
not met. In either case, additional information may be
requested regardless of whether the discharge, is a Tier 1 or
Tier 2 discharge. In such cases, data collection and
assessment requirements would be site-specific.
A tiered system of information requests could be helpful in
providing guidance throughout the decision making and adminis-
trative processes. It should be a flexible system that can be
tailored to site-specific situations by regulatory personnel. Not
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS 9~10
only should it be beneficial for regulatory personnel but for the
applicant as well by providing a checklist of variables that form
the basis of assessing wetlands use for waste water management.
Tiering is discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter
as it pertains to specific elements of sampling program design.
Only general guidance can be provided due to the numerous
scenarios that would require site-specific adaptations.
9.2.3 Collect and Review Existing Data
The existing data base should be assembled and then
evaluated for applicability in meeting the requirements outlined
in Tasks 1 and 7. of Figure 9-2. Section 9.6 identifies likely
sources for existing (secondary) data. Since much of the
existing data base on wetlands has been collected from research
studies rather than routine monitoring, its applicability may be
limited. Information for the same wetland type may be trans-
ferable but this must be done cautiously. The initial field
survey is an important element in confirming and understanding
the existing data base. Wetland and soils mapping should be
field checked to identify boundaries. It is also important to
locate other pollutant sources, proximity and type of develop-
ment, watershed characteristics and access for sampling.
9.2.4 Sampling Program Design
Sampling program design involves not only the determination
of what, when, where and how to collect samples, but also the
selection of techniques for the analysis of data and the interpre-
tation of results. If the collection and evaluation of secondary
or existing data do not meet information requirements, the
design of the sampling program should proceed for those com-
ponents. For impact analyses, objectives should be translated
into testable hypotheses. It is beyond the scope of this hand-
book to provide a comprehensive discussion of experimental
design considerations.
Another requirement of sampling program design not
discussed in this section is quality assurance and quality
control. Most state and federal agencies which would be
involved in a wetland wastewater management decision have
requirements for written quality assurance/quality control
plans. These OA/OC plans specify documented procedures
which, when properly implemented, assure the quality of the
data. Whether such a plan is required or not, a OA/OC plan
should be developed and adhered to throughout the project.
USEPA (1978, 1979) provide basic information on OA/OC plans.
The major aspects of sampling program design are discussed
below: component selection; scheduling, frequency and dura-
tion of sampling; and sampling locations. Sampling techniques
-------
9-11
Figure 9.2 Sampling Program Design and Implementation
Define general objectives
Define specific objectives
Conduct initial site survey,
collect available maps,
photographs and existing data
Design program, incorporating:
o parameter selection
o temporal scheme
o spatial layout
Define analytical techniques
for each parameter selected
Define field
sampling techniques
Initiate sampling program,
using standard sample
handling procedures
Compile and assess data
For long-term sampling
programs, reassess program
based on feedback from
data collected
Interpret data,
utilizing statistical
or modeling techniques
if appropriate and desired
Assess need for ongoing
sampling and, if so,
changes in the program to
improve cost-effectiveness
or usefulness of data
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS 9-12
should follow standard methods and be part of the QA/QC
program. Analytical techniques are discussed in Section 9.3
Component Selection. Many of the components that should
be analyzed for the assessment programs proposed in the Hand-
book are listed in Table 9-1. While some of these components
may be adequately assessed by the existing data base and the
initial site survey, other components listed will require further
investigation. The selection of specific components or groups of
components should be based on an understanding of both the
institutional decision making process and the ecological
processes of wetland systems.
If a tiered information request system is established by the
state regulatory agency, this could also serve as an important
determinant in components selection. As indicated by Table
9-1, some components would be assessed for all discharges
(i.e., Tier 1). Additional components may be necessary for
Tier 2 discharges. Other components might be examined only for
specific situations (e.g., if nutrient removal is anticipated or
effluent limitations are not met). These situations would
supercede the designation of a discharge as Tier 1 or Tier 2.
Ultimately, component selection will depend on:
1. Permit application requirements
2. Permit conditions and post-discharge monitoring require-
ments
3. Engineering planning considerations
4. Quality of the existing data base
5. Interactive components
6. Applicability of indicator parameters.
Knowledge of interactive components is essential to sampling
program design and components selection. It can also affect the
scheduling and location of sample collection. Historically, one of
the major flaws of many water quality sampling programs has
been a lack of understanding the relationship between hydrology
and water quality. As a result, flow data have not been col-
lected in conjunction with water quality data. For a free-flow-
ing aquatic system, this error greatly diminishes the value of the
water quality data. In wetlands, flow measurement can present
a problem, where flow patterns and rates are often difficult to
determine. In the case of a hydrologically open or connected
wetland either channelized or sheet flow is occurring. Measur-
ing the flow at the time of sampling may require the installation
of a weir or similar structure. In a hydrologically closed or
isolated system, flows are of less importance. Even in these
systems, however, a stage reading is valuable to determine the
volume of water in the wetland and fluctuations that may occur.
With either type of hydrologic condition, the hydrometerologic
conditions proceeding the sampling period (preferably, for a
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS
period of two weeks) should be determined. Another example of
interactive components is the relationship of water temperature
and dissolved oxygen (DO), since DO saturation is temperature
(and salinitv) dependent.
Knowledge of indicator components can also be valuable in
selecting which components to monitor. Two common indicators
that may have value to wetlands monitoring are fecal strepto-
cocci and chloride. Fecal streptococci to fecal coliform ratios can
sometimes be used to indicate the presence of human contamina-
tion. Under some circumstances (e.g., post-discharge monitor-
ing) this could be informative.
Chloride is basically a conservative element, meaning it is
relatively inactive in forming bonds that reduce its concentration
in solution. As a result, its movement through some surface
waters and ground water can be followed. This could be helpful
to a wetlands-wastewater monitoring system to evaluate the
movement of effluent containing chloride into the groundwater.
Temporal Considerations. Temporal refers to the timing of
sampling: when samples are collected and how conditions
present at that time affect the interpretation of the data.
Scheduling of sampling programs can be affected by several
variables, including:
1. Diurnal changes (i.e., changes occurring during the course
of a day)
2. Seasonal changes (i.e., changes that occur on a seasonal
basis in contrast to a daily basis)
3. Annual variation (i.e., normal variation in conditions
between years)
4. Precipitation event (i.e., conditions that result from
rainstorms)
5. Drawdown (i.e., conditions that result from dry periods) .
Each of .these variables can affect water quality and the
interpretation of associated data. At a minimum, sampling
program design should incorporate these temporal variables and
their relationship to wastewater management decisions. The
frequency and duration of data collection is also important and is
based on program objectives.
As with other elements of sampling program design, the
establishment of tiering wetlands discharge information requests
could affect data collection scheduling frequency or duration.
Tier 2 discharges, due to greater uncertainty, may need to docu-
ment background conditions and wetland processes in greater
detail than a Tier 1 discharge. This could require a study of
longer duration or an analysis of more variables. In some
fashion, however, Tier 1 dischargers should have a thorough
understanding of how the five variables mentioned affect
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS
wetland processes, sampling results and engineering design.
Diurnal changes. Daily light and temperature fluctuations
are the primary variables controlling diurnal changes. For
example, diurnal changes are associated with dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels. Assuming a relatively constant water temperature,
DO levels are highest when productivity (i.e., photosynthesis)
is at its peak and lowest when respiration is at its peak (before
dawn). The assessment of DO data must incorporate considera-
tions of diurnal factors. Diurnal patterns are also important
when considering wildlife or protected animal species. Species
specific animal behavior patterns can influence the probability
of sightings and therefore should be incorporated into the
sampling design.
Seasonal changes. Seasonal influences affect many water
quality and ecological conditions. The following is a listing of
several important seasonal variables:
1. Vegetation growth or die-off
2. Microbial activity (water and soils)
3. Nutrient uptake or release
4. Wildlife and water fowl breeding
5. Wildlife and water fowl habitat
6. Temperature and light effects on biochemical and chemical
reactions
7. Hydrometeorlogic patterns, affecting flows and nonpoint
runoff.
Due to seasonal flow fluctuations and reaction rates, it may
be necessary to assess water quality under different seasonal
conditions. Seasonal conditions should be noted when samples
are collected so data can be properly interpreted and important
trends recognized. An assessment of the types of seasonal
changes that might be encountered should be undertaken at the
time of sampling program design. This can be accomplished by
evaluating vegetation types, historical flow or meteorologic
patterns, knowledge of potential protected species in the area,
and evaluating potential shortcomings of existing data, based on
what attributes of a wetland system might have been missed due
to the time samples were collected. After the best information
available is used in designing the program, modifications can be
made during the course of the program if data so indicate. For
this reason, it is important to analyze data progressively rather
than wait for the completion of the program.
Annual Variation. One of the most difficult factors to
incorporate into the sampling design is variation over long
periods of time. This can include wetland succession of
vegetation (EPA 1983) as well as normal variation in flow and
water quality patterns. In wetland systems the question of
natural variations versus project impacts is often resolved by
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS 9-15
consideration of hydrologic factors. For example, a major shift
in dominant vegetation of a wetland site receiving wastewater
could be attributed in one case to an abnormally dry year and in
another case to the discharge. This evaluation would incor-
porate several factors including the species specific changes in
the wetland vegetation. The relatively short period of baseline
data at most wetland sites makes this source of variation
difficult to estimate. It can be significant, particularly in post
discharge monitoring situations, and should be considered in the
interpretation of data.
Precipitation Events. A rainfall event can significantly
affect water quality; therefore, efforts should be made to assess
conditions during and after major storm events. This is essen-
tial to understanding the nature of stormwater impacts on the
wetland and is important to design considerations (e.g., resi-
dence time). As a result of their importance, hydrometeorologic
conditions should be recorded when samples are collected.
Recent storm events should be noted during routine data collec-
tion since stormwater can affect water quality in some systems
for several days after a storm event.
For some wetlands, it may be important to evaluate storm
events after both a relatively dry period and a wet period. Due
to the importance of antecedent soil moisture conditions on
runoff, rainfall occurring after a dry period might go primarily
into groundwater storage whereas rainfall occurring after a wet
period would go primarily into overland flow, causing a major
runoff event. These represent only two of the many scenarios
that could be possible depending on soil type, soil moisture
conditions, period since last rainfall and other variables.
Again, the objectives of the sampling program would determine
the level of detail given to these considerations.
Drawdown. The term drawdown refers to the periodic con-
dition of many wetlands when water levels drop and, poten-
tially, no standing water occurs. Traditionally, stream water
quality has been measured in reference to the 7010 flow, which
is the seven-day average low flow that can be expected to occur
at a frequency of every 10 years. In many wetlands, this has
little or no meaning since flows are often sluggish and not
channelized. Nevertheless, low flow conditions are important to
assess since they reflect the worst-case situation from the
standpoint of minimal dilution of effluent. It should be noted,
however, that while not typical, some systems receiving waste-
water exhibit worse water quality during periods of increased
dilution resulting from high flow events. This is due to the
nature of the runoff (McKim 1984).
During drawdown periods in wetlands it may be difficult to
collect water samples. Low flow conditions shoxild nonetheless
be evaluated to assess wastewater impacts to wetlands. This
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS 9-16
can be critical in wetlands which require drawdown periods to
maintain specific vegetation types. Knowledge of the hydro-
period, and water quality conditions associated with different
phases of the hydroperiod, may be essential to determining the
feasibility of a proposed wetland site and engineering design.
Wildlife sightings and habitat can also be affected by dry
periods.
The determination of sampling frequency and duration is a
basic element of any sampling program design. A schedule
should be developed indicating for each parameter the total
number of times samples will be collected, the time interval
between samples and the duration of the sample collection
phase. These scheduling components depend primarily upon
the attribute of the wetland being studied, sampling program
objectives and the specific practical constraints on the study
(e.g., funds, personnel).
Several of the components and parameters identified in Table
9-1 can be adequately quantified on a one time basis and are not
sensitive to seasonal variation constraints. Examples of nonsea-
sonal, one time factors are the existing land use parameter of the
planning component and the subsurface strata parameter of the
geomorphology component. Other parameters may require a one
time survey but during a specific season: for example, the
assessment of wetland vegetation productivity by the annual
yield method or the seasonal presence of protected species.
Most parameters will require multiple samples collected over a
specified period of time. These serial collections are often
scheduled at regular intervals. However, this schedule may be
inappropriate for many of the significant wetland components.
Water quality samples are a prime example of serial collections
which are often arbitrarily put on an equal interval schedule
(i.e., monthly, weekly). A more appropriate design would
include seasonal and short term event factors addressing
seasonal flow and temperature patterns, and rainfall events.
The duration of sampling depends on the type of system and
level of uncertainty associated with a discharge. For some Tier
1 discharges, for example, two to three months of data may be
adequate to define baseline conditions. Where a more sensitive
wetland or larger discharge is planned, sampling through a
complete seasonal cycle (1 year) may be appropriate. The dura-
tion of sampling wetland components after the initiation of a
discharge should be defined by permit requirements.
Spatial Design. Location of sampling sites should consider
the project objectives, the nature of the system (e.g., hydro-
logic interconnections, predominant vegetation) and the area of
expected project impacts. If information tiering is established,
more sampling locations might be necessary for a Tier 2 dis-
charge than for a Tier 1 discharge to characterize the wetland
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS 9-1
thoroughly. Further, most Tier 1 discharges involve a smaller
wetland area so would likely need fewer sampling sites. The
parameters required for sampling also affect the number and
location of sampling sites due to the different requirements of
aquatic and terrestrial, and chemical and biological samplings.
Figure 9-3 and 9-4 provide examples of locating sampling sites
for different levels of uncertainty or to evaluate different
project objectives.
Two of the most important aspects of locating sampling sites
are the hydraulic gradient in the wetland and the projected area
of impact. Knowledge of the direction of surface and ground
water flows is essential to either baseline analyses or impact
assessments. Typically, sampling sites are located up gradient
and down gradient of a discharge. In wetlands, the determina-
tion of hydraulic gradient is often difficult and in some systems
changes. Tracer studies may be necessary in some cases to help
define the gradient.
Based on the hydraulic loading and prevailing hydraulic
gradient, the area of wetland impacted by a discharge can be
assessed. The concept of a variable advancing front might be
incorporated in sampling program design. This concept reflects
.that a discharge will not mix completely with wetland surface
water but wfll radiate from the point of discharge, gradually
impacting a larger area.
Although selected on a site-specific basis, some general
guidelines can be offered to assist in locating data collection
stations. The size and morphology of a wetland will affect the
number of sampling sites needed. Further, the use of data will
affect the number and location of sites. Some sites may be used
for routine sampling, whereas others may be used only for
specific purposes, at different sampling frequencies. Examining
maps of the water course of the wetland and water bodies adja-
cent to the wetland (upstream and downstream) is also helpful in
determining the number and location of sites necessary to
characterize wetland conditions.
For wetlands-wastewater systems, the following general
sampling sites should be considered.
1. The discharge point from the treatment facility
2. Near the outfall point(s) to the wetland
3. Upstream from the wetland
4. In the wetland at various distances from the discharge
point(s) outside the immediate impact area
5. Outflow from the wetland
A variable advancing front (VAF) or zone of influence, has
been demonstrated by several researchers studying the effects
of waste water on a wetland. To assess the VAF, if assimilation
-------
9-18
Figure 9-3. Example of Wetland Sampling Stations for Tier 1 Discharges.
WQ - Water Quality Stations
T - Vegetation Transect
P - Precipitation Gage
St - Stage Recorder
All stations should be sampled before discharge begins.
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
-------
9-19
Figure 9-4. Example of Wetland Sampling Stations for Tier 2 Discharges.
WQ - Water Quality Stations
S - Soils Analysis
GW - Groundwater Wells
T - Vegetation Transects
P - Precipitation Gage
St - Stage Recorder
Transects should be up-gradient and down-gradient from discharge
point(s). All stations should be sampled before discharge begins.
Source: CTA Environmental, Inc. 1985.
-------
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROGRAMS q-20
of wastewater is a chief objective, locating sites at fixed
distances radiating from the point(s) of discharge may be
desirable. This concept and approach is still being investigated
but may prove beneficial under some circumstances.
Additional factors which can influence site location are the
existing data base and multi-parameter locations. The existence
of environmental baseline data can be a major inducement to site
location. If U.S.G.S. and state water quality stations have
extensive water quality and hydrologic data bases, the incor-
poration of these sites into the sampling program may increase
the efficiency of data collection. The selection of sites which
can be used to monitor several components simplifies field
activities and can be helpful in areas where access is difficult.
Impact assessments and monitoring studies will often include
one or more control sites in the project design. These control
sites may be in sections of the wetland isolated from anticipated
project impacts or may be located in separate wetlands. In the
latter case, an adequate baseline is required for both wetlands
(treatment and control) in order to document differences not
related to project activities.
9.2.5 Evaluate Sampling Program
As data are collected, the results should be used to provide
feedback on sampling program design. Procedures to increase
the cost-effectiveness of data collection might be apparent.
Superfluous data or data voids, if any, can be identified early in
the data collection process rather than at the end of the program
so that corrections can be made.
The evaluation of sampling program design is an iterative
process. This evaluation can lead either to a realistic program
design that meets both the decision making requirements and the
resource restrictions or to the decision to not evaluate the
wastewater management alternative further.
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-21
9.3 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
The development and evaluation of a wetland-wastewater dis-
charge alternatives involves the collection and analysis of data
on a large number of environmental and engineering factors.
The purpose of this section is to summarize the more common
methods available for environmental data collection. The
information base has been organized into five components:
planning, geomorphology, hydrology/meterology, water quality
and ecology. Each component is described by a list of
parameters and associated methods of analysis. The list
provides a basis for most wetland investigations, but is not
intended to be all inclusive. Methods are referenced to specific
literature citations and to the five potential data collection and
assessment efforts identified in the handbook: preliminary site
screening, detailed site evaluation, environmental review
components, effluent limitation assessments and post discharge
monitoring. In addition, the tiering concept (Sections 3.3.4 and
9.2) has been incorporated into the descriptions of components
as being appropriate for Tier 1 or Tier 2 evaluations. Finally,
estimates have been made of the resource requirements for each
method. These requirements include cost, personnel, time and
equipment.
A narrative description of wetlands parameters is provided
in support of the tables summarizing resource requirements.
These descriptions indicate the conditions in which a certain
parameter might be investigated. The tables list references for
the assessment techniques listed. The selection of techniques
will depend not only on available resources (e.g., funds,
personnel) but also on project objectives. Familiarity with a
technique could also enter into the selection process.
9.3.1 Planning Element
The planning component consists of parameters that are
generally required for all wetland evaluations (Tier 1). To a
large extent the methods are based on standard regional land use
and wastewater management planning techniques. As indicated
in Table 9-2, four major sections have been identified in the
planning component:
1. Land use
2. Pollutant assessment
3. Cultural resources
4. Institutional assessment.
With the exception of some cultural resource parameters, these
sections represent basic considerations in the wetland-waste-
water alternative evaluation process. Many of the methods
-------
Table 9.2 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Planning.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER-METHOD
REFERENCES*
APPLICABILITY**
Cost
Personnel
Time
Equipment
1. Land Use
Existing Basin Land Us*
Existing Maps & Studies
Aerial Photo Interpretation
Map Interpretation
Field Survey
Basin Land Us* Chang*
Existing Studies
Sequential Photo Interpretation
Sequential Map Review
Interview
Sequential Field Survey
Land Omershlp (AM!lability)
Tax Register Review
Interviews
PS,DE,ERC,PDM
DE
DE
DE.PDM
PS.DE.ERC,POM
DE
DE
DE
DE.PDM
PS,DE,ERC
DE
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Accessibility
Distance
Aerial Photo Interpretation
Map Review
Site Investigation
Control
Institutional Review
Aerial Photo Interpretation
Map Review
Site Investigation
2. Pollutant Assessment
Population Estimates"
Census Data
Existing Population Projections
Dlsaggregatlon Techniques
Photo/Map Interpretat I on
Field Survey Techniques
New Population Projections
Mastwatar Flow Projections
Literature Reports
Local Studies
Site Specific Studies
Mastwntw Characteristics
Literature Reports
Industrial Classes
Industrial Surveys
Land Use Patterns
Direct Sampling
(Dally Monitoring Reports)
DE
PS.DE.ERC
DE
DE.PDM
DE
PS.DE.ERC
DE
PS.DE.ERC.PDM.OSA
PS.DE.ERC.OSA
DE
DE
DE
DE
PS.DE.ERC.OSA
PS.DE.ERC.OSA
DE
PS.DE.ERC.OSA
DE.PDM.OSA
PS.DE.ERC,POM,OSA
DE,PDM,OSA
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
ISJ
IXJ
-------
Table 9.2 Continued.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER-METHOD REFERENCES*
3. Cultural Resources
Ardieo log leal Resources
National Register of
Historic Places
State Historic Preser-
vation Officer
Interviews
Existing Literature
Surface Reconnalsance
Site Excavation
Laboratory Analysis
Mitigation Activity
Historical Resources
National Register of
Historic Places
State Historic Preser-
vation Officer
Interviews
Field Survey
Natural Resource Us*
State/Federal Agency Reports
Commerc 1 a 1 Recor ds
Outfitter Surveys
Owner's Records
Interviews
Direct Surveys
Rscr*atlon Resources
Agency Reports
Commercial Activity
Use Surveys
Visual Resources
Systematic Observation Survey
Photography
Vlewshed Analysis
Classification Methods
Quantitative Evaluation
APPLICABILITY**
PS.DE.ERC
PS.DE.ERC
DE
PS.DE.ERC
DE
DE
DE
DE
PS.DE.ERC
PS.DE.ERC
DE
DE
PS.DE.ERC, POM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
PS.DE.ERC, POM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
Cost
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Personne 1
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Time
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Equ 1 pment
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
•References: Are primarily secondary data sources - see Section 9.6.
"Applicability: PS - Preliminary Site Survey; DE - Detailed Site Evaluation; ERC
Assessment; POM - Post Discharge Monitoring.
- Environmental Review Criteria; OSA - On-slte
I
N)
tJ
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
listed are reviews of secondary data sources and therefore do
not include reference citations.
Land Use Parameters
The assessment of land use characteristics in the wetland
drainage basin is required for all wetland-wastewater systems.
These Tier 1 assessments provide information on current land
use patterns and an evaluation of historic and projected land use
changes.
Existing Basin Land Use (Tier 1). Information on current
land use is often available in the form of studies or maps for a
project area. The review of existing studies, maps or aerial
photos generally provides sufficient information to assess the
compatibility of a wetlands discharge with these land uses. The
land use patterns are also the primary data source for nonpoint
source pollution evaluations of wetlands. The existing data base
can be supplemented through windshield surveys during the
preliminary site evaluation work.
Basin Land Use Change (Tier 1). The evaluation of his-
torical and projected land use change is generally based on
secondary data sources. If existing studies are available, the
assessment of historical changes can be evaluated through the
sequential review of maps and aerial photos or through
interviews with residents and local officials. The prediction of
short-term land use changes is primarily based on the evaluation
of land use plans, zoning, plats and building permits. Long-term
land use changes are difficult to predict with accuracy and
generally rely on the same data sources cited for short-term
predictions but utilize disaggregations of population projections.
Basin land use changes may affect the ability of wetlands to
receive or renovate waste water through changes in hydrology,
runoff patterns and quality, wetland availability, etc.
Land Ownership/Availability (Tier 1). The ownership and
potential availability of the wetland and surrounding property
needed for easements is generally assessed through the review
of tax rolls and interviews of owners or assessors. This
assessment is fundamental to projects where wetland ownership
is an agency requirement.
Accessibility (Tier 1). As discussed in other sections
accessibility refers to two factors: 1) how accessible the
wetland is for effluent transportation and 2) how accessible the
wetland discharge area is to the public. Effluent conveyance is
primarily a function of distance with considerations of land use,
topography and geology and may affect construction and operat-
ing costs. Public access depends upon wetland location, land
use and institutional authority, or control. The evaluation of
accessibility is straightforward and required for all alternative
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-25
evaluations. Public access limitations may be required for
public health considerations OP for protection from wetland
disturbances.
Pollutant Assessments
The assessment of potential pollutant loading is required for
all wetland discharges. The assessment procedure utilizes popu-
lation estimates, land use projections and discharger profiles to
estimate the quantity and quality of wastewater generated in the
project area for both point and nonpoint sources.
Population Estimates (Tier I/Tier 2). While estimates of
existing and future populations are necessary for projecting
wastewater flows, the various sources and methods for these
projections can range from simple to complex. Census data for
current populations are available by county for all states in the
region. Disaggregation to wastewater service areas may not be
available for many areas. Most funding agencies require the use
of specific, approved population projections (e.g., OBERS).
Complications can arise in the disaggregation of these projections
to project service areas and in areas where population growth is
significantly different from state or regional norms. Discharges
from subdivisions or well defined areas can be more easily
estimated from plats and occupancy projections. Population
estimates based on existing data and simplified methods are
acceptable for most Tier 1 applications. Tier 2 discharges may
require more advanced methods of estimating population.
Wastewater Flow Projections (Tier 1). The calculation of
wastewater flows is generally based on estimates of the service
population and assumed wastewater generation rates. Genera-
tion rates vary by source (residential, commercial, industrial)
and by region. Published estimates of generation rates can be
utilized or estimates based on local data can be derived. Sources
for local data sources include existing wastewater treatment
facilities, public water supplies and industrial monitoring.
Wastewater Characteristics (Tier 1). In order to protect
wetland functions an assessment must be made of the waste-
water characteristics for all potential wetland discharges.
Characteristics can be projected based on the projected number
and size of wastewater sources (residential, commercial, indus-
trial) and published generation characteristics. This data
should be verified with local information where possible. If
industries will be part of the system, a careful review of
potential toxics generated by similar industries or a local
industrial survey is required. Direct sampling may be needed in
cases where effluent quality is unknown or suspected to contain
toxics, metals, salts, etc. often associated with industrial
wastewater.
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-26
Cultural Resources
The evaluation of cultural resources is required for all
projects which receive federal funding. Several of the cultural
resource parameters are required for all projects (Tier 1), while
others may be required only for projects in specific areas. Cul-
tural resources as used here include not only the archeological
and historical aspects but also considerations of natural
resource use, recreational resources and visual resources. The
evaluation of these last three aspects is generally required only
in special circumstances relating to specific locations or
surrounding land uses (i.e., U.S. Forest Service lands, local
parks) or specific water uses (i.e., recreational fishing) .
Archeological/Historical Resources (Tier 1). The evaluation
of archeological and historical resources is necessary for pro-
jects receiving federal (and generally state) funds. This evalua-
tion begins with a review of the National Register of Historic
Places and contact with the State Historic Preservation Office
and/or State Archeologist for any previously listed sites. The
project impact area must then be investigated by a surface recon-
naisance field survey. If significant resources are discovered
or suspected, additional investigations or excavations are req-
uired. Many states have specific requirements for field surveys
and reports as well as either approved lists of archeologists or
minimum professional requirements. Archeological/historical
resources will generally not be a major factor in project viability
but may require design modifications for impact mitigation.
Natural Resources Use (Tier 2). Estimates of current and
projected natural resource use may be required in areas where
the discharge could possibly interfere with recognized and
publicly managed natural resources. This Tier 2 requirement is
not common to all situations but is conditional upon local
conditions. Examples of these circumstances would be the use
of wetlands on U.S. Forest Service lands or the impairment of
downstream fishing or shellfishing. Additional impacts can
occur to the commercial value of forestry, hunting or fishing.
Methods for the assessment of natural resource use generally
rely on secondary data sources. Direct surveys and interviews
would be required in selected Tier 2 situations where there was
no existing data, the value of the natural resource was believed
to be great and the potential for use impairment was significant.
Recreational Resources (Tier 2). The requirements and
conditions discussed for the natural resource use parameter also
apply to the recreational resource parameter. However,
recreational use of wetlands may be more difficult to quantify
than commercial natural resource use. Recreational activities
such as fishing or birdwatching may be affected with public
accessibility controls.
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-27
Visual Resources (Tier 2). The evaluation of visual
resources impacts are required only under special circum-
stances. As noted above the use of pubicly owned land and
particularly U.S. Forest Service lands may require special
review. In addition, the presence of a historic district or site
may require an assessment of visual impacts. The selection of
analytical methods is often agency specific and should be
selected in conjunction with state and federal officials.
9.3.2 Geomorphdlogy Component
Minimum geomorphological parameters deal primarily with
identifying wetland type, and size, shape and topography as
well as identifying any sensitive geologic areas. Additional
parameters include watershed and wetland morphometry as well
as the description of sofl and geologic characteristics. Table 9-3
summarizes geomorphology parameters, techniques and resource
requirements.
Wetland Identification
The identification of a wetland includes both the delineation
of wetland boundaries and the classification of wetland type.
Both of these activities are Tier 1 parameters and methods are
often dictated by the permitting agency. It is essential for the
applicant to review requirements and procedures with the appro-
priate agency (Section 9.6) prior to the initiation of field work.
Wetland Delineation (Tier 1). The delineation of wetland
boundaries is generally based on vegetation, soil and/or
hydrologic patterns. An initial estimate of wetland boundaries
is often based on U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps with field
confirmation. While this approach is generally suitable for pre-
liminary assessments or planning, a more accurate and detailed
delineation of wetland boundaries is usually required for project
design, permitting and institutional control. The selection of a
specific method is largely dependent on site-specific agency
requirements and secondary data availability.
Wetland Classification (Tier 1). The initial purpose of
wetland classification is to identify sensitive or rare wetland
types. This initial classification can be used to identify use
restrictions and institutional concerns at an early point in
project planning. The permitting agency generally specifies the
classification method. In the absence of a specific institutional
requirement the National Wetland Inventory system (Cowardin
et al. 1979) is recommended.
Relationship to Watershed
The hydrologic behavior of a wetland and the detention of
wastewater are largely determined by watershed and wetland
-------
Table 9-3. Comparative Matrix of Methods - Geomorphology.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER-METHOD
REFERENCES*
APPLICABILITY**
Cost
Personnel
Time
Equipment
1. Wetland Identification
NatIand Delineation
Map/Photo Interpretation
Vegetation Surveys
Soil Surveys
Hydro I ogle Surveys
COE Procedure
Florida System
Wetland Classification
Circular 139
NWI System
Penfound
COE System
Godwin & Nierlng
2. Relationship to Watershed
Watershed Morphology
Area
Slope
Runoff Characteristics
Time of Travel
15,21,22,23
9,10,14,15,18,19
8,15
11,13,15,17,20
4
6
5
1
2
4
3
11,17
11,17
11
11,17
MetIand Morphology
Area - map methods
Area - field survey
Depth - field measurement 11,17
Volume - Calculation 11,17
Shape - map
field survey
3. Soils
Type Identification
7th Approximation Taxonomy 12
SCS maps
Distribution
Field Survey 8
Aerial Photo Interpretation 8
Mapping - 8,15
Depth
Direct Measurement 8,12
Texture
Feel Method 8,12
Sedimentation Analysis 8,12
Direct Solving 8,12
Organic content
Oxidation 24
Peraeab111ty
Constant Head Method 24
Fa I I Ing Head Method 24
PS,DE,ERC,OSA
PS,DE,ERC,PDM,OSA
DE
DE.OSA
DE
DE
DE
DE.PDM
DE
DE
DE
PS,DE,ERC
PS,DE,ERC
PS,DE,ERC,PDM,OSA
DE
PS,DE,ERC
DE.PDM.OSA
PS,DE,ERC,PDM,OSA
PS,DE,ERC,PDM,OSA
PS,DE,ERC
DE,PDM,OSA
DE
PS,DE,ERC
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE.PDM
DE
DE
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
•£>
I
to
CD
-------
Table 9-3 Continued.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER-METHOD
REFERENCES*
APPLICABILITY**
Cost
Personnel
Time
Equipment
Pan Presence
Field Survey 24
Chemical/Physical Tests 7,16,24
Cation Exchange Capacity
Ammonium Saturation 24
Sodium Saturation 7,24
Nitrogen
Chemical analysis 7,24
Phosphorus
Chemical analysis 7,24
DE
DE
DE,ERC,PDM
DE.ERC.PDM
DE7PDM.OSA
DE,PDM,ELA
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Metals
Atomic Absorption
Spectophotometry 16,24
Flame Emission
Spectroscopy 24
1 nduct 1 v 1 e 1 y-Coup 1 ed
Argon Plasma
Wet Chemistry Methods 7,16,24
Tox 1 c Po 1 1 utants
Gas Chromotography 7
Gas Chromatograph/Mass
Spectroscopy 7,24
Liquid Chromatography 7
4. Geology
Surface Strata
Publ I shed Reports
Maps
Unpublished Local Data
Site Specific Testing
Subsurface Strata
Publ ished Reports
Maps
Interviews
Site Specific Testing
Sensitive Geological Areas
Publ ished Reports
Maps
Interviews
DE.ERC.PDM.OSA
DE,ERC,PDM,OSA
DE.ERC.PDM.OSA
DE.ERC.PDM.OSA
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
PS.DE.ERC
PS.DE.ERC
DE
DE
PS.DE.ERC
PS.DE.ERC
DE
PC
PS.DE.ERC
PS.DE.ERC
DE
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
"References: (I) Cowardin et at. 1979, (2) Penfound 1952, (3) Goodwin & Niering 1975, (4) COE 1978, (5) Shaw & Fredline 1956,
(6) FAC Section 17-4.02, (7) ASTM 1976, (8) Soil Survey Staff 1951, (9) Brown 1954, (10) Cain & Castro 1959, (11) Chow 1966,
(12) Soil Survey Staff 1975, (13) Feverstein & Selleck 1963, (14) Greig-Smith 1964, (15) NESP 1975, (16) Plumb 1981, (17) Soil
Conservation Service 1972, (18) Southwood 1966, (19) States et al. 1978, (20) Wilson 1968, (21) Avery 1968, (22) Cowardin & Myers 1974,
(23) Kuchler 1967, (24) Black 1965.
**Applicability: PS - Preliminary Site Survey; DE - Detailed Site Evaluation; ERC - Environmental Review Criteria; OSA - On-site
Assessment; PDM - Post Discharge Monitoring.
I
K)
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
morphology. Under Tier 1 conditions (small discharge/large
wetland) these factors are not critical. However, under Tier 2
conditions these factors can greatly influence project
performance, particularly if any assimilation is proposed. The
cost of these efforts is generally low and, while not required for
Tier 1 projects, may prove helpful in project planning and
monitoring for all projects.
Watershed Morphology (Tier 2). The nonpoint pollution
influences on wetlands are determined by watershed character-
istics. The watershed area and land use will determine the
characteristics (quality and quantity) of the runoff. The basin
slope and channel morphology largely determine the time of
travel for the watershed. A major benefit of wetlands is their
ability to attenuate stormwater hydrograph peaks and facilitate
the removal of nonpoint source pollutants including suspended
solids. The interactions between the wastewater discharge and
nonpoint source pollution can be important where wetlands are
receiving heavy nonpoint source loads or where major modifica-
tions are predicted in basin land uses.
Wetland Morphology (Tier 2). While the stormwater inputs
to wetlands are controlled by watershed morphology character-
istics, the hydrologic response of wetlands are a function of
wetland morphology. The area, depth and volume of a wetland
give a basic description of morphology. However, the shape of
the wetland along with channel morphology can be the overriding
factors controlling flow characteristics and in designing flow
distribution or discharge structures. With the exception of
wetland area, the description of wetland morphology is a Tier 2
activity.
Soils
The consideration of soils in the evaluation of wet-
land-wastewater alternatives is a Tier 2 analysis. Many
parameters should be assessed only under specific circum-
stances. The selection of analytical parameters is a function of
wastewater characteristics, anticipated pollutant retention and
impact assessment considerations.
Type Identification (Tier 2). The identification of soil
type(s) for a wetland area facilitates the rapid assessment of
several chemical-physical properties of the soil. Soil type is the
most commonly available information on soils and is mapped for
most areas by the Soil Conservation Service. Mineral and
organic soils should be identified since they have different
characteristics affecting assimilative capacity.
Distribution (Tier 2). The use of SCS maps is the most
widely used method for evaluating soil distribution. Additional
information may be available from photographic interpretation,
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9.31
but detailed site information or soil distribution is generally
obtained through field surveys. SCS mapping units are at too
large a scale to provide detailed, site specific information on soil
distribution.
Depth (Tier 2). The depth of the soil may be an important
factor in wastewater treatment and must be directly measured
during the site survey. The depth to different soils, substrate
or hard pans can influence site feasibility and design.
Pan Presence (Tier 2) . The presence or absence of an imper-
meable pan layer can significantly influence the water/ground-
water interaction of a wetland. A hardpan can contain the
groundwater in a surficial aquifer and lead to primarily lateral
rather than vertical water movement.
Constituent Renoval (Tier 2). The ability of soils to remove
constituents from water passing through the soil profile varies.
Mineral and organic soils, for example, differ in their ability to
take up phosphorus. Often, the cation exchange capacity is
used as an indicator of a soils renovative ability. Richardson
(1985) has suggested the amount of extractable aluminum in soils
may be the best indicator of phosphorus removal. This should
be assessed if the renovation capabilities of wetlands are
incorporated into design. Texture and permeability can affect
the speed with which water moves through the soil profile,
thereby influencing the removal and interaction of constituents.
In conjunction with information concerning the presence of a
hardpan and geologic substrate, texture and permeability help
characterize groundwater interactions.
Geology
The major geologic concern of wetland-wastewater dis-
charges is the potential for groundwater contamination. Isolated
wetlands in Karstic areas sometimes recharge groundwater, so
they need to be evaluated more thoroughly. The assessment of
sensitive geological areas is a Tier 1 activity based on secondary
data sources. The investigation of surface and subsurface
strata could be required at some sites and could involve primary
data collection. Geologic information is generally collected when
drinking water or monitoring wells are drilled. Since some
wetland discharges will require some form of groundwater
monitoring, site specific geologic information will be available
an<* can be compared with the existing data base for confirmation
of reported geologic structure.
9.3.3 Hydrology/Meterology Component
Hydrology is a natural integrator of most wetland ecosystem
processes. Basic hydrologic information which is required for
all wetland-wastewater projects (Tier 1) includes data on hydro-
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-32
period and flow patterns. Many Tier 2 projects may require the
development of a water budget. The detail of this water budget
will vary with the complexity and size of the proposed project as
well as the sensitivity of the wetland. Table 9-4 summarizes the
major components, available assessment techniques and associ-
ated resource requirements.
Hydroperiod
Each wetland is unique in terms of location, morphology and
other physical parameters that influence the receipt and deposi-
tion of water. The frequency, duration and level of inundation
are controlled not only by the physical characteristics of the
wetland but by the regional climate conditions. In addition, the
relationship between the wetland vegetation and hydroperiod is
interactive. The assessment of wetland hydroperiod is a Tier 1
analysis and is essential for the proper design and operation of a
wetland discharge.
Inundation Levels (Tier 1). The historical and projected
level of inundation in a wetland is an important consideration in
wetland-wastewater system design as water depth and resi-
dence time are affected. The placement, sizing and construction
of disposal system components must be appropriate for disposal
during both high and low water conditions. Published records
of inundation levels are the most reliable source of historical
data. The topography of the site provides an upper limit of
inundation levels. However, physical indicators (i.e., debris,
water stains, erosion, sediment deposits) can provide a short
term record of inundation levels and vegetation patterns can
provide a long term record of inundation of moderate duration.
Duration and Frequency (Tier 1). The duration of inunda-
tion is the dominant factor influencing wetland vegetation
distribution. Wetland vegetation in turn affects flooding by
retarding surface water flows and controlling water inputs
through canopy interception and evapotranspiration. In addi-
tion to vegetation patterns, published records and local inter-
views can be used to quantify duration. Factors influencing the
duration and frequency of inundation also include basin size,
antecedent moisture conditions and seasonal climatic fluctua-
tions.
Wetland Sensitivity to Inundation (Tier 1). Some wetland
systems are sensitive to modifications in hydrologic patterns
including both inundation and drydowns (see Table 8-3). Sensi-
tivity to increased inundation is generally related to the degree
of hydrologic interconnection with either surface or ground-
water. For example, perched bogs may be particularly sensitive
to increased inundation. However, some wetland types require
periodic drydowns in order to maintain vegetation reproduction
(i.e., cypress domes) .
-------
Table 9-4. Comparative Matrix of Methods - Hydrology/Meterology.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER-METHOD
1. Hydroperlod
laaaaation Levels
Published Records
Vegetation Patterns
Physical Indicators
Interviews
Duration
Published Record
Interviews
Sensitivity
Vegetation Analysis
2. Mater Budget
Surface Water Flow
Flow Meters
Weirs
Stage Readings
Dye Tracing
Precipitation
Manual Rain Gages
Recording Rain Gages
Thelssen Method
Isohyetal Method
Existing Data
Evaaatransa 1 rat 1 on
Ly si meters
Groundwater Level
Fluctuations
Meteoro logic Data
Interpretation
Energy Budget
Ground aater Interact lone
Monitoring Wells
Meteoro logic Data
Interpretation
REFERENCES*
2,5
9,10,11,12,13
2,5
9
2.5
2,5
2,5
4,16
5
5
5
5
5
2,5
2,5
2,5
2,5
3,7,8
1.3,7,8
APPLICABILITY**
PS,DE
PS.DE
PS.DE
PS.DE
PS.DE
DE
PD.DE.ERC
DS.DE.PDM.ELA.ERC
DE.PDM.OSA
PS.DE, POM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE
PS
PS.DE
DE
DE
PS
PS.DE
DE.PDM
PS
Cost
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
High
Moderate
Personne 1
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Time
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Equipment
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Low
High
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Low
•References: (1) Bachmat et al. 1980, (2) Chow 1966. (3) Davis et al. 1966, (4) FeversteIn & Sellevk 1963, (5) Soil Conservation Service
1972, (6) Wilson 1968, (7) McHharter S Slnada 1977, (8) Todd 1960, (9) CowardIn et al. 1979, (10) Brown 1954, (11) Cain & Castro 1959,
(12) COE 1978, (13) FAC Section 17-4.02.
**ApplIcablllty: PS - Preliminary Site Survey; DE - Detailed Site Evaluation; ERC - Environmental Review Criteria; OSA - On-Slte
Assessment; PDM - Post Discharge Monitoring.
I
LJ
CO
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-34
Seasonal Wetland Relationships (Tier 1). The frequency and
duration of inundation is closely associated with seasonal
climatic and vegetation factors. These factors are site and
wetland type specific and can be important factors in system
engineering design and operation as well as discharge schedules.
Flushing Characteristics (Tier 2). The timing of inundation
and the energy associated with flood waters affect the input,
retention and export of nutrients and solids. Decreased flows
and sheetflow are associated with decreased carrying power and
fallout of suspended particles. Flood water provides a vehicle
for the resuspension and movement of dissolved and suspended
solids. As velocity increases, both sediment input and output
increase for the wetland. The flow where output exceeds input
is site-specific and is controlled by the physical properties of
the wetland (shape, depth) and the antecedent conditions. The
determination of the flushing characteristics and seasonal
vegetation influences must be determined through mass
balancing evaluations of the wetland.
Flow Patterns
Two aspects of surface water flow patterns are easily
evaluated in the field. The evaluation of hydrologic interconnec-
tions and flow patterns or channelization are Tier 1 require-
ments. The degree of complexity involved in these evaluations
can range from quick, qualitative assessments to extensive,
quantitative descriptions. It is important to consider the
institutional requirements and decision making utility of this
information prior to the initiation of field work. For most appli-
cations the qualitative assessment approach is adequate. The
assessment of downstream impacts can be complex and is
generally required only when nutrient removal is being consid-
ered.
The hydraulic gradient is an important aspect of flow
patterns. Since most wetlands are in areas of little relief (low
slopes) the direction of flow can be difficult to ascertain.
Sometimes tracer studies are necessary to delineate flow
direction. The hydraulic gradient of groundwater is also
important in wetlands with groundwater interactions.
Monitoring wells can be used to establish the piezometric
surface. For many wetlands this will be the best indicator of
flow direction.
Water Budget
Hydrologic budgeting has considerable value as an index to
the hydrologic process; it is a means of isolating and estimating
individual flow and storage components that influence physical
and biological wetland activities. The development of a water
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-35
budget for a wetiand-wastewater project is a Tier 2 activity. It is
only conducted when there are serious questions about the in-
fluence of wastewater on wetland hydrology or biological systems.
A water budget is developed by estimating surface water inflow
and outflow, precipitation, evapotranspiration, groundwater
inflow and outflow and storage. The U.S.G.S. is currently
attempting to develop simplified approaches for estimating water
budgets (Brown 1985).
Surface Water Inflows/Outflows (Tier 2). The major flow of
water through most southeastern wetlands is by surface waters.
While most methods for flow measurement are well established,
they are generally appropriate for flow estimation in fixed
channels. This requirement presents no problem for wetlands with
defined stream channel inflows and outflows. Sheetflow can be
difficult to gage and may be a significant source of error in water
budgets.
Precipitation (Tier 2). The volume of precipitation in most
southeastern wetlands is a function of canopy development, storm
composition and prevailing climate. In several wetland types
precipitation is the primary input (i.e., perched bogs, pocosins)
and measurement accuracy may be critical for the hydroiogic
budget. In addition to the amount of precipitation, the timing can
be an important factor for wetiand-wastewater disposal. Seasonal
patterns and extreme rain events must be considered in facility
design and operation.
Evapotranspiration (Tier 2). Evapotranspiration for a given
wetland depends on net radiation, wind speed, total availability of
water and vapor pressure gradients. The amount of evapotrans-
piration varies greatly between wetland and vegetation types.
Methods are well established for the estimation of evapo-
transpiration and estimate accuracy is directly related to the
length of the period of record for the data set.
Groundwater Interactions (Tier 2). The importance of
groundwater in the water budget depends on the participation of
water table aquifers in recharge and discharge processes.
Groundwater interactions can be difficult and costly to inves-
tigate. The contribution of groundwater inflows and outflows is
often calculated by simply balancing the water budget with a net
groundwater flow estimate. This net groundwater estimate may
indicate either a net discharge or recharge from the groundwater.
Storage (Tier 2). Storage in most wetland situations refers to
surface water storage and flood attenuation. Surface storage
increases or decreases in response to precipitation, infiltration,
evapotranspiration groundwater interactions and surface water
inflows/outflows. The ability of a wetland to attenuate flood
peaks and storm flows is associated with wetlands having signi-
ficant out-of-channel storage (e.g., floodplain). Storage is
important to wastewater system design since it affects depth,
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
residence time and assimilative capacity of waste water. It may
also influence design of storage or back-up systems during
certain conditions.
9.3.4 Water Quality Component
The determination of water quality by chemical, physical and
biological analyses has been the traditional method of waste-
water discharge impact assessment. Analytical procedures are
well established and specific components or parameters are
typically required by state and federal agencies for project
design, permitting and monitoring.
A large number of parameters is available for evaluation.
Table 9-1 has grouped the parameters into basic (Tier 1) and
elective (Tier 2) analyses. Analyses required depend on pro-
ject objectives and the existing data base. The presence of an
existing data base is often parameter dependent. Data for tradi-
tional monitoring parameters such as dissolved oxygen (DO),
pH, residue (solids) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) are
often available for a given area. Existing data on toxic
pollutants and metals are generally much more restricted.
Probable sources of data include local, state and federal
environmental agencies as well as universities, industries and
consulting firms. Seasonal and even daily variation for many
parameters can be significant. This seasonal factor should be
included in the initial study design and the assessment of the
existing data base. Parameters and methods are summarized in
Table 9-5.
Temperature (Tier 1). While temperature can have a direct
toxic effect, the more likely influence in the wetland discharge
setting is the change of chemical reaction rates and equilibrium
as well as biological processes. Design and operation restric-
tions required by freezing temperatures are limited in the
Southeast. The thermometric method is most commonly used',
although temperature meters are designed into many field
instruments.
Color (Tier 2). Modifications in color can influence the
production of submergent vegetation by changing the quantity
and quality of light. However, turbidity is generally a more
appropriate measurement of reduced light penetration.
Conductivity (Tier 2). The ability of a solution to carry an
electrical current is expressed as conductivity. The value can
be used to assess the effect of total ion concentration on
chemical equilibria and biological processes. Conductivity can
also be used to estimate total filterable residue.
Residue (Solids) (Tier 1). Residue is an estimate of the
dissolved and/or suspended matter in water. The parameter is
-------
Table 9-5. Comparative Matrix of Methods - Water Quality.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER-METHOD
Temperature
Thermometrlc
Electronic meter
Color
Colorlmetrlc
Spectr ophotometr 1 c
Trlstlmulus Filter
Conductivity
Conductivity meter
Residue
Total
Fl Iterable
Nonf llterable
Settleable matter
Turbidity
Jackson
Nep he 1 ometr Ic
Dissolved Oxygen
lodometrlc
Membrane Electrode
PH
Electrometrlc
Alkalinity
Tltrlmetrlc
Colorlmetrlc
N 1 trogen
Ammonia
Automated Colorlmetrlc
Manual Colorlmetrlc/
T 1 tr 1 metr 1 c/Potent 1 ometr 1 c
Ion Selective
E 1 ectrode
Organic Nitrogen
Automated Colorlmetrlc
Manual: Colorlmetrlc/
REFERENCES*
1,2,3
1,3,2
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1.2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1
1,2,3,
1.2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2.3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
APPLICABILITY**
PS,DE,ERC,PDM
ELA
PS,DE,PDM
DE
DE,ERC,PDM
ELA
DE,PDM
PS,DE,ERC
POM, OS A
PS,DE,ERC,PDM
OSA
DE,PDM
DE.PDM
DE,PDM,OSA
DE,PPM,OSA
DE,PDM,OSA
DE.PDM
DE,PDM
Cost
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Personnel
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Time
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Equipment
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
TI trImetrIc/PotentIometrIc
<£>
I
-------
Table 9-5. Continued.
RESOURCE REOUIREMENTS
PARAMETER-METHOD
Nitrate
Ultraviolet
E 1 ectrode
Cadmium Reduction
Chromotroplc Acid
Devarda's Alloy Reduction
Nitrite
Spectrophotometr Ic
Phosphorus
Vanadomolybdlc
Stannous chloride
Ascorbic Acid
Chloride
Tltrlmetrlc
Potent lometr I c
Automated - Colorlmetrlc
Chlorine, Residual
lodometr Ic-TI tr Imetr Ic
Ampcrometrlc-TItr Imetr Ic
DPD-TItrlmetrlc/
Colorlmetrlc
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Membrane Electrlde
lodometr Ic
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Tltrlmetrlc
Colorlmetrlc
Toxic Pol lutants
Gas Chrcmatography
GC/Mass Spectorscopy
Liquid Chromatography
REFERENCES*
2
2
1.2,3,
1.2,3,
1.2,3,
1.2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
t.2,3,
',2,3,
1,2,3,
1.2,3,
1,3,4
1,3,4
3,4
APPLICABILITY**
DE,PDM
PE
DE,PDM
DE,PDM
DE,PDM
DE.PDM
DE,DE,PDM
DE,PDM
DE.PDM
PE.DE.PDM
PE, DE.PDM
PE,DE,PDM
POM
PDM
PDM
PS,DE,ERC,PDM
PDM
PDM
ERC.PDM
ERC,PDM
ERC,PDM
Cost
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Personnel
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Time
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
tc|u i pment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
-------
Table 9-5. Continued.
PARAMETER-METHOD
Metals
Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy
Met Chemistry
• Inductively-Coupled
Argon Plasma
Flame Emission
Photometric
Microbiological Parameters
Total Collform
Fecal Collform
Fecal Streptococcus
Pathogenic Bacteria
Pathogenic Protozoa.
Pathogenic Viruses
RESOURCE REOUIREMENTS
REFERENCES*
1,2,3,4
1,2,3
1,3,4
1.2,3,4
1,2,5,6
1,2,5,6
1,2,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,6
"(I) AWA 1980, (2, USEP, „„. ,3, AS7M ,M5>
APPLICABILITY"
DE.ERC.PDM
DE,ERC,PDM
DE,ERC,PDM
DE.ERC.PDM
DE,ERC,POM
DE,ERC,POM
DE.ERC.POM
ERC.PDM
POM
POM
Cost
Personnel
Time
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-40
useful for estimates of sedimentation rates and impacts to
biological communities and habitats. Residue can also influence
other water quality parameters by physical processes (i.e.,
adsorption) and is a common requirement of permit monitoring,
water quality criteria and on-site assessments. Several classifi-
cations of residue are commonly reported. Total residue is the
material left upon evaporation of a sample. Nonfilterable residue
is material not retained by a glass fiber filter while filterable
residue is retained by the filter. Results may be reported as
wet, dry, volatile or fixed weights depending upon the drying
conditions. Settleable matter consists of the gross solids in a
sample which physically settle out of solution. Settleable matter
may be reported as either volume or weight.
Turbidity (Tier 2). The determination of turbidity is
primarily important as an indicator of light penetration and
associated influences on submergent vegetation.
Dissolved oxygen (Tier 1). Dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentration is a controlling factor in the quality of aquatic
habitat for fish and is often used as an indicator of water
quality. DO is influenced by temperature, organic loading, re-
aeration and vegetative activity. Low DO concentrations are
typical of many southeastern wetlands which often have a wide
diurnal variance. This may limit the use of DO as an indicator of
wastewater impacts under some conditions. Additionally, DO
will have little significance during dry periods.
pH (Tier 1). The hydrogen ion concentration, pH, is used
in the measurement of the acidity of solutions. Variances in pH
can have gross effects on the toxicity of pollutants and other
reaction kinetics. The surface waters of wetlands are generally
acidic (pH less than 7.0). The pH significantly impacts the
species composition and water chemistry of wetland systems.
Low pH can lead to the release of certain metals.
ADcattnity (Tier 2). Alkalinity is the capacity of a water to
react with a strong acid to a designated pH and provides an
indication of how well a water body can buffer the addition of
acidic wastes. Wetlands have a wide variation in buffering
capacity. The degree of impact from wastewater discharges
depends on the pH of the discharge and buffering capacity of the
wetland. High alkalinities can result in high levels of un-ionized
ammonia which can be toxic to aquatic organisms.
Nitrogen. Nitrogen is a macronutrient which in its various
forms can be an essential nutrient for plants (nitrate), a
contributor to infant methemoglobinemia (nitrite) and a
relatively toxic compound (ammonia). The nitrogen cycle in
wetlands can include several nitrogen sinks with nitrogen being
lost as a gas, being adsorbed to soil particles and being
incorporated into organic material.
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-41
Nitrate and ammonia are considered Tier 1 parameters while
total nitrogen and other forms are Tier 2. This reflects the
immediate or rapid impacts of the nitrate and ammonia forms.
Phosphorus. Phosphorus is a macronutrient essential for
plant growth. Additions of phosphorus to wetlands can cause in-
creased vegetative growth and modifications to community
composition. Phosphorus can be reduced in the wetland system
by plant uptake and by adsorption to soil and organic material.
Ortho-phosphate is a mobile ion within wetlands which is
readily assimilated by vegetation and is considered a Tier 1
parameter. Other forms of phosphorus are Tier 2 parameters.
The multiple forms of phosphorus are determined by variations
of filtration, digestion and colorimetric methods.
Chloride (Tier 2). Chloride concentrations are used as a
conservative substance to estimate dilution of wastewater in
water bodies. Three general methods are available and their
application is a function of turbidity and number of samples.
Chlorine (Tier 2). Chlorine is the primary method of
wastewater disinfection. The monitoring of chlorine in a
wetland system would be used primarily to monitor the proper
functioning of the treatment facility and assess chlorine
availability for forming chlorinated compounds. Chlorine can be
toxic to aquatic organisms and can combine with ammonia to form
toxic chloramines. A variety of methods are available to dif-
ferentiate chlorine forms and overcome interferences.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (Tier 1). The biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) is a standard laboratory procedure used
to estimate the amount of oxygen required for the degradation of
organic and inorganic matter. The BOD values are standard
requirements for treatment plant design, effluent requirements
and discharge monitoring. The variations on the method refer to
the options for the measurement of the dissolved oxygen concen-
trations (Membrane Electrode vs. lodometric) .
Chemical Oxygen Demand (Tier 1). The chemical oxygen
demand (COD) measures the amount of oxygen required to
oxidize the organic matter in a waste sample with a strong
chemical oxidant. COD can be empirically related to BOD and is
often measured when BOD concentrations are extremely high.
Toxic Pollutants (Tier 2). A large number of toxic pollut-
ants are possible in wastewater treatment plant effluent, but
individual parameters can only be predicted on a site-specific
basis. The presence and type of industrial sources for the
treatment plant will provide the best indication of likely
pollutants. Chromatography and/or spectroscopic techniques
are required for analysis. These methods are generally both
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
time consuming and expensive. An existing data base for toxic
pollutants is generally not available, and any sampling program
must be carefully designed due to cost considerations. The
choice of methods is largely parameter specific or dictated by
agency requirements.
Metals (Tier 2). A large number of metal parameters are of
interest in wetland discharge situations including: calcium,
potassium, magnesium, zinc, iron, manganese and sodium. The
effluent concentrations of these parameters as well as
accumulation in the receiving water body, soil and biological
system are often monitored in ongoing wetland discharges.
Because of the potential chronic, toxic and food-chain effects,
the disposal of industrial wastewater to wetlands should be
thoroughly evaluated. While the wet chemistry methods are now
seldom used the choice between the other three techniques is
largely made on equipment availability, number of samples and
specific sample characteristics.
Mcrobiological Parameters
The analysis of the microbiological parameters of wetland
systems generally involves detailed analyses by well-established
methods. These standard procedures are detailed in several
texts (APHA 1980, Bordner et al. 1978, ASTM 1983, Lennette et
al. 1974, Breed et al. 1957). The microbiological parameters
range from those commonly included in agency surveys and
permit requirements to comparatively rare disease-related
organisms.
Conform Bacteria (Tier 1). Total and fecal coliform are the
two most commonly sampled parameters of microbiological
studies. These tests are generally run as possible indicators of
fecal pollution of waters and as an evaluation of the
effectiveness of disinfection techniques at treatment plants.
Total coliforms can include organisms from a wide range of
sources while the fecal coliform selects for coliforms of fecal
material of warm-blooded animals. These tests are almost
always required for discharge monitoring.
Fecal Streptococcus (Tier 2). Fecal strep is another
parameter commonly used as an indicator of fecal contamination.
Fecal coliform/fecal streptococcus ratios are sometimes used to
provide information on possible sources of pollution (i.e.,
treatment plant vs. non-point source pollution). This
parameter is seldom required for permit monitoring but is often
included in baseline data studies.
Pathogenic Bacteria, Protozoa and Viruses (Tier 2).
Several bacteria can cause diseases in man including Salmonella.
Shieella, Escherichia coli and Vibrio cholerae. In addition some
protozoa (i.e., Giardia lamblia) and viruses can cause diseases.
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9--
Tests for these organisms are not generally required in permits
hut have been incorporated in research studies of wetland
discharges.
9.3.5 Ecology Component
The evaluation of the ecological characteristics of freshwater
wetlands is one of the more complicated processes in the dis-
charge assessment program due to the complexity and dynamic
nature of biological systems. It is essential that clear objectives
and procedures are established in the planning phase of ecologi-
cal studies (Section 9.1). The lack of a well-designed study
program can often lead to the waste of project time and funds
and the collection of unusable data. The seasonal and annual
variation in ecological systems often requires multi-year studies
to distinguish between "background" levels and "treatment"
changes in system components. This time frame is sometimes
longer than many projects can allocate. Therefore, assessments
must depend on existing data bases in many cases. The avail-
ability of an existing data base varies greatly for different
wetland types and locations. Probable data sources of existing
studies include government agencies and consulting firms, but
detailed ecological studies are more likely conducted by
universities and research centers.
Nine ecological subcomponents have been identified as being
significant in freshwater wetlands: periphyton, macrophytes,
aquatic invertebrates, fish, herpetofauna, birds, mammals,
habitat and protected species. These nine subcomponents have
been grouped into four sets in order to simplify the discussion:
vegetation, aquatic fauna, terrestrial fauna, habitat evalua-
tions. The discussion of habitat evaluations is included in
Section 9.4. These groups have several common parameters
which are frequently measured in baseline and assessment
studies. The only Tier 1 parameters are from the macrophyte
subcomponent. Tier 2 parameters should be based on regulatory
requirements, wastewater management objectives and wetland
sensitivity. The relationship or tiering to commonly measured
parameters are summarized in Table 9-6. These parameters are
described in Table 9-7.
Analytical procedures are generally significantly different
for the same parameters between subcomponents. These proce-
dural differences within common parameters are reflected in the
organization of this section. The subcomponents are first
defined and major factors of importance are identified. Subcom-
ponent-specific parameter methods are then summarized. Inves-
tigations of the ecological component generally requires the
involvement of trained wetland biologists.
-------
Table 9-6. Relationship of Parameters and Tiering to Ecology Components
PARAMETERS
Species Composition
Indicator Species
Species Diversity
Relative Abundance
Density
Distribution
Frequency of Occurrence
Seasonal Occurrence
Biomass
Productivity
Age Ratio/Distribution
Sex Ratio
Fecund ity
Growth Rate
Condition/Health
Periphyton
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Macrophytes
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Aquatic
1 nvertebrates
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fish
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Amphibians/
Reptiles Birds
2 2
2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mamma 1 s
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 - Tier 1 Parameters
2 - Tier 2 Parameters
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-45
Table 9.7. Frequently Measured Parameters for the Ecology
Component of Wetlands.
Species Composition. The kinds and numbers of species
jointly occupying a specified area.
Indicator Species. A species whose presence or absence may
be characteristic of environmental conditions in a particular
habitat.
Species Diversity. The number and abundance of species in
a biotic community generally expressed as an index. The use of
diversity indices is based on the assumption that environmental
perturbations change the index and that this change reflects the
degree of impact to the system.
Relative Abundance. The number of individuals of a species
in a given time and place relative to the number of individuals of
the same species in another time or place.
Density. The number of individuals (or biomass) of a
defined group occurring in a specified unit of space.
Distribution. The physical separation of species or groups
of species into distinct, limited areas with a larger area.
Frequency of Occurrence. The percentage of samples in
which a given species occurs.
Seasonal Occurrence. An observed or predicted noncontinu-
ous pattern of species distribution over time.
Biomass. The total weight of living and dead matter in organ-
isms, often expressed per unit volume or area.
Productivity. The rate at which organic matter is produced
by biological activity in an area or volume over time.
Age Distribution. The classification of individuals of a popu-
lation according to age classes, or age-related periods such as
prereproductive, reproductive and post reproductive classes.
Age Ratio. The ratio of the numbers of individuals of a given
species contained in two age classes (i.e., larvae/adult).
Sex Ratio. The ratio of the number of individuals of one sex
to the other sex for a given species in a given area.
Fecundity. The number of ripening eggs per female fish
prior to the next spawning period.
Growth Rate. The rate of change of an individual's length or
weight.
Condition. In fisheries biology an estimate of the plumpness
of a fish, often expressed as a ratio of width over length. Also a
general term referring to the overall health of an organism.
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
Vegetation Subcomponents
Periphyton. The collective term refers to the algae, bac-
teria, protozoa and other sessile organisms which grow attached
to substrate in the water. The periphytic community in wet-
lands is less important than the macrophytes in terms of total
biomass but can have a significant impact on nutrient trans-
formation and cycling. Periphyton assemblages have been used
as indicators of water pollution and could be used in a wetland
discharge situation to assess both the degree and area of impact.
Macrophyton. This term includes all multicellular plants
with specialized tissues. Macrophytes are generally divided into
three groups based on the growth form. Floating plants have
true leaves and roots but float on the water surface. Submerged
plants are rooted to the bottom and generally grow beneath the
water. Emergent plants are rooted in shallow water or in soils
with high moisture and have either floating leaves or emergent
leaves and steams. The term macrophyte includes plant species
as different as duckweed and cypress trees. Therefore, while
similar components are evaluated for each group, sampling and
analysis techniques can vary considerably. Macrophytes are a
major determinant in several wetland classificaton and delinea-
tion techniques (Section 9.3.2), provide the dominant habitat
characteristics of the wetland and interact with the chemical
water quality of the wetland.
Parameters and Methods. The extreme diversity in wetland
vegetation species composition, size, density and habitat
requires a concomitant diversity in methods. Table 9-8 sum-
marizes parameters and methods for the analysis of wetland
vegetation. As previously noted, wetland macrophytes can be
defined as floating, submerged or emersed. However, most
methods have been developed for terrestrial communities and are
defined in terrestrial terms. In general, methods developed for
the terrestrial ground stratum or herbaceous plants ar"e
applicable to floating or submerged wetland vegetation. Methods
for the shrub/tree strata and woody plants are generally
applicable for emersed macrophytes. Table 9-9 indicates those
methods appropriate for the wetland periphyton, herbaceous
and woody vegetation.
The basic description of the macrophytes (species compo-
sition and distribution) is required for wetland identification
and the assessment of wetland sensitivity. Investigations of the
periphyton community are generally restricted to research
applications.
Aquatic Fauna Subcomponents
Aquatic Invertebrates. The aouatic invertebrate communi-
ties of streams and lakes have been used extensively as indica-
-------
Table 9-8 Common Parameters and Methods for the Analysis of Wetland Vegetation.
(P = Perlphyton, H = Herbaceous, W » Woody).
PARAMETERS
Species Species
METHODS Composition Diversity
Plot Methods H,W H,W
Plotless Methods H,W H,W
Transect Methods H,W H,W
Line Intercept Method H,W H,W
Sedgwlck-Rafter Counts P P
Diatom Species
Proportional Counts
Map Generation
Map Interpretation
Aerial Photo Interpretation
Wet Weight
Dry Weight
Ash-free Weight
Carbon Content
Nitrogen Content
Chlorphyl 1 Content
Pheophyton Content
Caloric Content
Carbon- 14 Uptake
Oxygen Method
ATP Estimates
Canopy Cover
Basal Area
Timber Volume
Twig Count
Harvest Method
Litter Fall Methods
Coring
Taxonomlc Keys P.H.W
Literature Review P,H,W P,H,W
Habitat Requirements
Relative Dlstrl-
Abundance Density button Blomass
H,W H,W
H,W H,W
H.W H,W
H.W H,W
P P
P
H,W
H,W
H,W
H
H,P
P
H.P
P
H,P
P
H
H
P
W
W
W
W
H.W
P,H,W P,H,W P,H,W P.H.W
Produc-
tivity
H
H,P
P
H.P
P
H.P
P
H
H.P
P
P
W
W
W
W
H.W
W
P.H.W
Growth Indicator
Rate Species
H
W
P.H.W P.H.W
P.H.W
<£>
I
-------
Table 9-9 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Ecology/Vegetation
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
METHODS
Plot Methods
Plotless Methods
Transect Methods
Line Intercept Method
Sedgwlck-Rafter Counts
Diatom Species
Proportional Counts
Map Generation
Map Interpretation
Aerial Photo Interpretation
Wet Weight
Dry Weight
Ash-free Weight
Carbon Content
Nitrogen Content
Chlorphyl 1 Content
Pheophyton Content
Caloric Content
Carbon- 14 Uptake
Oxygen Method
ATP Estimates
Canopy Cover
Basal Area
Timber Volume
Twig Count
Harvest Method
Litter Fal 1 Methods
Cor 1 ng
Taxonomlc Keys
Literature Review
Habitat Requirements
REFERENCES*
1,10,12,13,17,29,
31,32,37,45
1,6,13,17,20,29,
31,32,37
9,16,28,37
6,9,10,17,33
42,43,45,46,47,48,
42,43,46,47
2,7,8,14,22,23,35
2,7,8,14,22,23,35
2,7,8,14,22,23,35
42,43,46,47,48,50,
51,52,53
42,43,46,47,48,50,
51,52,53
42,43,46,47,48,50,
51,52,53
42,43,46,47,50,51
42,43,46,47,50,51
42,43,46,47,50,51
42,43,46,47,50,51
42,43,46,47,48,51
49
42,43,46,51,53
42,43,51
9,11,34
9,18,21,28,30
6,11,20,26,34,41
9
9,11,12,25,26,34,
36,39
9,11
9
4,5,7,8,15,23,38
APPLICABILITY**
DE.PDM,
DE,PDM
DE,PDM
DE,PDM
49 DE,PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
PS, POM
PS.PDM
DE.PDM
DE,PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM, OS A
DE.PDM.OSA
DE.PDM, OS A
DE.PDM
DE.PDM.OSA
DE.PDM ,OSA
DE,PDM,OSA
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
DE.PDM
PS, DE.PDM.OSA
PS, DE.PDM, OS A
PD,DE,PDM,OSA
Cost
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Personnel
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Time
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Equipment
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
.p-
00
-------
9-49
•References:
1. A Nous 1944
2. Avery 1968
3. Brower and Zar 1977
4. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 4112
5. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 7000
6. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 5000
7. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 6602
8. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 6610
9. Cain and Castro 1959
10. Canfleld 1941
11. Cook and Bonham 1977
12. Cooper 1963
13. Cottam and Curtis 1956
14. Coward In and Myers 1974
15. Coward In et al. 1976
16. Cox 1976
17. Daubenmlre 1968
18. Ffsser and Van Dyne 1966
19. Heady 1957
20. Husch et al. 1972
21. Hyder and Sneva 1960
22. Johnson 1969
23. Kuchler 1967
24. Laycock 1965
25. Mannette and Haydock 1963
26. Mllner and Hughes 1968
27. Morris 1973
28. Mueller-Oombols and Ellenberg 1974
29. Costing 1956
30. Owensby 1973
31. Parker and Harris 1959
32. Phillips 1959
33. Plelou 1975
34. Shafer 1963
35. Shlmwell 1971
36. Singh et al. 1975
37. Smith et al. 1963
38. Soil Conservation Service 1976
39. Walker 1970
40. Way 1973
41. Forbes 1961
42. American Public Health Association 1980
43. Weber 1973
44. Hutchlnson 1967
45. Lund and Tailing 1957
46. Schwoerbel 1970
47. VolI enwelder 1974
48. Welch 1948
49. Wetzel 1975
50. Wood 1975
51. Sladeckova 1962
52. Owens et al. 1967
53. Westlake 1965
••Applicability: PS = Preliminary Site Survey; DE - Detailed Site Evaluation; ERC - Environmental Review
Criteria; OSA - Effluent Assessment; POM - Post Discharge Monitoring.
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-50
tors of water pollution. However, their use in wetland systems
has been limited. The lower dissolved oxygen levels and velo-
cities of most wetlands preclude the presence of many of the
aquatic invertebrate species used as indicator organisms in
streams and lakes. Several components of the invertebrate com-
munity can be used as assessment tools for discharge impacts.
Fish. The fish community is often considered by the general
public to be the most important component of freshwater wet-
lands. While many smaller wetlands can have a very limited fish
community, larger wetlands can have a significant community
and represent a major recreational resource (Section 9.3.1).
Fish are difficult to sample quantititatively and generally are
poor indicators of pollution due to their mobility. However,
long-term studies of the community and short-term studies of
pollutant concentrations in tissues can provide valuable infor-
mation.
Parameters and Methods. The application of specific
methods is summarized by parameters in Table 9-10. The wet-
land aquatic invertebrate community is generally restricted to
research applications. The most common invertebrate para-
meters are species composition, indicator species and diversity.
Production and biomass estimates for invertebrates require
extensive data collection and analyses. Fish investigations are
limited in most studies to species descriptions. Methods for the
aquatic fauna subcomponent are well established and docu-
mented in the literature. References and estimates of resource
requirements are summarized in Table 9-11.
Terrestrial Fauna Subcomponents
Herpetofauna. Reptiles and amphibians are generally not
intensively sampled in baseline or monitoring studies with the.
exception of protected species considerations. Information is
generally obtained from literature reports, range maps and
habitat evaluations.
Birds. The bird community represents a significant wetland
community and is generally included in wildlife surveys. Birds
can constitute a signficant recreational resource (hunting/bird-
watching) and may involve protected species considerations.
Some studies have utilized birds as subjects for bioaccumulation
studies or as potential disease vectors.
Mammals. Baseline studies of mammal populations generally
require several years of data to establish parameter variability.
This level of effort is beyond the scope of most wetland dis-
charge studies with the exceptions of long-term research and
post discharge monitoring projects. Impacts to mammals from
wetland discharge systems would be nominal under most circum-
stances. Therefore, most mammal data from these projects
-------
Table 9-10 Common Parameters and Methods for the Analysis of Aquatic Fauna.
(I = Invertebrates; F = Fish)
METHODS
SpeciesSpeciesRelative
Composition Diversity Abundance Density Blomass tlvlty
PARAMETERS
Produc-
Age Dis- Sex
Fecundity trlbutlon Ratio Condition
I
I
Qua!itative Samp I ing
Quantitative Sampling
Net Collection Methods I,F
Artificial Substrate Methods I
Electrofishing Methods F
Chemical Collection Methods F
Indirect Sampling Methods F
Wet Weight
Dry Weight
Ash-free Weight
Average Cohort Method
Hynes-Coleman Method
Direct Measurement
Age-Length Frequencies
Scale Analysis
Otolith Analysis
Bioassay
Habitat Requirements
Commercial Data F
Museum Specimen Review I,F
Literature Review I ,F
Taxonomic Keys I.F
I.F
I
F
F
I.F
I.F
I.F
I.F
-------
Table 9-11 Comparative Matrix Methods - Ecology/Aquatic Fauna
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
METHODS
Qualitative Sampling
Quant I tat 1 ve Samp 1 1 ng
Net Col lection Methods
Artificial Substrate Methods
Electrof Ishlng Methods
Chemical Collection Methods
Indirect Sampling Methods
Wet Weight
Dry Weight
Ash-free Weight
Average Cohort Method
Hynes-Coleman Method
Direct Measurement
Age-Length Frequencies
Scale Analysis
Otollth Analysis
Bloassay
Habitat Requirements
Commercial Data
Museum Specimen Review
Literature Review
Taxonomlc Keys
Species Association
•References:
1. APHA 1980
2. Bennett 1971
3. Edmondson 1959
4. Edmondson and WInberg 1971
5. EPA 1975
6. Gannon and Stemberger 1975
7. Hutch Inson 1967
8. Hynes 1970
REFERENCES* APPLICABILITY** Tost
1.2,3,4.5,9,10,11.
12,14
1,2,3,4,5,9,10,11,
14
1,3,4,5,9,10,11,14
1,4,12,14
4,9,10,13,14
4,9,10,13,14
2,3,4,9,15
1,2,4,5,9,10,13,14
1.4,14,15,16
1,5,14,16
4,16
4,16
1,2.3.4,9,10,13,14
1,2,4,9,10,14
4,9,10,13
4,9,10,13
1,9,10,14
2
-
-
5,6,7,8,9,14
PS Low
DE.ERL.PDM Moderate
DE.ERC.PDM Moderate
DE.PDM Moderate
DE,ERC,PDM High
DE Moderate
PS.DE.PDM Low
DE,PDM Low
DE.PDM Low
DE,PDM Low
DE.PDM High
DE.PDM High
DE.PDM Low
DE.PDM Low
DE.PDM Moderate
DE.PDM Moderate
DE.ERC.PDM.OSA High
PS, DE.ERC.PDM Moderate
PS.DE.ERC.PDM Low
DE.PDM Moderate
PS, DE.ERC.PDM.OSA Moderate
DE.ERC.PDM Moderate
PS.DE.ERC.PPM Moderate
9. Lagler 1956
10. Rlcker (ed.) 1968
11. Schwoerbel 1970
12. Southwood 1966
13. Weather ley 1972
14. Weber 1973
15. Welch 1948
16. WInberg 1971
Personnel
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Time
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Low
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Equipment
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
•"Applicability: PS = Preliminary Site Survey; DE - Detailed Site Evaluation; ERC - Environmental Review
Criteria; OSA - On-slte Assessment; POM - Post Discharge Monitoring.
•£>
I
-------
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 9-53
would be expected to be based on existing studies, habitat
requirements and availability, range maps, reported sightings
and minimal direct collection studies. Due to the mobility of
most mammals, impacts from wetland discharges would be diffi-
cult to demonstrate.
Parameters and Methods. Terrestrial faunal investigations
apply only to Tier 2 projects. The basic requirement is for
descriptions of species composition and distribution. More
detailed descriptions are required on a project specific basis.
Selected methods for parameters and method references and
resource requirements are summarized in Tables 9-12 and 9-13.
-------
Table 9-12 Common Parameters and Methods for the Analysis of Terrestrial Fauna.
(B « Birds; A = Amphlblans/ReptIles; M * Mammals)
Species
METHODS Compos 1 1 1 on
Whole Area Counts
Time-Area Counts
Strip Counts
Roadside Counts
Auditory Counts
Indicator Counts
Night-Light Counts
Aerial Census
Mark-Recapture Method
Removal Trapping
Non-Removal Trapping
Scent Stations
Opportunistic Observations
Range Maps
Community Evaluation
Habitat Evaluation
Museum Specimens
Taxonomic Keys
Literature Review
Interviews
B
B.M
B.A.M
A.M
B.A
B.M
M
B.M
B.A.M
M
B.A.M
M
A
B.A
B
B.M
B.A.M
B.A.M
B.A.M
Species
Diversity
B
B.M
B.M.
M
B
B
M
B.M
B.M
M
B.M
B
B.M
B.M
Relative —
Abundance
B
B.M
B.A.M
A.M
B.A
B
M
B.M
B.A.M
M
B.A.M
A
B
B.A.M
PARAMETERS
Dlstrl-
Density button
B B
B.M B.M
B.M. B.A.M
M A.M
B B.A
B.M
M M
B.M B.M
B.A.M B.A.M
M M
M B.A.M
M
A
B.A
B
BA U
fn fit
B.M B.A.M
B.A.M
Occurence Occurence Ratio Ratio
B B B
B.M B B
B.A.M B B
M
B B
M B
M
B.M B B
B.A.M B B.A M B.A.M
M MM
B.A.M B B.A.M B.A.M
M
A
B
B.A.M B B.A.M B.A.M
B
I
-p-
-------
9-55 .
Table 9-13 Comparative Matrix of Methods - Ecology/Terrestrial Fauna
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
METHODS
Whole Area Counts
Time-Area Counts
Strip Counts
Roadside Counts
Auditory Counts
Indicator Counts
Nlght-Llght Counts
Aerial Census
Mark-Recapture Method
Remove 1 Trapp 1 ng
Non-Removal Trapping
Scent Stations
Opportunistic Observations
Range Maps
Community Evaluation
Habitat Evaluation
Museum Specimens
Taxonomlc Keys
Literature Reviews
Interviews
*Ref erences :
1. Albers 1976
2. A (corn 1971
3. Anderson et al. 1972
4. Anderson et al. 1976
5. Bear 1969
6. Berthold 1976
7. Brewer 1972
8. Brower and Zar 1977
9. Brown 1974
10. Cauqhley 1974
11. Cochran & Stains 1961
12. Cralghead & Cralqhead
13. Daniel et al. 1971
14. Diem and Lu 1960
15. Dolbeer & Clark 1975
16. Eberhardt 1971
REFERENCES*
1,6,12,32,37,39,43
6,23,27,32,37
4,6,18,19,24,30,41
1,6,7,12,14,29,32,
2,5,25,26,37,43
11,12,13,22,32,36
3,5,37,40,43
5,10,14,20,31,46
23,27,37,43,47
27,28,37,43,48
15,17,23,37,43
33,34,48
27,37,43,44
12,27,37,43,44
8,16,27,38
3,8,9,21,45,46
1969
17. Edwards & Eberhardt 1967
18. Emlen 1971
19. Emlen 1977
20. Enderson 1970
21. Evans & Gilbert 1969
22. Ferguson 1955
23. Flyger 1959
24. Franzreb 1976
APPLICABILITY** Cos+ Personnel
DE,PDM Moderate Moderate
DE,PDM Moderate Moderate
DE.PDM Moderate Moderate
42 DE,POM Moderate Moderate
DE.PDM Moderate Moderate
DE.PDM Moderate Moderate
DE.PDM Moderate Moderate
DE.PDM High Moderate
DE.PDM High Moderate
DE.PDM High Moderate
DE.PDM High Moderate
DE.PDM High Moderate
PS,DE,ERC,PDM Moderate Moderate
PS,DE,ERC,PDM Low Low
DE.PDM Moderate Moderate
PS,DE,ERC,PDM Moderate Moderate
DE.PDM Moderate Moderate
DE.PDM Low Moderate
PS,DE,ERC Low Low
PS,DE,ERC,POM Low Low
25. Gates 1966
26. Gates & Smith 1972
27. Go 1 ley et al. 1975
28. Hayne 1949
29. Howe II 1951
30. Jarvlnen & Valsanen 1975
31. Kadlec & Drury 1968
32. Kendelgh 1944
33. Llnhart & Knowlton 1973
34. Ltnhart & Knowlton 1975
35. Lord 1959
36. Neff 1968
37. Overton 1971
38. Plelou 1975
39 Porter 1974
40. Progulske & Duerre 1964
41. Roblnette et al . 1974
42. Sauder et al. 1971
43. Seber 1973
44. Stebblns 1966
45. Thllenlus 1972
46. USFWS & Canadian WS 1977
47. Wllber 1975
48. Wood 1959
Time
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
•
Equlpn
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Modera
High
Modera
Modera
Modera
Modera
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low '
Low
Low
**ApplIcablIIty: PS = Preliminary Site Survey; DE - Detailed Site Evaluation; ERC - Environmental Review
Criteria; OSA - Effluent Assessment; POM - Post Discharge Monitoring.
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
9.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
Many aspects of wetland assessments deal with the inter-
active nature of wetland processes and values. Hydrologic
characteristics can be controlled by geology. Likewise, the type
of vegetation can be impacted by hydrology, soils and vegeta-
tion. Under some circumstances vegetation can affect water
chemistry, and under others water chemistry can affect vegeta-
tion. The same interaction exists between wildlife and vegeta-
tion. These types of interdependences need to be considered in
evaluating a potential wetlands discharge and associated data
assessments. Three major types of interactive, or ecological,
assessments should be evaluated:
1. Wetlands functions and values
2. Assimilative capacity
3. Habitat associations
9.4.1 Wetlands Functions and Values
Several integrative methods to assess wetlands functions and
values have been developed. Five such methods are summarized
on Table 9-14.
The Adamus and Stockwell methodology is widely accepted as
the most comprehensive technique for assessing wetland func-
tions. This method was prepared for evaluating the effects of
highway development on wetlands but has a broader range of
applicability. The two volume document describing the method
addresses the fundamental aspects of wetland functions and
values. While it provides much useful information for wetlands
analyses, including those for wastewater management, its appli-
cation requires a knowledgeable wetland scientist. For wet-
lands wastewater management applications in particular, the
method provides detailed information that would not be required
of most potential dischargers. However, the method should be
useful to potential dischargers for characterizing wetland
functions and values, which is an important aspect of a wetlands
wastewater assessment. The other methods listed in Table 9-14
also have potential application for assessing wetlands functions
and values. A numerical weighting system is used by some
methods to help quantify the techniques for the purpose of
comparing wetlands characteristics.
These methods are applicable for evaluating wetlands
functions and values for wastewater management assessments.
The selection of which technique to use might be based on the
amount of information required for decision making. Generally,
in order of increasing sophistication and decreasing ease of use,
these integrative methods vary as follows:
-------
Table 9-14 Parameters and Methods for the Analysis of the Wetlands Functions and Values Component.
METHODS
FHWA Michigan Manual
(Adamus & for Wetland
Stockwel 1 ) Evaluation Techniques
Delineation of Natural
Dra 1 nage/Storage
Watershed Characteristics
Uniqueness
Cultural Resources
Economic Values
Cost Assessments
Size
Soils
Wetland Type
Hydro logic Classification
Hydroperlod
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater Discharge
Meteoro logic Influences
Flood Storage
Shoreline Anchoring
Sediment Trapping
Water Quality
Nutrient Retention
Vegetation Assessments
Primary Production
Food Chain
Fisheries Habitat
Wildlife Habitat
X
X
-
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
Maryland Wetlands
Evaluation
(McCormlck & Somes)
-
X
X
-
-
X
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
-
X
Wetlands Study of
Semi note County
(Brown & Starnes)
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
X
Ontario
Wetland
Evaluation
X
-
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
-
X
X
X
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
1. Michigan
2. Ontario, Brown and Starnes, McCormick and Somes
3. Adamus and Stockwell.
9.4.2 Assimilative Capacity
Determining the assimilative capacity of a wetland generally
requires an additional level of analysis than typically required
for assessing wetland characteristics. The determination of
assimilative capacity is often difficult because the processes
controlling assimilation are not fully understood nor identified.
Further difficulties are often introduced because the "overall"
assimilative capacity of a wetland is evaluated rather than that
of specific elements. For example, Richardson (1985) has shown
that in some wetlands the fraction of extractable aluminum in the
soil may be the best indicator of phosphorus removal potential.
For other constituents, water depth or velocity may be the most
important determinants. These analyses can, therefore, be com-
plicated due to the interactive nature of wetlands processes.
In evaluating assimilative capacity, identifying the
components for which assimilation is desired should be the first
step. Second, the processes controlling the assimilation of these
components should be evaluated. Third, the driving forces of
these processes should be analyzed. The methods described for
evaluating wetlands functions and values also provide
information on assimilative capacity. For example, Adamus
(1983) indicates the type of wetlands that might be expected to
provide greater nutrient or sediment removal based on a series
of wetland characteristics.
Other means for assessing assimilation are presented by
Chan et al (1981) by analyzing the nutrient or metal removal
potential of various vegetation types. Although vegetation
comprise a smaller nutrient and metal removal compartment than
soils for most wetlands, vegetation is important in assimilation.
The following characteristics have been observed to affect
the assimilative capacity of a wetland:
1. Meandering channels, with slow-moving water and large
surface areas, enhance settleable pollutant removal by sed-
imentation.
2. Groundwater seepage wetlands or shallow flow regimes are
effective for removal of pollutants such as phosphorus and
metals by adsorption to the soil.
3. Groundwater seepage wetlands, meadows and thickly vege-
tated wetlands are particularly useful for filtering colloidal
suspensions and where filtration is important.
4. Nitrogen removal by denitrification will occur in anaerobic
bottom sediments common to wetlands. Deeper areas, where
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
sediments and organic detritus can accumulate in an
anaerobic environment could be designed into a wetland
intended for nitrogen removal.
5. BOD removal in wetlands is accomplished by microorganisms.
Optimal BOD removal will be achieved where there is greater
surface area (soil, plant stems, leaves and roots) for
microbial growth, uniform distribution fo the BOD load, and
adequate dissolved oxygen. Open water surfaces in the
wetland will increase oxygen transfer to the water. Oxygen
in the surface water also keeps orthophosphate
precipitated.
6. Because many types of vegetation are selective in their
accumulation and biomagnification of various heavy metals,
mixed stands of vegetation may provide the best overall
heavy metals removal.
7. Varied or mixed wetland systems containing features of
ponding for sedimentation, shallow areas for adsorption by
soil, and mixed vegetation, have high potential for treating
municipal wastewaters.
8. Rapid plant growth, generally associated with harvesting,
optimizes nutrient removal. For such applications, a
monoculture system, such as a hyacinth pond, can be very
effective. However, large amounts of vegetation must be
harvested.
9.4.3 Habitat Evaluations
The interactive nature of wetland systems can be utilized in
habitat evaluations to summarize the value or predicted impacts
to various wetland communities. An assessment of habitat and
habitat values with either a quantitative or qualitative method is
utilized in almost all wetland evaluations. Habitat is the
combination of biotic and abiotic factors at a given site. The
value of a habitat must be assessed in relation to a specified
purpose or species (i.e., water fowl breeding or white tailed
deer). The assessment of terrestrial habitat is often largely
based on vegetation, soil moisture, slope and proximity to
water. Aquatic habitat is generally assessed in terms of
substrate type, flow, water quality and vegetation. The
evaluation of wetland habitat involves combinations of all these
factors. Habitat evaluations are generally not required in
NPDES permits but may be appropriate for wetland discharges.
The assessment of wetland habitat is used extensively to
evaluate the possibility or likelihood of the presence of wildlife
and protected species.
Wetland Habitat Procedures. Table 9-15 summarizes the
analytical factors utilized in five different methods for wetland
habitat evaluation. These five examples are representative of
the many methods which have been utilized for habitat
evaluations.
-------
Table 9-15 Factors and Methods for the Analysis of Wetland Habitat
9-60
METHODS
FACTORS
Aquatic Habitat
Terrestrial Habitat
Professional Judgment
Dependent
Quantitative
Dependent
Field Surveys
Map Interpretation
Aerial Photo Interpretation
Habitat Qua 1 ity
Evaluation Species
Computer Modeling
Land Use Patterns
Hydraulic Structure
Hydraul ic Patterns
Hydraul ic Modification
Water Qual ity
Vegetation
Wi Idl ife Requirements
Reproductive Requirements
HEP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Whi taker
HES Hamor & McCuen Baskett et al.
X X
X XX X
X
XXX
XXX X
XXX X
XXX X
XXX X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
XXX X
XX X
X
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS 9-6
The Hamor (1974) method for evaluating habitats is the most
rapid, but least reproducible, and is highly dependent on
professional judgement. The method requires a minimum of field
work and estimates the quality value of habitat based on the
presence, absence or condition of a few critical variables. The
quality value is multiplied by habitat area to obtain comparable
units for alternative evaluations. Habitat evaluations are based
on habitat types, but can be made species specific for protected
species or target organisms.
The HES method (COE 1980) is more specific than the Hamor
method and requires more detailed information. The calculation
of a standardized unit (Habitat Quality Index) allows for the
comparison of impacts to dissimilar habitats. The evaluation of
habitat quality can be made with relative ease in the field. The
method evaluates key variables for specific habitat types and
does not directly evaluate the habitat value for specific target
species.
The handbook developed by Baskett et al. (1980) represents
a hybrid of the Hamor and HES approaches. Evaluation criteria
are established for specific target species by habitat type.
Habitat unit values are calculated by numerical scoring at
habitat characteristics. Project impacts to specific species can
be evaluated by performing calculations with and without the
project.
The method developed by Whitaker and McCuen (1975) and
the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) of the USFWS (1980)
are similar. Both methods evaluate habitat quality by use of a
computer model, but the data requirements for the Whitaker and
McCuen procedure are less. Only limited field work is required,
and the method relies heavily on professional judgement. The
evaluation method uses land use and a vegetation condition
assessment to estimate the habitat value for two groups of
wildlife species: woodland and open land. Species specific
evaluations are not included in the procedure.
HEP (USFWS 1980) is the most comprehensive and information
intensive of the habitat evaluation methods. Field investigations
and computer modeling is required by the method. The proce-
dure calculates the number of Habitat Units for a target species
based on the area of available habitat and the suitability of the
habitat to the target species.
Protected Species. The presence of a protected species from
either a federal or state list can significantly impact the
feasibility, cost and schedule of a project. While an initial
assessment of the probability of the presence of a protected
species can be quickly conducted in the preliminary screening
step, a complete analysis of potential impacts can be extremely
involved. Therefore, a series of procedures are generally used
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
to evaluate this resource including range maps, reported sight-
ings, habitat evaluations, seasonal presence or requirements
and direct sampling.
Table 9-16 is the federal list of protected species associated
with wetlands. Tables 9-17 to 9-24 list protected species for
each Region IV state. However, the list of species and status of
species are subject to change. Applicants are encouraged to
coordinate all protected species investigations with the appro-
priate state and federal agencies (Section 9.6) .
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS 9-6
Table 9-16. United Stated Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
List of Wetland-dependent Endangered (E) and Threatened (T)
Species Endemic to Region IV.
Status
Distribution
its
Florida panther (Fells concolor coryt)
Birds
Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensls pulla)
Bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus)
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrlnus)
Bachman's warbler (VermIvora bachmanli)
Everglade kite (Rostrhamus soclabllls plumbeus)
Cape Sable seaside sparrow
(Ammosplza maritime mlrabllls)
Dusky seaside sparrow
(Ammosplza maritime nlqrescens)
Ivory bl I led woodpecker (Campephllus principal Is)
Brown pe11 can
(Pelecanus occI dentails carollnensls)
taphlblam and Reptiles
American alligator (Alligator mlsslsslpplensls)
American alligator ((A 111gator mIssIss IppI ens Is)
Pine barrens treefroq (HyTa andersonl) """
Fish
Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrym)
Oka loosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae)
T
E
AL, FL, GA, MS, SC,TN
MS
AL, FL, GA, KY,MS,NC, SC, TN
AL, FL, 6A, KY, NC,SC, TN
AL, FL, GA, KY, MS.NC, SC, TN
FL
FL
FL
FL
AL, FL, GA, MS, NC.SC
AL, GA, MS, NC, SC
FL, GA, SC
FL
MS
FL
'Alligator populations are threatened In Florida and coastal areas of Georgia
and South Carolina.
Source: Adapted from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service List of
Threatened and Endangered Species of Fish and Wildlife (50 CFR
17.11)
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS 9-
Table 9-17. List of Wetland-Dependent Species in Alabama of
Endangered Status (E) Threatened Status (T) and
Special Concern Status (S).
Status
ils
Florida black bear (Ursus americanus florldanus) E
Florida panther (Fells cohcolor coryllE
Southeastern shrew (Sorex longlrostls) S
Marsh rabbit (Sylvilaqus palustrls palustrls) S
Bayou grey squirrel (sciurus carol Inensls fu"l Iglnosus) S
Meadow Jumping Mouse "Qapus Kudsonlus americanus) S
Fish
Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boscnungl) T
Broadstripe shiner (Notropls euryzonus) S
Brindled madtom (Noturus tnlurus)S
Birds
BaId eagIe (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) E
Osprey (Pandlon hallaetus) E
Peregrine falcon (Fa Ico peregrInus) E
Bachman's warbler (Vermlvora bachmanlI) E
Ivory-billed woodpecker (CampephIlus principal Is) E
Little blue heron (Florida caeruleaT S
Wood stork (MycterI a amerIcana) S
SwaI Iow-tai led kite (Elanoldes" forf Icatus) S
Sandhill crane (Grus "canadenslslS
Amphibians and R«ptll«s
Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma clnqulatum) E
American alligator (Alligator mlsslssIpplensls) T
Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensls) T
River frog (Rana heckscherl) S
Greater siren (Siren lacertlna) S
Florida green water snake (NTFrlx eye I op ion floridana) S
North Florida black swamp snake (SeminatrTx' pygaea pygaea) S
Source: Adapted from Boschung. 1976.
-------
Table 9-18. List of Wetland-Dependent Species in Florida of
Endangered Status (E) Threatened Status (T) and
Special Concern Status (S)
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSICNTS
Status
ils
Pallid beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus decoloratus)
Florida panther (Fells concolor coryI)
Choctawhatchee beach mouse (Peromyscus polIonotus allopyhrys)
Perdido Bay beach mouse (Peromyscus polIonotus trisyI IepsIs)
Florida black bear (Ursus~amer leanus f lorldanusl
Everglades mink (Mustela~vison evergfadensls)
Fish
Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae)
Crystal darter (Ammocrypta asprella)
Saltmarsh topmlnnow (Fundulus Jenkins!)
Birds
Wood stork (Mycterla amerlcana)
Everglade kite (RosTrhamus sociabllls)
Peregrine falcon"~?Falco peregrlnusl
Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephllus principal Is)
Bachman's warbler (Vermlvora bachmanII)
Dusky seaside sparrow (Amrnosp'lza marlTlma nlgrescens)
Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Amnios'p'iza marl'tlnia mlrabllls)
Eastern brown pelican (Pelecanus occidental Is carol Inensls)
Bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephaTusl
Audubon's caracara (Caracara cnerlway audubonl)
Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensfsl
Roseate tern (Sterna douga 11 l"H
Little blue heron (Florida caerulea)
Snowy egret (Egretta thula)
Louisiana heron (HfydVanassa tricolor)
/taphibiaiis and Reptiles
Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonl)
Florida brown snake (Storeria dekayi victa)
American alligator (Alligator missfsslpplens Is)
ft
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
'Classified as endangered on the federal list.
Source: Adapted from Pritchard. 1978.
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
Table 9-19. List of Wetland-Dependent Species in Georgia of
Endangered Status (E) Threatened Status (T), Rare
Status (R) or Unusual Status (U)
Status
ils
Florida panther (Fells concolor caryl) E
Fish
none
Birds
Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephllus principal Is) E
Peregrine falcon (Falco pereqrlnus) E
Southern bald eagle (Ha"! laeetus leucocephalus leucpcephalus) E
Brown pel lean (Pelecanus occidental Is carol Inensls)T
Bachman's warbler (Vermivbra bachmanlHE
Aaphlblans and Reptiles
American alligator (Alligator mlsslssIpplensIs) E/T1
'American alligator Is an endangered species along the Georgia coastal
plain and a threatened species in coastal areas.
Source: Adapted from Odom et al. (eds). 1977.
Table 9-20. List of Wetland-Dependent Species In Kentucky of
the Endangered Status (E) Threatened Status (T), or
Rare Status (R)1.
Status
ils
Cougar (Pel Is concolor) E
River otter (Lutra canadensls) R
Black bear (Ursus amerlcanusT R
Swamp rabbltTSy I vl lagus aquatlcus) R
Fish
Mud darter (Etheostoma asprlgene) R
Birds
Bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) E
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrlnus) E
Osprey (Pandlon hallaetus) R
Mississippi kite (Ictlnla mlslslpplensls) R
Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) "~ R
Aaphlblan* and Reptile*
Western lesser siren (Siren Intermedia) R
Western bird voiced treefrog (Hyla avTvoca avlvoca) R
Green treefrog (Hyla clnera clnerea) R
Western mud snake (Farancla abacura relnwardtl) R
Green water snake (Natrix eye I op Ion eve I op I on) R
scle" '
Broad-banded water snake (Natrix fasciata confluens) R
Alligator snapping turtle 7MacrocTemys tenimlnckl) R
Slider (Chrysemys conclnna hieroglyph lea) R
'Rare species are protected (except rats, mice and shrews) by Kentucky
statutes unless there is a regulation permitting them to be taken.
Source: Adapted from Parker and Dixon. 1980.
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
Table 9-21. List of Wetland-Dependent Species in Mississippi of
the Endangered Status (E) and Threatened Status (T).
Status
ils
Florida panther (Pel Is concolor coryl ) E
Black bear (Ursus amerlcanus) T
Fish
Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum) E
Crystal darter (Ammocrypta asprel la) E
Birds
Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensls pull a) E
Bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) ~ E
Peregrine falcon tFalco peregr I nysT" E
Bachman's warbler (Verml'vora bachmanl I ) E
Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campeph I lus principal Is) E
and Reptiles
Rainbow snake (Farancla erytrogramma) E
eryt
American alligator (Al I ["gator mlsslsslpplensls) E
Black-nobbed sawback turtle (Graptemvs nlgrInoda) E
Ringed sawback turtle (Graptemys ocul I'fera)T
temva
OCU I
Ye I low-blotched sawback turtle (6raptemyT"f lavlmaculata) T
Source: Adapted from the Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation
Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife, Public Notice No. 21S6.
Table 9-22. List of Wetland Dependent Species In North Carolina
of the Endangered Status (E) and Threatened Status (T)
Status
Eastern cougar (Fells concolor cougar) £
Fish None
Birds
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrInus) E
Artie peregrine falcon (Falco pe'reqrlnus tundrls) E
Bachman's warbler (VermIvora bachmanlI) E
Bald eagle (Hallaeefus leucocephalus) £
I vory-blI lea nooapecker (CampephIlus principal Is) E
Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidental Is) £
Aaphlblan* and Reptile*
American alligator (Alligator mlsslsslpplensls) £
Source: Adapted from Parker and Dlxon. 1980.
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
Table 9-23. List of Wetland Dependent Species In South Carolina
of the Endangered Status (E) and Threatened Status (T).
Status
Us
Eastern cougar (Fells concolor cougar) E
Fish
None
Birds
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrlnus) E
Bachman's warbler (Vermlvora bachmanll) "~ E
Eastern brown pel lean (Pelecanus occTd'ental I s carol Inensis) E
Golden eagle (Aqulla chrysaetos) E
SwaI Iow-ta11ed kite (Elanoldes~forf Icatus) E
Wood stork (Mycterla amer I cana") T
Cooper's hawk (AccTp"! ter cooper 11) T
American osprey~?PandIon hallaetus) T
Amphibians and Reptiles
Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonl) E
American alI I gator (Alligator mississlpplensls) E
Source: Adapted front Parker and Dlxon. 1980.
Table 9-24. List of Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species In Tennessee
of the Endangered Status (E) and Threatened Status (T)
•__ Status
Us
Eastern cougar (Pel Is concolor cougar) E
Florida panther (Fe11s~concoIor coryl) E
RIver otter (Lutra canadensls) T
Fish
Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungl) T
Trispot darter (Etheostoma trI sell a) T
Birds
Bachman's warbler (Vermlvora bachmanll) E
Peregrine falcon (FaIco pereqrInus) E
Bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) E
Ivory-blI Ied woodpecker (campepniI us principal Is) E
Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidental Isl E
Mississippi kite (IctfnTa mislslppiensis) E
Osprey (Pandlon hallaetus) E
Marsh hawk (ClTcus cyaneus hudsonlus) T
Black-crowned night heron (Nyctlcorax nyctlcorax) T
Amphibians and Reptile*
Western pigmy rattlesnake (Slstrurus mlllarlus stlcckerl) T
Source: Adapted from Eagar and Hatcher. 1980.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
9.5 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the fresh-
water wetland must be considered in evaluating the use of
the wetland for wastewater management. This section
presents a method for estimating water flows, velocities,
depth, residence times, and areas-of-inundation in wetlands
under natural conditions and after the application of waste-
water. The method considers the following wetland types
(see Table 2-1) and geometric cross-sections:
1. Closed Hydrologic System (e.g., cypress domes,
Carolina bays, pocosins)
2. Open Hydrologic System with identifiable stream
channel (e.g., bottomland hardwood swamp)
a. Channel with rectangular cross-section
b. Channel with trapezoidal cross-section
c. Channel with triangular cross-section
3. Open Hydrologic System with no identifiable stream
channel (e.g., marsh, cypress stands)
a. Wetland with rectangular cross-section
b. Wetland with triangular cross-section
4. Open Hydrologic System with outflow controlled by
some structure.
The method presented in this section is designed as a
screening technique to assess the magnitude of the effects
of a wastewater discharge to a wetland. The method should
be used with extreme care in karst topography or in
wetlands with unsaturated soils. The method has not been
verified and continuing efforts need to be made to evaluate
the method using newly available data on wetland hydrology
and hydraulics. Care should be taken to utilize
conservative assumptions in using these techniques.
The hydrology and hydraulic analysis methodology
includes three levels of analysis: a basic analysis; a
seasonal analysis; and a refined analysis. The basic
analysis is used as an initial screening procedure with a
minimum of data. The seasonal analysis is 'used when
wastewater is to be applied at varying rates through the
year or when seasonal variability in hydrology and climate
are known to occur in the wetland. The refined analysis is
used for unique or sensitive wetlands or when basic and/or
seasonal analyses indicate the potential for large changes in
wetland hydrology due to wastewater application.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-70
A basic analysis is performed to estimate the changes
in annual average wetland hydrologic characteristics based
on published data available on climatology, topography, and
geohydrology and site-specific data obtained on a one-day
survey of the wetland. The survey would include iden-
tification of channel width and bankheight, vegetation
distribution in the wetland, and a hand-level determination
of the elevation change across the wetland perpendicular to
the general topographic slope of the wetland.
The seasonal analysis is performed to estimate changes
in wetland hydrologic characteristics based on seasonal
data. Seasonal analysis methods are the same as basic
analysis methods with the exception that the seasonal
analysis requires monthly data from published sources in
addition to the site-specific data obtained for the basic
analysis.
A refined analysis should be performed if the proposed
wetland system is unique or sensitive, or if an evaluation of
the basic or seasonal hydrologic analyses indicates that the
wetland would be significantly affected by the wastewater
application. A refined analysis also should be performed if
the hydraulic characteristics are unsuitable for necessary
wastewater pollutant removals. Data collection could include
at least one year of measurements of surface water inflows
and outflows, precipitation, evapotranspiration, water
surface elevations, ground water elevations at several
locations, and flow path and velocity measurements using
tracer studies at various locations in the wetland.
Depth, velocity and area-of-inundation data collected
for the refined analysis would be compared with predictions
made using the basic or seasonal analysis methodologies
(water budget and Manning's equation). Inputs to these
analyses would be adjusted so that they would reproduce
observed field data under existing flow conditions. These
analyses would then be performed for conditions present
with the application of wastewater to the wetland.
9.5.1 Basic Analysis
A basic wetland hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is
performed using annual averages of hydrologic and climatic
data. The analysis is designed to assess the potential for a
significant change in hydrology resulting from the applica-
tion of wastewater to the wetland. The analysis is useful
as a preliminary screening tool to identify situations in
which the wastewater application could cause major changes
in hydrology. Because it is based on annual averages it
ignores important wetland characteristics such as response
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-71
under wet and dry conditions and hydroperiod. If these
features are of critical importance, a seasonal analysis is
required .
A flow chart outlining the basic analysis is presented
in Figure 9-5. The analysis is performed in three steps.
The first step is to consider the wetland in its current
state; that is, unaltered by any wastewater application.
The second step is to consider the wetland hydrology and
hydraulics with the application of a known wastewater
volume. The third step is to compare hydrologic and
hydraulic characteristics of flows in the wetland prior to
and with the wastewater application. Depending on the
magnitude of the changes, additional seasonal or refined
analyses may be required.
Both steps one and two in the analysis are conducted
in two parts. First, a water budget is calculated for the
wetland to determine water inflows and outflows. Second,
depths of flow, velocities, area-of-inundation , and residence
time are estimated, using Manning's equation.
The following discussion describes the water budget
analysis, the Manning's equation analysis, the data require-
ments and the application of the analysis methodology to
various wetland situations.
Water Budget Analysis
A water budget analysis is performed to estimate
surface water flows in the wetland. The water budget
equation relates the change in water volume stored in the
wetland over a specified time period to the difference in
water volume inflows to and outflows from the wetland.
The water budget equation may be written as:
where: AS = volume change of water stored in the
wetland during a specified time
interval, t
t = time interval over which water budget
is calculated
P = precipitation volume falling on the
wetland during t
Q1 = surface water volume flowing into the
wetland at its upstream end during t
Q. = lateral overland flow volume flowing
into the wetland during t
G- = ground water volume flowing into the
wetland during t
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-72
Figure 9-5. Flow chart for a basic analysis.
BASIC ANALYSIS
1
EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH WASTEWATER APPLICATION
(STEP 1) (STEP 2)
I I
WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS
(PART 1) (PART 1)
I 1
MANNING'S EQUATION ANALYSIS MANNING'S EQUATION ANALYSIS
(PART 2) (PART 2)
^HYDROLOGIC CHANGE ANALYSIS
(PART 3)
ADDITIONAL HYDROLOGIC/
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
REQUIRED
/ \
SEASONAL ANALYSIS REFINED ANALYSIS
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~73
W = wastewater volume applied to the wet-
land during t
Q = surface water volume flowing out of
the wetland at its downstream end
during t
G, = groundwater volume flowing out of the
wetland during t
E = evapotranspiration volume leaving the
wetland during t
In a basic analysis, site-specific data on the components of
the water budget generally will not be available. To deter-
mine surface water outflows from the wetland it is necessary
to perform the water budget analysis assuming a time inter-
val of one year; that is, an annual water budget. Further-
more, the assumption is made that on an annual basis there
is no change in the volume of water stored in the wetland
(i.e., AS = 0). Consequently, on an annual basis the
inputs to a wetland are assumed to equal the outputs from
the wetland:
P + Qt + QL + Gl + W = E + Q2 + G2
Manning's Equation Analysis
Manning's equation is commonly used to characterize
flow conditions in open channels and in flood plains adjacent
to the channel. The equation relates discharge (Q) to
wetland slope (S), the roughness of the channel or wetland
(n), the cross-sectional area of flow (A), and the length of
ground surface in contact with the water being discharged
(i.e., wetted perimeter, P). The equation is commonly
written as:
Q = 1.49 n'1 A R 2/3 S 1/2
where R is the hydraulic radius which is equal to the area
divided by the wetted perimeter (A/P). Detailed dis-
cussions of the assumptions behind the equation and in the
application of the equation are provided in standard open
channel flow textbooks (e.g., Chow 1959; Henderson 1966).
Manning's equation is strictly applicable only under
conditions of uniform flow in which the depth, water cross-
sectional area, velocity, and discharge in a channel reach
are constant. Uniform flow also requires that the energy
gradient, water surface, and channel bottom have the same
slope. In natural streams and particularly wetlands, uni-
form flow rarely exists; however, the uniform flow condition
is often used in computations of flow characteristics in
natural streams. Consequently, the use of Manning's
equation must be viewed as a means of approximating flow
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
conditions in wetlands and is presented here as a simple
mathematical tool for screening hydrologic changes in wet-
lands due to the application of wastewater.
The Manning's equation analysis is completed to esti-
mate the depth of flow in the wetland for a known dis-
charge (Q), slope (S), roughness coefficient (n), and
cross-sectional geometry. The discharge is determined in
the water budget analysis. The slope and cross-section
geometry are determined from topographic maps and/or a
site survey. Channel or wetland cross-section geometries
discussed in this handbook include rectangular, trapezoidal,
and triangular shapes. A step-by-step discussion of the
Manning's equation analysis is provided later in this section
under the heading "Application to Various Wetland Hydro-
logic Situations."
Data Requirements
The preceding parts of Section 9.5.1 discussed a water
budget analysis to determine flows within a wetland and
Manning's equation analysis to estimate depths associated
with these flows. The data required to support the water
budget and Manning's equation analyses are tabulated in
Table 9-25. Data are either obtained from published
sources, from government data bases, or from a one-day
wetland site survey.
A basic analysis requires a one-day site survey to
obtain data on wetland area, vegetation distribution, de-
tailed topography, and channel /wetland geometry. Wetland
area and vegetation distribution should be noted on a topo-
graphic map during the walk-through survey of the site.
For a closed hydrologic system, vegetation should be
studied to determine the approximate location of the annual
average area-of-inundation. This determination will require
the services of a wetland ecologist. Photographs of the
wetland should be taken for reference purposes. These
photographs can then be used in conjunction with Chow
(1959) and Arcement and Schneider (1984) to estimate
values for Manning's-n.
The main activity of the one-day site survey is to
produce a detailed map of the wetland topography. A
minimum of five transects should be made across the wet-
land perpendicular to the slope of the wetland. Elevations
at increments of 0.5 feet should be determined in the
transects. Elevations should be determined relative to an
arbitrary datum such as the upstream- or downstream-end
of the wetland. Distances along the transect can be
measured either by pacing or with a tape measure. Eleva-
tions should be measured with a surveyor's rod and a hand
level or transit. Transect paths should be across portions
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-7:
Table 9-25. Data requirements and sources
for a basic analysis.
Water Budget Analysis
Component
Precipitation (P)
Surface Water Inflow (Q )
Wastewater Application
Flowrate (W)
Evapotranspiration (E)
Surface Water Outflow (Q.)
Ground water Flow (G,
Wetland Area (A )
W
Drainage Areas
Average Area-of-Inundation
(closed hydrologic
systems only)
Manning's Equation Analysis
Component
Manning's-n (n)
Wetland Slope (S)
Channel/Wetland Geometry
Source
Figure 9-10 or Local Climato-
logical Data Annual and month-
ly summaries available from
the NO A A National Climatic
Data Center, Asheville, NC.
US Geological Survey
Water Resources Data for the
state of interest
Specified in system design
Figure 9-11
Calculated as residual in the
water budget analysis
Engineering judgement based on:
County Soil Surveys pub-
lished by Soil Conserva-
tion Service
Geological and geohydro-
logical reports by US
Geological Survey and
State Geological Survey
Topographic Maps and Site
Survey
Topographic Maps
Site Survey-vegetation distri-
bution/type
Source
Site Survey
Table 9-5
Topographic map or site survey
Site survey
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-76
of the wetland which are representative of the wetland.
Particular attention should be paid to detailing the channel
geometry and the wetland geometry (shape and dimensions).
A detailed topographic map and cross-section diagrams
should be prepared using data from the transects.
Application to Various Wetland Hydrologic Situations
Water budget analysis and Manning's equation analysis
may be used to predict changes in wetland hydrology re-
sulting from the application of wastewater to the wetland.
Wetland hydrologic characteristics evaluated in a basic
analysis include flow, velocity, residence time, depth, and
area-of-inundation. These characteristics are estimated for
conditions existing prior to the wastewater application and
while wastewater is being applied to the wetland. The
changes in depth, velocity and area-of-inundation are then
used to assess the significance of the hydrologic change on
wetland ecology. The assessment will result in a finding of
(1) minimum change with no additional analysis required;
(2) intermediate change indicating a need for completing
monthly or seasonal water budget and Manning1 s-n analyses;
or (3) major change indicating a need for the collection of
significant site-specific data to support calibration of the
water budget and Manning's-n analysis models.
The application of the basic analysis is described in
this part of the handbook. A flowchart of the basic
analysis is presented in Figure 9-6. The discussion which
follows refers directly to this flowchart. The flowchart
includes the following wetland situations: (L) a closed
hydrologic system; (2) an open hydrologic system with no
identifiable channel; (3) an open hydrologic system with a
single identifiable stream channel; and (4) an open hydro-
logic system with a single identifiable channel and flow
regulated by some kind of structural control.
It should be noted that each wetland has unique
features which may deviate from these four wetland situa-
tions. Also, a single wetland may have more than one
cross-section type in different areas. The manager or
engineer performing a basic analysis must use some judge-
ment in identifying the wetland situation which most closely
approximates the wetland to be evaluated. The more the
actual wetland differs from the wetland situation classifi-
cation, the greater will be the potential for erroneous
results from the analysis.
For purposes of illustration, the basic analysis pro-
cedure will be applied to two hypothetical wetlands located
near Atlanta, GA: Bill's Marsh and Soggy Bottom. Bill's
Marsh is a 300-acre hydrologically open wetland being
-------
Figure 9-6. Detailed flow chart for the wetland hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
CLOSED HYDROLOCIC SYSTEM
27. Estimate Mean Extent of Uater^*-
*
28. Determine Area-Of-Inundation
Estimate Water Depth
29. Graph Of Depth Versus Area
30. Water Budget Analysis
(Existing Conditions)
4
31. Water Budget Analysis
(Wastewater Application)
32. Determine Area-Of-Inundatlon
Estimate Water Depth
OPEN HYDROLOCIC SYSTEM
1. Compile Required Data
T
2. Complete Field Survey
*
3. Draw Detailed Map/
Cross-Section Diagrams
Determine Wetland Slope
_4. Water Budget Analysis
(Existing Conditions)
5. Select Cross-Sections
6. Does Cross-Section
-»• Include A Single Channel
With Floodplaln Wetland?
T
no
7. Determine Wetland Geometry
Estimate Manning's-n *
B. Is There A Structural Control?
no
9. Determine Flow Depth 8. Determine Flow Depth
(Structural Control) (No Structural Control)
I ;
I 10/24. Indicate Flow Depth On
• 'Topographic Map *
11/25. Calculate Cross-Sectional Area/
Flow Velocity
12/26. Is There Another Cross-Section
yes To Analyze?
no
yes
17. Determine Channel Geometry
Determine Manning 's-n
18. Is There A Structural
Control Of Flow? - >yes
13. Outline Area-of-Inundatlon
Calculate Residence Time
yes*-
_14. Is The Analysis Complete For
Wetland With Application?
no
I
15. Water Budget Analysis
(Wasteuacer Application)
16. Hydraulic/Hydruloglc
Change Analysis
Determine Flow
Depth I
20. Does Depth Exceed
Bankfull Stage?
I I
no yes
*
21. Compute Bankfull Flowrate
22. Estimate Overtopping Flow
_23. Determine Overtopping Flow
Depth In Wetland
19. Determine Flow
Depth I
vD
I
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-78
examined for a proposed 1 MGD wastewater discharge.
Soggy Bottom is a 300-acre hydrologically closed wetland
being examined for a proposed 1 MGD wastewater discharge.
The basic analysis procedure includes 32 steps. Each
of the steps is described below. Illustrations for the hypo-
thetical wetlands are provided in boxes under each step
where that step is required for the analysis of one of the
wetlands.
Step 1 - Compile Available Data. The basic analysis begins
by compiling available data on the wetland site. Data
requirements are tabulated in Table 9-25.
Bill's
Marsh
2
Drainage area above inflow (mi )
Drainage area directly flowing
into the wetland (mi )
Flow per unit area in streams „
near the wetland (ft /sec/ mi )
Wetland area (acres)
Wastewater to be applied (MGD)
Soils are impermeable clay underlying
the wetland
NA - Not Applicable
50
1
1.5
300
1
Yes
Soggy
Bottom
NA
1
1.5
300
1
No
Step 2 - Field Survey. A one-day field survey is designed
and conducted. The field survey is designed to delineate
the extent of the wetland and to produce data for develop-
ment of a detailed topographic map of the wetland and
detailed cross-sections of the wetland at a minimum of five
locations along the length of the wetland. If a closed
hydrologic system is to be evaluated, a wetland ecologist
should study vegetation to determine the annual average
area-of-inundation under existing conditions.
Step 3 - Topographic Map and Cross-sections. Based on
data collected on the site survey, a detailed topographic
map is drawn with a maximum contour interval of six
inches. The map should indicate the locations at which
data for detailed cross-sections (transects) were collected.
For hydrologically open wetlands, determine the wetland
slope (S) from the detailed topographic map by measuring
the length of the wetland (L) and the change in elevation
(e. - e,) between the upstream (e.,) and downstream (e2)
enas of the wetland. The slope (SJ" is determined by: S =
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~7C
Also, for hydrologically open systems, for each loca-
tion where cross-section (transect) data are collected dur-
ing the field survey, draw a cross-section diagram.
Figures 9-7 and 9-8 show detailed topographic maps pre-
pared for Bill's Marsh and Soggy Bottom.
For Bill's Marsh
Wetland Slope (S) = (e1 - e9)/L
e = 1.0 ft
ej = 0.0 ft
I? = 3600 ft
Therefore,
S = (1.0 - 0.0)/3600 = 0.0003
Figure 9-9 shows cross-section diagrams at the three loca-
tions which were surveyed: A-A', B-B', and C-C'. The
actual ground features and the assumed geometric shape for
each of the cross-sections are indicated in the figure.
For Soggy Bottom
Wetland slope(s) and wetland cross-section diagrams are not
required since this is a hydrologically closed system.
Step 4 - Water Budget Analysis (Existing Conditions) . If
the wetland is a hydrologically closed system, such as
Soggy Bottom, skip to Step 27; otherwise compute an
annual water budget under existing conditions in the wet-
land. The analysis will result in estimates of the average
annual surface water inflow to the wetland (Q.) and an
average annual surface water outflow from tire wetland
(Q ). Flowrates for points in the wetland between the up-
stream end and the downstream end of the wetland should
be estimated by linear interpolation. The values of esti-
mated flow should be entered on the cross-section diagrams
and Form 9-A, which is included at the end of Section 9.5.
For Bill's Marsh, a completed Form 9-A is included as Table
9-27 and cross-sections are included as Figure 9-9.
To determine surface water outflow on an annual basis, all
of the other components of the water budget equation must
be estimated from available data sources. Estimation pro-
cedures for each of the components in the annual water
budget equation are presented in the following paragraphs.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Also, for hydrologically open systems, for each loca-
tion where cross-section (transect) data are collected dur-
ing the field survey, draw a cross-section diagram.
Figures 9-7 and 9-8 show detailed topographic maps pre-
pared for Bill's Marsh and Soggy Bottom.
For Bill's Marsh
Wetland Slope (S) = (e, - e.)/L
e = 1.0 ft l 2
e, = 0.0 ft
IT = 3600 ft
Therefore, S = (1.0 - 0.0)/3600 = 0.0003
Figure 9-9 shows cross-section diagrams at the three loca-
tions which were surveyed: A-A', B-B', and C-C'. The
actual ground features and the assumed geometric shape for
each of the cross-sections are indicated in the figure.
For Soggy Bottom
Wetland slope(s) and wetland cross-section diagrams are not
required since this is a hydrologically closed system.
Step 4 - Water Budget Analysis (Existing Conditions). If
the wetland is a hydrologically closed system, such as
Soggy Bottom, skip to Step 27; otherwise compute an
annual water budget under existing conditions in the wet-
land. The analysis will result in estimates of the average
annual surface water inflow to the wetland (Q ) and an
average annual surface water outflow from tire wetland
(Q_). Flowrates for points in the wetland between the up-
stream end and the downstream end of the wetland should
be estimated by linear interpolation. The values of esti-
mated flow should be entered on the cross-section diagrams
and Form 9-A, which is included at the end of Section 9.5.
For Bill's Marsh, a completed Form 9-A is included as Table
9-27 and cross-sections are included as Figure 9-9.
To determine surface water outflow on an annual basis, all
of the other components of the water budget equation must
be estimated from available data sources. Estimation pro-
cedures for each of the components in the annual water
budget equation are presented in the following paragraphs.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~8'
Figure 9-7. Detailed topographic map for Bill's Marsh.
A'
C'
AREA-OF-INUNDATION
(EXISTING AND WITH WASTEWATER APPLICATION)
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~81
Figure 9-8. Detailed topographic map for Soggy Bottom.
„..--- Existing average
annual extent of
water surface
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~8
Figure 9-9. Cross-section diagrams for Bill's Marsh.
LU
1000
•24
SECTION A - A'
Q= 75 ftj/sec
w= 400 ft
Z= 900
n= 0.20
500 0 500
DISTANCE FROM WETLAND CENTER (FEET)
SECTION B - B'
Q=» 76 ft3/sec
Z= 1300
1000
i • -•
1000
500
0
500
10000
DISTANCE FROM WETLAND CENTER (FEET)
SECTION C - C'
Q= 77 ft-Vsec
w- 2100 ft
Z= 0
n= 0.25
1000
500 0 500
DISTANCE FROM WETLAND CENTER (FEET)
1000
-------
Table 9-27. Summary of hydrologic analysis results for Bill's Marsh (Form 9-A).
Cross-Section
A-A'
B-B1
C-C1
Average
Flow (ft /sec)
exist appl
75
76
77
77
78
79
Depth (ft)
exist appl
0.84 0.84
0.67 0.67
0.54 0.54
Area (ft )
exist appl
76
78
0.68
0.68
971
584
1134
896
971
584
1134
896
Velocity (ft/sec)
exist appl
0.077 0.077
0.130 0.130
0.068 0.068
0.092
0.092
Change in depth
Change in velocity
A rea-of-inunda tion:
= 0.00 inches. Minimal change.
= 0.00 ft/sec. Minimal change.
existing = 230 acres
application = 230 acres
Change in area-of-inundation = 0%. Minimal Change.
Residence Time: existing = 10.9 hours
application = 10.9 hours
Change in residence time = 0%. Minimal change.
>o
I
00
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-84
Precipitation (P).
1. Determine the area of the wetland (A ):
a. Obtain topographic map(s) which include(s)
the entire wetland
b. Outline the wetland area
c. Measure the wetland area using a planimeter
or other drainage area measurement method.
2. Find the location of the wetland in Figure 9-10, and
read the annual precipitation off of the map, or con-
tact the nearest meteorological station to obtain annual
precipitation.
3. Convert precipitation in inches to a volume by multiply-
ing by the area of the wetland.
For BUI'S Marsh
T". Wetland area was determined to be 300 acres
using a planimeter.
2. From Figure 9-10, annual precipitation is esti-
mated to be 48 inches.
3. Convert to a volume:
P = 48 in/yr x 1 ft/12in x 300 acres x 43560 ft2/acre
P = 52.3 x 106 ft3/yr
Surface Water Inflow (Q-).
T! Determine the drainage area above the upstream end of
the wetland:
a. Obtain topographic map(s) which include(s) the
drainage area
b. Outline the drainage area
c. Measure the area using a planimeter or other
drainage area measurement method.
2. Obtain a copy of "Water Resources Data" from the US
Geological Survey or state geological survey for the
state in which the wetland drainage area is located.
3. Identify one or more stream gaging stations near the
wetland site with drainage areas with the same order
of magnitude size as that above the wetland, (e.g.,
for a 50 square mile drainage area above the wetland,
use gaging stations with areas of between 10 and 100
square miles).
4. Tabulate the measured streamflow per unit drainage
area for the stations identified in step 3. Determine
an average streamflow per unit area.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Figure 9-10. Mean annual total precipitation in inches,
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-8
5. Multiply the average streamflow per unit area (step 4)
by the drainage area above the upstream end of the
wetland (step 1). The resulting value is an estimate
of the average annual inflow rate to the wetland.
6. Convert to an annual volume of water.
For Bill's Marsh
T. Drainage area above Jthe inflow to the wetland was
determined to be 50 mi using a planimeter.
2-4. The average stream flow per unit area was estimated to
be 1.5 ft /sec/ mi .
5. Estimate average annual inflow:
Q1 = 1.5 ft3/ sec/mi2 x 50 mi2 = 75 ft3/ sec
6. Convert to a volume:
3
Q. = 75 ft /sec x 86400 sec/day x 365 days/yr
Q = 2,365 x 106 ft3/yr
Lateral Overland Flow (Q ) .
Ti Determine the drairrage area contributing directly to
the wetland:
a. Use the topographic map(s) described for the
surface water inflow determination
b. Outline the drainage area contributing directly to
the wetland
c. Measure the area using a planimeter or other area
measurement method.
2. Multiply the average streamflow per unit area (step 4
of the surface water inflow determination) by the
drainage area directly contributing to the wetland.
3. Convert this to an annual volume of water.
For Bill's Marsh
T~. The drainage area contributing directly to the wetland
was determined to be 1 mi using a planimeter.
2. Estimate average annual inflow:
QT =1.5 ft3/sec/mi2 x 1 mi2 = 1.5 ft3/sec
LI
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
3. Convert to a volume:
3
QT =1.5 ft /sec x 86400 sec/day x 365 days/yr
LI
QT = 47.3 x 106 ft3/yr
L
Groundwater Inflow or Outflow (G.. or G ).
Ti Obtain soil survey and geological reports for the
county in which the wetland is located. Soil surveys
are obtained from the US Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service office in the county where
the wetland is located. Geological reports may be
obtained from the state geological survey.
2. List the soils and geology underlying the wetland.
For each soil, list its permeability or drainage charac-
teristics (poorly drained, moderately drained, well
drained). Look for evidence of confining soil or rock
layers under the wetland.
a. If a confining layer exists or is indicated, assume
G, = GO = °-
b. Ir a confining layer does not exist or is not in-
dicated, the analyst should be cautious about
using this method since seepage losses may be
significant. In applying this method, assume G =
G. = 0.
c. Irno information is available, assume G. = G, = 0.
For Bill's Marsh
A confining layer of clay is indicated.
Assume G = G = 0.
1 £i
Wastewater Application (W).
1. Wastewater application rate is normally zero for exist-
ing conditions unless wastewater is currently being
applied and the evaluation is to be made for additional
wastewater application.
2. Wastewater application rate must be specified for
evaluation of hydrologic change due to a wastewater
application. Generally, this will be presented in units
of million gallons per day (MGD).
3. Convert this to an annual volume by multiplying by
365 days (or the number of days the wastewater is to
be applied). The resulting volume will be in millions
of gallons.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~8'
For Bill's Marsh
Under baseline (existing) conditions W = 0
Evapotranspiration (E).
1. Find the location of the wetland in Figure 9-11, and
read the annual pan evaporation off of the map.
2. Determine shallow lake evaporation by multiplying the
pan evaporation by 0.7. Use shallow lake evaporation
as an estimate of evapotranspiration. Note that the
method does not consider variations in evapotrans-
piration as a result of vegetation changes.
3. Convert to a volume by multiplying by the wetland
area.
For Bill's Marsh
1. From Figure 9-11, average annual pan evaporation is
estimated to be 55 inches.
2. Determine shallow lake evaporation:
E = 55 inches x 0.7 = 38.5 inches
3. Convert to a volume:
E = 38.5 in/yrjc lft/12in x 300 acres
x 43560 ft /acre
E = 41.9 x 106 ft3/yr
Surface Water Outflow (Q«)-
TiEstimate total annual volume by solving the annual
water budget equation for Q_.
2. Convert to a flowrate. To convert a volume in cubic
feet to a flowrate in cubic feet per second divide by
the number of seconds in a year. To convert a
volume in million gallons to a flowrate in million gallons
per day divide by the number of days in a year.
For Bill's Marsh
1~. Solve annual water budget equation for Q-:
Q2 = P * Gl + Q! + QL + W - E - G2
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-^9
Figure 9-11. Mean annual pan evaporation in inches,
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Q0 = 52.3 x 106
2+0.0
+ 2365 x 10fi
+ 47.3 x 10
+ 0.0 ,
- 41.9 x 10°
- 0.0
Q2 = 2,423 x 106 ft3/yr
2. Convert to a flowrate:
Q = 2423 x 106 ft3/yr x 1 yr/365 days x
L 1 day/86400 sec
Q2 = 76.8 ft3/sec
Steps 5-11 include the procedure for performing the
Manning's equation analysis for hydrologically open wetland
systems without an identifiable channel, such as in the
illustration for Bill's Marsh.
The objective of the analysis is to predict the depth of
flow in the wetland using Manning's equation. This objec-
tive can only be met when the following information is
known:
1. Discharge (Q) or the quantity of water flowing
through a section of the wetland in a given time
interval (e.g., cubic feet per second). The discharge
is estimated using the water budget analysis.
2. Channel or wetland slope (S) or the change in eleva-
tion (e1 - e ) along the water flow path which extends
a distance TL) through the wetland. Channel slope
equals (e. - e )/L.
3. Channel and/or wetland cross-sectional geometry. For
simplicity the discussion in this secton considers the
following geometric configurations (Figure 9-12):
a. Rectangular (Bill's Marsh transect C-C')
b. Trapezoidal (Bill's Marsh transect A-A')
c. Triangular (Bill's Marsh transect B-B')
4. Channel and/or wetland geometric shape defining
lengths including:
a. For a rectangular cross-section; bottom width (w)
b. For a trapezoidal cross-section; bottom width (w),
and side slope (Z)
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~91
Figure 9-12. Wetland/channel geometric shapes with
defining lengths.
RECTANGULAR
WIDTH (w)
DEPTH (d)
TRAPEZOIDAL
DEPTH
Z= SIDE SLOPE
WIDTH (w)
DEPTH (^1
Z = SIDE SLOPE
WETLAND
LECTANGULAR CHANNEL/TRAPEZOIDAL WETLAND
1
Z = SIDE SLOPE OF WETLAND
B = CHANNEL BANK HEIGHT
|« CHANNEL/WETLAND WIDTH (w)
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~92
c. For a triangular cross-section; side slope (Z)
Figure 9-12 shows each of these geometric shapes and
illustrates bottom width (w), side slope (Z), and depth
(d) for each of these shapes.
5. If a well-defined channel is present, the bank height
(B); that is, the depth at which flow in the channel
spills over onto the adjacent wetland floodplain (see
Figure 9-12).
6. Mannning's roughness coefficient (n). The roughness
coefficient is determined on the basis of best engineer-
ing judgement and depends on the surface roughness
of the channel or wetland resisting the flow, vegeta-
tion, channel or wetland irregularities (holes and
humps), channel or wetland curvature, silting and
scouring, obstructions (jams, bridge piers), and stage
and discharge (Chow 1959). For more detail on the
determination of Manning's-n including pictures illus-
trating a variety of n-values, the user of this manual
should consult Chow (1959) or Arcement and Schneider
(1984). A list of representative values of n for wet-
lands is provided in Table 9-26.
When all of these factors are known, Manning's equation can
be solved for depth of flow. For simplicity, Manning's
equation is rewritten as:
(1.49)-1 Q n S'1/2 = A5/3 P'2/3
For known or specified values of Q, n, and S, the left-
hand side of this equation is a constant (C):
C = A5/3 p-2/3
Cross-sectional area (A) and wetted perimeter (P) are
determined by the depth of flow and the cross-sectional
geometry. For known values of width (rectangular and
trapeziodal cross-sections) and side slope (trapezoidal and
triangular cross-sections), depths of flow may be estimated
by trial and error or from Figure 9-13 for (trapezoidal and
rectangular) cross-sections or explicitly for triangular
cross-sections.
Step 5 - Select Cross-Sections A minimum of two cross-
sections should be selected for Manning's equation analysis.
The first should be near the upstream end of the wetland;
the second should be near the downstream end of the
wetland. Additional cross-sect ions should be selected at
the anticipated location of the wastewater discharge and at
locations where the wetland geometry or Manning's-n
changes or where there is a structural control of flow.
-------
Table 9-26. Factors that effect roughness of the channel.
Flood plain conditions
n value
adjustment
Example
Smooth
0.000
Compares to the smoothest, flattest flood plain
attainable in a qiven bed material.
Degree of irregularity
(r\i) Minor
0.001-0.005
Is a flood plain with minor irregularity in shape.
A few rises and dips or sloughs may be visible
on the flood plain.
Moderate
0.006-0.010
Has more rises and dips. Sloughs and hummocks may
occur.
Severe
0.011-0.020
The flood plain is very irregular in shape. Many
rises and dips or sloughs are visible. Irregu-
lar ground surfaces in pastureland and furrows
perpendicular to the flow are also included.
Variation of flood-
plain cross section
(n2)
0.0
Not applicable.
Negligible 0.000-0.004
Effect of obstructions
A few scattered obstructions, which include debris
deposits, stumps, exposed roots, logs, or isolated
boulders, occupy less than 5 percent of the cross-
sectional area.
Minor
0.005-0.019
Obstructions occupy less than 15 percent of the
cross-sectional area.
Appreciable 0.020-0.030
Obstructions occupy from 15 to 50 percent of the
cross-sectional area.
-------
Table 9-26. Factors that effect roughness of the channel (concluded).
Small
0.001-0.010
Dense growth of flexible turf grass, such as Bermuda,
or weeds growing where the average depth of flow is
at least two times the height of the vegetation; or
supple tree seedlings such as willow, cottonwood,
arrowweed, or saltcedar growing where the average
depth of flow is at least three times the height of
the vegetation.
Medium
0.011-0.025
Turf grass growing where the average depth of flow is
from one to two times the height of the vegetation;
or moderately dense sternny grass, weeds, or tree
seedlings growing where the average depth of flow
is from two to three times the height of the vege-
tation; brushy, moderately dense vegetation,
similar to 1- to 2-year-old willow trees in the
dormant season.
Amount of vegetation
(n4)
Large
0.025-0.050
Very large 0.050-0.100
Turf grass growing where the average depth of flow is
about equal to the height of vegetation; or 8- to
10-year-old willow or cottonwood trees intergrown
with some weeds and brush (none of the vegetation
in foliage) where the hydraulic radius exceeds 2 ft;
or mature row crops such as small vegetables; or
mature field crops where depth of flow is at least
twice the height of the vegetation.
Turf grass growing where the average depth of flow is
less than half the height of the vegetation; or
moderate to dense brush; or heavy stand of timber
with few down trees and little undergrowth with
depth of flow below branches; or mature field crops
where depth of flow is less than height of the
vegetation.
Extreme
0.100-0.200
Dense bushy willow, mesquite, and saltcedar (all veg-
etation in full foliage); or heavy stand of timber,
few down trees, depth of flow reaching branches.
Degree of meander (m)
1.0
Not applicable.
• Ar-r-p>m(=>nf ann
Calculate Manning's-n as follows: n = m (n, + n0 -f n0 + n )
, —. _ * £. 3 /»
•£>
I
1 Qftii
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
9-9:
Figure 9-13. Nomograph for determining depth of flow for
rectangular and trapezoidal cross-sections.
d/w
C/w
2.67
(upper set of curves]
C/w
2.67
(lower set of curves)
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
9-96
For Bill's Marsh
Three cross-sections were selected for Manning's equation
analysis. These cross-sections (Figure 9-9) include the
following:
1. Section A-A' is located near the upstream end of,Bill's
Marsh where streamflow is approximately 75 ft /sec.
The cross-section is closest to a trapezoidal shape.
2. Section B-B' is located near the middle of-the wetland
where streamflow is approximately 76 ft /sec. The
cross-section is closest to a triangular shape.
3. Section C-C' is located near the downstream end of
BUl's Marsh where streamflow is approximately 77
ft /sec. The cross-section is closest to a rectangular
shape.
Step 6 - Is There A Channel? Steps 7 through 12 are
completed for each cross-section. If there is a structural
control of flow, this cross-section should be analyzed first.
If there is a single, well-defined channel in the wetland,
skip to Step 17.
For BUl's Marsh
There is no structural control of flow; therefore cross-
sections will be evaluated from upstream end to downstream
end of the wetland. There is no single, well-defined
channel in the wetland; therefore complete steps 7-12 for
each cross-section.
Step 7 - Wetland Geometry and Manning's-n. Determine
whether the wetland cross-section geometry is triangular,
trapezoidal, or rectangular (see Figure 9-12). Estimate
side slope (Z) for triangular and trapezoidal sections, and
bottom width (w) for rectangular and trapezoidal sections.
Estimate Manning's-n from information collected on the site
survey, from Table 9-26, or by using a default value of n
= 0.25. Enter this information on the cross-section diagram
developed in Step 3.
For Bill's Marsh
First Section: Section A-A' is trapezoidal with side slope
(Z) equal to horizontal distance divided by vertical dis-
tance:
Z = 900 ft/1 ft = 900
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Bottom width (w) = 400 ft
Manning's-n(n) is estimated from Table 9-26:
n = 0.010 n« = 0.02
n: = 0.0 n6 = 0.17
2 m = 1.0 4
n = m(n + n + n_ + n.) = 0.20
1 £t O 4
Enter values for Z, w, and n on cross-section diagram
(Figure 9-9).
Second Section: Section B-B1 is a triangular with side
slope (z) equal to horizontal distance divided by vertical
distance:
Z = 1300 ft/1 ft = 1300
Manning's-n (n) is estimated from Table 9-26:
n = 0.01 n = 0.02
nj = 0.0 n6 = 0.12
1 m = 1.0 *
n = m(n + n + n + n ) = 0.15
L u o 4
Enter values for Z and n on cross-section diagram (Figure
9-9).
Third Section: Section C-C1 is rectangular with side slope
(Z) equal to zero and bottom width equal to 2100 ft:
Z = 0
w = 2100 ft
Manning's-n (n) is estimated from Table 9-26:
n = 0.02 n = 0.03
n, = 0.0 n^ = 0.20
L m = 1.0 *
n = m (n1 + n0 + n, +n.) = 0.25
1 It o 4
Enter values for Z, w, and n on cross-section diagrams
(Figure 9-9).
Step 8 - Determine Flow Depth (No Structural Control). If
there is a structural control, go to Step 9; otherwise deter-
mine the flow depth explicitly for a triangular section or by
trial and error or using the nomograph in Figure 9-13 for
rectangular and trapezoidal sections.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~9'
Rectangular Cross-sections. For rectangular cross-
sections :
C = A5/3 P -2/3 = (wd)5/3 (w + 2d)-2/3
When values of Q, n, S, and w are known, the depth of
flow (d) can be determined by trial and error as folbws:
1. Estimate Q, n, S, and w.
2. Calculate C = (1.49)"1 Q n S~°'5.
3. Insert the value of w into the right-hand side of the
equation above and make an initial guess at flow depth
(d').
4. Calculate C' = (wd')1<67 (w + 2d')"0>67.
5a. If C' is very close to C, use the most recent depth
(d') as the estimate of the flow depth (d).
5b. If Cf is greater than C, try another depth (d') which
is smaller than the previous d'. Return to step 4.
5c. If C' is less than C, try another depth (dr) which is
greater than the previous d'. Return to step 4.
For Bin's Marsh - Section C-C'
TT Estimate Q, n, s, and w.
Q = 77 ft3/sec
n = 0.25
S = 0.0003
w = 2100 ft
2. Calculate C = (1.49)"1 Q n S~°*5 n -
C = (0.67) (77) (0.25) (0.0003)
C = 746
3. Assume d' = 0.8 ft
4. Calculate C' = (wd')1'67 (w + 2d')~°*67
C' = (2100 x 0.8)1'67 (2100 + 2 x 0.8)"°'67
C' = (1680)1'67 (2102)"0'67
C! = (243,370) (0.006)
C' = 1446
5b. C? is greater than C, try df = 0.6 ft.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
4. Calculate C' = (wd')1<67 (w + 2d')"°'67
1 fi7 —ft fi7
C' = (2100 x 0.6)1' (2100 + 2 x 0.6)
C' = (150,529) (0.006)
C' = 894
5b. C' is greater than C, try d' = 0.54 ft.
4. Calculate C' = (wd')1'67 (w + 2d')~°'67
C' = (2100 x 0.54)1'67 (2100 + 2 x 0.54)~°*67
C1 = (126,242) (0.006)
C' = 750
5a. C' is approximately equal to C; therefore the flow
depth is estimated to be d = 0.54 ft. above the lowest
elevation in the cross-section (0.2 ft.). Therefore the
water surface elevation is at 0.54 ft plus 0.2 ft or
0.74 ft.
For rectangular cross-sections, if depth (d) is less than 1%
of the width, the flow depth may be determined as follows:
1. Estimate Q, n, S, and w.
-1
2. Calculate C = Q n S
3. Calculate now depth: d = (C/w)°*6°
For Billrs Marsh - Section C-C*
T~. Estimate Q, n, S, and w.
Q = 77 ft3/sec
n = 0.25
S = 0.0003
w = 2100 ft
2. Calculate C = Qn (1.49)"1s"°'5 n -
C = 77 (0.25) (0.67) (0.0003) '
C = 745
3. Calculate flow depth:
d = (C/w)0'60
d = (745/2100)0'60
d = 0.54 ft
The flow depth (water surface elevation) is 0.54 ft above
the lowest elevation in the cross-section (0.2 ft). There-
fore, the water surface elevation is 0.74 ft (0.54 ft plus
0.2 ft).
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
For rectangular cross-sections, a flow depth is determined
from the nomograph in Figure 9-13 as follows:
1. Estimate Q, n, S, Z, and w.
2. Calculate Cw"2'67 = (1.49)"1 Q n S"°'5 w"2'67
3. Enter the graph (Figure 9-13) at the value of Cw"2'67
on the horizontal axis. Move vertically until the line
with a value of Z = 0 (rectangle) is intersected. Move
horizontally (to the left) until reaching the vertical
axis. Read the value for d/w.
4. Multiply the value of d/w by the width (w) of the
rectangular cross-section. The resulting value is the
now depth (d).
^or Burs Marsh - Section C -C'
Yi Estimate Q, n, S, Z, and w.
Q = 77 ft3/sec
n = 0.25
S = 0.0003
Z = 0
w = 2100 ft
2. Calculate Cw"2'67 = Q n (1.49)"1s"°'5w"2'67
Cw"2'67 = (77) (0.25) (1.49)'1 (0.0003)~°'5(2100)~2*67
Cw~2'67 = (77) (0.25) (0.67) (57.7) (1.35 x 10"9)
Cw'2-67 = 1.00 x ID'6
3. Enter the graph (Figure 9-13) at 1.00 x 10 on the
horizontal axis. Move vertically to the Z = 0 line.
Move horizontally (to the left) to the vertical axis.
Read the value for d/w.
d/w = 2.57 x 10"4
4. Calculate: d = (2.57 x lo"4) w
d = (2.57 x 10"4) (2100)
d = 0.54 ft
The flow depth (water surface elevation) is 0.54 ft above
the lowest elevation in the cross-section (0.2 ft). There-
fore, the water surface elevation is 0.74 ft (0.54 ft plus
0.2 ft).
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Trapezoidal Cross-sections. For trapezoidal cross-sections:
C = A5/V2/3 = d5/3 (w+Zd)5/3 [2d(l+Z2)1/2+w]
When values of Q, n, S, Z and w are known, the depth of
flow (d) can be determined by trial and error as follows:
1. Estimate Q, n, S, Z and w.
2. Calculate C = (1.49)"1 Q n S~°'5.
3. Insert the values of w and Z into the righthand side
of the equation above and make an initial guess at flow
depth (d').
4. Calculate: C' = (d')1>67 (w + Zd')1*67
[2d'(l + Z2)0'5 + w] ~°'67
5a. If C' is very close to C, use the most recent depth
(d') as the estimate of the flow depth (d).
5b. If C' is greater than C, try another depth (d1) which
is smaller than the previous d1. Return to step 4.
5c. If C1 is less than C, try another depth (df) which is
greater than the previous dr. Return to step 4.
For Bill's Marsh - Section A-A'
The trial-and-error solution is completed in the same way
shown for the rectangular cross-section (Section C-C').
Therefore, the trial-and-error solution method is not illus-
trated for Section A-A'.
Flow depth is determined from the nomograph in Figure 9-13
as follows:
1. Estimate Q, n, S, Z and w.
2. Calculate Cw~2'67 = (1.49)"1 Q n s"°'5 w"2'67
_o an
3. Enter the graph (Figure 9-13) at the value of Cw '
on the horizontal axis. Move vertically until the line
with a Z-value closest to the observed side slope is
intersected. Move horizontally (to the left) until
reaching the vertical axis. Read the value for d/w.
4. Multiply the value of d/w by the bottom width (w) of
the trapezoidal cross-section. The resulting value is
the flow depth (d).
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~10
For Bui's Marsn - section A-A'
1. Estimate Q, n, W, Z, and w.
Q = 75 ft3/sec
n = 0.20
S = 0.0003
Z = 900
w = 400 ft
2. Calculate Cw~2'67 = Qn (1.49)~1s"°'5w"2'67
Cw"2'67 = (75) (0.20) (1.49)"1 (0.0003)"0'5 (400)"2'67
-2 R7 7
Cw ''°' = (75) (0.20) (0.67) (57.7) (1.13 x 10 )
Cw"2'67 = 6.55 x 10"5
3. Enter graph (Figure 9-13) at 6.55 x 10~5 on the
horizontal axis. Move vertically to the approximate
location of the Z = 900 line. Move horizontally (to the
left) to the vertical axis. Read the value for d/w.
-3
d/w = 2.1 x 10
4. Calculate: d = (2.1 x 10"
d = (2.1 x 10
d = 0.84 ft
w
(400)
The flow depth (water surface elevation) is 0.84 ft above
the lowest elevation in the cross-section (0.8 ft). There-
fore, the water surface elevation is 1.64 ft (0.84 plus 0.8
ft).
Triangular Cross-sections. For triangular cross-sections,
flow depth is determined as follows:
1.
2.
Estimate Q, n, S, and Z
Calculate C = Q n S~1/2 (1.49)"1
3. Calculate flow depth:
d = C
°'375
(Z
°'125
ror mil's Marsh - Section B-B'
1. Estimate Q, n, S, and Z .
Q = 76 ft3/sec
n = 0.15
S = 0.0003
Z = 1300
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
2. Calculate C = Qn (1.49) 1S °'5
C = (76) (0.15) (1.49)'1 (0.0003)"0'5
C = (76) (0.15) (0.67) (57.7)
C = 441
3. Calculate flow depth:
d = C0-375 [(Z2 + 1) Z'5 ] °*125
= (441)0'375 [ (13002 + 1) 1300'5 ] °'125
= (411)°-375 (4.55 x ID-10)
= (9.81) (.068)
= 0.67 ft
The flow depth (water surface elevation) is 0.67 ft above
the lowest elevation in the cross-section (0.5 ft). There-
fore, the water surface elevation is 1.17 ft (0.67 ft plus
0.5 ft).
Step 9 - Determine Flow Depth (Structural Control).
Determine the flow depth for an open hydro-logic system
with a structural control. Depth will vary depending on
the type of control. For controls such as fills and bridge
pier contractions, use Manning's equation with the following
data inputs:
a. Slope (S) is the slope of the ground surface in the
vicinity of the control.
b. Manning's-n(n) is the roughness coefficient of the
ground surface in the vicinity of the control.
c. Flow (Q) is as previously determined for the cross-
section.
The structural control's cross-sectional geometry then
dictates the depth of flow. Estimate the flow depth as
directed in Step 8.
The total depth of flow at the location of the cross-section
is the distance from the wetland ground surface plus the
depth of flow in the control.
For controls such as culverts or wiers, use the discharge
equation appropriate to the type of control as indicated
below (Grant 1978):
a. V-Notch (triangular) weirs:
Q = Kd2'5
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-10
o
where: Q = discharge in ft /sec
d = head (depth of flow) above the bottom
of the weir opening in feet
K = a constant which depends on the
angle of the notch opening as
follows
Angle of Value of
Notch Opening K
90 2.5
60 1.443
45 1.035
30 0.676
22* 0.497
b. Rectangular weir with end contractions:
Q = 3.33 (L - 0.2d) d1'5
c. Rectangular weir without end contractions and trape-
zoidal weir with sides slopes of 4 vertical to 1 horizontal:
Q = 3.367 L d1*5
3
where, Q = discharge in ft /sec
L = bottom width of weir in ft
d = depth of flow in weir in ft
d. Box or circular culverts use Figure 9-14 to determine
flow depth behind the culvert.
The flow depth determined for the particular weir or culvert
should be added to the bottom elevation of the weir or
culvert opening to determine water surface elevation.
Step 10 - Water Surface Elevation. Indicate on the detailed
topographic map the lateral extent of the water surface at
the cross-section. This can best be done by putting a dot
on the map at the points along the cross-section with eleva-
tions equal to the minimum elevation on the cross-section
plus the total depth of flow.
Check to verify that upstream water surface elevations are
less than or equal to water surface elevations downstream.
If upstream elevations are greater than downstream eleva-
tions, adjust the water surface elevations so that upstream
and downstream water surface elevations are the same.
Assume this elevation is equal to the average of the
originally estimated water surface elevations.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~10
Figure 9-14. Charts for estimating headwater on
box culverts and circular culverts,
2345 10 20 304050 100 200300 500
Duchorge in cfs per ft of width,Q/b
Discharge in cfs, 0
Source: Chow 1959.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
9-101
For BUl's Marsh
Water surface elevations were determined in Step 8 for the
three cross-sections in Bill's Marsh as follows:
Section
A-A1
B-B'
C-C'
Elevation (ft)
1.64
1.17
0.74
Place dots on Figure 9-7 on the Section A-A' line at the
1.64 ft elevations.
Place dots on Figure 9-7 on the Section B-B' line at the
1.17 ft elevations.
Place dots on Figure 9-7 on the Section C-C' line at the
0.74 ft elevations.
Step 11 - Cross-Sectional Area and Velocity. Calculate the
cross-sectional area (A) of flow in the cross-section as
follows:
a. For a rectangle, A = (wd).
b. For a trapezoid, A = (y + Zd)d.
c. For a triangle, A = Zd .
Calculate velocity (V) = Q/A. For each cross-section,
enter flow (Q), velocity (V), cross-sectional area (A), and
depth(d) on Form 9-A.
For Bill's Marsh
£U Section C-C' is rectangular:
A = (wd) =2100 ft) (0.54 ft)
A = 1134 fr
Velocity (V) = Q/A = 77 ft3/sec/1134 ft2
V = 0.068 ft/sec
Enter these values on Form 9-A (Table 9-27).
b. Section A-A' is trapezoidal:
A = (w + Zd) d = (400 + 900 x 0.84) (0.84)
A = 971 fr
Velocity (V) = Q/A = 75 ft3/sec/971 ft2
V = 0.077 ft/sec
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
9-lc
Enter these values on Form 9-A (Table 9-27).
c. Section B-B' is triangular:
A = Zd2 =«(1300 ft) (0.67 ft)2
A = 584 ft
Velocity (V) = Q/A = 76 ft3/sec/584 ft2
V = 0.130 ft/sec
Enter these values on Form 9-A (Table 9-27).
Step 12 - Additional Cross-Sections? If there is another
cross-section to evaluate, return to Step 6. If there are
no more cross-sections, proceed to Step 13.
Step 13 - Area of-Inundation and Residence Time. After all
cross-sections have been evaluated to determine depths of
flow, cross-sectional area, and velocity and after the extent
of the water surface has been plotted on the detailed topo-
graphic map, outline the area covered by the water surface
on the topographic map. Use a planimeter to determine the
area-of-inundation. Calculate the average flow depth and
average velocity for the cross-sections evaluated. Calculate
residence time (T) = wetland flow length (L)/average
velocity (V). Enter these values on Form 9-A.
For Bin's Marsh
In Figure 9-7, connect the dots on each side of the wetland
to show the lateral extent of the water surface. This is
the outlined area-of-inundation. The area was measured
with a planimeter and found to be 230 acres.
The average flow depth, velocity, and cross-sectional areas
are determined in Table 9-27 by adding values in each
column and dividing by 3.
Calculate the residence time (T):
T = L/V
T = 3600 ft/0.092 ft/sec
T = 39,130 sec = 10.9 hours
Residence time is entered on Form 9-A (Table 9-27).
Steps 14 and 15 are completed to develop a water budget
for the wetland with the wastewater application. The water
budget is used to estimate flows in the wetland with the
wastewater application. Once the flows have been deter-
mined the analysis returns to step 6 for the Manning's
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~10
equation analysis. The analysis is completed exactly as was
done for existing conditions except new flows are used.
Results of the analysis are tabulated on Form 9-A.
Step 14 - Analysis for Wastewater Application.
Proceed to Step 15 for the analysis of flow characteristics
for the situation in which wastewater is applied to the
wetland. If this analysis has been completed, go to
Step 16.
For Bill's Marsh
Detailed calculations are provided for the water budget
analysis only (Step 15). The details of the Manning's-n
equation analysis are not provided for Bill's Marsh with the
wastewater application. However, the results of the
analysis are tabulated on Form 9-A (Table 9-27). This
table is then used to complete the hydraulic and hydrologic
change analysis.
Step 15 - Water Budget Analysis-(Wastewater Application).
Compute an annual water budget under conditions expected
when wastewater is applied to the wetland. Unless there is
a basis for adjusting ground water flows (in or out), evapo-
transpiration, or precipitation, assume that flows in the
wetland and at its downstream end will be increased by the
amount of wastewater applied to the wetland. Proceed with
the Manning's equation analysis by returning to Step 6.
For Bui's Marsh - Water Budget Analysis with Application
Solve the water budget equation for Q :
£t
Q2 = P + Qt + QL + G1 + w - E - G2
Assume P, Q1 Q_ G.., G» and E are the same as for exist-
ing conditions'.
The wastewater application rate (W) = 1 MGD
W = 1 x 106 gal/day x 1 day/86400 sec x 1 ft3/?.48 gal
W = 1.5 ft3/sec or about 2 ft3/sec.
3
Therefore, Q- is increased by 2 ft /sec. Assume the
wastewater is applied immediately upstream from cross-
section A-A'. Flows in each of the cross-sections (A-A1,
B-B', C-C') are increased by 2 ft /sec over existing con-
ditions. These are tabulated in Table 9-27.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
9-10'
Step-16 - Hydraulic and Hydrologic Change Analysis.
Determine the hydraulic and hydrologic changes in the wet-
land as the result of the wastewater application for average
velocity, average depth of flow, area-of-inundation, and
residence time.
a. If the hydrologic change is minimal, no additional
hydrologic evaluations are needed.
b. If the hydrologic change is a moderate, either a
seasonal analysis should be conducted or the quantity
of wastewater to be applied should be reduced and the
basic analysis should be repeated for the new flow
application rate.
c. If the hydrologic change is major, the refined analysis
should be conducted or the quantity of wastewater to
be applied to the wetland should be reduced and a
basic analysis should be repeated for the new flow
application rate.
ror Bill's Marsh
Hydraulic and hydrologic changes were estimated for Bill's
Marsh for average velocity, average depth of flow, area-of-
inundation, and residence time. These are tabulated in
Table 9-27. Parameter changes are estimated by taking the
value of the parameter with the application and subtracting
the value of the parameter under existing conditions.
Percentage changes are computed by dividing parameter
changes by the value of the parameter under existing
conditions and multiplying by 100.
Change in velocity = 0 ft/sec
% Change in velocity = 100 x 0/0.092 =
Change in Area-of-Inundation = 0 acres
% Change in Area-of-Inundation = 100 x
Change in Residence Time = 0 hrs
% Change in Residence Time = 100 x
0%
0/230 = 0%
0/10.9 = 0%
Steps 17-26 are completed for situations where there is a
single, well-defined channel running through the wetland.
This was not the case for Bill's Marsh, so no illustrations
are provided for these steps.
Step 17 - Channel/wetland Geometry and Manning's-n.
Determine whether the channel cross-section is triangular,
trapezoidal, or rectangular. Estimate side slope (Z) for
triangular and trapezoidal sections, and bottom width (w)
for rectangular and trapezoidal sections. Estimate Mann-
ing's-n from information collected on the site survey, from
Table 9-26, or by using a default value of n = 0.25.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-1
Enter this information on the cross-section diagrams de-
veloped in Step 3.
Step 18 - Determine Flow Depth (No Structural Control).
If there is a structural control in the channel, go to
Step 19. Otherwise determine the flow depth in the channel
as directed in step 8 and continue the analysis at step 20.
Step 19 - Determine Flow Depth (Structural Control).
Determine the flow depth for a channel with a structural
control. Depth will vary depending on the type of control.
See step 9.
Step 20 - Water Surface Elevations. If the flow depth in
the channel is less than the bank height of the channel,
enter the flow depth on the detailed topographic map of the
wetland. This is done by putting dots on the map at both
sides of the channel at the cross-section location.
Step 21 - Compute Bank Height Flow. If the flow depth in
the channel is greater than the bank height of the channel,
calculate the flow which would result if the depth of flow
were equal to the bank height (B). This flow (Q ) is
computed by Manning's equation as follows:
For a rectangular channel:
Q, = 1.49 n'1 S°'5 (wB)1'67 (w + 2B)-°-67
r
For a trapezoidal channel:
Qp = 1.49 n'1 S°'5 (w + ZB)1'67 B1'67
[2B(1 + Z2)0'5 + w] ~°'67
For a triangular channel:
Qp = 1.49CIO-1 S°'5 B2Z1>67(1 + Z2)"0'67
Step 22 - Flow Overtopping Banks. Estimate the flow (Q )
overtopping the banks as: °
Q0 = Q - QF
Step 23 - Determine Wetland Flow Depth. Determine the
additional wetland flow depth and the total flow depth (d )
for the cross-section. Assume that the shape of the wet-
land is trapezoidal with a bottom width (w) equal to the
width of the channel and side slope (Z) equal to the
measured side slope of the wetland. Determine the wetland
depth of flow as directed in step 8 for a trapezoidal
section. The total flow depth (d-,) above the channel
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-11
bottom is then bank height (B) plus the depth of flow (d)
in the wetland.
Step 24 - Water Surface Elevations. Indicate on the de-
tailed topographic map the lateral extent of the water sur-
face at the cross-sect ion. This is done by putting dots at
the locations along the cross-section with elevations equal to
the elevation of the channel bottom plus the total depth of
flow (dT).
Check to verify upstream water surface elevations are less
than or equal to water surface elevations downstream. If
upstream elevations are greater than downstream elevations,
adjust the water surface elevations so that upstream and
downstream water surface elevations are the same. Assume
this elevation is equal to the average of the originally
estimated water surface elevations.
Step 25 - Cross-Sectional Area and Velocity. Calculate the
cross-sectional area (A) b7flow In the cross-section
(channel plus wetland) as directed in step 11. For each
cross-section, enter flow (Q), velocity (V), cross-sectional
area (A), and depth (d_) on Form 9-A.
Step 26 - Additional Cross-Sections? If there is another
cross-section to evaluate, go to that cross-section and
return to Step 6. If there are no more cross-sections to be
evaluated, proceed to Step 13.
Step 27 - Estimate Mean Annual Areal Extent of Water
Surface. From the site survey, estimate the mean annual
area! extent of the water surface at each cross-section.
Indicate the extent of the water surface on the detailed
topographic map and on the cross-section diagrams.
For Soggy Bottom
The detailed topographic map is provided in Figure 9-8.
The mean annual extent of the water surface is indicated on
the map. The extent of the water surface was estimated by
a wetland ecologist during the site-survey.
Step 28 - Area-of-Inundation (Existing Conditions). Deter-
minethe approximate annual average area-of-inu ndation
using a planimeter or other area measurement method. The
planimeter should trace the line drawn on the topographic
map to indicate the area! extent of the water surface in the
wetland. Enter the existing area-of-inundation on Form 9-A
(Table 9-28).
-------
Table 9-28. Summary of hydrologic and hydraulic analysis results (Form 9-A) for
Soggy Bottom.
Cross-Section Flow (ft3/sec) Depth (ft) Area (ft2) Velocity (ft/sec)
exist appl exist appl exist appl exist appl
Not completed for a hydrologically closed wetland.
Average 0.8 1.5
Change in depth =0.7 ft or 88%
Change in velocity = Not Applicable
Area-of-inundation: existing = 100 acres
application = 185 acres
Change in area-of-inundation = 85%.
Residence Time: existing = Not applicable
application = Not applicable
Change in residence time = Not applicable.
•a
i
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-U3
For Soggy Bottom
The area-of-inundation was measured using a planimeter.
It was estimated to be 100 acres.
Step 29 - Graph Area-of-inundation Versus Depth. Develop
a graph showing the area-of-inundation versus the maximum
depth as follows:
a. Set up a graph with area-of-inundation on the hori-
zontal axis and maximum depth on the vertical axis.
b. Estimate the lowest elevation in the wetland.
c. Planimeter the contour enclosing an area on the topo-
graphic map.
d. Determine the maximum depth by subtracting the
lowest elevation from the contour elevation.
e. Plot a point on the graph (step 29a) at the measured
area-of-inundation and maximum depth.
f. If there are no more contours, go to step 29g; other-
wise, go to the next contour and return to step 29c.
g. Connect the points on the graph. This graph will be
used in step 32 to estimate depth with the application
of wastewater.
For Soggy Bottom
a.
a.
a)
Q
100 200 300
Area-of-Inundation (acres)
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-114
b. Determine lowest elevation for the cross-sections: The
lowest elevation is 0 ft.
c and d. Measure the area enclosed by each contour and
estimate the maximum water depth if water were at the
elevation of the contour. The maximum water depth is
equal to the contour elevation minus the lowest elevation
determined in Step 9b.
Maximum
Contour elevation (ft) Area (acres) Water Depth (ft)
5 5o~^
0.5 10 0.5
1.0 125 1.0
1.5 180 1.5
2.0 300 2.0
e, f, and g. Complete the graph by plotting the points
and connecting them (see "a." above).
Step 30 - Water Budget Analysis (Existing Conditions).
Compute a water budget for the closed hydrologic system
under existing conditions by assuming the following:
a. Surface water inflow (Q.) = 0
b. Surface water outflow (Q«) = 0
c. Change in storage (AS)- 0
The water budget equation can be used to estimate mean
ground water flow for existing conditions:
G2 - Gl = P + QL - E
Determine the net groundwater flow per unit area-of-in-
undation (g) as follows:
g = (G0 - G,)/area-of-inundation
u \
For Soggy Bottom
The water budget equation for a hydrologically closed
system is:
G2 - Gl = * + QL - E
P = 48 in/yr x 1 ft/ 12 in x 300 acres = 1200 acre ft/yr
Q =1.5 ft3/ sec/mi2 x 1 mi2 x 1 acre/43560 ft2
L x 86400 sec/day x 365 day/yr = 1086 acre ft/yr
E = 55 inches/yr x 0.7 x 300 acre x 1 ft/12 in = 963 acre
ft/yr
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-11
Therefore, G - G = 1200 + 1086 - 963 = 1323 acre ft/yr
M J.
The net ground water flow per unit area-of-inundation (g)
is:
g = (G0 - G..) /area-of-inundation
It 1
g = 1323/100 = 13.2 ft/yr
Step 31 - Water Budget Analysis (Application). Compute
the water budget for a closed hydrologic system with the
wastewater application as follows:
a. Set up the water budget equation:
= P + QL - E + W
where: g = groundwater flow per unit area-of-
inundation under existing conditions
A = total area-of-inundation with the
aPP wastewater application
P, Q. E, and W = as previously defined
b. Solve for the new area-of-inundation (A ):
app
(P + QL - E + W)/g =
Enter the area-of-inundation with the wastewater application
(A ) on Form 9-A.
app'
For Soggy Bottom
"PiQ , and E are assumed to be the same as in Step 30.
L
Wastewater application rate (W) = 1 MGD
W = 1 x 106 gal/day x ft3/748 gal x 365 day/yr
x acre/43560 ft
W = 1120 acre-ft/yr
Determine the area with the application (Ao_ ):
app
AaPP = (P + QL + W-E)/*
A = (1200 + 1086 + 1120 - 963)/13.2
app
Aapp = 185 acres
This area is entered on Form 9-A (Table 9-28).
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Step 32 - Estimate New Area-of-Inundation. Enter the plot
of area-of-inundation versus depth on the horizontal axis at
the value determined for area-of-inundation, move
vertically to the plotted line, and move horizontally to the
left to the vertical axis. Read the depth value. This
depth is the mean depth of the wetland. Enter this on
Form 9-A and go to step 16.
For Soggy Bottom
Use the graph developed in step 29 for the Soggy Bottom
illustration.
Enter the graph on the horizontal axis at 185 acres. Move
vertically to the curve. Move horizontally (to the left) to
the vertical axis and read the value for maximum depth.
The maximum depth is 1.5 ft. Enter this on Form 9-A
(Table 9-28).
Complete the hydraulic and hydrologic change analysis (step
16).
The changes in depth and area-of-inundation appear to be
intermediate. Proceed with a seasonal analysis.
9.5.2 Seasonal Analysis
A seasonal wetland hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is
performed when a particular site is subject to significant
seasonal variations in streamflow and/or precipitation or will
be subjected to a seasonal application of wastewater. The
seasonal analysis follows the same procedures described for
a basic analysis with the exception that the analysis is
performed based on monthly or seasonal data rather than
annual average data. At a minimum, the seasonal analysis
should be completed for the wettest and the driest months
of the year.
A flow chart for the seasonal analysis is presented in
Figure 9-15. The first step in the analysis is to consider
the wetland in its current state (i.e., unaltered by any
wastewater application). The second step is to consider the
wetland hydrology and hydraulics with the application of a
known wastewater volume. The third step is to compare
hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of flows in the
wetland prior to and with the wastewater application and to
assess the significance of projected changes with respect to
the wetland hydrology. Depending on the magnitude of
change, additional refined analyses may be required.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Figure 9-15. Flow chart for a seasonal analysis.
SEASONAL ANALYSIS
I
SELECT A MONTH
4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
(STEP 1)
1
WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS
(PART 1)
, 1
MANNING S EQUATION ANALYSIS
(PART 2)
WITH WASTEWATER APPLICATION
(STEP 2)
\
WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS
(PART 1)
J
MANNING'S EQUATION ANALYSIS
(PART 2)
^lYDROLOGIC CHANGE ANALYSIS^
(PART 3)
I
•YES •*•
MORE MONTHS TO ANALYZE?
I
NO
ADDITIONAL HYDROLOGIC/
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
REQUIRED
/ \
SEASONAL ANALYSIS REFINED ANALYSIS
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~n
Steps one and two in the analysis are completed in two
parts for each month or season of interest. First, a wet-
land water budget is calculated for the given month or
season. Second, depths of flow, velocities, area-of-in-
undation, and residence time are estimated using Manning's
equation.
The following discussion describes the water budget
analysis, the Manning's equation analysis, the data re-
quirements and methods, and the hydrologic change assess-
ment for a seasonal analysis. Reference is made to the
discussion of the basic analysis (Section 9.5.1) where
methods are the same. In particular, note that once sur-
face flows through the wetland are established using the
water budget analysis, the Manning's equation analysis
procedure is the same for basic and seasonal analyses.
Water Budget Analysis
A water budget analysis is performed to estimate
surface water flows in the wetland. In a seasonal analysis
flows are estimated for individual months or seasons. At a
minimum two periods will be considered: (1) the driest
month or season; and (2) the wettest month or season.
The water budget equation relates the change in water
volume stored in the wetland over a specified time interval
(a month or a season) to the difference in volumetric inputs
to and outputs from the wetland. The water budget equa-
tion may be written as:
where: AS = volume change of water stored in the
wetland during a specified time
interval, t
t = time interval over which water budget
is calculated
P = precipitation volume falling on the
wetland during t
Q- = surface water volume flowing into the
wetland at its upstream end during t
QT = lateral overland flow volume flowing
into the wetland during t
G1 = groundwater volume flowing into the
wetland during t
W = wastewater volume applied to the wet-
land during t
Q_ = surface water volume flowing out of
the wetland at its downstream end
during t
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
G = groundwater volume flowing out of the
wetland during t
E = evapotranspiration volume leaving the
wetland during t
In a seasonal analysis, site-specific data for all of the
components of the water budget will not be available. To
estimate surface water flows in the wetland on a monthly or
seasonal basis it is necessary to make several assumptions
with respect to components of the water budget equation
and to use monthly or seasonal data available for locations
near the wetland site. These assumptions are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Because data on the change in storage (AS) will
normally not be available for a wetland site on a monthly or
seasonal basis, it is necessary in a seasonal analysis to
assume that AS = 0 during the wettest and driest month or
season. This, of course, is not a strictly valid assumption.
If we look at the effect that this assumption has on the
determination of the change in wetland hydrologic and
hydraulic characteristics, we find that it is a conservative
assumption for dry periods and a permissive assumption for
wet months. In the case of the driest month or season, the
change in storage will normally be negative. That is, more
water will be leaving the wetland than will be entering.
Therefore, flow depths in downstream portions of the wet-
land under existing conditions will actually be greater than
would be indicated by the seasonal analysis. At greater
depths of flow, water added to a wetland will have more
wetland surface area over which to spread than at lower
depths. Since the seasonal depth is too low, a waste water
addition will appear to create a greater change in depth
than would actually occur.
In the case of the wettest month, AS will be positive;
that is, inputs will be greater than outputs. Consequently,
flow depths in downstream portions of the wetland will
actually be lower than would be indicated by a seasonal
analysis. At lower depths of flow, water added to the
wetland will have less wetland surface area over which to
spread than at higher depths. Since the seasonal depth is
too high, a wastewater addition will appear to create a
smaller change in depth and area-of-inundation than would
actually occur. If we remember the bias caused by the
assumption that AS = 0 when we evaluate the wetland
hydrologic changes caused by a wastewater application, it is
reasonable to proceed with this analytical approach.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
If AS = 0, then the water budget equation may be
written with inputs to the wetland on the right and outputs
from the wetland on the left of the equals sign:
P + Qt + QL + Gt + W = E + Q2 + G2
Manning's Equation Analysis
Manning's equation is commonly used to characterize
flow conditions in open channels and in floodplains adjacent
to open channels. The Manning's equation analysis is
completed in the same way for the basic and seasonal
analyses. Therefore, the user should refer to Section
9.5.1 for a more complete discussion of the assumptions and
use of Manning's equation. The illustration provided for
Manning's equation analysis of a hypothetical wetland, Bill's
Marsh, also is applicable to the seasonal analysis, also with
the exception that flows estimated from the seasonal water
budget analysis are used rather than annual flows.
Data Requirements
The preceding parts of Section 9.5.2 discussed the
water budget analysis to estimate surface flows within the
wetland and the Manning's equation analysis to estimate
depths, velocities, area-of-inundation, and residence time.
The data needed to support a seasonal analysis are listed in
Table 9-29 along with the sources for this information.
A seasonal analysis requires a one-day site survey to
obtain data on wetland area, vegetation distribution, de-
tailed topography, and channel/wetland geometry. Wetland
area and vegetation distribution should be noted on a
topographic map during the walk-through survey of the
site. For a closed hydrologic system, vegetation should be
studied to determine the approximate location of the
seasonal maximum and minimum areas-of-inundation. This
determination will require the services of a wetland ecolo-
gist. Photographs of the wetland should be taken for
reference purposes. These photographs can then be used
in conjunction with Chow (1959) and Arcement and
Schneider (1984) to estimate values for Manning's-n.
The main activity of the one-day site survey is to
produce a detailed map of the wetland topography. A
minimum of five transects should be made across the wet-
land perpendicular to the slope of the wetland. Elevations
at increments of 0.5 feet should be determined in the
transects. Elevations should be determined relative to an
arbitrary datum such as the lowest elevation in the wetland.
Distances along the transect can be measured either by
pacing or with a tape measure. Elevations should be
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~12
Table 9-29. Data requirements and sources for
a seasonal analysis.
Water Budget Analysis
Component Source
Precipitation (P) Local Climatological Data
Annual Summary
Wastewater Application (W) Specified in system design
Surface Water Flow (Q , Q )
Topographic map(sr US Geological Survey
Drainage Area Planimetered
Streamflows in area US Geological Survey
Water Resources Data
for state of interest
Ground water (G., G )
Soil Survey US Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
(County of Wetland)
Geology Reports US Geological Survey/State
Geological Survey
Evapotranspiration
Mean monthly temperature Local Climatological Data
Mean minimum monthly Annual Summary
temperature
Mean relative humidity at
7 a.m.
Percentage of possible
sunshine
Wind speed
Latitude of site Topographic Map
Dew point temperature Table 9-30
Solar radiation Table 9-31
Shallow-lake evaporation Figure 9-16
Manning's Equation Analysis
Detailed topographic map Site Survey
Cross-section diagrams Site Survey
Manning's-n . Site Survey/Table 9-26
Depth of Flow Trial and Error or Figure 9-13
Area-of-inundation Detailed topographic map and
flow depth
Velocity Calculated
Residence time Calculated
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
measured with a surveyor's rod and a hand level or transit.
Transect paths should be across portions of the wetland
which are representative of the wetland. Particular atten-
tion should be paid to detailing the channel geometry and
the wetland geometry (shape and dimensions). A detailed
topographic map and cross-section diagrams should be
prepared using data from the transects.
Application to Various Wetland Hydrologic Situations
The seasonal analysis procedure is identical to that
described for a basic analysis under "Application to Various
Wetland Hydrologic Situations" with the exception that the
water budget analysis is conducted using monthly water
volumes. To apply the seasonal analysis procedure, the
analyst should at a minimum: (1) identify the wettest and
driest months; (2) tabulate required data for these months;
(3) perform a one-day site visit to determine wetland topog-
raphy, cross-section geometry, Manning's-n, and wetland
slope; (4) perform the water budget analysis for each
month to determine flows in the wetland; and (5) perform
the Manning's-n analysis as described in Section 9.5.1.
The assessment of hydrologic change should be made
separately for each month.
An example of the water budget portion of a seasonal
analysis is provided in this part of Section 9.5.2. The
flows estimated using the seasonal water budget analysis
would be used in the Manning's-n analysis in the same way
as they were used in the basic analysis. Consequently, an
example of the Manning's equation analysis is not provided
here.
Consider the same hypothetical wetland described in
the basic analysis; that is, a hydrologically open system
with no channel. The wetland, Bill's Marsh, is located near
Atlanta, GA and covers approximately 300 acres. It is
proposed that approximately 1 million gallons per day of
wastewater be applied to the wetland during the months of
April through November.
The following discussion describes the seasonal water
budget analysis for Bill's Marsh. This discussion includes
steps 1, 4, and 15 of the procedure outlined in Section
9.5.1. The analysis is completed for the months of March
and October, the wettest and driest months. Other steps
outlined in the basic analysis are completed for the seasonal
analysis with the exception that monthly or seasonal data
are used in place of annual data.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Step 1 - Compile Required Data. Compile required data for
each month. The data are for Atlanta GA.
Month
March October
Precipitation, inches 5.84 2.50
Streamflow per unit area 5.00 0.10
Drainage area above inflow 50 50
Drainage area to wetland 1 1
Mean Temperature, °F 51.1 62.4
Minimum Temperature,0? 41.1 52.3
Relative Humidity, % 78 84
Percent Sunshine, % 58 68
Wind speed, mph 10.9 8.4
Latitude, degrees 33.6 33.6
Step 4 - Calculate water budget.
To determine surface water outflow (Q_) on a monthly or
seasonal basis all of the other components of the water
budget equation must be estimated from available data
sources. Estimation procedures for each of the components
in the water budget equation are presented below. These
procedures should be completed for each of the months or
seasons for which hydrologic and hydraulic analyses are
desired. An illustration using a hypothetical wetland, Bill's
Marsh, is provided after each component.
Precipitation (P).
1. Obtain a recent year's copy of the annual summary
issue of "Local Climatological Data" for the station
nearest the wetland location.
2. For each month to be analyzed, read the normal
monthly precipitation, in inches per month.
3. Convert inches to a volume by multiplying by the area
of the wetland.
For Bill's Marsh - March Analysis
1 and 2. Data are tabulated in step 1.
March precipitation = 5.84 inches
3. Convert to a volume.
P = 5.84 in/ mo x 300 acres = 1752 acre-in/month
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
For Bill's Marsh - October Analysis
1 and 2. Data are tabulated in step 1.
October precipitation = 2.50 inches
3. Convert a volume.
P = 2.50 in/mo x 300 acres = 750 acre-in/month
Surface Water Inflow (Qt).
~. Determine the drainage area above the upstream end of
the wetland:
a. Obtain topographic map(s) which include(s) the
drainage area
b. Outline the drainage area
c. Measure the area using a planimeter or other
drainage area measurement method.
2. Obtain a copy of "Water Resources Data" for the state
in which the wetland drainage area is located.
3. Identify one or more stream gaging stations near the
wetland site with drainage areas similar to that above
the wetland.
4. Tabulate the measured streamflow per unit drainage
area for the stations identified in step 3 for the
month(s) to be analyzed. Determine an average
streamflow per unit area (e.g., cubic feet per second
per square mile).
5. Multiply the average streamflow per unit area (step 4)
by the drainage area above the upstream end of the
wetland (step 1). The resulting value is an estimate
of the monthly average inflow rate to the wetland
(e.g., cubic feet per second).
6. Convert to a monthly volume of water in the same
units as precipitation (e.g., acre-inches per month).
For Bill's Marsh - March Analysis
2
1. Drainage area = 50 mi
3 2
2-4. Streamflow per square mile = 5.0 ft /sec/mi
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
5. March average inflow rate:
= 5.0 ft3/ sec/ mi2 x 50 mi2 = 250 ft3/ sec
6. March flow volume.
Qx = 250 ft3 /sec x 738 acre-in/(ft3/sec)
Q = 184,500 acre-in/month
For Bill's Marsh - October Analys
2
1. Drainage area = 50 mi
3 2
2-4. Streamflow per square mile = 0.10 ft /sec/mi
5. October average inflow rate:
Qt = 0.10 ft3/sec/mi2 x 50 mi2 = 5 ft3/sec
6. October flow volume:
Qt = 5 ft3/sec x 738 acre-in/(ft3/sec)
Q =3763 acre-in/month
Lateral Overland Flow (Q,).
. \_f-
1. Determine the drainage area contributing directly to
the wetland:
a. Use the topographic map(s) described for the
surface water inflow determination
b. Outline the drainage area contributing directly to
the wetland
c. Measure the area using a planimeter or other area
measurement method.
2. Multiply the average streamflow per unit area (step 4
of the surface water inflow determination) by the
drainage area directly contributing to the wetland.
3. Convert this to a monthly volume of water in the same
units as precipitation (e.g., acre-inches per month).
For Bill's Marsh - March Analysis
2
1. Drainage area to wetland = 1 mi
2. March lateral inflow rate:
QT =5.0 ft3/sec/mi2 x 1 mi2 = 5 ft3/sec
L
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-l2i
3. Convert to a volume:
QT = 5 ft3/sec x 738 acre-in/(ft3/sec)
L
Q = 3690 acre-in/month
L
For Bill's March - October Analysis
.2
1. Drainage area to wetland = 1 mi
2. October lateral inflow rate:
QT = 0.1 ft3/sec/mi2 x 1 mi2 = 0.1 ft3/sec
it
3. Convert to a volume:
Q. =0.1 ft3/sec x 738 acre-in/(ft3/sec)
L
QT =73.8 acre-in/month
L
Groundwater Inflow or Outflow (G^ or GJ.
1. Obtain soil survey and geological reports for the
county in which the wetland is located. Soil surveys
are obtained from the US Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service in the county where the
wetland is located. Geological reports may be obtained
from the state geological survey.
2. List the soils and geology underlying the wetland.
For each soil, list its permeability or drainage charac-
teristics (poorly drained, moderately drained, well
drained). Look for evidence of confining soil or rock
layers under the wetland.
a. If a confining layer exists or is indicated, assume
Gl - G2 = 0-
b. If a confining layer does not exist or is not in-
dicated, the analyst should be cautious about
using this method since seepage losses may be
significant. In applying this method, assume G =
G2 = 0.
c. If no information is available, assume G1 = G0 = 0.
X L
For Bill's Marsh - March Analysis
Assume groundwater flow = 0 acre-in/month
For Bill's Marsh - October Analysis
Assume groundwater flow = 0 acre-in/month
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-12
Wastewater Application (W).
TT. The wastewater application rate is zero for existing
conditions unless wastewater is currently being
applied.
2. The wastewater application rate must be specified for
the evaluation of hydrologic change due to a waste-
water application. The application rate should be
converted to the same volumetric units as precipitation
(e.g., acre-inches per month) (1 million gallons per
day (MGD) equals 1.55 cubic feet per second or about
1100 acre-inches per 30-day month).
For Bill's Marsh -
Wastewater Flow
For Bill's Marsh -
Wastewater flow
March Analysis
(existing conditions)
October Analysis
(existing conditions)
= 0 acre-in/month
= 0 acre-in/month
nvapoiranspiration
Ti Obtain a recent year's copy of the annual summary
issue of "Local Climatological Data" for the station
nearest the wetland location. Use the table titled:
"Normals, Means, and Extremes."
2. For the month of interest, tabulate the following data:
(1) mean temperature in degrees F; (2) minimum
temperature in degrees F; (3) relative humidity at 7
a.m.; (4) mean wind speed in miles per hour; (5)
percentage of possible sunshine; and (6) the latitude
of the station.
3. Estimate the mean dew point temperature in degrees F
from Table 9-30 using the minimum temperature in
degrees F and the relative humidity in percent.
4. Calculate the mean wind movement in miles per day by
multiplying wind speed in miles per hour by 24 hours.
5. Determine the correction factor for converting maximum
solar radiation (IX) to actual solar radiation (I) based
on average sunshine (u) as follows:
I/IX = 0.61u + 0.35
This adjustment is made based on List (1966).
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-1.
Table 9-30. Dew point temperature as a
function of relative humidity
and temperature.
Relative Humidity (percent)
Temperature
(degrees F) 5560652021108590
25 13 14 16 18 19 20 21 23
30 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 27
35 21 23 26 28 29 30 31 33
40 26 28 29 31 33 34 36 37
45 30 32 34 36 37 39 41 42
50 34 37 39 41 42 44 46 47
55 38 41 43 45 48 50 51 52
60 44 46 48 50 52 54 55 57
65 49 51 53 55 57 58 60 62
70 53 55 57 60 62 64 65 67
75 57 60 62 64 66 69 71 72
80 62 65 67 68 72 73 75 77
Source: Miller and Thompson 1970.
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Using the station latitude and the month, read the
maximum solar radiation (IX) from Table 9-31. Assume
a transmission coefficient of a = 0.8 unless there is a
basis for using other coefficients. Multiply the
maximum solar radiation by the correction factor (I/IX)
to determine solar radiation in Langleys per day.
6. Use the nomograph in Figure 9-16 to estimate daily
lake evaporation.
7. Calculate monthly evapotranspiration in inches by
multiplying daily lake evaporation in inches by the
number of days in the month of interest.
8. Convert this to a volume by multiplying by the wetland
area. Units should be the same as precipitation (e.g.,
acre-inches per month).
For Bill's Marsh - March Analysis
1-2. Data are tabulated under step 1.
3. Estimate dew point:
Minimum Temperature = 41.1°F
Relative Humidity = 78%
For 40°F, dew point is 33°F at 75% relative humidity
and it is 34°F at 80%. Therefore, at 40°F and 78%
relative humidity dew point is approximately 34°F.
For 45°F, dew point is 37°F at 75% relative humidity
and it is 39°F at 80%. Therefore, at 45°F and 78%
relative humidity dew point is approximately 38°F.
Since 41°F (minimum temperature) is one-fifth of the
way between 40°F and 45°F, the dew point temperature
is one-fifth of the way between 34°F and 38°F. There-
fore, dew point is approximately 35°F.
4. Mean wind movement:
wind = 10.9 mi/hr x 24 hr/day = 261.6 mi/day
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~13(
5. Determine solar correction factor for average sunshine
= 58% = 0.58
I/IX = 0.61u + 0.35
I/IX = 0.61 (0.58) + 0.35
I/IX = 0.70
Estimate IX at latitude 33.6° N for March
from Table 9-31 (a = 0.8),
IX at 30° N = 539 cal/cm2
IX at 40° N = 456 cal/cm2
Since 33.6° N is 64% of the way between 40° N and 30°
N, IX is 64% of the way between 456 and 539 cal/cm .
IX = (539-456) (0.64) + 456
IX = 509 cal/cm2
Estimate actual solar radiation:
I = IX (I/IX)
I = (509 cal/cm2) (0.70)
2
I = 356 cal/cm
6. Estimate daily lake evaporation from Figure 9-16:
air temperature = 51.1 degrees F
dew point =35 degrees F
wind movement = 261.6 mi/day
2
solar radiation = 356 cal/cm
Evaporation = 0.145 inches/day
7. Monthly evapotranspiration
E = 0.145 in/day x 31 days = 4.50 inches/month
8. Convert to a volume:
E = 4.50 inches/mo x 300 acres = 1350 acre
in/month
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-i:
For Bill's Marsh - October Analysis
1-2. Data are tabulated under step 1.
3. Estimate dew point:
Minimum Temperature = 52.3° F
Relative Humidity = 84%
For 50°F, dew point is 44°F at 80% relative humidity and it
is 46°F at 85%. Therefore, at 40°F and 84% relative
humidity dew point is approximately 46°F.
For 55°F, dew point is 50°F at 80% relative humidity and it
is 51°F at 85%. Therefore, at 55°F and 84% relative
humidity dew point is approximately 51°F.
Since 52.3°F (minimum temperature) is one-half of the way
between 50°F and 55°F, the dew point temperature is one-
half of the way between 46°F and 51°F. Therefore, dew
point is approximately 48°F.
4. Mean wind movement
wind = 8.4 mi/hr x 24 hr/day = 201.6 mi/day
5. Determine solar correction factor for average
Sunshine = 68% = 0.68
I/IX = 0.61 S + 0.35
I/IX = 0.61(0.68) + 0.35
I/IX = 0.76
Estimate IX at latitude 33.6° N for October from Table
9-31 (a = 0.8), use IX half way between September
and November values.
IX at 30° N = 446 cal/cm2
IX at 40° N = 348 cal/cm2
Since 33.6°N is 64% of the way between 40°N and 3(j°
N, IX is 64% of the way between 348 and 446 cal/cm .
IX = (446-348) (0.64) + 348
IX = 411 cal/cm2
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-1
Table 9-31.
Maximum solar radiation reaching the
ground for various atmospheric
transmission coefficients.
TOTAL DAILY DIRECT SOLAR RADIATION REACHING THE GROUND WITH
VARIOUS ATMOSPHERIC TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS
The solar constant /• is assumed to be 1.94 cal. cm."* min.~* Values apply to a horizontal surface.
Longitude of the lun
0* 45' XT 135' 180* 22S' 270' 315'
Approximate dmte
Lit!- Mir. May June AUK. Sept. NOT. Dee. Feb.
tude 21 6 22 8 23 8 22 4
Transmission coefficient a = 0.6
cal. cm."*
90'
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
6
47
120
202
282
350
404
436
447
436
404
350
282
202
127
158
234
312
376
426
453
459
444
407
353
282
206
125
56
299
309
349
406
450
477
481
465
428
372
303
222
143
70
18
125
156
232
308
372
421
449
454
439
404
349
279
204
124
55
5
46
118
199
278
345
398
430
440
430
398
345
278
199
10
58
130
213
293
366
422
461
475
470
441
391
19
75
152
237
323
397
457
497
514
509
481
10
58
131
215
296
370
427
465
480
475
445
395
-60 120 10 10 118 323 434 327
-70 47 46 242 373 245
-80 6 5 164 330 166
-90 131 319 133
Transmission coefficient a = 0.8
90°
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
349 615 346
29 365 608 361 29
128 434 605 429 126 1 1
242 520 650 515 240 44 5 44
356 591 686 585 350 136 64 137
456 641 708 635 449 247 164 249
539 668 706 662 532 360 277 363
601 669 678 663 593 463 393 468
639 649 630 643 630 555 503 560
652 602 560 597 643 626 598 631
639 534 471 530 630 673 672 680
601 446 369 442 593 695 725 700
539 347 260 343 532 694 754 700
456 239 153 236 449 665 756 671
356 131 60 130 350 612 732 619
-60 242 42 4 42 240 539 694 544
-70 128 1 1 126 449 646 454
-80 29 29 378 649 381
-90 363 656 366
Longitude of the sun
45' 90' 135' 180' 225'
270' 315'
Approximate date
Lati- Mar. May June Aug. Sept. Nov. Dec. Feb.
tude 21 6 22 8 23 8 22 4
Transmission coefficient a = 0.7
cal. cm.-*
90s
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-SO
-60
-70
-80
-90
13
80
174
272
363
440
499
534
546
534
499
440
363
272
174
80
13
217
243
324
408
477
529
556
561
542
501
439
361
271
176
88
22
440
442
467
520
563
587
588
568
524
462
382
290
196
103
34
,1
215
242
321
404
472
524
550
556
537
496
436
357
268
174
87
21
13
79
172
268
358
434
491
527
538
527
491
434
358
268
172
79
13
22
91
182
281
374
456
519
563
582
576
548
495
423
337
2S3
226
1
37
111
210
309
408
493
560
606
628
627
601
555
499
472
469
23
92
184
283
378
460
524
568
588
582
554
500
427
340
255
228
Transmission coefficient a = 0.9
90°
80
70
60
50
'
67
199
333
455
532
528
571
650
718
826
813
774
799
828
526
523
566
643
711
66
196
328
449
5
80
200
16
107
*
5
81
201
40 562 766 841 759 554 328 229 331
30 651 791 831 783 641 453 362 458
20 715 789 799 781 705 566 491 571
10 755 763 744 756 744 664 610 670
0 768 714 668 707 757 740 713 748
-10 755 640 571 634 744 792 794 799
-20 715 545 460 539 705 819 853 826
-30 651 436 340 433 641 820 888 828
-40 562 316 214 313 554 794 898 802
-50 455 192 100 190 449 745 884 752
-60 333 77 15 76 328 674 854 681
-70 199 5 4 196 593 826 598
-80 67 66 547 867 553
-90 551 883 556
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-1
Estimate actual solar radiation:
I = IX (I/IX)
I = (411 cal/cm2) (0.76)
I = 312 cal/cm2
Estimate daily lake evaporation from Figure 9-16
air temperature = 62.4°F
dew point = 48°F
wind movement = 201.6 mi/day
n
solar radiation =312 cal/cm
Evaporation = 0.095 inches/day
Monthly evapotranspiration
E = 0.095 in/day x 31 days = 2.94 inches/month
Convert to a volume:
E = 2.94 inches/mo x 300 acres
E = 882 acre-inches/month
burtace water Outflow (On).
— i-2—
1. Estimate total monthly volume of water leaving the
wetland as streamflow by solving the monthly water
budget equation for Q0.
L
2. Convert to a flowrate in units of ft3 per second. If
you have been using units of acre-inches per month,
you should convert by multiplying by 43560 ft per
acre, divide by 12 inches per ft, and divide by the
number of seconds in the month of interest.
For Bill's Marsh - March Analysis
1. Solve for outflow rate:
Q2 = P
W - E -
Q- = (1752 + 184500 + 3690 + 0 + 0 - 1350 - 0)
acre-in/month
Q2 = 188,592 acre-in/month
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9~13
Figure 9-16.
Shallow lake evaporation as a function
of solar radiation, air temperature,
dew point, and wind movement.
Source: Linsley et al. 1975
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
2. Convert to flow:
Q = 188,592 acre-in/month (ft3/sec)/(738 acre-in)
L
Q. = 255 ft3/sec.
LI
For Bill's Marsh - October Analysis
1. Solve for outflow rate:
Q2 = P + Qt + QL + Ql + W - E - G2
Q = (750 + 3763 + 73.8 +0+0-882-0)
acre-in/month
Q2 = 3705 acre-in/month
2. Convert to flow rate
Q. = 3705 acre-in/month (ft3/sec)/(738 acre in)
It
Q0 = 5.02 ft3/sec
Steps 5-14. At this point the analyst would proceed with
the Manning's equation analysis for existing conditions.
Since these steps of the analysis are completed in the same
manner as was done in the basic analysis, the reader is
referred to the example in Section 9.5.1 for the Manning's
equation analysis.
Step 15 - Water budget for wetland with wastewater
application.
For Bill's Marsh - March Analysis
Since no wastewater is to be applied to the wetland in
March, no change in the water budget should occur in
March.
For Bill's Marsh - October Analysis
In computing the water budget for October, it is assumed
that precipitation, groundwater, surface water inflow, and
evapotranspiration remain unchanged. Consequently flows
in the wetland will increase by an amount equal to the
wastewater application rate:
W = 1 MGD = 1.55 ft3/sec
3
Average outflow (Q.) will increase from 5.1 ft /sec to 6.6
ft /sec in October
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
The seasonal analysis would continue with the Manning's
equation analysis and the evaluation of hydrologic changes.
9.5.3 Refined Analysis
A refined analysis is performed when a seasonal
analysis indicates the possibility of significant alterations of
wetland hydrology due to the application of wastewater to
the wetland. A refined analysis also is performed if flow
characteristics through the wetland are altered and effective
pollutant removal is reduced because of reduced residence
time (increased velocities). The analysis procedure is the
same as the procedure used in the seasonal analysis except
that it requires the collection of site-specific data. These
data, collected over a period of one year, would be com-
pared to results predicted in the seasonal analysis. The
results of the seasonal analysis are based on the not
strictly valid assumption that the change in water storage is
zero from month to month. In addition, the assumption of
zero groundwater flow, which frequently is made in a
seasonal analysis, may also be incorrect. Therefore, month-
ly data on all components of the water budget, as well as
depths of flow, velocities of flow, and area-of-inundation in
the wetland must be collected to test the seasonal analysis
results. If actual wetland hydrologic characteristics are
significantly different from analyzed characteristics, water
budget analysis assumptions and Manning's equation analysis
parameters must be modified and the seasonal analysis
procedure should be repeated.
Water Budget Analysis
A water budget is developed using site-specific data.
The water budget developed in a refined analysis is com-
pared with that developed for the seasonal analysis to
determine potential sources of error in the seasonal
analysis. Adjustments in the seasonal analysis assumptions
and resulting water budget would then be made so that
predicted wetland surface outflows would more closely match
those observed under the refined analysis field study. The
seasonal analysis procedure could then be used to predict
flows when wastewater is applied to the wetland.
Manning's Equation Analysis
Refined analysis field observations of flow depths and
velocities for various flows should be compared with depths
and flows predicted in the seasonal analysis. Based on this
comparison the application of Manning's equation to the
wetland could be modified. Modifications might include
changing Manning's-n or reducing the effective flow width
of the wetland. This latter modification might be necessary
------- OCR error (c:\conversion\JobRoot\000002IF\tiff\2000644X.tif): Unspecified error
-------
HYDROLOGIC AMD HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
Table 9-32. Data requirements for a refined analysis.
Water Budget Analysis
Component
Precipitation
Method
Rain gauge
Evapotranspiration Class-A Pan
Ground water Flow
Permeability
Ground water
Level
Falling Head Permeability
Monitoring Wells
Surface Water Flow
Water Level Water Level Recorders
Velocity
Area
Water Storage
Water Depth
Wetland
Topography
Current Meter
Survey of Channel
Metal Posts-surveyed in
Site Survey
Manning's Equation Analysis
Manning's-n
Wetland Slope
Channel / Wetland
Geometry
Site Survey
Chow (1959)
Arcement and Schneider
(1984)
Site Survey
Topographic Map
Site Survey
Cross-section Diagrams
Frequency
Weekly
Weekly
Two times
Monthly
Continuously
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
One time
Winter and
Summer
One time
One time
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-1
Water Surface Elevation. The elevation of the water surface
relative to the arbitrary datum established for the ground-
water wells should be measured at a minimum of six loca-
tions in the wetland on a monthly basis. The elevation is
measured by installing and surveying in metal posts along
two cross-sections of the wetland perpendicular to the axis
of the wetland. The first cross-section should be located
approximately one-third the length of the wetland from the
upstream end of the wetland. Metal posts should be in-
stalled at the lowest ground surface elevation on the cross-
section and approximately one fourth the distance from the
lowest elevation to the edge of the wetland on either side of
the central axis of the wetland. The second cross-section
should be located approximately one-third the length of the
wetland from the downstream end of the wetland. Metal
posts should be installed in the same way as for the first
cross-section.
Velocity. Dye or other tracer studies should be conducted
to determine the mean velocities of flow in the wetland.
These studies should be conducted monthly to obtain a
better picture of the wetland response to water inputs.
Site Survey. A site survey should be conducted at the
same time that groundwater wells and water depth metal
posts are surveyed in. A minimum of five transects should
be made across the wetland perpendicular to the central
axis of the wetland. Elevations at intervals of 0.5 feet
should be determined in the transects. Elevations should
be established relative to an arbitrary datum such as the
downstream end of the wetland. Transects should be
across portions of the wetland which are representative of
the wetland. Particular attention should be paid to de-
tailing the channel geometry and the wetland geometry
(shape and dimensions). A detailed topographic map and
cross-section disgrams should be prepared using site
survey data.
Wetland area and vegetation distribution should be
noted on a topographic map during the site survey. Photo-
graphs of the wetland should be taken for reference pur-
poses two times during the year. These photographs can
be compared with photographs in Chen (1959) and Areement
and Schneider (1984) to estimate values for Manning's-n at
various locations in the wetland during the winter and
during the summer.
Application to Various Hydrologic Wetland Situations
As indicated previously, the refined analysis is com-
pleted by following the seasonal analysis procedure. Data
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9 I4'
used in the refined analysis are those measured in the
year-long data collection effort. The flows observed during
the field data collection effort should be compared to those
estimated by the refined water budget analysis. If these
are similar, then the water budget is balanced; if they are
not similar, then there is a source or sink for water which
was not measured during the refined analysis sampling
program. This source or sink should be identified and an
effort should be made to quantify it.
Once the refined analysis water budget is balanced,
values of its components should be compared to the values
of the components of the seasonal analysis water budget
analysis. Particular attention should be paid to verifying
that the assumptions of no change in storage ( AS = 0) and
no net ground water flow (G. = G- = 0) are reasonable. If
these assumptions are reasonable! the Manning's equation
analysis can proceed by randomly selecting months in a
year without computing carry-over water storage on a
month-to-month basis. If these assumptions are not
reasonable, a continuous water budget analysis will have to
be performed by starting with the driest month of the year
and computing water budgets for each succeeding month
until all twelve months have been analyzed and flows have
been generated. Flows then should be compared with those
observed during the refined analysis field study.
Next, the Manning's equation analysis should be per-
formed using flows and cross-section geometry measured in
the field data collection effort. Flow depths predicted by
the analysis should be compared with those measured. If
depths differ significantly, the analyst should consider
adjusting Manning's-n or altering the geometric configura-
tion used in the analysis until reasonable agreement between
observed and analysis-predicted depths is achieved.
After the Manning's equation analysis has been adjust-
ed to generate reasonable fits to the observed data on flow
depths, computed flow rates should be divided by computed
cross-sectional areas of flow to estimate flow velocities.
These velocities should be compared with velocities measur-
ed in the field. If observed and predicted values differ
significantly, a velocity adjustment factor should be esti-
mated for each of the wetland cross-sections.
When the refined analysis evaluation of existing con-
ditions is complete, the water budget and Manning's equa-
tion procedures should be "calibrated" to the wetland. It
should then be possible to predict the changes in water
surface elevation, area-of-inundation, velocity, and resi-
dence time due to the application of wastewater to the
wetland. If the refined analysis procedures do not result
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 9-141
in a "calibrated" water budget and Manning's equation
analysis, it may be necessary to consider more advanced
computer-based modeling techniques. These are discussed
in Section 3.3.4.
9.5.4 Glossary of Variables
Contained in this section is a list of variables included
in Section 9.5. The list includes the variable symbol and a
description.
Symbol
a
d
h
t
w
A
app
w
B
C
E
Si
IL
IX
K
L
P
P
Q
IT
Description
Solar transmission coefficient
Depth of flow
Upstream elevation in wetland
Downstream elevation in wetland
Net groundwater flow
Manning's roughness coefficient
Time
Bottom width of geometric cross-section
Cross-sectional area of geometric
section
Area-of-inundation with wastewater
application
Area of wetland
Bank height of channel
Constant for Manning's-n equation
analysis
Evapotranspiration
Groundwater flow into wetland
Groundwater flowing out of wetland
Actual solar radiation (water budget
analysis)
Solar radiation without attenuation
(maximum solar radiation)
Empirical constant for control section
(culvert) calculations
Bottom width of weir
Precipitation (water budget analysis)
Wetted perimeter (Manning's equation
analysis)
Stream flow
Streamflow when depth of flow equals
bank height
Lateral inflow to wetland
Streamflow overtopping channel on to
floodplain
Streamflow flowing into wetland
Streamflow flowing out of wetland
Hydraulic radius (Manning's equation
analysis)
-------
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
S Slope of wetland (Manning's equation
analysis)
AS Change in water stored in wetland
T Residence time
u Fraction of total sunshine possible
(water budget analysis)
V Velocity of flow
Z Side slope of geometric section
-------
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AND DATA SOURCES 9-1
9.6 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AND DATA SOURCES
The importance of working with the appropriate regulatory
agencies has been stressed throughout the Handbook. The
Water Quality Standards and NPDES programs as administered by
EPA and state agencies will largely determine what information is
necessary to assess and permit a prospective wetlands
discharge. If an acceptable wetland site is identified and the
discharge can be permitted, additional data may be necessary
for engineering planning.
Besides their responsibilities for administering programs,
numerous federal, state, regional and local agencies serve as
data sources. These agencies can supply data that are useful
throughout the project planning and sampling program design
processes. The agencies responsible for administering programs
and collecting data vary from state to state. Tables 9-25 through
9-32 indicate the pertinent administrative and data collection
agencies in each Region IV state. Some federal agencies with
wetlands jurisdiction or involvement have district or state
offices. These are listed on Tables 9-33 through 9-37. State
Natural Heritage Programs help define wetlands of special
significance and can be a valuable source of information for
identifying unique or endangered wetlands and their locations.
These agencies are listed in Table 9-38. Certain agencies have
responsibility for collecting data on a national level (e.g., soils
data by the Soil Conservation Service). The agencies with
specific data collection responsibilities are listed in Table 9-39.
-------
Tub I. 9-33 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - ALABAMA
Area of Jurisdiction Federal
State
Regional/Local
I. Mater Quality Standards Progra
EPA Region IV
Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
Mater Division
State Office Building
Montgomery, AL 36130
205/271-7700
2. NPDES Permit Program
3. Construction Grants Program
4. Planning
- Land use (general—population
projections, development trends,
etc.)
- Archeologlcal/Hlstorlcal
- A-95 Review/State Clearinghouse
5. Geomorphology
- Wetlands Identification
EPA Region IV
EPA Region IV
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEM, see Hater Quality Standards Program
DEM. see Mater Quality Standards Program
Office of State Planning & Federal Programs (OSPFP) Regional Planning Commissions'
3734 Atlanta Highway City/County Planning Depts.
Montgomery. AL 36130
203/832-6400
Historical Commission
723 Monroe Street
Montgomery. AL 36130
209/832-6621
OSPFP. see Land Use
DEM, see Mater Quality Standards Program
Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR)
State Lands Division (SLD)
64 North Union St.
Montgomery, AL 36130
(203) 832-6330
- Geological data
- Dredge » Fill Permits
6. Hydrology/Meteorology
- Flov data
- Floodplaln management
- Groundnter Data
- Meteorologlc Data
7. Mater Quality (see Nos. I, 2, 4 3)
- Mater Quality Data
8. Ecology
- Protected Species
- Wildlife
- Rare or endangered Metlands
(see Section 2. )
- Wetlands In coastal zones
zones
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Geological Survey
Federal Emergency Mam
Administration
Geological Survey
National Weather Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEM, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DW, see Mater Quality Standards Program
SLD, see Metlands Identification
DEM. see Mater Quality Standards Program
Building Commission
800 South McDonough St.
Montgomery, AL 36104
203/832-3404
DEM, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DEM, see Mater Quality Standards Program
Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources
Division of Game « Fish (DGF)
Administrative Building
64 North Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
203/832-6300
DGF, see Protected Species
Coastal Area Board
P.O. Box 755
Daphne, AL 36526
205/626-1880
Regional Planning Commissions'
City/County Planning Depts.
County Public Health Depts.
Utilities
County Public Health Depts.
Universities
•£>
I
-------
9-145
'Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commissions
North test Alabama Council of Local
Governments
P 0 Box 2603
Muscle Shoals, AL 35660
North Central Alabama Regional Council
of Governments
City Hall Tower - 5th Floor
P 0 Box C
Decatur, AL 35602
Birmingham Regional Planning Commission
2112 Eleventh Avenue, South
Magnolia Office Park, Suite 220
Birmingham, AL 35256
Nest Alabama Planning and Development
CounclI .
Tuscaloosa Municipal Airport
Terminal Building, 2nd Floor
P 0 Drawer 408
Northport, AL 35476
Alabama-Tomblgbee Regional Commission
P 0 Box 269
Camden, AL 36726
South Alabama Regional Planning
Commission
International Trade Center
250 North Water Street
P 0 Box 1665
Mobile, AL 36633
Top of Alabama Regional Council
of Governments
115 Washington St. SE
Huntsvl He, AL 35801
East Alabama Regional Planning
and Development Commission
P 0 Box 2186
Annlston, AL 36202
Lee County Area CounclI
of Governments
P 0 Box 1072
Auburn, AL 36831
Southeast Alabama Regional
Planning and Development Com IssI on
207 Plaa 2
U.S. Highway 231 at Ross Clark Clrc
P 0 Box 1406
Dothan, AL 36302
South Central Alabama
Development Commission
2815 W. South Blvd.
Governors Square Shopping Center
Montgomery, AL 36116
Lower Chattahoochee Area Planning
and Development Commission
Box 1908
Columbus, GA 31902
-------
Table 9-34 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - FLORIDA
Area of Jurisdiction Federal
State
Regional/Local
I. Mater Quality Standards Program EPA Region IV
2. NPDES Penult Program EPA. Region IV
3. Construction Grants Program EPA Region IV
4. Planning
- Land Use (DRI>
- Land use (general—population
projections, development trends, etc.)
- Arch eo log I cat/Historical
- A-95 RevI ex/State
Clearinghouse
Geomorphology
- Wetlands Identification
- Geological data
- Dredge and Fill Permits
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Amy Corps of Engineers
Dept. of Environmental Regulation (DER)1
Division of Environmental Programs
2600 Blair Stone Road
Twin Towers Office Building
Tallahassee. FL 32301
904/488-0130
OER, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DER, see Meter Quality Standards Program
Dept. of Veteran and Community Affairs
Bureau of Land and Mater Management (BLMM)
Car I ton Building, Room 550
Tal lahassee, FL 12301
904/488-492)
Regional Planning Council3
Regional Planning Councils1
City/County Planning Departments
Department of State,
Division of Archives, History and Records Management
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301
904/487-2333
State Planning and Development Clearinghouse
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Division of State Planning,
Dept. of Administration
Car I ton Building, Room 530
Tal lahasssee, FL 32301
OER, see Mater Quality Standards Progra
Department of Natural Resources
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tal lahassee, FL 32303
904/388-3180
DNR, see Metlands Identification
DER, see Mater Quality Standards Progra
DNR, see Metlands Identification
6. Hydrology/Meteorology
- Flow data
- Floodplaln Management
- Groundwater Data
- Meteorologlc Data
Geological Survey
Federal Emergency Management
Administration
Geological Survey
National weather Service
Mater Management Districts
Mater Management Districts2
State Organized Authorities (e.g.
Santa Rosa Island Authority)
Mater Management Districts2
DNR. see Metlands Identification
Regional Planning Councils2
City/County Planning Depts.
County Public Health Depts.
-------
Tab I a 9-34 (Continual
Area of Jurisdiction
Federal
State
Regional/Local
7. Water Quality (]•• Nos. I, 2
- Water Quality Data
8. Ecology
- Protected species
- Wlldllfa
- Rare or endangered wetlands (see
Section 2. )
- Areas of Critical State Concern
EnvlroNMnta! Protection Agency
Geological Survey
Amy Corps of Engineers
Fish and wildlife Service
DER, see Water Quality Standards Program
Hater Management Districts2
Water Management Districts4
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (GFFC)
620 S. Meridian St.
Tallahassae, FL 32301
904/488-6661
GFFC, see Protected Species
SLUM, s*e Land Use (OKI)
Utility Authorities
County Public Health Depts.
County Environmental Depts.
Universities
'See list of OER Regional Offices
*See list of Florida Water Management Districts
3S«« list of Florida Regional Planning Councils
Florida Regional Planning Councils
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation District Offices
Northwest District
160 Governmental Center
Penscaola, FL 32561
904/436-8300
Northwest District Branch Office
217 E. 23rd St.
Suite B
Panama City, FL 32405
904/769-3576
Northwest District Branch Office
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
904/488-3704
St. Johns River Subdlstrlct
3426 Bills Road
Jacksonville, FL 32207
904/396-6959
St. Johns River Subdlstrlct Branch Office
825 Northwest 23rd Ave., Suite G
Gainesville, FL 32601
904/377-7528
Southwest District
7601 Highway 301 North
Tampa, FL 33610
813/985-7402
South Florida Branch Office
11400 Overseas Highway
Suites 219-224
Marathon, FL 33050
305/743-5955 or 9251
South Florida Subdlstrlct
3301 Gun Club Road
P.O. Box 3858
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
305/689-5800
South Florida Subdlstrlct Branch Office
2745 Southeast Morn Ings I da Blvd
Port St. Luc I a. FL 33452
305/878-3890
South Florida District
2269 Bay Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901
813/332-2667
South Florida Branch Office
3201 Golf Course Blvd.
Punto Gorda, FL 33950
813/639-4967
Florida Water Management Districts
Northwest Florida Water Management District
R. 1 Box 3100
Havanna, FL 32333
904/487-1770
Suwann.e River Water Management District
Rt. 3. Box 64
Live Oak, FL 32060
904/362-1001
St. Johns River Water Management District
P.O. Box 1425
Palotko, FL 32077
Southwest Florida Water Management District
5600 U.S. Highway 41 South
BrooklvllI., FL 33312
904/796-7211
South Florida Water Management District
P.O. Box V
West Pale Beach, FL 33402
305/686-8800
West Florida Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 486
Pensacola, FL 32593
904/478-5870
Apalachee Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 428
Blountstown, FL 32424
904/674-4)71
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council
2002 N.W. lath St.
Gainesville, FL 32601
904/376-3344
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council
8641 Bayplne Roed, Suite 9
Jacksonville, FL 32216
904/737-7311
Wlthlecoochee Regional Planning Council
1241 S.W. I Oth St.
Ocala, FL 32670
904/732-3107
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
1011 Wymore Road
Winter Park. FL 32789
305/645-3339
Central Florida Regional Planning Council
P.O. Drawer 2089
Bertow, FL 33830
813/533-4146
il
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Counc
9455 Koger Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
613/588-5151
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
2121 West First Street
Ft. Myers, FL 33902
813/334-7382
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 2395
Stuart, fL 33494
305/286-3313
South Florida Regional Planning Council
1515 Northwest 167th St., Suite 429
Miaul, FL 33169
305/621-5871 •
I
i—•
4>
-------
Table 9-35 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - GEORGIA
Area of Jurisdiction federal
State
Regional/Local
I. Hater Quality Standards Program EPA Region IV
2. NPOes Permit Program EPA Region IV
3. Construction Grants Program EPA Region IV
4. Planning
- Land use (general—population
projections, development trends, etc.)
- Archaologlcal/Hlstorlcal
- A-95 Rev lew/State Clearinghouse
Clearinghouse
5. Geomorphology
- Metlands Identification
- Geological Data
- Dredge t Fill Permits
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Amy Corps of Engineers
Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR)
Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
404/656-4713
EPD, see Hater Quality Standards Program
EPO, see Hater Quality Standards Program
DNR
State Historic Preservation Office
270 Washington Street SW,
Room 701
Atlanta, GA 30334
404/656-2840
State Archeologlst
West Georgia College
Carol Iton, GA 30117
404/834-683}
State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning « Budget
270 Washington St., SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
404/656-3804
EPD, see Water Quality Standards Progra
EPA, see Hater Quality Standards Progra
EPD, see Water Quality Standards Progra
Area Planning and Development Commissions (APDC)
City/County Planning Depts.
6. Hydrology/Meteorology
-Flo* data
- Floodplaln management
- Groundnater data
- Meteorologlc data
7. Water Quality (See Nos. 1, 213)
- Water Quality Data
Ecology
- Protected Species
-Wildlife
- Rare or endangered Wetlands
(see Section 2. )
- Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Geological Survey
Federal Emergency Management
Administration
Geological Survey
National Weather Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Fish and Wildlife Service
EPO, see Water Quality Standards Program
EPO, see Water Quality Standards Program
EPD, see Water Quality Standards Program
EPD, see Hater Quality Standards Program
DNR, Fish * Game Division
270 Washington St., SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
404/656-4713
DNR, Fish a Game Division
270 Washington St., SH
Atlanta, GA 30334
404/656-4713
EPD, See Water Quality Standards Progra
State
APDC's'
City/County Planning Depts.
County Public Health Depts.
County Public Health Depts.
Universities
I
i—•
+>
Oo
See list of Georgia APDCs.
-------
9-149
Altamha Georgia Southern APOC
P.O. Box 328
Baxley, GA 31513
Central Savannah River APOC
P.O. Box 2800
Augusta, GA 30904
404/738-5337
Chattahoochee-FIInt APOC
P.O. Box 1363
LaGrange, GA 30240
404/882-2956
Coastal APOC
P.O. Box 1316
Brunswick, GA 31520
Coastal Plan APDC
P.O. Box 1223
Valdosta, GA 31601
912/247-3494
Coosa Valley APDC
P.O. Orator H
Rome, GA 30161
404/234-8507
Georgia Mountains APDC
P.O. Box 1720
Gainesville, GA 30501
Heart of Georgia APDC
101 Oak Street
Eastman, GA 31023
912/374-4771
Lower Chattehoochee APOC
P.O. Box 1908
Columbus, GA 31901
404/324-5221
Georgia Area Planning and Development Commissions
Middle Flint APDC
P.O. Box 6
Ellavllle, GA 31806
912/928-1204
Mclntosh Trail APDC
P.O. Box 241
Griffin, GA 30223
404/227-3096
Iddle Georgia APOC
711 Grand Building
Macon, GA 31201
912/743-5862
Northeast Georgia APDC
305 Research Drive
Athens, GA 30601
404/548-3141
Oconee APOC
P.O. Box 707
Ml IledgevlIle, GA
31061
Southeast Georgia APDC
P.O. Box 1276
Waycross, GA 31501
912/283-3931
South test Georgia APDC
P.O. Box 346
Camilla, GA 31730
912/336-5616
North Georgia APDC
212 Pentz Street
Da Iton, GA 30720
404/226-1672
-------
Table 9-36 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - KENTUCKY
Area of Jurisdiction Federal
State
RegIoneI/Local
I. Hater Quality Standards Progra. EPA Region IV
2. NPOES Penult Progra* EPA Region IV
3. Construction Grants Program EPA Region IV
4. Planning
- Land use (general—population
projections, development trends, etc.)
development trends, etc.)
- Archeologlea I/Historical
- A-95 Revlen/State Clearinghouse
5. Geomorphology
- Wetlands Identification
- Geological Data
- Dredge i Fill Permits
6. Hydrology/Meteorology
-Flo* data
- Floodplaln management
- Groundmter deta
- Meteorologlc data
7. Mater Quality (See Nos. I, 2*3)
- Mater Quality Data
8. Ecology
- Protected Species
- Nlldllte
- Rare or endangered Met lands
(see Section 2. )
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Geological Survey
Federal Emergency Management
Administration
Geological Survey
National Weather Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Fish and Mlldllfe Service
Dept. for Environmental Protection (DEP)
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
Division of Water Quality
Fort Boone Plaza
18 Rlelly Road
Frankfurt, KY 40601
502/564-3410
DEP, see Water Quality Standards Program
DEP, see Water Quality Standards Progra.
Heritage Division
104 Bridge Street
Frankfurt, KY 40601
502/564-6683
OEP, Office of Special Projects
Capitol Plaza Tower
Fourth Floor
Frankfurt, KY 40601
502/564-7320
DEP, see Water Quality Standards Program
OEP, see Water Quality Standards Progra*
DEP, Bureau of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
Capitol Plaza Toner
Sixth Floor
Frankfurt, KY 40601
902/964-6940
502/564-6940
OEP, see Water Quality Standards Program
OEP, Division of Water Quality
Floodplaln Management Section
Fort Boone Plaza
18 Rlelly Road
Frankfurt, KY 40601
502/564-7885
DEP, see Water Quality Standards Program
OEP, see Water Quality Standards Program
Dept. of Fish and Mlldllfe Resources (DFWR)
Arnold Mitchell Building II
Game Farm Road
Frankfurt, KY 40601
502/564-4406
DFMR. see Protected Species
Regional Planning Units
City/County Planning Depts.
Regional Planning Units
City/County Planning Depts.
County Public Health Depts.
Utilities
County Public Health Depts.
Universities
-------
Table 9-37 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources * MISSISSIPPI
Area of Jurisdiction FederaI
State
Regional/Local
1. Mater Quality Standards Program EPA Region IV
2. NPOES Penult Program EPA Region IV
3. Construction Grants EPA Region IV
Program
4. Planning
- Land use (general—population
projections, development trends, etc.)
- Archeologlcal/Hlstorlcal
- A-95 Review/State Clearinghouse
5. Gaomorphology
- Wetlands Identification
- Geological Data
- Dredge A Fill Pen.lti
6. Hydrology/Meteorology
- Flow data
- Floodplaln Management
- Groundwater data
- Meteorologlc Data
7. Mater Quality (See Nos. 1, 213)
- Mater Quality Data
8. Ecology
- Protected Species
- Wildlife
- Rare or Endangered Metlands
(see Section 2. )
- Coastal Wetlands Protection
Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Geological Survey
Federal Emergency Management
Administration
Geological Survey
National Weather Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Fish and Wildlife Service
Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR)
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
601/961-3171
ONR, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DNR, see Mater Quality Standards Program
Department of Archives and History
100 State Street
Jackson, MS 39209
601/354-6218
Dept. of Planning and Policy
1304 Walter Sillers Blvd
500 High Street
Jackson. MS 39202
601/354-7018
DNR, see Water Quality Standards Program
DNR, Bureau of Geology
P.O. Box 3348
Jackson, MS 39216
601/354-6228
DNR, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DNR, Bureau of Land and Water Resources
P.O. Box 10631
Jackson, MS 39209
601/961-9202
Mississippi Research and Development Center
3825 Rldgewood Road
P.O. Drawer 2470
Jackson, MS 39205
601/982-6456
DNR. see Flow data
DNR, see Flow data
DNR, Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife
Game and Fish Commission
P.O. Box 451
Jackson. MS 39203
601/961-5300
DNR, see Protected Species
Dept. of Wildlife Conservation
Bureau of Marine Resources
P.O. Drawer 959
Long Beach, MS 39560
601/864-4 *n?
City/County Planning Depts.
City/County Planning Depts.
Utility authorities
County Public Health Depts.
Universities
-------
Table 9-38 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - NORTH CAROLINA
Area of Jurisdiction Federal
State
Regional/Local
I. Water Quality Standards Program EPA Region IV
2. NPOES Remit Program EPA Region IV
3. Construction Grants Program EPA Region IV
4, Planning
- Land use (general-population
projections, development trends, etc.)
- Archeologlcal/Hlstorlcal
- Easements over Hater
- State Environmental Policy
- State Clearinghouse
5. GeoBorphology
- Wetlands Identification
- Geological Data
- Dredge » Fill Permits
- Sedimentation and Erosion Control
6. Hydrology/Meteorology
- Flow data
- Floodplaln Management
- GroundMter Data
- Meteorologlc Data
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Geological Survey
Federal Emergency Management Admin.
Geological Survey
National Weather Service
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (DNRCD)1
Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh. NC 27611
9)9/733-7120
ONRCD, see Mater Quality Standards Program
ONRCD, see Mater Quality Standards Program
Department of Administration
Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Department of Administration
State Property Office
116 Mest Jones Street
Raleigh. NC 27611
919/733-4346
Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM)
116 Mest Jones Street
Raleigh. NC 27611
919/733-7061
State Clearinghouse
116 Mest Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
OSBM, see State Environmental Policy
DEM, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DNRCD, Division of Land Resources
P.O. Box 276(7
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-4574
Office of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh. NC 27611
9I9/73V2293
DNRCD, see Geological data
DEM, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DEM, see Hater Quality Standards Program
OEM, see Mater Quality Standards Program
Regional Planning CounclIs2
City/County Planning Depts.
City/County Planning Depts.
vD
I
-------
Table 9-38 (Continued)
Area of Jurisdiction
Federal
State
Regional/Local
7. Mater Quality (See Nos. 1,243)
- Mater Quality Data
Ecology
- Protected Species
- Hlldllfe
- Rare or endangered Wetlands
(see Section 2. )
- Areas of Environmental Concern
- Vector Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Geological Survey
Amy Corps of Engineers
Fish and Hlldllfe Service
DEM, see Mater Quality
Wildlife Resources Commission (MRC)
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-3391
WC, see Protected Species
DEM. see Hater Quality Standards Program
Department of Hunan Resources
Division of Health Services
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, NC 27602
919/733-6407
Utilities
County Public Health Depts.
Universities
'See list of DNRCO Regional Offices
2See list of Regional Planning Councils
'North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development Regional Offices
2North Carolina Planning and Development Commissions
Mlnston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Cr. Pkwy. Ext.
Mlnston-Salem, NC 27106
919/761-2351
AshevlIle Regional Office
Interchange Blvd.
159 MoodfIn St.
Ashevl lie, NC 28801
704/253-3341
Mooresvl Me Regional Office
919 N. Main St.
Mooresvl Me, NC 281 IS
704/663-1699
Fayettevllie Regional Office
Wachovia Blvd.
Suite 714
Fayettevl Me, NC 28301
919/486-1541
Raleigh Regional Office
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-1214
Washington Regional Office
1502 N. Market St.
Washington, NC 27889
919/946-6481
Hllmlngton Regional Office
7625 Hrlghtsvllle Aye.
Hllmlngton. NC 28403
919/256-4161
Coastal Management Field Services
108 S. Mater St.
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
919-338-0205
Coastal Management Field Services
1502 N. Market St.
Washington, NC 27889
919/946-6481
Coastal Management Field Services
7225 Nrlghtsvllle Ave.
Mllmlngton, NC 28403
919/256-4161
Southwestern NC Planning
and Economic Development Commission
P 0 Box 850
Bryson City, NC 28713
Land-ot-Sky Regional Council
25 Heritage Drive
Ashevl lie, NC 28806 C 681
Isothermal Planning and Development
Commission
P 0 Box 841
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Region 0 Council of Governments
P 0 Box 1820
Boone, NC 28607
Western Piedmont Council of Governments
30 Third Street, MM
Hickory. NC 28601
CentralIna Council of Governments
P 0 Box 35008
Charlotte, NC 28235 C 518-A
Pee Dee Council of Governments
280 S. Liberty St.
Government Center
Winston-Sal em, NC 27101
Triangle J Council of Governments
P 0 Box 12276
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Kerr-Tar Regional Council of
Governments
P 0 Box 709
N' 'son, NC 27536
Region M Council of Governments
P 0 Box 1529
Lumber ton, NC 28358 C 431
Cape Fear Council of Governments
P 0 Box 1491
Hllmlngton, NC 28402 C 412
Neuse River Council of Governments
P 0 Box 1717
New Bern, NC 28560 C 134
Mid-East Commission
P 0 Drawer 1787
Washington, NC 27889 C 172
Aloemarle Regional Planning
and Development Commission
P 0 Box 646
Hertford, NC 27944
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Four Seasons Offices
2120 Plnecroft Road
Greensboro, NC 27407 C 218
Region L Council of Governments
P 0 Drawer 2748
Rocky Mount, NC 27801 C 760
<£>
I
-------
Tab I. 9-39 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - SOUTH CAROL 11*
Area of Jurisdiction Federal
State
Regional/Local
I. Water Quality Standards Program EPA Region IV
2. NPOES Permit Program EPA Region IV
3. Construction Grants Program EPA Region IV
4. Planning
- Land Use (general—population
projections, development trends, etc.)
- Archeologlcal/Hlstorlcal
- A-95 RevI en/State
Clearinghouse
5. Geomorphology
- Wetlands Identification
- Geological Data
- Dredge 1 Fill Permits
Permits
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
6. Hydrology
- Flo* data
- Floodplaln Management
- GroundMter data
- Meteorologlc data
- Public Land and Water Resource Usage
7. Water Quality (See Nos. 1,243)
- Water Quality Data
Geological Survey
Federal Emergency Management
Administration
Geological Survey
National Weather Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Dept. of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC)
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bui I Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803/758-3877
DHEC, see Water Quality Standards Program
DHEC, see Water Quality Standards Program
State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Vchives I History
P.O. Box 11669
Columbia, SC 29211
80V 758-5816
State Archeologlst
Institute of Archeology
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803/777-8170
Stated ear I nghouse
Office of the State Auditor
P.O. Box 11333
Columbia, SC 29211
803/758-7707
DHEC. see Water Quality Standards Program
DHEC. see Water Quality Standards Program
Environmental Affairs Division
Water Resources Commission (WRC)
P.O. Box 4515
Columbia, SC 22904
803/758-2514
DHEC, see Water Quality Standards Program
WRC, see Dredge t Fill Permits
DHEC, see Water Quality Standards Program
WC, see Dredge I Fill Permits
(Geology-Hydrology Division)
WC, see Dredge 4 Fill Permits
DHEC, see Water Quality Standards Program
WC. see Dredge 4 Fill Permits
Regional Council of Governments'
City/County Planning Depts.
Regional Council of Governments'
City/County Planning Depts.
County Public Health Depts.
Regional Council of Govern*
County Public Health Depts.
<£>
I
-------
Table 9-39 (Continued)
Area of Jurisdiction
Federal
Fish and Wildlife Service
8. Ecology
- Protected Species
- Wildlife
- Rare or endangered Wetlands
(see Section 2. )
- Heritage Trust Program
- Wild * Scenic Rivers
Rivers
•see ll»t of Regional Council ot Governments
1 South Carolina Regional Councils of Government
State
Regional/Local
Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept. (WMRO)
P.O. Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
803/758-0014
WWO, see Protected Species
WW», see Protected Species
WC, Planning Division
P.O. Box 4515
Columbia. SC 29204
803/758-3754
South Carolina Appalachian Council
of Governments
Executive Director
Drawer 6668
Greenville. SC 29606
Upper Savannah Council of Governments
Executive Director
Box 1366
Greennod. SC 29648
Catavba Regional Planning Council
Executive Director
Box 862
SCN Center, 100 Dave Lyle Blvd.
Rock HIM, SC 29730
Central Midlands Regional Planning
Council
Executive Director
Suite 15), Dutch Plaza
800 Dutch Square Blvd.
Columbia. SC 29210
Pee-Dee Regional Council of
Governments
Executive Director
Box 5719
Florence, SC 29502
Waccamao Regional Planning and
Development Council
Executive Director
Box 419
Georgetoon, SC 29440
Berk. I ey-Char I eston-Cor Chester
Council of Governments
Executive Director
Business and Technology Center
Suite 1-548
701 East Bay Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Loocountry Council of Govern-
ments
Executive Director
P 0 Box 98
Yemassee, SC 29945
Lower Savannah Council of
Governments
Executive Director
Box 850
Alken. SC 29801
Santee-Lynches Council for
Governments
Executive Director
Box 1837
Sumter, SC 29150
•£>
I
-------
Tab la 9-40 Agency Responsibilities and Data Sources - TENNESSEE
Area of Jurisdiction Federal
State
Regional/Local
1. Mater Quality Standards Program EPA Region IV
2. NPDES Permit Program EPA Region IV
3. Construction Grants Program EPA Region IV
4. Planning
- Land use (general—population
projections, development trends, etc.)
- Archeologlcal/Hlstorlcal
- A-95 Review/State Clearinghouse
5. Geomorphology
- Wetlands Identification
- Geological Data
- Dredge t Fll I Permits
6. Hydrology/Meteorology
- Flow data
- Floodplaln management
- GroundNater data
- Meteorologlc data
7. Mater Quality (See Nos. I, 2 a 3)
- Water quality data
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
Geological Survey
Federal Emergency Management
Administration
Geological Survey
National Weather Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Geological Survey .
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Health and Environment (DHE)
Division of Mater Quality Control
Terra Bldg.
150 9th Avenue, North
Nashville. TN 37203
615/741-7883
DHE, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DHE, see Mater Quality Standards Program
State Planning Office (TSPO)
1800 James K. Polk Bldg.
509 DeaderIck St.
Nashville, TN 37219
615/741-1676
Department of Conservation
Division of Archeology
5103 Edmondson Pike
Nashville, TN 37211
615/741-1588
Department of Conservation
Historical Commission
State Historic Preservation Office
4721 Trousdale Drive
Nashvllle, TN 37219
615/741-2371
Regional Planning Commissions'
City/County Planning Oepts.
TSPO,
Land Use
DHE, see Mater Quality Standards Program
Department of Conservation
Division of Surface Mining and Reclamation
1720 West End Ave.
Nashv11le, TN 37203
615/741-3042
DHE, see Mater Quality Standards Program
DHE, see Mater Quality Standards Progra
TSPO, see Land Use
Department of Conservation
Division of Mater Resources
4721 Trousdale Drive
Nashville, TN 37219
615/741-6860
DHE, see Mater Quality Standards Program
Regional Planning Commissions'
Utilities
County Public Health Depts.
Universities
•£>
I
-------
Table 9-40 (Continued)
Area of Jurisdiction
FederaI
State
Regional/Local
8. Ecology
- Protected Species
Fish and Wildlife Service
- Wildlife
- Rare or Endangered Metlands (see Section 2. )
Wildlife Resources Agency
Ellington Agricultural Center
P.O. Box 40747
Nashville, TN 37204
615/741-1517
(permitting and animals)
Heritage Program
Department of Conservation
2611 West End Ave.
Nashville, TN 37203
615/741-3852
(Plants)
Wildlife Resources Agency,
see Protected Species
State
'See list of Regional Planning Commissions
'Tennessee Development Districts
METRO
East Tennessee Development District
Westwood Building
5616 Kingston Pike
P 0 Box 19806
Knoxvllle, TN 37919
First Tennessee-Virginia Development
District
207 North Boone Street
Johnson City, TN 37601
Memphis Delta Development District
Director of Planning
160 North Main, Mid-America Mall
Memphis, TN 38103
Mid-Cumberland Development District
501 Union Street, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37219
Southeast Tennessee Development
District
NON-METRO
Northwest Tennessee Development District
Director of Planning
P 0 Box 63
Martin, TN 38237
South Central Tennessee Development
District
805 NashvlIle Highway
P 0 Box 1346
Columbia, TN 38401
Southwest Tennessee Development District
Director of Planning
416 East Lafayette St.
Jackson, TN 38301
Upper Cumberland Development District
1225 Burgess Fal Is Road
CookevHIe. TN 38501
I
Ln
-------
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AW DATA SOURCES
9-15
Table 9-41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Program Contacts
Water Quality Standards Program
NPDES Permit Program
Construction Grants Program
Northern Area
(KY, NC, SC, TN)
Southern Area
(AL. FL, GA, MS)
EPA Region IV
Water Quality Section
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404/881-3116
EPA Region IV
Permits Section
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404/881-3012
EPA Region IV
Grants Management Section
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404/881-2005
EPA Region IV
Grants Management Section
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404/881-3633
Table 9-42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Habitat Resources Field Offices
Region 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Richard B. Russell Bldg.
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
EcgIOQIcaI SeryIces
U.S. Fish & Wlldl Ife Service
Ecological Services
P 0 Drawer 1 190
Daphne East Office Plaza
Highway 98
Daphne, AL 36526
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
1612 June Ave.
Panama City, FL 32401
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P 0 Box 2676
Press-Journal Bldg.
1323 - 21st St.
Vero Beach, FL 32960
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Federal Bldg., Room 334
Brunswick, GA 31520
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Room 409, Merchants National Bank Bldg.
820 South St.
VIcksburg, MS 39180
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Room 468, •Federal Bldg.
310 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27601
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P 0 Box 12559
217 Ft. Johnson Rd.
Charleston, SC 29412
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P 0 Box 845
CookevlIle, TN 38503
Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species
2747 Art Museum Drive
JacksonvlIle, FL 29
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species
Jackson Mall Office Center
300 Woodrow Wilson Ave.
Suite 3185
Jackson, MS 39215
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species
Plateau Building, Room A5
50 South French Broad Ave.
Ashev11le, NC 28801
704/259-0321
-------
Table 9-43. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts
AG0CY RESPONSIBILITIES AND DATA SOURCES
Army Corps of Engineers (NC, TN)'
Nashville District
P 0 Box 1070
Nashvllle, TN 37202
615/749-5181
Army Corps of Engineers (NC)
Huntlngton District
P 0 Box 2127
Huntlngton, WV 25712
304/529-5487
Army Corps of Engineers (NC)
Norfolk District
803 Front St. - Fort Norfolk
Norfolk, VA 23510
804/441-3500
Army Corps of Engineers (NC)
Wilmington District
P 0 Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
919/343-4511
Army Corps of Engineers (TN)
Memphis District
668 Clifford Davis Federal Building
Memphis, TN 38103
901/521-3168
Army Corps of Engineers (FL)
Jacksonville District
P 0 Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232
Army Corps of Engineers (AL, FL)
Mobile District
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, AL 36628-0001
205/690-2511
Army Corps of Engineers (SO
Charleston District
P.O. Box 919
Charleston, SC 29402
803/577-4171
Army Corps of Engineers (GA)
Savannah District
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402
912/233-8822
Army Corps of Engineers (KY)
Louisville District
P.O. Box 59
Louisville, KY 40201
502/582-5601
Indicates states Included In district offices' jurisdiction.
Table 9-44 State Conservationists
State Soil Conservation Service
665 Ope Ilka Road
P 0 Box 311
Auburn, AL 36830
State Soil Conservation Service
Federal Building, Room 248
401 S.E. 1st Ave.
GalnesvlIle, FL 32601
State Soil Conservation Service
Federal Building
355 E. Hancock Avenue
P 0 Box 832
Athens, GA 30613
State Soil Conservation Service
333 Waller Avenue, Room 305
Lexington, KY 40504
State Soil Conservation Service
Federal Bldg., Suite 1321
100 West Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39269
State Soil Conservation Service
Federal Office Bldg., Rm. 535
310 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27601
State Soil Conservation Service
1835 Assembly St., Room 950
Strom Thurmond Federal Bldg.
Columbia, SC 29201
State Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 675
801 Broadway Street
Nashville, TN 37203
-------
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AND DATA SOURCES
9-16
Table 9-45. U.S. Geological Survey, District Offices - Southeastern Region
U.S. Geological Survey
Regional Office, Water Resources Division
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
U.S. Geological Survey
District Office
520 19th Avenue
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
U.S. Geological Survey
District Office
227 N. Bronough St., Suite 3015
Tallahassee, FL 32301
U.S. Geological Survey
District Office
6481 Peach tree Industrial Blvd.
Suite B
Doravllle, GA 30360
U.S. Geological Survey
District Office
Room 572, Federal Building
600 Federal Place
Louisville, KY 40202
U.S. Geological Survey
District Office
Suite 710, Federal Building
100 West Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39269
U.S. Geological Survey
District Office
P.O. Box 3857
Room 436, Century Station
300 Fayettevllle St. Mall
Raleigh, NC 27602
U.S. Geological Survey
District Office
Strom Thurmond Federal Bldg.
Suite 658, 1835 Assembly Street
Columbia, SC 29201
U.S. Geological Survey
District Office
A413 Federal Building
U.S. Courthouse
Nashvl I le, TN 37203r
Table 9-46 State Natural Heritage Programs
Eastern Regional Heritage Program
The Nature Conservancy
294 Washington St.
Boston, MA 02108
617/542-1908
Alabama Natural Areas Inventory
Natural Resources Center
P 0 Box 6282
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
205/348-4520
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
254 E. 6th Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32303
904/224-8207
Kentucky Heritage Program
KY Nature Preserves Commission
407 Broadway
Frankfort, KY 40601
502/564-2886
Mississippi Natural Heritage Program
111 N. Jefferson St.
Jackson, MS 39202
601/254-7226
North Carolina Natural Heritage
Dept. of Natural & Economic Res.
Dlv. of State Parks
P 0 Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
South Carolina Heritage Trust
SC Wildlife & Marine Resources Dept.
P 0 Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
803/758-0014
Tennessee Natural Heritage Program
Ecological Services
Department of Conservation
701 Broadway
NashvlIle, TN 37203
615/742-6545
TVA Regional Heritage
Office of Natural Resources
Norrls, TN 37838
-------
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES HC DATA SOURCES 9-16
Table 9-47. Common Data Sources.
1. Topographic Maps - USGS
2. County Highway Maps - DOT, City/County/Regional Planning Commissions
3. Wetlands Maps - USGS, USFWS
4. Soils Information & Maps - SCS
5. Wetland Ownership/Availability -
Regional Planning Councils
City/County Planning Oepts.
City/County Tax Records Offices
6. Water Quality Data - USGS
Storet - EPA
-------
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
In addition to literature referenced below, two bibliographies have
been published on the use of wetlands for wastewater management. These
are a valuable resource for those involved in wetlands management. The
first document was jointly published by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in 1984 entitled "The Ecological Impacts of Wastewater on
Wetlands—An Annotated Bibliography" (EPA 905/3-84-002). The second
document was recently made available by the Center for Wetlands
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Preface
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Phase I Report—Freshwater
wetlands for wastewater management. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA, EPA
904/9-83-107.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Saltwater wetlands for
wastewater management environmental assessment. EPA Region IV, Atlanta,
GA. EPA 904/10-84-128.
Chapter 2
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Dept. Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Serv., Office of Biol. Serv., Washington, DC.
#FWS/OBS-79/31.
Day, J. W. 1981. Personal communication. Center for Wetlands, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
Hefner, J. M. and J. D. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in the southeastern
United States. J. Soc. Wetland Scientists. 4:1-11.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. Wetlands: their use and regula-
tion. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC OTA-0-206.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Clean water act regulations
40 CFR 122.2. Federal Register 45(98), May 19, 1980 and 45(141) July 21,
1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Phase I Report—Freshwater
wetlands for wastewater management. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA. EPA
904/9-83-107.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Wetlands of the Untied States:
current status and recent trends. U.S. FWS, Newton Corner, MA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984b. Southeast regional resource plan.
U.S. FWS, Atlanta, GA.
-------
REFERENCES R_2
Chapter 3
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Dept. Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Serv., Office of Biol. Serv., Washington, DC.
#FWS/OBS-79/31.
Nichols, D. S. 1983. Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients from
wastewater. J. WPCF, 55(5) :495-505.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Consolidated permit
regulations--40 CFR 122. Federal Register 45(98), May 19, 1980 and
45(141) July 21, 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Water quality standards
regulations—40 CFR 35, 120 and 131. Federal Register 48(217), November
8, 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. Coastal marinas assessment
handbook. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA EPA 904/6-85-132.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Construction grants 1985
(CG85). EPA, Washington, DC. EPA 430/9-84-004.
Chapter 4
Adamus, P. R. and L. T. Stockwell. 1983. A method for wetland func-
tional assessment: Volumes 1 and 2. U.S. Department of Transportation,
FHWA, Washington, DC. FHWA-IP-82-23.
Brown, M. T., and E. M. Starnes. 1983. A wetlands study of Seminole
County. Center for Wetlands, Univ. Florida. Technical Report 41.
Canada/Ontario Steering Committee on Wetland Evaluation. 1983. An
evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario south of the Precambrian Shield.
First Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Canadian Wildlife
Service.
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Dept. Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Serv., Office of Biol. Serv., Washington, DC.
#FWS/OBS-79/31.
Henderson, T. R., W. Smith and D. G. Burke. 1983. Non-tidal wetlands
protection: a handbook for Maryland local governments. Maryland Dept. of
Natural Resources.
Hyde, H. C., R. S. Ross and F. Dengen. 1982. Technology assessment of
wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment. Municipal Env. Res. Lab.,
EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 4 Continued
Kadlec, R. 1985. Aging phenomena in wetlands. From: Ecological
considerations in wetlands treatment of municipal wastewaters. Van
Nostrand Reinholdt Co., New York, NY.
McCormick, J. S. and H. A. Somes, Jr. 1982. The coastal wetlands of
Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Draft manual for wetland
evaluation techniques. Wetland Protection Unit, Division of Land
Resources Programs, Lansing, MI.
Mountain View Sanitary District. 1983. Personal Communication.
Martinez, CA.
Nichols, D. S. 1985. Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients from
wastewater. J. WPCF, 55(5) :495-505.
Odum, H. T. 1976. Jhn: H. T. Odum and K. C. Ewel (eds). Cypress
wetlands for water management, recycling and conservation. Annual
Report, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Odum, H. T. 1980. Principles for interfacing wetlands with development.
In; H. T. Odum and K. C. Ewel (eds). Cypress wetlands for water
management, recycling and conservation. Annual Report, Center for
Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Richardson, C. J. 1985. Mechanisms controlling phosphorus retention
capacity in freshwater wetlands. Science: In press.
Richardson, C. J. and D. S. Nichols. 1985. Ecological analysis of
wastewater management criteria in wetland ecosystems. From: Ecological
Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Van
Nostrand Reinholdt Co., New York, NY.
Southerland, J. C. 1985. Wetland-wastewater economics. In: Edological
considerations in wetlands treatment of municipal wastewaters. Van
Nostrand Reinholdt Co., New York, NY.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Phase I Report—Freshwater
wetlands for wastewater management. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA. EPA
904/9-83-107.
-------
REFERENCES p /t
Chapter 5
Chan, E., T. A. Bursztynsky, N. Hantzsche and Y. J. Litwin. 1981. The
use of wetlands for water pollution control. U.S. EPA. Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
CTA Environmental, Inc. 1984. Freshwater wetlands for wastewater
management environmental assessment. Task Report 404. U.S. EPA -
Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
Gearheart, R. A., S. Wilbur, J. Williams, D. Hull, B. Finney and S.
Sundberg. 1983. Final Report: City of Arcata Marsh Pilot Project,
Effluent Quality Results—System Design and Management. Arcata, CA.
Hammer, D. E. and R. H. Kadlec. 1983. Design principles for wetland
treatment systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK. EPA 600/ 2-83-026.
Hopkinson, C. S., Jr. and J. W. Day. 1980. Modelling hydrology and
eutrophication in a Louisiana Swamp Forest Ecosystem. Environ. Manage.
4:325-335.
Hyde, H. C., R. S. Ross and F. Demegen. 1982. Technology assessment of
wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory.
Cincinnati, OH.
Odum, H. T. 1976. In: H. T. Odum and K. C. Ewel (eds). Cypress
wetlands for water management, recycling and conservation. Annual
Report, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Mitsch, W. J., J. W. Day, Jr., J. Taylor and C. Madden. 1982. Models of
North American freshwater wetlands. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
8:109-140.
Mitsch, W. J. 1983. Aquatic ecosystem modeling—its evolution,
effectiveness and opportunities in policy issues. U.S. EPA, Washington,
DC.
Nichols, D. S. 1983. Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients from
wastewater. J. WPCF, 55(5) :495-505.
Richardson, C. J. and D. S. Nichols. 1985. Ecological analysis of
wastewater management criteria in wetland ecosystems. In; Ecological
considerations in wetlands treatment of municipal wastewaters. Van
Nostrand Reinholdt Co., New York, NY.
Stow ell, R., R. Ludwig, J. Colt and G. Tchobanoglous. 1980. Toward the
rational design of aquatic treatment systems. Dept. Civil Eng., University
of California, Davis, CA.
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Water quality standards
handbook. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Phase I Report—Fresh-
water wetlands for wastewater management. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
EPA 904/9-83-107.
Chapter 6
Adams, L. W. and L. E. Dove. 1984. Urban wetlands for stormwater
control and wildlife enhancement. National Institute for Urban Wildlife,
Columbia, MD.
Chan, E., T. A. Bursztynsky, N. Hantzsche and Y. J. Litwin. 1981. The
use of wetlands for water pollution control. MERL-ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Gearheart, R. A., S. Wilbur, J. Williams, D. Hull, B. Finney and S.
Sundberg. 1983. Final Report: City of Arcata marsh pilot project,
effluent quality results—system design and management. Arcata, CA.
Hammer, D. E. and R. H. Kadlec. 1983. Design principles for wetland
treatment systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK. EPA-600/2-83-026.
Heliotis, F. D. 1982. Wetland systems for wastewater treatment:
operating mechanisms and implications for design. Instructional Program,
Institute for Environmental Studies, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. IBS
Report #117.
Humphrey, C. 1984. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. - Oregon Operations Office. Portland, OR.
Rich, L. G. 1973. Environmental systems engineering. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
New York, NY.
Stowell, R. M., et al. 1981. Concepts in aquatic treatment system design.
J. Environ. Engr. Div.—ASCE. 107(EE5) :919-941.
Tchobanoglous, G. and G. L. Gulp. 1980. Wetland systems for wastewater
treatment. _In: S. C. Reed and R. K. Bastian (eds.). Aquaculture systems
for wastewater treatment: an engineering assessment. EPA Office of Water
Program Operations, Washington, DC. EPA 430/9-80-007.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Aquaculture systems for
wastewater treatment: seminar proceedings and engineering assessment.
EPA Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC. EPA
430/9-80-006.
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Assessment of current
information on overland flow treatment of municipal wastewater. EPA
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC. EPA 430/ 9-80-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Phase I Report—Freshwater
wetlands for wastewater management. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA. EPA
904/9-83-107.
Chapter 7
Darnell, R. M., et al. 1976. Impacts of construction activities in wetlands
of the United States. U.S. EPA. Corvallis, OR.
Gearheart, R. A., S. Wilbur, J. Williams, D. Hull, B. Finney and S.
Sundberg. 1983. Final Report: City of Arcata marsh pilot project,
effluent quality results—system design and management. Arcata, CA.
Nelson, R. W. and Weller, E. C. 1984. A better rationale for wetland
management. Environ. Manage. 8(4) :295-308.
Sharitz, R. R. and J. W. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern
shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina bays: a community profile. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, DC.
FWS/OBS-82-04.
Chapter 8
Boyt, F. L., S. Bayley, and J. Zoltek, Jr. 1977. Removal of nutrients from
treated municipal wastewater by wetland vegetation. J. Water Poll.
Control Fed. 49:789-799.
Best et al. 1982. Personal Communication. Center for Wetlands, Univer-
sity of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Boto, K. G., and W. H. Patrick, Jr. 1978. Role of wetlands in the removal
of suspended sediments. In: P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark
(eds.). Wetland function and values: the state of our understanding.
Amer. Water Resources Assoc. Tech. Pub. No. TPS 79-2. Minneapolis, MN.
Brezonik, P., J. Butner, J. Tushall, and W. Debusk. 1981. Water quality
studies. In: W. R. Fritz and S. C. Helle (eds.). Tertiary treatment of
wastewater using flow-through wetland systems. Boyle Engineering,
Orlando, FL.
Brinson, M. M. and F. R. Westall. 1983. Application of wastewater to
wetlands. Water Resources Research Institute. Univ. of North Carolina,
Raleigh, NC.
-------
REFERENCES R 7
Chapter 8 Continued
Brown, S. 1981. A comparison of the structure, productivity, and trans-
piration of cypress ecosystems of Florida. Ecolog. Monogr. 51:403-427.
Callahan, M., M. VV. Slimak, N. W. Gabel, I. P. May and C. S. Fowler.
1979. Water-related environmental fate of 129 priority pollutants. Vol. I:
Introduction and technical background, metals, and inorganics. Pesticides
and PCBs. EPA 440/4-79-029A.
Carriker, N. E., and P. L. Brezonik. 1976. Heavy metals. In: H. T.
Odum and K. C. Ewel (eds.). 3rd annual report, cypress wetlands for
water management, recycling and conservation. Center for Wetlands,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Carter, V., M. S. Bedinger, R. P. Novitzki, and W. O. Wilen. 1978. Water
resources and wetlands. In: P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark
(eds.). Wetland function and values: the state of our understanding.
American Water Resources Association. Tech. Pub. No. TPS 79-2.
Minneapolis, MN.
Chan, E., T. A. Bursztynsky, N. Hantzsche and Y. J. Litwin. 1981. The
use of wetlands for water pollution control. MERL-ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Craig, N. J. and E. J. Kuenzler. 1983. Land use, nutrient yield and
eutrophication in the Chowan River Basin. Water Resources Research
Institute. Univ. of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Davis, H. 1975. Distribution of mosquito species among four cypress
domes. In: H. T. Odum and K. C. Ewel (eds.). Cypress wetlands for
water management, recycling and conservation. 2nd annual report. Center
for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Davis, H. 1978. Progress report on mosquito research. In; H. T. Odum
and K. C. Ewel (eds.). Cypress wetlands for water management,
recycling, and conservation. 3rd Annual report, Center for Wetlands,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Deghi, G. S. 1977. Effect of sewage effluent application on phosphorus
cycling in cypress domes. Masters Thesis. Dept. of Env. Eng. Sci.,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Dinges, R. 1978. Upgrading stabilization pond effluent by water hyacinth.
J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 50:833-845.
Ewel, K. C. and Mitsch. 1978. The effects of fire on species composition in
cypress dome ecosystems. Fla. Scient. 41:25-31.
Ewel, K. C. and Odum, H.T. 1984. Cypress swamps. Univ. Florida Press,
Gainesville, FL.
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 8 Continued
Fox, J. L. and J. Alison. 1976. Coliform monitoring associated with the
cypress dome project. In: K. C. Ewel and H. T. Odum (eds.). Cypress
wetlands for water management, recycling and conservation. 3rd annual
report, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Kadlec, R. H. 1979. Wetland utilization for management of community
wastewater. 1978 operations summary. Wetland Ecosystem Research
Group, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kadlec, R. H., and D. E. Hammer. 1980. Wetland utilization for
management of community wastewater. 1979 operations summary. Wetlands
Ecosystem Research Group, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kadlec, R. H., and J. A. Kadlec. 1978. Wetlands and water quality. In:
P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark, (eds.). Wetland function
and values: the state of our understanding. Amer. Water Resources
Assoc. Tech. Pub. No. TPS 69-2. Minneapolis, MN.
Lee, G. F., E. Bentley, and R. Amundson. 1975. Effects of marshes on
water quality. In; A. D. Hasler (eds.). Coupling of land and water
systems. Springer-Verlag, London.
Mackim, T. 1984. Personal Communication. Reedy Creek Improvement
District. Lake Buena Vista, FL.
Monk, C. D. 1966. An ecological study of hardwood swamps in north
central Florida. Ecology 47:649-653.
Monk, C. D. 1968. Successional and environmental relationships of the
forest vegetation of north central Florida. Amer. Midi. Nat. 79:441-457.
Murdock, A., and J. A. Capobianco. 1979. Effects of treated effluent on a
natural marsh. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 51:2243-2256.
Nessel, J. K. 1978. Distribution and dynamics of organic matter and
phosphorus in a sewage enriched cypress swamp. Masters Thesis. Dept.
Env. Eng. Sci., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Odom, R. R., J. L. McCollum, M. A. Neville, and D. R. Ettman (eds.).
1977. Georgia's protected wildlife. Georgia Dept. Nat. Resources, Game
and Fish Div. Social Circle, GA.
Richardson, C. J. 1980. Pocosins: a conference on alternative uses of the
coastal plains freshwater wetlands of North Carolina. Hutchinson-Ross Pub-
lishing Co., Stroudsburg, PA.
Richardson, C. J. 1985. Mechanisms controling phosphorus retention
capacity in freshwater wetlands. Science: In Press.
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 8 Continued
Ruffier, P., W. Boyle, and J. Kleinschmidt. 1981. Short-term acute
bioassays to evaluate ammonia toxicity and effluent standards. J. Water.
Poll. Control Fed. 53:367.
Schwartz, L. 1985. Personal Communication. Florida Dept. of
Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL.
Scheverman, R. R. 1978. The effect of soluble humic substances on the
retention capacity of soils toward viruses. Masters Thesis. Dept. of Env.
Eng. Sci., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Schindler, D. W., et al. 1980. Effects of acidification on mobilization of
heavy metals and radionuclides from the sediments of a freshawter lake.
Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 37:373-383.
Sittig, M. 1980. Priority toxic pollutants—health impacts and allowable
limits. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ.
Sloey, W. E., F. L. Spangler, and C. W. Fetter. 1978. Management of
freshwater wetlands for nutrient assimilation. In; R. E. Good, D. F.
Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (eds.). Freshwater wetlands: ecological
processes and management potential. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Steward, K. K., and W. H. Ornes. 1975. Assessing a marsh environment
for wastewater renovation. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 47(7):1880-91.
Teskey, R. O., and T. M. Hinckley. 1977. Impact of water level changes
on woody riparian and wetland communities. Vol. I. Plant and soil
responses to flooding. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Washington, D.C.,
FWS/OBS-77/58.
Tuschall, J. R., P. L. Brezonik, and K. C. Ewel. 1981. Tertiary
treatment of wastewater using flow-through wetland systems. In; Nat.
Conf. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng. 8 July to 10 July 1981. Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Phase I Report—Freshwater
wetlands for wastewater management. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA. EPA
904/9-83-107.
Wellings, F. M., A. Lewis, L. Mountain, and V. Pierce. 1975.
Demonstration of virus in groundwater after effluent discharge onto soil.
Applied Microbiol. 29:751-757.
Whigham, D., and S. Bayley. 1978. Nutrient dynamics in freshwater
wetlands. In; P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark, (eds.).
Wetland function and values: the state of our understanding. Amer. Water
Resources Assoc. Tech. Pub. No. TPS 79-2. Minneapolis, MN.
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 8 Continued
Whittaker, R. H., and G. M. Woodell. 1969. Structure, production, and
diversity of the oak-pine forest at Brookhaven, N. Y. J. Ecol. 57 :55-174.
Winchester, B. 1981. The assimilation of secondarily treated sewage
effluent by Pottsberg Creek swamp. Ch^M-Hill, Gainesville, FL.
Zoltek, J., and S. E. Bayley. 1979. Removal of nutrients from treated
municipal wastewater by freshwater marshes. Final report to City of
Clermont, Florida. Center for Wetlands. University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Chapter 9
Albers, P. H. 1976. Determining population size of territorial red-winged
blackbirds. J. Wildlife Manage. 40(4):701-768.
Alcorn, J. R. 1971. A discussion on coyote census techniques. U.S. Fish
and WildlifeServ.
Aldous, S. E. 1944. A deer browse survey method. J. Mammao.
25:130-136.
American Public Health Association. 1980. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater (15th ed.). American Public Health
Association, Washington, DC.
American Society for Testing Materials. 1976. Soil specimen preparation
for laboratory testing. Special Technical Publication 599, American Society
for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing Materials. 1983. Annual book of ASTM
standards. Water and environmental technology. Section II. American
Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Anderson, A. E., D. E. Medin and D. C. Bowden. 1972. Mule deer fecal
pellet counts related to site factors on winter range. J. Range Manage.
25(l):66-68.
Anderson, D. R., J. L. Laake, B. R. Grain and K. P. Burnham. 1976.
Guidelines for line transect sampling of biological populations. Utah
Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Arcement, G. J., Jr. and V. R. Schneider. 1984. Guide for selecting
Manning's roughness coefficients for natural channels and flood plains.
Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWATS-84-204, McLean, VA,
Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Preliminary guide to the wetlands of penin-
sular Florida. Tech. Rep. Y-78-2. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exper.
Sta., Vicksburg, MS.
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 9 Continued
Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Preliminary guide to the wetlands of the
Gulf Coastal Plain. Tech. Rep. Y-78-5. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Exper. Sta., Vicksburg, MS.
Avery, A. E. 1968. Interpretation of aerial photographs, 2nd ed. Burgess
Publishing Company, Minneapolis, MN.
Bachmat, Y., J. Bredehoeff, B. Andrews, D. Holtz and S. Sebastian. 1980.
Groundwater management: the use of numerical models. American
Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.
Baskett, T. S., D. A. Darrow, D. L. Hallett, M. J. Armbruster, J. A.
Ellis, B. F. Sparrowe and P. A. Korte (Eds.). 1980. A handbook for
terrestrial habitat evaluation in Central Missouri. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. Resource Pub. 133, Washington,
DC.
Bear, G. D. 1969. Evaluation of aerial antelope census techniques. Game
Information Leaflet No. 69. CO Dept. Nat. Res., Div. Wildlife, Denver,
CO.
Bennett, G. W. 1971. Management of lakes and ponds, 2nd ed. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Berthold, P. 1976. Censuses in ornithology—survey and critical review.
J. Ornith. 117(l):l-69.
Black, S. A. 1965. Methods of soil analysis, parts 1 and 2. Agronomy
Number 9, Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, WI.
Bordner, R. H., J. A. Winter and P. V. Scarpino (Eds.). 1978.
Microbiological methods for monitoring the environment, water and wastes.
EPA 600/8-78-017, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S.
EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
Boschung, H. (ed.). 1976. Endangered and threatened plants and animals
of Alabama. The University of Alabama, University, AL.
Breed, R. S., E. G. D. Murray and N. R. Smith. 1957. Sergey's manual of
determinative bacteriology. 7th ed. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
Brewer, R. 1972. An evaluation of winter bird population studies. The
Wilson Bull. 84(3):261-277.
Brower, J. E. and J. H. Zar. 1977. Field and laboratory methods for
general ecology. William C. Brown and Company, Dubuque, IA.
R-1 1
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 9 Continued
Brown, D. 1954. Methods of surveying and measuring vegetation.
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal. Bucks, England.
Brown, L. 1974. Data requirements for effective study of raptor
populations. Raptor Research Report 2:9-20.
Brown, R. G. 1985. Personal Communication. U.S.G.S. Water Resources
Division, St. Paul, MN.
Burnham, J. B. (Ed.). 1974. Quantification of aesthetic values. In; A
technique for environmental decision-making using quantified social and
; aesthetic values. Prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories for
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Cairns, J., Jr. and K. L. Dickson. 1971. A simple method for the
biological assessment of the effects of waste discharges on aquatic
bottom-dwelling organisms. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 43:755-772.
Canfield, R. H. 1941. Application of the line intercept method in sampling
range vegetation. J. Forest. 39:388-394.
Caughley, G. 1974. Bias in aerial survey. J. Wildlife Manage.
38(4):921-933.
Chan, E., T. A. Bursztynsky, N. Hantzsche and Y. J. Litwin. 1981. The
use of wetlands for water pollution control. MERL-ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Chow, V. T. (ed.). 1966. Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, NY.
Cochran, G. A. and H. J. Stains. 1961. Deposition and decomposition of
fecal pellets by cottontails. J. Wildlife Mange. 25(4) :432-435.
Cochran, ,W. G. 1963. Sampling techniques. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, NY.
Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11) Department of Interior, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, List of Threatened and Endangered Species.
Cook, C. W. and C. D. Bonham. 1977. Techniques for vegetation
, measurements and analysis for a pre- and post-mining inventory. Range
Science Series No. 28. CO St. Univ., Ft. Collins, CO.
Cooper, C. F. 1963. An evaluation of variable plot sampling in shrub and
herbaceous vegetation. Ecology 44(3) :565-569.
Cottam, G. and J. T. Curtis. 1956. The use of distance measures in
phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37:451-460.
-------
REFERENCES R~13
Chapter 9 Continued
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Dept.
Interior, Fish & Wildlife Serv., Office of Biol. Serv., Washington, B.C.
#FWS/OBS-79/31.
Cox, G. W. 1976. Laboratory manual of general ecology, 3rd ed. W. C.
Brown, Dubuque, IA.
Craighead, J. J. and F. C. Craighead. 1969. Hawks, owls and wildlife.
Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY.
Daniel, W. S. and D. B. Frels. 1971. A tract-count method for censusing
white-tailed deer. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Tech. Series No. 7.
Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook of synecology.
Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Davis, S. N. and R. J. M. De Weist. 1966. Hydrogeology. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Diem, K. L. and K. H. Lu. 1960. Factors influencing waterfowl censuses
in the parklands, Alberta, Canada. J. Wildlife Mange. 24(2):T13-133.
Dolbeer, R. A. and W. R. Clark. 1975. Population ecology of snowshoe
hares in the central Rocky Mountains. J. Wildlife Manage. 39(3) :535-549.
Eagar, D. C., and R. M. Hatcher (eds.). 1980. Tennessee's rare wildlife.
Vol. I: The vertebrates. Tennessee Conservation Dept.
Eagleson, P.S. 1970. Dynamic hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, NY.
Eberhardt, L. L. 1971. Population analyses, pp. 457-495. In; R. H.
Giles, Jr., (Ed.). Wildlife Management Techniques, 3rd ed. The Wildlife
Society, Washington, DC.
Edmondson, W. T., (Ed.). 1959. Freshwater biology, 2nd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Edmondson, W. T. and G. G. Winberg. 1971. A manual on methods for the
assessment of secondary productivity in fresh water. Internal. Biolog.
Prog. Handbook No. 17. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford,
England.
Edwards, W. R. and L. Eberhardt. 1967. Estimating cottontail abundance
from live trapping data. J. Wildlife Manage. 31(l):87-96.
Elliott, J. M. 1977. Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of
benthic invertebrates. Sci. Publ. No. 25, Freshwater Biological
Association, Ferry House, U.K.
-------
REFERENCES R-l<
Chapter 9 Continued
Emlen, J. T. 1971. Population densities of birds derived from transect
counts. Auk 88:323-342.
Emlen, J. T. 1977. Estimating breeding season bird densities from
transect counts. Auk 94:455-468.
Enderson, J. H. 1970. Aerial eagle count in Colorado. Condor 71(1) :112.
Evans, K. E. and D. L. Gilbert. 1969. A method for evaluating greater
prairie chickens habitat in Colorado. J. Wildlife Manage. 33:643-469.
Federal Register. 1979. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR, Part
136, Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants,
proposed regulations; corrections. Federal Register, Tuesday, December
18, 1979. 44(244):75028-75052.
Ferguson, R. B. 1955. The weathering and persistency of pellet groups as
it affects the pellet group count method of censusing mule deer. Utah
Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 32:59-64.
Feverstein, D. L. and R. E. Selleck. 1963. Fluorescent tracers for
dispersion measurements. American Society of Civil Engineers Procedures,
89(SA4l):l-21.
Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Section 17-4.02.
Fisser,, H. G. and G. M. Van Dyne. 1966. Influence of number and spacing
of points on accuracy and precision of basal cover estimates. J. Range
Manage.19(4):205-211.
Flyger, V. F". 1959. A comparison of methods for estimating squirrel
populations. J. Wildlife Manage. 23(2) :220-223.
Forbes, R. D. (Ed.). 1961. Forestry handbook. Ronald Press, N.Y.
Franzreb, K. E. 1976. Comparison of variable strip transect and spot-map
methods for censusing avian populations in a mixed-coniferous forest.
Condor 78:260-262.
Franzreb, Kay. 1977. Inventory techniques for sampling avian
populations. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Filing Code 6611.
Gannon, J. E. and R. S. Stemberger. 1975. Rotifer and crustacean
zooplankton species and community structure as water quality indicators.
Symposium on Plankton and Periphyton as Water Quality Indicators, 26th
Annual AIBS Meeting, Corvallis, Oregon.
-------
REFERENCES R-15
Chapter 9 Continued
Gates, C. E. and W. B. Smith. 1972. Estimation of density of mourning
doves from aural information. Biometrics 28:345-359.
Gates, J. M. 1966. Crowing counts as indices to cock pheasant population
in Wisconsin. J. Wildlife Manage. 30(4) :735-755.
Golley, F. B., K. Petrusewicz and L. Ryszkowski. 1975. Small mammals:
their productivity and population dynamics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, MA. """
Goodwin, R. H. and W. A. Niering. 1975. Inland wetlands Of the United
States: evaluated as potential registered landmarks. Nat.~ Park Serv.,
Superintendent of Documentents, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, B.C. ''••
. '-' ' • ' : f • ' -
Grant, D. M. 1978. Open channel flow measurement handbook* Instrument
Specialties Company (ISCO), Lincoln, NB.
Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for
environmental biologists. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY^
Greg-Smith, P. 1964. Quantitative plant ecology, 2nd edition.
Butterworth's, London, England. -''"'• ''••"
v' f: - : - ~ • ' ' Cv.. . • . ,
Hamor, Wade H. 1974. Guide for evaluating the impact of water and related
land resource development projects on fish and wildlife habitat. Soil
Conservation Service, Lincoln, NE.
Hayne, D. W. 1949. Two methods for estimating populations from trapping
records. J. Mammol. 30:399-411. ' ' "'~
Heady, H. F. 1957. The measurement of value of plant height in the study
of herbaceous vegetation. Ecology 38:313-320. ' ' • .
Henderson, F. M. 1966. Open channel flow. MacMillan Publishing Co.,
Inc., New York, NY. n>1 -. !.
Howell, J. C. 1951. Roadside census as a method of measuring bird
populations. Auk 68:334-357.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest mensuration.
Ronald Press Company, New York, NY. • :
Hutchinson, G. E. 1967. A treatise on limnology, Vol» 2, Introduction to
lake biology and the limnoplankton. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
NY. "'" ' :
Hyder, D. N. and F. A. Sneva. 1960. Bitterlich's plotless method for
sampling basal ground cover of bunchgrasses. J. Range Manage. 13:16-19.
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 9 Continued
Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto
, Toronto.
Intersociety Committee. 1977. Methods of air sampling and analysis, 2nd
, o-r •;- 3d. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Jarvinen, O. and R. A. Vaisanen. 1975. Estimating relative densities of
' ibceediUgibiEds by line transect method. Oikos 26:316-322.
.;•?(; -o: i- ' t, ' ,.'.'/" ,•'.:. ;• • ;
Johnson, P. L. 1969. Remote sensing in ecology. Univ. of Georgia Press,
>;: Athens,- GA. ;.<:; ,•
Kadlec, J. A. and W. H. Drury. 1968. Aerial estimation of the size of gull
. ••;•••.: breeding colonies. J.. Wildlife Manage. 32:281-293.
Kendeigh, S. C. 1944. Measurement of bird populations. Ecol. Mono.
~o -...-. 14:67-106*; •:•:: . Vr
Kibby, H. V., ,i. L. Gallagher and W. D. SanvUle. 1980. Field guide to
evaluate -met -primary production of wetlands. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
EPA -600/8-80-037.
.,; -• " ' """'.. :,,TO.-;. •; ;.-. i,9ivi '-••. .-r-<->: ;;-.
: , Kuchler, Ay>:W^ 1967.i Vegetation mapping. Ronald Press Company, New
York, NY.
Lsagler, K. . E, 1956.- Freshwater fishery biology, 2nd ed. William C. Brown
Compaay; Dubuquev JA.
.! :Laycock»:W. A» ;1965. Adaptation of distance measurements. J. Range
Manage. 18(4):205-211.
; Le,nnet-te,;E. Jft., :E. H-»T Spaulding and J. P. Truant, (Eds.). 1974. Manual
of clinical mi; M. A. Kohler and J. L. H. Paulhus. 1975. Hydrology
: ; .for, engineer ss 3 McGr.aw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
List, R. J. 1966. Smithsonian meteorological tables. Smithsonian
. ~ Institution,Press, Washington, DC.
-------
REFERENCES R-t
Chapters Continued M;
Litton, R. B., Jr., R. J. Tetlow, J. Sorenson and R. A. Beatty. 1974.
Water and landscape: an aesthetic overview of the role of water in the
landscape. Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, NY.
Lord, R. D., Jr. 1959. Comparison of early morning and spotlight roadside
censuses for cottontails. J. Wildlife Manage. 23(4):458-460.
Lund, L. W. G. and L. F. Tailing. 1957. Bota-itieal limnological methods
with special references to the algae. Botanical Rev. 23:489-583.
..: . '1 ,-\c-'-' :, ' (
Mannette, L. T. and K. P. Haydock. 1963. The .dry-weight-rank method
for the botanical analysis of pasture. Brit. Grassland Soc. 18:268-275.
-' ; ... ' 'v >''.' '-.,' . -..
McKim, T. 1984. Personal Communication. Reedy .Creek Improvement
District. Lake Buena Vista, FL.
McWhorter, D. B. and D. K. Sinada. 1977. Groundwater hydrology and
hydraulics. Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO.
Miller, A. and J. C. Thompson. 1970. Elements of meteorology. Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, OH. i >. r : .-
Milner, C. and R. E. Hughes. 1968. Methods of measurement of the primary
production of grassland. Blackwell Scientific/Publications, Oxford and
Edinburgh. " :
Morris, M. J. 1973. Estimating understory plant cover with rated
microplots. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper RM-104.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation; Bureau of .Fisheries and
Wildlife, Public Notice No. 2156. - : •
Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. .1974, Aims and methods of
vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New;York, NY:* :;r
National Environmental Studies Project. 1975. Environmental impact
monitoring of nuclear power plants'source book of monitortng-methods. Vol.
I and II. Prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories and
Columbus Laboratories for the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
Neff, Don J. 1968. The pellet-group count technique for big game trend
census, and distribution: a review. J. Wildlife Ma*iage. 32:597-614.
Odom, R. R., J. L. McCollum, M. A. NeviHe, and D. R* Ettman (eds.).
1977. Georgia's protected wildlife. Georgia-Dept. Nat. Resources, Game
and Fish Div. Social Circle, GA.
Costing, H. J. 1956. The study of plant'commumties: ; ah introduction to
plant ecology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
-------
REFERENCES R~lf
Chapter 9 Continued
0vertbri, W. S. 1971. Estimating the numbers of animals in wildlife
populations, pp. 403-456. In; R. H. Giles (ed.), Wildlife Management
Techniques, 3rd ed. The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC.
Owens, M., Mv A. J. Learner and P. J. M. Maris. 1967. Determination of
aquatic plants using an optical method. Ecology 55 :671-676.
:':'•"• ' i ' "' ': s / , -; ";.' . . " 'i - ,'" ; *
Owensby.'C. E. 1973. ' Modified step-point system for botanical composition
and basal cover estimates. J. Range Manage. 26(4) :302-303.
ir'Pairk«Br, K.ir W. artd' R. W. Harris. 1959. The three step method for
measuring condition and trend of forest ranges, a resume of its history,
development, and use. In; Techniques and Methods of Measuring
Understbry Vegetation. U.S. Forest Service, South and Southeast Forest
Experiment Station.
Parker, W., and L. Dixon. 1980. Endangered and threatened wildlife of
Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Serv. Gen. Pub. N. C. Agric. Ex ten. Serv., Raleigh, N.C.
Penfound, W. T. 1952. Southern swamps and marshes. Botan. Rev.
18:413-446.
PKillips, E. A. 1959. Methods of vegetation study. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inci New York, NY.
Pielou, E. C. 1975. Ecological diversity. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
"••• • '• ' ••
Plumb, R. H., Jr. 1981. Procedure for handling and chemical analysis of
; sediment and Water samples. Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1. Prepared by
-Gre^.t Lakes L'atkii^atoryV^State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, New
York, for the 'U.S. "Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material.
••'•••'-i "••••' * ' ;J:: '" : '
Porter, D. K. 1974. Accuracy in censusing breeding passerines on the
shprt-jgrass priirie'. U . S.I nter natio nal Biological P rogram G ra s sla nd s
Bibme," 'Techhicial Report No. 254. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory,
"ColojriErtiO Stte i UMyersity, Ft. Collins, CO.
Pritchard, P. E. (ed.). 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Fla.
Game and Freshwater Fish Comm. University Presses of Florida,
' '
Progulske, D. R. and D. C. Duerre. 1964. Factors influencing spotlighting
counts ordeer. J;.' Wildlife Manage. 28(1) :27-34.
-------
REFERENCES R~19
Chapters Continued , r^ .: !
Ricker, W. E. 1968. Methods for assessment of fish production in fresh
water. Internat. Biol. Prog. Handbook No. 3. Biackwell Scientific
Publication, Oxford and Edinburgh. , ..,, ,-./,..M.,,...
Richardson, C. J. 1985. Mechanisms controlling phosphorus retention
capacity in freshwater wetlands. Science: In Press. . -,,,.. n
," : ::."'. .XL' f 1: : i'-ivi .1 ' * ' t '..:i'
Robinette, W. L., E. M. Loveless and D. A. Jones. 1974. Field tests of
strip census methods. J. Wildlife Manage. 38;(l;):81-96. •.,>•:•.•,,«,.>•}
• :?c, r,,;,-,.•••,- -,'v #-;•; !.•-; >-.
Sauder, D. W., R. L. Under, R. B. Dahlgren and W. L. tucker. 1971. An
evaluation of the roadside technique for censusing breeding iwaiterfowl. J.
Wildlife Manage. 35(3) :538-543. , • ,: rlU: ?'^
Schwoerbel, J. 1970. Methods of hydcobiology, (£reff*$ater Biology).
Pergamon Press Limited, Oxford, England. ^-r inqri:; -^
Seber, G. A. F. 1973. The estimation of animal abundance, fiafner Press,
New York, NY. . " .'. '., (V, ^!,MT '.. .iai!'fr,;'v
Shafer, E. L. 1963. The twig-coiint method for measuring hardwood deer
browse. J. Wildlife Manage. 27:428-437. -,, , ., i%...,.,.-,,...
, • . • _. . . .' 4 V f ( i, >, ', ' ' ' • -.1
Shaw, S. P., and C. G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands" of the United
States—their extent and their .value to .waterfpwl ; and f>tjher wildlife.
Circular No. 39. United States Dept. I.nteripjrv Fi'sJi and Wildlife Serv.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Shimwell, D. W. 1971. The description and classification of/vegetation.
Univ. Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Singh, J. S., W. K. Laurenroth and R. .K^.SteinhbVsjt. 4-117,5.,,., Review and
assessment of various techniques .Jfor:r'_^sjtfmating;' net ' jierial primary
production in grasslands from harvest,"4a,ta.. "Botani;9|ai $ey« 41!^,): 181-222.
f ' * T , W. "T
Sladeckova, A. 1962. Limnological investigation^^meJt
(aufwuchs) community. Botanical Rev. 28:286-3501
Smith, D. R., P. O. Currie, J. Vl Basile a^^*C.,;|^isch^nej3ht. 1963.
Methods for measuring forage^^ utiiizatio,njcand ;;^ifferent^ting use by
different classes of animals. In; Ranges research/^ethpd£r JWiscellaneous
Publication No. 940. U. S. Department of Agriculture, ^Forest Service,
Washington, DC. . ,c :> ,-•• ,vt,:,M,
Soil Conservation Service. 1972. National engineering Jrandboo^, section 4,
hydrology. U.S. Government Printing Office, WasWrigton/lDCV"
Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National range'Imndbpoky, O.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
-------
REFERENCES p 2Q
Chapter 9 Continued
Soil Survey Staff. 1951. Soil survey manual. U. S. Department of
AgricultureHandbook 18.
Soil Survey Staff. 1960. Soil classification; a comprehensive system, 7th
approximation. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Washington; DCTT :'
Soil Survey Staff1. 1975. Soil taxonomy—a basic system of soil classification
for making and interpreting soil surveys. Agriculture Handbook 436.
Superintendent1 * of D'ocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington; DC, T<'-
Southwood, T., et al. 1966. Ecological methods. Methuen and Company,
Ltd.;'London, England.
Southwood, T. R. E. 1966. Ecological mthods with particular reference to
the study of insect populations. Chapman and Hill, London.
States, J.B.,|>.T.Haug, T.G. Shoemaker, L. W. Reed and E. B. Reed.
1978. A systems approach to ecological baseline studies. Prepared by
Ecology Consultants, Inc. for Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-78/ 21.
Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A fie,ld guide to western reptiles and amphibians.
Riverside Press, Cambridge, England.
Steel, R.G. D. arid J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and procedures of
statistics with special reference to the biological sciences. McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Taber, D. and F. McTaggart-Cowen. 1971. Capturing and marking wild
animals, jn: R. H. Giles, Jr. (Ed.). 3rd Edition. The Wildlife Society,
Washington, DC.
Thilenius, J. F. 1972. Classification of deer habitat in the ponderosa pine
forest of the Black Hills, South Dakota. Forest Service Research Paper
RM^t.^^dcky^Motiri^tairi Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
CO. •'"'••• ' ;" •"• '.:V:: . ••"''•-• ..,- •"
Todd, D. K. 1960. Ground water hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New. Ybr.KyT.Ny;'- . •-- •• ';.;..
U.S^ Army ; Enginefei?'Division, , Lower Mississippi Valley, CE. 1980. A
habitat evaluation system for water resources planning (HES). Vicksburg,
MS.
IT. S.1 Bureau of Land Management. No Date. Bureau of Land Management
Manual Section 4112 - Management Practices. Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC.
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 9 Continued
U. bS. Bureau of Land Management. No Date. Bureau^ of ^La'nd Management
Manual Section 5000 - Forest management. Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC. ..,
! 'U. S. Bureau of Land Management. No Date. "Bureau of La'nd J\iara'gement
Manual Section 6602 - Integrated habitat inventory and classification
system. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.,,,, e _,., '
-. ' • ' J t'tfi Jf '> ' , . . • •
„ U. S. Bureau of Land Management. No Date'. Bureau,^pjf.Land^Management
Manual Section 6610 - Riparian habitat inventory procedures^ .Bureau of
Land Management, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Pl^nkton,a5aiysis.r ,Office of
Water Program Operations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National
Training Center, Cincinnati, OH. -> f ^ ti-«vj.' -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Standard operating
procedures for aerial waterfowl breeding ground population, and, habitat
"; ^'surveys. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Depa^rtmejnt'of the/lnterior.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1 197*8. Quality assurance guidelines
for biological testing. EPA-600/4-78-043. n „-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Methods for chemical
analysis of water and wastewater, EPA-600/4-79-020. Uj.S. "Environmental
Si, Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. " */ ' • i <. j
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979b« Handbook ,for,,analytical
,.;;.. quality control in water and wastewateVlaboratQrie.s. EPA-600/4-79-019.
' -' "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Phase 1 Ile£G,rt--Fresh-
water wetlands for wastewater management. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
EPA 904/9-83-107., ; ' ; • .'\ ,- v\^> '.'
;-; a U.S.; Fish and Wildlife Service. 198,0. Habffa't e^v^uatibn ^r^ced^w^s (HEP),
-------
REFERENCES
' Continued
Walker, JB. H» 197,6'. An evaluation,of -eight methods of botanical analysis
orig'ras'siarsdsln Rhodesia. J. Appl. Eco!. 7(3) :403-416.
Weatherly, A. £. 1972. Growth and" ecology of fish populations. Academic
Press,' 'London and New York.
Weber, C. t, J973. Biologieal.ffield*and laboratory methods for measuring
the quality of ' surface waters and effluents. EPA-670/4-73-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Welch, P. S. 1948. Limndlogieal methods. The Blakiston Company,
Philadelphia, PA.
''Westlake, D. F. 1965. Some basic .data for investigations of the
productivity of aquatic macrophytes. Memorie dell1 Institute Italiano di
Idrbbiologia 18 (supplement) :229-248.
Wetzel, R. G. 1975. Limnology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.
Whitaker, G. A. and R. H. McCuen. -1975. A proposed methodology for
assessing the quality of wildlife habitat. Technical Report, Department of
Civil1 Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Wilber, H. M. 1975. The, evolution, and mathematical demograph of the
turtle Chrysemys picta. Ecblogy 56:64-77^
' ,--f -r . •
Wilson, J. F., Jr, 1968. Fluorometric procedures for dye tracing,
Techniques of Water Resources Inventory of the U.S. Geologic Survey.
Bobk 3. Chap. A-12,
Winberg, G. G. 1971. Methods for' the estimation of production of aquatic
animals. Academic Press', London and New York.
Wood J. E. 1959. "Relative estimates of fox populations. J. Wildlife Mange.
23(l):53--63.
• • , -v *, • '
Wood, R.. D. 1975. Hydrobotanical methods. University Park Press;
Baltimore, MD.
------- |