United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
Water Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/3-83-002
September, 1983
Technical Report
The Effects of
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities on Wetlands
in the Midwest
Do not WEED. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
-------
EPA-905/3-83-002
THE EFFECTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES ON
WETLANDS IN THE MIDWEST
Prepared for USEPA Region V
Chicago, Illinois
by
WAPORA, Inc.
Under Contract No. 68-01-5989
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kegfon 5, Library (PL-J2J>
»*»
September, 1983
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document represents the cooperation of many persons in addition to the
preparers listed in Chapter 7. Our special thanks go to all of them for
sharing their ideas and expertise.
Jay Benforado and Robert Bastian, of EPA Headquarters, have provided constant
encouragement and constructive criticism in the course of the wastewater and
wetlands EIS.
Francis Heliotis, of the University of Wisconsin, has provided invaluable
assistance with his literature review of the technical aspects of wastewater
and wetlands.
Many personnel in the six state pollution control agencies in USEPA Region V
were helpful in the collection of information for the inventory of the wetland
discharge sites. The following individuals in particular were instrumental in
obtaining the site information necessary for the preparation of this report:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Gary Cima
Daniel Umfleet
Indiana State Board of Health
Stephen H. Boswell
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Fred E. Cowles
John Wuycheck
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Gerald T. Blaha
Eric J. Kilberg
Kenneth C. LeVoir
Margaret Lindberg
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
John H. Albrecht
Gregory Binder
Ann M. Holub
Clifford Merritt
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Kathy Bartilson
Timothy Linley
Mark Tusler
-------
Members of the Technical Advisory Committee contributed special knowledge of
technical subject matter and a knowledgeable critique of the draft of this
document. Many investigators conducting research at wetland treatment/wetland
discharge sites in Region V and elsewhere generously provided copies of publi-
cations, progress reports, and research proposals to assist in the description
of sites and the development of comparable research methodologies.
MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Raymond K. Anderson
College of Natural Resources
University of Wisconsin
Stevens Point, WI
Dr. Frederick Bevis
Department of Environmental Sciences
Grand Valley State Colleges
Allendale, MI
Dr. Sandra L. Brown
Department of Forestry
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL
Dr. Thomas M. Burton
Department of Zoology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Dr. Rouse S. Farnham
Department of Soil Science
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN
Dr. Forest S. Stearns
Department of Botany
University of Wisconsin
Milwauke, WI
Dr. George Tchobanoglous
Department of Civil Engineering
University of California
Davis, CA
Dr. Milton W. Weller
Department of Entomology, Fisheries
and Wildlife
St. Paul, MN
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
US Department of Agriculture
Dale S. Nichols
US Forest Service
North Central Forest
Experiment Station
Grand Rapids, foN
US Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Jay Benforado
Eastern Energy and Land Use Team
Kearneysville, WV
Verdell K. Dawson
National Fishery Research Lavoratory
La Crosse, WI
Dr. Milton Friend
National Wildlife Health Laboratory
Madison, WI
US Environmental Protection Agency
Robert K. Bastian
Office of Water Programs Operations
Municipal Construction Division
Washington, DC
Dr. William R. Duffer
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
Ada, OK
William Sanville
Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory
Corvallis, OR
Timothy J. Kubiac
University of Wisconsin
Green Bay, WI
11
-------
STATE COORDINATORS
Illinois
Gary Cima
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Permits Section
Springfield, IL
Indiana
John Wimers
Indiana State Board of Health
Surveillance and Standards Branch
Indianapolis, IN
Michigan
Robert Couchaine
Michigan department of Natural
Resources
Water Quality Division
Lansing, MI
Minnesota
Kenneth LeVoir
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Groundwater Section
Roseville, MN
Ohio
Protection Agency
Carl Wilhelm
Ohio Environmental
Planning
Columbus, OH
Wisconsin
Roger Fritz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Bureau of Environmental Impact
Madison, WI
ENGINEERING/OTHER
Jeffrey Sutherland
Milliams and Works,
Grand Rapids, MI
Inc.
Ivy Wile
Ontario Ministry of the
Environment
Water Resources Branch
Rexdale, Ontario, Canada
Brett Yardley
Houghton Lakes Sewer Authority
Houghton Lake, MI
Donald A. Yonika
IEP, Inc.
Wayland, MA
Special thanks also are extended to Dr. Milton Friend and the staff of the
National Wildlife Health Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin for their assistance
in the identification of the major issues of concern regarding the potential
effects of wastewater on the health of wetland wildlife. The many treatment
facility operators, municipal government personnel, and facility planners in
the Region V states who responded to the survey questionnaire are recognized
for their role in building an information base on existing wetland discharges
in the Midwest.
m
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
This report presents the results of Phase I of a two phase study on
the effects of treated wastewater on wetlands in USEPA Region V. The
purpose of the study is to provide background information for use in the
preparation of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on wastewater
management alternatives that employ natural or man-made wetlands either as
a point of discharge for treated wastewater or as a medium for advanced
treatment. The overall goal of the Phase I report is to provide a starting
point for obtaining the information needed to analyze the alternatives in
the Generic EIS. The objectives of this Phase I study are:
Identification of the major issues associated with disposal
of wastewater in wetlands (major issues have been identified
during scoping of the Generic EIS);
Summarization of the available literature on the effects of
treated wastewater on wetlands;
Inventory wetlands in USEPA Region V that receive treated
wastewater;
Selection of a number of these sites with high potential for
further study in Phase II; and
Identification of major study topics for these sites based
on ranking of the relative importance of each of the major
issues.
The need for the Phase I study became evident to USEPA Region V be-
cause of the number of proposed wetland discharges or wetland treatment
alternatives submitted in various facilities plans for Federal 201 grant
assistance. Numerous NPDES permit applications requesting a wetland dis-
charge have also been received. Many small rural communities found that
routing municipal wastewater discharges to receiving bodies with assimila-
tive capacity was very expensive. Wetland alternative were determined to
be economically attractive as discharges sites. This is a particular
problem in many parts of Region V where wetlands are locally widespread,
and costs of discharge pipe routing are high.
-------
Any introduction of treated wastewater into a wetland must be evalu-
ated carefully during the facilities plan or NPDES permit review because
the potential for adverse impacts on this habitat exists in most cases.
However, USEPA determined that little information was available concerning
impacts of applied wastewater on the wide variety of wetlajids types in
Region V. The information was required to allow USEPA and similar agencies
to make management decisions regarding such discharges. USEPA Region V
determined that a Generic EIS should be prepared to address the impacts of
these alternatives and to contribute to better decision making. Because of
the large data gaps concerning effects of applied wastewater on Region V
wetlands, it was not possible to prepare the Generic EIS immediately. The
Phase I study was initiated to provide a means of scoping the EIS and
filling data gaps so that the alternatives and issues could be fully ad-
dressed in the Generic EIS. In Phase II, field data concerning effects of
wastewater on selected types of wetlands in Region V will be collected.
This information, and the Phase I report, will be used to produce the
Generic EIS.
Figure 1 illustrates the specific historical development of the Gen-
eric EIS and the relationship of the present study to the Generic EIS. A
notice of intent to prepare the EIS was issued on 27 June 1980. A scoping
meeting for the EIS was held in October 1980 in Madison WI in which a
series of key issues were identified. These have been condensed into
issues concerning:
Use of "constructed" wetlands to treat wastewater;
Hydrologic impacts;
Long-term ecological effects;
Legal and administrative constraints;
Mitigation of impacts and management of wetlands receiving
wastewater; and
Disease and health considerations.
An extensive literature review was conducted in each major issue area,
and in further subdivided categories, to summarize the existing knowledge
-------
EIS Scoping
Meeting -
Identify Issues
Further Identify
Issues
Conduct Literature Review
By Issue
Constructed Wetlands
Hydrologic Impacts
Long-term Ecological
Impacts
Legal/Administrative
Mitigation/Management
Disease/Health
* Others
Collect Site Information
Field Visits and
Questionnaire
Group I - Sites
Studied
Bought on Lake
Bellaire, MI
Kincheloe, MI
Drummond, WI
Others
Already
, MI
Group II -
Sites
"Constructed"
Group III - New and Ongoing
Natural Sites
Select Sites
With High
Potential For
Further Studies
Select and
Prioritize
Study Sites
Site Visits
Prepare Phase I
Report
Literature
Review
Site Surveys
Study Topics
Phase II Study
(Detailed Field
Work)
Prepare Draft
Generic EIS
Public Review
Prepare Final
Generic EIS
Figure 1. Logic diagram illustrating the relationship of Phase I to Phase II and the Generic EIS.
-------
and to identify data gaps (Figure 1). Simultaneously, a survey was con-
ducted on the nature of existing sites in USEPA Region V sites that cur-
rently receive treated wastewater. This involved collecting data on the
following three types of sites (Figure 1):
Group I - sites already studied;
Group II - sites constructed specifically for advanced
wastewater treatment; and
Group III - sites identified only as wetlands receiving
treated wastewater.
A total of five Group I and three Group II sites were identified during the
Phase I Study. A total of 161 Group III sites were identified. A ques-
tionnaire sent to all Group III site landowners or treatment plant opera-
tors resulted in a variety of information on discharge size and duration,
types of effluent, and other relevant factors. Site visits were made in
1981 to 38 of the Group III sites to obtain qualitative information con-
cerning wetland type and extent, and other data not obtained via the.ques-
tionnaire (Figure 1).
The information collected from the site visits, questionnaires, and
literature review was analyzed to assign a rating of the potential of each
site in Region V for detailed field study in Phase II. Study topics were
ranked for Phase II analysis (Figure 1). The study topics chosen were
ranked in the same order as those shown in Figure 1.
This Phase I report represents a compilation of the literature review,
site inventory survey data, and selection of priority study topics. The
following sections summarize the results of the present work in each of
these areas.
VII
-------
RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW
ISSUE CATEGORY I: WETLAND STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION - PHYSICAL AND
CHEMICAL COMPONENTS
Hydrology
Hydrology is the single most important factor affecting the physical,
chemical, and biological components of a wetland. When wastewater is added
to a wetland, changes occur in water depth, flooding regime, flow dynamics,
and total water budget. These changes in turn alter basic physical and
chemical processes such as nutrient cycling, sedimentation rates, erosion
patterns, plant and animal species composition, and other central charac-
teristics of wetlands. Critical effects of changing the hydrologic regime
of a wetland by applying wastewater may result from:
Application loading rate;
Timing of application (seasonal versus continual); and
Wetland areal extent in relation to loading rate.
A major unknown factor that could affect wastewater treatment is the dis-
tribution of internal flow as it relates to residence time and wastewater
contact with wetland plants and substrate. Clearly, a high loading rate to
a small wetland will result in major hydrologic changes, but a range of
situations exist in which wetland size and loading rate vary. Presumably,
optimum combinations of size and loading rate exist for most wetland types
which would produce minimum hydrologic disturbance and optional treatment
effectiveness. However, the literature shows that this combination has not
been determined for those wetland types found in Region V. This situation
is compounded by the fact that it is very difficult to accurately quantify
the hydrologic budget in most wetlands.
Nutrient Cycling and Nutrient Removal
The process of nutrient cycling in wetlands is only very generally
understood. Few quantitative studies have been conducted of internal
vm
-------
transfer rates of nutrients between ecosystem components. Major nutrient
inputs to wetlands include atmospheric precipitation, surface water inflow,
and groundwater inflow (ombrotrophic bogs depend primarily on precipita-
tion) . Major nutrient outputs typically include surface water and ground-
water outflow. Internal cycling processes involve transfer of nutrients
between various living and non-living ecosystem compartments. The net sum
of these processes results in the observed losses of nutrients to surface
water and groundwater outputs.
Two major questions concerning use of wetlands for wastewater include:
(1) nutrient removal effectiveness; and (2) the period of time adequate,
removals rates can be maintain adequate removal rates. In general, wet-
lands have demonstrated very effective removal of nutrients from treated
wastewater. The process, however, is highly variable between different
types and ages of wetlands, at different loading rates, and between dif-
ferent soil types. The major pathway for phosphorus removal is via chemi-
cal precipitation or physical-chemical adsorption to soil particles. This
process is greatly affected by the type of soil; the presence of iron,
calcium, or aluminum cations; soil oxygen levels; and availability of
adsorption sites (woody plants are also significant permanent nitrogen and
phosphorus sinks). When adsorption sites are saturated, further removal of
P occurs at a slower rate and is achieved primarily by filtration and in
build-up of soil organic matter. The period of time required to reach
saturation varies with loading rate, age of the wetland, and size of the
wetland.
Another major pathway for nitrogen removal in wetlands is via micro-
bial denitrification at the soil-water interface, including the litter
layer. Denitrification is favored by a reduced soil-water interface, and
low energy subsidies to the wetland (i.e., low wave or current action
favors phosphorus removal). This pathway culminates in the release of
nitrogen as atmospheric N.
Two general types of wetlands are present in Region V and these differ
in the means by which nutrients are removed. The two general types are
northern peatlands and non-tidal freshwater marshes.
V1X
-------
The northern peatlands include sphagnum bogs, ombrotrophic bogs,
minerotrophic bogs, fens, sedge meadows, cedar swamps, and similar wetland
types. The various types of northern peatlands can be further divided into
two major categories: bogs and fens. Northern peatlands generally have
good removal efficiences for P and N. Removal rates for P'vary from 78% to
95%, and for N from 71% to 100%. Phosphorus is initially removed mainly by
sorption. Vegetation uptake is not a major removal mechanism. Nitrogen is
also removed by microbial denitrification. The long-term potential of
using northern peatlands for wastewater application may in fact be limited,
and has been questioned.
Non-tidal freshwater marshes include deep and shallow marshes, prairie
potholes, reed swamps, and lacustrine marshes. They are distinguished from
northern peatlands by their permanently inundated soils. In contrast to
northern peatlands, sorption does not seem to be the initial major phos-
phorus removal mechanism in non-tidal freshwater wetlands. Instead, chemi-
cal precipitation and uptake by plants appear to be the primary mechanisms
of nutrient uptake. Phosphorus removal rates for freshwater marshes vary
roughly between 14% and 82%, whereas nitrogen removal rates range roughly
from 38% to 45%.
In summary, the types of processes by which different wetlands remove
nutrients, and the general rates of removal, have been identified. Actual
nutrient removal performance of specific wetlands types cannot be predicted
accurately within the context of the existing data base. Additional long-
term studies will be required at priority sites in order to achieve these
predictive capabilities.
Accumulation of Other Dissolved Substances
In addition to nutrients, application of wastewater to a wetland may
introduce dissolved substances such as organic materials, various inorganic
ions such as chloride, magnesium and calcium, and various sulfur compounds.
Non-toxic organic materials will produce increased BOD loading. Wetlands
have been shown to reduce BOD and COD levels in applied wastewater, but
there is a limit to the ability to oxidize these materials. Addition of
-------
alkaline water to an acidic wetland will change the plant species composi-
tion of the community. A typical change for an acid bog will be towards a
cattail monoculture. Little is known about the impacts of other types of
dissolved substances on wetland ecology.
Trace Metal Accumulation
Potentially toxic trace metals such as mercury, lead, zinc, cadmium,
and copper are usually present in elevated amounts in municipal wastewater.
A potential impact on wetlands receiving wastewater could include bioaccu-
mulation of these materials by food chain organisms and subsequent magnifi-
cation in higher trophic levels. Little is presently known concerning
either the details of cycling of trace metals within wetlands, or the
ultimate fate of individual trace metal species. Some metals, such as
copper, cadmium, and zinc, appear to pass through wetland systems to vary-
ing degrees. The percentage of metals retained also varies widely between
wetland systems. Important factors in controlling retention of trace
metals include soil pH, water column soil oxygen levels, soil composition
(organic vs. mineral content), retention time, levels of suspended solids,
availability of chelating agents, and types of wetland plants present.
Scientific knowledge of these factors must be improved if impacts of trace
metals on wetland ecosystems are to be determined.
Accumulation of Refractory Chemicals
Refractory (resistant to decomposition) chemicals such as surfactants,
phenols, or pesticides present in wastewater may produce adverse impacts in
wetland ecosystems either by exerting direct toxic effects or by bioaccu-
mulating in the food web. Wetlands have been shown to be capable of re-
moving a variety of refractory compounds from wastewater. The long-term
ecological effects of these compounds on wetlands receiving wastewater are
not known at present.
Changes in Soils and Sediments
The composition of soils varies considerably between wetlands. Many
wetlands in the upper Midwest have large accumulations of peat and other
XI
-------
organic materials, while river-margin wetlands may have largely mineral
soils. The types of soils present in wetlands are primarily a function of
the alluvial deposition rate, the biogenic accumulation rate, and the rate
of turnover (flushing) of water. Most wetland soils are an intermediate
mixture of peats and inorganic sediments. The types of soil present large-
ly determine the effectiveness of the wetland in nutrient removal, as
discussed above. Where soils are subsiding, a more permanent phosphorus
sink may be made available.
The major potential impacts of applied wastewater on wetland soils
include direct erosion and creation of channels under conditions of high
loading rates. Chemical leaching of acidic soils by application of basic
wastewater may also occur. Erosion impacts can be mitigated by control of
flow rates, proper management of channel configuration, and dispersion of
the effluent through multiple discharge points. Chemical leaching is at
best a poorly understood phenomenon.
ISSUE CATEGORY II: WETLAND STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION - BIOLOGICAL
COMPONENTS
Effects on Plant Communities
Five major types of impacts on wetland plant communities can poten-
tially result from wastewater application. These include:
Long-term changes in species composition;
Long-term changes in relative areal distribution of com-
ponent species;
Changes in biomass, growth, and production;
Changes in detrital cycling; and
Transfer of potentially toxic trace metals or other mater-
ials into the food chain.
Changes in plant species composition may result primarily from alte-
ration of the hydrologic regime or soil chemical changes (pH or nutrient
types and levels). Wetland plants are typically adapted to a specific
xn
-------
seasonal flooding cycle or soil moisture levels. Changes in the frequency
or duration of flooding, or in average water levels, will therefore alter
the species composition of the plant community. Changes in soil pH or
nutrient levels or types may also change plant species composition because
of individual nutrient requirements and pH regimes. Studies have docu-
mented that such changes do occur, especially when an acid bog is treated
with wastewater. The trend is to produce a cattail monoculture in this
case.
Long-term shifts in wetland plant distribution may result when species
dominance is altered due to hydrologic regime or soil chemistry. Species
common to an acid bog may be replaced by cattails, which then increase in
horizontal extent. Cattail abundance in turn depends on the degree of
flooding and extent of soil chemistry alteration. Such changes in species
distribution have been well documented.
Increased biomass, growth, and production generally result in some
species from elevated nutrients present in the added wastewater. However,
in the initial stages of application, the biomass production of the orig-
inal plant community may decrease as the shift to the new community takes
place. These types of changes are only poorly understood over the long-
term.
Because wetlands are believed to be detritally driven systems, changes
in detrital cycling due to applied wastewater should be thoroughly investi-
gated in future studies. Such changes could result from longterm altera-
tion of primary production rates caused by elevated nutrient levels or by
altered soil, water and chemical conditions. As with other ecological
impacts, the changes in detrital cycling which actually result will depend
on the rate of wastewater loading, timing of discharge, and type of wetland
affected. Previous studies have shown that one effect is a build-up of
dead plant material in the litter layer. Other studies have shown no
difference in decomposition rates between treated and untreated sites.
This is probably due to the relatively low seasonal loading rates used.
The long-term effects of wastewater application on detrital cycling are not
known at this time.
xm
-------
Transfer of Trace Metals into the Food Web
Details concerning retention and bioaccumulation of trace metals by
wetland organisms are poorly understood. Only a few studies have been
conducted on bioaccumulation of trace metals by wetland organisms. Effects
ultimately will depend on the amounts of the metals in the effluent and
their availability to organisms. Metals which are retained effectively by
certain soil types would have far less potential for adverse impacts since
they are not readily available for uptake. Very little quantitative infor-
mation is available on this subject, and a major data gap exists with
respect to long-term impacts. The few short-term studies conducted to date
have indicated that bioaccumulation does not occur to any great extent.
However, the reasons for this are not clear at present.
Impacts on Wetland Animal Communities
Wetland animal ^communities include terrestrial wildlife, fish, and
invertebrates (including benthic invertebrates and terrestrial insects).
Ecological impacts on wetland animal communities may result from shifts in
plant community species composition, changes in duration and frequency of
flooding, or direct effects due to changes in water quality.
Benthic Invertebrates and Insects
Changes in invertebrate population structure could be caused by reduc-
tion of dissolved oxygen levels due to elevated BOD, introduction of ele-
vated amounts of sediments, introduction of toxic compounds, or secondari-
ly, by changes in vegetation composition. These changes could include
reductions in abundance and diversity or shifts to more "tolerant" types of
benthic organisms. This is a poorly understood subject, however. Direct
accumulation of toxic substances in wetland food chains could also occur.
Little is known at present concerning the bioaccumulation effects of trace
elements in wastewater added to wetlands.
The major issue surrounding flying insect populations is whether
increases in disease carrying mosquitoes or similar "vector" species might
XIV
-------
occur. Very little is known about natural wetland insect populations, and
even less is known about insect populations within wetlands receiving
wastewater. From a few short-term studies it can be concluded that certain
forms such as dipterans (true flies) may increase where wastewater is added
to a wetland. Some of these forms could be potential vectors for various
encephalitis viruses or similar waterfowl/insect-transmitted diseases.
Major information gaps exist concerning disease-related impacts that may
occur due to increases in insect vectors.
Impacts on Fish Commmunities
The ecology of fish associated with wetlands is a very poorly under-
stood subject. Wetlands are known to provide permanent habitats, spawning
areas, and food for numerous fish species, but few quantitative data are
available. Because of high BOD and reduced water quality, a wetland re-
ceiving wastewater would probably provide a poor habitat for fish. This
has been demonstrated in one study in a Florida cypress dome. Until more
is known, impacts on fish will have to be extrapolated from the well de-
veloped literature on wastewater impacts on fish in lakes and streams.
Effects on Wildlife
Wetlands provide a highly valuable wildlife habitat. They provide
food, shelter, and areas for breeding, nesting and other activities re-
quired by many different wildlife species. Changes in the wildlife commu-
nity at a wetland receiving effluent may result from alterations in water
level, structure and composition of the vegetation, interspersion of vege-
tation and water, and availability of submerged plants, aquatic and terres-
trial insects, and other sources of food. Changes in the number and abun-
dance of adults and young of prey species such as amphibians, small birds,
and small mammals may result in changes in the composition of carnivorous
species of birds and mammals in higher trophic levels.
Changes in water levels due to wastewater discharge could result in
shifts of the locations of wildlife breeding foraging and nesting activity
within and between wetlands and adjacent upland areas. Water-level changes
also influence the types and amounts of food organisms present. Wastewater
XV
-------
entering the wetland may contain pathogenic organisms and trace metals that
can be taken up directly by individual wildlife or indirectly through the
organisms on which they feed.
The few studies published to date have shown that certain types of
changes occur in wetland wildlife communities that receive wastewater. In
Florida cypress domes, significant increases in bird diversity were ob-
served in the treated dome. In addition, the species of aquatic mammals
observed in the treated dome were different from those in a control dome.
Amphibians increased in the treated dome because animals were attracted by
the higher water levels for breeding. Poor water quality prevented breed-
ing, however. The treated dome was also an amphibian refuge during dry
weather. At Houghton Lake, Michigan, long-term data have shown that musk-
rat populations increased significantly over a six year period due to the
increased abundance of cattails. A small increase in meadow voles also
resulted near the discharge, because of an increased abundance of grasses.
No major shifts in abundance or species composition of bird populations
occurred at Houghton Lake. ,
Wildlife habitat was substantially improved in volunteer wetlands at
the Vermontville, Michigan, site. Various authors have also reported im-
provement in mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian habitat quality at vari-
ous other natural and constructed wetland sites. However, the long-term
effects on wildlife are still not known.
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
Because wetlands provide excellent habitat for numerous species of
rare, threatened, or endangered plants and animals, there is a potential
for adverse impacts to occur as a result of wastewater additions. Because
of the laws protecting such species, potential treatment sites must be
thoroughly examined to determine whether protected species are present.
The presence of one or more protected species could reasonably preclude any
use of the site for purposes of wastewater disposal.
XVI
-------
ISSUE CATEGORY III: POTENTIAL FOR ENHANCEMENT OF WILDLIFE
The availability of a continuous source of water and nutrients associ-
ated with a wetland discharge has been suggested as a potential resource
for the creation, maintenance, and enhancement of wetland habitats. On the
basis of preliminary results obtained at a few sites, it appears that the
introduction of wastewater to natural wetlands is followed by a decrease in
the diversity of wildlife species and the decline or disappearance of
sensitive species intolerant to changes in physical and chemical para-
meters. This is coupled with an increase in the number and abundance of
opportunistic and common species that can adjust to a wider range of habi-
tats. A number of researchers who have conducted ecological investigations
at wastewater discharge sites have recommended that wastewater not be
discharged to natural wetlands* They indicated that wastewater should be
discharged on a carefully controlled experimental basis, or that only
discharges to degraded wetlands be allowed, until more information is
obtained. The potential for using treated wastewater to enhance pre-exist-
ing wetlands may be low because of the likelihood of adverse effects on the
wildlife and fish communities. The actual use of wastewater to enhance
wetlands may thus be limited to use in previously degraded systems. How-
ever, the creation of new wetlands, although of possibly lower quality,
would likely have positive returns.
ISSUE CATEGORY IV: HEALTH/DISEASE CONSIDERATIONS
The primary health and disease related considerations in wetlands
receiving applied wastewater involves potential human and animal health
impacts which may arise from viruses, bacteria and parasites. A variety of
pathogenic and non-pathogenic types of these organisms may be present in
treated wastewater. Current scientific knowledge concerning the abundance,
distribution, and reproductive cycles of disease organisms in natural
wetlands, however, is extremely limited. Even less is known concerning the
fate of disease organisms in wetlands receiving treated wastewater.
Possible human disease organisms that may be associated with the
application of wastewater to wetlands include the protozoan parasite Giar
xvn
-------
dia lamblia. No information is available concerning its survival in wet-
lands. Viruses such as adenoviruses and enteroviruses are susceptible to
chlorination although some usually survive treatment. However, certain
waterborne viruses that cause gastroenteritis and types A & B hepatitis may
be associated with wetland-wastewater treatment systems. No studies of
these concerns have yet been conducted in wetlands, partly because of the
many technical difficulties involved.
In a study of Florida cypress domes receiving chlorinated effluent,
99% of the polio viruses present in the effluent were effectively removed
and held in place by the sandy clay loam soil underlying the dome. At
Houghton Lake, Michigan, reovirus and polio virus were detected in all
samples collected from the wetland and from the treatment plant. The wet-
land was determined to be a hostile environment for the polio virus but not
the reovirus.
Most bacteria are highly susceptible to chlorination. Although a wide
variety of pathogenic bacteria have been identified in treated municipal
wastewater (most notably Salmonella) few studies have been conducted on
pathogenic forms at wetland treatment sites. Studies of non-pathogenic
fecal coliform bacteria at several treatment sites have shown that their
removal is dependent on wastewater retention time, degree and type of
contact between the soil and wastewater, and flow rate. Removal efficiency
is lower in deeper water situations. Background levels of fecal coliforms
have been reported to be high but variable in freshwater wetlands. A type
of enteric bacterium other than Salmonella has therefore been recommended
for study of removal rates and removal effectiveness of pathogenic bac-
teria.
The primary dangers to wildlife health include:
Introduction of pathogenic organisms from dairies, poultry
or livestock farms or similar facilities;
Possible outbreaks of botulism;
Introduction of contagious human pathogens or parasites that
could be transmitted to wildlife. Direct toxic effects of
trace metals, chlorine or other dissolved materials might
occur, but such effects are unlikely because of the small
quantities of these substances introduced.
xviii
-------
Although a variety of diseases are potentially associated with wet-
lands, the greatest risk for disease is posed to waterfowl and shorebirds.
Little scientific information is currently available concerning disease
transmission to various forms of wildlife at wetland treatment sites.
These populations are also exposed at treatment ponds.
Viruses such as equine encephalitis may be transmitted to wildlife by
mosquitoes. Infected birds may in turn transmit this disease to other
areas during migration. A potential also exists for transmitting viruses
from wetlands receiving poultry, feedlot or other animal wastes directly to
wildlife. Polio and turberculosis viruses used to inoculate poultry may
survive sewage treatment and enter a wetland.
Bacterial diseases that could affect wetland wildlife include Aero-
monas which affects birds, fish, and reptiles; and Salmonella which affects
turtles. Muskrats may contract hemorrhagic diseases. A potential also
exists for the transmission of avian botulism at wetland treatment sites.
Botulism is a bacterial disease which requires anaerobic conditions to
develop. Six forms of Clostridium botulinum, the disease causing organism,
exist which could potentially affect wildlife. Transmission occurs as a
result of ingestion of contaminated invertebrates, especially fly larvae
developing on animal carcasses. Isolated botulism outbreaks have occurred
at standard sewage treatment facilities in the past, but virtually nothing
is known about the scientific aspects of the disease in wetland treatment
sites.
ISSUE CATEGORY V: OVERLOADING AND STRESS CONDITIONS
Addition of wastewater to a wetland may overload the system, producing
ecological stress. Stress on a wetland receiving wastewater may lessen the
system's productivity by diverting energy into different metabolic pathways
(i.e., respiration increases, rates of photosynthesis decrease), interfer-
ing with normal energy flow patterns. This may produce a variety of little
known but potentially significant ecological effects. In general, stress
increases with additional loading. Presumably, at some rate of discharge
xix
-------
relative to wetland size or type, the wetland will not be able to assimi-
late all of the waste being added, and normal functions will be adversely
affected. No studies have been done to determine at what point this occurs
for various wetland types, or what the abilities of natural wetlands are to
resist stress caused by applied wastewater.
ISSUE CATEGORY VI: DESIGN, OPERATION AND MONITORING CONSIDERATION
The design engineering of wetland treatment systems is still in its
early phases of development, although much has been learned at sites such
as Houghton Lake, Michigan. Important factors in designing a wetland
treatment system include:
Water depth and flow;
Residence time;
Nutrient loading rates;
Cover type;
Soil type;
Discharge schedule; and
Age of system.
General design principles have emerged for some of the above areas.
Optimal plant cover type, soil type, and discharge scheduling are still not
well defined. Wetland performance is generally correlated with overall
system features, but treatment effectiveness is not fully predictable since
information is lacking in several key areas. Additional research is needed
to fill these data gaps. (Practical considerations to take into account
when planning a system are listed in Appendix B.)
The operation and maintenance requirements for wetland treatment
systems are also in a relatively early state of development. Options for
operation include mode of discharge (direct versus multiple), rate of
discharge, configuration of receiving wetland (channeled versus sheet
flow), and timing of the discharge (seasonal versus year round). Main-
tenance requirements have received little study and are poorly known. The
XX
-------
term maintenance implies application of a corrective action to compensate
for an adverse effect within the wetland. Two alternatives, either a total
"hands off" attitude or an avoidance of deep water situations, have been
employed to date.
No standardized monitoring requirements have yet been developed by
regulatory agencies for wetland treatment systems. The task is difficult
because a wetland ecosystem does not fit the traditional pattern of a
sewage treatment plant and a receiving water body. At least two points of
view have arisen. These are:
That the wetland is a receiving water body, and therefore,
influent should be controlled; and
The wetland is a part of the treatment plant, and therefore,
the outfall from the wetland should be controlled.
Guidelines need to be established that set water quality parameters for
discharges from a wetland ecosystem connected to a wastewater treatment
plant. Difficulties can arise because natural wetlands may violate certain
accepted water quality standards, such as limitations on suspended solids.
ISSUE CATEGORY VII: CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Constructing new wetland areas for wastewater treatment has gained
considerable support as an alternative to the possible degradation of
existing wetlands or for use as a means of advanced treatment. Constructed
wetlands have demonstrated the ability to treat applied effluent to secon-
dary standards at almost all times, and to advanced treatment standards on
a seasonal basis. With appropriate design considerations, these systems
can be constructed with low energy requirements (little pumping required)
and minimal operation and maintenance demands. This is accomplished while
simultaneously increasing wildlife habitat and vegetation production.
Since the 1950's, data on this type of system have been developed on
different combinations of wetland size, configuration, depth, flow, vegeta-
tion type, and substrate type. The types of systems examined included:
XXI
-------
Large open marsh basins operating in a mode similar to overland
flow;
« Narrow marsh trenches with coarsly textured substrate using
subsurface flow and underdrains; and
Intermediary marsh channels with surface overflow.
However, considerably more data are needed on municipal scale facilities
(0.25 - 0.5 mgd) with several years of record to adequately assess the long
term reliability of this treatment method. No facilities currently exist
in the six states of USEPA Region V that could provide those data based
upon local conditions.
Design considerations are primarily limited by the availability of
sufficient land within a reasonable transmission distance from the waste-
water generation source. Constructed wetlands are a land intensive system
(50 acres per mgd) and, therefore, land costs or availability may limit
implementation of such an alternative. Constructed wetlands may be placed
on almost any land area with minimal slope and nominal depth to bedrock.
They may be designed independent of the transmissivity or adsorption capa-
city of surficial soils.
Design criteria have varied according to the types of effluent ap-
plied. These have ranged from raw primary effluent to effluent from an
activated sludge wastewater treatment plant. A highly effective system has
been designed at Listowel, Ontario, based upon lagoon effluent at an appli-
3
cation rate of 200 m /ha/day (20,000 gal/acre/day), with a seven day reten-
tion time and a water depth of 10 cm in summer and 30 cm in winter. The
Listowel experiments demonstrated that with these design characteristics, a
marsh trench configuration with a length to width ratio of 20:1 consistent-
ly out-performed an open marsh.
Operational considerations include application flow control and water
quality monitoring. The benefits of this type of system over a natural
wetland are that operational controls may be designed to regulate flow,
application rates, and detention time for seasonal variations and treatment
needs. Flow control is necessary to maintain aerobic conditions within the
xxn
-------
wetland in order to achieve maximum treatment efficiency and limit poten-
tial odor and disease problems.
The primary function of a constructed wetland treatment system is for
nutrient removal. The efficiency of a wetland in treating nitrogen to ad-
vanced secondary standards is generally good. Phosphorus removal rates,
however, have varied. The initial phosphorus treatment efficiency of a
constructed wetland is dependent upon the availability of absorption sites
in the soil, and such sites are eventually saturated over longer periods of
time. Investigators have used substrate materials ranging in texture from
coarse gravel to heavy clay. However, little data has been generated to
show the relative merits or treatment efficiencies of using a given soil
material. Experiments should be conducted to test treatment variations
between sand; a sandy loam; a mineral soil high in iron, calcium, and
magnesium; organic soil; and clay.
The function, structure, and composition of vegetation in constructed
wetlands is generally well documented. Emergent hydrophytic plants become
established easily, and have demonstrated luxuriant growth in this environ-
ment. However, data are needed on a system that employs woody stem spe-
cies, which represent a more permanant nutrient sink. Woody plants are
reported as being able to store higher concentrations of phosphorus in
their trunks and stems than do emergent species which also die back annual-
ISSUE CATEGORY VIII: MITIGATION
Mitigation includes measures to prevent, reduce, or avoid potentially
adverse impacts on the environment. In the case of wetland application of
wastewater, a variety of mitigative measures are available. Early project
planning within the 201 facilities planning process is probably the most
effective means of mitigating adverse effects of a wastewater discharge.
For wetland treatment systems, migitation may include measures to achieve
for required standards. Mitigation consists primarily of determining
optimal discharge flows (to avoid overloading and poor treatment), reten-
tion times, and timing of discharge (seasonal versus year-round). For a
xxm
-------
wetland discharge system (no treatment intended), mitigation might consist
of water level control, installation of filter structures, control of flow
patterns, or consideration of multiple-use opportunities (e.g., use of the
wetland for recreation). Such measures would reduce the effects of ero-
sion, improve the treatment of the effluent, or enhance wildlife habitat
quality. However, since little is known about the long-term impacts of
wastewater on wetlands, specific physical mitigation measures need to be
developed. Many of the potential problems and issues associated with
wetland discharges and wetland treatment systems may ultimately be resolved
by exploring various effective mitigative measures.
ISSUE CATEGORY IX: LEGAL, REGULATORY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSIDERATIONS
A number of legal, regulatory, and administrative issues surround the
use of wetlands for disposal or treatment of municipal wastewater. These
issues result from requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Execu-
tive Orders for protection of floodplains and wetlands, and certain state-
specific precedents.
Applicable sections of the Federal Clean Water Act include Section 201
(facilities planning), Section 303 (water quality standards), Section 402
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System), and Section 404 (dredge
and fill programs).
The 201 facilities planning process currently does not include a
specific means whereby a wetland treatment system or discharge can be
evaluated and reviewed during the planning process. However, the US Fish
and Wildlife Service has developed a method for incorporating such projects
into the 201 process at an early phase. This method involves procedural
steps by which the existing wetland and the potential impacts of the pro-
posed alternatives are examined. This information is used to determine
whether the project is consistent with applicable laws and regulations
regarding wetland degradation. Use of such a means of conflict resolution
would be helpful in achieving proper planning and management at wetland
discharges sites.
XXIV
-------
A major problem of wetland discharges under the Clean Water Act is
that permit conditions must be specified for the receiving waters. Due to
problems in assessing wetland boundaries, this may be difficult to deter-
mine. In the long term, decisions must be made regarding how wetland
discharges will be regulated and monitored.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires that Federal
agencies minimize degradation of the natural values of wetlands. The order
has been variously interpreted with regard to the term "degradation."
Since researchers have demonstrated that wastewater application enhances
certain aspects of wetland values while reducing ofers such as species
diversity, it remains to be determined what precisely constitutes "degrada-
tion."
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, directs federal agencies
to minimize the impacts of floods on human health and to preserve the
beneficial value of floodplains. It has not yet been determined whether
Federal agencies would be directly supporting floodplain development in the
case of a wetland treatment system or discharge. A major problem which has
yet to be resolved concerns the flood-proofing of wetland wastewater treat-
ment systems, and the possible effects of flood damage on such systems.
State and local regulations may also preclude the use of wetlands for
purposes of wastewater disposal or treatment. These restrictions may arise
through legislation dealing with water quality, floodplain development or
wetlands protection. Legislation specific to wetlands and wastewater has
only been developed by the States of Michigan and Florida. What is needed
is a reassessment of policy interpretations and regulatory issues at all
governmental levels to recognize the concept of multiple uses of wetland
areas, including wastewater discharges.
INVENTORY OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGES TO WETLANDS IN REGION V
A major part of the present study was to conduct an inventory of
existing wetland sites in Region V which were determined to be receiving
treated wastewater. Telephone contacts were initially made with various
XXV
-------
state agencies to request lists of possible sites. Except for Wisconsin,
no states had made such a list. Additional information was gathered from
NPDES permit files in each state to determine whether the receiving waters
were classified as wetlands. Visits were made to each state pollution
control agency to collect detailed information on sites that appeared to
involve wetland discharges. A questionnaire requesting information on the
type and extent of the wetland, the nature and duration of the discharge,
and other data, was also sent to selected facilities.
A total of 161 facilities were initially identified as potentially
having discharges to wetlands. A total of 38 sites, representing a cross
section of wetland types, discharge types (industrial versus municipal),
location (state), length of time of discharge, volume of discharge, wild-
life values, and other features were selected for a qualitative field
survey performed between November 1980 and January 1981. The purpose of
the site visit was to determine the actual nature of individual representa-
tive wetlands and the overall environmental setting in which they occurred.
This included determination of the surrounding land use, areal extent of
the wetland, type of wetland, condition of vegetation in the vicinity of
the discharge, and estimated wildlife value of the wetland. The relative
accessibility of each wetland area for future researchers was also deter-
mined .
For natural wetlands, 98 of the 161 facilities inventoried were shown
to actually have discharges to a wetland. These included a variety of
wetland types such as tamarack bogs, cattail marshes, bottomland forests,
and reed-canary grass marshes. Other facilities were eliminated for vari-
ous reasons (discharge had ended, was routed to another water body, etc.).
About 6% of the 98 "natural" sites were municipal wastewater facilities,
17% were commercial facilities, and 6% were from a variety of other dis-
charge types.
A total of 26 of the natural sites were identified as having a high
potential for further studies in Phase II. A sites potential for further
study was based on the same criteria as used in the initial screening, in
order to obtain a selection of wetland types, loading rates, discharge
XXVI
-------
types, discharge durations and geographic representation. A total of three
"natural" sites (Bellaire, Michigan; Drummond, Wisconsin; and Houghton
Lake, Michigan) were identified as existing wetlands currently being used
specifically for purposes of advanced treatment of municipal wastewater.
Three additional natural sites were determined to be candidates for
use as advanced treatment facilities (Biwabik, Minnesota; Keilkenny, Min-
nesota; and Laona, Wisconsin). No full scale "constructed" wetlands were
located within Region V. Three sites characterized as "volunteer" wetlands
which have developed in response to seepage or similar conditions, were
identified (Lake Odessa, Wisconsin; Paw Paw, Michigan; and Vermontville,
Michigan). However, a far greater number of volunteer wetlands definitely
exists in Region V, based on the results of the field survey, in which
several sites were characterized by wetland plants growing in the vicini-
ties of discharges, seepage from stabilization ponds, or within the stabi-
lization ponds themselves.
ISSUE PRIORITIES AND STUDY TOPICS SELECTION
Since all issue categories could not be studied at all of the 26 sites
identified as having high potential for further sampling, major issues were
categorized and ranked in importance so that priorities for funding could
be established. In addition, study topics were identified for each major
issue area. In Phase II, these topics will be developed in detail for
application at a smaller number of specific selected sites in Region V.
Major issue priorities were established through extensive internal
review within the USEPA, and included consideration of all of the review
comments on the draft Phase I report from the projects Technical Advisory
Committee. A total of six major issue categories were selected. These
included: (1) use of constructed wetlands; (2) impacts on the hydrologic
regime; (3) long-term ecological effects; (4) legal/administrative issues;
(5) mitigation/management issues; and (6) disease/health considerations.
Major study topics were also selected and assigned to each of these issue
categories, to be further developed in Phase II.
xxvif
-------
FUTURE STUDIES
This final technical report culminates the Phase I efforts in the
overall process of preparing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on
the Effects of Wastewater Treatment Facilities on Wetlands in the Midwest.
It has presented the results of a comprehensive literature review, a sum-
mary of all known wetland discharge sites, and a ranking of the priority
study topics to be evaluated at potential study sites. Phase II will
encompass the necessary steps to develop the information for completion of
a Draft and Final EIS. These steps will include completion of a 2-year
effort in gathering field data, publication of an annotated bibliography in
cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and development of a
legal/administration regulatory document. When these steps have been com-
pleted, the scope of the Generic EIS will be defined in more depth based on
the data compiled and the Draft and Final EIS documents will be prepared.
xxvm
-------
Project #0855
March 31, 1983
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
THE EFFECTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES ON WETLANDS IN THE MIDWEST
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-5989
DOW #5
Submitted to:
Ms. Catherine G. Garra
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, EIS Preparation Section
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago IL 60604
Prepared by:
Steven D. Bach, Ph.D.
Senior Biologist
J./Ross Pilling II/M.R.P.
Project Manager '
Approved by:
J. P. Singh
Assistant Regional Director,
Chicago Region
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i y
LIST OF TABLES XXX11
LIST OF FIGURES XXXl'V
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Rationale for the Present Study 1-1
1.2 Historical Background 1-4
1.3 Definition of the Term "Wetland" 1-9
2.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES 2-1
2.1 Listing of Issues 2-1
2.2 Scoping Process 2-1
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 3-1
3.1 Issue Category I: Wetland Structure and Function -
Physical and chemical components 3-1
3.1.1 Effects on Site Hydrology 3-1
3.1.1.1 Role of Hydrology in Wetlands 3-1
3.1.1.2 Effects of Wastewater Application on the
Hydrologic Regime 3-9
3.1.2 Nutrient Cycling and Nutrient Removal in Wetlands.. 3-13
3.1.2.1 Nutrient Cycling in Natural Wetlands 3-15
3.1.2.2 Ability of Natural Wetlands to Remove
Nutrient s 3-28
3.1.3 Accumulation of Other Dissolved Substances 3-43
3.1.4 Accumulation of Trace Metals 3-44
3.1.5 Accumulation of Refractory Chemicals 3-49
3.1.6 Changes in Soils and Sediments 3-50
3.2 Issue Category II: Wetland Structure and Function -
Biological Components 3-51
3.2.1 Effects on Plant Communities 3-51
3.2.1.1 Long-term Changes in Species Composition.. 3-53
3.2.1.2 Changes in Plant Biomass, Growth, and
Production 3-56
3.2.1.3 Long-term changes in Areal Distribution
of Wetland Plants 3-59
3.2.1.4 Changes in Detrital Cycling 3-59
3.2.1.5 Transfer of Trace Metals into the Food
Web 3-62
3.2.2 Effects on Benthic Invertebrate Communities 3-65
3.2.2.1 Changes in Benthic Invertebrate
Populations 3-68
3.2.2.2 Changes in Insect Populations 3-70
3.2.3 Effects on Fish Communities 3-74
3.2.4 Effects on Wildlife Communities 3-77
3.2.4.1 Wildlife Use of Treatment Facilities 3-78
3.2.4.2 Effects of Wastewater Application on
Wildlife at Land Treatment Sites 3-83
XXIX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
3.2.4.3 Effects of Wastewater Application on
Wildlife in Wetlands 3-84
3.2.4.4 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species... 3-86
3.3 Issue Category III: Potential for Enhancement of
Wildlife Habitat 3-87
3.3.1 Natural Wetlands 3-88
3.3.2 Constructed Wetlands 3-89
3.3.3 Volunteer Wetlands 3-91
3.4 Issue Category IV: Health/Disease Considerations 3-91
3.4.1 Effects on Human Health 3-91
3.4.1.1 Parasites 3-92
3.4.1.2 Viruses 3-92
3.4.1.3 Bacteria 3-94
3.4.1.4 Toxic Organic Compounds 3-95
3.4.2 Effects on Plant Health 3-96
3.4.3 Effects on Wildlife Health 3-97
3.4.3.1 Viruses 3-100
3.4.3.2 Bacteria 3-101
3.4.3.3 Toxic Organic Compounds 3-102
3.5 Issue Category V: Overloading and Stress Conditions 3-103
3.6 Issue Category VI: Design, Operation, and Monitoring
Considerations 3-105
3.6.1 Design 3-105
3.6.2 Operation and Maintenance 3-113
3.6.3 Monitoring 3-113
3.7 Issue Category VII: Constructed Wetlands 3-114
3.8 Issue Category VIII: Mitigation 3-122
3.9 Issue Category IX: Legal, Administrative, and
Regulatory Concerns 3-125
3.9.1 Federal Requirements 3-126
3.9.2 State and Local Requirements 3-128
3.9.3 Administrative Review 3-129
4.0 INVENTORY OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGES TO WETLANDS IN REGION V 4-1
4.1 Identification of Dischargers 4-1
4.1.1 Data Collection 4-1
4.1.2 Discharger Questionnaire 4-10
4.1.3 Preliminary Site Surveys 4-10
4.2 Results of the Inventory 4-12
4.2.1 Wastewater Discharges to Natural Wetlands 4-13
4.2.1.1 Classification of Wetlands 4-32
4.2.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Sites 4-35
4.2.2 Existing, Planned, and Potential Wetland
Treatment Sites 4-35
4.2.3 Volunteer Wetlands 4-37
XXX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONCLUDED)
Page
5.0 ISSUE PRIORITIES AND ASSIGNMENT OF STUDY TOPICS 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.1.1 Use of constructed wetlands 5-2
5.1.2 Impacts on Hydrologic Regime 5-3
5.1.3 Long-Term Ecological Impacts 5-3
5.1.4 Legal/Administrative/Regulatory Issues 5-7
5.1.5 Mitigation/Management Issues 5-7
5.1.6 Disease/Health Issues 5-8
6.0 FUTURE STUDIES 6-1
6.1 Phase II Study , 6-1
6.1.1 Field Work 6-1
6.1.2 Publish Annotated Bibliography 6-1
6.1.3 Legal and Regulatory Consideration 6-2
6.2 Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement 6-2
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 7-1
8.0 LITERATURE CITED 8-1
Appendix A Technical Support Document A-l
Appendix B Practical Considerations for Planning Wetland Wastewater
Treatment Facilities B-l
XXX-j
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.2-1 Summary of information concerning wetland sites in the U.S.
and-elsewhere which have been used to advanced treatment of
applied wastewater 1-6
2.2-1 Specific issue categories and areas of concern 2-2
3.1-1 Annual retention of applied phosphorus and nitrogen in
the freshwater marsh plot receiving 9.6 cm wk treated
wastewater 3-13
3.1-2 Characteristics of municipal wastewater 3-14
3.1-3 Nutrient standing stocks in some wetland macrophytes 3-20
3.1-4 Operating systems reporting data for Figures 3.1-15 and
3.1-16 3-33
3.1-5 Performance and operating mechanisms of wetlands receiving
wast ewater 3-39
3.1-6 Summary of the most important nutrient uptake processes in
different wetland ecosystems in Region V 3-42
3.1-7 Trace element levels in raw and treated municipal effluents.. 3-45
3.1-8 Trace metal uptake by freshwater marsh plants 3-47
3.1-9 The percentage of metal coming into a wetland which subse-
quently leaves the system 348
3.1-10 Summary of types of invertebrates known to inhabit wetland
habitats in abundance, and their ecological functions 3-66
3.2-1 Expected use of various types of freshwater wetlands by
different types of fish communities 3-77
3.2-2 Summary of occurrence of amphibians and reptiles in
Vermontville, Michigan, volunteer wetland 3-86
3.6-1 Potential factors affecting the performance of wetland
treatment systems 3-107
3.7-1 Percent removal efficiency of constructed wetlands 3-115
3.7-2 Preliminary design parameters for planning constructed
wetland wastewater treatment systems 3-118
3. 7-3 Marsh system IV effluent characteristics 3-121
XXX11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONCLUDED)
Page
4.1-1 Status of facilities believed to discharge wastewater to
wetlands in USEPA Region V 4-3
4.2-1 Facilities in USEPA Region V confirmed to have discharges
of wastewater to wetlands 4-14
4.2-2 Summary of known wetland discharge sites in USEPA Region V
by type of facility 4-31
4.2-3 Comparison of general terms for wetlands used in Wisconsin
with terms used in the USFWS Wetland Classification System... 4-33
4.2-4 Summary of wetland discharge sites in USEPA Region V by
type of wetland 4-34
4.2-5 Existing, planned, and potential wetland treatment sites in
USEPA Region V 4-36
4.2-6 Volunteer wetlands known to exist in USEPA Region V 4-38
5.1-1 Key topics relating to impacts of wastewater on hydrologic
regime which should be studied further in Phase II and the
rationale for selecting each topic 5-4
5.1-2 Summary of ecological study topics to be completed in Phase II,
and the rationale for selection of each 5-6
5.1-3 Summary of mitigation/management study topics for Phase II and
rationale for selecting each , 5-9
xxxm
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.3-1 USFWS classification hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater
habitats, showing systems, subsystems, and classes 1-11
1.3-2 Distinguishing features and examples of habitats in the
Riverine System 1-12
1.3-3 Distinguishing features and examples of habitats in the
Lacustrine System 1-13
1.3-4 Distinguishing features and examples of habitats in the
Palustrine System 1-14
3.1-1 The hydrologic cycle 3-2
3.1-2 Hydrologic characteristics of surface water depression
we tlands 3-4
3.1-3 Hydrologic characteristics of surface water slope wetlands... 3-4
3.1-4 Hydrologic characteristics of groundwater depression
wetlands 3-5
3.1-5 Hydrologic characteristics of groundwater slope wetlands 3-5
3.1-6 Different plant communities in surface water depression
wetlands related to water permanence and basin depth 3-7
3.1-7 Different plant communities in groundwater depression
wetlands related to basin depth and groundwater level
fluctuations 37
3.1-8 Different plant communities in groundwater slope wetlands
related to groundwater inflow and drainage 3-8
3.1-9 Hypothetical types of hydroperiods for various wetland types. 3-10
3.1-10 General conceptual model illustrating the role of the hydro-
logic cycle in the ecology of wetland systems. 3-11
3.1-11 Water and nutrient exchange between wetland components 3-16
3.1-12 Nutrient pathways during decomposition 3-22
3.1-13 Major microbial decompositon and recycling pathways in wetland
sed iment s 3-23
XXXIV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Page
3.1-14 Factors influencing wetland soil formation 3-27
3.1-15 Effect of phosphorous loading on removal rate 3-31
3.1-16 Effect of nitrogen loading on removal rate 3-32
3.1-17 Relationship between nitrogen outputs and nitrogen inputs
derived from previous studies of wetland and terrestrial
ecosystems 3-34
3.1-18 Relationship between phosphorous outputs and phosphorous
inputs derived from previous studies of wetland and
terrestrial ecosystems 3-35
3.1-19 Relationship between phosphate levels in the water column and
dissolved oxygen levels in a southern forested wetland 3-37
3.2-1 Impact factor train for vegetation 3-52
3.2-2. Section of a Mississippi Delta lowland hardwood wetland illu-
strating plant distribution in relation to a permanently
flooded stream and an oxbow 3-54
3,2-3 Changes in biomass of understory vegetation in Florida
cypress domes receiving municipal wastewater 3-58
3.2-4 Litter build-up in the Houghton Lake, Michigan, peatland
during a three year period 3-61
3.2-5 Percentages of original weight remaining in leaves, small and
large stems of (a) leatherleaf, (b) bog birch, (c) sedge and
(d) willow placed September 1973 by aboveground and below-
ground positions 3-63
3.2-6 Model of vegetation and invertebrate changes in a prairie
emergent vegetation 3-69
3.2-7 Impact factor train for macroinvertebrates 3-71
3.2-8 Impact factor train for insects 3-72
3.2-9 Impact factor train for fish 3-75
3.2-10 Species richness as a function of water openings and percent
open water 3-79
3.2-11 Bisect through a glacial prairie marsh 3-80
3.2-12 Impact factor train for wildlife 3-81
XXXV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONCLUDED)
3.4-1 Wildlife toxicity/disease considerations ..................... 3-98
3.6-1 Schematic diagram of the zone of affected soil used by Hammer
and Kadlec (1982) to model wastewater discharges in wetlands. 3-109
3.6-2 Simplified compartmental model for use in wetland treatment
system design ................................................ 3-110
3.6-3 Movement of ammonia nitrogen (NH - N) concentration fronts
in surface water, at the Houghton Lake treatment site ........ 3-111
3.6-4 Relationship between cost and distance from stabilizing pond
to wetland. Data obtained from Michigan wetlands ............ 3-112
3.7-1 Potential design for a 1 MGD(US) marsh treatment facility ---- 3-119
3.9-1 Facility planning process incorporating wetland use
alternative .................................................. 3-131
4.2-1 Facilities identified as discharging to wetlands in Illinois. 4-25
4.2-2 Facilities identified as discharging to wetlands in Iowa ..... 4-26
4.2-3 Facilities identified as discharging to wetlands in Michigan. 4-27
4.2-4 Facilities identified as discharging to wetlands in Minnesota 4-28
4.2-5 Facilities identified as discharging to wetlands in Ohio ..... 4-29
4.2-6 Facilities identified as discharging to wetlands in Wisconsin 4-30
-------
1.0. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale for the Present Study
During the past several years, the Water Division of USEPA Region V has
reviewed numerous facility plans, environmental reports, and NPDES permit ap-
plications involving the discharge of secondarily treated wastewater to natur-
al wetlands. The majority of these applications propose to use wetlands as
discharge points for the wastewater. A small number also involve using the
wetlands specifically for advanced treatment (i.e., as a final polishing step
in the treatment process).
In many rural communities with limited funds for construction and opera-
tion of sewage treatment facilities, discharging wastewater to a wetland may,
in the course of planning, appear to be a cost-effective alternative. How-
ever, all such proposals must be considered by USEPA in the light of its
mandate to: ". . . take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degrada-
tion of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial
values of wetlands. . ." as stated in Section (1) of Executive Order 11990.
State, local, and county governments may also be required to protect wetlands
under a variety of additional laws and regulations.
Deciding when a particular proposal is in conflict with these goals has
been extremely difficult in the past, since essential information needed to
make such decisions objectively has not been available. Studies of the im-
pacts of wastewater discharges on the wide variety of wetland types in Re-
gion V have not been performed in sufficient depth, nor are reliable data
available on the abilities of the numerous different types of wetlands to
treat wastewater. Consequently, it has not been possible to establish clear
guidelines for permitting discharges into wetlands. The situation has been
further complicated by the lack of a precise and consistent definition of the
term "wetland" among agencies and permit applicants.
1-1
-------
USEPA Region V determined that the acquisition and dissemination of the
information necessary to resolve these questions would enable the present
standards utilized in the permitting process to be replaced with a less sub-
jective basis for allowing proposed discharges to wetlands and/or the use of
wetlands specifically for tertiary treatment. USEPA therefore initiated the
present study as part of a generic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under
Region V's 201 Facilities Plan Program.
The scoping and public participation process for the generic EIS resulted
in the identification of major issues that needed to be addressed concerning
the application of wastewater to wetlands. These issues formed the structural
basis of the present investigation. These issues are as follows:
Issues concerning potential impacts of wastewater on wetland
hydrology,
Issues concerning impacts on water chemistry, sediment chemistry
and nutrient recycling processes;
Issues concerning impacts on wetland energy flow and plant and
animal abundance, diversity, distribution, and production;
Issues concerning potential effects of disease organisms in
wastewater (viruses, bacteria, protozoans) on human, wildlife,
and plant health;
Issues concerning potential impacts of increased ecological
stress and overloading caused by elevated levels of nutrients,
trace metals, chlorine, and other pollutants introduced into
wetlands by wastewater;
Issues relating to alternative means of designing, operating, and
monitoring wetlands which are used specifically as a means of
tertiary treatment of wastewater;
Issues concerning use of constructed and volunteer wetlands for
wastewater treatment, including year-round treatment effective-
ness, design and operation considerations, and past performance
of previously studied systems;
Issues relating to the effective mitigation of ecological impacts
on wetlands which are used either as a point of discharge for
wastewater or as a means of tertiary treatment; and
Legal and regulatory issues concerning the discharge of waste-
water to receiving wetlands or use of wetlands for tertiary
treatment, including possible conflicts with Executive Orders on
wetlands and floodplains, the Clean Water Act, and state and
local laws and regulations.
1-2
-------
During the initial stages of developing the generic EIS, it became evident
that there were major data deficiencies in the scientific literature con-
cerning long-term impacts of wastewater application to wetlands. These data
gaps made it impossible to: (1) develop a sound basis for addressing the above
issues in a generic EIS; and (2) to arrive at suitable guidelines either for
communities desiring to apply for wetland discharges or for applicants inter-
ested in the use of natural or constructed wetlands for advanced treatment.
As a result, it was determined that detailed studies should first be conducted
at selected representative wetlands in Region V to obtain the needed data.
The present report is Phase I of a two-phase project in which the needed
scientific information will be obtained. The results of these studies will be
used to prepare the Draft Generic EIS. Ultimately, this will allow for im-
proved decision making relative to permitting discharges or treatment sites
involving wetlands. This approach to taken since it will result in a signifi-
cant savings in time arid funds by eventually eliminating the need for exten-
sive studies to be conducted at individual sites.
The overall objectives of the Phase I portion of the study are: (1) to
define the major issues that need to be resolved concerning discharge of
secondarily treated wastewater to wetlands; (2) to review the available sci-
entific literature in each major issue category, and to identify data defic-
iencies; (3) to provide a review of the scientific methodologies available to
study the impacts of wastewater application on fresh water wetlands in Region
V (4) to provide an inventory of the wetlands in Region V that are currently
being used as discharge points for secondarily treated wastewater, or that are
being used specifically for advanced treatment (including constructed wet-
lands); (5) to identify existing sites in Region V that would have a high
potential for study in Phase II of the project; and (6) to identify issues of
concern and research topics for study in Phase II. The present study does not
detail discussion on salt or brackish-water wetlands, aquaculture systems,
effects of sludge disposal or effects of non-point source runoff.
In Phase II, detailed site specific studies are to be conducted at seve-
ral locations representing broad categories of wetland types in USEPA Re-
gion V. These studies will be conducted over a period of at least two years,
and will be designed to address issues identified for each site in Phase I.
1-3
-------
Section 2.0 of this report summarizes the major issues identified as a
result of the Phase I scoping process. Section 3.0 provides an overview of
the relevant literature concerning wetland ecology and the effects of waste-
water application to wetlands, and discusses potential impacts in each issue
category. An outline of scientific methods available for determining these
impacts, and a list of suggested research programs, are presented in Appendix
A that accompanies this report. Appendix B presents a summary of practical
points concerning use of wetlands for advanced treatment. This list of pre-
cautions was amplified by Dr. Robert Kadlec and USEPA Region V and is based on
the current knowledge concerning wetland effects of wastewater on wetlands.
Sections 4.0. presents an inventory of existing wetlands in Region V that
currently receive wastewater discharges and thus constitute sites at which
detailed studies could be conducted. An annoted bibliography, listing sites
at which wetlands are being used specifically for purposes of wastewater
treatment is currently being prepared by Hammer and Kadlec (in preparation).
This information is not included in the present report. In section 5.O.,
suggested study topics are outlined and priorized based on identified the
major issues identified. Section 6.0 outlinxs the future studies to be done
and the preparation of the Generic EIS.
1.2 Historical Background
The use of wetlands as a means of treating municipal wastewater repre-
sents a relatively recent historical development in the United States. How-
ever, the ability of wetlands to purify water has long been recognized For
example, natives of the Sudan have used clay soils and indigenous wetland
plants to purify Nile River water during the flooding season for generations
(Al Azharia Jahn 1976). Beadle (1932) showed that African lakes with no adja-
cent wetlands were characterized by poorer water quality than lakes bordered
by wetlands, indicating a filtering or purifying effect. Pioneering research
in Germany since 1953 by Seidel (1976) has clearly demonstrated the ability of
aquatic vascular plants to purify wastewater. These and other studies have
demonstrated that wetlands are natural filters for many types of pollutants,
including sediments, suspended solids and various toxic substances (LaRoe
1983). Eventually, engineers aware of this property of wetlands suggested
that they be used for the treatment of wastewater, through the manipulation of
1-4
-------
the rate and timing of applications and other techniques. The use of wetlands
to treat wastewater in this manner has been justified primarily on the basis
of cost and treatment effectiveness. For example, in many small rural commu-
nities, the cost of building new treatment facilities that will meet the rela-
tively stringent water quality standards promulgated under the Clean Water Act
(PL 92-500) may be prohibitive. Wetland treatment systems, in which secon-
darily treated effluent is passed through a wetland as a final "polishing"
step, may be a feasible cost-effective means of meeting such standards. In
other cases, discharge to a wetland system is requested because the cost of
routing the effluent elsewhere is prohibitive.
As a result of the interest shown in the wetland treatment alternative by
various individuals and communities, several studies have recently been con-
ducted in which the problem has been examined in more detail. The objective
of these studies has been:
To assess the wastewater treatment potential of various
types of natural and constructed wetlands, especially their
efficiencies in removing nutrients from secondarily treated
wastewater effluent;
To assess the environmental impacts on the structure and
function of wetland ecosystems and on human health;
To assess engineering design concepts and management prac-
tices for process optimization and potential treatment
system breakdown;
To assess cost-effectiveness including considerations of
capital investment, operation, and maintenance costs, cost
of detrimental effects, potential for resource recovery,
energy recycling, and production of useful byproducts; and
To assess the enabling policy and legislation, changes in
land use, and public attitudes towards the wetland disposal/
treatment issue.
A summary of the major sites at which wetland treatment has been used as
an alternative is given in Table 1.2-1. In the United States the most exten-
sive work has been conducted at the Houghton Lake Michigan peatland site by
Kadlec et al. Most studies to date, however, have been site-specific, so that
adequate generalizations cannot be made to other areas and situations Fur-
1-5
-------
Table 1.2-1
Summary of information concerning wetland sites in the U.S. and else where which have been used for advanced treatment of applied
wasteland (from Hammer and Kadlic in preparation).
Name /Location
of Site
Bellaire, Michigan
Bradford, Ontario
Brillion, Wisconsin
Brookhaven, New York
Clermont, Florida
Cootes Paradise,
Ontario
Drummond, Wisconsin
Dulac, Louisiana
Gainesville, Florida
Dates of Annual Discharge
Operation Rate (gallons)
1972 to Present c 30 x 106
d fi
1979 to Present 0.5 x 10°
d fi
1925 to Present 98.3 x 10
Spring '73-Jan. '79C 3(mm)
1977 to 1979d 4 x 106
1920 to Present Not Available
H ft
1979 to Present 15 x 10
h
1973 to Present 33,150
1973 to Present*1 6 x 106
Discharge Size of
Schedule Wetland
May through Oct. 40 acres
2
Continuous 900M
Continuous 385 acres
Continous 0.4 acres
Periodic (water 32 ha.
applied over 24
hr. period 1/wk)
Continuous 5.2 km
May through Oct. 27 acres
Bi-weekly 170 ha
Continuous 1.5 ha
Estimated Size Types of Studies Advanced
Affected Area Qualitative Quantitative
30 acres Vascular plants
2 Algae
900M __ Vascular plants
microorganisms
Sediments
Litter
Soil
300 acres Vascular plants
0.4 acres Sediments Vascular plants
6000M Vascular plants
Algae
Soil
1.7 km Vascular plants
Sediments
Soil
20 acres Vascular plants
Litter
Soil
0.03 ha Vascular plants
Microorganisms
1.5 ha Vasular plants
Vertebrates
Invertebrates
Microorganisms
Viruses
Sediments
Litter
Soil
Human Use
Land Use
*Current as of (a) 1972, (b) 1976, .(c) 1979, (d) 1981.
-------
2 of 3
Table 1.2-1 Summary of Information concerning wetland sites in the U.S. and else where which have been used for advanced treatment of applied
wasteland (from Hammer and Kadlic in preparation).
Name/Location Dates of Annual Discharge
of Site Operation Rate (gallons)
Great Meadows, , -
Massachusetts 1912 (?) to 1980 1.6 x 10
Hamilton Marghes, .
Delaware 1975 to 1977 1.7 x 10
Hay River, Northwest ,
Territories 1965 (?) to Present 11 x 10
Houghton Lake, , ,
Michigan 1975 to Present 100 x 10
Humboldt, Saskatchewan 1979 to Present 5-8 x 10
Jasper, Florida Not Available Not Available
Kesalahti, Finland Not Available Not Available
Kinross, Michigan
(Kincheloe) 1955 to Present 150 x 10
Discharge Size of Estimated Size Types of Studies Advanced
Schedule Wetland Affected Area Qualitative Quantitative
Continuous 54 acres 54 acres Vascular plants Invertebrates
Sediments
April through Oct. 500 ha 200 M Vascular plants
Algae
Litter
Soil
Continuous 47 ha 32 ha Vascular plants
Invertebrates
May through Sept. 1700 acres 100 acres Vascular plants
Vertebrates
Invertebrates
Algae
Microorganisms
Viruses
Sediments
Litter
Soil
Human Use
Land Use
Batch to Adequate 1 ha 1 ha Algae Vascular plants
Treatment Microorganisms A.1 gae
Microorganisms
Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available
Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available
Continuous 500 acres 400 acres Vascular plants
Sediments
Litter
Soil
*Current as of (a) 1972, (b) 1976, (c) 1979, (d) 1981.
-------
3 of 3
Table 1.2-1
Summary of Information concerning wetland sites in the U.S. and else where which have been used for advanced treatment of applied
wasteland (from Hammer and Kadlic in preparation).
Name/Location Dates of Annual Discharge
of Site Operation Rate (gallons)
Lake Balaton,
Hungary Not Available Not Available
Las Vegas, Nevada ? to Present 30 x 10
d 6
Listowel, Ontario 1980 to Present 15 x 10
Mt. View Sanitary District,
,_ California 1974 to Present 255 x 10
' J
00 Seymour, Wisconsin 1973 to 1975 100,000
Suisun City, California 1977 to 1982 5.0 x 10
d (\
Vermontville , Ml 1978 to 1979 25 x 10
Waldo, Florida 1935 to Present*1 30 x 106
A ft
Wildwood, Florida 1957 to Present 55 x 10
Discharge Size of
Schedule Wetland
Continuous Not Available
Continuous 800 acres
Continuous 2.5 acres
Continuous 21 acres
n
June through 112 M
Dec.
Oct. 1 through 84,000 acres
May 15
June through 11.5 acres
Oct or Nov.
Continuous 2.6 ha
Continuous 500 acres
Estimated Size Types of Studies Advanced
Affected Area Qualitative
2000 M2 Not Available
600 acres Vertebrates
Invertebrates
Algae
Human Use
Land Use
2.5 acres Vertebrates
Invertebrates
, Algae
21 acres Vascular plants
112 M2
300 acres Vascular plants
Invertebrates
Algae
Soil
11.5 acres
2.6 ha
500 acres Vascular plants
Quantitative
_.
Vascular plants
Algae
Microorganisms
Sediments
Litter
Soil
Vertebrates
Invertebrates
Vascular plants
Algae
Vascular plants
Vertebrates
(No wetland pric
to irrigation).
Vascular plants
Litter
Soil
Vascular plants
Litter
*Current as of (a) 1972, (b) 1976, (c) 1979, (d) 1981.
-------
thermore, little information is available concerning the detailed mechanisms
by which wetlands "treat" applied wastewater, the rates at which the various
treatment processes function, and the long-term ability of wetlands to func-
tion effectively as treatment systems (Hammer and Kadlec 1982; Kadlec 1978).
Finally, no single study has yet successfully integrated available information
on: (1) the treatment potentials of different wetland types; (2) the impacts
of applied wastewater on wetlands of varying types; and (3) the available
options for managing wetland wastewater application systems Basic research in
these areas is needed to establish design parameters (and to establish permit
limitations) if the wetland alternative is to be utilized in the future (Reed
and Kubiak 1983). However, few studies of this nature have been done to date,
and there are major data deficiencies in scientific knowledge concerning this
subject (Hammer and Kadlec 1983; Heliotis 1982).
The objective of the present study is to establish the basis for more
detailed research concerning the effects of wastewater applications to wet-
lands in USEPA Region V. This effort represents the first step in obtaining
the data needed to understand the effect of wastewater discharges, the degree
of treatment achieved, and the best means of managing such systems. This type
of information will be required in order for USEPA Region V, and associated
Federal and state review agencies, to make informed permit decisions concern-
ing wetland wastewater application alternatives in the future.
1.3 Definition of the Term "Wetland"
To aid the reader in the sections that follow, the term "wetland" first
needs to be defined. To simplify the concept, the present study employs the
broadest possible definition of the term. As formulated by Cowardin et al.
(1979), that definition is as follows:
"Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems where the water table is usually at or
near surface and the land is covered by shallow water. . .
wetlands must have one or more of the following three
attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports
predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predomi-
nantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is
non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow
water at some time during the growing season of the year."
1-9
-------
Wetlands can thus include a variety of ecosystems ranging from seasonally
flooded bottomland swamp forests to permanently flooded cattail marshes.
Peatlands, bogs, swamps, sedge meadows, fens, and potholes would all be in-
cluded as wetlands under this broad definition.
Cowardin et al. (1979) also provided a classification scheme for wetlands
based on major "modifiers," including dominant vegetation, soil characteris-
tics, and frequency of flooding (Figure 1.3-1). Five overall types of wetland
systemsMarsh, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrinewere estab-
lished by Cowardin et al. (1979). The latter three types occur in USEPA
Region V. . Each system is further subdivided into subsystems and classes
(Figure 1.3-1). Figures 1.3-2 through 1.3-4 illustrate the further subdivi-
sions of each major subsystem into the various classes of wetlands as defined
by Cowardin et al. (1979). These classifications are used in Section 4.0 of
this report to define the types of wetlands inventoried in Region V.
1-10
-------
System
Subsystem
iMarine -
Estuarine -
<
0.
w-
H
Q
Q
<
CO
D
Ed
- Subtidal -
-Intertidal-
- Sub tidal -
-Intertidal-
Riverine -
- Tidal -
- Lower Perennial -
-Upper Perennial -
-Intermittent -
-Lacustrine -
- Limnetic -
- Littoral -
-Palustrine-
Class
-Bock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef
- Aquatic Bed
-Reef
-Rocky Shore
Unconsolidated Shore
-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef
- Aquatic Bed
-Reef
- Streambed
- Rocky Shore
- Unconsolidated Shore
-Emergent Wetland
- Scrub-Shrub Wetland
- Forested Wetland
- Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
- Aquatic Bed
-Rocky Shore
- Unconsolidated Shore
- Emergent Wetland
-Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
Aqua tic Bed
-Rocky Shore
-Unconsolidated Shore
- Emergent Wetland
- Rock Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Aqua tic Bed
Rocky Shore
Unconsolidated Shore
-Streambed
ERock Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Aquatic Bed
-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
- Rocky Shore
- Unconsolidated Shore
-Emergent Wetland
-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Unconsolidated Shore
-Moss-Lichen Wetland
-Emergent Wetland
-Scrub-Shrub Wetland
- Forested Wetland
Figure 1.3-1.
USFWS Classification hierarchy of wetlands and deep-water habitats,
showing systems, sub-systems and classes (from Cowardin et al. 1979)
1-11
-------
UPLAND PALUSTRINE
» 1
HIGH WATER
AVERAGE WATER
LOW WATER
a TEMPORARILY FLOODED
b SEASONALLY FLOODED
C SEMIPERMANENTLY FLOODED
d INTERMITTENTLY EXPOSED
e PERMANENTLY FLOODED
Figure 1.3-2.
Distinguishing features and examples of habitats in the Riverine
System (from Cowardin et al. 1979).
1-12
-------
HIGH WATER
AVERAGE WATER
LOW WATER
a TEMPORARILY FLOODED
b SEASONALLY FLOODED
c SEMIPERMANENTLY FLOODED
d INTERMITTENTLY EXPOSED
e PERMANENTLY FLOODED
Figure 1.3-3.
Distinguishing features and examples of habitats in the Lacustrine
System (from Cowardin et al. 1979).
1-13
-------
Seepage Zone
a TEMPORARILY FLOODED
b SEASONALLY FLOODED
c SEMIPERMANENTLY FLOODED
d INTERMITTENTLY EXPOSED
e PERMANENTLY FLOODED
f SATURATED
HIGH WATER
AVERAGE WATER
LOW WATER
Figure 1.3-4. Distinguishing features and examples of habitats in the Palustrine
System (from Cowardin et al. 1979).
1-14
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES
2.1 Listing of Issues
At the initiation of this planning study, EPA listed issues to be inves-
tigated during the Phase II study. This list is presented as the major head-
ings in Table 2.1-1.
2.2 Scoping Process
Because the present study was initially intended to be the first stage of
a project that would culminate in the preparation of an EIS, an EIS scoping
meeting was held in Madison, Wisconsin, on 2 October 1980, for the following
purposes:
o To present an overview of the EIS process and the content of
the proposed EIS to all interested agencies, organizations,
and citizens;
o To provide an opportunity for input from these groups to the
EIS process; and
o To define the issues and problems associated with the topic
of application of treated wastewater to wetlands as accu-
-ately as possible.
Approximately 50 persons, including representatives from a number of Federal
and state agencies, universities, and environmental and public interest
groups, attended the meeting. Written comments also were submitted to EPA by
persons unable to attend the meeting. The majority of these comments were
from state agency personnel located in other states in Region V.
After the presentation of the format and content of the study by EPA
personnel, those attending separated into discussion groups to further identi-
fy and categorize of issues. The results of these discussions, as well as
comments and recommendations offered by individuals, were recorded and sub-
mitted to USEPA. These comments and recommendations were reviewed and added
to make a list of general issues. Related issues were then expanded upon and
grouped into general categories. The results of this task are presented in
Table 2.1-1.
2-1
-------
Table 2.1-1. Specific issue categories and areas of concern.
WETLAND STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION CONSIDERATIONS
What are the different relationships between a particular wetland dis-
charge and local surface water and groundwater resources, and what po-
tential effects could occur on these resources, such as:
Raising of local water table;
- Increased level of nutrients or other substances;
- Reduced flood storage capacity?
What are the possibilities of a wetland affected by a wastewater dis-
charge returning to the pre-discharge condition (i.e., are the changes
chronic and cumulative, or temporary and reversible)?
Can the status of a wetland be maintained in the presence of wastewater
discharge, with regard to:
- Floodwater storage
- Effects on soils and sediments
- Effects due to accumulation of dissolved substances, trace
metals, or chemicals?
What are the relationships of treatment effectiveness to daily, seasonal
and long-term ecological cycles in different types of wetlands?
Does the addition of treated wastewater increase the rate of
eutrophication;
- Does the addition of treated wastewater increase the rate of suc-
cession;
What is the rate of change in each type of wetland;
- Does the addition of treated wastewater enhance the growth of unde-
sirable species?
- Can the status of fish and wildlife be maintained?
What are the effects and long-term impacts of the discharge of treated
wastewater on the structure and function of different types of wetlands
in EPA Region V?
What are the effects of changes in temperature, pH, nutrient levels,
flow rates, soil types, and hydrologic patterns?
- Will these result in:
Changes in species composition and diversity
Effects on endangered and threatened species;
Decreases in populations of desirable species?
What indicator species can be used to identify the development of adverse
effects from discharge?
2-2
-------
POTENTIAL FOR ENHANCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
What species can be enhanced in association with the use of a natural
wetland for treatment of treated wastewater?
What species can be enhanced in association with the operation of a
constructed wetland treatment system?
«
What management techniques are feasible for the enhancement of each of
the species identified? What will be the secondary effects of the imple-
mentation of these actions?
What agency (agencies) will manage wetland treatment systems that have
been designated as being used for enhancement of wildlife and wildlife
habitat?
- How would funds be provided for this purpose?
- How long would such areas be required to be managed?
- Should such areas be managed for a particular species?
What type of restoration of disturbed wetlands is possible? How can this
be done effectively?
HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
What are the implications for adverse effects on the health of humans,
plants, and wildlife, such as:
Exposure to or consumption of "contaminated organisms;
- Enhancement of populations of pests, such as mosquitoes, that may
transmit diseases;
Increase in type and number of parasites, bacteria, and viruses;
- Increased levels and possible bioaccamulation of toxic organic and
inorganic substances, including:
Heavy metals;
Ammonia;
Surfactants;
Detergents;
Refractory chemicals;
Trihalomethances?
OVERLOADING AND STRESS CONDITIONS
What are the impacts on the structure and function of a wetland receiving
a discharge from a facility bypass or malfunction due to:
- Excessive levels of nutrients;
- Hydraulic overloading;
- Mechanical failure;
Destruction of biological process organisms by toxins or other
means?
2-3
-------
DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS FOR A NATURAL WETLAND TREAT-
MENT SYSTEM
What kind of wetlands are best suited for treatment of wastewater from
the standpoint of effectiveness? What kinds are not suitable, based on:
- Hydrologic types;
- Veg*etation types;
Soil types?
What are the design criteria for an acceptable and effective wetland
discharge, such as:
Size of wetland;
- Type and level of pretreatment required?
Loading rate;
- Volume of discharge;
Application methods (spray, gated pipe, etc.) and the value of each
type for use in different types of wetlands or under different con-
ditions;
How can existing treatment facilities be converted to incorporate a
wetland treatment component?
What percent of the wetland is necessary as a buffer zone for avoidance
of impacts or bypass of facility?
What maintenance techniques should be used for each types of system?
What type of monitoring should be performed, including:
- Parameters to be measured;
- Timing and frequency of monitoring, especially for winter opera-
tions;
- Location of sampling stations, particularly for determination of
compliance with water quality standards?
What indicator species can be used to monitor wetland discharge sites?
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
What is the feasibility of construction of wetlands for treatment of
wastewater in various parts of Region V, especially in areas where soils
are not suitable for septic tanks and the population level is insuf-
ficient to justify construction of a centralized treatment system?
What is the effectiveness of treatment with different:
Climatic or discharge conditions;
- Vegetation types including those suitable for harvest;
Soil substrate types?
What are the benefits of using constructed wetlands for the treatment of
wastewater, as opposed to using natural wetlands?
2-4
-------
What are the problems involved in the conversion of existing facilities
to include wetland treatment by constructed wetlands?
MITIGATION
What mitigative measures can be taken to avoid impacts on wetlands from:
- Operation of conventional treatment facilities;
- Primary impacts;
Siting of facilities;
Construction and operation of conventional facilities;
Construction of interceptors and pumping stations;
Discharges to wetlands;
Problems associated with use of lagoons by wildlife;
Secondary impacts;
Induced development;
Increased human use of area;
- Innovative and alternative technologies;
Construction of wetland treatment systems;
Other land treatment methods that could affect wetlands?
What types of impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated effectively, and
would require that alternative actions be taken?
LEGAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
What are the present federal and state regulations applicable to:
- Definition of wetlands and wetland boundaries;
- Use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment, including: use
situations involving wetlands, including:
Levels and types of pretreatment required;
Mandatory disinfection;
Industrial wastewater;
Water quality standards related to wetland discharge/treatment;
- Creation of wetlands;
Maintenance of volunteer wetlands;
Procedures for upgrading of facilities to convert to wetland treat-
ment;
- Use of treated wastewater 'to improve wildlife habitat, particularly
on public land?
What are the potential conflicts between jurisdictions relating to the
protection of wetlands at various governmental levels and between dif-
ferent states in Region V:
Regional planning and 208 interface;
- Water law and regulatory interface?
2-5
-------
What are the implications of these conflicts for the development of in-
novative and alternative technologies involving the use of natural and
constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment?
What new institutional arrangements need to be made to permit the:
Use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment;
- Creation of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment;
Maintenance of volunteer wetlands for wastewater treatment;
- Restoration of wetlands;
- Destructive testing to determine assimilative capacity;
Prevention of illegal discharges to wetlands used as treatment
sites?
What types of permit approvals are required?
What types of wetlands should be designed as suitable for wastewater
treatment? In what areas?
What policies should be developed for the use of areas recognized as
exhibiting specific values or that have designated management goals:
- Buffer areas;
Preservation of an area of sufficient size for effective treatment?
Is the use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment consistent with
Federal or state regulations or interagency agreements on protection of
wetlands?
Under what circumstances is a wetland considered to be part of the
treatment system? Is an NPDES permit required for this discharge?
Is a wetland discharge considered to be "land treatment" or "dis-
charge to the waters of the United States"?
- Does a change in habitat type or a loss of species as a result of
the introduction of wastewater into a wetland constitute a violation
of Section 101 ot the Clean Water Act?
What criteria should be developed to identify wetlands as suitable
for wastewater treatment?
Is the concept (and associated regulatory requirements) of a mixing
zone applicable?
How would failure of the wetland as a functional treatment site be
defined? What actions should be taken in the event of failure?
Is the acquisition of a wetland for wastewater treatment purposes a
grant-eligible cost?
What legal problems might be associated with wetland treatment sites,
such as in the areas of:
Restriction of public use of the site for recreation or harvest;
- Landowner use of the site;
Engineering liability related to design, operation, and maintenance;
Multiple use of a publicly owned, operated, or managed site?
2-6
-------
What is the public acceptability of the use of natural wetlands for the
treatment of wastewater?
2-7
-------
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
This section summarizes the status of the current scientific literature
concerning each issue identified in Section 2.0. The literature review con-
siders the importance of each issue and the results of relevant studies that
have been conducted or that are ongoing. Suitable methods and programs avail-
able to address each issue are presented in Appendix A (Technical Support
Document). The information in Appendix A is intended for use as a guide and
reference to available methods and research approaches. Specific methods and
research programs have been developed in detail for individual sites, and are
presented in Section 4.0 of this report.
3.1 Issue Category I: Wetland Structure and Function - Physical and Chemical
Components
3.1.1 Effects on Site Hydrology
3.1.1.1 Role of Hydrology in Wetlands
The hydrologic regime is the single most important factor that affects
the ecological, physical, and chemical characteristics of wetland systems
(Gosselink and Turner 1978; Novitzki 1978). Factors that influence the hydro-
logic cycle include surface water and groundwater inputs, direct atmospheric
precipitation, and losses through evapotranspiration (Figure 3.1-1). The
hydrogeological setting of a wetland ultimately determines the volume of the
water flowing through the system and its chemical composition. The volume of
water entering and leaving a wetland, and its mineral content, in turn, are
determined by the net balance of each of the above factors (Heliotis 1982).
Effective water quality management therefore requires knowledge of hydrolog-
ical conditions because of the central role of the hydrologic regime in wet-
land ecology. The hydrologic regime may also be readily amenable to manipu-
lation for purposes of water quality management. The following description
provides an overview of the role of the hydrologic cycle in wetland ecology.
3-1
-------
Figure 3.1-1. The hydrologic cycle (from Smith 1966).
3-2
-------
Groundwater is an important source of water and minerals for many wet-
lands. The configuration of the water table, and the hydraulic conductivity
of the underlying substrate, determine the interaction of groundwater with
wetlands. Bedford et al. (1974) characterized these interactions as being of
four general types:
The wetland is a recharge area and the groundwater moves up
towards the water table;
The wetland is a discharge area and the water moves from the
wetland to the aquifer;
The wetland is perched or above the water table, but its
basin is sealed with clay, thus preventing direct connection
with the water table; and
The wetland is a flow-through area in which the water table
slopes into some part of the basin and away in the remain-
der, thereby producing simultaneous inflow and outflow.
Surface water may enter a wetland in the form of streamflow or as over-
land flow from adjacent areas. Overland flow is an important source of nutri-
ents, but is difficult to measure accurately (Carter et al. 1978 and Huff et
al. 1973). The rate and volume of surface flow is a function of the size of
the watershed, its slope, and the hydraulic permeability of the upland soils.
The water quality of wetlands that depend primarily on surface water for their
existence varies with high and low water conditions (Novitzki 1981). Surface
water quality is largely determined by land use and soil types. Novitzki
(1978) divided Wisconsin's wetlands, which are typical of Region V wetlands,
into the following four hydrologic classes:
Surface water depression wetlands - water entering leaves
only by leakage into the ground or by evapotranspiration
(Figure 3.1-2);
Surface water slope wetlands - receive water from lake or
river flooding; water can readily drain back to the lake or
river, as stages fall (Figure 3.1-3);
Groundwater depression wetlands - have contact with the
water table and no surface drainage away from the site
(Figure 3.1-4); and
3-3
-------
O
2
O
QL
V)
QC
Water table usually
below wetland level
Figure 3.1-3.
Hydrologic characteristics of surface water slope wetlands
(from Novitzki 1978)
z.
O
<
i-
IJ 5
OVERLAND
FLOW
LAKE OR RIVER
FLOODWATER
Water table usually
below wetland level
Figure 3.1-2.
Hydrologic characteristics of surface water depression wetlands
(from Novitzki 1978)
3-4
-------
OVERLAND
FLOW
Z
O
SI !
2
O
L
10
a:
O
a.
Water table
GROUND-WATER
INFLOW
Figure 3.1-4. Hyrologic characteristics of groundwater
depression wetlands (from Novitzki 1978) .
Water table
GROUND-WATER
INFLOW
STREAMFLOW
Figure 3.1-5. Hydrologic characteristics of groundwater
slope wetlands (from Novitzki 1978) .
3-5
-------
Groundwater slope wetlands - constant groundwater discharge
and an opportunity for surplus water to flow downslope away
from the site, eliminating ponding (Figure 3.1-5).
Because plant species differ in their tolerance of flooding, different plant
communities occur in each of the four hydrologic classes. Figures 3.1-6,
3.1-7, and 3.1-8 show how plant communities vary according to each hydrologic
class in Wisconsin wetlands. Clearly, alteration of the existing hydrologic
regime, as in the case of wastewater application, is very likely to result in
changes in plant community species composition.
Wastewater applied to a wetland, depending on its flow and composition,
can greatly alter the hydrologic regime and nutrient exchange. Heliotis
(1982) discussed the necessity for assessing the relationship between surface
water and wetlands receiving wastewater because runoff from unusual storms
could flood the wetland and flush effluents into water bodies nearby. The
differing characteristics of each of the above wetland classes largely deter-
mine how each type affects flood and base flows. In general, wetlands tend to
reduce peak floodflows (Novitzki 1978). The effect of floodwaters on total
streamflows depends on the specific hydrogeological setting (Larson 1981,
Novitzki 1978, Verry and Boelter 1978). Fritz and Helles (1978) proposed
analyzing stormwater runoff of adjacent areas in order to determine possible
adverse effects on the ability of wetlands to treat applied wastewater.
Excessive stormwater could also potentially cause wastewater to flow more
rapidly through a wetland, reducing waste retention times and treatment ef-
fectiveness.
The most important input of water for certain types of wetlands is pre-
cipitation. This is particularly true for some northern bogs (Kadlec 1976,
Moore and'Bellamy 1974). Water levels throughout an entire geographic area,
as well as water tables in surrounding uplands, can be increased uniformly by
precipitation. Precipitation slowly adds to the subsurface inflow, and rapid-
ly adds to the stream inputs to the wetland (Kadlec 1976). Precipitation is
also a mineral source for wetlands (Gorham 1961).
3-6
-------
Temporary or
seasonal wetland
SHALLOW BASIN
DRY MUCH OF THE TIME
Marsh or shrub swamp
MODERATELY DEEP BASIN
ONLY OCCASIONALLY DRY
Marsh, pond, sedge meadow
shrub or wooded swamp
DEEP BASIN
PERMANENTLY WET
Figure 3.1-6. Different plant communities in surface water depression wetlands
related to water permanence and basin depth (from Novitzki 1978),
Fens occui whete ground wjtei :s supplied to the plants, bogs occu
when1 deep ptMt deposits isoldte the pldnts fiom ground watci
Figure 3.1-7. Different plant communities in groundwater depression wetlands
related to basin depth and groundwater level fluctuations (from
Novitzki 1978).
3-7
-------
Fen, Marsh: Large GW inflow
Well-drained site
Cedar Swamp: Moderate GW inflow
Moderate drainage
Wet Meadow: Little GW inflow
Poor drainage
Figure 3.1-8. Different plant communities in groundwater
slope wetlands related to groundwater inflow and
drainage (from Novitzki 1978) .
3-8
-------
Evapotranspiration removes water from a land or water surface, the un-
saturated zone, or the saturated zone, and typically accounts for 37% to 93%
of water loss from wetlands (Novitzki 1978). Reduced amounts of water can
increase the concentration of nutrients, thereby affecting water quality.
The net balance of the above factors (surface and groundwater inflow and
outflow, precipitation, and evapotranspiration) determines the hydrologic
regime of individual wetlands. However, due to the varying influences of each
factor in different geologic settings and geographic areas, hydrologic regimes
vary greatly between different types of wetlands (Figure 3.1-9). These dif-
ferences need to be taken into account if wetland wastewater application
systems are to be effectively managed.
In addition to controlling overall water balance in wetlands, the hydro-
logic regime also controls wetland soil formation (Figure 3.1-10). In gene-
ral, organic soils build under low-flow conditions, whereas higher energy
environments are characterized by more mineral soils. Alluvial deposition
rates and biogenic accumulation rates are also influenced by flow regime. The
net balance between flow regime, alluvial deposition, and biogenic accumula-
tion ultimately determines the soil type that develops (Brown et al. 1979).
As soils build in response to an individual hydrologic regime, they in turn
alter the net balance of water flowing in and out of the wetland by changing
current speed and direction of flow and, subsequently, deposition rates, This
in turn may alter the types of plants and animals inhabiting the wetland by
changing the types of soils as well as the hydroperiod (Figure 3.1-10).
3.1.1.2 Effects of Changes of Wastewater Application on the Hydrologic Regime
Hydrologic factors that must be understood in order to assess the ability
of a wetland to treat wastewater include water depth, flooding regime, flow
dynamics, and the overall water budget. For example, water depth and flooding
regime (timing, extent, and duration) together largely control the abundance
and species composition of vegetation, as well as the abundance; distribution,
and types of invertebrates and other animal life that inhabit a wetland (Bed-
inger 1978). Changes in water depth and flooding regime can poteritially alter
plant species composition, energy flow, and mineral recycling of wetlands, and
must be well understood in order to assess the potential impacts of wastewater
3-9
-------
co
+-
C)
E
LU
>
UJ
_J
0"
bJ
PIEDMONT FLOODPLAJM
COASTAL PLAIN
CYPRESS-GUM
INTERIOR BOG
TIDAL SWAMP
rrt\
/EV^
i i
FMAMJJASOND
Figure 3.1-9. Hypothetical types of hydroperiods for various wetland types
(from Brown et al. 1979).
U
o
fi
cr
Z)
en
H
LL!
3-10
-------
SoUr Radiation
Tester* tore
Precipitation
Relative Esraldlty
Cyclic Regularity
A» organic
tuttar
-------
application. Flooding regime also determines the rates of litter decomposi-
tion and detrital recycling (Ewel and Odum 1979), which are of central impor-
tance in maintaining wetland food webs. Decomposition will be slower in
winter under cold temperatures or under conditions of constant flooding, for
example. In addition, excessive rainfall may produce increased erosion in a
wetland, leading to channelization). This may reduce the treatment effective-
ness of a wetland due to a reduction in detention time. Wile etal. (1983)
found that a hydraulic loading rate of 200m3/ha/day and a detention time of
seven days produced optimal treatment effectiveness in constructed wetland at
Listowell, Ontario. Wile et al (1983) also observed hydrologic short-circuit-
ing in a large open constructed marsh at Listowell was produced by excessive
litter build up and channel blockage. They concluded that a system with
numerous shallow sinous channels (with high length to width ratios) produced
optimal treatment.
Knowledge of the hydrologic regime is therefore essential to the under-
standing of the treatment effectiveness of a particular wetland (i.e., the
amounts of water and suspended and dissolved solids entering and leaving the
wetland per unit time) (Kadlec 1978). Detailed knowledge of the hydrologic
regime will allow quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of the wetland in
treating the waste, as well as determination of how hydrologic changes might
affect vegetation and wildlife.
An example of the interrelated effects of the hydrologic regime on the
ability of a wetland to treat wastewater was provided by Bayley (1978), who
found that plant growth rates and standing crops in a Florida freshwater
wetland receiving treated wastewater were highly dependent on the hydrologic
conditions. Chemical cycling was also strongly influenced by water regime.
However, the presence or absence of standing water did not significantly
affect the ability of the wetland to remove nutrients (Table 3.1-1), since
significant amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen were removed in both wet and
dry years. Only at very high levels of effluent application (9.6 cm/week as
compared with the lower rate of 4.4 cm/week) could differences in vegetation
or soil chemistry be detected. However, the vegetation growth rate, standing
crop, and tissue phosphorus levels were affected as much by the presence of
standing water as by the application rate, whereas tissue nitrogen level was
3-12
-------
Table 3.1-1. Annual retention of applied phosphorus and nitrogen in the
freshwater marsh plot receiving 9.6 cm wk-1 treated wastewater,
Percent removal based on P and N measured in outflow (from
Bayley 1983).
Nutrient Measured
Dry Year
Wet Year
Phosphorus ,
Well on edge of plot
Well below effluent pipe
Nitrogen ^
Well on edge of plot
Well below effluent pipe
Treatment plot within wetlands.
98.56%
(97.97)
71.19%
(62.87)
99.31%
(93.65)
88.42%
(85.41)
more related to the application rate. Hydrologic regime was thus shown to
have variable and interrelated effects (note that this example is for a non-
flow through wetland. Wet years in a flow through wetland typically have the
opposite effect, reducing retention time and resulting in less effective
treatment. Data in table 3.1-1 indicate that treatment for the non-flow
through wetland is better in a wet year.
The status of knowledge concerning wetland hydrology has been summarized
in recent reviews by Carter et al. (1979) and Gosselink and Turner (1978).
Several other studies contain at least partial information on hydrology or
water budgets for specific wetland wastewater treatment system sites. These
include Bellaire, Michigan (Kadlec 1980), Houghton Lake, Michigan (Kadlec and
Hammer 1980; Kadlec and Hammer 1982), Gainesville, Florida (Heimburg 1976),
Drummond, Wisconsin (Kappel 1980), and Listowel, Ontario (Wile et al 1983).
3.1.2 Nutrient Cycling and Nutrient Removal in Wetlands
Municipal wastewater is characterized by relatively high levels of nutri-
ents such as nitrates and phosphates (Table 3.1-2). Several recent studies
have shown that natural wetlands are able to remove these substances effec-
tively, resulting in improved water quality (hammer and Kadlec 1982). To
3-13
-------
Table 3.1-2. Characteristics of municipal wastewater from (USEPA 1973).
Constituent
Physical
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Untreated Sewage
(rcg/1)
700
200
Typical Secondary-
Treatment Effluent
Cmg/1)
425
25
Chemical
Total dissolved solids
PH
BOD
COD
Total nitrogen
Nitrate-N
Ammonia-N
Total phosphorus
Chlorides
Sulfate
Alkalinity (CaC03)
Boron
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium adsorption ratio
500
7.0
200
500
40
0
25
10
50
100
± 0.5
400
7.0 ± 0.5
25
70
20
10
45
1.0
50
14
24
17
2.7
Biological
Coliform organism (MPN/100 ml)
10'
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Waste treatment and
reuse by land application. Prepared by C. E. Pound and R. W. Crites.
Vol. 1. EPA-660/2-73-006a.
3-14
-------
understand how wetlands accomplish this effect, the processes of nutrient
recycling in natural wetlands must first be described. A review of the lit-
erature concerning this subject is presented in Section 3.1.2.1. The ability
of wetlands to remove nutrients (either from natural sources or from waste-
water) is then discussed in Section 3.1.2.2, based on a review of previous
studies.
3.1.2.1 Nutrient Cycling in Natural Wetlands
Whigham and Bayley (1979) and Richardson et al (1978) provided reviews of
studies concerning nutrient recycling processes in natural wetlands. Only a
few quantitative studies have been made, however, in which the size of the
nutrient pools or rates of internal transfer between ecosystem compartments
were measured. Hammer and Kadlec (1982) presented a useful diagram of nutri-
ent cycling in wetlands (Figure 3.1-11). These models summarize the major
nutrient recycling processes that occur in wetlands, including inputs and
outputs from the entire wetland system as well as internal recycling proces-
ses. Major nutrient inputs include atmospheric precipitation, surface water
inflow, and groundwater inflow (although ombrotrophic bogs depend primarily on
precipitation). Major nutrient outputs typically include surface water and
groundwater. Internal cycling processes involve transfer of nutrients between
various living and non-living ecosystem compartments. The net sum of these
processes results in the observed losses of nutrients to surface water and
groundwater outputs. The following sections provide a more detailed summary
of the major nutrient cycling pathways in wetlands.
Nutrient Uptake by Wetland Vegetation
All vegetation requires some form of nutrients for internal metabolic
processes, growth, and reproduction. Emergent wetland vegetation obtains
nutrients from the soil by absorption through the root system. Wetland plants
take up nutrients at rates which follow classic MichaelisMenten kinetics
(Nissen 1973). This pattern has been shown to be valid for a wide taxonomic
range of plant species, although individual rates of uptake vary widely. At
low nutrient concentrations, an active form of nutrient uptake process occurs
(the so-called "high affinity system"). The active form of uptake requires an
3-15
-------
transpiration
emigration/harves t
effluent
infiltration
Consumers
(Insects,
Vertebrates)
Subsurface
Water
Root Zone
loss to deep
ground water
pre cip i t at ion
dissolution
adsorption
Detritus Feeders
(Invertebrates)
Subsurface
Insoluble
Inorganic
Dead
Organic
Material
release of mineralized nutrients
Figure 3.1-11. Water and nutrient exchange between wetland components (from
Hammer and Kadlec 1982).
-------
expenditure of energy to transport nutrients into the root system. At higher
nutrient concentrations, a form of passive diffusion predominates. The high
affinity (active) system is the primary means of uptake in aquatic and wetland
environments (Hutchinson 1975) but the more passive diffusion system might
also be important in wastewater application systems with extremely high nutri-
ent levels. Lahksman (1979) showed that uptake kinetics were different under
high nutrient levels. Stanforth (1976) showed that nutrient uptake varied
significantly in water milfoil (Myriophyllum), an aquatic macrophyte, with
increasing levels of phosphorus. Stanforth (1976) also showed that nutrient
uptake decreased as flow rate (currents) increased, a factor of importance in
wetland-wastewater application problems. Trace materials may also reduce
nutrient uptake rates by affecting enzyme active transport systems (Stanforth
1976).
Nutrient availability may limit the growth of many natural wetland plants
(Prentki et al. 1978). If nutrients are available in amounts which exceed the
plants metabolic requirements, however, the plant typically continues to
absorb nutrients, which are then stored. This so-called "luxury" uptake has
been demonstrated for many aquatic and emergent plants (Gerloff 1975). In
addition, every plant has a "critical" nutrient concentration in the environ-
ment below which growth is limited (Gerloff and Krombholz 1966). In the case
of a wetland receiving treated wastewater, luxury uptake would be expected for
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Similarly, addition of wastewater
to a system naturally limited by a particular nutrient (for example, peat
bogs, which are usually low in nitrogen) would be expected to cause a shift in
species composition towards those forms more able to utilize excess amounts of
nitrogen.
Nutrient uptake rates also vary with the phenotypic (growth) stage of the
plant during the course of the year. Uptake is generally greatest during the
most rapid growth phase, which in turn varies with the time of year, depending
on the species of plant. Also, "de novo" uptake from plant rhizomes, in which
nutrients pass from the rhizome to the leaf, has been demonstrated. In cat-
tails, two-thirds of the total P uptake, for example, was accounted for by
uptake from the rhizomes (Prentki et al. 1972). Shoots and roots also differ
in their nutrient uptake rates (Smith 1978 in Heliotis 1982). Finally, uptake
3-17
-------
rates vary widely among species, even though overall kinetics are similar
(Dykyjova 1978; Klopatek 1975).
Periphyton (attached epiphytic and epilithic algae) may account for an
equal or greater amount of primary production as compared with submerged and
emergent macrophytes in some wetlands (Jones 1980; Kowalczewski 1975; Correl
et al. 1975). As a result, periphyton play an important role in nutrient
recycling in these systems. For example, periphyton have been shown to ac-
count for a significant amount of phosphorus removal in some wetlands. Peri-
phyton of a Typha-dominated tidal marsh were found to be the major pathway of
phosphorus removal (Correl et al. 1975). Phosphorus uptake by periphyton in
an everglades marsh was shown to equal uptake rates by cattails (Davis and
Harris 1978). The role of periphyton in nutrient uptake should therefore be
carefully considered in future studies of nutrient cycling in wetlands and
wetland wastewater application. It would be expected that periphyton produc-
tion would be stimulated by added wastewater, and that the cycling of nutri-
ents would be significantly affected as a result. It is not known if exces-
sive growths of periphyton would be produced or if this would pose a possible
water quality problem due to increased BOD loading. Only further study will
enable this question to be addressed.
Nutrient Levels in Wetland Plants
Wetland plants store nutrients in their tissues, thus representing a pool
of these materials at a specified point in time. The standing stock of nutri-
ents varies throughout the year, and for specified time is equal to the pro-
duct of biomass (grams dry weight/m2) times the tissue nutrient concentration
(% of dry weight). Klopatek (1975) described the following four phases of the
seasonal nutrient cycle of a wetland plant:
Phase 1: Beginning of the growing season, when the plant
tissues contain the highest nutrient concentra-
tion;
Phase 2: Short period of peak nutrient uptake, usually
preceding peak biomass accumulation;
3-18
-------
Phase 3: Peak of nutrient standing stock, which may or
may not coincide with peak biomass; and
Phase 4: Decline and leveling off of nutrient concentra-
tion.
Typical levels of nutrients in wetland plants are shown in Table 3.1-3. This
provides some indication of the range to be expected in future studies, and
also shows that data on both biomass and tissue nutrient levels must be ob-
tained to accurately determine nutrient pools.
Role of Animals in Nutrient Cycling
Animals influence nutrient cycling in wetlands by producing particulate
matter, maintaining sediment stability, excreting ammonia, and grazing (Vali-
ela and Teal 1978). Second trophic level animals in wetlands include direct
herbivores (direct grazers on vegetation) and detritivores (consumers of dead
plant material). Direct herbivores generally consume a relatively low per-
centage of the total biomass in wetlands (Moore and Bellamy 1974; Teal 1962;
Pelikan 1978). Detritovores consume significant portions of the biomass
produced in salt marshes (Teal 1962), but only a small percentage of submerged
macrophytes in a lake were shown to be consumed by detritovores (Carignan and
Kolff 1980). In general, detritovores such as amphipods and other inverte-
brates are responsible for reducing the particle size of leafy dead plant
material, thereby increasing the surface -to-volume ratio of the material and
increasing the rate of decomposition (Hynes 1970). Rate of decomposition is
increased by active build-up of microbial populations on the detritus as it is
shredded into smaller particles, which in turn increases the rate of nutrient
cycling.
Few data are available on the transfer of nutrients to higher trophic
levels. These pathways would involve carnivorous and insectivorous animals.
Mammals in general may be an important factor affecting the rate of internal
nutrient cycling in wetlands.
3-19
-------
Table 3.1-3 Nutrient standing stocks in some wetland macrophytes.
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Species
Phragmites
communis
Typha
angustifolia
Typha
latifolia
Acorus
calamus
Scripus
lacustris
Scripus
americanus
Scripus
fluviatilis
Carex
lacustris
Taxodium
Study
Period
May-Oct.
May-Oct.
June-May
May-Oct.
May- July
May-July
May-Oct.
May- July
May-Sept.
May-Sept .
July-June
Biomass
g/m2
1,025-2,731
430-2,600
927-2,350
2,456
190-680
117-792
170-1,650
90-150
1,533
1,186
29,000
Tissue
Concentration
% dry weight
1.00-2.77
0.8-2.9
0.44-2.45
0.51-2.40
1.26-2.92
1.03-1.77
0.83-2.72
1.10-3.25
0.60-1.70
0.24-1.43
Peak
Standing
Stock
g/n.2
41
32.7
12.00
5.35
21.3
52.9
1.66
15.4
7.7
97.0
Tissue
Concentration
% dry weight
0.17-0.48
(0.26)
0.15-0.49
0.05-0.26
0.17-0.63
0.09-0.31
0.2-0.35
0.23-0.34
0.13-0.30
0.08-0.75
0.16-0.31
0.009-0.1
Peak
Standing
Stock
g/m2
53
6.4
2.39
2.25
0.77
3.3
11.1
0.23
3.3
1.95
4.35
Study Site/Reference
Opatovicky fishpond (Kvet 1975;
Dykyjova 1978)
Everglades conservation (Davis
and Harris 1978)
Theresa Marsh, Wisconsin (Klopatek 1975)
Par Pond, South Carolina (Boyd 1970)
Opatovicky fishpond (47,94)
(Kvet 1975; Dykyjova 1978)
Opatovicky fishpond, Theresa Marsh
(Kvet 1975; Klopatek 1975)
Par Pond, South Carolina (Boyd 1970)
Theresa Marsh, Wisconsin
(Klopatek 1975)
Theresa Marsh, Wisconsin
(Klopatek 1975)
Okefenokee swamp (Schlesinger 1978)
-------
Cycling of Nutrients During Decomposition
Figures 3.1-12 and 3.1-13 summarize general pathways of plant and animal
decomposition in wetlands, although these processes are in fact not well
understood (Gallagher 1978). Organic (plant or animal) matter may follow two
different pathways of decomposition. Under low-oxygen, water-saturated condi-
tions, decomposition is slow and follows a series of fermentation processes
(Figure 3.1-12). This leads to a gradual accumulation of organic sediment
(peat). This process occurs when the decomposition rate is consistently less
than the rate of litter accumulation. Nitrogen is released during anaerobic
decomposition as nitrogen (N2), nitrogen oxide (N20), or nitrous oxide (NO);
whereas phosphorus, sulfide (S ) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are released
during sulfate reduction (Figure 3.1-13). The alternate pathway occurs under
oxygen-rich situations. Under these conditions aerobic respiratation predomi-
nates, and fungi and bacteria rapidly break down the plant material, resulting
in release of stored nutrients (Figures 3.1-12 and 3.1-13). Other metabolic
products of aerobic respiration primarily include C02 and H20.
*
The standing litter compartment includes plant material that has died but
has not yet fallen onto the surface of the wetland, where it will undergo more
rapid decomposition as it comes in contact with water. Shoot death produces
the standing litter compartment. However, shoot death is variable and occurs
throughout the year, depending on the species of plant. Microbial decomposi-
tion of the standing litter compartment is of minor importance in nutrient
cycling. Instead, winter winds and rains plus animal disturbance are the
primary factors affecting decomposition. Nutrient losses are incurred mainly
by leaching, translocation, and fragmentation (Davis and van der Valk 1978b).
The fallen litter compartment includes dead plant material that is in
immediate contact with the soil surface. Oxygen levels in the soil generally
determine decomposition reactions that occur in the fallen litter compartment.
Water-logged soils rich in organics rapidly form a thin layer of oxidized
material that decomposes plant and animal detritus by aerobic processes (Fig-
ure 3.1-13). Deeper -layers undergo anaerobic decomposition (Figure 3.1-13).
3-21
-------
: Pools
: Processes
f ^ : Conditions
OXIDIZED
ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.1-12. Nutrient pathways during decomposition (from Heliotis 1982)
3-22
-------
{ N2,N20,NO | CH4
C02 I '
UttfcAINIU MAI 1 tK / | /
AEROBIC
(OXYGENATED)
ZONE
ANAEROBIC
(REDUCED)
ZONE
AEROBIC ^ \/ ! 1 I
DE COMPOSERS -K / / /
l\ / / /
FERMENTORS'
*v \ DENlf
RIFIEFfs / »
\
RELEASE. \ -,~ " i
'METHANE PRODUCERS7
SULFATE REDl/CERS /
Figure 3.1-13. Major microbial decomposition and recycling pathways in wetland
sediments (from E. P. (Mura 1978).
3-23
-------
Decomposition in the fallen litter compartment is initiated by shredding
organisms (e.g., amphipods) or by mechanical action (Axelrod, et al. 1976).
The sequence of events during decomposition is as follows:
Phase A: increased production of dissolved organic mater-
ial, which is metabolized rapidly; maximum DOM
production occurring soon after initial leaching;
Phase B: a period of decreased decay rates due to various
interacting factors; and
Phase C: asymptotic decrease in rate of decomposition,
which eventually reaches zero.
The actual decay rate of detrital material varies widely. Decay rates are
affected by many factors,and are largely a function of the composition of the
plant material (i.e., percent labile, versus percent refractory components)
and the existing physical and chemical conditions (i.e., acid bog versus
alkaline marsh; northern versus southern location, hydrologic conditions,
etc.).
Nutrient Dynamics During Decomposition
During decomposition, nutrients are exchanged due to internal transloca-
tion (removal of nutrients from dying leaves and transfer to rhizomes), leach-
ing, and nutrient accumulation during particle breakdown (microbial buildup on
detritus and accumulation of phosphorus and nitrogen by microbes during con-
version of plant cellulose to protein, for example). However, little is known
concerning the details and relative importance of these processes. The fol-
lowing is a summary of nutrient dynamics during decomposition:
In some species, such as Typha latifolia, a large amount of
phosphorus (23%) is translocated back to the rhizomes prior
to leaf death;
Leaching rates vary with type of vegetation, its physical
condition, respiration rates, and oxygen levels (Chamie and
Richardson 1978). Increasing submergence, for example, may
increase leaching (Davis and van der Valk 1978c);
Microbial uptake of P and N may be a significant portion of
total macrophyte uptake (Davis and Harris 1978);
3-24
-------
Faster-decomposing plants are composed of lower amounts of
resistant lignins and lower C:N ratios (Davis and van der
Valk 1978; Godshalk and Wetzel 1978); low levels of lignin
enhance microbial populations and speed up decay rates and
nutrient cycling;
Species more resistant to decomposition act as buffers by
releasing nutrients more slowly over time; and
Plant morphology affects nutrient uptake patterns and rates,
in that dissimilar species may have similar patterns of
breakdown.
The above factors, plus the full range of physical and chemical conditions,
affect the role of litter as a nutrient sink in wetlands. As a general rule,
as litter builds up in older wetlands, it becomes more effective as a nutrient
sink due to increased available surface area and microbial activity. (various
authors _in Heliotis 1982) .
Incorporation of Nutrients by Sediments
Nutrients contained in plant tissues may be incorporated into the sedi-
ments in several ways. A major pathway is via the slow process of peat soil
formation. Peat is as a general soil type resulting from the gradual accumu-
lation of slowly decaying plants and other organic material over time, and is
described more fully below. Peat soil formation rates are affected by numer-
ous factors, including hydrologic regime, nutrient levels, climate, and basin
morphometry (Friedman et al. 1979). The type of peat soil formed depends on
the species of plants, the climate at the time the plants were growing, and
the types of decomposing microorganisms (Moore and Bellamy 1974). Nutrient
retention ability varies between different peat types, and is therefore a
factor affecting performance of wetlands receiving applied wastewater.
Adsorption to suspended sediment particles and subsequent settling is the
primary mechanism for removal of colloids, nitrogen, phosphorus, trace metals,
and organics from the water column in wetlands (Tchobanoglous et al. 1979).
Removal of suspended solids and attached substances in wetlands is caused
primarily by lowered water velocity as water flows through standing vegetation
(Boto and Patrick 1978).
3-25
-------
Chemical precipitation reactions also produce a transfer of chemical
compounds from the water column to the sediments (Stuman and Morgan 1981).
Precipitation is the major mechanism for removal of phosphorus and trace
metals (in general, phosphate precipitates above pH = 8.0 assuming suitable
cations such as iron or calcium are present). Periphyton are also a major
removal mechanism for phosphate in some wetlands (Correl et al. 1975; Davis
and Harris 1978). Adsorption reactions are an additional important mechanism
for nutrient removal and are discussed in the following section.
Wetland Substrates
A variety of wetland substrates may form. Figure 3.1-14 summarizes the
major types of wetland substrates that can form in response to various fac-
tors. Wetland soils may be composed of a mixture of minerals (sand, silt,
clay), organics (peat, mulch), or both (Lee 1977; Brown et al. 1979). Under
conditions of higher rates of alluvial deposition, low biogenic accumulation,
and high water turnover (flux/storage), inorganic sediments predominate.
Under low current conditions where biogenic accumulation rates and alluvial
deposition rates are low, organic peat soils develop (Figure 3.1-15).
Wetland soils have several features, that are characteristic of all
submerged soils; these are as follows (Ponnaperuma 1972):
The absence of molecular oxygen and reduced soil conditions
in deeper layers;
A thin, oxidized mud-water layer; and
The presence of marsh plants (usually).
The oxidized soil-water interface is of particular importance to nutrient
cycling in wetlands. This layer absorbs and retains phosphate, silica, and
trace metals from the water column and the deeper anaerobic layers of the
sediment). It also causes nitrification (conversion of nitrogen to nitrate)
which reduces the amount of nitrogen in the water column (Keeney 1972).
The anaerobic zone is in a reduced state, and is characterized by high
levels of ammonia (NH+ ), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), reduced manganese and iron,
3-26
-------
O
cc
A
o
o
o
*E
O
OQ
MIXED
DEPOSITS
INORGANIC
SEDIMENTS
Alluvial Deposition Rate
Figure 3.1-14. Factors influencing wetland soil formation (from Brown et al.
1979).
3-27
-------
and methane (CH,) . This zone acts as a release for phosphate when the sur-
rounding water is low in soluble phosphate, but will absorb phosphate from
solutions high in this ion. This is caused mainly by the process of adsorp-
tion to ferrous and manganese colloidal gels (Li et al. 1972; Patrick and
Khalid 1974). The reduced zone is also the primary site for denitrification
(transformation of nitrate to free nitrogen (Figure 3.1-13). In general, low
pH and low redox potentials (eH) favor solubilization of trace metals, but
this may be countered by metal sulfide precipitation, adsorption to colloidal
gels, and complexing with organics (various authors in Heliotis 1982).
Cation exchange capacity is also an important measure of a soil's ability
to remove nutrients. The process of cation exchange involves a replacement of
charged ions on the surface of microscopic colloidal particles by other ions
which have a higher charge (e.g., a greater electronic affinity for the sur-
face of the charged soil particles). In general, the higher the cation ex-
change capacity, the more effective a soil is in removing nutrients. The
cation exchange capacity of a soil increases with increasing mineral content
(Sjors 1961). In general, soil nutrient removal capacity decreases gradually
over time due to saturation of available adsorption sites. Thereafter, a
steady state is attained in which removal is primarily by filtration (Meche-
nich 1980).
The ultimate fate of nutrients in soils may include: (1) leaching out
and removal; (2) remaining attached and incorporation into the sediment;
(3) release by cation exchange, microbial action, fire, or via plant uptake;
and (4) remaining attached and lost by erosion. In managing wetlands for
nutrient assimilation, the objective should be to achieve permanent incorpo-
ration into the sediments.
3.1.2.2. Ability of Natural Wetlands to Remove Nutrients
This section summarizes the literature concerning the ability of wetlands
to remove nutrients. Although the discussion focuses primarily on wetlands
receiving applied municipal wastewater, examples of the ability of natural
wetlands to remove nutrients as well as examples of wetlands to treat storm-
water runoff are also included. These also provide useful examples which are
3-28
-------
applicable to the problem of using wetlands as a means of advanced treatment
or as a point of wastewater discharge.
The ability of natural wetlands to remove nutrients varies widely.
Various investigators have attempted to correlate nutrient removal with numer-
ous factors, but few good correlations have been established that apply to all
wetlands. This is due primarily to the wide variety of wetland types and the
large number of factors affecting nutrient retention. However, several trends
can be recognized that illustrate the possible ways in which nutrient removal
is accomplished among different wetland types, and the factors that are impor-
tant in controlling nutrient removal.
Loading Studies
Nichols (1980a,b,c) reported that natural wetlands receiving wastewater
or fertilizers varied widely in their N and P removal efficiency. Good
phosphorus removal efficiencies were indicated at low loading rates (less than
5 grams P/m2/year) for all wetlands. However, efficiencies of P removal
rapidly dropped sit higher loading rates (above 10 grams P/m2/year) . A similar
pattern was noted for N removal (but at different loading rates).
Using the average per capita loading estimates of 2.2 g phosphorus and
10.8 g nitrogen per day in domestic wastewater (Vollenweider 1968 in Nichols
1980a), Nichols converted the P and N loading rates to numbers of people to
indicate the efficiencies of removal that might occur if the wastewater pro-
duced by each population were applied to a 1-hectare (ha) wetland. Based on
the revised estimates, approximately 1 ha of wetland would be required for
every 60 people to attain 50% removal of N and P. The same amount of wetland
could provide 75% removal for a population of 20 persons. Nichols noted that
the estimated loading rate to nutrient removal relationships are generalized,
and that efficiencies of removal would vary according to the particular condi-
tions at each site. In general, however, high removal efficiencies are achi-
eved when the number of people served per ha is small. However, since little
is known concerning the long-term ability of wetlands to remove nutrients
(removal efficiency may decline greatly over long periods of time), results of
short-term studies can be misleading.
3-29
-------
Although removal of nitrogen appears to be largely a function of micro-
bial activity and could continue as long as healthy microbial populations are
maintained, the length of time during which a particular wetland can effect-
ively remove phosphorus from wastewater is unknown. Presumably, wetland soils
with higher levels of aluminum, iron, calcium, and clay (the primary sub-
stances that bind phosphorus) would function in this capacity over longer
periods of time than wetlands with lower levels of these substances. If the
phosphorus adsorption capacity of a wetland soil becomes saturated, the soil
may release some of phosphorus, particularly if the concentration in the over-
lying water is reduced, as happened at Dundas, Ontario (McLarty n.d. in_ Nic-
hols n.d.). The phosphorus and nitrogen removal efficiency of a specific
wetland may also be less during periods of the year when no plant growth
occurs.
Hammer and Kadlec (1982), Kadlec (1982) and Kelly and Harwell (1983)
summarized information from the literature concerning nutrient retention in
wetlands as a function of age, loading, and other factors. .Hammer and Kadlec
(1982) summarized the information concerning major factors affecting the
ability of a wetland to treat wastewater (Table 3.6-1, Section 3.6), and
related nutrient removal rates to loading rates (Figures 3.1-15 and 3.1-16 and
Table 3.1-4). Removal rates generally correlated with loading rates. How-
ever, older systems seem to be displaced towards poorer removal efficiencies.
Other Studies on Nutrient Removal
Kelly and Harwell (1983) showed that added inputs of nitrogen to terres-
trial and wetland systems result in a general increase in nitrogen output
(Figure 3.1-17). The nitrogen output is generally equal to about 43% of the
input for all ecosystems studied (including wetlands) (Figure 3.1-17). How-
ever, there was only a poor relationship at low loading rates. In contrast,
phosphorus input-output relationships were not linear (Figure 3.1-18) in that
terrestrial and wetland ecosystems exhibited good phosphorus removal even at
high inputs. Phosphorus input was thus not strictly proportional to output.
Wetlands varied one order of magnitude with respect to phosphorus retention
ability (Figure 3.1-19).
3-30
-------
CO
00
100
WETLAND NO., REFER TO TABLE 1
\
3(3)
NUMBER OF YEARS OF WASTEWATER
(FERTILIZER) APPLICATION
8(55) SUMMER ONLY
6(69)
9(55)
SUMMER ONLY
100
150
200 250
N LOADING, G/M2/YR
300
350
400
450
Figure 3.1-15.
Effect of phosphorus loading on removal rate (from Hammer and
Kadlec 1982). Numbered sources of information are listed in
Table 3.1-4.
-------
$$UU
.(55)
OJ
OJ
10,000
Figure 3.1-16. Effect of nitrogen loading on removal rate (from Hammer and
Kadlec 1982). Numbered sources of information are listed in
Table 3.1-4.
-------
Table 3.1-4 Operating systems reporting rate data for Figures 3.1-15 and
3.1-16 (from Hammer and Kadlec 1982).
No.
1
2
Site
Data Sources
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Hay River
Bellaire
Houghton Lake
Brillion
Clermont
Great Meadows
Wildwood
Waldo
Mt. View
l
Cootes Paradise
Seymour
EEC System
Hartland-Rowe and Wright (1975)
Kadlec (1979), (1980), (1981);
Kadlec and Tilton (1978)
Kadlec and Hammer (1980), (1981b);
Kadlec (1979); Kadlec et al. (1979)
Spangler et al. (1976), (1977)
Zoltek et al. (1979)
Yonika et al (1979)
Boyt et al (1977)
Nessel and Bayley (1980)
Demgen (1981)
Semkin et al. (1976)
Spangler et al. (1977)
Nute and Nute (1979)
3-33
-------
OUTPUTS,
gN R^Y
30
20
10
0
0
NITROGEN
Terrestrial (x)
Wetlands ()
R2 = 0,64
Y = 0.43X -1,9
10
20
30
INPUTS, g N M~2 YR"1
Figure 3.1-17. Relationship between nitrogen outputs and nitrogen inputs derived from previous studies
of wetland and terrestrial ecosystems (from Kelly and Harwell 1983).
-------
u>
U>
Ui
OUTPUTS,
gP M^YR"1
30
25
20
.15
10
0
PHOSPHORUS
Terrestrial (x)
Wetlands ()
0
10 15 20 25 30
35
45
50
INPUTS, gP
Figure 3.1-18. Relationship between phosphorus outputs and phosphorus inputs derived from previous studies
of wetland and terrestrial ecosytems (from Kelly and Harwell 1983)
-------
Whigham et al. (1980) discussed some additional factors that affect the
relative abilities of wetlands to remove nutrients. Wastewater renovation was
said to be most effective in wetlands characterized by the presence of thick
peat organic sediments. Nutrient removal (no mention of the influence of ash
content was made) was said to be determined primarily by microbial degradation
and physical-chemical adsorption processes.
Whigham et al. (1980) also reported that climate may play a role in the
effectiveness of wetlands in nutrient removal. Wetlands in northern climates
where winters are particularly severe appear to function less efficiently in
nutrient removal (Fetter et al. 1978; Whigham et al. 1980). In freshwater
tidal wetlands characterized by high decomposition rates, flushing of nutri-
ents may occur in a pulse at the end of the growing season (Whigham et al.
1980). Hydrologic factors, including rate of flushing and depth, also may be
important in determining the effectiveness of wetlands in nutrient removal.
High-energy, freshwater tidal marshes characterized by rapid water movement
and high tidal amplitudes exhibit relatively low levels of nutrient removal as
compared with freshwater non-tidal wetlands. Blumer (1980) suggested that the
lowest removal efficiencies would result from designs that incorporated rapid
movement of water directly through a wetland, and that effective removal would
be accomplished by designs incorporating interconnecting series of intermit-
tent channels and pool wetland types.
Day and Kemp (1983) studied the ability of a southern forested swamp (in
Louisiana) to retain nutrients resulting from agricultural runoff. The re-
sults apply directly to the problem of the long-term ability of wetland eco-
systems to treat applied wastewater. During a two-year study, they found that
the swamp removed 21% of the total nitrogen and 41% of the total phosphorus
that entered the system during a two year study. Almost all of the nutrient
removal was due to settling of suspended particulates. The potential for
eventual saturation of the swamp with N and P was said to be low because
denitrification would continue to remove N, and P was permanently removed by
subsiding sediments. The single most important factor controlling phosphate
retention was found to be the oxygen content of the water column. An inverse
relationship was found between phosphate levels and dissolved oxygen levels
(Figure 3.1-19). Despite effective removal, the swamp still exported signifi-
3-36
-------
OXYGEN - PHOSPHATE RELATION
FIELD
LAB
7 _
3 -4
.7 _
-»
4
I
1 -5
0
O
*
J
V
\
\ Q y = -2.00X - 13.62
\
\ r2 = 0.55 -6
a\
P? ^»
V
2
\
\
\
\
\
\
i i ?. _j -3
-
y = -0.70x - 7.65
r2 = 0.58
-8. n
N:
o o*
^Jf^Xeio Q
Q a
a xxa a
X
X
^*-
X
^
1 I Is"-!
LOG (mO2)
.7
-3 -4 -5 -6
LOG (mO2)
-7
Figure 3.1-19- Relationship between phosphate levels in the water column and
dissolved oxygen levels in a southern forested wetland (from Day and Kemp 1983)
3-37
-------
cant amounts of these materials. The primary mode of action of the swamp in
nutrient removal was thus as a buffer acting to prevent large pulses of nutri-
ent loss over time.
Brinson (1983) also studied the ability of a North Carolina swamp forest
to remove added nutrients. Using an experimental treatment plot technique,
Brinson (1983) showed that nitrate was effectively removed by denitrification
and that ammonium accumulated on the soil surface until dry-down occurred,
allowing denitrification. Filterable reactive phosphorus accumulated in the
soil but the capacity of the soil to accumulate P was rapidly exceeded under
the loading rates used (0.19 g P/m2/week, which exceeded the rate typically
used for wastewater). It was suggested, in contrast to the studies by Day and
Kemp (1983) that phosphorus may have no long-term sink (subsidence was not
analyzed by Brinson) and may therefore ultimately limit the use of wetlands
for treatment of municipal wastewater.
An additional potential factor affecting nutrient removal is the trophic
status of surrounding water bodies connected to a wetland. Wetlands adjacent
to highly eutrophic waters, for example, may not have the capacity for addi-
tional nutrient uptake (i.e., they may be saturated with nutrients). For
»
example, Whigham et al. (1980) found only minor increases in primary produc-
tion due to applied wastewater in a tidal freshwater marsh, presumably because
of high ambient nutrient levels which existed prior to the application of
wastewater to the wetland. An additional related factor here would include
the possible effects of non-point runoff on the nutrient retention ability of
a specific wetland. If a wetland were overloaded or saturated with phosphorus
and nitrogen from agricultural areas, for example, if would not be feasible to
apply wastewater to such a site.
Summary of Literature Concerning Nutrient Removal
A summary of previously published information concerning the treatment
effectiveness of various wetlands receiving wastewater is presented in Table
3.1-5. Two of the wetland categories in Table 3.1-5 northern peatlands and
nontidal freshwater wetlands, occur in USEPA Region V, and are briefly dis-
cussed here.
3-38
-------
Table 3.1-5. Performance and operating mechanisms of wetlands receiving wastewater
(from Heliotis 1982).
LO
Tyoe
NORTHERN PEATLANDS
Ombrotrophlc bog
Sedge-shrub fen
NONTIDAL FRESHWATER MARSHES
Cattail marsh
Lacustrine Clyceria marsh
Deepvater marsh
(S meter depth)
Lacustrine Phragmites marsh
TIDAL FRESHWATER MARSHES
Complex marsh
TIDAL SALT MARSHES
Brackish marsh
Salt marsh
Salt marsh
EVERGLADES
SOUTHERN SWAMPS
Mixed cypress-ash swamp
Cypress domes
Riverine swamp
Load ing
Wisconsin 12
Michigan 3
Wisconsin 7
Ontario
Florida 40
Hungary
Louisiana
New Jersey 80
Chesapeake Bay
Massachusetts sludge
Pennsylvania
Florida 5
Florida
South Carolina
0 NH4-N
N02-N03-N
TP
0 NH4-N
NO 2 N03-N
TOP
0 TDN
TOP
0 N03-N
TP
TS
TP
0 TP*
0 DP
PP
TN
0 TN
TP
I TH
TP
0/1 TN
TP
0/1 TN
0/1 TS
TN
TP
0 TP
0 TN
TP
0 TN
TP
0 N03-K
TP
Algal/
97 +
100 +
78 + -H-
71 + +
99 +
95 + -H-
80 +
88 + -M-
51* +
32 + + +
38 +
24 -H- ++
97 -f +
14 ++
82
95* + +
51 +
53 -t- -H- ++
40 + ++
0 * -H-
0 +
1.5g/m2/yr + +
50 '++
85 + +
88 + +
13.1 lb + +
6.4
95 + it
90 +
98 -M- +
98 -H- +
97 -M- +
0
50 ++ +
Jitrif/ Tidal
+ Mechenich 1980
++
+ Kadlec 1978; Kadlec and Kadlec 1978; Richardson et al. 1978
++ Kadlec and TilCon 1978; Tilton and Kadlec 1979; Gaudet 1976
-f Fetter et al. 1978
+ Hudroch and Capobianco 1979
*-+
Dolan ec al. 1978
Perry 1981
+ Sloey ec al. 1978
M- +
++ Simpson and Whigham 1978; Whigham and Simpson 1976a
Whighan and Simpson 1976b; Whigham and Simpson 1978
Whigham et al. 1980
++ Bender and Correl 1974
-M» Qdum and Smith 1980
+ Grant and Patrick 1970
M-
Steward and Ornes 1975
+ Boyt et al. 1977
++ Fritz and He lie 1978
Odum and Kwel 1980; Odum et al. 1976
Kitchens el al. 1976
1: inorganic subst.
++: major removal mechanism
+: secondary mechanism
-------
Northern peatlands include sphagnum bogs, ombrotrophic bogs, minerotro-
phic bogs, fens, sedge meadows, cedar swamps, and similar wetland types. The
various types of northern peatlands can be further divided into the two major
categories of bogs and fens. Bogs include wetlands dependent entirely on
precipitation for nutrients. They are also characterized by largely organic
soils which have developed on top of what was originally a fen. Bogs have
acid soil maintained and produced by humic acids originating primarily from
sphagnum moss. Bogs may include spruce-tamarack swamps, ericaceous shrub
swamps, or treeless blanket bogs (Gorham 1979) .
Fens are wetlands ;which obtain nutrients primarily from surface or
groundwater sources. Soil pH is neutral to alkaline, and varies widely in
organic content. The types of fens range from grass, sedge, or shrub meadows
to cedar swamp forests.
Northern peatlands generally have good removal efficiences for P and N.
Phosphorus is removed mainly by adsorption. Vegetation uptake is not a major
removal mechanism. Nitrogen is removed primarily by microbial denitrification
(Richardson et al. 1976, 1978). Because of their more controllable water
levels, bogs may have more potential for use in wastewater application sys-
tems. Since fens have more complex sources of water inflow and outflow, which
are more difficult to control, they have lower potential in this respect.
The long-term potential of using northern peatlands for wastewater appli-
cation may in fact be limited, and has been questioned. Burke (1975) stated
that acid peatlands had a limited long-term ability to store excess phosphorus
and potassium. Richardson et al. (1978) stated that net long-term losses of
nutrients from acid wetlands generally may be high. Addition of alkaline
wastewater to acid wetlands could significantly alter the pH, nutrient regime
and result in major ecological changes.
Non-tidal freshwater marshes include deep and shallow marshes, prairie
potholes, reed swamps, and lacustrine marshes. They are distinguished from
northern peatlands primarily by essentially permanently inundated soils.
Dominant plants usually include cattail, bulrush, giant reed, and similar
3-40
-------
species. Submerged and floating aquatic vascular plants are also common.
Soils are typically high in clays and silt, with widely varying levels of
organics.
In contrast to northern peatlands, adsorption does not seem to be the
major phosphorus removal mechanism in non-tidal freshwater wetlands. Instead,
chemical precipitation (i.e., formation of insoluble phosphate or sulfide
precipitates) and uptake by plants appear to be the primary mechanisms of
nutrient uptake. Aquatic vascular plants remove nutrients from the water
column, but also translocate sediment nutrients upward (Prentki et al. 1978).
Periphyton growth may also rapidly remove nutrients from the water column,
although this may represent a relatively temporary sink (Kadlec 1979).
Nutrient removal effectiveness is therefore not as predictable or well
known in non-tidal freshwater wetlands. In non-tidal freshwater wetlands,
emergent and submerged macrophytic plants and periphyton are major sites of
nutrient uptake (some soil adsorption also occurs). Nutrient uptake dynamics
are controlled more by seasonal growth patterns and the hydrologic regime.
Water constitutes a more active factor in nutrient removal, since it ulti-
mately controls plant growth and soil nutrient adsorption. Nevertheless,
application of wastewater to this type of system possibly poses less of an
ecological risk, since non-tidal freshwater wetlands are ecosystems that are
typically alkaline, eutrophic, and of low diversity.
In comparing all of the general categories of wetlands reviewed, the
conditions favoring nutrient removal are as follows:
Conditions favoring phosphorus removal:
!f
- Organic soil in poor nutrient regimes
- Vegetation limited by phosphorus supply
- Presence of Fe and Al compounds
Conditions favoring nitrogen removal:
- Reduced soil-water interface (denitrification)
- Vegetation limited by N
3-41
-------
Conditions favoring nitrogen and phosphorus removal:
- Low or no energy subsidy to the wetland by tides, wave
action, streamflow, etc.
A summary of the primary nutrient removal mechanisms in northern peatlands,
and non-tidal freshwater wetlands, and other wetland categories is provided in
Table 3.1-6. This information can be utilized in future studies concerning
effects of wastewater on wetland systems in USEPA Region V.
Table 3.1-6. Summary of the most important nutrient uptake processes in
different wetland ecosystems in Region V (from Heliotis 1982).
Wetland Type
Northern Peatlands
good removal
Nontidal Freshwater Marshes
variable removal
Tidal Freshwater Marshes
poor/no removal
Brackish/Salt Marshes
variable removal
Southern Swamps
good removal
Sawgrass Marshes
poor removal
Nitrogen
Denitrification
Vegetational uptake
NHij4" adsorption to peat
Denitrification
Macrophytic uptake
Periphytic uptake
Denitrification
Vegetational uptake
Tidal transfer
Denitrification
Macrophytic uptake
Periphytic uptake
Tidal transfer
Denitrification
Macrophytic uptake
Periphytic uptake
Phosphorus
Adsorption to peat
Vegetational uptake
Chemical Precipitation
Macrophytic uptake
Periphytic uptake
Adsorption to substrate
Litter uptake
Vegetational uptake
Tidal transfer
Macrophytic uptake
Periphytic uptake
Adsorption to peat
Tidal transfer
Macrophytic uptake
Periphytic uptake
Adsorption to substrate
Adsorption to substrate
Litter uptake
3-42
-------
3.1.3 Accumulation of Other Dissolved Substances
In addition to nitrogen and phosphorus, other materials and dissolved
substances are present in wastewater which may affect the ^receiving wetland.
These include organic (non-toxic) compounds, chloride and other similar dis-
solved ions such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium. Common means to
measure the effects of these compounds and ions include analysis of chemical
oxygen demand (COD), dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, alkalinity, salinity, redox
potential, and conductivity. Various sulfur compounds, including hydrogen
sulfide, sulfite and sulfate may also be introduced into a wetland by applied
wastewater.
BOD is a water quality parameter measured at all sewage treatment plants.
Some data have been acquired for wetlands receiving treated sewage at a number
of locations. Reductions in BOD during passage of the wastewater through
wetlands have been documented by Yonika and Lowry (1979), Hartland-Rowe and
Wright (1975), Seidel (197b), and others.
Little is actually known about the chemistry of sulfur compounds. Wet-
lands are known to be capable of producing hydrogen sulfide. Odum (1978) has
indicated that wetlands may play an important role in the global sulfur cycle.
Chloride is frequently present in fairly high levels in wastewaters, in
contrast to its relatively low concentration in receiving water bodies or
groundwater. It also is relatively inactive both physically and chemically,
and its concentration is relatively unaffected by biological processes. It is
therefore valuable as a tracer for identification of water movements and
dilutions in wetland wastewater treatment systems. Kadlec (1978) used chlor-
ide (as well as other parameters) to measure changes in water quality as a
function of distance from the wastewater outfall at Houghton Lake, Michigan.
Although wetlands appear to act as buffers with respect to factors such
as pH, hardness, and alkalinity, there is a limit to the ability of wetland to
adjust to major changes in these parameters. For example, prolonged exposure
to the alkaline waters from a sewage treatment plant undoubtedly will alter
3-43
-------
the chemical nature of an acid bog. The Kincheloe, Michigan, wastewater
application site is an excellent example of the conversion of an acid bog to a
cattail marsh, produced by a shift in pH (Kadlec, et al. in preparation).
Major changes such as these may result in the erosion of wetland soils,
changes in wetland chemistry, or changes in vegetative composition that subse-
quently could affect the use of the wetland by wildlife.
3.1.4 Accumulation of Trace Metals
Municipal wastewater may contain varying amounts of trace metals (Table
3.1-7). Trace metals that could have potential toxic ecological effects in-
clude mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), copper (Cu), and
zinc (Zn). The toxicity of metals and their tendency to accumulate in food
chains are potential problems associated with introducing wastewater into a
wetland. This is because wetland sediments may act as a sink for the trace
metals. Some species of plants also have an absorptive capacity for trace
metals, can bioaccumulate them, and continue to cycle trace metals in wetland
food webs.
To date, little is known concerning where and to what extent metals
accumulate in the wetland ecosystem. Few studies have been conducted that
have determined how trace metals are cycled within wetland ecosystems. Wol-
verton and McKown (1976) showed that water hyacinths are able to absorb lead
at a fairly significant rate. Lee et al. (1976) examined the uptake of heavy
metals by various plant parts in waters with different metal concentrations.
Chromium appeared to be taken up and concentrated in the root zone, and other
metals behaved in a similar fashion. Transect studies of the fate of the
trace metals in waters entering wetland ecosystems have been conducted at a
few sites. Semkin et al. (1976) found elevated levels of copper, zinc, lead,
cadmium, and arsenic in the vicinity of a wastewater discharge. Carriker and
Brezonik (1975) reported elevated levels of heavy metals in cypress domes
receiving wastewaters in Florida. In contrast, Boyt et al. (1977) did not
observe any elevated levels of zinc, copper, or lead in a Florida wetland
receiving a municipal wastewater discharge. Distributional patterns of dif-
ferent compounds within plants vary so widely that no generalizations can be
made at this time (Benforado 1981).
3-44
-------
Table 3.1-7. Trace element levels in raw and treated
municipal effluents (from USEPA 1977).
Primary
effluents, mg/1
Secondary
effluents, mg/1
Untreated
Element wastewatera, mg/1
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
0.003
0.004-0.14
0.02-0.700
0.02-3.36
0.9-3.54
0.05-1.27
0.11-0.14
0.002-0.044
0.002-0.105
0.030-8.31
National3
0.002
0.004-0.028
< 0.001-0. 30
0.024-0.13
0.41-0.83
0.016-0.11
0.032-0.16
0.009-0.035
0.063-0.20
0.015-0.75
National3-
0.005-0.01
0.0002-<0.02
<0. 010-0. 17
0.05-0.22
0.04-3.89
0.0005-<0.20
0.021-0.38
0.0005-0.0015
<0. 10-0. 149
0.047-0.35
a. Source: USEPA 1977
3-45
-------
A summary of data on the uptake of various heavy metals by species of
freshwater marsh plants was prepared by Stanley Consultants (1977). This
information is presented in Table 3.1-8. The rate and extent of metal uptake
is dependent on the particular trace metal and the species of plant involved.
Concentrations of several metals by marsh plants decreased rapidly with in-
creasing distance from a landfill leachate source. Some, such as lead, became
bound to sediments; others, such as zinc and cadmium, were taken up by the
vegetation.
The above results were compared with the results of similar studies on
saltwater marsh plants, and it was determined that freshwater marsh vegetation
may be able to take up greater quantities of heavy metals than saltwater marsh
vegetation (Stanley Consultants 1977). The long-term effects of heavy metals
on wetlands may be of more concern than the short-term effects, due to the
potential .for saturation of sediments and/or release of heavy metals stored in
sediments when water or sediment quality conditions change.
Metal retention is related to a wide variety of factors, including type
of metal, pH, and organic content of soil hydrologic conditions, accretion and
erosion rates, and type of plant (Giblin 1983; Tiffin 1977 in Benforado 1982).
The percentage of metals removed varies widely among types of metals and among
types of wetlands. Some metals such as lead may be effectively retained under
low loading, but many others, such as copper (Cu) , cadmium (Cd), and zinc
(Zn), appear to pass through the system in varying degrees. In some wetlands,
less than half of the Cu, Cd, and Zn entering the system was retained (Table
3.1-9). It has been shown that soil pH varies widely with organic matter
content between different types of wetland systems. This is due to varying
amounts of oxidation, which is largely dependent on hydrology, sediment perme-
ability and detrital production. Generally, low pH soils are characterized by
high levels of organic material. In some instances, soils high in organic
matter have been shown to retain higher levels of trace metals than those high
in mineral content. However, the actual ability of an organic soil varies
with pH (lower ability at low pH), and hydrologic regime as these affect
sedimentation and water chemistry (especially oxygen levels) (Vestergaard
1979; Giblin 1983).
3-46
-------
Table 3.1-8. Trace metal uptake by freshwater marsh plants
(adapted from Stanley Consultants 1977).
Kilograms/Hectare3 Pounds/Acre
Metal
Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
Zinc (Zn)
Cadmium (Cd)
Cobalt (Co)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Lead (Pb)
Reported values
ronments.
High
123
296
30
0.16
0.03
0.4
15.9
0.08
0.44
1.12
are from
r i * ^.^ 1.
Low
4.5
2.0
0.3
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.04
0.002
0.01
0.11
various species
- / 1. _ v.. n o no
High
110
264
- 27
0.14
0.03
0.4
14.2
0.07
0.39
1.00
of plants in widely
Low
4.0
1.8
0.3
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.04
.0.002
0.01
0.10
varying envi-
3-47
-------
Table 3.1-9. The percentage of the metal coming into a wetland which subse-
quently leaves the system (from Giblin 1983).
Papyrus swamp
Africa
Method
I/O
Cu Cd
Percentage of Trace Metals
Cr
Mn
6%
Fe
Pb
Zn
Bogs
Mass
Mass2
t
Moor House*
I/O
I/SA
I/SA
2%
60%
0%
50%
Sale Marshes
N.C.4 I/O
Del.5 I/SA
Conn. SP
Georgia I/SA
41% 30%
100%
0%
78%
83%
50%
36%
0%
88%
Sewage added
Mass.8 I/SA 51% 85% 55% 73% 76% 40% 72%
Dredge Spoil Effluent
I/O 52% 85% 53% 51% 81%
0%
Georgia
1-Gaudet 1976, 2-Hemond 1980, 3-Clymo 1978, 4-Wolfe et al. 1973, 5-Church et al. 1981,
6-McCaffrey 1977, 7-Windom 1975 & Windom et al. 1976, 8-Giblin 1982 & Breteler et al.
1981 a, 9-Windom 1977. The methods used to construct the budgets were: 1/0 = input/
sediment accumulation, and SP = sediment profiles.
3-48
-------
In summary, although the biological effects of trace metals in wastewater
on aquatic communities are fairly well known (Tsai 1975, 1978; Welch 1980),
little is known about the effects of these metals on wetlands. The studies
conducted by the University of Florida on cypress domes are the most detailed
to date (Ewel and Odum 1979) , but the year-round discharge potential in that
climate and the characteristics of the wetlands are considerably different
than in the upper Midwest. Trace metal studies in wetlands receiving waste-
water are also being conducted at Houghton Lake, Michigan (Hammer and Kadlec
1983; Kadlec 1978) and at Drummond, Wisconsin by a consortium of researchers
from several campuses of the University of Wisconsin. Research on trace
metals is also being conducted at Brillion Marsh, Wisconsin by USFWS (in
preparation) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. These studies
are discussed in Section 3.2.1.5.
3.1.5 Accumulation of Refractory Chemicals
Marsh plants are capable of removing a variety of refractory chemicals
from water, including surfactants, phenols, and agricultural pesticides (Sei-
del 1976) (the term "refractory" indicates that these substances are resistant
to decomposition). These compounds, which are toxic in low concentrations,
break down slowly and tend to accumulate in living organisms or on adsorptive
surfaces.
Seidel (1976) reported that wetland ecosystems were capable of rapidly
absorbing compounds such as phenol, pyridine, and aniline. Analyses of marsh
muds and organisms collected after hydrocarbon spills have shown uptake of
hydrocarbon material (Burns and Teal 1971). Whelan et al. (1976) determined
that a chronic hydrocarbon input to a shallow marsh was absorbed, presumably
due to microbial processes within the marsh. Water hyacinths have been re-
ported to take up phenol (Wolverton and McKown 1976). However, the long-term
effects of the introduction of refractory chemicals into the wetland ecosystem
are as yet unknown.
3-49
-------
3.1.6 Changes in Soils and Sediments
The types and amounts of soils in wetlands vary considerably among wet-
lands. Many wetlands in the upper Midwest have large accumulations of peat
and other organic materials, while river-margin wetlands may be situated on
more mineral soils with little organic accumulation. Brown et al. (1979)
summarized the factors producing various types of wetland soils (Figure
3.1-15). Soils in wetlands are primarily a function of the alluvial depo-
sition rate, the biogenic accumulation rate, and the rate of turnover (flush-
ing) of water (Figure 3.1-15). Most wetland sediments are a mixture of peats
and inorganic sediments.
Soils constitute the primary sink for phosphorus in many wetlands (Nic-
hols 1980a,b,c). There are several processes by which phosphorus is incor-
porated into soil. There is some evidence that precipitation of calcium
phosphate is a significant phosphorus sink (Wetzel 1975). Iron and aluminum,
in conjunction with humic acids, are believed to participate in the sorption
process for phosphorus. Ion exchange is another potential route for immobil-
ization of nutrients (see Section 3.1.2). The process of soil building is
therefore of great importance to the ultimate capacity of a wetland to immo-
bilize phosphorus. In addition, it has been noted that denitrifying bacteria,
which control the principal nitrogen removal processes, are present on the
surfaces of the soils and sediments.
Soil building occurs through the mechanisms of litter fall and sedimenta-
tion within the wetland. Soil building is promoted by anaerobic conditions
during inundation, and by low temperatures. These conditions prevent the
oxidative decomposition of organic material arriving at the soil surface. A
potentially significant mechanism for soil removal may be chemical leaching of
acidic soil with basic wastewater. There is some evidence that chemical
leaching has occurred at Kincheloe, Michigan (Kadlec et al. in preparation).
Erosion caused by scouring during floods may also be an important cause of
soil removal.
The rates of peat accumulation in some wetlands have been determined by
measurement of radioactive isotopes. The locations of isotopes deposited as a
3-50
-------
result of nuclear test fallout of the 1950's can be identified within the soil
structure, and these horizons then can be used to determine sedimentation
rates in the intervening years. Typical estimates of 1 millimeter (mm) of
sediment accumulation per year have been reported (Boto and Patrick 1975).
Sediments entering wetlands in wastewater discharge are measured at the
treatment plant outfall as suspended solids. In some cases, these materials
are removed by physical filtration. However, wetlands may also generate large
amounts of suspended solids (such as algal detritus). Boto and Patrick (1975)
summarized the limited information concerning suspended solids cycles in
wetlands. Measurements of suspended solids in a Michigan peatland (Houghton
Lake) treated with wastewater were summarized in Kadlec and Tilton (1979),
Hammer and Kadlec (1982). These solids are important from the standpoint of
nutrient cycling because they typically contain 2.0% nitrogen and 0.2% phos-
phorus by dry weight.
3.2 Issue Category II: Wetland Structure and Function - Biological Compon-
ents
3.2.1 Effects on Plant Communities
Five major types of impacts on wetland plant communities can result from
wastewater application. These are as follows:
Long-term changes in species composition;
Long-term changes in relative areal distribution of component
species;
Changes in biomass, growth, and production;
Changes in detrital cycling; and
Transfer of potentially toxic trace metals or other materials
into the food chain.
Because little is known concerning the long-term ecological effects of waste-
water application in wetlands (Guntenspergen and Stearns 1983), these consti-
tute major issues. This section examines each of the above issues in detail
based on the existing literature. Guntenspergen and Stearns (1983) present a
general overview of wetland ecology and the possible ecological effects of
applied wastewater. Figure 3.2-1 summarizes the potential impacts on plant
communities. Methodologies available to address impacts are outlined in the
3-51
-------
Physical/Chemical
Issues/Impacts
Possible Impacts on Vegetation
Methods to Assess Impacts
Changes in growth,
biomass, production
and recruitment
Changes in pH
and alkalinity]
Increases in levels of
suspended and dissolved
solids; increased
sedimentation
Increases in growth,
biomass, and tissue
nutrient levels
Smothering of
vegetation
Reduction in light
penetration
Shifts in aerial
distribution of species
Shifts in relative
species composition
Changes in detrital
cycling rates and
quality of detritus
Uptake by detrital
food chain
Changes in growth,
production
Changes in relative
species composition
Reduced growth and
production
Changes in detrital
cycling rates
Creation of anoxic
conditions
Show historical change in
vegetation patterns and
aerial extent, using aerial
photographs
Measure species composition
as function of distance
from discharge
Conduct litter bag
experiments in experimental
and control areas to
determine rate of decay as
function of increasing
distance from discharge
Measure heavy raete.1 contact
of various biomass components
Eutrophication impacts j
Measure biomass growth and
production as function of
increasing distance from
discharge
Figure 3.2-1. Impact factor train for vegetation (figure created by S.D. Bach, WAPORA, Inc., 1983).
-------
Technical Support Document that accompanies this report. Potential impacts on
plant health are discussed in Section 3.3.2.
3.2.1.1 Long-term Changes in Species Composition
The introduction of wastewater to a natural wetland may change the spe-
cies composition of the plant community by:
Changes caused by raising or lowering water levels, or by alter-
ing the periodicity of flooding (hydrology);
Changes caused by increasing concentrations of potentially toxic
trace metals; and
Changes in salinity, alkalinity, hardness, pH, and other chemical
characteristics.
Changes in water level are especially important in influencing the plant
species composition of a wetland. Both frequency and duration of flooding
play central roles in determining the type of wetland formed and maintained
(Novitzki 1978). The types of surface and subsurface drainage patterns also
determine the nature of discharge into and through the wetland (Novitzki
1978). If this pattern is altered, wetland vegetation may be affected. The
species composition of lowland forests in particular is affected by water
level changes (Bedinger 1978). For example, it has been demonstrated that
duration and frequency of flooding, groundwater level, discharge characteris-
tics, soil oxygen levels, and other soil factors all exert a major influence
over the distribution of bottomland forest tree species (Bedinger 1978) (Fig-
ure 3.2-2). Most species of trees are not able to withstand more than two
years of permanent flooding due to anaerobic soil conditions (Bedinger 1978).
A major control is exerted by the effects of water level on seedling
survival; differential seedling mortality may be a significant factor control-
ling species composition in these communities. Seedling survival depends
primarily on the ability to withstand anaerobic conditions. Flooding during
the growing season also is of particular importance (Bedinger 1978). There-
fore, any major changes in volume, rate, or periodicity of discharge to a
wetland caused by wastewater application could alter the species composition
of the vegetation in this manner.
3-53
-------
_J4U> cmicss ___ _
a ----- __«_
nan
_Jt_rn ELM ____
SWAMP miVCT
Ulu din
$HAOBARK
_
'«'
__mjTTONBUSH _
__ _£_»_>_«__ _______________________ _____
Figure 3.2-2. Section of a Mississippi delta lowland hardwood wetland illus-
trating plant distribution ( horizontal bar) in relation to a perm-
anently flooded stream and an oxbow. (A-highest possible flood level;
B- mean annual high water level; C- mean annual low water level; D-
low sites; E- natural levee; F- high site; G- upland area)(from
Fredrickson 1978) .
3-54
-------
Algal populations in wetlands are affected by wastewater in the same
manner. Changes may occur in species composition and abundance as well as net
primary production (Benforado 1981; Brown 1981). Increased levels of nutri-
ents may cause some opportunistic species to grow faster and to out-compete
slow-growing species. This may also produce shifts in species composition.
Because of these potential changes, several studies concerned with wastewater
application to wetlands have been conducted specifically to consider the
potential impacts of water level changes on vegetation species composition
(Bayley 1983).
Other factors related to wastewater application that could potentially
change plant species composition include the addition of elevated levels of
nutrients and trace metals. Elevated nutrient levels could result in in-
%
creased growth of some species, whereas uptake of heavy metals could suppress
growth rates in other species. Both factors could produce differential growth
and, consequently, shifts in species composition. For example, Kadlec et al.
(1978) documented large-scale, short-term (over a period of 5 years) changes
in plant species composition that resulted from discharging treated sewage to
a sedge-shrub peatland in Michigan. The authors touched that long-term
changes in species composition also occur. Ewel (1976), Ewel and Odum (1978,
1979) , and Brown (1981) documented changes in the species composition of
Florida cypress dome vegetation receiving treated sewage effluent. Bevis
(personal communication) and Kadlec et al. (in preparation) documented major
vegetation changes in an acid bog at Kincheloe, Michigan, that has received
treated sewage over a period of more than 20 years. In studies at Drummond,
Wisconsin, short-term (two-year) changes in plant species composition have not
yet been observed, but potential long-term changes are being monitored (Reim
n.d., Knighton n.d.).
Whigham and Simpson (1976) observed few changes in species composition in
a tidal freshwater marsh in Delaware which received treated effluent, probably
due to the already highly eutrophic nature of the river and rapid removal of
wastewater by tidal action. Zoltek et al. (1979) noted a major increase in
understory plants in a Florida cypress dome receiving treated wastewater.
3-55
-------
3.2.1.2 Changes in Plant Biomass, Growth, and Production
Changes (typically increases) in plant biomass, growth, and rates of
production may result when treated wastewater is applied to a wetland. For
example, in certain wetlands, such as northern bogs and peatlands, the species
composition is believed to be controlled to a large extent by nutrient avail-
ability (Wentz 1975). Tamm (1951 in Wentz 1975) reported that the addition of
nutrients to a peatland resulted in an invasion of birch, and Moizuk and
Livingston (1961 in Wentz 1975) concluded that red maple could not become
established in marshes due to insufficient nutrient levels. Wastewater appli-
cations to wetlands produce nutrient-rich conditions that enables the invasion
by non-characteristic species (Guntenspergen, unpublished; Kampi 1971; Sura-
leka and Kampi 1971 in Guntenspergen and Stearns 1981).
f
Changes in pH and alkalinity could play a significant role in changes in
growth, biomass, and production, which in turn may lead to shifts in species
composition. Such alterations in water chemistry could have particularly
significant effects on species composition in acid bogs or alkaline fens. For
example, the Drummond, Wisconsin study evaluated a sewage discharge into a
small ombrotrophic bog beginning in 1979 (Guntenspergen et al. 1980 jin Gunten-
spergen and Stearns 1981). Guntenspergen and Stearns (1981) reported that
after application exposed peat at the Drummond bog was less firm, and sphagnun
moss cover was disappearing as a direct result of higher pH. Weedy and exotic
plants, including willow herb (Epilobium), cattails (Typha) and many others
invaded exposed peat along the effluent pipeline. Bulrushes such as Carex
oligosperma and C. trisperma (infrequent bog species) have also increased in
density and frequency (Guntenspergen and Stearns 1981).
Studies of submerged aquatic plants in greenhouses and experimental ponds
have shown that species responded differently to various combinations and
levels of phosphorus and nitrogen (Mulligan et al. 1976, Mulligan and Bara-
nowski 1969, both _in Guntenspergen and Stearns 1981). Guntenspergen and
Stearns (1981) reported that moderate fertilization increased growth of cer-
tain submerged macrophytes, but higher nutrient levels shifted the competitive
balance toward phytoplankton.
3-56
-------
Turner et al. (1976) demonstrated that biomass and production of emergent
vegetation in a Louisiana freshwater marsh receiving treated wastewater from a
fish processing factory was significantly higher than that of control sites.
Root tissue levels of N an P were significantly higher in experimental plots.
Less than five percent of the total N and P added was taken up by the vas-
cular plants at the site. Guntenspergen (unpublished in Guntenspergen and
Stearns 1981) noted that fertilization of a freshwater marsh increased the
standing crop of bulrush (Scirpus validus) and bur-reed (Sparganium
eurycarpum). Biomass of tearthumb (Polygonum natans) increased in the bulrush
but not in the bur-reed stands. Ewel (1976) and Ewel and Odum (1978, 1979)
reported a dramatic increase in the growth of duckweed (Lemna minor) as a
result of discharging treated municipal wastewater to a cypress dome in
Florida. Ewel and Odum (1978, 1979) also noted a marked increase in biomass
of understory plants in the same cypress domes (Figure 3.2-3). Growth of
cypress trees receiving treated wastewater over a period of 40 years was shown
to be significantly higher than those in a control area (Nessel 1978). How-
ever, Brown (1981) reported that stand history rather than phosphorus input
affected plant biomass in Florida cypress domes.
Changes in biomass and production have been addressed in several other
previous studies. Kadlec et al. (1979) and Tilton and Kadlec (1979) showed
that cattail biomass increased significantly in the immediate vicinity of a
pipe discharging treated wastewater to a sedge-shrub peatland in Michigan.
Increases in tissue levels of nitrogen and phosphorus by plants in plots
receiving treated effluent also were demonstrated in these studies. The
increase of phosphorus concentrations in live tissue was positively related to
levels of applied nutrients for certain species. Brown (1981) reported in-
creased net daytime photosynthesis, plant respiration, and gross primary
productivity in a Florida cypress dome receiving sewage. Increased biomass or
growth of wetland plants as a result of wastewater application has been demon-
strated for bottomland hardwood swamps by Boyt et al. (1976), by Mudroch and
Capobianco (1979) for emergent Glyceria marshes, and by Valiela et al. (1975)
for salt marshes in Massachusetts.
3-57
-------
OKWACl OCMtl
a scwtoc oouc t
C«K*0»»tt« OOMf
O MMTH CMW ewmot. roc
i
KM
Figure 3.2-3. Changes in biomass of understory vegetation in Florida
cypress domes receiving munincipal wastewater Cfrom Ewel and Odum
1978).
3-58
-------
3.2.1.3 Long-term Changes in Areal Distribution of Wetland Plants
Several workers have used aerial photographs to examine changes in the
horizontal extent of wetland communities. Knighton (1980) monitored both
changes in species composition and areal extent of plant communities in a bog
receiving treated waste at the Drummond, Wisconsin site. Kadlec and Hammer
(1981, 1982, 1983) employed infrared aerial photographs to delineate major
plant communities in a peatland at Houghton Lake, Michigan. Kadlec et al. (in
preparation) studied long-term changes in the areal extent of vegetation at
the Kincheloe, Michigan site. Other than the Kincheloe studies, no truly
long-term research (more than 10 years) has been conducted in which areal
distribution was examined.
3.2.1.4 Changes in Detrital Cycling
The introduction of treated wastewater into wetlands could alter rates of
plant detritus cycling. Hodson et al. (1982) discussed an approach to study-
ing the impact of environmental stress on wetlands. This approach assumes
that wetlands are detritus-based ecosystems. A detritus-based system is one
in which much of the carbon and energy originating from primary production
passes through "compartments" of detritus and microbial biornass before be-
coming available to consumers at higher trophic levels in wetland food webs.
Hodson et al. (1982) examined plant materials from a variety of wetland plant
species and found that they consisted primarily of lignocellulose, a macro-
molecular complex consisting of polysaccharides and lignin. They concluded
that most of the annual primary production in wetlands was in the form of
lignocellulose. Any events that alter the rate of transformation of ligno-
cellulose in a wetland will therefore eventually affect the abundance, diver-
sity, and production of higher trophic levels.
Since detrital material plays an important role in wetland food chain
energetics (Tilton and Schwegler 1979; Hodson et al. 1982), changes in cycling
or availability of these materials produced by the application of wastewater,
represent a significant negative impact. For example, the rate of detrital
breakdown is known to increase with increasing levels of dissolved nutrients
3-59
-------
(Hynes and Kaushik 1969). Changes in nutrient levels caused by added waste-
water therefore could alter the amounts and quality of available detritus,
thereby affecting freshwater animals that may depend on the detrital food web
(Tilton and Schwegler 1979). Additional organic matter entering the wetlands
as suspended particulates could also be available for decomposition. Changes
in water level also could affect rates of detrital cycling by producing
changes in populations of organisms which decompose plant material (i.e.,
microbes as well as invertebrates). Some studies have also shown that the
litter layer may be an important nutrient sink (Richardson et aj.. 1976; Chamie
1976). Alteration of rates of detrital decomposition can therefore provide an
estimate of one important impact of wastewater application on wetlands. For
example, Sutherland and Bevis (1979) observed a buildup of cattail straw
(detritus) at the Vermontville, Michigan site, a volunteer wetland that
received treated wastewater for six years. Kadlec (1981) reported buildup of
plant detritus at the Houghton Lake, Michigan site (Figure 3.2-4). Therefore,
a number of different types of changes in detrital cycling may occur when
wastewater is added to a wetland. However, whether these provide a net bene-
fit or a net adverse effect on wetland food chains and nutrient cycles has not
yet been determined.
Because of the potential for changes in detrital cycling rates, investi-
gators have attempted to measure the rate of decomposition of vegetation in
wetlands receiving treated effluent. Chamie (1976) used the litter bag method
to study the effects of added nutrients on decomposition rates. There were no
significant differences in decomposition rates among plots receiving added
nutrient salts. Weight loss never exceeded 42 percent in the first year, and
the pattern of element loss from the detritus was similar to previous studies.
Although no significant differences in weight or element loss rates of decom-
posing vegetation were observed in the first year, differences probably would
have developed after two or three years. The very slow overall rates of
decomposition observed were related to the distinctive physical, chemical, and
biological features of peatlands. Ewel and Odum (1979) reported no differ-
ences in the rates of decomposition of cypress needles in litter bags from
control sites and from a cypress dome that received treated effluent (Figure
3-60
-------
- __ water
.7/7 77 ~7~/ T 7~/ Titter"""/ 7/
' soil
spring, year 1
summer, year 2
summer, year 1
77/7 7"/"7^ 77 77i
spring, year 3
//////////// / / / /_
~:. -.'. r* -.1 ~~I~
spring, year 2
summer, year 3
Figure 3.2-4. Litter build-up in the Houghton Lake, Michigan, peatland
during a three year period (from Kadlec 1981).
3-61
-------
3.2-5). Decomposition probably was not affected because heavy development of
duckweed helped maintain high oxygen levels, thus preventing or minimizing
anaerobic conditions.
Ewel (1976) showed that the species composition of decomposer populations
of fungi and bacteria changed as a direct result of added wastewater in a
Florida cypress dome. Whigham et al. (1980) studied effects of applied waste-
water on a freshwater tidal marsh in Delaware, and reported that nutrients
from applied chlorinated wastewater were retained by the, litter layer for a
brief period, but were then released rapidly at the end of the growing season.
This was attributed to: (1) damage to the vegetation by chlorine; (2) rapid
natural rates of decomposition of freshwater macrophytes; (3) tidal flushing
which removed accumulated litter; and (4) the existing eutrophic conditions of
the river in which the marsh was situated. Whigham et al. (1980) concluded
that growth and decomposition rates probably would not be altered greatly by
*
additional nutrient inputs in this particular marsh.
3.2.1.5 Transfer of Trace Metals Into the Food Web
Secondarily treated sewage effluent typically is characterized by slight-
ly elevated levels of trace metals (USEPA 1973) (Table 3.1-7). Wetlands that
receive treated waste from certain types of industrial plants may, however, be
exposed to higher levels of trace metals .such as cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn),
magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), and the anion
cyanide. Because trace elements are present in treated wastewater, a poten-
tial exists for transfer into the wetland food chain via plant uptake and the
detrital cycling. Table 3.1-7 summarized the range of values for trace metal
uptake by freshwater wetland plants. These values represent a wide range of
habitats and species, and illustrate the highly variable nature of this pro-
cess.
Wickum and Ondrus (1980) studied the uptake of trace elements by vegeta-
tion in a peat bog that received treated wastewater. The data are based on
the first two years of operation. To date there have been no significant
deleterious effects of trace elements on foliar growth of dominant species of
bog vegetation. However, only very low levels of trace metals were introduced
3-62
-------
100
90
80
o>
E 70
c
n
E 60
o>
cc
100
*
% 90
^ 80
70
60b
a. Leatherleaf
Above
Below
Leaves
S. Stems
* L.Stems
_J L '
_1 l_
1 L
' I . .1 1 1 L
b. Bog Birch
O N
1973
D J F M A M J
JASON
TIME
D J F M
A M
1975
Figure 3.2-5. Percentages of original weight' remaining in leaves, small and large stems of
(a) leatherleaf, (b) bog birch, (c) sedge and (d) willow placed September 1973
by aboveground and belowground positions (from Chamie 1976).
-------
Above
Below
Leaves
S. Stems
L. Stems
O N D J
1973
Figure 3.2-5 (concluded),
A M
1975
All points repesent a mean of eight samples, except May 1975 which had only
four samples. Standard errors about the means never varied more than 13%
(leaves of all species), 15% (small stems), and 20% (large stems)
(from Chamie 1976).
-------
into the bog by means of the effluent. Mudroch and Capobianco (1979) reported
that floating and submerged wetland plants in an Ontario marsh accumulated
larger amounts of Pb, Zn, Cr, and Cd than the emergent Glyceria maxima in a
marsh receiving poorly treated effluent. Duckweed ^Lemna minor) exhibited the
highest rates of metal uptake of all plants studied. Because levels of metals
3 3
in the water were low (less than 1 x 10 to 90 x 10 mg/1), it was assumed
that the sediments were the primary source of these materials (based on chemi-
cal analysis of sediment samples). Seidel (1976) reported that uptake of Cn,
Co, Mn, Cr, Ni, and V by Scirpus lacustris growing in a sewage pond was 50
times that in a "non-polluted" lake. Uptake of heavy metals by duckweed in
cypress domes receiving treated effluent also was shown to occur (Fritz and
Helle 1978). Both the Wisconsin DNR (unpublished) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (in preparation) are currently studying levels of trace
metals in Brillion Marsh, Wisconsin, which receives treated effluent from
municipal and industrial sources. The results of the USFWS study have shown
that levels of trace metals in sediments, water, and animals (ducks, duck
eggs, muskrat) were usually at or below typical background levels for the
midwest. The results of the WDNR study were similar (until these studies are
finalized, no result, can be presented in this review).
Removal of trace metals by vegetation could also have other potential
impacts. For example, concentration of trace metals in vegetation could
result in a release of toxic materials into the environment as a "slug" once
the vegetation dies and enters the detrital breakdown phase (Stanley Consult-
ants 1977). Careful monitoring of trace metal concentrations of organisms in
wetlands receiving wastewater would have to be conducted in order to identify
these potential impacts.
3.2.2 Effects on Benthic Invertebrate Communities
Wetland ecosystems are characterized by abundant and diverse populations
of invertebrates, including protozoa, sponges, coelenterates, flatworms,
rotifers, annelid worms, nematodes, amphipods, cladocerans, copepods, other
crustaceans, mollusks, and various insect groups (Weller 1978). A summary of
the major invertebrate groups that occur in wetlands and their known or sus-
pected ecological roles is provided in Table 3.1-10. Typical densities of
3-65
-------
Table 3.1-10. Summary of types of invertebrates known to Inhabit wetland habitats
in abundance, and their ecological functions (compiled from information in
Weller 1978).
Taxonomic Group
I. Protozoans
Sponges
Coelenterates
Flatworms
Rotifers
Nematodes
II. Annelids
III. Crustaceans
A. Amphipods/Isopods
B. Cladocerans
C. Ostracods
D. Copepods and
Anastracods
E. Crayfish
Ecological Habitat
or Function
Suspected "vital"
but little known
funct ions
Reference in
Weller (1978)
Weller 1978
Oligochaetes most
common annelids;
burrowing forms
May utilize algae
and/or detritus
Dense submerged
vegetation
May inhabit submerged
vascular plants or be
free-swimming or limnetic
Usually populate benthie
sediments
Very abundant; important
food for fish and birds
Inhabit wet meadows,
shallow water
Important in diet of
mink, raccoon, and
northern pike
Important in energy
transfer via omnivorous
activities
Fed on by snakes,
alligators, and fish
Erman and Erman 1975
Bergman et al. 1977
Wharton et al. 1977
Weller 1978
Rosine 1955
Krull 1970
Martian and Benke 1977
Quade 1969
Weller 1979
Weller 1978
Weller 1978
Errington 1943
Harris 1952
Lagler 1956
Momot et al. 1978
Lorman and Magnuson 1979
Penn 1950
Penn 1950
Neill 1951
3-66
-------
Table 3.1-10. Summary of types of invertebrates known to inhabit wetland habitats
in abundance, and their ecological functions (compiled from information in
Weller 1978) (concluded).
Taxonomic Group
Ecological Habitat
or Function
Reference in
Weller (1978)
IV.
C.
F.
Insects
1. Chironomids
Fed on by birds and fish Weller 1978
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Mayflies
Dragonflies;
Damselflies
Stoneflies
Caddisflies
Occur in Iowa marshes,
California fens,
submerged Great Lakes
marshes, swamps in
Mississippi Basin
Needham and Needham 1941
Variety of habitats
and trophic types
Coleoptera
(beetles)
7. Diptera (flies)
Mollusks
A. Gastropods
(snails)
Wet meadow to deep water
Favored food of larger
animals
B. Pelecypods (clams)
Sphaerium sp. Important food for fish
and diving ducks
Pelecypods
(mussels)
Food of muskrats, mink,
otter, raccoon, turtles,
and s alamanders
Mollusks are good
good indicators of
chemical pollution
Voigts 1976
Erman and Erman 1975
Krecker 1939
Wharton et al. 1977
Weller 1978
Kendeigh 1961
Pennak 1978
Baker 1910
Ranthum 1969
Thompson 1973
Pennak 1978
3-67
-------
aquatic invertebrates by wetland type are given in Tilton and Schwegler
(1978). On a seasonal basis, populations of wetland invertebrates generally
have much higher diversity and abundance than nearby unvegetated areas (McKim
1962) on a seasonal basis (Voights 1976) (Figure 3.2-6). The invertebrate
populations of wetlands are believed to play a central role in the transfer of
energy through detrital, photosynthetic, or predatory portions of the food
chain (Weller 1979, Swanson 1978a, 1978b). This is especially true of crusta-
ceans, and of crayfish in particular. Invertebrates may play a central role
in the transfer of materials between the water and sediment compartments.
Gallepp (1979) reported that in laboratory studies, increasing tempera-
ture of lake sediments that contained two species of chironomids from 10°C to
20°C was followed by a ten-fold increase in phosphorus release rates. No
change was observed in sediments without chironomids. Graneli (1979 in Nalepa
and Quigley 1980) observed that the introduction of chironomid larvae into
sediments of eutrophic lakes greatly increased the transport of silica, phos-
phorus, and iron from the sediments to the water, but did not affect the rate
of transfer of inorganic nitrogen.
3.2.2.1 Changes in Benthic Invertebrate Populations
Application of wastewater to a wetland ecosystem could cause several
impacts on resident invertebrate populations. These impacts potentially
include the following:
Changes in structure and function of resident invertebrate
populations, leading in turn to changes in higher trophic
levels;
Contamination of the wetland food chain by trace metals
and/or chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons; and
Transmittal of viral or bacterial diseases through inverte-
brates to higher food chain organisms, such as birds, mam-
mals (including man), or fish.
Changes in invertebrate population structure potentially could be caused
directly by reduction of dissolved oxygen levels due to elevated Biological
Oxygen Demand, introduction of elevated amounts of sediment, ^introduction of
toxic compounds, or secondarily by changes in vegetation composition. These
changes could include reductions in abundance and diversity or shifts to more
3-68
-------
DRAWDOWN
PHASE
EMERGENT PHASE
OPEN SUBMERGE*!
EMERGENT PHASE WATER
PHASE PHASE
Figure 3.2-6. Model of vegetation and invertebrate changes in a prairie
emergent vegetation (from Voights 1976).
3-69
-------
"tolerant" types of benthic organisms. Such changes would alter the structure
of the wetland invertebrate communities. Direct accumulation of toxic sub-
stances within individual organisms and subsequent bioaccumulation of these
substances in wetland food chains presumably could cause similar types of
community change. Macek et al. (1977 jLn Buikema and Benfield 1977) determined
that for many organic chemical residues, biomagnification through food chains
was insignificant when compared with direct bioaccumulation by organisms.
Introducton of various diseases could result in contamination of higher food
chain organisms. The major types of impacts on benthic macroinvertebrate
communities, and the methodologies proposed to investigate these impacts, are
shown in Figure 3.2-7 and outlined in the Technical Support Document, respec-
tively.
Little is known concerning the effects of wastewater application on
wetland invertebrates. Witter and Crosm (1976) conducted a pre-discharge
baseline study on insect populations at the Houghton Lake, Michigan site. A
follow-up insect study is currenting being planned at Houghton Lake, but no
other similar studies have yet been conducted. Demgen (n.d.) summarized the
results of studies of aquatic invertebrate populations in a California wetland
receiving treated wastewater (zooplankton also were included in this study).
She reported shifts in abundance of major invertebrate species as a result of
the added wastewater, but indicated that the new populations appeared to be
"stable." Reduced water quality could also alter the structure and function
of wetland insect populations. For example, chironomids, species toleratant
of low oxygen levels and higher levels of various pollutants, could increase,
reducing the diversity of aquatic insect populations. Shifts in insect popu-
lation structure could also affect detrital decomposition rates of internal
detrital recycling, since aquatic insects are important in the initial stages
of size reduction of larger plant material to smaller particles (i.e., the
shredding process).
3.2.2.2 Changes in Insect Populations
Addition of secondarily treated wastewater to wetlands potentially could
alter the structure of resident insect populations (Figure 3.2-8) (methods for
assessing impacts on insects are given in the Technical Support Document). For
example, a shift in the composition of vascular plant species could favor some
3-70
-------
Physical/Chemical
Issues/Impacts
Possible Impacts on Benthie Macroinvertebrates
Methods to Assess Impacts
Passage to higher
waterfowl and man)
Measure possible
contamination by
viruses and bacteria
increases in levels
of nutrients
Increases in
levels of suspended
and dissolved solids
Increases in levels
of chlorine
Increases in levels
of heavy metals
Changes in phytoplankton
and other vegetation
Changes In benthic
macroinvertebrate
population structure
(abundance, diversity,
and composition)
Possible smothering or
osmotic impacts on
benthic organisms
Possible toxic affects
Direct absorption
by benthic organisms
Indirect uptake via
detritus food chain
Study population
structure as a
function of
increasing distance
from discharge or
with control area
Possible physiological
damage to benthic organism
Include several
different quanti-
tative estimates
of density, diver-
sity, species
composition,
distribution, and
biomass
Compare by
statistical
-»» and other
means to
physical/
chemical
data
Measure concentrations
of heavy metals in
benthic macroinvertebrates
Relate to concentrations
of heavy metals in other
trophic levels of food
chain and in sediments
Figure 3.2-7 Impact factor train for macroinvertebrates (figure created by S.D.Bach, WAPORA, Inc., 1983).
-------
Physical/Chemical
Issues/Impacts
Possible Impacts on Insects
Methods to Assess Impacts
Increase in standing
water, increased potential
for increases in populations
of mosquitoes and flies
Increases in levels
of suspended and
dissolved solids
Changes in vegetation
May cause reductions in
some species of insects
and increases in others
Changes in emergent plant
community and water quality
Conduct field studies on
abundance of adult and
larval mosquitoes and fly
populations in control and
affected areas
Changes in abundance,
distribution, species
richness, and diversity
of resident insect
populations
Measure population
structures of insects
in control and
affected areas
Figure 3.2-8. Impact factor train for insects Cfigure created by S.D.Bach, WAPORA Inc., 1983).
-------
species that inhabit terrestrial environments over others. If the loading
rate is sufficient and dissolved oxygen levels are lowered, changes in aquatic
insect populations would be expected. One change that could occur includes
possible increases in insects that carry diseases that could be transmitted
either to man or wildlife. Fritz and Helle (1978) reported that encepha-
l
litis-carrying mosquitoes may breed within cypress domes receiving treated
wastewater, but that these same species bite birds and avoid areas inhabited
by humans. Other varieties of "human pest mosquitoes" were reduced in numbers
in cypress domes receiving treated wastewater because the water level did not
fluctuate, and thus their breeding grounds were eliminated (Fritz and Helle
1978). Surtees (1971), and Harmston and Ogden (1976) discussed mosquito-re-
lated problems associated with urbanization (including sewage stabilization
ponds) and man-made impoundments. Also, wild birds are known to be primary
carriers of various encephalitis viruses (including St. Louis encephalitis,
Eastern equine encephalitis, and Western equine encephalitis), and some mos-
quitoes may transmit these to birds directly or indirectly through a mammalian
overwintering host (Witter and Croson 1976). Mosquitoes also may pass the
virus from birds to man (McLintock and Iverson 1974; Hess et al. 1970).
Little is known concerning insect populations in natural freshwater
wetlands, and even less is known about these populations in wetlands receiving
treated wastewater (Witter and Croson 1976). For example, the only recent
studies of freshwater insects in wetlands include those of Judd (1949, 1953,
1960, 1961), Jetter (1974, 1975), and Witter and Croson (1976). Jetter (1975)
reported that certain species of dipteran flies, including members of the
families Psychodidae, Ephydridae, Tipulidae, Dolichopodidae, and Syrphidae,
were very abundant (densities of over 3,000 individuals per square meter) on
mats of floating organic material produced when treated wastewater was added
to a cypress dome in Florida. When the amount of sewage being discharged was
decreased, the numbers of these same groups declined drastically. Witter and
Croson (1976) reported that sampling methods used to collect insects are
highly variable and may yield biased results in many cases. This makes
studies of insects in wetlands difficult.
3-73
-------
3.2.3 Effects on Fish Communities
The major types of impacts on fish communities that potentially could be
caused by the application of wastewater are shown in Figure 3.2-9. Available
methodologies to assess these impacts are summarized in the Technical Support
Document. The major types of impacts are:
Changes in species composition;
Changes in productivity or biomass;
Changes in spawning success;
Toxicity (acute, chronic, or sublethal); and
Changes in incidence of disease in fish or in the potential for
fish acting as vectors for mammalian pathogens.
It is acknowledged that wetlands are available to fish as permanent
habitat, spawning habitat, and for the production of forage. However, quanti-
tative data to support this widely-held assumption are lacking. In one of the
few available studies, Jaworski and Raphael (1978) reported that at least 32
species of fish commonly use the wetlands in Michigan. Many of these use the
wetlands for spawning. There are several reasons for the general lack of data
on wetland fish. Wetlands are by their nature highly dynamic systems, and are
usually hydrologically connected to other water bodies. These two character-
istics make quantitative measurements extremely difficult. The logistical
difficulties of sampling wetlands also have prevented fish studies from being
undertaken.
Literature specifically describing the impacts of wastewater effluents on
fishes in wetlands is nearly nonexistent. In one of the few studies of wet-
lands that did address fish communities (Jetter and Harris 1976), researchers
reported that a cypress dome in Florida receiving sewage effluent was a much
poorer habitat for fish than a natural cypress dome. In contrast, a great
deal of information is available regarding the general impacts on fish com-
munities caused by the discharge of wastewater into streams and lakes. This
information is reviewed in sources such as Tsai (1975), Brungs et al. (1978),
3-74
-------
Physical/Chemical/Bacteriological
Issues/Impacts
Possible Impacts on Fish
Methods to Assess Impacts
Ui
Hydrology
Study
./
*
»
>
Changes in
flow regimes
Changes in
water levels
_/
^-*-
Changes in species composition,
diversity i or biomass
Changes in spawning success
J
F 1
r> Increases In
levels of nutrients
Changes in pH
and alkalinity i
Increases in levels of
f suspended solids and
,, . turbidity; increased
sedimentation
_, Reduction in levels of
dissolved oxygen
Introduction of heavy
*| metals or other toxic
substances
Increases in viral or
bacterial pathogens
Reduction In algal, macroinver-
tebrate, and fish populations
Acute or chronic toxicity
Adsorption by algae or detritus
Increase in occurrence of fish
diseases
Increase in potential for fish
acting as vectors of mammalian
disease
Increase in fish
production
Changes in species
composition or
biomass
Bioaccumulation
Conduct field surveys to determine
species composition and species
diversity; weigh and measure fish
captured to determine condition
factors and biomass
i.
Conduct field studies to collect
larvae, observe spawning activities,
and capture "ripe" adults
Conduct embryo-larval bioassays
Conduct on-site acute and chronic
bioassays
Conduct bioaccumulation tests
Collect fish from the site and
analyze tissues for toxicant
residues
Collect fish from the site and
examine for disease, bacteria,
and tumors
Figure 3.2-9 Impact factor train for fish (figure created by G. Seegart, WAPORA, Inc., 1983).
-------
and Spehar et al. (1980). These studies, however, generally deal with dis-
charges into lakes and streams, not wetlands. Thus their usefulness in pre-
dicting impacts on wetland fish communities is questionable.
The basic fish communities typically found in wetlands, and the ways these
communities utilize the wetland, can be described generally, however. Three
types of fish communities can be defined. These include the "general," "for-
age," and "spawning" types. Expected habitat preferences for each fish com-
munity in wetlands are given in Table 3.2-1.
The "general" community type is a self-sustaining, usually well-balanced
community that lives in and utilizes the wetland throughout each species' life
cycle. This community includes predator and prey species. Northern pike
(Esox lucius) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are the most typical
predatory species. The prey species typically is composed of a variety of
minnows. The wetland itself must contain suitable spawning habitat for all
the members of the community. Species diversity may be fairly high, but
because of the stresses on the system, the total number of species probably
will be low. Obviously, only wetlands that are permanently flooded will be
able to support such communities.
The forage community is composed mainly of smaller (and often more tole-
rant) species such as: central mudminnow (Umbra limi); banded killifish
(Fundulus diaphanus); blackstripe topminnow (Fundulus notatus); mosquito fish
(Gambusia affinis); ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius); and fivespine
stickleback (Eucalia inconstans).
Minnows, such as the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), are often
present, as well as various sunfishes (Lepomis spp.). Many of the above
species are adapted to drought conditions, low dissolved oxygen levels, high
temperatures, and turbid waters. The more severely stressed communities often
are composed of only one or two species. These communities provide forage for
various wetland mammals and birds, especially herons and kingfishers.
The spawning community occurs in wetland areas that are regularly, or at
least occasionally, flooded in the springtime. Wetlands may be used as spawn-
ing grounds for species such as carp (Cyprinus carpio), bluegill (Lepomis
3-76
-------
Table 3.2-1. Expected use of various types of freshwater wetlands by dif-
ferent types of fish communities (Seegart, unpublished).
Water Regime General Forage Only jp awn ing None
Permanently flooded
Intermittently exposed
Semi-permanently flooded
Seasonally flooded
Saturated
Temporarily flooded
Intermittently flooded
macrochirus), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), and predators such as northern and
walleye pike. Certain wetlands adjacent to the Wolf River system and Fox
River system in central Wisconsin, for example, are important spawning areas
for walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). The importance of these wetlands as
spawning and nursery areas varies greatly from year to year. During dry
years, they may not be accessible at all, or may dry up too quickly following
spawning, thereby killing the eggs or larvae. However, during wet years they
may be important contributors to the fish communities present in the adjacent
lakes and rivers.
3.2.4 Effects on Wildlife Communities
The use of wetlands by wildlife is dependent on the ability of the
natural system to provide the necessary food, shelter, protection from pre-
dators, and appropriate areas for breeding, nesting, and other events in the
activity and population cycles of each species. Thus, the number of species
and individuals present at any time are dependent on the availability of
wetland habitat and the population levels of the species in the region (in-
cluding migratory species).
3-77
-------
Severe or unfavorable weather conditions, heavy predation losses, or pop-
ulation cycles may cause changes in the abundance of species from year to year
that are not related to the characteristics and condition of the wetland. The
changes in the wildlife community at a wetland receiving effluent may result
from changes in water level, the structure and composition of the vegetation,
the interspersion of vegetation and water (an important determination of
species richness) (Figure 3.2-10), as well as the availability of submerged
plants, aquatic and terrestrial insects, and other sources of food. Changes
in the number and abundance of adults and young of prey species such as amphi-
bians, small birds, and small mammals will result in changes in the number and
abundance of carnivorous species of birds and mammals that constitute the
higher trophic levels.
The changes in water levels associated with the introduction of treated
wastewater also would be expected to result in shifts of the locations of
wildlife breeding and activity sites within the wetland and between the wet-
land and adjacent wetland or upland areas. This is because different wildlife
species occupy or exploit different ecological zones of most wetlands (Figure
3.2-11). Water-level changes also will influence the types and amounts of
food organisms present, and the wastewater entering the wetland may contain
pathogenic organisms and trace metals that can be taken up directly by indivi-
dual wildlife or indirectly through the organisms on which they feed. The
general types of impacts on wildlife that may occur subsequent to the intro-
duction of treated wastewater to a wetland are indicated in Figure 3.2-12.
Available impact assessment methodologies are outlined in the Technical Sup-
port Document.
3.2.4.1 Wildlife Use of Treatment Facilities
The roles and habitat requirements of many species of wildlife that use
wetlands have been indicated by various authors in Greeson et al. (1979). The
open water and undisturbed locations typical of effluent lagoons and stabili-
zation ponds associated with wastewater treatment facilities fulfill some of
the requirements of a number of species of wildlife, and are particularly
attractive to migratory waterfowl. Other species of wildlife associated with
wetlands visit these areas periodically to feed on the plants and/or animals
present in or near the water.
3-78
-------
CO
LU
O
LU
Q_
CO
Q
CC
GQ
Li_
L^^B
O
0
1 2 .- 67.- 68
10
8
6
4
2
66/ \
65 / \
/ \
/ \
' \
i '
'
i
VI ,
r°
i
CO
25 50 75 100
% OPEN WATER
o
LU
Q_
CO
0
a:
QQ
U_
o
X"N
12
9
6
3
h
* 65
69
-*70
i i l i
400 800
NUMBER OF POOLS
Figure 3.2-10. Species richness as a function of water openings and percent
open water (from Weller and Fredrickson 1973).
3-79
-------
-SMORT-BU.
UPLAND
GRASSES
LOWLAND
MASSES SE08E
CATTAIL
MUSKRAT
Figure 3.2-11. Bisect through a glacial prairie marsh (from Weller and
Spatcher 1965).
3-80
-------
Issues/Impacts
Possible Impacts on Wildlife
Methods to Assess Impacts
Increases in
levels of nutrients
Increases in levels
of suspended and
dissolved solids;
increased sedimentation
Reduction in levels of
dissolved oxygen
Introduction of heavy
metals or other toxic
substances
Increases in/intro-
duction of viral or
bacterial pathogens
Changes in habitat and cover
characteristics such as types
and densities of cover, amount
of edge, degree of interspersion,
and horizontal and structural diversity
Changes in plant species composition,
distribution, and biomass
Changes in algal, macroinvertebrate,
and insect populations
Changes in fish populations _.
Elimination of submersed plants
Changes in algal, macroinvertebrate,j_
and insect populations |
Adsorption by plants, Invertebrates
Uptake in food chain
Change in carrying
capacity of habitat
Changes in types and
availability of food
Possible toxin production
by blue-green algae or
increase in potential
for botulism outbreak
Possible bioaccumulation
or change in toxicity
prior to consumption by
wildlife
Increases in occurence
of wildlife diseases
Increase in potential for |
wildlife acting as
vectors for human disease j
Conduct field studies to
determine species abundance,
distribution, richness, and
diversity in treated and
control areas during
different seasons and
discharge periods
Conduct field studies to
determine population size
and structure and
reproductive success in
treated and control areas
Collect eggs, larvae, and
young from treated and
control areas to examine
for bioaccumulation,
condition factors
Perform investigations with
sentinel wildlife on
treated and control areas
Collect wildlife from treated
and control sites and compare
condition, incidence of disease
Figure 3.2-12. Impact factor train for wildlife (figure created by K. Brennan, WAPORA, Inc., 1983).
-------
The only study known concerning the types of bird communities associated
with different methods of sewage treatment and disposal was performed in Great
Britain (Fuller and Glue 1980). This study is a review of the literature
including census data on bird use of treatment facility sites The authors
categorized the species observed into four seasonal groups: breeding, summer
feeding, spring and autumn (migration periods), and winter. Fuller and Glue
(1980) concluded that sewage treatment facilities can serve as important
feeding sites for passerine species, primarily songbirds, and that systems
with percolating filters and land application types of treatment (surface
irrigation) support the most varied communities of birds. Large populations
of waterfowl and wading birds were present at "sewage farms" formerly used as
treatment sites. The species composition was dependent on the quality of the
emergent and bankside vegetation on the sides of the irrigation plots and
lagoons.
Fuller and Glue (1980) reported that insect-eating birds fed on prey
items within the percolating filters and/or above the effluent lagoons. Birds
of prey were observed to hunt over these areas. Drained effluent lagoons
attracted shorebirds, and shallow filled lagoons attracted large numbers of
wading birds, especially if bordered by areas of unvegetated mud. Many pas-
serine species fed on insects in sludge drying beds. Sludge lagoons also
served as sources of seeds, as did uncultivated areas and the banks of the
lagoons.
The variety of birds visiting treatment facilities to obtain food de-
creased during the winter, but increased at times in correlation with adverse
weather conditions (Fuller and Glue 1980). The total number of individuals
was highest in winter, and many waterfowl and wading birds overwintered in the
lagoons. The authors concluded that the outdated sewage farms provided a
large amount of wetland habitat, with both feeding and nesting areas, that is
not present in the more modern sewage treatment works. However, the develop-
ment of percolating filters has resulted in the provision of feeding areas for
passerine species, and land application areas provide some habitat that par-
tially compensates for the adverse effects of development on wildlife, partic-
ularly in urban areas. The majority of these facilities are small in compari-
son to the older sewage farms.
3-82
-------
In the United States, a number of short-term studies have been conducted
on waterfowl use of wastewater lagoons and oxidation ponds (Dornbush and
Anderson 1964; Willson 1975; Dodge and Low 1972). Swanson (1977) studied the
feeding behavior and food items consumed by adult and Immature surface-feeding
ducks on stabilization ponds in North Dakota. The birds fed primarily on
immature midges and water fleas during the day, adult insects during the
evening, and water fleas between midnight and sunrise. Pairs and broods of
mallards and gadwalls were the most frequently observed ducks on the ponds.
Swanson (1977) suggested that upland nesting cover be improved and that pond
shorelines be designed to reduce the likelihood of disease in order to make
the ponds safer and more valuable to waterfowl. He also recommended that the
potential for heavy metal uptake and concentration in the food chain and for
increased incidence of disease at the ponds be investigated before such habi-
tat enhancement be performed.
3.2.4.2 Effects of Wastewater Application on Wildlife at Land Treatment
Sites
Estimates of the effects of wastewater application on terrestrial wetland
animals may be inferred from the results of studies conducted by Anthony and
Wood (1979), Anthony et al. (1979), Bierei et al. (1975), Lewis (1978), and
Snider and Wood (1975). They noted the following results:
Forage production for deer was lower during the summer, and the
levels of protein, phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium in the
forage species increased, while calcium levels were reduced;
Increased soil moisture content enhanced the production of herb-
aceous plants dramatically, but plant species diversity declined;
many of the species that increased in biomass were unpalatable to
wildlife, and the net effect was a reduction in the amount of
available forage; and
Levels of chromium were significantly higher, and levels of
nickel significantly lower, in tissues of rabbits and mice col-
lected from irrigated areas as compared to control areas.
Levels of copper were higher in kidneys of cottontail rabbits from the control
area. However, these studies were short-term investigations on relatively
small sample plots, and the investigators recommended that more detailed
3-83
-------
studies be conducted over longer periods of time. They also reported that
different species would accumulate the same heavy metals at different rates
due to differences in food habits (species of plants or animals consumed,
parts of these organisms consumed, etc.), and that these rates also would vary
at times within a species because of seasonal differences in food availabil-
ity.
3.2.4.3 Effects of Wastewater Application on Wildlife in Wetlands
The most detailed studies of changes in animal species composition and
biomass have been performed on cypress domes in Florida (Ramsay 1978; Jetter &
Harris 1976). They conducted baseline and experimental studies on the amphi-
bian, avian, and mammalian populations in treated and control domes, and
correlated the changes in wildlife populations in the treated dome primarily
with changes in the water level, water quality, and invertebrate abundance.
The number and diversity of bird species increased significantly in the treat-
ed dome (Ramsay 1978), and aquatic mammals were observed there that were not
present in the control dome (Jetter and Harris 1976). The number of amphibi-
ans increased significantly in the treated dome as animals came there to breed
because of the higher water level (and greater food availability). The treated
dome attracted small amphibians from adjacent forested areas, but reproduction
was not successful due to the poor water quality. The treated dome provided a
beneficial function for amphibians during drought periods, since it served as
a reservoir for reestablishment of populations in forested areas and in other
domes after fires had destroyed those habitats.
An accidental release of sludge into the treated dome resulted in the
formation of a mat of organic debris and the subsequent development of an-
aerobic conditions. These conditions were favorable to organisms that could
not tolerate anoxic conditions and resulted in a major shift in the species
composition of wildlife in the dome (Jetter and Harris 1976). The top con-
sumers in untreated control domes (primarily wading birds such as herons and
egrets) were eliminated from the treated dome because the organisms on which
they fed (aquatic insects, crayfish, and fish) could not survive. The number
of species of insect-eating songbirds increased significantly.
3-84
-------
Within the Region V states, investigations on wildlife populations in
wetlands receiving wastewater have been performed at two natural sites (Hough-
ton Lake, Michigan, and Drummond, Wisconsin) and two volunteer wetlands (Ver-
montville, Michigan, and Paw Paw, Michigan). It is expected that a number of
the effects on wildlife populations that may occur will be detectable only
after changes in the vegetation and other components of the habitat have
occurred. The length of time required for these changes is not known, but it
is likely to differ greatly between each site.
Kadlec (1979) reported that there were no major shifts in species abun-
dance or species composition of bird populations at the Houghton Lake, Michi-
gan treatment site from 1975 to 1977, nor were there any observable adverse
effects on mammal populations in the area. A .significant increase in muskrat
populations occurred due to increase cattail abundance. A minor increase in
meadow voles also occurred in the vicinity of the discharge due to increase
availability of grasses.
Anderson and Kent (1979) described amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal
studies conducted at the Drummond, Wisconsin site. Pre-treatment studies were
performed on the portion of the bog used as the treatment site, the control
site, a stream flowing from the bog, the lake into which the stream flows, and
the surrounding upland areas. Post-treatment studies were performed for four
months after initiation of the discharge. The raw data on the species col-
lected were presented in Anderson and Kent (1979), but no analyses accompanied
this information.
Bevis (1979) studied wildlife at the Vermontville and Paw Paw, Michigan
sites. At Vermontville, volunteer wetlands were created by the wastewater
discharges, and provided habitat for wildlife in the area. Redwing blackbird,
coot, and goldfinch nested in the newly created marsh and bluewinged teal and
mallards used the wetland as a feeding or resting stop during migration. The
wetland also provided habitat for numerous amphibians and reptiles (Table
3.2-2). Additional studies need to be performed at these sites before any
conclusions can be drawn, however, concerning the possible long-term effects
on wildlife. In the short-term (six years), wildlife habitat appears to have
been enhanced at these sites.
3-85
-------
Table 3.2-2 Summary of occurance of amphibians and reptiles in Vermont-
ville, Michigan, volunteer wetland (from Sutherland and Bevis
n.d.).
Species I _2 _3 ^ JP1 P2
Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina
Eastern Painted Turtle, Chrysemys picta
picta
Eastern Garter Snake, Tharmophis
sirtalis sirtalis
Eastern Milk Snake, Lampropelitis
triangulum triangulum
American Toad, Bufo americanus
Bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana
Green Frog, Rana clamitans melanota
Northern Leopard Frog, Rana pipiens
The benefits to waterfowl and other species of wildlife resulting from
the use of wastewater for habitat enhancement were reported by Cederquist et
al. (1979) and Cederquist (1980a, 1980b) for a wastewater discharge to a
natural wetland and by Demgen (1979a, 1979b) for a discharge to an constructs
wetland. These studies are discussed in Section 3.3.
3.2.4.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
The role played by wetlands in the preservation of rare, threatened, and
endangered species is becoming increasingly important as the number and aver-
age size of wetlands diminishes as a consequence of drainage and habitat
alteration and adjacent land use activities (Williams and Dodd 1979, Landin
1979) . For some species, wetlands are required during only part of the year
or during a portion of the life cycle. For example, the bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergi) and other turtles migrate to wetlands during autumn to hibernate,
and one rare species of snakeKirtland's water snake, Clonophis kirtlandii
inhabits wetlands in the Region V states (Williams and Dodd 1979) .
No site in the Phase II study should be selected for the application of
wastewater if it is known to be inhabited by a species indicated as endangered
or threatened on federal or state lists, without the knowledge and permission
3-86
-------
of the responsible agency. Any plant or animal that is observed at or in the
vicinity of a study site and is known to be listed by either federal or state
authorities should be reported, and a decision should be made on whether to
continue the study. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing threatened or
endangered species or their habitats, especially during the breeding season.
Friend (1982) suggests that when migratory birds are the endangered or threa-
tened species of concern, effluent discharges into the wetland should be
avoided for 30 days after the last known date on which the species was ob-
served.
The data obtained on the presence, abundance, and other population char-
acteristics of endangered, threatened, and rare species observed during the
Phase II study should be made available to the local and regional offices of
USFWS and the various divisions and offices of the state environmental re-
source agencies. It is assumed that the state and USFWS personnel responsible
for monitoring the study would assist in the distribution of information to
the appropriate personnel within their agencies. Besides providing valuable
information on the status of these species, the data obtained would be useful
in the determination of the potential impacts on such species (both beneficial
and adverse) of the construction and operation of wastewater treatment facili-
ties (including natural, artificial, and volunteer wetland treatment sites).
In particular, the information obtained during the course of investigations on
the potential for enhancement of wildlife habitat should prove valuable in
future federal and state agency planning efforts for protected species. For
example, Bevis (personal communication) has transplanted specimens of the
Michigan iris, a rare species in Michigan, into the volunteer wetland at
Vermontville, Michigan to test the potential for the establishment and main-
tenance of an additional population of that species at the site.
3.3 Issue Category III: Potential for Enhancement of Wildlife Habitat
The availability of a continuous source of water and nutrients associated
with a wetland discharge has been suggested as a potential resource for the
creation, maintenance, and enhancement of wetland habitats. On the basis of
preliminary results obtained at a few sites, however, it appears that the
introduction of wastewater to natural wetlands is followed by a decrease in
3-87
-------
the diversity of species and the decline or disappearance of sensitive species
that are intolerant of changes in physical and chemical parameters. This is
coupled with an increase in the number and abundance of opportunistic and
common species that can adjust to a wider range of conditions and habitats. A
number of researchers who have conducted ecological investigations at waste-
water discharge sites have recommended that wastewater not be discharged to
natural wetlands, that wastewater be discharged only on a carefully controlled
experimental basis, or that only discharges to degraded wetlands be allowed,
until more information is obtained (Guntenspergen and Stearns 1983; Benforado
1982; Stearns 1978; Sloey 1978). The actual potential for using treated
wastewater to enhance pre-existing wetlands may be low because of the likeli-
hood of adverse effects on the wildlife and fish communities. The actual use
of wastewater to enhance wetlands may thus be limited to use in previously
degraded systems.
3.3.1 Natural Wetlands
The introduction of wastewater into natural wetlands presently used as
treatment sites has altered the receiving environment sufficiently that the
species composition of the pre-discharge plant and animal communities has
changed (i.e. Jetter and Harris 1976; Bevis 1979). However, these systems
still retain the basic characteristics of a wetland. The characteristics of
this disturbed habitat no longer fulfill the requirements of some species, but
the alteration of conditions may result in the increase of other species not
previously present in abundance. This phenomenon was documented by Jetter and
Harris (1978) for cypress domes in Florida that received treated wastewater
and that had been accidentally contaminated with sludge (Section 3.2.4.3).
Wastewater has been used on a seasonal basis, however, for habitat en-
hancement in coastal marshes (Suisun Marsh in California) for several years
without noticeable adverse effects on wildlife populations (Cederquist et al.
1979; Cederquist 1980a, b). One marsh received only wastewater, two received
different combinations of wastewater and slough water, and a fourth (control)
received only slough water. No problems were noted except for algal blooms
3-88
-------
during the spring and pond flooding in the autumn. The wastewater is used for
irrigation of surrounding agricultural lands during the dry season and for
marsh management during waterfowl migration periods.
3.3.2 Constructed Wetlands
The problems associated with dredged spoil disposal have stimulated
considerable research in wetland habitat development, primarily in coastal
areas. The most comprehensive work has been conducted under the sponsorship
of the US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg,
Mississippi (Scots and Landin 1978). This agency coordinated laboratory and
field studies on the creation of wetlands at nine coastal or riverine sites
during the mid-1970's and also conducted assessments of the environmental
impacts of such activities.
Demgen (1979a,b) reported benefits to wildlife populations from the
construction of a small wetland in California. This pilot project was initi-
ated in 1974 to demonstrate the feasibility of using secondary effluent for
creation of wildlife habitat and to test various techniques for the improve-
ment of water quality and wildlife habitat. A series of five interconnected
areas, totaling 8.2 hectares (20.3 acres), was located in a tidal area.
Wastewater passed by gravity flow through the system and discharges to a
slough that connected to Suisan Bay. The last cell in the fourth plot con-
tains habitat enhancement devices, called ecofloat. These raft-like flotation
structures provided resting and breeding areas for waterfowl, and floats for
sacks filled with redwood bark that provides substrates for aquatic inverte-
brates.
One plot was planted with grasses and bulrushes to provide food for
migratory waterfowl, and another was maintained as an open-water area with
four vegetated islands. The combination of habitat types and the availability
of food, cover, and protected nesting sites resulted in intensive use of the
site by waterfowl. Small mammal, amphibian, reptile, and fish became estab-
lished as well. Mosquito fish have been harvested for use in mosquito control
efforts by the local mosquito abatement district. Crayfish and other inverte-
brates could be marketed for bait and as food for tropical fish, if desired.
3-89
-------
The educational and recreational benefits provided by the site are also being
utilized.
In 1978 the EEC Company began a pilot project that combined marsh and
forest habitats for improvement of effluent quality, habitat development, and
timber production. The Ecofloats described previously, water-level control
devices, paddle-wheel-type aerators, and an underground irrigation system with
an infiltration unit under each redwood tree were used as components of this
"marsh-forest system" (EEC Company 1979). The system is operating properly
and appears to be meeting the desired objectives (Demgen 1979) . Small (1976)
reported that the small artificial wetlands constructed by researchers at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, New Jersey, attracted amphibians, waterfowl,
and shorebirds. A
T
Weller (1978) described a constructed marsh where a number of similar
units of habitat could be managed experimentally. Such a facility recently
was constructed at the Delta Waterfowl Research Station in Manitoba, Canada.
The results of investigations at that site will serve as the basis for future
developments in management of inland freshwater marshes. However, the results
of the first long-term studies to be performed at that site may not be avail-
able for several years.
Garbisch (1978) conducted a survey of marsh establishment or restoration
projects. Only 18 of 105 completed or ongoing projects were located in or
near freshwater locations. The technology of marsh rehabilitation is of
recent origin, and has been developed primarily for application to brackish
and saltwater areas. Garbisch concluded that general guidelines for marsh
development may be helpful, but that these programs should be tailored to the
unique characteristics of each site. Garbisch (1978) also reported that the
maximum functional level (vegetative and wildlife productivity, water purifi-
cation, etc.) of created marshes is attained within one to three years, and
that these functions appear to be comparable to those of natural wetlands.
Information on various techniques for the construction of artificial wetlands
is available from the state wildlife agencies in USEPA Region V, in the form
of research reports and brochures for landowners, such as that prepared by New
(n.d.) of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
3-90
-------
3.3.3 Volunteer Wetlands
The only work conducted in volunteer wetlands is that of Bevis (1979) and
Sutherland and Bevis (n.d.), who studied volunteer wetlands that developed at
treatment sites in Vermontville, Michigan, and Paw Paw, Michigan. Bevis
(1975) noted that such areas could serve as refuges for rare species of plants
and animals. Some species, particularly plants, could be transplanted or
stocked at those locations. The access limitations and present use of the
sites would limit their use by the general public for recreational or harvest
purposes, although scientific studies would be possible.
The potential for the development of volunteer wetland vegetation as a
result of wastewater discharge in USEPA Region V appears to be high, given the
general climatic and soil conditions and the previous history of wetlands in
many parts of the region. As previously indicated, it is likely that a number
of these sites presently exist in association with wastewater treatment facil-
ities, and several potential study sites may be identified in addition to
those investigated by Bevis (1979).
3.4 Issue Category IV: Health/Disease Considerations
3.4.1. Effects on Human Health
Human pathogens do survive wastewater treatment. However, their density
generally decreases as a result of the process. Grimes (1982) concluded that
once pathogens and fecal indicators are released to the water column, they do
not always die, but may become non-culturable and settle into the bottom
sediments. This may render the pathogens undetectable by conventional cul-
turing techniques used to assess the safety of water.
An overview of the literature on on human health effects associated with
wastewater treatment and disposal was presented in Kowal and Pahren (1980).
The status of knowledge on the individual organisms likely to be of concern in
wetland environments is described in the following sections.
3-91
-------
3.4.1.1. Parasites
Craun (1979a, 1979b _in Kowal and Pahren 1980) concluded that the use of
disinfection alone for the treatment of surface water was ineffective for the
removal of cysts of Giardia lamblia (a parasite that affects various species
of mammals, including man). Fox and Fitzgerald (1979 in Kowal and Pahren
1980) determined that only a few cysts were necessary to cause an infection in
susceptible hosts. No information is available concerning the survival rates
of parasites in wetland environments.
3.4.1.2. Viruses
Preliminary conclusions are that virus survival is limited under natural
conditions in wetland ecosystems. The lack of reliable, standardized, and
economical means to detect and quantify enteric viruses in water has hampered
efforts to determine the public health significance of viruses in wetland
treatment systems. Treatment of wastewater will reduce, but not eliminate,
viruses from effluents (Berg et al. 1976; Grimes 1982). Adenoviruses and
enteroviruses can remain viable in water for long periods of time, but are
susceptible to chlorination. Gastroenteritis of suspected viral etiology is
the major waterborne illness in the United States (Haley et al. 1980 in Shi-
aris 1983). Rotavirus, and particularly parvovirus, were mentioned by a
number of researchers as important causes of gastroenteritis. AING (Acute
Infectious Nonbacterial Gasteroenteritis) and types A and B hepatitis viruses
are the major diseases of concern (Fox 1974; Shiaris 1983), but no studies of
these organisms are known to have been performed at wetland treatment sites.
It is known that viral resistance to chlorination varies between genetic
strains of the same virus as well as between different toxonomic groups (Kel-
ley and Sanderson 1958, Liu et al. 1971). Viruses also generally are present
in secondarily treated wastewater even after chlorination (Shuval 1976; Sproul
1976). Furthermore, it has been assumed in the past that viruses cannot
survive drinking water treatment and that viruses cannot survive in the pres-
ence of free chlorine residuals. However, in several cases viruses have been
isolated from drinking water (Hoehn et al. 1976; McDermott 1974).
3-92
-------
The technical difficulties associated with the measurement of virus
concentrations in wetlands were reviewed by Wellings (1979). One example is
that many viruses readily adsorb to natural occurring silts and clays (Goyal
and Gerba 1979 in Shiaris 1983). Goyal and Gerba (1979, in Kowal and Pahren
1980) concluded that no single enterovirus or coliphage could serve as the
model for the manner in which a virus is adsorbed on soil, and similarly, that
no single soil could serve as the model from which the adsorptive capacity of
other soils could, be measured. Polio virus, which has been used as an indi-
cator in most adsorption studies, was described as an unsuitable indicator by
Katzenelson and Kedmi (1979 in Kowal and Pahren 1980). It is apparent that no
single virus can currently serve as an adequate indicator of viral pollution
(Grabow 1968 in Shiaris 1983).
Wellings (1975, 1979) determined that the only detectable virus concen-
trations measured during several years of extensive testing at several wetland
treatment sites in Florida cypress domes occurred in association with the
disturbance of the upper layers of soil. Studies to determine the effects of
higher concentrations of virus by the application of unchlorinated wastewater
were not possible at these sites because State of Florida regulations require
chlorination of effluents (Fritz and Helle 1978). Bitton et al. (1975),
indicated that 99% of the polio virus added to the cypress dome was adsorbed
onto the sandy clay loam underlying the dome and could not be eluted by the
addition of rain water.
Kadlec (1979) obtained very different results for the Houghton Lake
peatland. Reovirus and polio virus were detected in all samples collected from
the wetland and the treatment facility. Based on the sampling results, it was
determined that the surface water of the wetland was a hostile environment for
polio virus but not for reovirus.
Wastewater in stabilization ponds and effluent sprayed from sprinkler
guns onto a forested area in Pennsylvania were examined weekly for viruses,
Shigella, and Salmonella (Reynolds 1974). Streams and wells on the site also
were monitored. No viruses or pathogenic organisms were detected.
3-93
-------
More practical and efficient detection methods are required to assess the
health significance of pathogenic viruses. Common techniques currently in
practice may detect 1/10 to 1/100 of the viruses present in water (Shiaris
1983). Once detected, removal of viruses by current treatment techniques vary
and may be dependent upon the properties of the individual viruses (Christie
1967; Shuval 1970; Sheladia et al., 1982, in Shiaris 1983).
3.4.1.3. Bacteria
Shiaris (1983) reported that bacterial pathogens, compared to all other
pathogens, are the most susceptible to wastewater treatment. The most numer-
ous pathogen in municipal wastewater, and consequently of most public concern,
is Salmonella spp. Salmonella may survive long periods in water, yet high
doses are required for infection (Yoshpe-Purer and Shuval 1972 _in Shiaris
1983). Shiaris (1983) reviewed several pathogenic bacterial species of major
concern including Campylobacter fetus, subspecies jejuni; Shigella spp.; and
Leptospira. The occurrence of pathogens in water does not always reflect the
incidence of disease, or the amount of fecal pollution to which the water has
been subjected. Pathogens of minor importance included the following: Bru-
cella spp.; Citrobacter spp.; Clostridium spp.; Coxiella burnetii; Enterobac-
ter spp.; Erysipelothrix rhusopathiae; Francisella tularensis; Klebsiella
spp.; Legionella pneumophila; Listeria monocytogenes; Mycobacterium tubercu-
losis; Proteus spp.; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Serratia spp.; Staphylococcus
aureus; and Streptococcus spp. (Shiaris 1983). No studies of these pathogens
have been performed to date at wetland treatment sites.
Kadlec and Tilton (1979) reviewed data on concentrations of fecal coli-
form bacteria at wetland treatment sites and concluded that their removal is
dependent upon the residence time of the wastewater in the wetland, its con-
tact with the soil, and the flow rate. Less removal was reported for deep-
water situations. Background levels of coliform bacteria were determined to be
high, but variable, in freshwater wetlands. Because of this natural varia-
bility, they recommended the use of another enteric bacterium for the deter-
mination of removal rates and effectiveness in wetlands.
3-94
-------
Standridge et al. (1979 in Geldreich 1980) reported that high fecal
coliform concentrations at a public swimming beach in Wisconsin were due to a
combination of wastes from mallard ducks and meteorological events. However,
Brierly et al. (1975) reported opposite results in a study of enterococcus and
coliform bacterial populations at a waterfowl refuge in the Southwest. Hus-
song et al. (1979 in_ Geldreich 1980) determined that the bacterial flora of
wild Canada geese and whistling swans contained significantly more fecal
coliforms than fecal streptococci. Thus the effects of temporary concentra-
tions of waterfowl during migration periods must be taken into consideration
during the measurement of bacterial concentrations at wetland treatment sites
if fecal coliform organisms are used as indicators of water quality.
3.4.1.4. Toxic Organic Compounds
Few data are available concerning toxic organic compounds found in sewage
(Pahren et al. 1979 in_ Shiaris 1983). In addition to toxic organics original-
ly present in sewage, microbial populations may themselves produce toxic
materials metabolically. Municipal wastewater contains numerous compounds
that may su-pply substrates for microbial growth. These microbes are capable of
transforming pollutants to nontoxic forms or activating pollutants to more
toxic compounds (Shiaris 1983).
Cell tissue culture assays (Cody et al. 1979 in Kowal and Pahren 1980)
and human blood cells (Solomons 1979) can be used to detect toxic organic
compounds. Mutagenic effects of organic compounds were noted in samples from
advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plants that treated domestic and indus-
trial wastewater. Little or no effects were measured in samples from plants
that treated only domestic wastes (Rapaport et al. 1979 in Kowal and Pahren
1980). Pahren and Ulmer (1979 _in Kowal and Pahren 1980) measured the concen-
trations of 70 trace elements in effluents from four Advanced Wastewater
Treatment (AWT) plants. They reported that elements which were not routinely
monitored in water quality investigations were not present at detectable
levels or at levels hazardous to human health.
The potential for transmission of high concentrations of toxic organic
substances to humans through wetland food chains has not been estimated. This
3-95
-------
potential would vary among different types of wetlands and different types of
soil, vegetation, and wildlife. Most trace metals, however, appear to accumu-
late in sediments rather than in plants (Giblin 1983). However, over long
periods of time these substances may begin to accumulate in the consumer
levels of wetland food chains (Tilton and Kadlec 1979). Metabolic wastes such
as nitrite may accumulate in the environment, or the microbes may act as a
source for the bioaccumulation of toxic organic compounds in the wetlands food
chain (Shiaris 1983).
3.4.2 Effects on Plant Health
Plant health is of concern because of the potential for: (1) transmis-
sion of disease to agricultural crops; (2) loss of food and habitat for wild-
life; and (3) reductions or changes in the macroinvertebrate communities that
form the basis of the wetland food chains.
Epstein and Safir (1981) studied wastewater irrigation and plant disease
in an old field in Michigan, reviewed the literature regarding disease related
damage to vegetation from the application of wastewater, and conducted labora-
tory experiments to compare the survival of several species of fungi in waste-
water and in tap water. They determined that any phytopathogenic fungi pre-
sent in the wastewater probably are of little consequence because: (1) in
order for a plant infection to occur, the fungus must contact a wounded cell;
(2) most plant fungi are transmitted by a specific vector; (3) chlorination of
wastewater may kill phytopathogenic fungi; and (4) there did not appear to be
differences between wastewater and tap water constituents that would be sig-
nificant for plant pathology.
Several other investigators (Zeiders 1975 and Zeiders and Sherwood 1977)
have reported more tawny blotch on irrigated reed canary grass plants than on
nonirrigated plants. In these studies, the incidence of disease was reduced
by a three-cutting harvest system. Some clones of this species were deter-
mined to be resistant to the disease.
Excessive accumulation of trace metals could adversely affect plants
directly or by producing imbalances in nutrient concentrations. However, no
3-96
-------
such problems have been noted to date by researchers at land application sites
(Chang and Page 1978, Hinesly et al. 1978).
3.4.3 Effects on Wildlife Health
The majority of the organisms that cause disease in wildlife already are
present in wetland environments. The issue of concern with respect to waste-
water addition is the creation of a set of conditions that would increase the
populations of disease organisms dramatically. This could in turn increase
the susceptibility of wildlife to these pathogens and reduce wildlife vi-
ability.
Bellrose and Low (1978) noted that the study of disease in populations of
waterfowl presently is at an early stage of development. Sanderson et al.
(1980) indicated that the greatest interest in diseases and parasites of
wildlife is the potential for their transmission to man and other animals.
The potential for transmission of disease organisms to wildlife and humans
through wastewater is a serious concern to federal and state wildlife biol-
ogists and regulatory personnel.
The major potential disease/health related impacts that could be associ-
ated with wetlands receiving wastewater include:
The production of toxin by Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium
that requires anaerobic conditions;
The introduction of pathogenic organisms in wastewater from
dairies, livestock or poultry farms or processing facilities,
egg-washing plants, or other facilities where such organisms may
exist;
The introduction of human parasites and pathogens in wastewater
that could also affect wildlife;
The relationships between toxicity and disease in wildlife and the potential
for wildlife acting as vectors for human and domestic animal disease are
summarized in Figure 3.4-1. Figure 3.4-1 also outlines methodologies for
assessing disease impacts on wildlife populations (specific methodologies are
also given in Appendix A).
3-97
-------
Introduction of
bacteria, viruses,
and other pathogens
in wastewater
Effects on
wildlife health
Resident animals
Neighboring animals
Migrants
VO
00
Potential for:
Consumption of contam-
inated/diseased wildlife
- Other wildlife
- Domestic animals
- Man
Spread of disease or
disease organisms to
other areas
Wildlife serving as
vectors for human disease
Examine wastewater, water and soil samples
from treated and control areas for concen-
trations of parasites, pathogenic organisms,
toxin-producing bacteria, and aXgae
Estimate/quantify indirect measurements of
effects on health of animals in treated
area versus control area
Condition
Reproduction
Population dynamics
Examine mosquitoes collected from treated and
control areas for presence of pathogenic organisms
Examine sentinel wildlife on treated and control
areas
Presence/increase in incidence of
pathogens, disease
Bioaccumulation of heavy metals and
toxic organic compounds
Impairment of biological systems
- Enzymatic
- Hematological
- Immunological
- Reproductive
Examine specimens collected from treated and
Analyze hair samples for trace elements
Necropsy sick/dead animals collected from
site to determine causes of morbidity/death
'Requires assistance of USFWS
laboratory personnel and
facilities and state agency
personnel and facilities
Figure 3.4-1. Wildlife toxicity/disease considerations (figure created by K. Brennan, WAPORA Inc.,1983).
-------
The USFWS Wildlife Health Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, has identi-
fied the following wildlife diseases as potentially associated with wetland
fauna:
Avian cholera;
Avian botulism;
Lead poisoning;
Salmonellosis;
Giardia infestation;
Leptospirosis;
Listeriosis;
Avian tuberculosis; and
Mycotic (fungal) diseases.
The diseases listed above occur in natural wetlands. Both resident and
transient wildlife could introduce or become infected by these diseases at a
wetland treatment site. Friend (1983) reported that waterfowl and shorebirds
are the groups at greatest risk from sewage effluent discharges to wetlands.
Wetlands support these gregarious species and they are attracted to sites of
sewage discharge. This situation is compounded by the fact that available
wetland acreage is decreasing at a rate of 300,000 acres per year (Ladd 1978
in Friend 1983). Management efforts to maintain current waterfowl populations
result in greater use of available habitat, thus habitat quality is directly
related to disease problems (Friend 1983). Because of .this potential for
health problems, sewage disposal in wetland environments has serious wildlife
health implications (Friend 1983).
No literature reviews on the effects of wastewater treatment facility
operation or wetland treatment systems on wildlife health are known to exist.
Information on the major diseases of wildlife, with particular emphasis on
those diseases that are transmissible to domestic animals and man, is con-
tained in the draft US Fish and Wildlife Service refuge manual (USFWS 1980).
The manual also includes guidelines for preventive management and for collec-
tion, preservation, and shipment of specimens. Herman (1969), as well as
Friend (1982) provided a general discussion of the impacts of disease on
wildlife populations, and Bellrose (1976) discussed the types of diseases that
specifically affect waterfowl.
3-99
-------
3.4,3.1. Viruses
Kalter and Millstein (1974) reviewed animal-associated viruses in water
and reported that relatively little research has been done in relation to the
contamination of water by animal-associated viruses, or the effects on such
contamination from flooding, draining, damming, or irrigation. This lack of
information prevents estimation of the potential impacts of viruses on animal
and human health.
In one of the few studies conducted to date, Berner and Dame (1976)
reported that populations of several species of nuisance mosquitoes were
reduced in the domes by maintaining a constant water level through the intro-
duction of treated wastewater. As part of this study, blood of sentinel
animals (chickens) placed in the treated domes, in control domes, and in
various locations within the nearby city of Gainesville was tested once every
three weeks. Serum extracted from the blood samples was used in hemaglutin
inhibition tests to determine the presence of antibodies formed against east-
ern equine encephalitis, western equine encephalitis, or St. Louis encephali-
tis. Eastern and western equine encephalitis were reported to be present in
both the treated and the control domes. The researchers noted that the song-
birds that may spread eastern equine encephalitis to other areas during migra-
tion periods were not present at the time when the mosquito populations were
highest.
Wetlands located near agricultural areas, especially where domestic fowl
are raised, are sites where viral disease organisms might be present. Many
viral diseases are transmitted to wildlife from domesticated animals, and
wetland discharges containing agricultural wastes from poultry processing
plants, feedlots, and other animal industries are more likely to contain viral
pathogens transmissible to wildlife than those containing domestic animal
wastes (Friend 1983). The USFWS acknowledges that turtles and waterfowl can
contract tuberculosis. Live polio and tuberculoses viruses, used to vaccinate
poultry may persist through the sewage treatment process and enter a wetland
ecosystem. This is especially likely if sludge is used as fertilizer on adja-
cent agricultural lands and the runoff from these lands enters the wetland.
3-100
-------
3.4.3.2 Bacteria
Bacteria are normally present in wetland fauna. Two animal pathogens
associated with wetlands receiving wastewater are Aeromonas, a disease pro-
ducer in birds, fish, and reptiles, and Salmonella, which affects turtles.
Hemorrhagic disease of muskrats, a bacterial disease, could be of concern if
muskrat overpopulate treatment sites.
A potential exists for botulism to occur at wetland wastewater treatment
sites. Botulism in vertebrates results from toxin production by Clostridium
botulinum, an anaerobic bacterium naturally present in sediments and soils and
capable of rapid reproduction under suitable conditions. Six forms of the
bacterium exist (Duffus 1980). Type C and type E occur in wildlife, and type
C causes illness in waterfowl and small animals. There are two strains of
type C: one strain occurs in fly larvae and rotting vegetation in alkaline
ponds, and the other is present in forage, carrion, and pork liver.
The route of transmission to waterfowl is through ingestion of contami-
nated invertebrates, particularly fly larvae that develop in dead inverte-
brates and waterfowl carcasses. Hunter et al. (1970) studied botulism exten-
sively in California, and developed mitigation techniques to reduce the sever-
ity of such outbreaks. They recommended improved design of impoundments or
ponds, maintenance of adequate water levels during summer and autumn, and
proper sanitation.
The first outbreaks of avian botulism associated with a sewage treatment
facilities were reported between 1950 and 1970 (Dr. Milton Friend, personal
communication). Friend (1983) reported that outbreaks of Clostridium botuli-
num type C frequently occur in sewage ponds in California and occasionally
elsewhere in the United States. Moulton (1976) tried unsuccessfully to induce
botulism in sentinel mallards and American coots on treatment ponds by delib-
erate inoculation with £. botulinum and by killing invertebrates with rote-
none. He postulated that activity of other microorganisms in the aquatic
environment inhibited the growth of bacterial cells or destroyed the toxin.
Duffus (1980) noted that salt can inhibit the growth of C. botulinum and that
several species of microorganisms can interfere with the production of toxin
by this bacterium.
3-101
-------
Friend (1983) reviewed the persistence of pathogenic agents outside of
host organisms and the chemical and physical factors that affect their survi-
val. The probability that disease will develop is increased if environmental
conditions favor the persistence of these pathogenic, agents.
3.4.3.3 Toxic Organic Compounds and Trace Metals
There are a number of factors which make it difficult to test wildlife
populations for effects of toxic organic compounds and trace metals. These
include the following (Duffus 1980):
Wildlife populations are genetically heterogeneous, which implies
that some individuals may be susceptible to a toxic substance and
others may be resistant;
Wildlife are subject to the effects of pathogens and other fac-
tors that may increase or decrease their susceptibility to toxic
substances;
Aquatic organisms on which vertebrates feed may be able to con-
centrate a toxic substance in their bodies without harm or may
metabolize the substance to a greater or lesser level of toxi-
city. This is particularly true for relatively stable toxicants
such as chlorinated hydrocarbons and methyl mercury;
Toxic substances may be transformed into more toxic or less toxic
forms by the action of anaerobic microorganisms, or under certain
physical conditions; and
Many algae and other plants can absorb and concentrate toxic
substances.
For vertebrates, which are mobile and feed selectively on a variety of organ-
isms, it is possible to measure the amount of toxic substances ingested only
under controlled conditions. Susceptibility also varies with the develop-
mental stage of an individual organism, being greatest in the embryonic and
larval stages and in senescence (Duffus 1980).
Duffus (1980) reviewed transformations of major trace metals and effects
of metals on vertebrates. Trace metal contamination may reduce reproduction
and survival of waterfowl. Heinz (1979) and Finley and Stendell (1978) re-
ported such reductions for mallard and black ducks, respectively, that were
3-102
-------
fed low doses of methyl mercury. White and Finley (1978) and White et al.
(1978) noted similar adverse effects from ingestion of cadmium by mallards.
Toxic effects due to ingestion of trace metals at wetland treatment sites, in
combination with lead poisoning because of ingestion of lead shot, could cause
decreases and reproductive losses in waterfowl.
The levels of trace metals in wastewater froin industrial sources are
usually low, and may be further diluted during passage through the wetland.
The direct effects of trace metals on vertebrates that drink the water are
therefore likely to be chronic rather than acute. Biomagnification of metals
by food organisms would increase the likelihood of chronic toxic effects.
Also, under certain circumstances, toxic substances accumulated in an individ-
ual could kill the organism if it experiences sudden or severe stress.
3.5 Issue Category V: Overloading and Stress Conditions
Addition of wastewater to a wetland may overload the system, producing
stress, and is an issue of concern. Stress on a wetland receiving wastewater
may lessen the system's productivity by shunting energy into different meta-
bolic pathways (i.e., respiration increases, rates of photosynthesis de-
crease), interfering with the normal energy flow patterns. This may produce a
variety of little known but potentially significant ecological effects.
Stress ecology is a rapidly developing area of basic research. Barrett
et al. (1976 in Knox 1980) defined a stress as a system's response to a per-
turbation (stressor) that may be either foreign or natural to the system but
applied at an excessive level. The following guidelines for testing responses
to various perturbations and for evaluating the responses of ecosystems to
stressors were developed by the above authors, and could be used in designing
the Phase II portion of the present study:
If possible, both structural and functional ecosystem parameters
should be employed in stress effect studies. The use of a "state
variable" approach facilitates balancing and integrating struct-
ural and functional aspects, and is recommended;
Studies involving stress-effect evaluations should include eco-
systems of three levels of magnitude: microcosm, semi-natural,
and natural;
3-103
-------
A concerted effort should be made to establish standardized, eco-
system-level environmental indexes, both structural and funct-
ional, for future stress investigations;
Perturbation application and stress-response analyses should be
designed to provide for an integrative, predictive model as the
end result;
Responses to pertubations should be tested and evaluated by means
of an interdisciplinary, problem-solving approach;
Stress studies should be designed to provide knowledge useful for
interface management between man-made and natural ecosystems; and
Future ecosystem pertubation studies should attempt to include
contributions from personnel in the biological, physical, and
social sciences.
The major focus in stress ecology has been the measurement, evaluation,
and prediction of the effects of natural and man-induced stressors on the
structure and function of ecosystems, particularly the effects on community
stability and species diversity. Because the term "stability" has been used
in many ways, researchers in recent years have proposed that the terms persis-
tence, resistance, and resilience be used instead (Knox 1980). Definitions
proposed for these terms are as follows:
Persistence - constancy in a community over time, irrespective of
the perturbation;
$
Resistance - the ability of a community to remain unaffected by
perturbations;
Resilience - the ability of a community to recover to some per-
sistent state; and
Elasticity - the ability to absorb perturbation without drastic
changes in a community.
Two additional concepts, "assimilation" and "significance,"also need clarifi-
cation. Assimilation is the response at the community level to "insult"
(Buffington et al. 1980). Assimilation is a function of the relative inertia,
resiliency, and elasticity of the community. In simpler terms, assimilative
capacity is the ability of an ecosystem to receive a waste discharge without
significant alteration of the structure of the indigenous community (Cairns
1976). The definition of significance proposed for use here is that synthe-
sized by Buffington (1976):
3-104
-------
"An impact is significant if it results in a change that is measur-
able in a statistically sound sampling program and if it persists,
or is expected to persist, more than several years at the popula-
tion, community, or ecosystem level."
These authors recently proposed that some aspects of irreversibility be pre-
sent for an impact to be considered significant (Buffington et al. 1980).
They noted that insults to the functional integrity of communities are likely
to result in changes that cannot be accommodated by natural processes.
3.6 Issue Category VI: Design, Operation, and Monitoring Considerations
The state of the art in wetland treatment systems design has been des-
cribed by Hammer and Kadlec (1982), Kadlec (1982), WEPA (1981), Bastian and
Reed (1979), Reed and Bastian (1980), Stowell et al. (1980), Sutherland
(1977), Fritz and Helle (1977) and Tchobanoglous et al. (1980). Bastian and
Reed (1979) included overviews of research conducted at major long-term treat-
ment sites in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Examples of site suitability studies are those of Yonika and Lowry (1979) in
Massachusetts, and Sutherland (1977) in Michigan. Sutherland (1982) assessed
the economics of wastewater application in Michigan wetlands. A comprehensive
overview of the features that make a wetland effective in renovating waste-
water, and the effects of wastewater to wetland ecosystems was prepared by
Kadlec and Tilton (1979) and Hammer and Kadlec (1982).
Other documents on the status, feasibility, and use of this technology
are in preparation. Based on information from researchers and agency person-
nel working in this area, it appears that several design manuals or literature
reviews will be available in the near future. The environmental requirements
of various groups of wetland organisms that may be used to treat wastewater,
and an assessment of the potential of these species for such use, were given
in Colt et al. (1979, 1980a, 1980b) and Stephenson et al. (1980).
3.6.1 Design
Apart from the case histories and studies described above, little infor-
mation exists on the design of wetland wastewater treatment facilities. Nor
3-105
-------
have key questions regarding construction have not been completely addressed
in the literature. Design criteria are not currently available to predict the
waste assimilation performance of natural wetlands. State-of-the-art reports
include those by Gulp and Tchobanoglous (1980), Hammer and Kadlec (1982)
Sutherland (1977) and Fritz and Helie (1977).
A consideration that warrants attention in the earliest design stages is
mitigation of the adverse impacts of construction activities. Construction
impacts are site-specific, and will vary with locality, topography, season of
the year, engineering technology, and other factors. Diking, ditching, and
grading can permanently affect or destroy the entire character of a wetland.
Darnell (1976) reviewed effects of construction activities on wetlands, and
described three general impact categories: (1) immediate impacts taking place
during construction; (2) effects that occur during the stabilization period
after construction; and (3) permanent alterations from construction or subse-
quent management. Most of the adverse effects of construction are related to
direct elimination of habitat, changes in hydrology, or effects of erosion.
A variety of construction methods have been used at existing wetland
treatment systems. At Drummond, Wisconsin, a surface walkway system was laid
directly on the peatland to permit the laying of pipe and the movement of
people. At Houghton Lake, Michigan, a similar walkway was constructed slight-
ly above the surface of the peatland. At Bellaire, Michigan, a gravel berm
and pathway were extended into the forested wetland. At Kincheloe, Michigan,
a point-edge discharge ditch was used.
Hammer and Kadlec (1982) summarized information concerning the treatment
of wastewater by wetland irrigation, and identified several major principles
that are important in designing such systems. Table 3.6-1 summarizes major
factors identified by Hammer and Kadlec (1982) which affect performance of
wetland treatment systems. Treatment performance by wetlands was found to be
"roughly correlated with overall system features" (see Section 3.1.2.2), but
treatment effectiveness was determined not to be fully predictable at this
time. Additional information is still required to effectively model and
predict treatment effectiveness. The study presented a simplified model of
wetland treatment, which is the initial step in developing predictive capa-
3-106
-------
Table 3.6-1. Potential factors affecting the performance of wetland
treatment systems (from Hammer and Kadlec 1982).
Factor
Probable Effects
Water depth
Residence time
u>
Nutrient Concentra-
tions & Loading
Rates
Cover Type &
Climatic Conditions
Type of Substrate/
Soil
Discharge Schedule
System Age
Affects residence time and flow
charact erist ics.
Encourages some species/process-
es while hampering others.
Long residence times should im-
prove wastewater treatment, but
may not, if due to increased
depths.
While removal rates should in-
crease with concentration, each
system will likely exhibit rate
limits.
Largely unknown, but high pro-
ductivity should enhance
nutrient removal.
Largely unknown.
Unknown.
Nutrient retention rates may
change with time due to satur-
ation phenomena and to changes
in the ecosystem.
Problems in Data Interpretation
Controlled experiments have not
been completed.
Insufficient data,
in operation reports.
Difficult to determine accu-
urately due to channelization.
Few data available. Controlled
experiments have not been
completed.
Data are influenced by other
factors whch have not been
accounted for.
Insufficient data.
Insufficient data.
Insufficient data.
Data are influenced by other
factors which have not been
accounted for.
Site histories for older
systems are often quite sketchy.
-------
bilities. The fate of nutrients and pollutants in wetlands is determined
primarily by sedimentation, plant uptake, and soil and microbial processes.
The area of wetland affected is related to the quality of the effluent, age
and type of wetland, and the hydraulic regime present. Hammer and Kadlec
(1982) concluded that the quality of water passing through a wetland is con-
trolled by water movement, mass transport to wetland ecosystem compartments,
and nutrient retention within each compartment (as described by mathematical
kinetics). Wetland hydrology must therefore be fully understood to enable
proper design of waste treatment systems.
Hammer and Kadlec (1982) presented a simplified two-part model that
included a mass transport model for the "zone of rapid removal" and a "satura-
tion" model for a changing zone of stabilized activity near the discharge
(Figure 3.6-1). Long-term performance was related to overall material bal-
ances (of nutrients and pollutants) in a given wetland system. Figure 3.6-2
summarizes the various ecosystem compartments used by Hammer and Kadlec (1982)
in their model. Movement of nitrogen was shown to be a predictable function
of the distance from the discharge when the model was applied to the Houghton
Lake peatland system (Figure 3.6-3).
Analyses of the economic aspects of designing wetland wastewater treat-
ment facilities have been conducted by Hammer and Kadlec (1982), Sutherland
(1978, 1983), and Fritz and Helle (1970). Sutherland (1983) determined
that capital costs were related primarily to the distance from the stabilizing
ponds to the wetland according to the relationship C = 129 D + 288, where C =
cost (in thousands of dollars) and D = distance in miles (Figure 3.6-4). This
relationship was for applications of less than 1 inch/week. Sutherland (1982)
also provided information on costs for the Vermontville and Houghton Lake,
Michigan, wetland treatment sites (Hammer and Kadlec 1982 also presented
detailed economic information on Houghton Lake.) Based on a review of data
given in Sutherland (1975) and Fritz and Helle (1970), Hammer and Kadlec
(1982) concluded that where suitable sized wetlands were available in close
enough proximity, the wetland treatment alternative is cost-effective for
small rural communities.
3-108
-------
Figure 3.6-1. Schematic diagram of the zone of affected soil (including
the saturated zone and zone of rapid removal) used by Hammer and Kad-
lec (1982) to model wastewater discharges in wetlands.
3-109
-------
CO
I
'/.'astev/ater
Additions
Nature!
Water
Inouts
Water
C'JtDUtS
MOBILE SURFACE WATER
THE ATMOSPHERE-
Gases Released to
the Atmosphere
Consumption
\ Processes /
f j s y
BIOMASS-Long-Term
Retention of :
Nutrients and Other
Substances in the
Dynamic Biorcass Pool
/
/
SOIL & SEDIHCNTS-
Solids Incorporated
nto the Soil Column
STATIONARY WETLAND ECOSYSTEM
Figure 3.6-2. Simplified compartmental model for use in wetland treatment system design (from
Hammer and Kadlec 1982).
-------
200
o
CJ
Q.
0.
QJ
TOO
o
o
u
o
J
c
Irrigation
M
Irrigation
Irrigation
Figure 3.6-3. Movement of ammonia-nitrogen (NH, - N) concentration fronts in surface waters
(concentraions in mg/1) at the Houghton Lake Michigan treatment site (from Hammer and Kad-
laec 1982).
-------
1,400
1,200
1.000
600
400
200
HOUGHTON
LAKE
12345678
POND-WETLAND DISTANCE (miles), D
Wetland
Costs
vs
Distance
from Ponds
Figure 3.6-4. Relationship between cost and distance from stabilizing pond to
wetland Michigan wetlands (from Sutherland 1983).
3-112
-------
3.6.2 Operation and Maintenance
Hammer and Kadlec (1982) provide general guidelines for operation and
maintenance of wetland treatment systems, although they state that more data
are needed before fully suitable techniques can be devised. Several options
are available for the introduction of wastewater to the wetland: the dis-
*
charge can be continuous, seasonal, or intentionally intermittent. No data
exist to determine the preferred method for a particular situation, and there
is little experience with winter operation. Several year-round discharges are
under study, including facilities of Kincheloe, Michigan, Listowel, Ontario,
and Humboldt, Saskatchewan. A batch mode is used at Humboldt (Lakhsman 1980).
Some treatment sites have spring discharges, others have spring and autumn
discharges, and one site has a discharge only during the autumn. None of
these modes of operation has been selected on the basis of any analysis of the
performance of the wetland system.
The maintenance requirements of a wetland treatment system have received
little study and are therefore poorly known. The term "maintenance" implies
some corrective action would be taken at the plant site to compensate for an
observed effect within the wetland. Only two policies in this regard have
been followed to date: a total "hands-off" attitude, and the avoidance of
deep-water situations. . The latter strategy is being employed at Drummond,
Wisconsin, and at Houghton Lake, Michigan. The philosophy behind this strat-
egy is simply to avoid the drowning of vegetation and the increasing of eros-
ion in the wetland.
3.6.3. Monitoring
No monitoring requirements have yet been developed by regulatory agencies
for wetland treatment systems. There is some reluctance at both the state and
national levels to set a precedent in this area. The task is difficult be-
cause a wetland ecosystem does not fit the traditional pattern of a sewage
treatment plant and a receiving water body. At least two points of view have
arisen. These are: (1) that the wetland is a receiving water body and that
the influent should be controlled; and (2) that the wetland is a part of the
treatment plant, and therefore the outfall from the wetland should be con-
3-113
-------
trolled. In either case, guidelines need to be established for concentrations
of water quality parameters at the exit from a wetland ecosystem that is
connected to a wastewater treatment plant (Reed and Kubiak 1983). Difficul-
ties can arise from the fact that wetlands in the -natural state may violate
certain accepted water quality constraints, such as limitations on suspended
solids.
3.7 Issue Category VII: Constructed Wetlands
Creating new wetland areas for wastewater treatment has gained consider-
able support as an alternative to the possible degradation of existing wet-
lands. Constructed systems have demonstrated the ability to treat effluent to
advanced secondary and seasonally to advanced treatment standards while in-
creasing vegetation production and wildlife habitat. Constructed wetlands can
be used to treat applied wastewater without degrading existing high quality
habitats.
Constructed wetlands present a treatment option both in areas where wet-
lands do not exist, and where natural wetlands are restricted from use.
Constructing a wetland treatment system has several benefits. These wetlands
can be designed for greater operational control than natural wetlands. Treat-
ment cells can be constructed to allow for alternating application and resting
phases, and flows can be controlled or adjusted for seasonal variations and
needs (USLPA 1982). Underlining a system with clay or a plastic membrane
prevents percolation of partially treated wastewater to the water table.
Experiments have been conducted on artificial wetlands since the 1950's
(Seidel 1976). Researchers have produced a considerable range of data from
bench scale demonstration projects to full-scale facilities (Waste and Water
International 1982). Table 3.7-1 summarizes the removal efficiency of con-
structed wetland systems in various areas of North America. The types of
systems examined include:
open marsh basins operating in a mode similar to overland flow
(Small 1978);
narrow marsh trenches with coarse-textured substrates using
subsurface flow and underdrains (Pope.1981);
3-114
-------
Table 3.7-1 Percent removal efficiency of constructed wetlands.
Wetland Nitrate
Author Location Influent Wetland Type Area 5 SS P Nitrite Ammonia
o
Small (1978) Upton, NY Aerated Marsh/Pond 47m 89 88 71 53 58
Raw Sewage
2
Pope (1981) Laguna Miguel, CA Screened Marsh trenches 600m 84.5 90 4.3
Raw Sewage
Water and Waste Neshamiay Falls, Aerated Marsh/Pond/Meadow 0.6ha 96 94 75 87
Int'l (1982) PA Raw Sewage
Sutherland (1979) Vermontville, MI Secondary Seepage Wetland 465ha 60 7.7 94.6
Wile et al (1983) Listowel, Ont. Aerated Marsh -trenches 1000m2 75-96 84-98 71-98
Raw Sewage
2
Gersberg (1982) Santee, CA Secondary Marsh trenches 906.5m 84
87 73*
*Total N
-------
intermediary marsh channels with surface overflow (Gersberg
1982).
Despite some variability in performance, these systems demonstrate strong
capabilities of treating wastewater effluent.
The viability of a constructed system is primarily limited by land avail-
ability, construction cost, and conveyance costs. Land requirements run on
the order of 50 acres per mgd (Wile et al. 1983). To minimize conveyance
costs, sites should be located as close to wastewater generation sources as
possible. Excavation costs are minimized when the terrain is level to gently
rolling, with sufficient depth to bedrock to avoid the need for blasting. As
this type of system is most often underlined by a plastic membrane, it is not
dependent upon the transmissivity of surficial soils.
The construction requirements for this type of wetland primarily involve
excavation of the required area into the chosen configuration. Survey of the
area's topography is recommended to ensure the level surface required for
uniformity of flow (Wile et al. 1983). Trenches approximately 3 meters wide
separated by berms suitable for travel by maintenance vehicles, have been
demonstrated to be effective (Pope 1981; Gersberg et al. 1982; Lakhsman 1982;
Wile et al. 1983). Trenches should have side slopes of 2:1, should be under-
lined with an impermeable membrane, and backfilled with soil as a rooting
medium. Emergent vegetation such as cattails (Typha sp.) and bulrushes
(Scripus sp.) are found locally in most areas of the country, and when trans-
planted in one foot diameter cores demonstrate rapid and luxuriant growth
(Wile et al. 1983). Application and discharge hardware should be constructed
to permit uniform concentrations of effluent over the width of the field area
and to control water depth, flow rate, and detention time.
Wile et al (1983) found that marsh configuration was very important to
performance efficiency. Dye studies conducted indicated that internal flow
patterns in an open marsh resulted in short circuting of flow. Based on the
superior treatment efficiency of marsh trenches, a gometric configuration with
a length to width ratio of 20:1 is recommended.
3-116
-------
Wetland design criteria have varied according to the types of effluent
applied. Table 3.7-2 shows design parameters developed by Tchobanoglous and
Gulp (1980) for these wetland treatment systems. Wile et al. (1983) created a
system that operates on a detention time of seven days, a water depth of 10 cm
in summer and 30 cm in winter, and a loading rate of 200m3/ha/day (Figure
3.7-1). This loading rate was derived on the basis of the influence of evapo-
transpiration in summer and ice cover in winter. During the summer months,
evapotranspiration exceeded 60% of the loading rate, thus increasing detention
time. These conditions resulted in water stagnation, anoxia, and decreased
treatment efficiency. Maintaining low liquid depths was found to circumvent
these problems. During winter, ice formation reduced the wetland volume,
decreasing detention time. Increasing the water depth prior to the onset of
winter conditions was found to remedy this problem (Wile et al. 1983).
Pretreatment methods have varied from raw screened effluent (Pope 1981),
aerated primary effluent (Small 1978), lagoon effluent (Wile et al. 1983), to
effluent from an activated sludge secondary treatment plant (Gersberg 1982).
Pope (1981) reported that low pretreatment levels led to clogging of the
treatment system, difficulty in establishing stands of planted vegetation, and
poor treatment efficiency. Based on studies at Listo^el, Ontario, Wile et al.
(1983) recommended a falcultative aerated treatment cell with 5 to 10 day
retention time and continuous alum feed. This would reduce BOD, suspended
solids, and phosphorus concentrations with minimum sludge buildup. Phosphorus
removal was recommended because treatment efficiency in the wetland cell is
expected to decline over time.
In most instances, the primary purpose of a constructed wetland system is
nutrient removal. Numerous studies have documented the physical and microbial
processes by which BOD and suspended solids are treated in such an environ-
ment. The efficiency of constructed wetlands to treat nitrogen is generally
good. Gersberg et al. (1982) described experiments conducted with constructed
marsh beds using mulched marsh vegetation as a carbon source for denitrifi-
cation. They indicated a mean removal efficiency in the mulch-amended beds of
87% (+8%) total nitrogen and 91% (^9%) of total inorganic nitrogen. A benefit
may therefore be derived by harvesting the marsh plants, grinding them for
mulch, and reapplying the mulch to the wetland. Black et al. (1981) presented
3-117
-------
Table 3.7-2. Preliminary design paraneters for planning artificial wetland wastewater treatment systems.'
Characteristic/design parameter
oo
Type of Flow ,
system regime
Trench (with PF
reeds or rushes)
Marsh (reeds AF
rushes, others)
Marsh- pond
1. Marsh AF
2. Pond AF
Lined trench PF
Detention
time, d
Range
6-15
8-20
4-12
6-12
4-20
(hr.)
Typical
10
10
6
8
6
(hr.)
Depth of
flow, ft (m)
Range
1.0-1.5
(0.3-0.5)
0.5-2.0
(0.15-0.6)
0.5-2.0
(0.15-0.6)
1.5-3.0
(0.5-1.0)
Typical
1.3
(0.4)
0.75
0.25
0.75
(0.25)
2.0
(0.6)
Loading rate
g/ftaod (cm/d)
Range
0.8-2.0
(3.25-8.0)
0. 2-2 . 0
(0.8-8.0)
0.3-3.8
(0.8-15.5)
0.9-2.0
(4.2-18.0)
5-15
(20-60)
Typical
1.0
(4.0)
0.6
(2.5)
1.0
(4.0)
1.8
(7.5)
12
(50)
Based on the application of primary or secondary effluent.
PF = plug flow, AF = arbitary flow.
-------
ALUM
(optional)
RAW
SEWAGE
FACULTATIVE
AERATED CELL
(23 acres)
Depth « 10 feet
Detention « 8-10 days
BOD removal « ^60%
SS removal « *»70%
P removal (optional) « **1 mg L"1
MARSH - 50 acres
(20.000 gal/acre/day)
BOD <15 mg L'1
SS <15 mg L"1
TN <10 mg L'1
TP
mg L
"1
channelled marsh
tiered series of small marshes
several long parallel systems
Figure 3.7-1 Potential design for a 1 MGD (US) marsh treatment facility (from Wile et al. 1983).
-------
nitrogen removal data for the system at Listowel, Ontario (Table 3.7-3).
These data indicate a treatment level of advanced secondary standards.
Widely varying phosphorus removal rates have been reported (Table 3.7-1).
Wile et al. (1983) reported that despite substantial phosphorus removal in the
Listowel facility, rates were expected to decline over time. This is due to
the consumption of available adsorption sites as continuous quantities of
phosphorus are applied. Nichols (1980) concluded that the only actual long-
term nutrient sink in wetland treatment systems is the process of organic soil
development through accumulation of partially decomposed vegetation.
The soil type placed in constructed wetland treatment systems is very
important to treatment efficiency. Substrate materials employed include
coarse gravel (Pope 1981, Gersberg 1982), high organic content muck (Small
1978), a mixture of subsoil, top soil, and peat (Wile et al 1983), and clay
(Water and Waste International 1982). Phosphorus removal levels are dependent
to a great extent upon adsorption sites in the substrate material (Kadlec
1983). There has been no comparison conducted to determine the long term
adsorption capacity of these different types of soil. As previously stated,
Wile et al (1983) expect phosphorus removal treatment efficiency to decline
over time as sorption sites are used up.
The results of nutrient removal by vegetation harvesting have varied.
Spangler (1976) reported that in a bulrush system treating primary effluent, a
mid-season harvest would result in the removal of 10g/m2/year of phosphorus
from wastewater. However, only 3 to 4 g/m2 were estimated to be permanently
removed from the system by harvesting. Wile et al. (1983) reported that,
based on a single late season harvest only 8 to 10% of the annual nitrogen and
phosphorus loadings would be removed. Harvesting of plant biomass is regarded
as unnecessary in such systems especially since a significant portion of the
plant biomass is in below ground growth. A system employing woody stem
plants, which act as a relatively permanent sink may present good potential
however.
Operation and maintenance requirements for constructed wetland systems
include application flow control, water quality monitoring, and vegetation
3-120
-------
Table 3.7-3. Marsh system IV effluent characteristics
(monthly averages based upon weekly grab samples)
(Black et al. 1981) (all values in mg/1).
Date BOD SS TP SRP TKN N02+N03 NH3
August 1980 - -
Sept. 2.8 5.2 0.06 0.04 1.4 0.16 0.10
Oct. 1.8 1.1 0.05 0.02 1.3 1.02 0.19
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 1981
Feb.
March
April
May
3.2
15
22
10
18
9
14
4.4
3.6
9
7
12
8
14
0.11
0.51
0.92
0.67
0.80
0.45
0.67
0.03
0.08
0.31
0.34
0.30
0.13
0.30
1.5
8.0
16.7
10.4
9.5
7.3
7.8
1.46
0.24
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.07
0.07
4.4
11.7
6.2
5.4
2.3
1.9
June 34 34 1.81 0.65 15.0 0 7.9
July 9 9.1 0.97 0.53 11.9 o 8.8
'August 9 7 0.52 0.33 7.5 0.01 5.5
3-121
-------
control. Flow control is necessary for the maintenance of aerobic conditions
within the marsh to achieve maximal treatment efficiency and to limit poten-
tial odor problems. Pope (1981) reported sludge buildup and the necessity of
raking the marsh surface to maintain flow control in a system treating raw
unscreened effluent. Wile et al. (1983) also found that sludge accumulated in
the upper reaches of a marsh without some pretreatment. In spite of these
precautions, dredging only over a 10- to 20-year period may be necessary due
to soil buildup (Waste and Water International 1982).
In summary, constructed wetlands have been demonstrated to be an effec-
tive means of removing nutrients and other pollutants from applied wastewater.
Because they can be constructed virtually in any location adjacent to an
existing wastewater treatment plant, these wetland systems appear to be an
attractive alternative in situations requiring advanced treatment of treated
wastewater. Possible constraints to the use of artificial wetlands must still
be considered. The range of experimental systems have produced a range of
data results. As additional data become available concerning newly con-
structed wetland waste treatment systems, these issues will be clarified.
Nevertheless, the use of these types wetlands to treat wastewater appears to
have excellent potential.
3.8 Issue Category VIII: Mitigation
In the broadest sense, mitigation is taken to mean prevention or reduc-
tion of potentially adverse effects on a biological, socioeconomic, or polit-
ical environment by proper design and implementation of a project. The regu-
lations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA), issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ;
40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), define mitigation to include the following actions:
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action;
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation;
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment;
3-122
-------
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action; and
Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
This definition includes prevention, minimization, and reconstruction or
replacement actions. Mitigation needs for fish and wildlife populations,
their habitats, and human use of these resources are described in the mitiga-
tion policy developed by USFWS for its personnel (Federal Register 46(15):
7644-7663). The regulations issued by CEQ require that USFWS recommendations
for mitigation developed under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA;
16 USC 661 et. seq.) be integrated into all draft environmental impact state-
ments. The policy also is intended to aid other Federal agencies and de-
velopers to anticipate the type of mitigation required. Additional FWCA
mitigation regulations are expected to be developed by USFWS personnel to
provide guidance for all federal agencies to comply with the Act. USFWS
recommendations are to be based on habitat values lost, rather than specific
acreages or populations of organisms, and the degree of mitigation recommended
is to correspond to the value and scarcity of that habitat. Mitigation of im-
pacts on threatened and endangered species is to be considered in addition to
the requirements under the FWCA.
Wetlands in general are considered to be valuable habitats because:
(1) they are relatively scarce; (2) they frequently contain an abundance of
unique or rare species; (3) they are highly productive and diverse ecosystems
which frequently form an integral part of a larger inter-connected floodplain
system; and (4) they protect the floodplain against possible flood damage by
acting as recharge areas. A project that uses wetlands or that presents a
potential for adverse impacts to wetlands is likely to require more mitigation
measures than a project in a different habitat.
Wastewater treatment plants typically discharge to a surface water body,
and therefore are located near streams or lakes. Such facilities typically
are sited on ^he largest area of flat land available near a river or stream,
which frequently is in the floodplain. Because treatment facilities proposed
in USLPA Region V are sited on flaodplains, a summary of. measures available to
mitigate construction impacts and operation of wastewater treatment facilities
3-123
-------
would be helpful for design and review purposes. Such a document would ensure
that all major impacts and the appropriate mitigations for each would be
considered.
The following mitigative measures were identified by USEPA for considera-
tion in the Phase II study:
Mitigative measures to alleviate the primary impacts associated
with the construction of a wastewater treatment facility and/or
interceptor in a wetland;
Mitigative measures to minimize the secondary impacts on wetlands
from the construction of such facilities; and
Mitigative measures to ensure, to the greatest extent possible,
the environmental compatibility of discharges of treated waste-
water with natural wetland ecosystems and to minimize potentially
adverse effects on those systems.
Regulation of effluent discharge rate, timing of discharge (daily, seasonally)
and control of the chemical content of the discharge would also be classified
as mitigation, since suitable management of these factors would serve to
minimize impacts. This type of mitigation would be particularly effective
over the long term, since wetlands might generally experience gradual changes
over time. A wetland receiving wastewater could change, for example, from an
acid bog to a more alkaline cattail marsh. Nutrients will also eventually
build up in the wetland soils, even with careful effluent control.
Many procedures have been developed for assessing habitat values and
planning of mitigation measures for large-scale water projects. Most of these
methods are summarized in the proceedings of a recent national workshop on
mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habitats (Swanson 1979). However, the
sessions on inland wetlands dealt primarily with habitat evaluation methods
for such areas, rather than with mitigation. No information was presented
specifically on wastewater treatment facilities, although some of the infor-
mation on transportation and on siting of energy generation facilities is
applicable.
Recent documents prepared by or for federal and state agencies also
contain information on mitigating impacts on wetlands. These include a user's
3-124
-------
manual for estimation of the ecological effects of highway fill on wetlands
(Shuldiner at al. 1979) and a report on the impacts of pipeline construction
on stream and wetland environments (Crabtree et al. 1978). The former con-
tains mitigation recommendations applicable to construction activities. The
latter provides guidance on mitigation of the effects of pipeline construction
in and adjacent to wetlands, and would be applicable to the construction of
interceptors. The most comprehensive summary of potential impacts of con-
struction activities in wetlands is that prepared by Darnell (1976). Many
references on assessment of impacts on wetlands and evaluation of wetland
habitats are cited in these documents.
Mitigation measures specifically designed to minimize impacts of the
discharge of wastewater effluent to a wetland have not been published. How-
ever, considerations to be taken into account when designing such a system are
included in Appendix B. Blumer (1978) described ways of increasing nutrient
retention of restored wetlands in Florida. Structural diversity, flow pat-
terns, multiple-use opportunities, and the use of water level control and
filter structures were recommended on the basis of two years of studies on the
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton New York, constructed wetland treatment
systems. Implementation of these recommendations would mitigate the impacts
of erosion, increase treatment effectiveness, and enhance wildlife habitat.
3.9 Issue Category IX: Legal, Administrative, and Regulatory Considerations
The growing concern for the future of wetlands has led to numerous Fed-
eral, state, and local laws and regulations to protect and preserve these
areas. Communities that consider the use of wetlands as part of a wastewater
treatment system are confronted with an array of legal considerations. While
these considerations vary, several concerns exist for communities considering
such a use for wetland areas. These concerns result from stipulations of the
Federal Clean Water Act, two Executive Orders, and certain precedents being
established within the states. This section presents a broad overview of
these legal and regulatory concerns. A more detailed discussion of the regu-
latory issues will be presented in the Phase II study.
3-125
-------
3.9.1 Federal Requirements
When most federal laws and policies for protection of wetland areas were
adopted, multiple uses for wetlands were not considered. The regulations were
adopted primarily to remove wetlands from development considerations and to
discourage activity which could damage natural wetland areas. Because of
this, the language of these regulatory programs often serves to inhibit the
possible use of wetlands for multiple objectives. The concept that wetlands
can be used to help treat municipal sewage thus represents a shift from the
philosophy of complete protection. This shift in philosophy has implications
for many of the original wetland regulations, and may be in conflict with
certain aspects of these major policy requirements.
The Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act provides broad statutory autho-
rity for protecting wetlands and other waters of the United States, and estab-
lishes an institutional framework for implementing wetland protection. This
framework includes the Section 201 facility planning process, the Section 303
water quality standards process, the Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Section 404 Dredge and Fill
permit program. The facilities planning process provides for a detailed
review of the impacts of wastewater treatment projects on sensitive environ-
mental resources, while the water quality standards establish limits on pol-
lutants in the waters of the United States. However, primary protection of
wetlands is implemented through the 404 permit program and the NPDES permit
program.
The Section 404 permit is intended to prevent the destruction or altera-
tion of wetlands by regulating activities which result in the disposal of
dredged or fill materials in wetland areas. While the 404 permit protects
wetland areas, it is actually a regulation of dredge and fill activities. If
there is no placement of dredge or fill material, no permit is needed. Thus,
this permit program would not apply to the creation of artificial wetlands or
to the discharge of effluents to an existing wetland. A 404 permif could be
necessary, however, if the treatment system required dredging activities in
natural wetlands or if outfall devices were to be constructed in a wetland.
3-126
-------
Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the discharge of effluents
directly to the navigable waters of the U.S. requires an NPDES permit and a
program to monitor the discharge. Under this Act, most municipal treatment
facilities must provide wastewater treatment at secondary or higher levels.
When an artificial wetland is created to provide part of this treatment, a
single discharge pipe is usually built from the artificial wetland to the
receiving waters. Permit conditions are written to regulate the actual dis-
charge of effluents. If a natural wetland is used, it may be extremely diffi-
cult to determine where the wetland begins and the "receiving waters" end.
This problem is caused by uncertainties in the determination of wetland bound-
aries and hydrologic connections of wetlands with surface water and ground-
water sources. In the case of a natural wetland it may be difficult to pre-
pare an NPDES permit as a result. Monitoring requirements are affected for
the same types of reasons. Determinations must be made concerning how the
effluents being discharged will be regulated and how the discharge will be
monitored.
Allowing wastewater to be discharged to a natural wetland may require
certain changes in the Clean Water Act and the NPDES program (Rosencovitch
1983). The changes could include provisions similar to those of Section 301
(b) of the Act, which allows secondary treatment waivers for ocean discharges;
or Section 318, which allows the discharge of certain pollutants, under con-
trolled conditions, for certain projects. Altering the Clean Water Act to
allow for special permit considerations for wetland treatment systems would
offer greater flexibility to the communities involved, and could provide an
economical yet effective method of treatment.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Under Executive Order
11990, actions taken by federal agencies must minimize the degradation of
wetlands and must preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of
wetland areas. For communities wishing to use natural wetlands as part of
their wastewater treatment systems, this Executive Order presents the issue of
what constitutes "degradation." Certain interpretations of the Order have
held that the mandate not only prohibits the use of a natural wetland as part
of a wastewater treatment system, but that it also restricts the discharge of
fully treated effluents to wetland areas, except under special situations.
3-127
-------
This interpretation is subject to question, however. Some agree,that in many
cases the addition of nutrients actually enhances rather than degrades the
natural wetland. The question of what determines "degradation" thus remains
partially unresolved.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. The use of wetlands to
treat municipal wastewater presents additional concerns when considered under
the directives of Executive Order 11988, which requires federal agencies to
avoid any direct or indirect support of floodplain development. The Order
also directs federal agencies to provide leadership in acting to: (1) reduce
the risk of losses due to flooding; (2) minimize the impact of floods on human
safety and health; and (3) preserve the beneficial value of floodplains. Many
natural wetlands are located within the 100-year floodplain, as are many areas
that communities might consider suitable for the development of artificial
wetlands.
It has not yet been determined whether USEPA or other federal funding
sources, by encouraging wetland treatment systems, may be directly supporting
floodplain development, thereby supports goals which are in conflict with
Executive Order 11988. In addition, wetland treatment systems may not lend
themselves to conventional methods of flood-proofing. Where wetlands are used
for treatment, flooding situations may result in damage to the treatment
system, short circuiting of discharges, or similar flood related problems for
the community.
3.9.2 State and Local Requirements
Wetland areas are also protected under a variety of state and local
regulations that may inhibit their use as part of wastewater treatment sys-
tems. Individual state statutes frequently address water quality, floodplain
development, and wetlands protection. Language in an approved Coastal Zone
Management Plan may prohibit wetland treatment systems on the coastal areas of
Region V states. Local regulations may protect wetlands through zoning regu-
lations, subdivision restrictions, building codes, sanitation codes, conser-
vation districts, or special-use permit regulations. Deed restrictions may
also exist for individual sites.
3-128
-------
The majority of states have no regulations or guidelines addressing the
use of wetlands for treatment of wastewater. In Florida and Michigan, how-
ever, such regulations have been initiated.
The State of Florida has adopted regulations that permit the experimental
use of wetlands for low-energy water and wastewater recycling (Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation 1979). In Michigan, a special-use permit has
been issued by the Department of Natural Resources to allow the Roscommon
County Department of Public Works to construct and operate the portion of the
Houghton Lake wetland treatment site that is located on state-owned land. The
site is under the joint jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
While these state efforts represent recognition of a growing area of
interest and concern, little has been done in other areas to develop regula-
tory criteria or guidelines to direct planning efforts for wastewater disposal
or treatment in wetlands. The legal and administrative^^framework for protect-
ing wetlands is well established; what is now needed is a reassessment of
*.
policy interpretations and regulatory issues to address the concept of multi-
ple uses for wetland areas.
3.9.3 Administrative Review/Conflict Resolution
Use of wetlands either as a point of discharge for wastewater or as a
means of advanced treatment, poses certain types of conflicts between involved
Federal and state agencies. These conflicts arise due to the potential ad-
verse effects of wastewater on wetlands and the responsibility of the agencies
under the law to protect wetlands from degration. Federal agencies are
charged with protection of wetlands under the various laws discussed above.
In granting NPDES permits involving wetlands, for example, USEPA must resolve
issues regarding possible degradation of natural wetland values as defined by
reviewing agencies such as the USFWS. Currently no specific means of conflict
resolution exists other than the method outlined below. Such a means must be
developed however, if effective conflict resolution is to be achieved in these
particular cases.
3-129
-------
Reed and Kubiak (1983) proposed a review process for use by administra-
tive agencies for evaluating the suitability of proposed discharges of waste-
water to wetlands. This" approach was developed for use within the context of
the existing "201" facilities planning process. Because it represents the
only published attempt to date that concerns the integration of legal, regula-
tory, and administrative constraints into the process of selecting a wetland
discharge or treatment alternative, the approach is briefly outlined here.
The detailed methodology proposed by Reed and Kubiak (1983) for deter-
mining suitability of a wetland for wastewater treatment or discharge is shown
in Figure 3.9-1. The method provides a means of determining discharge suit-
ability early in the planning process, and is based on the requirements of the
water quality standards process and limitations specified in Section 402
permit procedures.
The initial step in this method is to apply appropriate screening cri-
teria to determine the quantity and quality of effluent discharged as well as
the cost effectiveness of the wetland alternative. If following the initial
screening a natural wetland alternative is not determined to be feasible,
feasibility of other modes of discharge (to surface water or groundwater) need
to be identified. If an artificial wetland is determined to be feasible, the
impacts on the ultimate receiving water must be determined in relation to
existing water quality limitations, just as in the case of a conventional
discharge. In some cases water quality limitations may prevent use of an
artificial system (Figure 3.9-1).
If a natural wetland is determined to be feasible, then an
evaluation should be conducted to determine if this alternative is compatible
with water quality standards and to determine if adverse impacts to the wet-
land would result (Figure 3.9-1). This evaluation should precede the decision
concerning use of a natural wetland for wastewater application. Use of a
natural wetland alternative may not be feasible if it is determined that such
an alternative is incompatible with the maintenance high water quality stand-
ards in a particular receiving stream, for example. In other cases it may be
determined that water quality will not be degraded significantly by the natur-
al wetland alternative, and that it thus constitutes a feasible alternative
3-130
-------
Discharge Location: Wetland Use
(Process to be Completed During
the Step I Grant Phase)
r
i
Facility Planning
Process: Step I
Groundwater or
Effluent Impact
Evaluation
Incompatible
Use
Non-Degrada ti
'* Folicy "
lacpmpftible
Use
Engineering
Evaluation
Water Quality
Standards
Effluent
Limitations
Figure 3.9-1. Facility planning assessment process incorporating wetland
use alternative, as designed'by Reed and Kubiak (1983).
3-131
-------
(Figure 3.9-1) as a regulated ("controlled degradation or enhancement") dis-
charge. The discharge needs to meet criteria for water quality standards and
effluent limitations, however (Figure 3.9-1). This procedure allows for
flexibility in making permit decisions regarding a wetland discharge, and also
allows for discontinuing a discharge if monitoring programs show that detri-
mental impacts are occuring.
Reed and Kubiak (1983) concluded that the ecological evaluation should
determine:
Existing ecological functions of the receiving wetland, and
importance of the wetland to the surrounding watershed;
Types and quality of plant and animal communities;
Existing government management programs which might involve
the wetland; and
Existing regulatory programs which apply to the wetland.
Reed and Kubiak (1983) reported that the evaluation of the existing
features of the wetland should include characterizations of the following
factors:
Surface water and groundwater quality;
Hydrologic regime (especially storm flow characteristics and
groundwater recharge characteristics);
Flood control and water storage and yield during low flow
periods.
Shoreline erosion protection characteristics provided by the
wetland; and
Overall ecological quality (species diversity and health;
potential recreational, research, and educational uses; and
socioeconomic values).
To complete the evaluation, appropriate field studies should be performed.
These should include measures of plant and animal species composition, abun-
dance, and diversity. Methods for performing such inventories are presented
3-132
-------
in Reed and Kubiak (1983) and in Section 2.8 of Appendix A (the Technical
Support Document). The results of the ecological evaluation can be used
during the course of the facility planning process to provide a detailed basis
for determining potential impacts on the receiving wetland, for establishing
and the acceptability of the discharge to resource managers and involved
review or permitting agencies.
3-133
-------
4.0 INVENTORY OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGES TO WETLANDS IN REGION V
The inventory presented in this section describes wastewater discharges
to wetlands in USEPA Region V, and was conducted from October through Decem-
ber 1980, with the assistance of state agencies, local officials, individual
treatment plant operators, and several facility planning firms. The most
current data available for the treatment facilities and wetlands in Region V
were compiled and incorporated into this report. A number of types of facil-
ities and wastewater discharges were identified during this inventory, and
included wastewater treatment plants, water treatment plants, industrial
facilities, creameries, state parks and camps, mobile home parks, commercial
facilities such as truck stops and motels, and institutions such as schools,
correctional centers, and nursing homes.
Initially, only municipal treatment facilities were to be included in the
inventory. However, some industrial facilities were also included because of
the possibility that certain issues (such as the effects due to trace metals)
could be studied more easily at those sites, since concentrations of trace
metals and other substances of interest typically are higher in discharges
from industrial facilities than in municipal discharges. Industrial facili-
ties were also determined to be of value for investigation because of their
high frequency in Region V states, and the likelihood that many could dis-
charge to wetlands.
4.1 Identification of Dischargers
4.1.1 Data Collection
Personnel at each of the following agencies were contacted and requested
to provide a list of known wetland discharge sites in that state:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency;
Indiana State Board of Health;
Michigan Department of Natural Resources;
4-1
-------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency;
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; and
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
With the exception of Wisconsin, which maintained a list of discharges to
wetlands from municipal facilities only, none of the states had prepared such
a list. The task of compiling a list of these sites therefore required addi-
tional consultation among knowledgeable personnel in the remaining states.
The structure and organization of agency files in these states precluded
identification of such sites by an overview process. It was not possible for
project investigators to examine the extensive amount of data for all permit-
ted facilities in each state. Also, information on the types of land cover
(i.e., wetland versus some other ecosystem type) between the treatment facil-
ity and the final discharge point typically was not recorded. Following
examination of the initial lists of potential sites compiled by state agency
personnel, visits were made to all states. The following information was
obtained by examination of files for potential sites at which wetlands were
identified:
i
Name of treatment plant operator and/or local contact;
Receiving stream classification;
Map and photographs (if available);
Survey reports;
Public notices of intent; and
Current or annual summary discharge monitoring report forms.
Facility plans for all plants were not examined. It was anticipated that the
overview information obtained from agency files, in combination with the
information to be received from questionnaires distributed to the treatment
plant operators (Section 4.1.2) would be sufficient for a preliminary identi-
fication of both the major characteristics of the discharge and the types of
wetlands receiving the discharge. A total of 161 facilities were identified
as possibly having wetland discharges and are listed in Table 4.1-1.
4-2
-------
- o
a u
rti
o c
M .0
3 O
rt H-
H- a
a
i-l rt
O fl>
r.
m agency f
H-
CO
0
B
*-
i?
a
0.
H-1
h- '
H-
t
n
01
CO
i tewater Tr
n
»
rt
rt
TJ
I1
Oi
s
rt
O **) O !> J>
(D H C < 3
a (t> H- H- OQ
rt S < h- O
a o ID i *
n> a n 01 01
H rt
C £ G
TS eo 01 w a
Ol (0 CO CO H*
?r 01 o> s
H> OQ £ C
a to (u oi -*j
OQ rt rt H H
O rt H n H
3 w (t n
(D 08 0) C
B rt rt O
"HI""
T3 a a T>
h- rt rt M
a ^ TJ N
rt h-1 Oi Oi
01 n
B h*
H-
rt
«^j «
M
S
I g
O Ez
1-1 [>
»
C/l
s g
S P
rt
H
(D
01
1
a *->*
rt i1
T3
fil U
3 0
rt p.
I-1
rt
h*
CO
£ c
p. (D
a B
H- t-1
Oi (b
3 a
rt rt
<
H-
(D
Oi
fl>
n
rt
H-
o
a
&
o
(D
a
rt
ro
n
w
H»
a
H-
01
^
- Marion
rt
O
rt
O
a
"0
o
o
CO
en
H-
O
§
a
B
h- 1
f
w"oSMs:«i'«apno>ciH
rt(DO"OO> i-(0)i-lOJ rt i i
i-t fl> H- (D 1 aStDtO O
I-1 BBH-rtH- OlOM
(-1* 2 f& to N p £ tfl P- C/5
OQ l-inBC S O* CO C <
^ O &. »-( vOirtO) 01
CACBCOQ Bt-'ftCO O
ro rt c n- C fh fij re c
fDrtante o>s;rt*;3
H* (0 fl> H* (0 OOlCuO)
^{DrtrtCni^rtS
os cn to « re c rt re 53
Oirt cnffH'io
H'OiOOlOlH-CH 7
H- rt o art a &i re H H*
re 9 &- re OQ rt &) ^ a
O 13 M (D rt (D (D
O HS (B f> O <-( 9 0*
i-lOiBr'HO (D rt O
On-^Oi-tSHBSO
O?f OW'OHrtws
rt Oi 01 (D B *O
Oi CflrtBOi'OrtOi
rt rt 3 **^ rt j B
H- Oi 0) g fli **J X
o a a ffi a o>
B & rt B rt O
0) rt P-
A- h* "0 h*
§>- rt
Oi H-
or* a re
g rt co
is
a
^
U
u-
« f-j
H (TJ
fe If
5 O C rf
M ^ c/i O 4***
hj O P3
J> f^ ^Q (7), f"'
2 s > £ '
c- G1 en t
H (t> R) O
3 n ro s-
ere »
h-** H< ^{ C/^
vo O 00 rt
OO 3 (D 6)
O IT
< S C
02 CO
ID
(T C
C? f^ ^"i
Ca C
rt Co t-h
Co rt Ca
Co i-( H-
*"i t '
(D IT H«
O IT
n H-
c S n>
f! (5 0)
>-( rt
n> M cr
3 CO (B
rt 3 M
Cu to m
(0 <
O 3
XX XX
X X X X X X X
XXXX XXX
>- Survey Form Not Sent
M Form or Call Returned
" Site Visited
* Discharges to Lake/Stream
Underground/On-land
Discharge
* Discharge Never Occurred
^ Discharge Not Observed
Effluent Pumped to
Other Facility
so Discharge to Wetland
Ceased
° Non-wastewater Discharge
Z Unintentional Discharge
to Wetland
£ Discharges to Man-
modified Wetland
w Discharges to Natural .
Wetland
-------
r- CO O
t-l
3, "
o w o
ooling wate
tormwater.
mat ion fro
3 n
o>
00
to
p
o
Ml
I-1-
A
CO
O
p
3
»
1
__^
r-*
Ml
P
n
K*
rt
H-
i ro
«*; 03
f?osao?So=S'2re?2re5£
c" o pr p. « oo <<; 5 pco n »-> R
IS tooa IPHI
so 3 os o re
O B <-v "S £ H
C 75 f P 3 £ O
a H- P M co P H
rt a jf M a" to fc
p O (0 » H- rt I~
H- 3* *T3 ro
a ro s s
M P P
S» rt
rt ro
re n
> «
"3 t» 1-3
W rt K /-\
^ ro ro i
n p w
H i* MI
ro 30
P rt H.
E? I-1
a "o H-
ro M rt
P P H-
« a re
rt CO
ecu
» 8 H-
p M> H*
rt 0 <
a- a re
re M
c
B *" cr
St/> H-
rt H-
3 « «
1 1
» ^
rt P
re n
i
H*
(D
<^
-^ TJ s-x
t-»
P
a
f 0s ^
11 O p
rt M a »
=r re S.
K Hotel
's Business
Webster Wa
CO
ro o
i-«
z
c
!>
O
O
B
rt
H-
n
o-
*^
§n
a
rt CO
ro
n
rt
n
p
B
ns
M
P
a
C3 CM
ro to
O l?3
(P ^d
3 >
K ro
TO
VD O
OO 3
O
* *^2
o
to
f"t
to
to
ro
n
c
H
3
rt
to
CO
O
ft
O
discharg
ro
to
CO
rt
ro
c
to
rt
i-(
pr
O
g
ro
rt
to
3
0,
W
H-
3
i .
^-
H-»
1
»-"
co
rt
to
rt
C
Co
O
to
n
H-
fU,
It
H-
CO
ro
M
H-
ro
<
ro
o-
X X X
O X
X X X X
M- Survey Form Not Sent
N Form or Call Returned
«* Site Visited
* Discharges to Lake/Stream
Underground/On-land
Discharge
01 Discharge Never Occurred
-1 Discharge Not Observed
a, Effluent Pumped to
Other Facility
vo Discharge to Wetland
Ceased
° Non-wastewater Discharge
E Unintentional Discharge
to Wetland
n Discharges to Man-
modified Wetland
£ Discharges to Natural
Wetland
-------
a ^ ex H-
> 3 > P- i
MMXEnpctcffi'fl'ijpimmoGG t o o eo ee ea be
i o. H- fl> to to to Or-'i-tf-'t>oftto to r-1 to it n to to
Oto rt- H i-( 33 M ft H- 3 CTSrtX r* H- 3 to to »t it
3 rtSO.Cn'OftSf&a.OSi-trtrtSlSSSrtit
rtt-3fttofi?Trtk^ftStor1'to OQCi
rt3'ft S3 rt rt O ft rt M 13 to C CtortGG^' j> _j. « rr
H ra O s: toftftgrtft £3rttoCOHO>cnft3'ft ii~ir\nn«-+
rt SOto rt^S-a^MH^ftCOrtrtrtrtrtMrt ^S^S^
ft to r-1 rt ft US OS i-tC03i-l(DrI*ftftft > CO D Q CU
to rt ft f-tHr+3>Hftrtrt i-(3toi1«;HtoM -. ..
rt roorj i-tft^cfli-ftoft H ft tofisro --«*<*-
3 rlH- i_3ftr1 COftrtCO^H SHrt(D£Xp3 »^*«U
ft cnH^to Oto3toOfti-tfti-iftto & 03
3 t-3rtH ftrtH OrtftrtBtoft Bftilrt^OCfl rr.
rt t-inft »3ii H-33ft"artto rtto goto --w_
ftH-to rtftft toftrtntoBrt rtHft«33 PTC
-0 toOrt 33to f* ' 3 . . _ .P » e ^15="
?csto>i3 to*< oscn r'to^M ^
fts:cncreH-n?sr t-'fttosafteJCtocnH-r'-M ^>
s: to to rt 3iift£;to3 -T33M3ftH- rtfD
*^3ft (-.fBftrtUrt XT JZ
3Or-i-("rt3to3» » OJ*.
ft 3 "d to ft) rt3rtrtT)O^ rtB) rti
s fssp^^^iFi^ '"^e
gBttt-1 t-'PS'oO ' (DO
"0 rtrostt SirtrtplH* EDKM-
h^ Sits 3 301 5 tli
tu it'itft^TS^rt n t
3 1-1 (t> rt H.
(t
rt i-( (B CD
ro !- a*
s CD n>
rr D (-
D- f
cc cn ro
tn <
H- (B
o 3 a
Ml
x . Survey Form Not Sent
xxx x xxxxx fo Form or Call Returned
x ' x x x x x u> Site Visited
* Discharges to Lake/Streai
Underground/On-land
"" Discharge
* Discharge Never Occurred
x -1 Discharge Not Observed
Effluent Pumped to
Other Facility
x -o Discharge to Wetland
Ceased
°- S Non-wastewater Discharge
x ^ Unintentional Discharge
to Wetland
£ Discharges to Man-
modified Wetland
* * H *~ xxxxx c Discharges to Natural
Wetland
-------
Table 4.1-1. Status of facilities believed
to discharge wastewater to wetlands in
USEPA Region V. Data are current as of
December 1980.
MINNESOTA (continued)
Itasca Nursing Home
Jeno's Wilderness Lodge
Kensington Uastewater Treatment Plant
La Grand Township
Lake Mary Township
Lake Park Water Treatment Plant
Land 0' Lakes Company
Lewis ton Wastewater Treatment Plant
Longville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Loretto Wastewater Treatment Plant
Maple Hills Estates Mobile Home Park
Menahga Wastewater Treatment Plant
Midland Glass Company
Miltona Wastewater Treatment Plant
Minnesota DNR - Hennepin State Park
Minnesota DNR - Lake Carlos State Park
Minnesota DNR - Sibley State Park
Minnesota Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant
Northome Wastewater Treatment Plant
Nelson Creamery Association
Orono Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWCC)
Pequot Lakes Wastewater Treatment Plant
Petham Wastewater Treatment Plant
Ramey Farmers Co-op Creamery Association
Reynolds Cooperative Creamery Association
Rose Co-op Creamery
St. James Wastewater Treatment Plant
4J
g
CO
4-1
O
d
0
pLj
f>t
0)
£
3
CO
1
Returned
i-H
rH
cd
Vl
O
e
0
PM
2
d
CU
4-1
H
CO
H
^>
CU
4-1
H
CO
3
o Lake/Streai
4-1
CO
OJ
00
(^
cd
,£3
U
CO
H
fi
5
ver Occurred
Ol
O
4J
1
cd
O i-H
4J 4J
CU
W ^
(U
oo -d
M Ol
cd -H
,£! 4-1
O -H
CO T3
H O
« S
12
o Natural
4J
CO
CU
00
cd C
rfi Cd
CJ r-t
CO 4-J
H CU
0 S
13
x
X
X
Cooling water.
-------
1=
c: f o o? t-*
H- 5" B c
n e. cr r-
< n y
£ e? n
o* s: re M
M 0- 0) P) O
? £ !? ^ ?
B «j
pa o ft
i-t p re
re
H
M *1
g. 8 s
C rt OO
U 3
rt re i-h
H- ft O
to P.
r- H-
TJ pi r+
to P H-
?r m
"*''
KCECC^^GGHHW
P pp'p'p-pi^cnH'roop
rtrt!C?r(0(DOQ WO' 'OCT"
P P P PJ to CD to (DH>l-t
^ S. 0 ^ rt OQ
'O(totoO»r*--toMOif* O
oca^urt cn CD (u E; O
i-trt rt Srtr*3S*»l
r^ (D K ^3 H* (B (DtDOuiO
P to CT to rtr->tU 0>*< H- (D
H* n (0 i-t C"1 i-( n « rtfl>
CD HPEHrtOHHOOnB
OtofOtoH-r-iitototo nx
H-PMP E"pppto3»
rtrt?Trt prtrt rrfDO
(D ft 3 0
p.rg ng 90 "B Tl ^^K"
!D Q) CA to to "13 rt
a » g §
(to rt
rt
O
p
1
B) C fc £r
a r* i-h cn
(D i-t O H
w M cn >
£ rt to t5 /-v
(to en P" o
01 H rt O
r» P (D £ 3
C rt to CO H-
rt O~ (? (? C
(6 P it £ (B
r( (u to D.
H *"* tf S ^
(D (U D)
rt f ' 3* rt
(D p CD
p £ rt rt
rt E 3
H TJ (5
H-> to r*
rt M
(to
g
M
(D
M c rr
fi> W C ->
D PI
g >> P. 1
a* cn ^-
fD R3 O
it n> sr
00 D)
)- H- >-t to
VD O (N rt
c» a n> t>
o ^
< s; c
£B Cn
cn
rt O
O fU *-h
B> £
rt SB HI
p rt Ca
f^ O
P f^ I1"
f( M
fD rr h*
O f"^"
O H-
c S n>
t-{ (I) U5
>-! rt
n> i-1 cr
s to rt>
rt 3 M
u cn a>
tn <
H- n>
o 3 a.
^ Survey Form Not Sent
x x w Form or Call Returned
x x w site Visited
*- Discharges to Lake/Stre^
Underground/On-land ,
"" Discharge
01 Discharge Never Qccurrec3
^ Discharge Not Observed
, Effluent Pumped to
Other Facility
« Discharge to Wetland
Ceased
o Non-wastewater Discharge
£ Unintentional Discharge
to Wetland
£ Discharges to Man-
modified Wetland
* * E Discharges to Natural
Wetland
-------
Table 4.1-1. Status of facilities believed
to discharge wastewater to wetlands in
USEPA Region V. Data are current as of
December 1980.
r
00
WISCONSIN
Advance Transformers Co.
Araani Sanitary District
Araron Corporation
Arcadia Wastewater Treatment Plant
Associated Milk Products, Inc.
Brillion Wastewater Treatment Plant
Chili Sanitary District
Clayton Municipal
Curtiss Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dresser Wastewater Treatment Plant
Drummond Sanitary District
Elk Mound Water and Sewer Utility
Florence biinicipal Sewer System
Gilson Brothers Company
Hayssen Manufacturing Company
Hillshire Farms Company
Kasson Cheese Company, Inc.
Lakeside Cheese Factory
Menasha Corporation
Milltown Sewage Treatment Plant
Minong Wastewater Treatment Plant
Mobil Oil Corporation
Muskego NE District Sewage Treatment Plant
Muskego Sewage Lagoons
C = Cooling water.
Information from agency files only.
4J
g
0)
CO
4J
o
e
o
PM
CU
S
CO
1
t3
01
c
Vi
4J
Ol
Pi
i-H
O
o
o
2
rt
Site Visite.
3
cB
01
4J
CO
3
cd
O
4-1
Discharges
4
X
0
§
r-t
I
C
*-^.
Underground
Discharge
5
a
0)
M
3
O
a
o
M
a)
>
01
Discharge N
6
0)
t
01
CO
,Q
O
4->
0
Discharge N
7
O
4J
13
01 ^
p, 4J
3 *r4
Effluent Pu
Other Facil
s
TJ
c
ni
F-H
4J
01
Cs
0
Discharge t
Ceased
9
01
bO
M
n)
o
Cfl
H
o
M
01
4-J
Non-wastewa
10
c1
01
00
M
n)
^3
O
CO
H
p
rH
CB
Unintention
to Wetland
11
(3
CD 'O
S f^
nJ
O rH
4-1 4-1
Discharges
modified We
12
r-H
cd
M
3
4-1
n)
»
O
4-1
Discharges
Wetland
13
X
X
X
XX X
X X
-------
3
(C
c
en
i-3
o a
Sp
TOTAL
R-
i
OD
z 3:
fclf'
cn
rt
B
r>
(H
t
BO
1B
rT B
1-3
B
I
a
rt
fl
i»
cn
itt-
SW
s:0)n)i in
o 3 M B cn
oo -so
O- UO-a
OB
o
Trtn
B
^ p
fflo
rtH>
?rit
rc£
3 "
rt p rt ti
"1 rt a (D
H* 1»
O -O B w
H- a rt n
O rt 3 H
rt rt 11
TS ro
I- 15 B
H- B hi rf
Ort
O 3
a !6
(D
D C rt
n> on o -t>
OR
f& r"0 O ^^
cr cn H-
tb pa o
i-t re :r
oo cu
vo O 00 rt
00 D CD Cu
O rt
< C
cu cn
cn
rt o
O n i-h
CD £
rt CU i-h
CD rt CU
n> o
0> rj M-
(-( (»
TO rt hJ-
O rt
O H-
c s n>
11 (D cn
il rt
(0 I-1 C
D CD (!>
rt 3 M
CL H-
to cn ro
cn <
H- (D
O 3 O.
oo
Ov
OOXXXXXXXXXX
~ Survey Form Not Sent
N. Form or Call Returned
Site Visited
*" Discharges to Lake/Strea
y, Under ground /On-land
Discharge
01 Discharge Never Occurred
xxxxxxxxxx
Discharge Not Observed
Effluent Pumped to
Other Facility
Discharge to Wetland
Ceased
Non-wastewater Discharge
Unintentional Discharge
to Wetland
Discharges to Man-
modified Wetland
Discharges to Natural
Wetland
-------
4.1.2 Discharger Questionnaire
The information from agency files was reviewed prior to mailing a brief
questionnaire to the treatment plant operator or other appropriate contact at
each facility. Questionnaires were mailed to all facilities identified except
for those not recommended for such mailing by state agency personnel.
Approximately 55% of the facilities surveyed responded by telephone call
or letter. In several instances, the engineering firm that had designed the
facility was requested to respond. Three weeks after the mailing date, tele-
phone calls were initiated to those facilities that showed the highest pri-
ority for future study, based on available information. Not all non-respond-
ing facilities could be contacted, due to restrictions on available time and
finances. All pertinent information contained in each returned survey form
was added to the data base previously obtained for that facility.
4.1.3 Preliminary Site Surveys
Because the study was initiated in autumn it was necessary to complete
visits to as many sites as possible prior to the onset of winter, a brief
qualitative survey was initiated in mid-November of 1980. The sites selected
for field investigation were identified on the basis of the agency file data
and the responses obtained. The sites of interest were determined to be those
intermediate between the following two categories: (1) those sites at which
research currently was being performed or at which detailed field investiga-
tions were known to have been performed; and (2) those sites considered to be
too small or otherwise not suitable for inclusion in the research to be per-
formed during the full-scale study.
The following criteria were used to select sites for the preliminary
field survey:
State in which discharge was located (known sites in Michigan had
already been visited by one member of the research team; all re-
maining states were visited);
4-10
-------
Type of facility (municipal, industrial, other);
Type of receiving wetland (forest, marsh, bog, etc.);
Characteristics of discharge (chlorinated, trace metals present,
etc.);
Length of time discharge had occurred;
Relative wildlife value of receiving wetland (based on informa-
tion available) ;
Volume of discharge;
Presence of other discharges into wetland (single discharges pre-
ferred) ;
Surrounding land use (if known);
Geographic location (a broad range of latitudes was used); and
* Amount of data available.
Thirty-eight sites were selected and visited: 16 in Minnesota, 10 in
Wisconsin, 1 in Illinois, 9 in Indiana, and 2 in Ohio. The Minnesota sites
and six of the Wisconsin sites were visited between 16 November and 26 Novem-
ber 1980. The Indiana and Ohio sites were visited between 1 and 6 December
1980, and the remaining four sites in Wisconsin were visited between 26
December 1980 and 2 January 1981.
At each site, qualitative observations were made as to the nature and
extent of the receiving wetland. A map was prepared of the area around the
discharge point to show the nature of the drainage basin receiving the efflu-
ent, and where possible, the point at which the wetland receiving the dis-
charge was connected to other bodies of water such as sloughs, streams,
rivers, or lakes. The treatment plant operator was contacted (where possible)
to obtain additional information on each site.
<
During the surveillance of each site, the area around the discharge
point, the receiving wetland, and other water bodies were examined. Records
of the approximate areal extent of the wetland, the nature and condition of
the dominant vegetation, the distribution of the vegetation relative to the
discharge, and the estimated wildlife value of the receiving wetland and
4-11
-------
surrounding area were made. Photographs were taken at each site for future
reference and to assist in summarizing the survey results. Observations were
made of the surrounding land uses, the presence of any additional discharges,
and the accessibility of the site.
Accessibility was used as an important criterion for estimating the
potential value of particular wetlands surveyed for inclusion in the future
full-scale studies. For purposes of this study, "accessibility" is defined as
both the ease with which the site could be reached by car and the relative
ease with which specific points within the wetland could be sampled. For
example, the Staples, Minnesota, site was given an accessibility rating of
"good" because there was easy access to the point where the discharge entered
the marsh as well as to sites above and below the discharge. Similarly, the
Angola, Indiana, site was rated highly for accessibility, since sampling
points above, in, and below the wetland could be reached easily. Accessi-
bility is a significant factor in the selection of a study site because of the
need to limit logistic difficulties during sampling.
4.2 Results of the Inventory
The sites identified by state agency personnel as possible wetland dis-
charge sites were listed in Table 4.1-1. Of the 161 facilities, 99 (60%)
discharged to wetlands. The other facilities were eliminated for the reasons
indicated by the column headings in Table 4.1-1 (i.e., discharge had ceased,
routed to other facility or another surface water body, etc.). Fifteen facil-
ities discharged to wetlands that had been modified as follows:
Diking;
Damming; ,
Excavation;
Impoundment;
Partial drainage; or
Formation of wetland after discharge began.
4-12
-------
Facilities with discharges of wastewater to natural wetlands are included in
Column 13 of Table 4.1-1. Facilities with non-wastewater discharges, such as
cooling water or stormwater runoff (Column 10), and facilities with uninten-
tional discharges caused by seepage or leakage from improperly working equip-
ment or poor facility design (Column 11) were eliminated.
4.2.1 Wastewater Discharges to Natural Wetlands
All facilities positively identified in the inventory as discharging to a
wetland are listed in Table 4.2-1 and shown on Figures 4.2-1 through 4.2-6. A
summary of these sites by type of facility is presented in Table 4.2-2. On a
region-wide basis, 76% of the 98 discharges to wetlands were from municipal
facilities, 17% were from commercial facilities, and 6% were from a variety of
other types of facilities. The distinction between major and minor municipal
facilities is not shown in Table 4.2-2 because only two facilities in Minne-
sota were designated as major municipals in the state pollution control agency
files. Although state parks are classified as industrial facilities by the
State of Minnesota and as municipal facilities by the State of Illinois, these
have been given the designation of "Other" in Table 4.2-2 to be consistent
with designations for similar sites in other states.
General information used to identify the potential for each facility for
further study is also presented in Table 4.2-1. The operational date is the
year in which the facility was constructed. The number of years of discharge
indicates how long the facility actually has discharged to the wetland area,
and is not necessarily equal to the number of years of operation. Information
on any additional types of discharges (e.g., stormwater runoff, cooling water,
process water, wash water) is included in the Significant Aspects/Comments
column. The criteria used to determine the potential of a facility for fur-
ther study are the same as those listed in Section 4.1.3. The sites not
visited were also given a rating, if adequate information was available. This
was a subjective judgement based on data from survey forms, telephone respon-
ses, state agency file descriptions, and maps and photographs prepared by
state agencies.
4-13
-------
Table 4.2-1 Facilities in USEPA Region V confirmed to have discharges of wastewater to wetlands.
i.
2.
ILLINOIS
Name
Location
(County)
Village of Erie WWTP
Erie (Whlteslde)
Farmingdale WWTP
Lisle (DuPage)
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
M/2
M/2
3. Ipsen Industries and I
Alco Standard Co.
Cherry Valley (Boone)
4. Pere Marquette State Park 0/1
Grafton (Jersey)
5. Vienna Correctional Center M/3
Vienna (Johnson)
6. Winfield WWTP M/2
Winfield (DuPage)
Operational
Date/No, of
Years of
Discharge
Quantity of
Discharge
(MGD)
General
Acreage Description
of Wetland of Wetland
1948/32
-/10
1975/10
NA
1964/15
1962/12
0.167
0.190
0.0005-
0.001
0.020
0.127
1.061
1
NA
80
20
Slough
30 Cattail-willow
marsh
Cattail marsh
Potential
FWS Significant Aspects/ as
Classification Comments Study Site
PEMlBd Wild., Rec., Fish Low
PEM1C Wild., Rec., Duck High
PSS1C Facilities in poor condition
Headwaters of Lily Cache Creek
PEM1D Wild., Rec. Low
S, SW discharges to ditch
that enters marsh
Seasonally flooded NA
basin or flat
Bottomland area tributary to NA
Gilbert Lake
Wooded swamp PAB2 Wild., Duck, Fish High
PSS1 Cl discharge
PFOlAd 013 railway bed
State-owned
Marsh-fen PEM1C Wild., Duck High
Rare species of plants present
Cl discharge
Owned by DuPage County Forest
Preserve
KEY I
Type of racUtty/Treataent
C - Connerclel
1 - Induatrlel
II - Municipal
O - Oilier
1 - rrlury
1 - Secondary
3 - Tertiary
Significant A«pec»/Comont»
Crap - Crop production area
Duck - Waterfowl production
Hah - Fleh apavnlng area
Rec. - Aiea u«ed (or recreation
Wild - Wildlife habitat
Type of Dlacliarga
CM - Cooling ueter
I'M - Proceae water
S - Sanitary
8R - Stornfater runoff
WU - Waah water
Cl. - Chlorinated
HA - Insufficient Infonution available
ua nan AMD uuoun SERVICE WBTUHD CUSSWCATIOH scnum
8ISTDI
SUBSYSTEM
CLASS
I SUBCLASS
I UATRR BEGIHR HODIfER
I I SPECIAL HOD1FEB
Danaaa
SYSTEM AND DUBS1BTEH
L Lacuatrlne
1 Littoral
r falustrlna
H Blvfrlne
1 IntaraiUtent
CLASS. AMD SUBCLASS
VATEB REGIME
AB Aquatic Bed 4
t BuLmergeiit I
t Floatlnf-leaved 0
} floating 0
EM («H)i(ent Hatlaiid B
I reratatent f
t Hon-paralatent 0
KJ roraatad Wetland
1 Broad-leaved daelduotia
1 Heedla-Ieaved declduoiie
3 Dectduoua
4 Evergreen
S Dead
KL lloaa-Llchen Wetland
R8 Bochy Sliore
t Bedrock
SB Shrub-Scrub Wetland
1 Daclduoua
I Evergreen
US Unconeolldatcd Botton
Periunently flooded
Interailttentlv flooded
Sanlperoanently flooded
Seaeonalty flooded
Saturated
Temporarily flooded
Artificial (flooded only
aa a reeult of dlecharga)
SrECIAL MODtriEMS
Acid eolle
leavera
fartlally drained/
41»ched
Dlked/I*po
-------
Ui
Table 4.2-1
INDIANA
Name
Location
(County)
1. Angola STP
Angola (Steuben)
2. Angola Union 76-
69 Truck Plaza
Angola (Steuben)
3. Culver WWTP
Culver (Fulton)
4. Fremont STP
Fremont (Steuben)
5. Centner Packing, Inc.
South Bend (St. Joseph)
6. Kendallville WWTP
Kendallvllle (Noble)
7. L & K Motel
Angola (Steuben)
8. Silver Lake Mobile
Home Park
Angola (Steuben)
9. Weatherhead Co.
Angola (Steuben)
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
M/2
0/2
M+I/2
M+I/2
1/2
M/2
0
0
Operational
Date/No, of
Years of
Discharge
1920s/60+
1971/8
1952/28
1957 &
1976/23
tf
NA
1958/22
1971/9
1977/5
Quant ity of
Discharge Acreage
(MGD) of Wetland
1.155 1-2+
forest
0.005- 2-3
0.010
0.450 100
0.150 100-200
0.650 Ditch
runs
8-9 mi,
1.500 20
0.012 0.06
0.0044 10-20
General
Description
FWS
of Wetland Classification
Cattail marsh
Bottomland hardwood
forest
Cattail marsh
Cattail-shrub marsh
Cattail-shrub marsh
Bottomland hardwood
forest-swamp
Lake with adjacent
cattail marsh
Wooded swamp
Cattail marsh
Cattail-willow
marsh
PEM1D
PSS
PF03
PEMld
PEMlAbd
PSS
PAB2Ab
PEM1
PSS
PFOlFd
L1UB
PEM1A
PSS
PF01
PEMld
PEM1D
PSS1
Significant Aspects/
Comments
Wild. , Duck
Metals In discharge
City owns entire area
Metals and Cl. In discharge
2.
Man-modified (dammed)
Duck, Wild.
Complex area
Rec., Wild., Fish, Duck
Botulism has occurred
State wetland conservation area
Discharge to Auten Ditch, then
to swamp
PW, CW discharges
Discharge is to Henderson Lake
Wetland surrounds lake
Cl, and P removal
£.
Discharges to small creek, to
small pond, to small wetland
Metals and Cl in discharge
Good waterfowl habitat
Marsh adjacent to Silver Lake
Potential
as
Study Site
High
Low
Moderate
High
Low
High
Low
Low
1/3
1968/12
0.133 30-40 Cattail-willow marsh PAB2A
Bottomland forest PEM1
PSS1
PFO
Cl discharge
Wild., Rec.
Wetland adjacent to Little
Center Lake
PW, CM, S, SW discharges
Low
-------
Table 4.2-1
MICHIGAN
Name
Location
(County)
1. Be Hair e WWTP
(Antrim)
2. Decatur WWTP
Decatur (Van Buren)
3. Grayling WWTP
Grayling (Crawford)
4. Houghton Lake
Houghton Lake
(Roscommon and
Missaukee)
5. Kinross WWTP
(Kincheloe Air Force
Base)
Kinross
(Chippewa)
Operational
Type of Date/No, of
Facility/ Years of
Treatment Discharge
M/2 1970/10
M NA
M/2 NV
M/2 1972 &
1978/3
Quantity of General
Discharge Acreage Description FWS Significant Aspects/
(MGD) of Wetland of Wetland Classification Comments
0.400 40 Wet meadow
NA 150 Cattail marsh
Shrub border
NA 100 Cedar-alder hardwood
forest
1.000 600 Sedge-willow wet
meadow
PEM2A
PEM
PSS
RFO
PML
PEM
PS SI Ad
Discharge diverted in 1981;
could study recovery.
Rec., Duck, Wild.
Dump adjacent to wetland
Leatherleaf and bog birch p:
Entire area » 1,759 acres
Peatland Is state-owned but
Potential
as
Study Site
High
High
Low
M/2 1962-78/16 l.SOO(Old) 700
New Plant 0.040(New)
1978/2
Currently a Cattail PEM1A
marsh; converted
from an acid bog
due to alkaline
discharge; h of
natural bog re-
mained in 1981.
under
USFWS control
Former US Air Force base;
presently state-owned
Discharge to man-made ditch
that enters wetland.
High
High
6. Marion WWTP
Marion (Osceola)
7. Roscommon WWTP
Roscommon
(Roscommon)
1977/3
NA
NA
NA
20 Alder-willow LSS
swamp
5 Hardwood-cedar RFO
floodplain forest
Railroad gives defined High
outlet
Wild. High
Open flow observed In January
Discharge flows to cattail
ditch, then to wetland
-------
Table 4.2-1
I
t'
^J
MINNESOTA
Name
Location
(County)
1. Alexandria Lakes Area
Sanitary District
(ALASD)
Alexandria (Douglas)
.2. Alexandria WTP #2
Light and Power Co.
Alexandria (Douglas)
3. Barry WWTP
Barry (Big Stone)
4. Battle Lake WWTP
Battle Lake
(Otter Tall)
5. Brandon WWTP
Brandon (Douglas)
6. Dalton WWTP
Dalton (Otter Tail)
7. Dayton Development Co.
Ridgedale Center
Minnetonka (Hennepln)
Detroit Lakes WWTP
Detroit Lakes (Becker)
Donnelly WWTP
Donnelly (Stevens)
10. Elmdale Creamery
Elmdale (Morrison)
Operational
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
M+I/3
M
M/l
M/2
M/l
M/2
0/1
M/3
M+I
Date/No, of
Years of
Discharge
1977/3
1959/20
1938/42
1952/28
1956/24
1971/-
1973/7
1923-41,
1963-77/50
1920/60
Quantity of
Discharge Acreage
(MGD) of Wetland
1.200 1
0.060/week 4
NA 10-20
0.079 2
0.042 1 mile
long
0.034 NA
0.330 45
(design)
1.000 200
0.600 52
General
Description
FWS
of Wetland Classification
Marsh
Slough
Cattail marsh
Cattail marsh
Pothole
Cattail marsh
Slough
Land-locked slough
Cattail-shrub marsh
Shallow lake
Cattail marsh
Slough
Cattail marsh
PEMA
PEM1A
PEM1D
PSS
PAB3A
PEM1
PSS1
PAB2.3
PEM1A
NA
PAB3A
PEM1
PSS1.2
NA
R1AB1
PEM1
Significant Aspects/
Comments
Duck
Heavy metals present
In effluent
Duck
City water supply
Fe and Mn treatment
PW, backwash discharge
Rec. , Wild.
Existing raarsh in Allen State
Wildlife Management Area
Rec., Wild., Duck
Discharge to Slaughterhouse
Slough scheduled to stop by 1985
Wetland used as a .Junk yard
Slough feeds Into Whiskey Lake
Facility discharge questionable
Wild., Rec., Duck
SR discharge composed of 60%
parking lot runoff and 40%"
undeveloped land runoff
PW, CW, SR discharges
Rec., Wild., Duck
Man-made channel
Wild., Rec.
Discharge Is to stream that
Potential
as
Study Site
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
NA
Low
Moderate
High
NA
0.003
Pothole PEM1
Cattail-sedge marsh
enters Peterson's Slough
PW, S discharges
PW, CW, S discharges
Low
-------
Table 4.2-1
MINNESOTA (continued)
Operational
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
H- 17.
00
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Name
Location
(County)
Hampton WWTP
Hampton (Dakota)
Hermantown I.S.D. #700
Duluth (St. Louis)
Hitterdal WWTP
Hitterdal (Clay)
Ironton WWTP
Ironton (Crow Wing)
Isle WWTP
Isle (Mllle Lacs)
Kensington WWTP
Kensington (Douglas)
Lake Park WTP
Lake Park (Becker)
Lewlston WWTP
Lewiston (Winona)
Longville WWTP
Longville (Cass)
Maple Hills Estates
Corcoran (Hennepin)
Menahga WWTP
Menahga (Wade na)
Miltona WWTP
Miltona (Douglas)
Minnesota Lake WWTP
Minnesota Lake
(Fairbault)
Northome, WWTP
Nor t home (Koochiching)
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
M/3
C/3
M/2
M/2
M+I/2
M/2
M/2
M+I/2
M/2
C
M/2
M/2
M
M/2
Date/No, of
Years of
Discharge
1957/23
1939/41
1962/18
1963/17
1971/9
1950/30
1929/51
1973/7
1961/-
1971/-
1952/28
1952/28
1951/-
1977/6
Quantity of
Discharge
(MGD)
0.040
0.008
0.039
0.050
NA
0.046
0.017
0.250
0.020
0.030
0.058
0.034
0.134
0.044
(design)
Acreage
of Wetland
1
2
15
20
6-8 mi.
1-2
10
6.5
NA
10
(pond)
2-3
20
80
NA
NA
General
Description
Potential
FWS
of Wetland Classification
Pothole
Wooded swamp
Pond
Cattail marsh
Cattail marsh
Shrub swamp
Pothole
Cattail marsh
Cattail-willow marsh
Natural dry run
Swamp
Pond
Reed canary grass
marsh
Cattail marsh
Marsh
Wooded swamp
Cattail-sedge
marsh
Slough
Marsh
head Lwater
PABlGe
PF03D
L1RS1B
PEM1
PEM1
NA
PEM1A
PEM1
PSS1
NA
NA
PEMle
PEM1
PML
PEM1D
PSS
PF03.4
PEM1
Significant Aspects/
as
Comments Study Site
Cl discharge
Discharge scheduled to stop
by 1985
Discharge scheduled to stop
by 1985
Duck, Rec. , Crop
Discharge flows from marsh to
another marsh, then to
Blackhoff Lake
NA
Scheduled to stop by 1985
Mn and Fe treatment
Scheduled to stop by 1985
NA
Discharge flows from ditch
to Rush Creek to pond/marsh
complex
Marsh is 50 feet from Bueberry
River
Rec., Wild., Duck
Bog-mat vegetation
Discharge scheduled to stop
by 1985
Rec., Wild.,
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
NA
Low
Low
Low
NA
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Slough-State wildlife management area
PEM2A
8 species of native Minnesota birds
nest in marsh and slough
3 landfill sites around marsh
(cement, wood, solid waste debris)
Marsh area in head waters of creek
NA
-------
MINNESOTA (concluded)
26. Ramey Farmers Coop Creamery I
Ramey (Morrison)
27. Reynolds Coop Creamery
Long Prairie (Todd)
28. Rose Coop Creamery
Eagle Bend (Todd)
29. St. Joseph WWTP
St. Joseph (Stearns)
I 30. Shafer WWTP
^ Center City (Chisago)
31. Staples WWTP
Staples (Todd)
32. Sunburg Coop Creamery
Sunburg (Kandiyohl)
33. Taconlte WWTP
Taconite (Itasca)
34. Upsala WWTP
Upsala (Morrison)
35. Wahkon WWTP
Wahkon (Mille Lacs)
36. Winton WWTP
Winton (St. Louis)
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
M+I
' I
I
I
M/2
M/3
M/2
I
Operational
Date/No, of
Years of
Discharge
1936/43
1913/5+
-/30
NA
1961/19
1967/13
1963/25
NA
Quantity of
Discharge
(MGD)
0.400
0.191
, 0.012
0.0035
0.240
0.020
0.325
0.003
General
Acreage Description
FWS
of Wetland of Wetland Classification
16 Cattail-willow
slough
25 Wet meadow
Reed canary grass
marsh
5-6 Lagoon area
NA Marsh
15 Cattail marsh
Tama rack-s phagnura
bog
240 Tamarack-sphagnum
bog
200-300 Cattail marsh
. NA Landlocked pond
Marsh
PEM1G
PS SI
PEM2D
NA
NA
L1AB1A
PEM1
PF02a
PEM1D
PF02a
PEMIBb
PAB1B
PEM
Significant Aspects/
Comments
CW, S, SR discharges
Wild . , game birds
CW, PW discharges go to man-
made ditch that enters wetland
Man-made lagoon 4 feet deep is
used by ducks
PW, CW discharges
Marshy area surrounding Stormy
Creek
PW and S (overflow) discharges
Rec., Wild. , Duck
Cl, discharge
2.
Rec. , Wild, Duck; borders trout
stream
10-acre marsh
200-acre bog
Spring/Fall discharge to be cont
Wild.
Cl discharge, odor problems
Rec.
Excessive phytoplankton
Potential
as
Study Site
High
Low
Low
Low
High
High
'd
High
Moderat'
M/l
M/2
M/2
M/3
-770
1964/-
1977/3
1961/19
0.050
0.036
0.014
0.023
NA
200
NA
Lake surrounded by NA
marsh
Swamp NA
PW, CW, S discharges
Formerly an open pit mine
Discharge scheduled to stop
by 1985
NA
Cattail-willow marsh PEM1D Rec., Wild., Duck
PSS1
Herbaceous marsh
PEM2 Discharge flows through marsh
for 100 yards before reaching
Fall Lake
Low
NA
Low
Low
-------
Table
OHIO
4.2-1
Name
Location
(County)
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
Operational
Date/No, of
Years of
Discharge
Quantity of
Discharge Acreage
(MGD) of Wetland
General
Description FWS Significant Aspects/
of Wetland Classification Comments
Potential
as
Study Site
1. Gambler WWTP
Gambler (Knox)
Hinde Subdivision STP
Sandusky (Erie)
Uniroyal, Inc.
Erie Industrial Park
Port' Clinton (Ottawa)
M/2
1/2
1938+67/42
1957/23
0. 186
0.160
0.447
200 Oxbow slough
Bottomland hardwood
forest .
PFOlAc
NA Shallow, narrow pond PM1D
PF05
Marsh
NA
Discharge from oxbow to High
Walhonding River
Fish, Rec., city water supply Low
Scheduled to be abandoned
Pond called "Kob Ditch"
PW, S discharges None
7 Industries present In Park
Marsh area is an old weapons
testing area; completely
off limits
K>
O
-------
Table 4.2-1
WISCONSIN
I
to
Name
Location
(County)
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
Operational
Date/No, of
Years of
Discharge
Quantity of
Discharge
(MGD)
Acreage
of Wetland
General
Description
of Wetland
FWS
Classification
Significant Aspects/
Comment s
Potential
as
Study Site
1. Araanl Sanitary District M/2 NA 0.006
Amery (Polk)
2. Arcadia WWTP M/2 NA 0.010
Arcadia (Trempealeau)
3. Associated Milk 1/2 NA NA
Producers, Inc. (AMPI)
Turtle Lake (Barren)
4. Brillion STP M+I -/50 0.300
Brilllon (Calumet)
5. Chill Sanitary District M/2 1968/13 0.037
Chill (Clark)
6. Curtiss WWTP M 1977/3 0.007
Curtiss (Clark)
7. Dresser WWTP M/2 NA 0.102
Dresser (Polk) (design)
8. Druramond Sanitary District #1 M/2 1979/2 0.100
Drummond (Bayfield)
9. Elk Mound Water and M 1969/11 0.045
Sewer Utility (design)
Elk Mound (Dunn)
10. Florence Municipal Sewer M/2 NA 0.086
System
Florence (Florence)
NA Wooded swamp
3 Marsh
(pond- Bottomland forest
marsh)
1,000
forest
10-20 Cattail-tag alder
marsh
600
Cattail marsh
Cattail marsh
Shrub swamp
Wooded swamp
20-30 Tag alder swamp
NA Cattail marsh
1-2 Cattail-tag alder
swamp
PF03
PEM1D
PSS
PF03E
PEM1A
PSS1A
PEM1A
PEM1
PSS1
PF03
PS SID
PEMlBc
PML
PF04
PEMlc
PSS1
Ditch to wetland to Horse Creek
Surrounded by a hardwood forest
Wild.
Pond surrounded by marsh drains
into forest; potential to study
recovery
Wild.
Public hearing commenced with
Village of Turtle Lake for
determination of wetland
classification by WDNR
Part of marsh has burned
New plant scheduled to be
constructed - 1980
Duck, Rec., Wild.
Spring water back-ups occur
Lagoons discharge twice annually
(total 5 mg per year)
Duck, Rec.
Only flooded during part of year
NA
Rec., Wild.
Elodea problem
NA
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
Moderate.
NA
High
Low
NA Seasonally flooded NA
basin or flat
Drainage area tributary to
Muddy Creek
One mg polishing pond prior to
wetland;discharge to be moved out
of wetland In 1983
Discharge from wetland to a Low
Class I trout stream
(Weber Creek)
-------
Table 4.2-1
WISCONSIN (continued)
Name
Location
(County)
Gilson
Plymc
Brothers Co.
>uth (Sheboygan)
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
I
Operational
Date/No, of
Yea rs of
Discharge
1966 /-
Quantity of
Discharge
(MGD)
0.029
Acreage
of Wetland
5-10
General
Description
of Wetland
Reed canary
marsh
FWS
Classification
grass PEM2
PSS1
Significant Aspects/
Comments
Duck, Wild.
PW, CW, S,
Cl discharges
Potential
as
Study Site
High
12. Hillshire Farms Co. 1/3 1974/6 1.000
New London (Outagamie)
13. Kasson Cheese Co. I NA 0.028
Brillion (Calumet)
14. Lakeside Cheese Factory 1/2 NA 0.007
(Henning's Cheddar Cheese)
Kiel (Manltowoc)
15. Menasha Corp. M/2 1971/16 0.015
Neenah Container Div.
Neenah (Winnebago)
16. Milltown WWTP M NA 0.090
Milltown (Polk) (design)
17. Muskego NE District STP M NA 0.933
Muskego (Waukesha)
18. New Auburn WWTP M NA
New Auburn
(Chippewa and Barron)
19. Northernaire Lake Terrace M 1965/-
Three Lakes (Oneida)
20. Oconomowoc Electroplating Co. I 1966/14 0.100
Ashippun (Dodge)
11
NA
Tag alder swamp
Cattail marsh
PEM1A
NA Bottomland forest PEM1
swamp PF03
NA Shrub marsh PSS
20 Cattail-shrub slough PAB2A
PEM1
PSS
PF03
5-10 Cattail marsh
FBI ID
Marsh borders a lake NA
NA Cattail marsh PEM1
100 Spruce bog PF03
Wooded swamp
20 Seasonally flooded NA
basin or flat
Stream channel flows through
swamp and marsh
Marsh used as polishing pond
Cl discharge goes through
man-made ditch to marsh
High
Wild., Duck Low
Plant scheduled for new
construction
CW, PW discharges
CW, WW discharges Low
Rec., Duck, Wild., Crop High
Discharge to man-made ditch,
then to Neenah Slough
Slough is several miles long
S, SR, Cl_ discharges
Discharge not found during Low
site visit
Rec., Wild. Low
Discharge ditch for 0.1 mile
through wetand to Muskego Lake
High BOD, SS, P
Duncan Creek (trout stream) NA
headwaters in marsh
Discharge flows underground Moderate
through bog for 0.5 mile to
Little Moccasin Lake
Discharge to Davey Creek, a Low
tributary of Rock River
-------
WISCONSIN (continued)
Name Type of
Location Facility/
(County) Treatment
21. Ogema Sanitary District #1 M/2
Ogema (Price)
Operational
Date/No, of
Years of
Discharge
NA
Quantity of General
Discharge Acreage Description
(MGD) of Wetland of Wetland
FWS
Classification
Significant Aspects/
Comments
0.050
(design)
NA
Wooded swamp
PFO
Swamp bounded by roads
on all sides
Potential
as
Study Site
NA
22. Paddock Lake WWTP
Paddock Lake Wisconsin
(Kenosha)
H/2
1957/26
0.262
150
Marsh; shrub border PEMA
Designated significant
natural area
High
N3
OJ
23. Pence WWTP
. Pence (Iron)
24. Phelps Sanitary District #1
Phelps (Vilas)
25. Radisson STP
Radisson (Sawyer)
26. Rockland Sanitary District #1 M/2
Rockland (La Crosse)
27. Seeger's Dairy
Merrill (Lincoln)
28. Shawano County Health
Care Facility
Shawano (Shawano)
29. Sherwood STP
Sherwood (Calumet)
M/l V30
M/2 1972/8
M/2 1968/12
M/2 1967/13
I/I 1950/30
0/2 NA
NA 20 Marsh
Wooded swamp
0.680 30 Wooded swamp
0.001 5 Marsh
Shrub-wooded border
0.020 20 Herbaceous, shrub,
wooded swamp
0.0003 5 Bog
Swamp
0.012- NA Reed canary grass
0.015 marsh
pm
PFO
PSS1A
PF03.4
PEM1G
PSS1
PF03.4
PAB3D
PEM2
PSS1
PF01
PEMD
PFO
PEM2
PF01
Culvert through marsh
Rec., Duck, Wild.
High asbestos fiber counts
Rec., Wild.
New construction will
discharge
Fish, Rec., Wild.
Cl discharge
Duck, Rec.
CW, WW discharges
Duck, Wild.
Dikes around lagoons,
stop
leak
30. Siren WWTP
Siren (Burnett)
M/2
31. Stockbridge Sanitary District M/2
Stockbridge (Calumet)
32. Three Lakes Sanitary M/2
District #1
Three Lakes (Oneida)
33. Tony STP M/2
Tony (Rusk)
Ash-elm swamp
1977/3 4.0-5.0 7 mi. Cattail marsh
(creek
bed)
NA NA NA Cattail marsh
Bog
1960/20 NA 5 Cattail marsh
-/30 0.050 20 Herbaceous-shrub
marsh
Forested swamp
1974/3.5 0.002 NA Tamarack swamp
to muskrats
PEM1 Discharges to stream, then to
marsh on fill and draw basis
(twice a year for 5 days)
PEM1 Seepage to bog may occur
PF04 Discharge is to marsh
PEM1D Wild.
Discharge is overflow from
lagoon to Mud Creek (a
narrow floodplain)
PAB3D Crop, Wild., Rec.
PEM Thunder Lakes Marsh and
PSS Townline Lake may receive
PF01 discharge
PSSA Wild., Rec.
PF02 Discharge flows from ditch
to wetland to ditch to
Deertail Creek
NA
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
NA
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low
-------
Table 4.2-1
WISCONSIN (concluded)
I
to
.p-
34.
35.
36.
37.
Name
Location
(County)
Turtle Lake Sewer and
Water Department
Turtle Lake (Barron)
Whitehall WWTP
Whitehall (Trempealeau)
Whitewater Municipal
Water Utility Well #6
Whitewater (Walworth)
WDNR-Peninsula State Park
Fish Creek (Door)
Type of
Facility/
Treatment
M+I/2
M+I/3
M
M/2
Operational
Date/No, of Quantity of
Years of Discharge
Discharge (MGD)
HA 0.075
-/5 0.050
1965/15 0.120/
week
-/15 NA
General
Acreage Description
FWS
of Wetland of Wetland Classification
10-20 Cattail-tag alder
marsh
60 Shrub-wooded
swamp
40 Herbaceous, shrub,
wooded marsh
15 Herbaceous marsh
PEM1A
PSS1A
PEM2D
PS SI
PF01
PEM1
PS SI
PF01
PEM1A
PSS
Significant Aspects/
Comments
As of July 1980, hearing
request in conjunction with
AMPI
Odor problems
Overloaded system
Wild. , Duck, Rec.
Irregular dischage to man-made
ditch that enters wetland
Crop, Wild.
Discharge is backwash from
Fe removal filters
Duck
Bog mat vegetation
Potential
as
Study Site
High
High
Moderate
Low
Third lagoon is located in marsh
Discharge on fill and draw basis
(only in spring)
-------
ILLINOIS
Figure 4.2-1. Facilities identified as discharging to a wetland in Illinois.
4-25
-------
I MEDIAN A
Figure 4.2-2. Facilities identified as discharging to a wetland in Indiana.
4-26
-------
MICHIGAN
Figure 4.2-3. Facilities identified as discharging to a wetland in Michigan.
4-27
-------
Figure 4.2-4. Facilities identified as discharging to a wetland in Minnesota.
4-28
-------
Figure 4.2-5. Facilities identified as discharging to a wetland in Ohio.
4-29
-------
M.LT05]
WISCONS
B.
Figure 4.2-6. Facilities identified as discharging to a wetland in Wisconsin.
4-30
-------
Table 4.2-2. Summary of known wetland discharge sites in USEPA Region V by type of facility. Data are current as
of November 1980.
Percent
.p-
U)
V '
Q
Municipal
Industrial
Commercial
Other0
Total
Approximate
Percent of
Region
Illinois
4
1
-
1
6
6
Indiana
4
2
-
3
9
9
Michigan Minnesota
7 28
5
2
" 1
7 36
7 36
Ohio
2
1
-
3
3
Wisconsin
29
7
-
1
37
39
Region V
74
16
2
6
98
100
of Total
76
17
2
6
100
Municipal facilities include water treatment plants.
b
Industrial facilities include creameries.
n
°0ther facilities include parks, mobile home communities, shopping centers, and semi-public facilities such as
truck stops.
-------
Site accessibility was determined for those facilities visited during the
field investigations, as described in Section 4.1.3. Those facilities not
visited were categorized in this regard only in cases where information on
their accessibility was included in files or reports. Similarly, the poten-
tial for sampling at each site was assessed for facilities actually visited.
Both accessibility and potential for sampling were assumed to be high if
previous or current research were known to be conducted on a site.
4.2.1.1 Classification of Wetlands
Each wetland identified as a wastewater discharge site was classified
according to the scheme developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the
National Wetland Inventory (Cowardin et al. 1979). A tentative identification
was made of the type(s) of wetland(s) that were present at each of these
sites, based on the information obtained from agency files and from returned
questionnaires. The classifications for the sites not visted during the
initial field investigations must be considered as approximations only. A
comparison of the general terms for vegetated inland wetlands used in Wiscon-
sin with the terms used in the new USFWS wetland classification scheme is
presented in Table 4.2-3.
It was extremely difficult to identify water regime modifers for each
site from the information on the survey forms. This information also is to be
considered merely an approximation until confirmed through field inspections.
In addition, many of the sites have received treated wastewater for at least
several years, and the present structural characteristics and species composi-
tion of these areas may not be indicative of the conditions of the wetlands
prior to initiation of the discharges.
Based on the estimated classification of each wetland by the USFWS system
(Column 6 of Table 4.1-1), the number of wetlands of each type that presently
receive treated wastewater was estimated for each state (Table 4.2-4). Wet-
lands were grouped into 8 categories on the basis of the combinations of types
of vegetation present. For 14 of the facilities that discharge to wetlands
(15% of the total), the information available was insufficient to classify
according to the USFWS system. These facilities have been listed in a sepa-
4-32
-------
Table 4.2-3. Comparison of general terms for wetlands used in Wisconsin
with terms used in the US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classifi-
cation System (after Novitzki 1979). Wetland plant communities are
listed in sequence from wettest to driest sites.
Local terms used in Wisconsin
(Bedford et al. 1974)
Pond, marsh, sedge meadow, fen, bog
Shrub swamp, shrub fen, shrub bog,
forest bog
Floodplain forest, wooded swamp,
cedar swamp, forested fen
Equivalent terms used in USFWS System3
~ (Cowardin et al. 1979)
Emergent wetland
Scrub/shrub wetland
Forested wetland
aTerms used are classes in this system - descriptors that indicate the general
appearance of the habitat in terms of the dominant life form of the vegetation.
4-33
-------
Table 4.2-4. Summary of wetland discharge sites in USEPA Region V by type of
wetland. The key to the symbols used in the FWS classification system is
given on the first page of Table 4.21. Data are current as of November 1980.
STATE
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
TOTAL
PERCENT
OF TOTAL
1
PAB
PEM
3
2
1
14
0
7
27
28
2
PAB
PEM
PSS
1
3
1
7
0
6
18
18
3
PAB
PEM
PSS
PFO
0
2
1
1
1
13
18
18
4
PML
PEM
PSS
PFO
0
,*
0
1
1
0
1
3
3
5
LAB
LRS
LSS
0
1
1
2
0
0
4
4
6
PAB
PSS
PFO
1
0
0
0
0
4
5
5
7
PFO
0
1
0
1
1
3
6
6
8
RFO
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
9
RAB
PEM
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
10
NA
1
0
0
9
1
3
14
15
11
TOTAL
6
9
7
35
3
36
98
100
Emergent vegetation present with or without open water (PAB, PEM, or PAB/PEM).
2
Emergent and shrub vegetation present with or without open water (PAB/PEM/PSS, or
PEM/PSS).
3
Emergent, shrub, and/or forest vegetation present with or without open water
(PEM/PFO, PEM/PSS/PFO, or PAB/PEM/PSS/PFO).
4Moss/lichen vegetation present in combination with emergent, shrub, and/or forest
vegetation (PML/PFO, PML/PEM/PSS, or PML/PEM/PSS/PFO).
A significant open-water area present (Lacustrine System). A combination of
aquatic, emergent, shrub, and/or forest vegetation surrounded the water body (LSS,
LAB/PEM/PFO, or LRS/PEM).
Shrub and forest vegetation present with or without open water (PAB/PSS/PFO, PSS, or
PSS/PFO).
Forest vegetation present in the Palustrine System (PFO)
Q
Forest vegetation present in the Riverine System (RFO)
q
Riverine aquatic vegetation present with emergent vegetation adjacent to it
(RAB/PEM)
NA - Insufficient information available to classify wetlands.
4-34
-------
rate column and given the designation NA (information not available) (Table
4.2-4). The greatest number of discharges to wetlands in Region V are to
palustrine emergent wetlands associated with river floodplains or streams.
These wetlands are primarily cattail marshes. The numbers in Table 4.2-4 are
estimates made on the basis of limited information, and are presented solely
to provide an overview.
4.2.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Sites
Figures 4.2-1 through 4.2-6 illustrate the geographical distribution of
the 161 sites. The majority identified (37%) were in Wisconsin, and 73 of the
sites (75%) occur in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
4.2.2 Existing, Planned, and Potential Wetland Treatment Sites
At present, three systems designed for the treatment (not merely the
discharge) of secondarily treated wastewater by natural wetlands are opera-
tional in EPA Region V. These include two in Michigan and one in Wisconsin
(Table 4.2-5). During the the inventory, sites were identified at which
discharges to wetlands may be initiated or terminated between 1981 and 1983.
Several of these sites, also listed in Table 4.2-5, may be designed as wetland
treatment systems. It is probable that a number of facilities presently in
operation, under construction, or in various steps of the construction grants
process in USEPA Region V may have wetland discharges during the period 1981-
1985.
No wetlands constructed specifically for the treatment of wastewater from
a municipality or industrial facility currently are in operation in Region V.
One research facility is operating at present on the campus of Michigan State
University in East Lansing, Michigan, and a small pilot facility was operated
at Seymour, Wisconsin, during 1975 by researchers from the University of
Wisconsin at Oshkosh (Spangler et al. 1976). Descriptions of the studies at
both of these sites will be given in a publication being prepared by Hammer
and Kadlec. A constructed wetland has been designed as part of a new treat-
ment facility to be constructed at Bement, Illinois, but the project has since
been abandoned due to a state requirement for limiting the levels of ammonia
to 1.5 mg/1, which was
4-35
-------
Table 4.2-5. Existing, planned, and potential wetland treatment sites in USEPA
Region V.
Treatment Site
I. Natural Wetlands
2
A. Existing
1. Bellaire WWTP
Be Hair e MI
2. Drummond Sanitary
District
Drummond WI
3. Houghton Lake WWTP
Houghton Lake MI
Type of Treatment/ ,
No. Years of Discharge
2°/10
2°/2
2°/3
Comments
Four-point pipeline
Wet meadow/swamp
Multiple-point pipeline
Bog
Multiple-point pipeline
Wet meadow
B. Proposed/Potential"
1. Biwabik WWTP
Biwabik MN
2. Kilkenny WWTP
Kilkenny MN
3. Laona Sanitary
District
Laona WI
Proposed discharge to an
acid bog for 7 months/year
Construction may be com-
pleted during 1982 or 1983
Discharge would be to
culvert that passes
through an unnamed marsh
Presently discharges to
Rat River - discharge will be
rerouted to wetland on US
Forest Service property
Secondary treatment indicated by 2°.
2
Designed as a wetland treatment system.
3
Some wetland sites designated only as discharge points; potential exists for design
of wetland treatment system.
4
Operational systems that treat all of the wastewater discharged by a municipality or
industrial facility.
4-36
-------
determined not attainable with these systems. The constructed system was also
determined not to be cost-effective in this particular case.
4.2.3 Volunteer Wetlands
A special class of wetlands exists because of the direct or indirect
results of the design, construction, and operation of wastewater treatment
facilities. ^Irrigation fields or storage lagoons that receive secondarily
treated wastewater may become wetland ecosystems under certain circumstances.
Based on information obtained during the inventory of discharges for this
study and on personal communications with state agency personnel and univer-
sity researchers, it appears that such "volunteer" wetlands are much more
common in USEPA Region V than has been previously suspected. Volunteer wet-
lands typically include large stands of cattails, and are either periodically
or permanently inundated. They are typified by high water levels due to
artificial dikes or berms. Access to such sites is likely to be prohibited by
the normal isolation, distances, and fencing required at waste treatment
facilities. These wetlands commonly are located close to treatment lagoons or
treatment plants. Flow patterns often are well-defined, and discharges are
under the control of the plant operator.
Discharges to volunteer wetlands have occurred for varying periods of
time at different locations, and none are known to have been studied in de-
tail. The plant communities in such wetlands that have been observed for a
period of years have been reported to develop into cattail monocultures, as is
the case at Vermontville, Michigan (Bevis 1979; Sutherland and Bevis 1979).
This site was determined to treat wastewater effectively in a cost-competitive
manner. No construction was required except for the ponds, and no maintenance
(such as removal of vegetation) was performed (although this may be determined
to be necessary at some point, such as for removal of a buildup of cattail
straw).
As indicated in Section 4.2.1, volunteer wetland vegetation at three land
application sites in Michigan (Table 4.2-6) has developed to the degree that
the sites are assuming the appearance and certain functions of naturally-
occurring wetlands, and the quality of the wastewater passing through each of
4-37
-------
Table 4.2-6. Volunteer wetlands known to exist in USEPA Region V.
Location of Site
Part of Facility/Site Where
Wetland Vegetation Has Developed
1. Lake Odessa and Leona Township
Lake Odessa MI
2. Paw Paw WWTP
Paw Paw MI
3. Vermontville WWTP
Vermontville MI
Spray irrigation fields
Flood irrigation fields
Flood irrigation fields
4-38
-------
these areas is being improved. Based on conversations with various research-
ers and the tendency for wetland plants to colonize stabilization ponds and
areas adjacent to wastewater treatment facilities, many such "unintentional"
artificial wetlands are probably present in Region V.
4-39
-------
5.0. ISSUE PRIORITIES AND ASSIGNMENT OF STUDY TOPICS
5.1 Introduction
Ideally, all of the major issues concerning the effects of wastewater
on wetlands identified during the present study should be included in the
Phase II program. However, completion of detailed sampling programs at
each of the 26 sites designated as having a high potential for further
research is not possible due to cost and manpower limitations. Further-
more, to investigate of all of the major issue categories at even a single
site would also be cost-prohibitive. In view of these limitations and the
need to optimize the types, amounts, and usefulness of the information
gathered in Phase II, U.S. EPA determined that the issues first needed to
be ranked with respect to their overall significance. Such a ranking
procedure will ultimately provide a means of selecting specific issues to
be examined in Phase II as well as establishing funding priorities for the
field sampling program at individual sites. EPA also determined that
generalized study topics needed to be assigned to each major category as a
first step in designing the field sampling program for Phase II. This
approach will contribute to the fine tuning of eventual site-specific
selection criteria for Phase II, in which an actual sampling program will
be designed for each wetland.
Following review of the initial draft Phase I report by the Technical
Advisory Committee, and incorporation of major technical comments, EPA
determined a suitable ranking scheme for the major issues, and assigned
major study topics to each issue category.
Based on an extensive internal discussion and a thorough literature
review of the known effects of wastewater on wetlands, a set of six major
issue categories were selected. These were then ranked relative to each
other based on their overall significance. The issue categories, ranked in
decreasing priority, are as follows:
5-1
-------
Use of constructed wetlands;
Impact on hydrologic regime;
Long-term biological effects;
Legal/regulatory administrative issues;
Mitigation/management issues; and
Disease/health considerations.
The 'following paragraphs summarize the rationale for selecting and ranking
each of the major issue categories, why they are important, and what the
study of these issues will contribute to the Generic EIS.
5.1.1 Use of Constructed Wetlands
Constructed wetlands were assigned top priority for several reasons.
Recent studies have clearly shown that constructed wetlands provide a
highly effective means of achieving either secondary treatment standards on
a year-round basis or advanced treatment standards on a seasonal basis
(Wile et al. 1983). These systems can also be designed to allow control
over the underlying substrate (through liners, trough systems, or choice of
placement). This means that loading rates and subsurface losses to ground-
water, which may or may not occur in a natural wetland are completely
controllable in a constructed wetland. In addition, the type of soil and
vegetation can be selected at will to optimize treatment effectiveness.
Constructed wetlands are also versatile in that they may be used either as
a means of final "polishing" or as the primary means of secondary treat-
ment. The systems developed to date have also been shown to be cost com-
petitive with more standard techniques. Finally, the use of constructed
wetlands for wastewater treatment does not impact existing natural wet-
lands. Therefore the constructed wetland alternative is less controversial
and may not involve an extensive regulatory review process as is the case
with discharges to natural systems. As a cost-effective alternative with
few regulatory difficulties, therefore, constructed wetlands should be
ranked very highly for additional consideration and funding for further
study. No full scale constructed wetland currently exists in U.S. EPA
Region V, however research has been conducted in areas with comparable
climatologic constraints. All of these factors led to the assignment of a
5-2
-------
top priority to the further consideration of the constructed wetland alter-
native. Additional study of this alternative will be a highly valuable
contribution to the draft Generic EIS.
Specific subjects for further study in Phase II would include: (1)
selection of a possible new full-scale constructed wetland site within U.S.
EPA Region V and funding of construction, operation and monitoring studies;
(2) further detailed literature investigation of commonalties between
different types of existing constructed wetlands to determine which fea-
tures produce optimal treatment effectiveness; (3) investigation of the
variation in treatment effectiveness with different soil types; and (4) use
of various woody plant species (as opposed to herbaceous emergents) in
constructed wetlands as a means of improving nutrient removal, especially
for phosphorus.
5.1.2 Impacts on Hydrologic Regime
This issue category was ranked second below constructed wetlands
because changes in the hydrologic regime affect all aspects of wetland
ecology, as discussed in Chapter 3.0. The hydrologic regime also controls
the routes by which water passes through a wetland, thus controlling whet-
her or not losses of relatively untreated wastewater to receiving waters
occur. The hydrologic regime must also be understood well enough to deter-
mine retention times and loading rates for achievement of optimal treat-
ment. Hydrologic studies conducted at selected sites in Phase II are
required as the basis for understanding all other types of impacts, and
will therefore contribute significantly to the Generic EIS. Key study
topics which should be examined further in Phase II and the rationale for
their inclusion are listed in Table 5.1-1.
5.1.3 Long-Term Ecological Impacts
This issue category was ranked highly because wastewater applied to a
wetland has a definite potential for altering the structure and function of
5-3
-------
Table 5.1-1 Key topics relating to impacts of wastewater on hydrologic regime which should be
studied further in Phase II, and the rationale for selecting each topic
Study Topic
Rationale
Floodwater storage ability
Annual water balance
Addition of wastewater could reduce floodwater
storage potential.
Needed to calculate nutrient removal efficiency & to
determine potential changes in water budget due to
added wastewater.
I
P-
Channelization, rates of flow
Residence time
Channelization decreases retention time, rate of flow
also related to retention time, both affect treatment
effectiveness.
Controls treatment effectiveness, affected by numerous
factors.
Depth, velocity
Treatment less effective at deeper depths, higher
velocities.
Groundwater connection
Loading rate
Discharge timing
Area! saturation
Wastewater could seep into groundwater, avoiding
treatment, contaminating groundwater.
High loading rate to a small wetland will result in poor
treatment effectiveness; optimal loading rate exists
for individual wetlands; higher loading rates affect
larger areal extent of receiving wetland.
Full year round discharge may have larger impacts in
smaller time period than seasonal discharge.
Small seasonal discharge affects smaller total area
of wetland, whereas completely saturated wetland may
change or be affected more rapidly.
-------
the resident plant and animal communities. Many questions remain, however,
with respect to the rates at which such changes occur, the kinds of changes
which occur in wetlands of varying types, and the overall changes in value
of the receiving wetland as wildlife habitat. In situations where a small
discharge is applied to a large extensive monoculture of cattail for ex-
ample, only localized ecological changes would be expected. In contrast,
if a small acid bog were to receive a large continuous discharge of alka-
line wastewater, it will eventually be converted to a cattail monoculture,
as has been previously demonstrated. Such changes are of serious concern
to federal agencies required to protect wetland communities from degra-
dation. However, it has been demonstrated in some cases that wastewater
addition may enhance the wildlife value of certain wetlands, such as those
previously degraded by other human activities, so that a wetland discharge
may be feasible in certain cases. Therefore, knowledge must be obtained
concerning the actual long-term ecological impacts of applied wastewater on
several wetlands types in Region V in order to provide an improved predic-
tive capability in these situations. Such information could be obtained by
continuing research at wetland sites that have been studied over long
periods already or by comparing existing ecological conditions of wetlands
of similar types which have received discharges over varying periods of
time and under different loading rates.
Studies of the long-term ecological effects of wastewater therefore
should be given relatively high priority for further information gathering
in Phase II. These studies would provide a valuable contribution to prepa-
ration of the Generic EIS because of the central importance of the degrada-
tion issue. However, long-term ecological effects were ranked below hydro-
logical effects with respect to funding priority, since ecological effects
in wetlands cannot be well understood without first understanding the
impacts on the hydrologic regime.
General ecological study topics which should be investigated in Phase
II and the rationale for each are listed in Table 5.1-2. These topics
would have to be further sub-divided in Phase II, but represent what EPA
has determined to consist of the major areas of importance.
5-5
-------
Table 5.1-2
Summary of ecological study topics to be completed in Phase II, and the rationale for selection
of each.
Study Topic
Rationale
Changes in plant community composition
and areal extent
Changes in wildlife population abundance
and species composition due to changing
water level, changing plant community
Changes in nutrient cycling
Changes in loading of other dissolved
materials and possible ecological effects
Changes in soil composition and chemistry
(soil type, ion exchange capacity,
permeability)
Wetland could be degraded to lower diversity system,
less suitable as wildlife habitat.
Possibly resulting from changes in plant community;
potential loss of valuable wildlife could occur, or
in case of previously degraded wetland, enhancement
could result.
Important to know how wetland removes nutrients,
directly relates to treatment effectiveness.
Effects of chlorine, surfactants, trace metals and
similar substances are of potential concern.
Soil type and chemistry ultimately controls
treatment effectiveness of a wetland since most
removal is via soil (woody plants may also be
significant).
-------
5.1.4 Legal/Administrative/Regulatory Issues
No means currently exists to formally resolve the various legal,
administrative, and regulatory issues surrounding the use of wetlands,
either as a point of discharge or as a means of treatment of wastewater.
Reed and Kubiak (1983) have suggested a procedure for incorporation of the
wetland alternative into the 201 planning process. This issue was given
priority because of the serious concern expressed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, various state agencies, and other organizations during
the preparation of the present study. U.S. EPA recognized that a means
needs to be developed for early planning and good decision making when
wetland-wastewater alternative are under consideration. Essentially what
is needed is a means to resolve the various conflicts between different
agencies and organizations relative to the major legal issues surrounding
the degradation question. This will be the key to arriving at mutually
agreeable inter-agency decisions on individual permits and monitoring where
wetland discharges are involved. There may be specific cases where a
wetland discharge may actually enhance a previously degraded wetland.
There may also be cases where use of a wetland discharge is an alternative
that results in minimizing impacts on an adjacent valuable lake or stream
habitat. Further analysis of the legal and administrative issues surround-
ing wetland discharges in Phase II will therefore contribute significantly
to the Generic EIS by providing a first step in understanding the details
surrounding these issues.
In Phase II, therefore, U.S. EPA will prepare a technical report which
will expand greatly on each of the legal/regulatory and administrative
issues discussed in Section 3.9 of the present report. Study topics will
include detailed analysis of issues surrounding the Clean Water Act, the
Executive Orders on wetlands and floodplains, and all applicable state laws
and regulations.
5.1.5 Mitigation/Management Issues
This issue category was determined to be significant because a variety
of measures can be taken to minimize the potentially adverse impacts of
5-7
-------
wastewater on a receiving wetland. Certain management techniques can also
be employed to enhance wildlife habitat and simultaneously increase or
maintain treatment effectiveness. Key study topics in Phase II which
relate to mitigation and/or management, and the' rationale for selecting
these topics, are summarized in Table 5.1-3. The information developed by
further study of these topics will be an important contribution to the
Generic EIS since in these cases, the key to inter-agency conflict resolu-
tion may be mitigation whether it consists of early planning, actual struc-
tural techniques, or wildlife management techniques.
5.1.6 Disease/Health Issues
This was determined to be a major issue because of the potential for
transmission of disease or health impacts because of direct toxicity of the
effluent to wetland organisms and humans. However, studies of disease-re-
lated impacts at wetland treatment facilities to date have shown that such
investigations, especially for viral organisms, are extremely costly, and
produce results that are hard to interpret. Also, the Houghton Lake stud-
ies done to date have indicated that the chemical and physical environment
of wetlands is hostile for certain types of viruses, which implies that in
some cases the disease problem is not as serious a concern as might be
expected. Nevertheless, selected studies should be conducted in Phase II
in order to develop an improved understanding of disease and health related
issues since the potential for disease transmission does exist and is
poorly understood.
Key topics for Phase II should include: (1) studies of viral or bac-
terial pathogens which could be transmitted between humans and animals; (2)
studies of protozoan parasites (i.e., Giardia) and botulism (produced by
bacterial pathogen); (3) studies of the effects of wastewater on health and
disease problems in mammals; and (4) possible means of disinfecting efflu-
ents. All of this information will contribute to the preparation of the
Generic EIS by providing an improved understanding of potential disease/
health problems associated with wetland discharges.
5-8
-------
Table 5.1-3 Summary of mitigation/management study topics for Phase II and rationale for selecting each
Study Topic
Rationale
Ui
Management;
Wildlife management techniques
Fisheries management techniques
Public access/recreation/education
Human contact
Mitigation;
Planning methods (non-structural)
Structural mitigation
Various techniques are being or have been developed
to optimize waterfowl habitat by water level control.
Many important species utilize wetlands as spawning
areas or forage habitat; means to optimize fish
production, if possible, should be determined.
Means should be sought to optimize wetlands
receiving wastewater for recreation or outdoor
education.
If a very large area is involved and there is a
concern for human health problems, means to minimize
this problem need to be determined.
Methods of conflict resolution during "201" planning
should be developed in detail.
Measures such as elevated walkways, controlled dis-
persed discharges, depth control, pre-chlorination,
construction under frozen conditions, etc., should be
developed.
-------
6.0. FUTURE STUDIES
This final technical report culminates the Phase I efforts in the
overall process of preparing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on
the Effects of Wastewater Treatment Facilities on Wetlands in the Midwest.
It has presented the results of a comprehensive literature review, a sum-
mary of all known wetland discharge sites, and a ranking of the priority
study topics to be evaluated at potential study sites. Phase II will
encompass the necessary step to develop the information for completion of a
Draft and Final EIS. These steps will include execution of a two year
effort in gathering field data, publication of an annotated bibliography in
cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and development of a
legal/regulatory requirements document. When these steps have been com-
pleted, the scope of the Generic EIS will be defined in more depth based on
compiled data, and the Draft and Final EIS documents will be written.
6.1. Phase II Study
6.1.1. Field Work
The field work required to fill the identified data needs will be
conducted in two steps. The first step will be to evaluate the sites with
high potential for further examination. This step will necessitate site
visits to select those sites which have the most merit for Phase II studies
and identification of potential cooperative universities or agencies wil-
ling to participate in exchange of information. Once the sites have been
selected and study teams have been established, the second step will be to
conduct the necessary field work over a two year period.
6.1.2. Publish Annotated Bibliography
USEPA Region V will soon publish an Annotated Bibiliography on the
Ecological Impacts of Wastewater Application to Wetlands in cooperation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This document will include
an annotated bibliography published as part of the draft version of this
Technical Report and an expanded search on freshwater wetlands. The new
6-1
-------
document provides an introduction and background, a listing of abstracts by
authors name and an index to subjects, by words, and geographical locations
and a study guide for users.
6.1.3. Legal and Regulatory Consideration
Based upon the notice of intent and the scoping meeting for this EIS,
a major issue that has surfaced is the legal question and lack of clarity
on the use of wetlands for waste treatment. One specific concern is whet-
her this use of wetlands is consistant with the regulations and Executive
Orders covering wetland protection. To date, there is little precedent
regarding the application of these laws, regulations, or administrative
procedures to provide guidance in this area. As part of the Phase II
report, EPA Region V will be preparing a technical report on the legal,
administrative, and regulatory issues. This document will inventory
Federal and state laws, regulations, and procedures and will focus exten-
sively on problem solving and explore different means of possible conflict
resolution.
6.2. Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement
When the Phase II studies are completed, EPA will follow up on the
scoping of EIS issues that have evolved, and initiate the preparation of
the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of wastewater
treatment facilities on wetlands in the Midwest. Additional scoping may
occur during Phase II. EPA will publish a Draft Generic EIS for public
review and comment, and a Final Generic EIS responding to the input re-
ce ived.
6-2
-------
7.0. LIST OF PREPARERS
The USEPA Project Monitor, the WAPORA staff, and the consultant involved
in the preparation of this draft report are indicated below.
Personnel
USEPA
Catherine G. Garra
WAPORA, Inc.
Steven D. Bach
Senior Biologist
Kathleen M. Brennan
Senior Biologist
Jan D. Dillard
Policy Analyst
Alyse Gardner
Biologist
Tara J. Kidd
Assistant Biologist
J. Ross Pilling II
Senior Planner
Project Assignment
Project monitor
Professional Discipline
M.R.P. (Regional Planning)
Field surveys; preparation
of final report; preparation
of introduction, executive sum-
mary, and sections on nutrient
cycling and removal, vegetation,
invertebrates, insects, admin-
istrative review/conflict
resolution, and issue priori-
tization and study topics
Ph.D (Botany)
Project .manager of prelimi-
nary draft; preparation of
all wildlife sections; and
all sections of preliminary
draft
Legal/Administrative/
regulatory considerations
Hydrology/disease
sections
Inventory; production of
preliminary draft
Project manager of final
report; preparation of final
report; sections on
constructed wetlands (in-
cluding executive summary);
site screening, study methods
for selected sites, future
studies
M.S. Zoology (Ecology)
Ph.D. (Political
Science)
B.S. (Environmental
Science)
B.S. (Environmental
Biology and Botany)
M.R.P. (Regional
Planning)
7-1
-------
Personnel Project Assignment Professional Discipline
Gregory L. Seegert Fish biology M.S. (Zoology)
Biologist
Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group
University of Michigan
Robert H. Kadlec Consultant; Physical and Ph.D. Chemical
Professor, Chemical Chemical Components; Design; Engineering
Engineering Constructed Wetlands
7-2
-------
8.0. LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, D. R. , J. L. Laake, B. R. Grain, and K P. Burnham. 1979. Guide-
lines for line transect sampling of biological populations. Journal of
Wildlife Management 43(1):70-78.
Anthony, R. G., and G. W. Wood. 1979. Effects of municipal wasterwater irri-
gation on wildlife and wildlife habitat. pp. 213-223, In; Sopper, W.
E., and S. N. Kerr (Editors), Utilization of Municipal Sewage Effluent
and Sludge on Forest and Msburbed Land. The Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity Press, University Park PA.
Azharia Jahn, Samia. 1976. Sudanese native methods for the purification of
Nile water during the flood season. p. 95-106, In: Biological control
of water pollution. J. Tourbier and R. W. Pierson, Jr. (Editors).
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Baker, F. C. 1910. The ecology of the Skokie Marsh area, with special refer-
ence to the mollusca. Bulletin of the Illinois State Laboratory of
Natural History 8(4):441-499.
Barret, G. W., G. M. Van Dyne, and E. P. Odum. 1976. Stress Ecology. Bio-
Science 26(3):192-194.
Bates, R. C., T. B. Shaffer, and S. M. Sutherland. 1977. Development of
poliovirus having increased resistance to chlorine in activation. Ap-
plied and environmental microbiology 34(6):849-853.
Bayley, S. E. 1983. The effect of natural hydroperiod flueuations on
fresh water wetlands receiving added nutrients. (Draft Manuscript). In;
Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters,
Proceedings of a Workshop, June 23-25, 1982, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection
Agency.
Bedinger, M. S. 1978. Relation between forest species and flooding.
p. 427-435, In: Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors),
Wetland Functions and Values: the State of Our Understanding. American
Water Resources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Bellrose, F. C. 1976. (Revised 1978). Ducks, geese, and swans ' of North
America. Sponsored jointly by the Wildlife Management Institute and the
Illinois Natural History Survey. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg PA, 540 p.
Bellrose, F. C., and J. B. Low. 1978. Advances in waterfowl management
research. Wildlife Society Bulletin 6(2):63-72.
Benforado, J. 1981. Ecological considerations in wetland treatment of muni-
cipal wastewater. pp. 307-323, In: The Midwest Conference on Wetland
Values and Management, June 1981, St. Paul MN. Minnesota Water Planning
Board; Water Resources Research Center, University of Minnesota; Upper
Mississippi River Basin Commission;, and the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
8-1
-------
Benforado, J. 1981. Environmental concerns of wetland/wastewater treatment
systems. Paper presented at the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and
Management, June 17-19, 1981, St. Paul MN.
Benforado, J. 1981. Personal communication, by letter, from J. Benforado,
USFWS, Washington DC, Eastern Energy and Land Use Team to Catherine
Garra, USEPA Region V Chicago IL, 22 July 1981.
Berg, G. 1967. Transmission of viruses by the water route. New York, NY:
Interscience Publishers.
Bergman, R. D. , R. L. Howard, K. F. Abraham, and M. W. Weller. 1977. Water-
birds and Their Wetland Resources in Relation to Oil Development at Stor-
kersen Point, Alaska. US Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication
No. 129, 38 p.
Bevis, F. B. 1979. Ecological considerations in the management of waste-
water-engendered volunteer wetlands. The Michigan Wetlands Conference,
July 10-12, Higgins Lake MI, 19 p.
«
Bierei, G. R., G. W. Wood, and R. G. Anthony. 1975. Population response and
heavy metals concentrations in cottontail rabbits and small mammals in
wastewater irrigated habitat. pp. 1-9, In: Wood, G. W., et al. (Edi-
tors) , Faunal Response to Spray Irrigation of Chlorinated Sewage Efflu-
ent. Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources Research Pub-
lication 87. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park PA.
Bitton, G., and N. Masterson. 1975. Virus: effect of dome water on the
movement of poliovirus type 1 and bacteriophage T through a sandy soil
sampled at sewage dome 1, pp. 383r384. In_ H. T. OTum, K. C. Ewel, J. W.
Ordway, and M. K. Johnston (eds.), Cypress Wetlands for Water Management,
Recycling and Conservation. Second Annual Report. Center for Wetlands.
Univ. of Florida. Gainesville.
Blumer, K. 1978. The use of wetlands for treating wastes - wisdom in diver-
sity, pp. 182-201, In; Drew, M. A. (Editor). Environmental Quality
Through Wetlands Utilization. Proceedings of a Symposium, 28 February -
2 March 1978, at Tallahassee FL. The Coordinating Council on the Resto-
ration of the Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough
Basin, Tallahassee FL.
Boesch, D. F. 1977. Application of numberical classification in ecological
investigations of water pollution. Special Scientific Report No. 77,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Boto, K. G., and W. H. Patrick, Jr. 1979. Role of wetlands in the removal
suspended sediments. pp. 479-489, In; Greeson, P. E. , J. R. Clark, and
J. E. Clark (Editors). Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our
Understanding. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Boyd, C. E. 1970. Vascular aquatic plants for mineral nutrient removal
from polluted waters. Econ. Bot. 241:95-103.
8-2
-------
ioyt, F. L., S. E. Bayley, and J. Zoltek, Jr. 1977. Removal of nutrients
I from treated municipal wastewater by wetland vegetation. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation 49(5):789-799.
irierley, J. A., D. K. Brandvold, and C. J. Popp. 1975. Waterfowl refuge
effect on water quality: 1. Bacterial populations. Journal of Water
' Pollution Control Federation 47(7):1,892-1,900.
l
irinson, M. M. 1983. Management potential for nutrient removal in forested
wetlands. (Draft Manuscript). In; Ecological Considerations in Wet-
lands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a Workshop,
June 23-25, 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. US Fish and
Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
irinson, M. M., H. D. Bradshaw, and E. S. Kane. 1981. Nitrogen cycling and
assimilative capacity of nitrogen and phosphorus by riverine wetland
forests. Water Resour. Res. Inst., University of North Carolina,
| Raleigh NC; Rep. No. 167, 90 p.
Jrown, J. L. and R. S. Farnham. 1976. Use of peat for wastewater filtration,
principles and methods. Proc. 5th Internatl Peat Congress, Poznan,
Poland, Vol. 1, p. 349-357.
Srown, R. J. (Editor). 1978. Water pollution in estuaries and coastal zones,
Volume 2: A bibliography with abstracts. NTIS/PS-78/1176. Springfield
VA, 252 p.
irown, S. 1981a. A comparison of the structure, primary reproductivity, and
transpiration of cypress ecosystems in Florida. Ecol. Monogr. 51:403-
427.
Brown, S. 1981b. Personal communication by letter on 29 June 1981 from
Dr. S. Brown, University of Illinois Department of Froestry, Urbana 1L,
with Catharine Garra, USEPA Region V, Chicago IL.
iBrown, S., M. M. Brinson, and A. E. Lugo. 1979. Structure and function of
riparian wetlands. pp. 17-31, In; R. R. Johnson and J. F. McCormike
(tech. coord.). Strategies for protection and management of floodplain
wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. Washington DC; USDA Forest
Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12.
Buffington, J. D. 1976. A synthetic definition of biological significance.
pp. 319-327, In: Sharma, R. K., J. P. Buffinton, and J. T. McFadden
(Editors), The Biological Significance of Environmental Impacts. Pro-
ceedings of a Workshop, 4-6 June 1975, The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor MI. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.
Buffington, J. D., R. K. Sharma, and J. T. McFadden. 1980. Assessment of
ecological damage: consensus. pp. 25-32, In: Biological Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts. Proceedings of a Symposium at the 1976 Meeting of
the Ecological Society of America and the American Institute of Bio-
logical Sciences. Council on Environmental Quality and US Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/065-80/26.
8-3
-------
Buikema, A. L., and E. F. Benfield. 1980. Effects of pollution on freshwater
invertebrates. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 52(6):
2,670-2,686.
Burke, W. 1975. Fertilizer and other chemical losses in drainage water from
a blanket fog. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 14:163-178.
Burns, K. A. and J. M. Teal. 1971. Hydrocarbon incorporation into the salt
marsh ecosystem from the West Falmouth oil spill. Technical report,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Falmouth MA, 28 p.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1976. Estimating the assimilative capacity of water ecosys-
tems, pp. 173-189, _In: Sharma, R. K., J. P. Buffington, and J. T.
McFadden (Editors), The Biological Significance of Environmental Impacts.
NR-CONF-002. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.
Carter, V., M. S. Sedinger, R. P. Novitzki, and W. 0. Wien. 1978. Water
resources and wetlands. pp. 344-376, In; Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark,
and J. E. Clark (Editors), Wetland Functions and Values: The State of
Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Cedarquest, N. W., and W. M. Roche. 1979. Reclamation and reuse of waste-
water in the Suisun Marsh, California. Presented at the American Water
Works Association Research Foundation Water Reuse Symposium held 25-30
March 1979, Washington DC. Volume 1. p. 685-702.
Cederquist, N. 1980a. Suisun Marsh management study. Progress report on the
feasibility of using wastewater for duck club management, July 1980. US
Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service, Sacramento
CA, 45 p.
Cederquist, N. 1980b. Suisun Marsh management study. 1979-1980 progress
report on the feasibility of using wastewater for duck club management,
September 1980. US Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources
Service, Sacramento CA, 61 p.
Chang, A. C. and A. L. Page. (1978) Toxic chemicals associated with land
treatment of wastewater. In; McKim, Harlan L. (Coordinator) State of
knowledge in land treatment of wastewater. Volume 1. Proceedings of an
international symposion, 20-25 August 1978. Sponsored by US Army Corps
of Engineers. Hanover NH, p. 323-331.
Chamie, J. P. M. 1976. The effects of simulated sewage effluent upon decom-
position, nutrient status, and litter fall in a central Michigan peat-
land. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI,
110 p.
Christie, A. E. 1967. Virus reduction in the oxidation lagoon. Water Poll.
Control 105:50-54.
Chutter, F. M. 1972. An empirical biotic index of the quality of water in
South African streams and rivers. Water Res. 6:19-30.
8-4
-------
Cody, T. E. , V. J. Ella, C. S. Clark, and R. T. Christian. 1979. Integrated
use of bioassays and chemical analyses to evaluate the quality of reuse
water. Presented at the American Water Works Association Research Foun-
dation Water Reuse Symposium held 25-30 March, Washington DC. Denver CO,
p. 2,230-2,238.
Colt, J., S. Mitchell, G. Tchobanoglous, and A. Knight. 1979. The use and
potential of aquatic species for wastewater treatment. Appendix B. The
environmental requirement of fish. Publication No. 65, California State
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento CA.
Colt, J., S. Mitchell, G. Tchobanoglous, and A. Knight. 1980a. The use and
potential of aquatic species for wastewater treatment. Appendix C. The
environmental requirements of crustaceans. Publication No. 65, Cali-
fornia State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento CA.
Colt, J., S. Mitchell, G. Tchobanoglous, and A. Knight. 1980b. The use and
potential of aquatic species for wastewater treatment. Appendix D. The
environmental requirements of freshwater bivalves. Publication No. 65,
California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento CA.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifica-
tion of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS/
79-31. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
of Biological Services, Washington DC, 103 p.
Craun, G. F. 1979a. Waterborne giardiasis in the United States: a review.
American Journal of Public Health 69.
Darnell, R. , W. E. Pequenat, B. M. James, F. J. Benson, and R. A. Defenbaugh.
1976. Impacts of construction activities in wetlands of the United
States. EPA-600/3-76-045. US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis OR, 393 p.
Davis, C. B., J. L. Baker, A. van der Valk, and C. E. Beer. 1981. Prairie
pothole marshes as traps for nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural
runoff. pp. 127-134, In; The Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and
Management, June 1981, St. Paul MN. Minnesota Water Planning Board,
University of Minnesota, Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission and the
Great Lakes Basin Commission.
Davis, C. B., and A. G. van der Valk. 1978b. Litter decomposition in prairie
glacial marshes, pp. 99-113, In; Good, R. E., D. F. Whigham, and R. L.
Simpson (Editors), Freshwater Wetlands, Ecological Processes and Manage-
ment Potential. Academic Press Inc., New York NY.
Davis, C. B., and A. G. van der Valk. 1978b. Litter decomposition in prairie
glacial marshes. p. 99-113, In; Good, R. E., D. F. Whigham, and R. L.
Simpson (Editors), Freshwater Wetlands, Ecological Processes and Manage-
ment Potential. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London.
Davis, C. B., and A. G. van der Valk. 1978a. The decomposition of standing
and fallen litter of Typha glauca and Scirpus fluviat_ilis. Canadian
Journal of Botany, 56:662-675.
8-5
-------
Davis, C. B. and A. G. van der Valk. 1978c. Mineral release from the litter
of Bidens cernua L., a mudflat annual at Eagle Lake IA. Verb. Internatl
Verein. Limnol., 20:452-457.
Davis, D. G. 1978. Environmental Protection Agency programs relating to
riparian ecosystems, pp. 336-340, In; Johnson, R., and J. F. McCormick
(Technical Coordinators), Strategies for Protection and Management of
Floodplains, Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems. GTR-WO-12. Pro-
ceedings of a Symposium, 11-13 December 1978, Callaway Gardens GA. US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington DC.
Davis, G. J., and M. M. Brinson. 1980. Responses of submersed vascular plant
communities to environmental change. FWS/OBS-79/33. Prepared by East
Carolina University, Greenville NC, for the National Water Resources
Analysis Group, Eastern Energy and Land Use Team. US Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington DC, 70 p.
Davis, S. M., and L. A. Harris. 1978. Marsh plant production and phosphorus
flux in Everglades Conservation Area 2. pp. 105-131, In; Drew, M. A.
(Editor), Environmental Quality Through Wetlands Utilization. A Sym-
posium on Freshwater Wetlands, 28 February-2 March 1978. The Coordinat-
ing Council on the Restoration of the Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor
Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin, Tallahassee FL.
Day, J. W., Jr., and G. Paul Kemp. 1983. Long-term impacts of agricultural
runoff in a Louisiana swamp forest (draft manuscript). In: Ecological
Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceed-
ings of a Workshop, 23-25 June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
de la Cruz, A. A. 1978. Primary production processes: summary and recom-
mendations, pp. 79-88, In; Good, R. E. , D. F. Whigham, and R. L.
Simpson (Editors), Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Man-
agement Potential. Academic Press Inc., New York NY.
Delaune, R. D., W.' H. Patrick, Jr., and R. J. Buresh. 1978. Sedimentation
rates determined by CS-137 dating in a rapidly accreting salt marsh.
Nature 225:532-533.
Demgen, F. C., and J. W. Nute. 1979a. Marsh enhancement program: conceptual
plan for Mt. View Sanitary District, Contra Costa County CA, 143 p.
Demgen, F. C., and B. J. Blubough. 1979b. Mt. View Sanitary District marsh
enhancement pilot program. Progress report No. 3 to the Mt. View Sani-
tary District, Contra Costa County CA, 50 p.
Demgen, F. C. 1979a. Wetlands creation for habitat and treatment at Mt. View
Sanitary District, California, pp. 61-73, In; Bastian, R. K., and S. C.
Reed (Project Officers), Aquaculture Systems for Wastewater Treatment:
Seminar Proceedings and Engineering Assessment. US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction
Division, Washington DC.
8-6
-------
Demgen, F. C. and J. W. Nute. 1979b. Wetland creation using secondarily
treated wastewater. Presented at the American Water Works Association
Research Foundation Water Reuse Symposium, 25-30 March 1979, Washington
DC. Volume 1, p. 727-739..
Dickson, K. L., J. Cairns, Jr., J. R. Clark, and J. H. Rodgers. 1978. Evalu-
ating pollution stress on ecosystems. p. 80-83, In: Flynn, K. C., and
W. T. Mason (Editors), The Freshwater Potomac - Aquatic Communities and
Environmental Stresses. Proceedings of a Symposium, January 1977, Col-
lege Park MD. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rock-
ville MD.
Dodge, D. E. and J. B. Low (1972). Logan lagoon good for ducks. Utah
Science 33(2): 55-57.
Dolan, T. J., S. E. Baylay, J. Zoltek, Jr., and A. Hermann. 1978. The Cler-
mont project: removatiou of treated effluent by a freshwater marsh, pp.
132-152, In; Drew, M. A. (Editor), Environmental Quality Through Wet-
lands Utilization. Proceedings of a Symposium, 28 February -2 March
1978, Tallahassee, Florida. The Coordinating Council on the Restoration
of the Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin.
Tallahassee FL.
Dornbush, J. N. and J. R. Anderson (1969). Ducks on the wastewater pond.
Water and Sewage Works 3(6): 271-276.
Duffus, J. H. 1980. Environmental toxicology. John Wiley and Sons, New
York NY, 164 p.
Dykyjova, D. 1978. Nutrient uptake by littoral communities of halophytes.
pp. 257-277, In: Dykyjova, D. , and J. Kvet (Editors), Pond Littoral
Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Eilers, H., A. Taylor and W. Sanville. 1981. Marine wetland boundary defini-
tion: evaluation of methodology. USEPA Office of Research and Develop-
ment Corvillis, Oregan. CERL-054.
Emlen, J. T. 1971. Population densities of birds derived from transect
counts. The Avk 88:323-342.
Environmental Law Institute. 1980. Untitled notice, National Wetlands News-
letter 2(6):3.
Epstein, L., and G. R. Safir. 1981. Plant diseases associated with municipal
wastewater irrigation. Paper presented at the Conference on Vegetation
Management for Municipal Wastewater Land Application Systems: Great
Lakes Region of the United States, Michigan State University, East Lans-
ing MI, 23-24 February 1981. (preliminary draft)
Errington, P. L. 1943. An Analysis of Mink Predation Upon Muskrats in North-
Central United States. Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Research
Bulletin 320:798-924.
8-7
-------
Errington, P.L. 1943. An analysis of mink predation upon muskrats in north-
central United States. Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Research
Bulletin 320:798-924.
Errington, P. L. 1963. Muskrat populations. Iowa State University Press.
Ames. Iowa 665 pp.
Ewel, K. C. 1979. Cypress wetlands for tertiary treatment. Paper presented
at the Conference on Freshwater Wetlands and Sanitary Wastewater Dis-
posal, "Wetland Utilizaton for Management of Community Wastewater,"
10-12 July 1979, Higgins Lake MI. Williams and Works, Inc., and The
University of Michigan, and the National Science Foundation.
Ewel, K. C., and H. T. Odum. 1978. Cypress swamps for nutrient removal and
wastewater recycling. pp. 181-198, jn; Wanielista, M. P., and W. W.
Eckenfelder, Jr. (Editors), Advances in Water and Wastewater Treatment:
Biological Nutrient Removal. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann
Arbor MI.
Ewel, K. C., and H. T. Odum. 1979. Cypress domes: nature's tertiary treat-
ment filter. pp. 103-114, In; Sopper, W. E., and S. N. Kerr (Editors),
Utilization of Municipal Sewage Effluent and Sludge on Forest and Dis-
turbed Land. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
PA.
Fay, R. C., J. A. Vallee, and P. Brophy. 1978. An analysis of fish catches
obtained with an otter trawl in Santa Monica Bay, 1969-73. Calif. Fish
and Game 64:104-116.
Fetter, C. W., Jr., W. E. Sloey, and F. L. Spangler. 1978. Use of a natural
marsh for wastewater polishing. Journal of Water Poll. Contr. Fed.,
50:290-307.
Filer, T. H. 1972. Evaluation of the impact of fungal diseases on trees
in Rodman Reservoir and the adjacent Oklawaha Forest. Appendix 26 II 8.
Final environmental statement: Proposal of Oklawaha River, Ocala Na-
tional Forest, Florida, 3 vols. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Finley, M. T. , and R. C. Stendell. 1978. Survival and reproductive success
of black ducks fed methyl mercury. Environmental Pollution 16:51-64.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1979. Rules of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation, Chapter 17-4.243, Tallahassee FL.
Fox, J. P. 1976. Human-associated viruses in water. pp. 39-49, In; Berg,
G., H. L. Bodily, E. H. Lannette, J. L. Melnick, and T. G. Metcalfe (Edi-
tors), Viruses in Water. American Public Health Association, Washington
DC.
Fox, J. C., and P. R. Fitzgerald. 1979. The presence of Giardia lamblia
cysts in sewage and sewage sludges from the Chicago area. In; Jakubow-
ski, W., and J. C. Huff (Editors), Waterborne Transmission of Giardiasis.
EPA-600/9-79-001, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati OH.
8-8
-------
Frederickson, L. 1978. Lowland hardwood wetlands: current status and
habitat values for wildlife. pp. 296-306, In: Greeson, P. E., J. R.
Clark, and J. K. Clark (Editors), Wetland Function and Values - The State
of our Understanding. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands,
American Water Resources Association, Buena Vista, Florida, 7-10 November
1978.
Frenkel, R. E., T. Boss, and S. R. Schuller. 1978. Transition zone vegeta-
tion between intertidal marsh and upland in Oregon and Washington.
Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Friend, Milton. 1983. Wildlife health implications of sewage disposal in
wetlands. In; Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Muni-
cipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a workshop, 23-25 June 1982, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US
Environmental Protection Agency.
Fritz, W. R., and S. C. Helle. 1977. Tertiary treatment of wastewater using
cypress wetlands. Report to the National Science Foundation. NSF-ENV76-
23276. Boyle Engineering Corporation, Orlando FL, 96 p.
Fritz, W. R., and S. C. Helle. 1978a. pp. 69-81, In; Drew, M. A. (Editor).
Environmental Quality Through Wetlands Utilization. Proceedings of a
Symposium, 28 February - 2 March 1978, Tallahassee FL. The Coordinating
Council on the Restoration of the Kissimmee River Valley and the Taylor
Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin.
Fritz, W. R., and S. C. Helle. 1978b. Cypress wetlands for tertiary treat-
ment. Final report to the National Science Foundation. Orlando FL,
variously paged, 54 p. plus appendices.
Fritz, W. R., and S. C. Helle. 1979. Cypress wetlands for tertiary treat-
ment, pp. 75-81, In; Bastian, R. K., and S. C. Reed (Project officers),
Aquaculture Systems for Wastewater Treatment: Seminar Proceedings and
Engineering Assessment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction Division, Washington DC.
Fuller, R. J., and D. E. Glue. 1980. Sewage works as bird habitats in
Britain. Biological Conservation 17(3):165-181.
Gallagher, J. L. 1978. Decomposition processes: summary and recommenda-
tions, pp. 145-151, In; Good, R. E., D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson
(Editors), Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management
Potential. Academic Press Inc, New York NY.
Gallepp, G. W. 1979. Chironomid influence on phosphorus release in sediment-
water microcosms. Ecology 60:547-556.
Garbisch, E. W., Jr. 1977. Recent and planned marsh establishment work
throughout the contiguous United States - a survey and basic guidelines,
technical report D-77-3. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg MS.
8-9
-------
Garbisch, E. W., Jr. 1978. Wetland rehabilitation. FWS/OBS-78/97. pp. 217-
219, In; Montanari, J. H., and J. A. Kusler (Co-chairmen). Proceedings
of the National Wetland Protection Symposium, 6-8 June 1977, Reston VA.
US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Bio-
logical Services, Washington DC.
Gardner, G. M., D. Q. Thompson, A. E. Lugo, and D. J. Pool (eds.). 1972.
An environmental assessment of Lake OklawahaRodman Reservoir. A report
to the President's Council on Environmental Quality and the secretary of
the Army prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department
of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Geldreich, E. E. 1980. Microbiology of water. Journal of the Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation 52(6):1,774-1,800.
Gerloff, G. C., and Krombholz, P. H. 1966. Tissue analysis as a measure of
nutrient availability for the growth of angiosperm aquatic plants.
Limnol. and Oceanogr., 11:529-537.
Gerloff, G. C. 1975. Nutritional ecology of nuisance aquatic plants. EPA-
660/3-75-027. Ecological Research Series.
Gerloff, G. C. 1975. Nutritional ecology of nuisance aquatic plants. EPA-
660/3-75-027. Ecological Research Series.
Giblin, A. E. 1982. Uptake and remobilization of heavy metals in salt mar-
shes. Boston University, Boston MA. Ph.D. dissertation, 283 p.
Giblin, A. E. 1983. Comparisons of the processing of elements by ecosystems:
II-metals. (draft manuscript) In; Ecological Considerations in Wet-
lands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a Workshop,
23-25 June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and
Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Gilbert, M. C., M. W. Freel, and A. J. Beiber. 1980. Remote sensing and
field evaluation of wetlands in the sandhills of Nebraska. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Omaha, NE. 65 pp.
Godshalk, G. L. , and Wetzel, R. G. 1978. Decomposition in the littoral
zone of lakes. In: Freshwater wetlands: ecological processes and man-
agement potential. Good, R. E.; Whigham, D. F.; and Simpson, R. L.
(eds.). Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London, pp. 131-143.
Gorham, E. 1961. Factors influencing supply of major ions to inland waters,
with special reference to the atmosphere. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 72:
795-840.
Gorham, E. 1979. Classification of boreal and subboreal freshwater wetlands.
Unpublished manuscript. Department of Ecology and Behavioral Biology,
University of Minnesota.
8-10
-------
Gosselink, J. G. , and R. E. Turner. 1978. The role of hydrology in fresh-
water wetland ecosystems. pp. 63-78 In; Freshwater Wetlands: Ecolog-
ical Processes and Management Potential. R. E. Good, D. F. Whitham, and
R. L. Simpson (Editors). Academic Press, New York NY.
Goyal, S. M., and C. P. Gerba. 1979. Comparative adsorption of human entero-
viruses, simian rotarirus, and selected bacteriophages to soils. Applied
Environmental Microbiology 38.
Grabow, W. 0. K. 1968. The virology of wastewater treatment a review
paper. Water Res. 2:675.
Greeson, P. E. , J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark. 1979. Wetland Functions and
Values: The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of the National
Symposium on Wetlands. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis
MN, 674 p.
Grimes, D. Jay. 1983. Microbiological studies of municipal waste release
to aquatic environments. In: Ecological Considerations in Wetlands
Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a workshop, 23-25
June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife
Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Guntenspergen, Glenn, and Forest Stearns. 1981. Ecological limitations on
wetland use for wastewater treatment. p. 241-254, In: The Midwest
Conference on Wetland Values and Management, June 1981, St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Water Planning Board, University of Minnesota, Upper Missis-
sippi River Basin Commission, and the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
Guntenspergen, G. R. , and F. Stearns. 1983. Ecological perspectives on
wetland systems (draft manuscript). In; Ecological Consideration in
Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a workshop,
23-25 June 1981, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and
Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Guntenspersen, G. R., W. Kappel, and F. Stearns. 1980. Response of a bog to
application of lagoon sewage: The Drummond Project an operational
trial. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Peat Congress, 1980
August 17-23, Duluth, MN, pp. 559-561.
Haley, C. E. , R. A. Gunn, J. M. Hughes, E. C. Lippy, and G. F. Craun. 1980.
Outbreaks of waterborne disease in the United States, 1978. J. Infect.
Dis. 141:794:799.
Hammer, D. E. , and R. H. Kadlec. 1980. Orthophosphate adsorption on peat.
(Draft). 6th International Peat Congress, Duluth MN, 19 p.
Hammer, D. E., and R. H. Kadlec. 1982. (Preliminary Draft).
Design Principles for Wetland Treatment Systems. Work conducted under
cooperative agreement between USEPA, Robert S. Kerr Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, Ada OK, and the University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor MI.
8-11
-------
Hantzche, N. N. 1983. Wetland Systems for Wastewater Treatment: Engineering
Applications (draft manuscript). jn; Ecological Considerations in
Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a workshop,
23-25 June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and
Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Harmston, F. C., and L. J. Ogden. 1976. Mosquito problems associated with
man-made impoundments in western and mid-western United States.
Harris, S. W., and W. E. Marshall. 1963. Ecology of water-level manipula-
tions on a northern marsh. Ecology 44(2):331-343.
Hartland-Rowe, R., and P. B. Wright. 1975. Effects of sewage effluent on a
swampland stream. Verhand. Intern. Verein. Limnol. 19:1575-1583.
Harvey, H. T., M. J. Kutilek and K. M. DiVittorio. 1978. Determination of
transition zone limits in coastal California wetlands. Report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Heal, 0. W., and R. A. H. Smith. 1978. Introduction and site description.
pp. 3-16, In: 0. W. Heal and D. F. Perkins (eds.). Production ecology
of British moors and montane grasslands. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Heimburg, K. 1976. Hydrology and water budgets of cypress domes, pp. 56-67,
jn; Odum, H. T. , K. C. Ewel, J. W. Ordway, and M. K. Johnson (Editors),
Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and Conservation. Third
annual report to the Natural Science Foundation. Center for Wetlands,
University of Florida, Gainesville FL.
Heinz, G. 1979. Methylmercury: reproductive and behavioral effects on
three generations of mallard ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:
394-401.
Heliotis, F. D. 1982. Wetland systems for wastewater treatment: operating
mechanisms and implications for design. Instructional Program, Institute
for Environmental Studies; University of Wisconsin-Madison. IES Report
No. 117. 68 pp.
Hemond, H. F. 1980. Biogeochemistry of Thoreau's Bog. Concord MA. Eco-
logical
Monographs 50:507-526.
Hemond, H., and W. Nuttle. 1983. Significance of hydrology to wetland nu-
trient
processing (draft document). jn: Ecological Considerations in Wetlands
Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a workshop, 23-25
June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife
Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Herman, C. M. 1969. The impact of disease on wildlife populations. Bio-
Science 19(4):321-325.
8-12
-------
Hess, A. D., F. C. Harmston, and R. 0. Hayes. 1970. Mosquito and arbivorous
disease problems of irrigated areas in North America. pp. 443-459, In;
CRC. Critical Reviews in Environmental Controls.
Hinesly, T. D., R. E. Thomas, and R. G. Stevens (1978) Environmental changes
from long-term land application of municipal effluents. USEPA, Office of
Water Program Operations. Publication No. MCD-26, Washington, B.C. 31 p.
Hodson, Robert E., A. E. Maccubbin, R. Benner, and R. E. Murray. 1983.
Microbial transformations of detrital carbon in wetland ecosystems:
effects of environmental stress. In: Ecological Considerations of
Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a Workshop,
23-25 June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and
Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Hoehn, R. C., C. W. Randall, F. A. Bell, and P. T. B. Shaffer. 1977. Trihalo-
methanes and viruses in a water supply. American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Journal of Environmental Engineering Division. 103(EE5):803-814.
Huff, D. D.; Koonce, J. F.; Ivarson, W. R.; Weiler, P. R.; Dettmann, E. H.;
and Harris, R. F. 1973. Simulation of urban runoff, nutrient loading,
and biotic response of a shallow eutrophic lake. In: Modeling the eutro-
phication process. Middlebrooks, E. J.; Falkenborg, D. H.; and Maloney,
T. E. (eds.). Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University,
Logan, Utah, pp. 33-55.
Hunter, B. F., W. E. Clark, P. J. Perkins, and P. R. Coleman. 1970. Applied
botulism research including management recommendations a progress
report. Wildlife Management Branch, California Department of Fish and
Game. The Resources Agency, Sacramento CA, 87 p.
Hussong, D., et al. 1979. Microbial impacts of Canada geese (Branta canaden-
sis) and whistling swans (Cygnus columbianus cplumbianus) on aquatic
ecosystems. Applied Environmental Microbiology 37:14.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1975. A treatise on limnology. Volume III. Limnological
bontany. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hynes, H. B. N., ad N. K. Kaushik. 1969. The relationship between dissolved
nutrient salts and protein in submerged autumnal leaves. Verh. Internat.
Verein. Limnology 17:95-103.
Janssen, W. A. 1970. Fish as potential vectors of human bacterial diseases.
pp. 284-290, In; Snicszko, S. F. (Editor), A Symposium on Diseases of
Fishes and Shell Fishes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication
Number 5. Washington DC.
Jaworski, E., and C. N. Raphael. 1978. Fish, wildlife, and recreational
values of Michigan's coastal wetlands, Phase I of coastal wetlands value
study in Michigan. Prepared for Great Lakes Shorelands Section, Division
of Land Resource Programs, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Printed by US Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities MN, 209 p.
8-13
-------
Jetter, W. 1974. Animal poulations at two cypress domes, pp. 537-588, jn:
Odum, H. T., K. Ewel, and J. Ordway (Editors), Cypress Wetlands for Water
Management, Recycling, and Conservation. First Annual Report to the
National Science Foundation. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida,
Gainesville FL.
Jetter, W., and L. D. Harris. 1976. The effects of perturbation on cypress
dome animal communities. In; Cypress Wetlands for Water Management,
Reclycling and Conseration. Third Annual Report* to N.S.F. and The Rocke-
feller Foundation, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville FL.
Johnson, M. G. and R. 0. Brinkhurst. 1971. Associations and species diver-
sity in benthic macroinvertebrates of Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario. J.
Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 28:1683-1697.
Jones, R. C. 1980. Primary production, biomass, nutrient limitation, and
taxonomic composition of algal communities epiphytic on the submersed
macrophyte myriophyllum spicatum L_. in a hardwater, eutrophic lake.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Judd, W. W. 1939. Insects collected in the Dundas Marsh, Hamilton, Ontario,
1936-1947, with observations on their periods of emergence. The Canadian
Entomologist 81:1-10.
Judd, W. W. 1953. A study of the population of insects emerging as adults
from the Dundas Marsh, Hamilton, Ontario during 1948. American Midland
Naturalist 49:801-824.
Judd, W. W. 1958. Studies of the Byron Bog in Southwestern Ontario. IX.
Insects trapped as adults emerging from Redmond's Pond. The Canadian
Entomologist 90:623-627.
Judd, W. W. 1960. Studies of the Byron Bog in Southwestern Ontario. XI.
Seasonal distribution of adult insects in the Chamaedaphneum calyculatae
association. The Canadian Entomologist 92:241-251.
Judd, W. W. 1961. Studies of the Byron Bog in Southwestern Ontario. XII.
A study of the insects emerging as adults from Redmond's Pond in 1957.
American Midland Naturalist 65:89-100.
Kadlec, J. A. 1962. Effects of a drawdown on a waterfowl impoundment.
Ecology 43:167281.
Kadlec, J. A. 1979. Nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in inland freshwater
wetlands, pp. 17-41, In; Bookhout, T. A. (Editor), Waterfowl and Wet-
lands - An Integrated Review. Proceedings of a Symposium, 39th Midwest
Fish and Wildlife Conference, Madison WI, 5 December 1977. La Crosse
Printing Company, LaCrosse WI.
Kadlec, R. H. (Editor) 1979a. Wetland utilization for management of commun-
ity wastewater - 1978 operations summary. Houghton Lake wetlands treat-
ment project. Report to the National Science Foundation. Grant ENV-
23868. Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group, College of Engineering, The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 103 p.
8-14
-------
Kadlec, R. H. 1978. Wetlands for tertiary treatment. pp. 490-504, In;
Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors), Wetland Func-
tions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water Re-
sources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Kadlec, R. H. 1980. Monitoring report on the Bellaire wastewater treatment
facility. Utilization Report No. 4, February. Wetlands Ecosystem Re-
search Group, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
MI, 48 p.
Kadlec, Robert H. 1981a. How natural wetlands treat wastewater.. pp. 241-
254, In; The Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management, June
1981,~~St. Paul MN. Minnesota Water Planning Board, Univerity of Minne-
sota, Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, and the Great Lakes Basin
Commission.
Kadlec, R. H. 1981b. Monitoring report on the Bellaire wastewater treatment
facility. 1980. Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group, College of Engineer-
ing, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 56 p.
Kadlec, R. H. 1983. Aging phenomena in wastewater wetlands (draft manu-
script) . In: Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Muni-
cipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a Workshop, 23-25 June 1982, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US
Environmental Protection Agency.
Kadlec, R. H. , and D. E. Hammer. 1980. Wetland utilization for management
of community wastewater - 1979 Operations Summary. Houghton Lake wet-
lands treatment project. Report to the National Science Foundation,
Grant ENV-23868. Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group, College of Engineer-
ing, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 77 p.
Kadlec, R. H., and D. E. Hammer. 1981. Wetland utilization for management of
community wastewater - 1980 Operations Summary. Houghton Lake wetlands
treatment project. Report to the National Science Foundation. Grant
ENV-23868. Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group, College of Engineering,
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 77 p.
Kadlec, R. H. , and D. E. Hammer. 1982. Wetland utilization for management
of community wastewater - 1982 Operations Summary. Houghton Lake wet-
lands treatment project. Report to the National Science Foundation,
Grant ENV-23868. Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group, College of Engineer-
ing, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 69 p.
Kadlec, R. h., and D. E. Hammer. 1983. Wetands utilization for management
of community wastewater - 1982 Operations Summary. Houghton Lake wet-
lands treatment project. Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group, College of
Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 67 p.
Kadlec, R. H., and D. L. Tilton. 1978. Wastewater treatment via wetland irri-
gation: nutrient dynamics. pp. 153-170, In; Drew, M. A. (Editor), En-
vironmental Quality Through Wetlands Utilization. Proceedings of a
Symposium, 28 February-2 March 1978, Tallahassee FL. The Coordinating
Council on the Restoration of the Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor
Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin.
8-15
-------
Kadlec, R. H. , and D. L. Tilton. 1979. The use of freshwater wetlands as a
tertiary wastewater treatment alternatve. CRC Critical Reviews in Envi-
ronmental Control 9(2):185-212.
Kadlec, R. H. , and J. A. Kadlec. 1979. Wetlands and water quality (theme
paper). pp. 436-456, In; Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark
(Editors). Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understand-
ing. American Wat4er Resources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Kadlec, R. H%, D. L. Tilton, and B. R. Schwegler. 1979. Wetlands for ter-
tiary treatment: a three-year summary of pilot scale operations at
Houghton Lake. Report to the National Science Foundation. Wetlands Eco-
system Research Group, College of Engineering, The University of Michi-
gan, Ann Arbor MI, 96 p.
Kadlec, R. H. , D. E. Hammer, D. L. Tilton, L. Rosman, and B. Yardley. 1978.
First annual operations report - Houghton Lake wetland treatment project.
Prepared in coooperation with the Houghton Lake Sewer Authority and
Williams & Works, Inc., Ann Arbor MI, 87 p.
Kalter, S. S. , and C. H. Millstein. 1976. Animal-associated viruses in
water. pp. 50-60, In; Berg, G., H. L. Bodily, E. H. Lannette, J. L.
Melnick, and T. G. Metcalf (Editors), Viruses in Water. American Public
Health Association, Washington DC.
Kamppi, A., 1971. J'a teveden suoimeytys: Tutkimus jatevedon suoimeytt-
amoista, j' otka olivat toiminnassa Suomessa 1970. Vesihalli tusNational
board of waters, Finland. Tiedotus Report A4.
Kappel, W. M. 1979. The Drummond project-applying sewage lagoon effluent to
a bog: an operational trial. p. 83-89, In: Bastian, R. K., and S. C.
Reed (project officers). Aquaculture Systems for Wastewater Treatment:
Seminar Proceedings and Engineering Assessment. US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction
Division, Washington DC.
Katzenelson, E., and S. Kedmi. 1979. Unsuitability of polio viruses as indi-
cators of virological quality of water. Applied Environmental Microbio-
logy 37.
Kelley, R. , and M. A. Harwell. 1983. Comparisons of processions of elements
by ecosystems: Nutrients (draft manuscript) In; Ecological Considera-
tions in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a
Workshop, 23-25 June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US
Fish and Wildlife Servide and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Kelly, S., and W. W. Sanderson. 1958. The effect of chlorine in water on
enteric viruses. Am. J. Public Health 48:1323-1334.
Keeney, D. R. 1972. The fate of nitrogen in aquatic ecosystems. Liter-
ature Review No. 3, Water Resources Center, Eutrophication Information
Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
8-16
-------
Kendeigh, S. C. 1961. Animal ecology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs
NJ, 468 p.
Kibby, E. V., J. L. Gallagher and W. D. Sanville. 1980. Field guide to
evaluate net primary production of wetlands. EPA-600/8-80-037.
Klopatek, J. M. 1975. The role of emergent macrophytes in mineral cycling
in a freshwater marsh, pp. 367-393, In; Howell, F. G., J. B. Gentry,
and M. H. Smith (Editors), Mineral Cycling in Southeastern Ecosystems.
Technical Information Center, US Energy Research and Development Adminis-
tration. Conference 740513. Oak Ridge TN.
Knighton, M. D., and D. E. Streblow. 1979. Study plan: changes in a bog
community following application of a secondary lagoon effluent. Unpub-
lished report. USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment
Station, Grand Rapids, MN, 11 p.
Kowal, N. T. , and H. R. Pahren. 1980. Health effects associated with waste-
water treatment and disposal. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation 52(6).
Kowalczewski, A. 1975. Periphyton primary production in the zone of
submerged vegetation of Mikolajski Lake. Ecol. Pol., 23(4):509-543.
Krebs, C. J. 1972. Ecology. The experimental analysis of distribution and
abundance. Harper and Row, New York NY, 694 pp.
Krecker, F. W., 1939. A comparative study of the animal population of certain
submerged aquatic plants. Ecology 20:553-562.
Krull, J. N. 1970. Aquatic plant macroinvertebrate associations and water-
fowl. Journal of Wildlife Management 34(4):707-718.
Kvet, J. 1975. Growth and mineral nutrients in shoots of Typha latifolia.
L. Symp. Biol. Hung. 15:113-123.
Ladd, W» N., Jr. 1978. Continental habitat status and long-range trends.
In: Third international waterfowl symposium, Ducks Unlimited; New Orleans
LA, pp. 14-19.
Lagler, K. F. 1956. The pike, Esox lucius linneaus, in relation to waterfowl
on the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan. Journal of Wildlife
Management 20(2):114-124.
Lakshman, G. 1979. An ecosystem approach to the treatment of waste waters.
Journal Environmental Quality 8(3):353-361.
Landin, M. C. 1979. The importance of wetlands in the north central and
northeast United States to non-game birds, pp. 179-188, In; DeGraaf, R.
M., and K. E. Evans (Compilers), Management of North Central and North-
eastern Forests for Non-game Birds. Proceedings of a Workshop, 23-25
January 1979, Minneapolis MN. US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service general technical report NC-51. Washington DC.
8-17
-------
Larson, J. L. (Editor). 1976. Models for assessment of freshwater wetlands.
Publication No. 32, completion report FY-76-5. Water Resources Research
Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA, 91 p.
Larson, J. S., and 0. L. Loucks (Editors). 1978. Workshop report on research
priorities for wetland ecosystem analysis. The Institute of Ecology,
University of Georgia, Athens GA, 19-21 June 1978. National Wetlands
Technical council, National Science Foundation, Washington DC, 68 p.
Larson, J. S., 0. L. Loucks, and J. Clark. 1978. Programs and priorities for
wetlands research developed by the National Wetlands Technical Council.
pp. 243-244, In; Montanari, J. H., and J. A. Kusler (Co-chairmen), Pro-
ceedings of the National Wetland Protection Symposium, 6-8 June 1977,
Reston VA. FWS/OBS-78/97. US Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington DC.
Larson, C. L. 1981. Effects of wetland drainage on surface runoff. Paper
presented at the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management, St.
Paul, Minnesota, June 17-19.
Lee, C. R. , T. C. Sturgis, and M. C. Landin. 1976. A hydroponic study of
heavy metal uptake by selected marsh plant species. Technical report
D-76-5. Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg MS.
Lee, G. B. 1977. Wetland soils of the upper midwest, pp. 12-23, In; De-
Witt, C. B., and E. Soloway (Editors), Wetlands Ecology, Values, and
Impacts. Proceedings of the Waubesa Conference on Wetlands, Institute
for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Lewis, B. G. , P. C. Chee, R. M. Goldstein, F. C. Korgenay, D. L. Mabes, L. F.
Scholt, and W. S. Vinikour. 1978. A biologist's manual for the evalua-
tion of impacts of coal-fired power plants on fish, wildlife, and their
habitats. FWS/OBS-78/75. Prepared by Division of Environmental Impact
Studies, Argonne National Laboratory, for US Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Power Plant Team. Ann Arbor MI, 206
P.
Li, W. C., D. E. Armstrong, J. D. H. Williams, R. F. Harris, and J. K. Syers.
1972. Rate and extent of inorganic phosphate exchange in lake sediments.
Soil Scientists of America Procedures, 36:279-284.
Liu, 0. C., H. R. Seraichekar, E. W. Akin, D. A. Brashear, E. L. Katz, and
W. J. Hill. 1971. Relative resistance of twenty human enteric viruses
to free chlorine in Potomac waters, p. 171-195, In; V. Snoeyink and V.
Griffin (Editors), Proceedings of the 13th Water Quality Conference,
University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL.
Lorman, J. G., and J. J. Magnuson. 1979. The role of crayfishes in aquatic
ecosystems. Fisheries 3(6):8-10.
Macek K. J. et al (1977). Considerations in assessing the potential for and
significance of biomagnification of chemical residues in aquatic food
chains. In; Aquatic Toxicology. L. L. Marking and R. A. Kimerle (eds.).
Amer. Soc. Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.
8-18
-------
McCaffrey, R. J. 1977. A record of the accumulation of sediment and trace
metals in a Connecticut salt marsh. New Haven CT. Yale University,
Ph.D. dissertation, 156 p.
McDermott, J. H. 1974. Virus problems and their relation to water supplies.
Journal of American Water Works Association 66:693-698.
McKim, J. 1962. The inshore benthos of Michigan waters of southeastern
Michigan. University of Michigan, M.S. Thesis.
McLarty, A. W. Unpublished. In; Nichols, D. S. No date. Capacity of
Natural Wetlands to Remove Nutrients from Sewage. Unpublished paper
submitted to the Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. USDA
Forest Service, Grand Rapids MN, 24 p.
McLintock, J. and J. Iversen. 1975. Mosquitoes and human disease in Canada.
Can. Entoraol. 107:695-704.
Martien, R. F., and A. C. Benka. 1977. Distribution and production of two
crustaceans in a wetland pond. American Midland Naturalist 98(1):162-
175.
Mechenich, D. J. 1980. Tertiary wastewater treatment using a natural peat
bog. Master's thesis, College of Natural Resources, University of Wis-
consin, Stevens Point WI, 136 p.
Momot, W. T., H. Cowing, and P. D. Jones. 1978. The dynamics of crayfish
and their role in ecosystems. American Midland Naturalist 99(1):10-35.
Moizuk, G. A. and R. B. Livingston. 1966. Ecology of red maple (Acer rubrum
L.) in a Massachusetts bog. Ecology 47(6):942-950.
Moore, P. D. , and Bellamy, D. J. 1974. Peatlands. Springer-Verlag, New
York NY.
Moulton, D. W., W. I. Jensen, and J. B. Low. 1976. Avian botulism epizooti-
ology on sewage oxidate ponds in Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management
40(4):735-742.
Mudroch, A., and J. A. Capobianco. 1979. Effects of treated effluent on a
natural marsh. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 51(9):
2243-2256.
Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation
ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York 547 pp.
Mulligan, H. F. and A. Baranowski. 1969. Growth of phytoplankton and vascu-
lar aquatic plants at different nutrient levels. Int. Verein. Theor.
Limnol. 17:802-810.
Mulligan, H. F., A. Baranowski, and P. Johnson. 1976. Nitrogen and phos-
phorus fertilization of aquatic vascular plants and algae in replicated
ponds: initial response to fertilization. Hydrobiologis 48:109-116.
8-19
-------
Nalepa, T. F., and M. Quigley. 1980. Freshwater macroinvertebrates. Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation 52(6):1,686-1,703.
Nessel, J. K. , and S. E. Bailey. 1980. Distribution and Dynamics of Organic
Matter and Phosphorus in a Sewage-Enriched Cypress Swamp. In; H. E.
Odum and K. C. Ewel (Editors), Cypress Wetlands for Water Management,
Recycling and Conservation. Fifth Annual Report to NSF and Rockefeller
Foundation, NSF Grant //PFR-7706013 AOZ, Rockefeller Foundation Grant
//RF-76034.
ft
Neill, W. T. 1951. Notes on the role of crayfishes in the ecology of rep-
tiles and fishes. Ecology 32(4):764-766.
Nichols, D. S. 1980a. Developing environmentally safe procedures for sewage
waste treatment using organic soils and peat materials. A problem analy-
sis for problem no. 3. Work Unit NC-1602; 4310 Watershed Management
Research. USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station,
Grand Rapids MN, 54 p.
Nichols, D. S. 1980b. Nutrient removal from wastewater by wetlands. Paper
presented at the 6th International Peat Congress. Duluth MN. USDA,
Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Grand Rapids MN,
23 p.
Nichols, D. S. 1980c. Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients
from sewage. USDA, Forest Service, Grand Rapids MN, 24 p. plus refer-
ences and illustrations.
Nissen, P. 1973. Multiphasic uptake in plants. I. Phosphate and sulfate.
Physiol. Plant., 28:304-316.
Novitzki, R. P. 1978. Hydrologic characteristics of Wisconsin's wetlands and
their influence on floods, stream flow, and sediment, pp. 377-388, In;
Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors), Wetland Functions
and Values: The State of our Understanding. American Water Resources
Association, Minneapolis MN.
Nute, J. Warren, and W. E. Nute. 1979. p. 1-15, In; Marsh/Forest Demonstra-
tion Project Feasibility Assessment. J. Warren Nute, Inc., Civil and
Sanitary Engineers.
Odum, E. P, 1978. The value of wetlands: a hierarchical approach. pp.
16-25, In; Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors),
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Pro-
ceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands. American Water Resources
Association, Minneapolis MN.
Odum, H. T. 1956. Primary production in flowing water. Limnology and Oceano-
graphy 1:102-117.
Odum, H. T. 1978. Principles of interfacing wetlands with development.
pp. 29-56, In; Drew, M. A. (Editor), Environmental Quality Through
Wetlands Utilization. The Coordinating Council on the Restoration of the
Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin.
8-20
-------
Pahren, H. R. and Ulmer, U.S. 1979. Trace element analyses of several ad-
vanced wastewater treatment plant effluents. In; Water Reuse Symposium
2269 AWWA Research Foundation Denver, Colo.
Pahren, H. R., J. B. Lucas, J. A. Ryan, and G. K. Dotson, 1979. Health risks
associated with land application of a municipal sludge. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation 5:2588-2601.
Patrick, W. H. , Jr., and R. A. Khalid, 1974. Phosphate release by sorption
by soils and sediments: effects of aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
Science, 186:53-55.
Pelikan, J. 1978. Mammals in the reedswamp ecosystem. In: Pond littoral
ecosystems. Dykyjova, D., and Kvet, J. (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, pp. 357-365.
Penn, G. H. 1950. Utilization of crawfishes by cold-blooded vertebrates in
the eastern United States. American Midland Naturalist 44(3):643-658.
Pennak, R. W. 1978. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York NY, 803 p.
Pilling, J. Ross II. 1978. Design of a marsh/pond sewage treatment system
for a 10-unit housing development. Masters thesis, Department of Land-
scape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia PA, 74 p.
Ponnameruma, F. N. 1972. The chemistry of submerged soils, pp. 29-96, In:
Brady, N. C. (Editor), Advances in Agronomy, Volume 24. Academic Press,
New York, San Francisco, London.
Prentki, R. T. , T. D. Gustafson, and M. S. Adams. 1978. Nutrient movements
in lakeshore marshes, pp. 169-194, In: Good, R. E., D. F. Whigham, and
R. L. Simpson (Editors), Freshwater Wetlands, Ecological Processes and
Management Potential. Academic Press, Inc., New York NY.
Quade, H. W. 1969. Cladoceran faunas associated with aquatic macrophytes
in some lakes in northwestern Minnesota. Ecology 50(2):170-179.
Ranthum, R. G. 1969. The food habits of several species of fish from pool
19, Mississippi River. Masters thesis, Iowa State University, Ames LA,
207 p.
Rappaport, S. M. et al. (1979). Mutagenic activity in organic wastewater
concentrates. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 13,957.
Reed, C. A., and T. Kubiak. 1983. (draft manuscript). An ecological evalua-
tion procedure for determing wetlands suitability for wastewater dis-
charge/ treatment. In; Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment
of Municipal Wastewaters, Proceedings of a Workshop, 23-25 June 1982,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife Service
and US Environmental Protection Agency.
8-21
-------
Reed, S. C., and R. K. Bastian (Project officers). 1980. Aquaculture Systems
for Wastewater Treatment: An Engineering Assessment. EPA-430/9-80-007.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations,
Municipal Construction Division, Washington DC, 127 p.
Reed, S. C., R. K. Bastian, and W. Jewell. 1979. Engineering assessment of
aquaculture systems for wastewater treatment: an overview. pp. 1-12,
In; Bastian, R. K., and S. C. Reed (Editors), Aquaculture Systems for
Wastewater Treatment: Seminar Proceedings and Engineering Assessment.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations,
Municipal Construction Division, Washington DC.
Reynolds, B. J. 1976. An example of sewage disposal by spray irrigation.
pp. 218-220, In; Berg, G., H. L. Bodily, E. H. Lennette, J. L. Melnick,
and T. G. Metcalf (Editors), Viruses in Water. American Public Health
Association, Inc., Washington DC.
Richardson, C. J. , D. L. Tilton, J. A. Kadlec, J. P. Chamie, and W. A. Wentz.
1978. Nutrient dynamics in northern wetland ecosystems. pp. 217-241,
In; Good, R. E. , D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (Editors), Freshwater
Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Academic
Press, Inc., New York NY.
Richardson, C. J., W. A. Wentz, J. P. M. Chamie, J. A. Kadlec, and D. L. Til-
ton. 1976. Plant growth, nutrient accumulation, and decomposition in a
central Michigan peatland used for effluent treatment. pp. 77-118, In:
Tilton, D. L., R. H. Kadlec, and C. J. Richardson (Editors). Freshwater
Wetlands and Sewage Effluent Disposal. Proceedings of a National Sympos-
ium, 10-11 May 1976, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
Rosine, W. N. 1955. The distribution of invertebrates on submerged aquatic
plant surfaces in Muskee Lake CO. Ecology 36(2):308-314.
Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American
Naturalist 102: 243-282.
Schlesinger, W. H. 1978. Community structure, dynamics, and nutrient cycling
in the Okefenokee cypress swamp forest. Ecological Monographs. 48(1):
43-65.
Seidel, K. 1976. Macrophytes and water purification, pp. 109-121, In; Tour-
bier, J., and R. W. Pierson, Jr. (Editors), Biological Control of Water
Pollution. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia PA.
Semkin, R. G., A. W. McLarty, and D. Craig. 1976. A water quality study of
Cootes Paradise. Water Resources Assessment, Technical Support Section,
Ministry of the Environment, West Central Region, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Sheladia, V. L. , R. D. Ellender, and R. A. Johnson. 1982. Isolation of en-
terovirus from oxidation pond waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 43:
971-974.
8-22
-------
Shiaris, P. Michael. 1983, Public Health Implications of Sewage Applications
on Wetlands: Microbiological Aspects. (draft manuscript) In; Ecolog-
ical Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters.
Proceedings of a workshop, 23-25 June 1981, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection
Agency.
Shuval, H. I. 1976. Water needs and usage: the increasing burden of entero-
viruses on water quality. p. 12-25, jn; G. Berg et al. (Editors),
Viruses in Water. American Public Health Association, Washington DC.
Simpson, G. G. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688.
Sloey, W .E., F. L. Spangler, and C. W. Fetter, Jr. 1978. Management of
freshwater wetlands for nutrient assimilation, pp. 321-340, In; Good,
R. E. , D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (Editors), Freshwater Wetlands:
Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Academic Press, Inc., New
York NY.
Small, M. M. 1976. Data report, marsh/pond system. Preliminary Report
No. 50600. US Energy Research and Development Administration. Brook-
haven National Laboratory, Upton NY, 28 p.
Smith, G. R. 1978. Botulism, waterfowl, and mud. British Veterinary Journal
134(5):407-411.
Smith, L. W. 1969. The relationship of mosquitoes to oxidation pond lagoons
in Columbia MO. Mosquito News 29(4):557-563.
Snider, J. R., and G. W. Wood. 1975. The effects of wastewater irrigation
on the activities and movements of songbirds. pp. 20-49, In; Wood, G.
W. et al. (Editors), Faunal Response to Spray Irrigation of Chlorinated
Sewage Effluents. Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources
Research Publication 87, The Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia
PA.
Southwood, T. R. E. 1981. Ecological methods, with particular references
to the study of insect populations. John Wiley and Sons, New York NY,
524 p.
Spangler, F. L., C. W. Fetter, Jr., and W. E. Sloey. 1977. Phosphorus
acculation-discharge cycles in marshes. Water Resources Bulletin 13(6):
1,191-1,201.
Spangler, F. L. , W. E. Sloey, and C. W. Fetter, Jr. 1976a. Artificial and
natural marshes as wastewater treatment systems in Wisconsin. pp. 215-
240, In; Tilton, D. L. , R. H. Kadlec, and C. J. Richardson (Editors),
Freshwater Wetlands and Sewage Disposal. Proceedings of a National
Symposium, 10-11 May 1976, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
Spangler, F. L., W. E. Sloey, and C. W. Fetter, Jr. 1976b. Experimental use
of emergent vegetation for the biological treatment of municipal waste-
water in Wisconsin. pp. 161-171, JLn_: Tourbier, J., and R. W. Pierson,
8-23
-------
Jr. (Editors), Biological Control of Water Pollution. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia PA.
Spangler, F. L., W. E. Sloey, and C. W. Fetter, Jr. 1976c. Wastewater treat-
ment by natural and artifical marshes. EPA-600/2-76-207. US Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Ada OK, 184 p.
Sproul, 0. J. 1976. Removal of viruses by treatment procedures, p. 167-179,
In; G. Berg et al. (Editors), Viruses in Water. American Public Health
Association, Washington DC.
Standridge, J. H. et al. 1979. Effect of waterfowl (Anas platyrhynchos) on
indicator bacterial populations in a recreational lake in Madison WI.
Applied Environmental Microbiology 38:547.
Stanforth, R. R. 1976. Phosphorus uptake from flowing waters by Myriophyl-
lum spicatum L^. MS Thesis, Water Chemistry Program, University of Wis-
consin-Madison .
*
Stanley Consultants. 1977. New Orleans-Baton Rouge metropolitan area, Louisi-
ana, water resources study. Wastewater treatment by marsh application
work report. Submitted to US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
New Orleans District. Atlanta GA, 147 p.
Stanlick, H. T. 1976. Treatment of secondary effluent using a peat bed.
JLn: Freshwater wetlands and sewage effluent disposal. Tilton, D. L.;
Kadlec, R. H.; and Richardson, C. J. (eds.). The University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 257-268.
Stearns, F. 1978. Management potential: summary and recommendations.
pp. 357-363, In: Good, R. E., D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (Edi-
tors), Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Poten-
tial. Academic Press, Inc., New York NY.
Stephenson, M., G. Turner, P. Pope, A. Knight, and G. Tchobanoglous. 1980.
The use and potential of aquatic species for wastewater treatment.
Appendix A. The environmental requirements of aquatic plants. Publica-
tion No. 65. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento
r& t
Stowell, R., R. Ludwig, J. Colt, and G. Tchobanoglous. 1980. Toward the
rational design of aquatic treatment systems. Paper presented at the
American Society of Civil Engineers spring convention, Portland OR.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis CA, 59
p.
Stumm, W., and Morgan, J. J. 1981. Aquatic chemistry: an introduction
emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural waters. Second Edition,
Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto.
780 pp.
8-24
-------
Surakka, S. and A. Kamppi, 1971. Infiltration of wastewater into peat soil.
Suo 22:51-58.
Sutherland, J. C. 1977. Investigation of the feasibility of tertiary treat-
ment of municipal wastewater stabilization pond effluent using river
wetlands in Michigan. National Science Foundation, Grant ENV76-20812.
William and Works, Inc., Grand Rapids MI, 171 p.
Sutherland, J. C. 1979. A wetland wastewater feasibility determination pro-
cedure and related subjects for discussion and research. Presented at
the American Water Works Association Research Foundation Water Reuse
Symposium, 25-30 March 1979, Washington DC, 9 p.
Sutherland, C. 1981. Economic implications of using wetlands for wastewater
treatment. pp. 295-305, Jin: The Midwest "Conference on Wetland Values
and Management." Proceedings of: a Workshop, June 1981, St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Water Planning Board, University of Minnesota, Upper Missis-
sippi River Basin Commission, and the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
Sutherland, J. C. 1983. Wetland-wastewater economics (draft manuscript).
In: Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wa°te--
waters. Proceedings of a Workshop, 23-25 June 1982, University of L-^sa
chusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Environments-
Protection Agency.
Sutherland, J. C., and F. B. Bevis. 197^. Reuse of municipal wastewater by
volunteer freshwater wetlands. yp 762-781, In: The American Water
Works Association Research Foundati. i Water Reuse Symposium, 25-30 March
1979, Washington DC. Volume 1.
Sutherland, J. C., and R, II. Kadlec (Coordinators). 1979. Wetland Utiliza-
tion for Management of Community Wastewater. Conference abstracts.
Presented 10-12 July 1979. Higginus . ake MI, 31 p.
Swanson, G. A. 1977. Diet food selection by Anatinae on a waste-stabiliza-
tion system. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(2):226-231.
Swanson, G. A. 1978a. A simple lightv/eight core sampler for quantitating
waterfowl foods. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(3):426-428.
Swanson, G. A. 1978b. A water column eampler for intertebrates in shallow
wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(3):670-672.
Tamm, C. 0. 1951. Chemical composition of birch leaves from drained mire,
both fertilized with wood ash and unfertilized. Svensk Bot. Tidsk.
45(2):309-319.
Tchobanoglous, G., and G. L. Culp. 1980, «etland systems for wastewater
treatment: an engineering assessment. p. 13-42, In; Reed, S. C., and
R. K. Bastian (Project officers). iquaculture Systems for Wastewater
Treatment: An Engineering Assessment. EPA 430/9-80-007. US Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Municipal
Construction Division, Washington DC.
8-25
-------
Tchobanoglous, G., R. Stowell, R. Ludwig, J. Colt, and A. Knight. 1979. The
use of aquatic plants and animals for the treatment of wastewater: an
overview. Department of Civil Engineering and Department of Land, Air,
and Water Resources, University of California, Davis CA.
Tchobanoglous, G. , R. Stowell, R. Ludwig, J. Colt, and A. Knight. 1980. The
use of aquatic plants and animals for the treatment of wastewater: an
overview. Proceedings of a Seminar on Aquaculture Systems for Wastewater
Treatment, Davis CA, 11-12 September 1979. Department of Civil Engineer-
ing and Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of
California, Davis CA, 21 p.
Teal, J. M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia. Ecol-
ogy 43(4):614-624.
Tiffin, L. 0. 1977. The form and distribution of metals in plants: an over-
view, pp. 315-334. In; H. Drucker, and R. E. Wildung (eds.), Biological
Implications of Metals in the Environment. ERDA Symposium Series No. 42.
Energy Research and Development Administration,, Washington, DC.
Thompson, D. 1973. Feeding ecology of diving ducks on the Keokuk pool,
Mississippi River. Journal of Wildlife Management 37(3):367-381.
Tilton, D. L., and R. H. Kadlec. 1979. The utilization of a freshwater wet-
land for nutrient removal from secondarily treated wastewater effluent.
Journal of Environmental Quality 8(3):328-334.
Tilton, D. L., and B. R. Schwegler. 1978. The values of wetland habitat in
the Great Lakes Basin. pp. 267-277, Jin: Greeson, P. E. , J. R. Clark,
and J. E. Clark (Editors), Wetland Functions and Values: The State of
Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Tsai, C. 1975. Effects of sewage treatment plant effluents on fish: a
review of the literature. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Balti-
more MD, 229 p.
Turner, R. E. , J. W. Day, Jr., M. Meo, R. P. Payonk, T. B. Ford, and W. G.
Smith. 1976. Aspects of land-treated waste applications in Louisiana
wetlands. pp. 145-168 In; Tilton, D. L., R. H. Kadlec, and C. J. Rich-
ardson (Editors), Freshwater Wetlands and Sewage Effluent Disposal.
Proceedings of a National Symposium, 10-11 May 1976, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
Tusack-Gilmour, D. 1980. Effluent creates an oasis in Nevada. Water and
Wastes Engineering 17(9):22-24,56.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.) Refuge Manual 17. Disease prevention
and, control (draft). pp. 729-757, _In; Populations Management, 7RM17,
National Wildlife Refuge System. Department of the Interior, Washington
DC.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978a. Impacts of coal-fired power plants on
fish, wildlife, and their habitats. FWS/OBX-78/29. Department of the
Interior, Office of Biological Services, Washington DC, 260 p.
8-26
-------
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978b. Impacts of coal-fired power plants on
fish, wildlife, and their habitats. FWS/OBS-78/75. Department of the
Interior, Office of Biological Services, Washington DC, 206 p.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP).
ESM 102. USFWS Division of Geological Service, Washington, DC variously
paged.
US Forest Service. 1969. Wildlife habitat improvement handbook. Forest
Service Handbook 2609.11. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, 146
P-
US Forest Service. 1978. Strategies for protection and management of flood-
plain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. GTR-WO-12. Proceedings of
the Symposium, 11-13 December 1978, Callaway Gardens GA. Department of
Agriculture, Washington DC, 410 p.
Valiela, I., and J. M. Teal. 1978. Nutrient dynamics: summary and recommen-
dations, pp. 259-263, In.; Good, R. E., D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson
(Editors), Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management
Potential. Academic Press, Inc., New York NY.
Valiela, I., S. Vince, and J. M. Teal. 1975. Assimilation of sewage by
wetlands. In; Wiley, M. (Editor), Estuarine Processes, Vol. I. Uses,
Stresses and Adaptation to the Estuary. Proceedings of the Third Inter-
national Estuarine Research Conference, 7-9 October 1975, Galveston TX.
Academic Press, Inc., New York NY, 541 p.
Verry, E. S., and D. H. Boelter. 1978. Peatland hydrology, pp. 389-402, In;
Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors), Wetland Functions
and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Symposium on Wetlands, Lake Buena Vista FL. American Water Re-
sources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Vestargaard, P. 1979. A study of indication of trace metal pollution of
marine areas by analysis of salt marsh soils. Marine Environ. Res.
2:19-31.
Voigts, D. K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance in relation to changing
marsh vegetation. American Midland Naturalist 95(2):313-322.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication of
lakes and flowing water, with particular reference to nitrogen and phos-
phorus as factors in eutrophication. Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development.
Walsh, T. and T. A. Barry. 1958. The chemical composition of some Irish
Peats. Proc. Royal Irish Acad. 59:305-328.
Welch, E.B., and T. Lindell. 1980. Ecological effects of wastewater. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge MA, 337 p.
8-27
-------
Weller, M. W. 1978a. Management of freshwater marshes for wildlife. pp.
167-284, In; Good, R. E., D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (Editors),
Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Process and Management Potential.
Academic Press, Inc., New York NY.
Weller, M. W. 1978b. Wetland habitats. pp. 210-234, In; Greeson, P. E. ,
J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors), Wetland Functions and Values:
The State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Associaton,
Minneapolis MN.
Weller, M. W., and C. E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of Habitat in the Distribution
and Abundance of Marsh Birds. Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Ex-
periment Station Special Report No. 43, 31 p.
Weller, M. W., and L. H. Frederickson. 1973. Avian ecology of a managed
glacial marsh. pp. 269-291, In; The Living Bird, (Twelfth Annual Pub-
lication), 1973, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca NY.
Weilings, F. M. 1976. Viral aspects of wetland disposal of effluent. In:
Freshwater wetlands and sewage effluent disposal. Tilton, D. L., R. H.
Kadlec, and C. J. Richardson (Editors). The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor MI.
Wellings, F. M. 1979. Technical difficulties in determining virus survival
in wetlands. In; Sutherland, J. C., and R. H. Kadlec (Coordinators),
Wetland utilization for management of community wastewater. Abstracts of
a Conference, 10-12 July 1979, Higgins Lake MI.
Wentz, W. A. 1975. The effects of simulated sewage effluents on the growth
and productivity of peatland plants. Ph.D dissertation. The University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 112 p.
Wharton, C. H.; Odum, H. T.; Ewel, K. Duever, M.; Lugo, A,; Boyt, R.; Bartho-
lomew, J.; DeBellevue, E.; Brown, S.; Brown, M.; and Duever, L. 1977.
Forested wetlands of Florida: their management and use. Final report to
the Division of State Planning on a contract for a forested wetlands
manual. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.
Whelan, T. , J. T. Ishmael, and W. S. Bishop. 1976. Long-term chemical ef-
fects of petroleum in south Louisiana wetlands, I. Organic carbon in
sediments and waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 7(8).
Whigham, D. F., and S. E. Bayley. 1978. Nutrient dynamics in freshwater wet-
lands, pp. 468-478, _In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our
Understanding. Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors).
Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, American Water Re-
sources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Whigham, D. F., and S. K. Bayley. 1979. Nutrient dynamics in freshwater
wetlands. In; Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors),
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understsnaind. American
Water Works Association, St. Paul MN.
8-28
-------
Whigham, D., and R. Simpson. 1976a. The potential use of freshwater tidal
marshes in the management of water quality in the Delaware River. pp.
173-186, _In: Tourbier, J., and R. W. Pierson, Jr. (Editors). Biological
Control of Water Pollution. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadel-
phia PA.
Whigham, D. , and R. Simpson. 1976b. Sewage spray irrigation in a Delaware
River freshwater tidal marsh. pp. 119-144, In; Tilton, D. L., R. H.
Kadlec, and J. C. Richardson (Editors), Freshwater Wetlands and Sewage
Effluent Disposal. Proceedings of a National Symposium, 10-11 May 1976,
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
Whigham, D. F., and R. L. Simpson. 1978. Nitrogen and phosphorus movement
in a freshwater tidal wetlands receiving sewage effluent. _In: Coastal
Zone 78. The Proceedings of the Symposium on the Technical, Environ-
mental, Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management,
ASCE, San Francisco CA.
Whigham, D. , R. L. Simpson, and K. Lee. 1980. The effect of sewage effluent
on the structure and function of a freshwater tidal marsh ecosystem. New
Jersey Water Resources Research Institute. Rutgers University, The State
University of New Jersey, New Brunswick NJ, 160 p.
White, D. H. , and M. T. Finley. 1978. Uptake and retention of dietary cad-
mium in mallard ducks. Environmental Research 17:53-59.
White, D. H., M. T. Finley, and J. F. Ferrell. 1978. Histopathologic effects
of dietary cadmium on kidneys and tastes of mallard ducks. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health 4:551-558.
Whittaker, R. H. and G. M. Woodwell. 1969. Measurement of net primary pro-
duction of forests. Pages 159-175 _in P. Duvignead (ed.), Productivity of
forest ecosystems. Proceedings of the Brussels Symposium Organized by
Unesco and the International Biological Programme. United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.
Wile, I., G. Palmateer, and G. Miller. 1981. Use of artificial wetlands for
wastewater treatment, pp. 241-254, In; The Midwest Conference on Wet-
land Values and Management, June 1981, St. Paul MN. Minnesota Water
Planning Board, University of Minnesota, Upper Mississippi River Basin
Commission, and the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
Wile, I., G. Miller, and S. Black. 1983. Design and use of artificial wet-
lands (draft manuscript). In; Ecological Considerations in Wet-
lands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a Work-
shop, 23-25 June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US
Fish and Wildlife Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Wile, I. 1980. An experimental approach to wastewater treatment using natur-
al and artificial wetlands. Progress report, 27 October 1980. Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, Ontario, Canada, 4 p. plus attachment.
8-29
-------
Williams, J. D., and C. K. Dodd, Jr. 1979. Importance of wetlands to endan-
gered and threatened species. pp. 565-575, In: Greeson, P. E., J. R.
Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors), Wetland Functions and Values: The
State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association, Min-
neapolis MN.
Windom, H. L. 1975. Heavy metal fluxes through salt marsh estuaries. p.
137-152, In; L. E. Cronin (Editor), Estuarine Research. Vol. I.
Academic Press, Inc., New York NY.
Windom, h. L., W. S. Gardner, W. M. Dunstan, and G. A. Paffenhofer. 1976.
Cadmium and mercury transfer in a coastal marine ecosystem. In; H.
Windom, and R. Duce (Editors), Marine Pollutant Transfer. D. C. Heath.
Windom, H. L. 1977. Ability of salt marshes to remove nutrients and heavy
metals from dredged material disposal area effluents. Prepared for the
Office of the Chief of Engineers, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington
DC, Contract No. DACW21-76-C-0134.
Witter, J. A., and S. Croson. 1976. Insects and Wetlands, pp. 271-295, In;
Tilton, D. L., R. H. Kadlec, and C. J. Richardson (Editors), Freshwater
Wetlands and Sewage Effluent Disposal. Proceedings of a National Sym-
posium, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 20-11 May 1976.
Wolfe, S. A., F. A. Cross, and C. J. Jennings. 1973. The flux of manganese,
iron and zinc in an estuarine ecosystem, p. 159-175, In; Radioactive
Contamination of the Marine Environment. International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna.
Wolverton, B. C., and Rebecca C. McDonald. 1982. Basic engineering criteria
and cost estimations for hybrid microbial filter reed (Phragmites commu-
nis) wastewater treatment concept. NASA, NSTL Station, MS.
Wolverton, B. C., R. M. Barlow, and R. C. McDonald. 1976. Application of
vascular aquatic plants for pollution removal, energy, and food produc-
tion in a biological system, pp. 141-149, In; Tourbier, J., and R. W.
Pierson, Jr. (Editors), Biological Control of Water Pollution. Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia PA.
Yonika, D., and D. Lowry. 1979. Feasibility study of wetland disposal of
wastewater treatment plant effluent. Research project 78-04. Executive
summary and final report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Water
Resources Commission, Division of Water Pollution Control. Prepared by
IEP, Inc., Westborough MA, 183 p.
Yoshpe-Purer, Y. and H. I. Shuval. 1972. Salmonellae and bacterial indicator
organisms in polluted coastal water and their hygenic significance, pp.
574-580 In; M. Ruivo, Editor, Marine Pollution and Sea Life. London:
Fishing News Ltd.
Zoltek, J., Jr., S. E. Bayley, A. J. Herman, C. R. Tortora, and T. J. Dolan.
1979. Removal of nutrients from treated municipal wastewater by fresh-
water marshes. Final report to the City of Clermont FL. Center for
Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville FL, 325 p.
8-30
-------
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
FOR THE
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES ON WETLANDS IN THE MIDWEST
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES A-3
LIST OF FIGURES A~4
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
A-5
2.0 METHODS A~6
2.1 METHODS FOR HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS A~6
2.1.1 Measurement Procedures A-ll
2.1.2 Typical Site Investigation , A-14
2.2 METHODS FOR INVESTIGATING PHOSPHORUS LEVELS A-15
2.2.1 Typical Site Investigation of Phosphorus Balance.... A-18
2.3 METHODOLOGIES FOR NITROGEN INVESTIGATION A-2°
2.3.1 Typical Site Investigation of Nitrogen A-22
2.4 METHODS FOR INVESTIGATING OTHER DISSOLVED SUBSTANCES A-23
2.4.1 Dissolved Oxygen A-23
2.4.2 Sulfur A-23
2.4.3 Chloride A-24
2.4.4 Conductivity A-24
2.4.5 PH A-25
2.4.6 Typical Site Investigation of Dissolved Substances.. A-25
2.5 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
POTENTIALLY TOXIC TRACE METALS A-25
2.5.1 Typical Site Investigation of Potentially Toxic
Trace Metals A-27
2.6 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
REFRACTORY CHEMICALS A-27
2.7 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON SOILS AND
SEDIMENTS A-28
2.7.1 S,oils - A-28
2.7.2 Sediment A-30
2.7.3 Implementation of Methodologies A-31
2.8 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON WETLAND
STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION - BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS A-33
2.8.1 Plant Species Composition A-35
2.8.2 Areal Distribution A-37
2.8.3 Plant Biomass, Growth, and Production A-39
2.8.4 Detrital Cycling A-45
2.8.5 Trace Metals and Other Trace Elements A-46
2.8.6 Macroinvert ebrat e Populat ions A-49
2.8.7 Insect Populations A-53
2.8.8 Fish Communities A-56
2.8.8.1 Changes in Productivity and Biomass A-59
2.8.8.2 Changes in Spawning Success A-60
2.8.8.3 Determination of Toxicity A-62
2.8.8.4 Changes in Incidence of Disease and
Potential for Fish Acting as Vectors
* for Mammalian Diseases A-64
A-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONCLUDED)
2.8.9 Wildlife Communities A-67
2.8.9.1 Changes in Habitat Structure and
Components. A-70
2.8.9.2 Changes in Species Richness and Density.... A-71
2.8.9.3 Changes in Presence and Abundance of
Indicator Species A-72
2.8.9.4 Changes in Incidence of Disease, Wildlife
Condition, and Potential for Wildlife to
Act as Vectors for Human Disease A-73
2.9 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR
ENHANCEMENT OF WILDLIFE HABITAT A-75
2.10 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH. A-79
2.11 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON PLANT HEALTH. A-80
2.12 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON ANIMAL
HEALTH A-80
2.13 METHODOLOGIES FOR TESTING OF OVERLOADING AND STRESS A-82
2.14 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF DESIGN, OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING A-82
2.14.1 Design A-82
2.14.2 Operation and Maintenance A-83
2.14.3 Monitoring A-84
2.15 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF ARTIFICIAL AND VOLUNTEER
WETLANDS A-84
2.15.1 Artificial Wetlands A-84
2.15.2 Volunteer Wetlands A-86
2.16 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES... A-86
2.17 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF LEGAL, ADMINISTRATIVE,
AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS A-91
2.17.1 Present Policies, Regulations, and Laws A-92
2.17.2 Identification Conflicts A-92
2.17.3 Legal Problems A-93
2.17.4 Potential Funding Forces A-93
2.17.5 Identification of Scientific and Management
Information A-94
2.17.6 Community Acceptance A-94
2.17.7 Case Studies A-95
2.17.8 Final Report A-95
3.0 LITERATURE CITED A-96
A-2
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1-1 Proposed sampling schedule for hydrological and water
quality investigations A-7
2.8-1 Proposed sampling schedule for investigation of effects on
plant communities A-48
2.8-2 Proposed sampling schedule for investigation of effects on
macroinvertebrate and insect communities A-50
2.8-3 Methods for collection of fish A-58
2.8-4 Proposed sampling schedule for investigation of effects on
fish communities A-66
2.16-1 Examples of types of mitigation measures to be investigated. A-89
A-3
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2.1-1 Components of a hydrological investigation at a
hypothetical wetland A-10
2.8-1 Relationship of other research investigations to
biological studies A-34
2.8-2 Fish toxicity/disease considerations A-63
A-4
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Technical Support Document (TSD) serves as a companion volume to the
USEPA report entitled "The Effect of Wastewater Treatment Facilities on Wet-
lands in the Midwest" prepared by USEPA Region V, Chicago. The purpose of the
TSD is to provide an outline and general summary of the scientific methods
available to assess impacts of wastewater on wetlands. The methods described
are organized according to the general issue and subject categories presented
in the main body of the report. These include methods to assess physical
(including hydrology), chemical, and biological effects of added wastewater.
The TSD is not intended to serve as a specific approach to designing a
research program. It is, instead, designed to serve as a reference source of
the possible range of methods which are available to study specific types of
impacts. The overall design of a particular individual study must be decided
upon by the researchers who actually are to conduct the detailed site studies
in the Phase II of the present project. However, the TSD does provide general
discussions and outlines of the types of studies as well as rough estimates of
the level of effort (in man-hours or man-days) that could be required to
complete each study. Proposed sampling schedules are also included. Again,
this information is intended as a useful guide for the Phase II research.
A-5
-------
2.0 METHODS
2.1 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON SITE HYDROLOGY AND LOCAL
WATER TABLE
Interactions between the numerous hydrological and chemical components of
the wetland ecosystem are complex. Also, some of the techniques required for
investigation in wetlands are difficult to implement. Therefore, the method-
ologies for investigation of the issues decribed in this section are presented
as text discussions only. A summary of the tasks to be performed and the time
frames for these tasks is included in Table 2.1-1.
The overall objective of the hydrological study at each site chosen
should be to determine the water budget. This information will form the basis
for the interpretation of the transport of all suspended and dissolved mater-
ials, and therefore is an important research requirement at every site.
The major input and output routes for the passage of water and waterborne
materials through a wetland ecosystem are diagrammed in Figure 2.1-1. Several
approaches can be used to study the movement and fate of these parameters
including the following:
Consideration of the entire wetland as a unit within which pro-
cesses occur but are not investigated; only the inputs to and
outputs from the wetland as a whole are measured (the "black box"
approach)
Investigation of the changes that occur in the water (differences
in water quality parameters) along the path of its passage
through the wetland (the "transect" approach)
Measurements of processes in which the constituents of wastewater
are involved within the various parts of the wetland (the "com-
partment" approach).
The first method considers the wetland as an entire system; the latter two
techniques are subsystem methods. The hypothetical boundaries used in each
approach are shown in Figure 2.1-1.
In order to obtain sufficient information for analysis, it will be neces-
sary to collect and analyze data on storages and flows on a monthly basis
A-6
-------
Table 2.1-1. Proposed sampling schedule for hydrologlcal and water quality investigations.
Frequency of Sampling
Parameters to be Sampled/Technique Once Daily Weekly Monthly Annually
Hydrology
Precipitation X
Evapotranspiration X
Water level
Stevens recorders X
Staff gauges X
Piezometers (surface water and groundwater) X
Water velocity and direction
Current meters X
Tracer techniques (surface water and groundwater) X
Inflow
Facility daily flow recordings (collect if available) X
Meter devices X
Outfall
Meter devices X
Gradient survey X
Depth/area and channelization X
Flushes X (daily during event)
One major rain event (possibly in May) X (during event)
Soil samples »
Water capacity X
Diffusion/penetration tests X
Nutrients
Phosphorus, nitrogen, sulfur analysis
Water
Grab samples X
Transects X
Vegetation
Grab samples (or plots) X (autumn)
Transects X (autumn)
-------
Table 2.1-1. Proposed sampling schedule for hydrological and water quality investigations (continued).
3=
00
Parameters to be Sampled/Technique
Litter bag harvest-transects
Grab samples
Algae and sediment
Input/outflow (I/O) point samples
Sediment traps-grab samples
Transects
Soil samples
0-5 cm sample
Transects-soil core
P-sorption sample
Flushes
One major rain event (possibly in May)
I/O water for N, P
Litter bag harvest for mass N, P, S
Litter grab samples for N, P, S
Sediment grabs for N, P, S
Other Dissolved Substances
Chloride ion, electrical conductivity, calcium,
magnesium, pH
I/O water measurements
Water transects
Flushes - daily I/O water
One major rain event
Dissolved organlcs - COD, BOD
I/O water measurements
Water transects
Flushes - daily I/O water
One major rain event
Dissolved oxygen
I/O water samples
Transects
Once
Daily
Frequency of Sampling
Weekly Mont hly Annually
X
X
X
X
X (autumn)
X (June)
X
X (daily during event)
X (during event)
X (during event)
X (during event)
X (during event)
X (daily during event)
X (during event)
X (daily during event)
X (during event)
X (June)
X (June)
X (unfrozen season)
X
-------
Table 2.1-1. Proposed sampling schedule for hydrological and water quality investigations (concluded).
Parameters to be Sampled/Technique
Toxic Elements
Heavy metals concentrations
Locate where materials occur
o Standard wet chemical methods
o Neutron activation analysis
o Atomic absorption spectroscopy
Grab samples of the following compartments along
the same transects:
o I/O waters
o Transect waters
o Litter
o Sediments
o Suspendable solids
o Soil samples
o Algae
o Vegetation
Refractory chemicals
I/O waters
Transects of the following compartments:
o Litter
o Sediments
o Suspendable solids
o Soil
o Algae
o Vegetation
Soils and Sediments
Soils
Read soil staff gauges
Borings
Probings
Core samples for Ce-137, Pb-210, C-14
Leaching and diffusion tests
Sediment s
I/O water grab samples of:
o Suspended solids
o Volatile suspended solids
Suspendable solids samples (taken at established
interior stations)
Sediment traps
Once
Frequency of Sampling
Daily Weekly Monthly
Annually
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Precipitation
Evapotranspirotion
Black Box
Boundary
Wastewater
Transect
Subsystem
Boundary
Streamflow
In
Compartment
Subsystem
Boundary
Groundwater
Recharge-Discharge
Streamflow
Out
Figure 2.1-1. Components of a hydrological investigation of
a hypothetical wetland (adapted from Kadlec 1980).
A-'IO
-------
during the study period. Measurements should include precipitation and evapo-
transplration, as well as net surface and subsurface flows and selected indiv-
idual flows within the wetland. Chloride and conductivity, and possibly
dissolved substances such as calcium and magnesium, should be used as tracers
to confirm flow measurement or to infer subterranean flows. This information
then is analyzed to formulate mass balances for water on a monthly basis
during the study period.
In addition to these general water balance studies at each site, it would
be desirable to collect and analyze data on storages and flows for brief
intensive periods. These studies would ascertain the magnitude of diurnal
(daily) and other short-term processes at a particular site. Thus the impact
of a sudden heavy rainstorm on water depths and flows, and the associated
water chemistry, would be helpful to answer questions related to flushing.
One of these intensive periods should be done during the spring flush; another
during autumn.
2.1.1 Measurement Procedures
Streamflows can be measured with current meters for major flows, and by
tracer techniques for minor flows. Both a cross-sectional area of flow and
the velocity distribution in the stream in question are required to develop an
estimate of the volumetric flow rate by either method. Thus it is imperative
that the boundaries around the wetland that are crossed by inflow and outflow
streams are well defined, so that there is no ambiguity about the area of the
flowing stream. Some sites are already equipped with some form of controlled
area outflow device. For example, the Drummond WI site utilizes a V-notch
weir through which all outflow passes. Other wetlands will have inflows and
outflows through road culverts. This is a very common boundary for small
wetlands in the .upper Midwest. In such cases, the area is measured easily,
and a velocity can be obtained by the movement of a tracer, such as a neutral
density object, through the culvert itself. The distance and time of transit
would provide a measure of speed of flow through the culvert. The average,
velocity is approximately half the maximum centerline velocity in such a
situation. This fact may be used to obtain fairly good estimates of inflows
and outflows in situations where there are no weirs or other flow-measuring
devices.
A-ll
-------
Diffuse overland flow inputs and outputs are nearly impossible to measure
with any degree of accuracy, and it is necessary to use secondary methods in
order to obtain estimates of inflows and outflows in such situations. One
technique that may be applied is to compare evaporation losses from a pan of
water, as measured with a continuous water level recorder, to the water level
changes in the wetland. The water level in a properly placed Class A pan will
ultimately drop due to the competing processes of evaporation and precipita-
tion. The water level in the wetland itself will drop due to the same pro-
cesses, but in addition also will drop due to the net outflow from the wet-
land. The difference between inflow and outflow. This net added effect may
be due to surface streams or to recharge/discharge processes. In situations
where streamflow is absent, the use of a pan will give a measure of recharge/
discharge. In the case of a perched wetland (that has no surface connection
to another water body and lies above impervious bedrock, till, or a small
pocket of outwash overlying till), the use of a pan will provide a measure of
the inflow minus the outflow to that wetland. This technique is limited by
the assumption (fairly well accepted) that evaporation and evapotranspiration
are nearly equal over a significant area. Thus evaporation in the pan would
be comparable to evapo transpiration in the wetland (Scheffe 1978).
The use of a Stevens recorder to measure water levels will provide a
measure of the storage of water within the wetland, when accompanied by an
estimate of the areal extent of the amount of freestanding water within that
wetland. In cases where freestanding water does not exist, some measurement
of the field capacity of the wetland soil for water retention would be re-
quired in addition to the measure of areal extent. For example, if 50% of the
soil volume is available for water storage in a particular wetland, then that
measurement is needed to accompany the number of acres of water storage avail-
able. Information on the total size of such a storage pool is necessary for
interpretation of the retention time of waters within that wetland.
Measures of precipitation and evapotranspiration can be obtained by
standard meteorological techniques. Evapotranspiration can be measured either
with a Class A evaporation pan maintained at each site, with the level in the
pan being monitored, or from level recorder charts. Precipitation data can be
obtained from rain and snow gauges placed at the same location as the pan. If
A-12
-------
such accurate direct measurements are not required, evaporation can be esti-
mated by either the Penman (1956) method or the Thornthwaite (1950) method.
Both have been proven to be effective in estimating evapotranspiration in
wetland situations.
Data on the areal extent of the wetland and the average thicknesses of
snow and ice cover are required to estimate the total amount of water stored
in these two solid forms. Such data frequently are available at neighboring
weather stations for snow depth, but ice depth measurements must be taken
inside the wetland to be accurate. Ice depths in wetlands frequently are much
less than they are on open water bodies or on the neighboring mineral soils;
ice thickness may vary as much as two orders of magnitude in the upper Mid-
west. In many instances, the wetland surface does not freeze, even during the
harshest winters.
Connections between the wetland and underlying aquifers can be inferred
through tracer studies, which may involve the use of calcium, magnesium, or
chloride as an indicator. Data obtained from these experiments may be corrob-
orated by readings taken from piezometers placed in and around the wetland at
points of communication with these underlying aquifers (a piezometer is an
instrument used to measure pressure as height of water in a pipe). Data on
the underlying soil types also may be used to determine the probab-le rates of
water movement. This would provide a measure of permeability and possible
communication with groundwater.
Flow through a wetland is largely controlled by channels. Well-defined
river channels flow through some wetlands, while movement of water in others
is primarily surface sheet flow. The extent of channelization would be an
extremely important variable in interpreting the performance of a particular
wetland receiving wastewater applications.
Vertical slope is also an. important variable since it determines the
driving force for movement of water through the wetland. Although many wet-
lands are essentially flat, some of the sphagnum bogs in the northern parts of
Region V are tilted at relatively large angles (10 to 20 feet per mile).
Information on vertical slopes could be obtained most easily during the winter
months through standard surveying techniques.
A-13
-------
The last water quantity parameter of interest is the amount of pumped
wastewater added to the wetland. In some cases, information may be available
on daily flows entering the wetland from the wastewater treatment facility.
In instances where such information is not available, it would be necessary to
install a metering device, such as a turbine meter, a weir, or a flume, to
obtain accurate measures of the flows entering from the facility.
2.1.2 Typical Site Investigation
During the initial visit to the site, the points of entry or exit of all
inflows and outflows would be determined. The gradient of the wetland would
be surveyed. The percent channelization, as measured by the distribution of
depths transverse to the general flow direction, would be determined. Staff
gauges for recording water levels would be installed at various points. The
method for measurement of streamflow at each location would be determined, and
the appropriate equipment or devices subsequently would be installed to
measure those flows. Class A evaporation pans could be installed at several
locations. Piezometers could be installed if communication with groundwater
was confirmed by a small set of subsurface borings to identify the underlying
strata. Both the areal storage parameter fraction of open water and the field
capacity of the wetland soils would be determined on a one-time basis. Rain
gauges and water level recorders would be installed at those locations where
it was deemed necessary. The amount of effort involved in this survey and
instrument set-up would be approximately two person-weeks per site, at the
mos t int e ns ive level.
Routine data collection at each site probably would require approximately
one person-day per week. This time would include reading and changing of
charts on water level recorders, reading staff gauges and piezometers, col-
lecting samples for tracer studies, and reading stream flows. The analysis of
the tracer samples for chloride, calcium, magnesium, and conductivity would
require approximately one person-day per month for laboratory analyses.
Correlation and analysis of the data obtained during the weekly field visits
and the laboratory tracer analyses would require approximately one person-day
per month.
A-14
-------
The spring and autumn flushing events and the storm events would be
studied at the time of occurrence. The amount of effort involved in deter-
mining the water budget for a precipitation event at a particular wetland
might include four days of field work, two days of laboratory work, and one
day of analysis.
The procedures described above are presented in greater detail in the
studies of Odum in Florida, Kadlec in Michigan, and Kappel in Wisconsin (see
site summaries in Appendix B). It must be stressed that every quantitative
aspect of understanding of the performance of the wetland (biotic or abiotic)
is dependent on an understanding of the hydrologic processes. Therefore, the
hydrological studies are perhaps the most important and basic of all of the
methodologies for understanding the effects of the addition of wastewater to
wetland ecosystems.
2.2 METHOD FOR INVESTIGATING PHOSPHORUS LEVELS .
Levels of phosphorus in municipal wastewater are much higher than back-
ground levels within wetlands. Levels of phosphorus in municipal wastewater
are typically in the range of 1 to 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1), while those
in natural wetlands (water column) generally are less than 0.1 mg/1. Phos-
phorus levels in sediments, plant tissues, and soil are likely to be a few
tenths of 1%. These forms of phosphorus are immobile and are affected by
processes of sediment accumulation and soil decomposition. However, they are
not affected by transfers from the dissolved phosphorus in the water column.
Only a relatively small pool of adsorbed phosphorus, contained on the surface
of sediments and other wetland solids, is exchangeable with the water.
Two types of studies are of importance in assessing the state and func-
tion of a wefland receiving phosphorus inputs in the form of wastewaters. The
objective of the first is to gain an understanding of the total system per-
formance including the amount of the phosphorus entering and leaving the
wetland and the resulting accumulated pool within the wetland. Both dissolved
and particulate forms of phosphorus are important in this analysis. The
methodology for establishing the phosphorus balance for a particular wet-
A-15
-------
land will depend primarily upon the hydrology of that ecosystem. It is pre-
sumed that the hydrologic budget will be determined for any site at which
phosphorus balance is to be established. In addition to hydrologic measure-
ments, analyses of the total phosphorus levels of the incoming, stored, and
outgoing waters must also be conducted. A detailed example can be found in
Kadlec (1980).
Three forms of phosphorus can be important at any particular wetland
location. These include dissolved orthophosphate, other dissolved forms, and
phosphorus associated with sediments and other suspended solids. Methods of
analyses for total dissolved phosphorus and total phosphorus are described in
American Public Health Association (1976). Analysis for orthophosphate alone
probably is not worthwhile, since this form is only slightly more available
than other dissolved forms. Measurement of total dissolved phosphorus pro-
vides the most useful information relative to determining impacts of waste-
water application. If significant amounts of suspended solid material (more
than 10-100 mg/1) are measured at any one location, special procedures for
analyzing the solids also should be performed. At this level, it becomes
important to know the precise content of the solid material, since significant
amounts of phosphorus are involved.
In urban industrial regions, contribution of P from rainwater can be
significant, and should be included in preparing the nutrient budget. For
example, P levels of over 100 mg/1 in rainwater from such areas are common
(Benforado 1981).
The second type of study required concerns internal phosphorus cycling.
Phosphorus is cycled internally through emergent vegetation by processes of
uptake, incorporation into tissues, litter fall, litter 4ecomP°siti°n» a°d
soil building. It also is cycled through algae and mobile sediments within
the wetland by processes of uptake, decomposition, sedimentation, and soil
building. Phosphorus is also cycled via sorption and desorption from soil
surfaces. These processes are accompanied by the diffusional penetration of
dissolved phosphorus into the water within the soil.
A-16
-------
Cycling of phosphorus through emergent vegetation has been studied at a
number of sites (Pratt et al. 1980; Prentki et al. 1978). In some studies
phosphorus was shown to be incorporated into plant tissues at levels that did
not vary greatly with the amount of available phosphorus in soil water in the
root zone. In other studies (i.e., Ewel and Odum 1979) workers found good
correlations between tissue nutrient levels and soil nutrient levels. In any
event, measurements of biomass of the above-ground and below-ground plant
parts at the end of the growing season provides an accurate assessment of the
"living tissue" phosphorus compartment of the wetland. This information,
together with data on productivity, will allow estimates of the rate of incor-
poration of phosphorus into living emergent vegetation. The procedures for
such analyses include the ashing of weighed samples of ground and dried plant
material and the analysis for phosphorus according to standard methods
(American Public Health Association 1976).
A significant amount of phosphorus taken up by emergent vegetation is
eventually released during decomposition of dead plant material following
senescence. This process can be measured by employing the litter bag method.
This method is described in detail in Chamie (1976) and discussed further in
Section 2.8.4 of this report. In general, a known amount of litter is placed
in a fine mesh bag at a location from which the litter was taken. The bags
can be harvested at varying time periods in order to determine the rate of
decomposition and phosphorus content.
Pathways of phosphorus movement that involve algae and sediments are more
difficult to quantify. It is probable that there are significant uptakes of
phosphorus by algae, and significant returns of this material to the water
upon death and decomposition. Some phosphorus is also immobilized in algal
tissue and deposited as sediment on the litter-soil interface. Analysis of
samples taken at the inflow and outflow points of the wetland will permit
measurement of the net amounts of phosphorus that enter or leave the wetland.
Some measure of the amount of suspended particulates (including large portions
of plants) that may be movable within the wetland would also be valuable since
major storm events (i.e., a 20-year rainfall) might move significant quanti-
ties of these materials. Therefore, it is recommended that a standardized
A-17
-------
method for agitating the litter-sediment zone of the wetland and for col-
lecting samples of the materials thus suspended be established. These samples
should be analyzed for both total mass and phosphorus content. Measurements
along a grid transect in the direction of f-low also should be made to deter-
mine the rate at which such suspended solids are transferred down the hydraul-
ic gradient.
The sorption/desorption processes that occur at the soil-water interface
constitute a significant physical and chemical mechanism for phosphorus im-
mobilization. Sorption is known to occur rapidly, and form the first storage
pool in a given wetland. Net sorption ability by sediments thus is an impor-
tant factor which determines the ability of a specific wetland to treat
applied wastewater. Some information exists in the literature on the capabil-
ity of wetland soils to immobilize phosphorus in this manner (Hammer and
Kadlec 1980; Nichols 1979a,b,c). Information on the capacity of specific wet-
land soils to accumulate phosphorus is not generally available at this time,
however. It is recommended that a laboratory study be made of the phosphorus
sorption potential for each primary wetland soil type. Such tests should
include both the ultimate capacity of the soil sample taken and the rate at
which phosphorus can penetrate and be absorbed into the sample. In actuality
this is only one test, because rate data can be acquired during the process of
establishing the capacity for phosphorus sorption.
Desorption studies are much more difficult to conduct although several
techniques have recently been proposed (Richardson et al. 1978). The test
basically involves analysis of distilled water extracts of phosphorus-laden
soil and sediment samples. This would permit determination of the amount of
exchangeable phosphorus which potentially could be returned to the water
column.
2.2.1 Typical Site Investigation of Phosphorus Balance
The phosphorus balance studies described above would be conducted simul-
taneously with the hydrologic studies and at the same sampling locations and
sampling frequencies. The samples would be analyzed for total disssolved
A-18
-------
phosphorus (and possibly other forms). A total of approximately one
person-week per year would be needed for determination of the phosphorus
budget data. Analysis of the information obtained would require approximately
one person-week per year (per wetland).
Analyses of tissue samples in order to quantify the plant uptake/litter
pathway are more difficult. Wet ashing of the samples is time-consuming.
However, these procedures would have to be performed on grab samples of vege-
tation only once per year at each wetland. Sample collection would require an
effort of one person-day per year. Samples analyses in the laboratory would
require a total of one person-week per year. Data analysis should require two
person-days per year per wetland.
Tests on the soil compartment would involve approximately one week of
laboratory work per wetland, in order to establis'h the rate of phosphorus
uptake, the equilibrium capacity for phosphorus sorption, and the desorption
rate. Analysis of sediment nutrient content could be accomplished in a manner
similar to the litter analysis. A comparable amount of time would be required
for this task.
In summary, the analysis of the phosphorus cycle of a given wetland
ecosystem consists of examining the major pathways in enough detail to under-
stand whether or not there are anomalous pools or transfers. The principal
focus would be on uptake by plants, litter fall, and litter decomposition;
sediment transport and sedimentation rates; and soil sorption processes. This
information would be used to establish the phosphorus budget for a given wet-
land.
It may be desirable at certain sites to determine potential anomalous
behavior of the water and sediment exchanges during periods of extensive
precipitation, including the spring and autumn flushings. Such intensive
studies of isolated events would require the attention of a single researcher
for some two or three weeks (per wetland), and a comparable time period for
laboratory analysis. These measurements should be conducted simultaneously
with the hydrology studies.
A-19
-------
Because phosphorus is one of the principal regulated quantities associ-
ated with wastewater discharges, an understanding of its transport and accumu-
lation is of major concern to regulatory agencies. Phosphorus also is a prime
driving force in the wetland plant community, and therefore represents one of
the most important pollutants associated with municipal wastewater discharges.
2.3 METHODOLOGIES FOR NITROGEN INVESTIGATION
The objectives of the nitrogen investigation are similar to those for
phosphorus, although there are major differences in the cycling of these two
elements in wetlands. First, nitrogen cycling involves several microbial
interconversions between nitrate, ammonia, and gaseous forms of nitrogen that
do not occur in the phosphorus cycle. The soil-water interface is therefore
also an important zone of study for nitrogen processes. Furthermore, levels
of nitorgen in plant tissue are usually one order of magnitude higher than
phosphorus. Levels of nitrogen in the incoming wastewater are likely to be of
the same order of magnitude as phosphorus levels (perhaps only slightly higher
in most instances). Ammonia and nitrate levels in incoming municipal waste-
water typically total approximately 10 mg/1. Concentrations of nitrogen in
soil, sediment, and litter compartments are likely to be approximately 2% by
dry weight, similar to that for plant tissues. Thus the size of the potential
storage pool in the form of biomass, soils, and sediments is much larger for
nitrogen than for phosphorus. However, nitrogen may be removed by microbial
denitrification, a process which occurs under anaerobic conditions. Sorption
and desorption of nitrogen compounds upon soils and sediments is not generally
considered to be an important process.
The system level of analysis is useful in determining the effects of
applied wastewater on the nitrogen balance in wetlands. Measurements of
nitrogen levels in water entering and leaving the wetland should be taken in
conjunction with hydrologic measurements. This allows determination of the
amounts of various forms of nitrogen entering and leaving the wetland in the
form of dissolved and suspended materials. Grab samples of incoming and
outgoing waters should be analyzed for nitrate, ammonia, and total nitrogen.
If significant amounts of suspended solids ( 100 mg/1) are noted, then an
analysis of the solids themselves should be performed. Grab samples of sur-
A-20
-------
face waters along a transect also should be taken for similar analyses.
Standard methods are available for these particular dissolved constituents
(American Public Health Association 1976). An alternative method is the use
of specific ion electrodes for nitrate and ammonia. These procedures are much
more rapid but not as accurate. The concentrations determined through the
above analyses, when multiplied by flow provide an estimate of the amount of
nitrogen entering and leaving the wetland and the amounts within the water
storage pool. Nitrogen also passes from the wetland into the atmosphere in
the form of nitrogen and nitrous oxide. These losses are extremely difficult
to measure, however, and constitute a largely unknown quantity. Although
there are also inputs of nitrogen compounds in the form of precipitation,
these generally are negligible.
The pathways of nitrogen cycling within the wetland also may be used to
study the effects of applied wastewater. The nitrogen pathway through emer-
gent vegetation includes uptake, incorporation into the plant tissue, litter
fall, and litter decomposition. Procedures for obtaining grab samples of the
foliage, and roots, and litter would be the same as for phosphorus. These
materials can be analyzed in the laboratory by wet ashing, followed by chemi-
cal analysis by standard methods or specific ion electrodes.
The role of suspended solids and algae should be determined in the same
way as for the phosphorus cycle. Again, the major variables to be quantified
are the amount of suspendable material and its nitrogen content. These data
will provide an understanding of the potential for the flushing of particulate
material from the wetland. When coupled with the results of transect measure-
ments, this would provide an understanding of the net movements that are
occurring.
Soil sorption processes are not thought to be important in the case of
nitrogen compounds, but denitrification is important. Currently there is no
standard laboratory technique that can be used to predict the field charac-
teristics of a soil and its microbial population to allow estimation of the
process of denitrification. This process can be understood only from infer-
ences gained from transect measurements of water chemistry along the hydraulic
gradient within the wetland. Measurements of Redox potential (eH) in the
A-21
-------
upper soil layers would provide some basis for understanding denitrification,
since conditions for this process are optional between eH values of +100 to
+200 millivolts. Measurements of water depth and oxygen content of the over-
lying water column also provide insight into the ability of a wetland to
denitrify.
2.3.1 Typical Site Investigation of Nitrogen
Determination of the nitrogen budget and the internal processes of uptake
and transfer will require monthly sampling intervals. Sampling should be
conducted simultaneously with hydrologic measurements. Approximately half of
a person-day per month should be sufficient for the collection of samples.
Studies of the nitrogen budgets of individual ecosystems will require more
field time than similar studies of phosphorus budgets. Obtaining transect
data to estimate denitrification would involve approximately two person-days
per month for each wetland. Sediment samples, plant biomass samples, and
litter bags would require an additional two person-days per month. The three
potential flushing events (spring, autumn, and one additional major storm
event) should be sampled in conjunction with the hydrologic and phosphorus
studies. This would entail up to several person-weeks per wetland site, with
the balance of this time being devoted to related studies. Sample analysis
would require a total of three to four person-weeks per year per wetland site
to accomplish all of the nitrogen studies described above. The laboratory
effort is slightly greater than that required for phosphorus because more
forms of nitrogen must be examined.
It is recommended that cores from the soil column be partitioned into
five-centimeter intervals and analyzed for nitrogen at several stations to
infer the past history of nitrogen events at that particular wetland. This
analysis would require a total of approximately one person-week of effort for
collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data.
In summary, studies of nitrogen compounds within the wetland are ex-
tremely Important from the regulatory point of view (for reasons such as the
toxicity of ammonia to fish and potential to stimulate eutrophication). Every
wetland receving wastewater that has been examined to date has appeared to
A-22
-------
effectively remove nitrogen. This function requires further understanding,
because background studies are not as complete for nitrogen.
2.4 METHOD FOR INVESTIGATING OTHER DISSOLVED SUBSTANCES
2.4.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved organics (as measured by COD and BOD) may greatly reduce dis-
solved oxygen levels in the water column of a wetland. This in turn can
hinder important wetland processes such as denitrification or lead to death of
fish and invertebrates. Little is known, however, concerning the effect of
increased COD or BOD on wetlands. Tests for dissolved oxygen can be accom-
plished by the use of portable field meters. Laboratory analyses for COD and
BOD are described in American Public Health Association (1976).
The level of dissolved oxygen also is a strong indication of algal activ-
ity. Because of the correlation of algal photosynthetic and respiratory
periods with light availability, dissolved oxygen levels may vary from nearly
zero to nearly double the saturation capacity of the wetland water at a given
site. This factor must be considered when estimating effects of added waste=
water on oxygen levels.
2.4.2 Sulfur
Because wetlands are known to play an important role in the cycling of
sulfur and because increased sulfur levels could be directly toxic to wetland
plants and aquatic animals (Odum 1976), investigation of the effects of waste-
water on sulfur cycling and sulfur levels would be desirable. Tests for
sulfites and sulfides are difficult to make because current sampling pro-
cedures result in the rapid oxidation of these materials. However, concen-
trations of sulfates and sulfur can be analyzed easily. The sulfur content of
selected wetland ecosystem compartments can be assayed with the use of a
sulfur analyzer (for example, a LEGO analyzer). Sulfur concentrations within
A-23
-------
wetland plants are likely to be within the range of 0.5% to 1.0%. Comparable
levels will exist in the litter and soil and sediment compartments.
Measurements at a given wetland site should be restricted to a one-time
sampling of biota and soil sediment and litter compartments, coupled with a
one-time assessment of the sulfate status of the waters entering and leaving
and within the wetland. Samples should be returned to the laboratory for
analysis of the sulfate content of the water. The total effort to be expended
at a single site for both field and laboratory work would be approximately two
person-days per month. Determination of the rate of release of sulfur in the
form of hydrogen sulfide (or other similar compounds) that occurs during
anaerobic periods (usually winter) and assessment of the amount of sulfur
arriving in the form of acid rainfall are beyond the scope of this study.
2.4.3 Chloride
Measurements of chloride concentrations should be coupled with measure-
ments of,electrical conductivity and concentrations of calcium and magnesium.
Chloride can be measured with the use of a specific ion electrode and conduc-
tivity with the use of an electrical conductivity meter. Chloride measure-
ments are valuable, however, for confirmation of the water budget for a par-
ticular wetland and for estimation of unmeasurable flows. This is accom-
plished by measuring the difference between concentrations at different loca-
tions. Levels of chloride in municipal wastewaters are typically one order of
magnitude higher than those in natural wetland waters, most naturally-
occurring shallow groundwater systems, and in precipitation and surface run-
off. The use of such indicators would not be possible where road salt has
been allowed to enter the wetland. Even if detailed overall nutrient budgets
or water budgets are not desired at a particular site, chloride could be used
as an effective tracer to estimate the dilution of the wastewater in its
passage through the wetland.
2.4.4 Conductivity
Conductivity measurements could be interpreted in much the same way as
chloride concentrations. However, sources and sinks would be much more 'com-
A-24
-------
plicated in most wetland situations because all of the dissolved species in
ionic form contribute to this measurement. . Conductivities of wastewaters
typically are much higher than those of the receiving waters in a natural
wetland. Therefore, this parameter may also be used as a measure of dilution
or to infer inflows and outflows to a wetland that are difficult to measure.
2.4.5 pH
The acidity or alkalinity of a wetland water column, as measured by pH,
can be used to measure key wetland processes such as the possible chemical
erosion of an organic soil. This parameter also is a major factor in the
control of the types of vegetation that occur within a given wetland. Mea-
surements of pH can be made in either the laboratory or the field.
2.4.6 Typical Site Investigation of Dissolved Substances
It is recommended that chloride, magnesium, calcium, conductivity, and pH
be measured routinely at all water quality sampling sites. These measurements
would typically require approximately one-half of a day per month for field
work and one-half of a day per month for laboratory analysis.
For COD and BOD it is recommended that measurements of inputs and outputs
be made over a period of a year. In addition, transect studies of these
quantities should also be conducted. These data would be used to define the
annual performance of the wetland in altering the dissolved organic content of
the waters. The samples can be acquired during other water sampling activi-
ties and returned to the laboratory for analysis. Field sampling should
require approximately one-half of a day per month at a given site, and the
laboratory work would require approximately one day of effort for every 12
samples.
2.5 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF POTENTIALLY TOXIC
TRACE METALS
Trace metals will not be a major issue at all wetlands receiving applied
wastewater. However, some sites were identified at which elevated levels of
A-25
-------
trace metals were being discharged into a wetland. Only those sites identi-
fied as suitable for such investigations on the basis of information from
regulatory personnel would constitute candidate sites for the study of this
issue.
The necessary studies would involve measurement of the quantities and of
specific trace metals within each wetland. Trace metal concentrations should
be measured in both the incoming and outgoing waters and in the various soil
and vegetative compartments. These compartments would include sediments,
soil, algae, and emergent vegetation. Levels of trace metals in invertebrates
and fish should also be studied (refer to Section 2.8.8 for descriptions of
methodologies for determination of the effects of trace metals on animal
populations). In addition to the standard wet chemical methods (American
Public Health Association 1976), two important and convenient methods are
available for the determination of the elemental constituents in a solid or
liquid sample: neutron activation analysis and atomic absorption spectros-
copy. With the neutron activation procedure, the concentrations of some
thirty elements, including mercury, cadmium, nickel, zinc, and arsenic, can be
measured in either a solid or a liquid sample. The detection limit for each
individual material depends upon the nuclear structure of that element.
Copper, lead, and boron, vfoich may be elements of interest for this study,
cannot be measured by neutron activation analysis procedure at present.
However, these can be measured by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Because
only one element can be measured during each analysis, this procedure is more
time-consuming than neutron activation analysis. However, neutron activation
analysis is expensive. Facilities for neutron activation analysis exist in
Ann Arbor MI and in Missouri. Many laboratories in USEPA Region V can perform
atomic absorption spectroscopy. Wet chemical methods can be done in any
well-equipped chemical laboratory.
The present state of knowledge is too limited to permit the investigation
of the routes of transmittal of trace metals from one compartment of the
ecosystem to another. Therefore, an inventory should be made of the compart-
ments which accumulate these elements in wetlands of different types that
receive varying quantities of trace metals.
A-26
-------
2.5.1 Typical Site Investigation of Potentially Toxic Trace Metals
Other than the data that may be collected dur.ing the site surveys, ,no
prior field work would be required for this study. At a convenient point in
time (ideally during the growing season) grab samples should be collected and
analyzed. These would include samples of the incoming and outgoing waters, as
well as water samples taken at various points within the wetland between the
inlets and outlets. Grab samples of the suspendable solids, soil, algae, and
emergent vegetation should be taken along the same transects. Both living
plants and detrital material should be sampled. In sampling root material,
the submerged portions of plants must be washed carefully in order to elimi-
nate the important surface films of nonplant material (Lee 1975).
The concentrations of trace metals obtained through analysis of the
samples can then be combined with information on flows, hydraulic storages,
and above-ground productivity of vegetation. This will yield estimates of the
quantities of trace metals that have accumulated in various portions of the
wetland and the pattern of their distribution.
Approximately one person-day per site would be sufficient for collection
of samples of the major compartments. The majority of the effort for this
investigation will be required for the laboratory analyses and data interpre-
tation.
The procedures referred to above have been documented in greater detail
by Lee et al. (1977), Lunz (1978), and Banus et al. (1975). Similar types of
studies have been performed at two sites in Florida, two sites in Ontario, one
site (a salt marsh) in Massachusetts, and one site in Michigan.
2.6 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF REFRACTORY CHEMICALS
If one or more sites are identified as receptors of industrial or agri-
cultural chemicals, a study of the fate of these materials would be useful in
assessing the impact on wetlands or the ability of the wetland to process
these materials. However, analytical procedures for these complex molecules
are difficult and specialized, and the concentrations of the chemicals are
very low.
A-27
-------
The Investigation should be carried out on a one-time basis for several
sites. Measurements should be made of the water entering and leaving the
wetland. Because of the expense of the analytical procedures involved, it is
suggested that no more than a few (ten to twelve) of the more likely chemicals
of interest be investigated.
2.7 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
2.7.1 Soils
Two broad categories of experiments and studies should be performed on
the soil compartment. These include (1) determination of the changes in type
and quantity of the existing soil; and (2) the incorporation of elements such
as phosphorus into the soil. To establish baseline conditions, it is desir-
able to first obtain data on the underlying soils at- each wetland site
selected for study. Intermediate depth soil borings to approximately 35 feet
should be performed to identify the underlying strata at each site. This
information is needed to determine the major hydrologic features of the wet-
land, since little communication with groundwater will occur if impermeable
soils are located beneath the site. On the other hand, the presence of porous
soils in the lower horizons may be an indication of significant communication
with underlying aquifers. These same borings also can be used to define the
depth of the upper wetland soil horizon (probably organic in many cases). It
would be desirable to probe the depth of the uppermost soil horizon at several
locations. Because only approximately the top meter of soil is likely to be
active in the wastewater treatment functions of the wetland on a long-term
basis, it would be feasible to probe a significant number of locations to
determine soil type and status.
The processes that can affect the type and amount of soil present in a
wetland include sedimentation, litter fall, erosion, and chemical leaching.
The question of erosion is unlikely to be of significance at wetland sites in
Region V, although erosional processes due to wastewater addition have been
observed to be extremely important at other locations, such as the Las Vegas
Wash (Tusack-Gilmour 1980). At that site, losses of wetland due to erosional
processes have totalled several hundred acres over the period of a few years.
(Information on this site is given in Appendix B.)
A-28
-------
Processes of litter fall are defined in connection with the measurements
of productivity of the vegetative community (Section 2.8.3). Productivity
places an upper limit on the amount of detrital material that can reach the
litter compartment in the wetland during the growing season. This informa-
tion, combined with data on litter decomposition, will provide an estimate of
the rate at which the plant material is contributing to the process of organic
soil building. The companion process of sediment at ion may result from depos-
ition of organic or inorganic materials suspended in flowing waters. Mater-
ials from natural origins are present in the inflows to the wetland, and both
inorganic and organic materials from the sewage treatment plant also will
enter the wetland. The production of algal detritus is another internal
source of suspendable material that may move from one location to another in a
specific wetland. All of these processes result in a net increase in the soil
within the wetland.
The process of chemical leaching may decrease the amount of soil within a
wetland. Organic soils are typical of a large number of wetlands and can be
dissolved to a significant extent by waters with a high pH. Consequently,
wastewater with a high pH potentially can dissolve significant quantities of
organic material. This phenomenon has been observed at some wetland sites,
such as at Kincheloe MI.
Each of these processes is worthy of further understanding and study at
the selected sites. The overall processes of soil building and destruction
can be inferred through two different types of soil measurements made at each
wetland. These include: (1) a simple mechanical measure of the top of the
soil horizon; and (2) radiotracer techniques. The mechanical method is done
by comparing measurements from staff gauges anchored to the lower mineral soil
horizon and to the root mat in the upper soil horizon. Such gauges can be in-
stalled easily and may be read on a routine basis. The radioactive tracer
techniques are similar to those described previously. For example,
cesium-137, a radionuclide with a half life of 30 years, has no natural occur-
rence but was introduced into the environment as a result of nuclear testing.
For about the last 30 years there has been a varying deposition of this radio-
nuclide on land and water bodies. Sediments accumulated since the early 1950s
often have measurable amounts of cesium-137, while older materials are free of
A-29
-------
this material. Sedimentation rates can be inferred by locating the depth at
which this material is first - detected. This method has been used in salt
marshes to date sedimentary deposits (Delaune et al. 1978). Studies at Hough-
ton Lake MI have shown that this method is valuable for the determination of
accretion rates of solids. Lead-210 also may be used in a similar manner. In
contrast to cesium-137, lead-210 is present in the air as a result of natural
processes and is deposited in soils and sediments at a nearly constant, long-
term rate. The activity of this radionuclide decreases with sediment depth as
a result of radioactive decay during burial. The activity of lead-210 can be
measured for about 100 years. In undisturbed sediments, the activity de-
creases exponentially with depth at a rate that is dependent on the sedimen-
tation rate. This technique has been used by Robbins (1978).
A third radioactive tracer method is the commonly used radiocarbon dating
technique for organic materials. This technique may be used to estimate the
approximate age of a wetland containing organic deposits. It is not useful
for processes less than a few hundred years old, but would provide information
on the overall age of a particular wetland. This type of measurement would be
valuable for identification of the history of the wetland.
The processes of chemical leaching should be studied at each potential
wetland site in order to ascertain the long-term effects on the wetland.
Information on processes of this nature can be obtained in the laboratory by
accelerating the process of exposure to those chemicals that may cause soil
degradation. Such experiments would include the testing of the soil substrate
at each site, and possibly at several locations, by two laboratory procedures:
(1) exposure of a known soil sample to a fixed amount of the constituent
chemical of interest, followed by an observation of the effect on soil quan-
tity and properties; and (2) measurement of the penetration of the chemical by
diffusion into the soil substrate.
2.7.2 Sediment Processes
Sediments are defined as those solid materials that are capable of move-
ment within the wetland waters. This distinguishes them from soils which
would not normally be capable of movement. Sediments enter the wetland
A-30
-------
through incoming waters, precipitation, litter fall, and dusting, and may
leave by similar mechanisms. Sediments are generated within the wetland by
processes of physical/chemical breakdown of plant materials and decomposition
of algae and other plant litter. These materials are mobile and may transfer
significant amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other chemical substances.
The amount of sediment that occur in the incoming streams, the outgoing
streams, and the wetland water storage pool should be determined in order to
assess the effects of applied wastewater.
Known volumes of water can be collected by filtration to determine the
total amount of suspended solids in any sample and to determine the fraction
of that amount that is volatile (organic). Sampling should be conducted at
the same stations that are used for the hydrological studies.
It also would be valuable to collect suspendable material by adding water
to a sample, agitating, and collecting the resulting sediment-laden water.
The purpose of this procedure would be to obtain a sample of the suspendable
materials. This material can be transported by increased flows that could
occur when wastewater is applied to a wetland.
Sediment traps should also be used to determine the amount of sediments
accumulating over a specified time period. The traps would consist of
shielded containers placed with their tops just above ground level. All solid
material would be removed, dried, and weighed at designated sampling inter-
vals. This procedure would permit estimation of the rates of sediment depos-
ition at individual stations.
2.7.3 Implementation of Methodologies
Sedimentation processes lead to reduction of the suspended solids present
applied in wastewater. Because changes in sedimentation can greatly affect
the structure and function of wetlands, it is recommended that measurements of
suspended solids be made at all study sites. It is estimated that one person-
day per site would be required to obtain samples for the appropriate labora-
tory tests. Carbon dating of the bottom soil horizon from at least one loca-
tion at each site is recommended. The use of the cesium-137 technique to
A-31
-------
determine baseline sedimentation rates also should be done at at least one
location at each site. Each major soil type in the wetland should be tested
for the chemical leaching in order to determine potential effects of high pH
waters that would exist at most municipal facilities. Similar tests should be
run at sites with discharges that have a low pH.
Carbon dating of the bottom horizon can be done commercially by Krueger
Enterprises, located in Cambridge MA. The chemical leaching experiments would
require approximately one person-week of laboratory work per wetland. The
cesium-137 experiments and lead-210 work would require about two person-weeks
per wetland.
The placing of soil staff gauges would require approximately one person-
day per set of staff gauges installed. This field work could be accomplished
in conjunction with other parts of the study. The sediment traps should be
placed at approximately the same locations as the staff gauges.
Both the field reading of instruments and the collection of samples
should be done simultaneously with the hydrology fieldwork. Grab samples of
suspended solids should be taken at inflow and outflow points at the same time
as the flows at those locations are measured. Measurements of suspendable
solids could be taken less frequently. The comparative staff gauges need to
be only two or three times per year.
The process of windborne solids entering the wetland probably is not
considered to be important enough to measure. It is also assumed that methods
for assaying algal productivity will provide the information necessary on the
generation of algal detritus (Section 2.8.3). The total interpretation and
analysis of the information from a given wetland site for sediments and soils
would require an estimated one person-week per wetland per year.
A-32
-------
2.8 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON WETLAND STRUCTURE AND
FUNCTION - BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS
The major categories of organisms that potentially could be affected by
wastewater discharges in a wetland ecosystem include plants, invertebrate
animals, and vertebrate animals. Because of the multitude of types of organ-
isms that inhabit wetlands, the lack of data on the population dynamics, life
histories, and roles of many species, and the temporal and financial restric-
tions of the full-scale study, the methodologies developed to identify and
assess impacts on biota consist primarily of techniques to characterize the
biological communities at each study site and to determine adverse effects on
these communities by looking for evidence of changes in structure, function,
and distribution of these communities at the site. Specific detailed method-
ologies cannot be developed until the actual study sites have been selected.
At that time, adjustments can be made to tailor the methodologies to each type
of wetland to be investigated and to each individual site. It is intended
that this process will begin with the initiation of the literature review for
each disciplinary area or issue category, and will be refined on the basis of
the information obtained during the detailed site surveys.
Determination of the impacts of wastewater discharge will require an
interdisciplinary approach, because the physical, chemical, and biological
components of wetlands are interconnected. Therefore, the results of studies
performed by researchers from different disciplines would be used to interpret
the results of the vegetation studies. For example, the results of the hydro-
logical, soil, and water chemistry studies would be used to help interpret
data on plant growth and distribution, because levels of contaminants and
nutrients in soil and water, as well as changes in water level, all are known
to affect wetland vegetation.
The relationship of the physical and chemical studies to the biological
investigations are shown in Figure 2.8-1. The biological investigations are
presented in this section according to the major groups of organisms present
in wetland ecosystems and their approximate place in the wetland food chain
sequence:
A-33
-------
Water Chassis try Studies
iTutrients
» Water quality parameters
- Heavy Tnerala
Oxygen
ral c
Hjdrolcglcal S cudiaa
- Changes in vacer
lavel
* Changes la, flood-
ing perlcdicicy,
duration
Biological Stadias
* Impacts on plane
conoaani tias
Izspacts on anioal
comnnml ciaa
t
Microbiological and
'Disease Studies
Bacteria
Other pathogens
and parasitas
Soil and Sediment
Chemistry Studies
Heavy aetals
Soil particle
pfi, Eh, etc.
* Nutrients
Figure 2.8-1. Relationship of other research investigation
to biological studies.
A-34
-------
Plants (the primary producers);
Invertebrates (limited to benthic macro in vertebrates and insects,
the typical indicators of pollution and major sources of food for
vertebrates);
Fish, and
Wildlife (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals).
Methods to address the issue or concern identified are discussed. All
researchers attempted to include the most up-to-date techniques and informa-
tion known for the study of each group of organisms, to identify the key
parameters or types of organisms to be investigated, and to develop methodol-
ogies as consistent as possible with those used by researchers currently
studying wetland treatment/discharge sites in USEPA Region V and elsewhere.
2.8.1 Plant Species Composition
A research program designed to determine the impacts of treated waste-
water effluent on the species composition of wetland plant communities would
include the following components:
I. Literature review
A. Obtain information on types of wetlands receiving discharge to be
studied and on individual sites.
1. Obtain data on any previous studies on particular type of
wetland or on specific wetland receiving discharge (if avail-
able).
a. Data should include list of dominant species, list of
subdominant species, and aerial photographs.
b. Data sources: colleges, universities, government li-
braries (Federal, state); other sources such as state or
Federal agency personnel working in the study area.
II. Prepare detailed plan of field study
A. Review background literature.
B. Determine approach to be used in fieldwork for particular sites
selected.
1.' Emergent vegetation: measure species composition in experi-
mental plots as function of increasing distance from discharge
and over period of time (four seasons).
a. Determine size of plot to be used.
b. Determine number of plots to be used.
A-35
-------
c. Determine location of plots relative to cover types.
d. Determine sampling schedule.
e. Decide on appropriate method to estimate species composi-
tion; available methods:
1) Knighton (1980): ground level photographs plus ground
proofing; MAP-0-GRAPH technique.
2) Biomass harvest technique (i.e. species harvested).
3) Line-intercept method (Kadlec et al. 1978).
4) Plot method (Ewel 1976, Fritz and Helle 1978b).
f. Determine marsh-upland boundary based on vegetation type;
available methods:
1) Five percent method, joint occurence method (Harvey
et al. 1978 in Eilers et al. 1981); multiple
occurence method (Fenkel et al 1978 in Eilers et al.
1981): established lists of wetland and upland
indicator species.
2) Cluster analysis (Boesch 1977 in Eilers et al. 1981),
similarity ISJ and ISE indices utilizing Jaccard's
method or Ellenburg's variation on the Jaccard's
index (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenburg, 1974 in Eilers
et al. 1981): methods assume no preclassification of
plant indicator species.
2. Submergent vegetation: measure species composition, species
diversity, and biomass of replicate quantitative samples ran-
domly collected with Ponar sampler or coring device as a func-
tion of increasing distance from discharge.
3. Forested wetlands
a. Obtain aerial photographs of control and impacted areas.
b. Prepare vegetation maps of each site; ground verify maps.
c. Stratify each site into component vegetation communities;
indicate on map.
d. Locate random sites within each vegetation type (strata)
for further sampling.
e. Conduct field study, using one or more of the following
alt ernat ive ap pro aches:
1) Measure species diversity, species composition,
biomass in randomly placed replicate plots in each
stratum (size of plots and number of replicates also
would have to be determined); compare same parameters
in control and impacted wetlands, using similarity
coefficient.
2) Use gradient method of Whittdter (1967) to assess
changes in species composition along discharge grad-
ient.
3) Investigate possible use of forest dynamics modeling
approach: Phillips (1969) SWAMP model of impacts of
hydrologic changes in floodplain forest dynamics or
Franz and Bazzaz (1977) study of bottomland forest
species composition as function of flood stage prob-
abilities.
4) Use approaches described by Ewel (1976), and Ewel and
Odum (1978, 1979), Kangas (1976), or Myers and Shel-
ton (1980) for investigation of species composition,
biomass, structural features, etc... (because of the
A-36
-------
level of detail required to indicate the differences
between these methods, they are not described in this
report).
4. Data interpretation: use classic vegetation description methods to
give estimates of species frequency, percent cover, importance, etc.
For long-term study, use similarity coefficient over time.
III. Report preparation
2.8.2 Area! Distribution
Several investigators also have used remote sensing techniques to delin-
eate wetland vegetation boundaries. Gilbert et al. (1980) used remote sensing
techniques to map wetlands in the sandhills of Nebraska. The approach used
was to compare the accuracy of LANDSAT wetland maps with the accuracy of color
infrared photographs over a 120-square-mile area. Gilbert et al. (1980) made
a similar comparison for a smaller wetland. LANDSAT imagery has been used by
several workers including LaPerriere and Morrow (1978), Rundquist and Turner
(1980), Nye and Brooks (1979), Montanari and Wilen (1978), and Bartlett and
Klemas (1980). LANDSAT imagery is now available at a resolution of 0.25
acres. The State of South Carolina has also developed an inexpensive,
practical system for wetland mapping using a newly developed infrared film
(Kodak aerochrome #2443 - Estar base) that effectively distinguishes between
different types of plant communities.
I. Literature review
A. Obtain any available aerial photographs of wetland from appropriate
state and Federal agencies or other sources.
B. If suitable photos are not available, gather information needed to
prepare for field study.
II. Prepare detailed plan of study
A. If existing photographs are available and usable, prepare maps of
wetland showing changes in wetland vegetation over time.
1. When submitting requests, the following information needs to be
included:
A-37
-------
Coordinates of wetland
Type of coverage (overlapping coverage is needed)
Time constraints (what dates, how far back in time)
Type of photographs (black and white, color, IR)
Scale
For large wetlands, LANDSAT imagery may be useful, but it would
not be suitable for small areas because the current technology
limits the resolution to about a 4-acre area. ERDAS, Inc. of
Atlanta GA, currently is developing a system that will be
capable of analyzing at 0.25-acre resolution, so that LANDSAT
data eventually could be used for almost every wetland of a few
acres or more. However, there is no substitute for detailed
(1"=200' or 1"=400') on-site aerial photographs made specifi-
cally for the site to be studied, because of the greater detail
provided.
2. Maps must be prepared from overlapping series (at least 30%) at
a scale sufficient to provide needed detail for the size of the
wetland involved. Typically, a scale of 1"=400' or less is
suitable. The maps should be prepared using a stereoscope.
3. Maps must be ground-checked in the field during the summer in
order to verify the patterns observed.
4. Based on the maps prepared, calculate the area of each vegeta-
tion type, using a polar planimeter. Determine the rate of
change of area of different vegetative types over time.
Take aerial photographs (if not available) and develop vegetation
maps
1. The purpose of this step is not to show changes in area! dis-
tribution, but to complete the required biomass and species
composition studies.
2. Recommended method:
a. Determine approximate size of wetland to be mapped.
b. Based on the size of the wetland, select the flight height
to produce adequate scale (1"=200' or 1"=400') photos.
c. Take photographs:
1) Shoot from correct altitude using Kodak aerochrome
film (infrared film type 2443 Estar base); also shoot
A-38
-------
series with color print film (Kodacolor ASA 100),
using polarizing filter.
2) All shots should be taken with a special aerial
photography camera or nonwide angle lens to avoid
edge and scale distortion.
3) Shoot to obtain overlapping sequence by using motor-
driven camera.
4) Photos must be taken by shooting vertically. A
camera pod that attaches to the wing or wheel struts
of any small plane has been developed by Dr. Joseph
Rostron and Dr. William A. Shair of Clemson Univer-
sity, and would be ideal for such a study. Tech-
niques for low-level stereo photograpy using 35-mm
cameras also have been developed by University of
Minnesota researchers.
5) Overflights should be made during spring, summer and
autumn to determine extents of different plant commu-
nities.
6) Photos should be used to prepare vegetation maps by
processing with stereoscopic techniques, using a zoom
transfer scope. Areas of vegetation communities can
be calculated with a polar or electronic planimeter.
Images should be transferred to Mylar overlays and
maps prepared showing extent of vegetation zones.
III. Report preparation
2.8.3 Plant Biomass, Growth, and Production
The objectives of this study would be to demonstrate the degree of uptake
of nutrients by plants as a function of distance from the discharge and to
test for potential differences in biomass, growth, and production that could
be caused by increased nutrient levels. The following outline summarizes a
research approach (and references to methods) that could be used to address
these questions:
A-39
-------
I. Conduct literature review for specific wetland; formulate hypothesis
A. Collect background data
B. Review data
C. Develop hypothesis for specific wetland
II. Plan study and develop field methodologies
A. Emergent vegetation
1. Tissue nutrient levels
a. Stratify habitats in receiving wetland using maps devel-
oped from aerial photography.
b. Design random sampling pattern within each vegetation
type.
c. From within each strata, collect replicate monthly samples
of aboveground and belowground biomass. Subsample biomass
samples for tissue analysis. Obtain dry weights of bio-
mass samples for growth and production estimates. Harvest
aboveground biomass using a quadrat sized according to the
methods of Greig-Smith (1964) (a larger quadrat may be
needed, depending on the type of vegetation). Harvest
root biomass with a 10-cm plastic core to a depth of 20 cm
or where roots end (at least three replicate saaples
needed at each station). As check on accuracy of 10 cm
core, also take smaller number of 0.5 m2 cores at start of
study. Compare data with 10 cm core results. Separate
material in laboratory into different species, and into
standing dead, standing live, and litter components. For
all tissues, determine ash content, express data in grams
'meter of surface area and as dry
of carbon per square
weight/m2. Analyze subsamples of each component for
tissue nutrient levels, using one of the following tech-
niques, and compare to National Bureau of Standards data
to confirm:
1) Acid-digestion technique (Van Lierop 1976); colori-
metry (Tilton and Kadlec 1979).
2) Acid-digestion technique (Wikum and Ondrus 1980);
vanadomolybdate colorimetric method (American Public
Health Association 1976).
3) X-ray fluorescence (Mudroch and Mudroch in press).
A-40
-------
d. Analyze for total P, total N, and other desired materials.
2. Blomass and production of emergent vegetation
a. Sample above and below ground biomass monthly.
b. Use at least two methods to determine production, in order
to compare accuracy.
1) Harvest method of Smalley (1958).
2) Turner "end of season" method (Turner 1976).
3) Predictive periodic model (PPM) of Hackney and Hack-
ney (1978).
4) Net annual primary production method (Stout et al.
1980).
5) Monospecific or mixed species stands net annual
primary production methods (USEPA 1980).
3. Statistical analysis
a. Test data for homogeneity of variances and normality of
distribution; transform and retest if necessary.
b. If transformation is effective, perform appropriate para-
metric analyses. If not effective, try different trans-
formation or employ nonparanetric procedures. Develop and
test "a priori" hypothesis where possible.
c. Types of statistical analysis:
1) Descriptive statistics for nutrient levels: mean,
range, standard deviation for all stations and dates.
2) Initial testing: ANOVA for differences between
stations and/or dates; followed by multiple compari-
son procedure (such as the SNK, or Student-Newman-
Keuls Test) (Sokal and Rohlf 1969) to determine which
means are different among stations or dates.
3) Test for correlations between biomass and nutrient
levels, using correlation coefficient applied to
pooled data over the period of the year or for each
sample date (once a month). Use coefficient of
determination (r2) to determine statistical validity
of correlation regression.
A-41
-------
Submerged vegetation (macrophytes)
1. Determine boundaries of aquatic habitat affected by discharge.
2. Conduct preliminary survey to determine if submerged vegetation
exists in study area.
3. If vegetation is found, plan study:
a. Conduct monthly sampling of benthic vegetation of stations
along gradient away from discharge, or above and below
discharge if possible.
b. Sample from a boat along transects from shore. Sample at
regular, increasing-depth intervals in transects . perpen-
dicular to shore. Use quantitative Ponar sampler.
c. Estimate biomass of component species; present data in
grams of carbon and dry weight per square meter; analyze
tissues for nutrients as above.
d. At each station, measure water quality parameters (includ-
ing nutrients, light intensity, water temperature, and
hydrological parameters) monthly over a period of at least
one year.
e. Conduct statistical tests of difference in biomass for
each species as a function of distance from the discharge.
Use singleway ANOVA as first test for differences. If
initial differences are found between stations, test
further using SNK multiple comparison test. Correlate
biomass to nutrient levels. Employ turbidity tolerance
index to determine possible turbidity impacts on biomass
(Davis and Brinson 1980).
Phytoplankton, Epibenthic Algae, and Periphyton
1. Phytoplankton: determine the eutrophication potential of
wetland waters that receive treated effluent, using algal
bioassay procedure.
a. Use USEPA algal assay procedure: bottle test (USEPA
1971).
b. Conduct test on samples collected as a function of in-
creasing distance from discharge or above and below dis-
ch arge.
A-42
-------
c. Results of test (which define the ability of the water to
stimulate algal growth) will provide estimate of effec-
tiveness of tertiary treatment by wetland; i.e., if nu-
trient removal is truly effective. Also, test results
will indicate the potential for algal blooms.
2. Water column/benthic plant metabolism: measure community
metabolism with diurnal oxygen curve method (Odum 1969).
Compare metabolism over 24 hour period either on gradient in
discharge or in reference area.
3. Epibenthic algae: monitor potential blooms of nuisance algae
on marsh surface due to effluent.
a. Use qualitative observations of nuisance growths only.
b. If growths are observed, sampling of biomass should be
conducted. Sample biomass of surface growing algae using
10 to 20 cm core sanpler (one core can be taken from each
emergent biomass quadrat before harvesting to save time).
Qualitatively identify plant species present in each core,
determine ash-free dry weight and biomass/m2; estimate
mean, standard deviation, and range of biomass; determine
how biomass changes as function of distance from dis-
charge; analyze statistically; determine N and P content
of tissues.
4. Periphyton: monitor periphyton populations by using glass
slide method and sampling of natural periphyton populations in
marsh using methods described in Weber (1973). Determine cell
densities, species diversity indices, equatibility, number of
species, and relative percentage composition of major groups in
replicate slides at each station. Compare reference area to
affected area or periphyton along gradient of discharge.
Forested wetlands
1. Study possible changes in wetland forest vegetation biomass,
growth, and production due to possible impacts of effluent
(hydrological, chemical impacts).
a. Delimit or define study area boundaries - area affected by
the discharge.
A-43
-------
1) Use photographs of site, plus ground verification to
prepare vegetation map of site.
2) Delineate vegetation zones or types on vegetation
map; superimpose random dot grid on map; choose
random sites within each vegetation zone (strata).
b. Measure changes in growth and production of dominant spe-
cies as a function of increasing distance from discharge.
1) Wikum and Ondrus (1980): measure current year's
growth of dominants at randomly selected locations in
each vegetation stratum as . function of increasing
distance, or in control and impacted areas.
2) Brown (1982): measure trunk diameter height and
species in randomly placed 10m x 10m plots within
stratified zones of wetland; determine aboveground
biomass using least-squares regressions of wood,
leaf, and total biomass against dbh (Whittaker and
Woodwell 1968). Brown (1981) also includes methods
for studying chlorophyll levels, metabolism, trans-
piration, plant-surface area relationship, and litter
fall of forested swamp.
3) Kadlec et al. (1978): measure shoot elongation of
replicate plants as function of increasing distance
fr om di sch arge.
4) Burnett (1976): extract cores from canopy trees;
analyze tree ring growth using ocular micrometer and
stereomicroscope to measure annual tree ring incre-
ment. Diameter at breast height also should be
measured at time core is taken from tree for later
determination of basal area increment per year;
determine rate of growth 10-15 years before and 10-15
years after addition of effluent and compare statis-
tically with similar data for control area.
A-44
-------
III. Report preparation
2.8.4 Detrital Cycling
The objectives of this portion of the study would be to determine the impact
of wastewater application on rates of decomposition of detritus of dominant
wetland plant species. Additional objectives would be to determine the impact
of wastewater application on levels of nutrients in detritus of dominant
wetland plants and to determine the impacts of wastewater on detrital produc-
tion rates. The following outline summarizes the major steps required to
conduct such a study and references to methods dscribed.
I. Conduct literature review for particular wetland type
A. Collect background data
B. Review data
C. Develop hypothesis for specific wetland
II. Plan study and develop methodologies
A. Use similar methods for all wetlands
B. Planning
1. Conduct preliminary site survey.
2. Determine dominant species of plants (from other parts of
study).
3. Make needed number of litter bags from plastic window screen.
C. Field work
1. Place 10 grams of fresh leaf material collected at the end of
the growing season into each of several replicate litter bags
at each station. Place replicates at stations located at in-
creasing distance from discharge, or in alternate design, in
control and impacted areas. Place one set of bags directly on
marsh surface (water level) attached to plastic stake. Place a
second set suspended above the water level in order to provide
an estimate of rate of decomposition of standing dead compart-
ment. Use enough bags to enable retrieval of triplicate sam-
ples from each station at 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and monthly
thereafter for 1 year (total time) (Chamie 1976).
A-45
-------
D. Analysis
1. Return bags to lab; clean, dry, grind, and weigh contents.
Analyze for Kjeldahl N and total P using microKjeldahl tech-
nique (American Society of Agronomy, Inc. 1965) and tube diges-
tion technique (Sommers and Nelson 1972), respectively.
2. Illustrate data on graphs showing mean percent of original
weight left in triplicate samples for each sampling date.
Illustrate mean and standard deviation on sane graph. Cal-
culate decomposition rate coefficient (discussed in Chamie
1976).
3. Analyze data statistically using ANOVA after testing data for
homogeneity of variances and normality. Use appropriate trans-
formations as required. Use ANOVA to test for differences due
to wastewater application in rate of decay and levels of N
and P. Also test for possible correlations between moisture
level and decay rates since previous studies have shown good
relationships (Sanville 1981).
III. Report preparation
A proposed sampling schedule for all of the plant studies outlined in
Sections 2.8.1 through 2.8.4 is provided in Table 2.8-1.
2.8.5 Trace Metals and Other Trace Elements
The objectives of this study would be to: (1) determine levels of
selected trace metals and other trace elements in vegetation in the receiving
wetland; (2) determine the significance of observed levels of trace elements,
i.e., with respect to potential impacts on wetland plants; and (3) determine
the possible role wetland vegetation plays in removal of trace metals and
other trace elements, as compared with sediments or other components of the
system.
I. Conduct literature review for particular wetland types
A. Collect background data
B. Review data
C. Develop specific hypothesis
A-46
-------
II. Plan study and develop methodologies
A. Use similar methods for all wetlands
B. Planning
1. Analyze quarterly replicate biomass samples (all components) of
emergent vegetation, submergent vegetation, and bottomland
trees (foliar growth samples) for levels of trace elements (6
replicates per stratum). This will provide information on all
plant parts (both living and dead).
2. Compare trace element content of reference site and area
receiving wastewater or as a function of increasing distance
from discharge.
3. Analyze parameters (Ni, Zn, Ca, Cr, Pb, Hg; possible other
elements Ca, K, Mg, Fe, Mn, Mg) by using one of two analytical
methods:
a. Alternative 1: neutron activation analysis (NAA) using
Phoenix Memorial Laboratory at The University of Michigan.
Advantages include the ease of analysis, highly precise
results, speedy turn-around time. The main disadvantages
include the high cost and the fact that two metals of
particular interest, copper and lead, cannot be measured
with NAA.
b. Alternative 2: acid digestion/atomic adsorption spec-
troscopy technique (US Army Corps of Engineers 1978).
The main disadvantage of this technique is that all
elements cannot be analyzed with one technique. However,
the method is less expensive than NAA.
c. Alternative 3: inductively coupled plasma resonance
technique.
4. Data Analysis
a. Analyze data statistically to test for differences as
function of distance from discharge or between similar
habitats (species) in control versus impacted areas. Use
ANOVA and multiple comparison techniques; present data
using descriptive statistics: include mean, standard
deviation, range.
HI. Report preparation
A-47
-------
Table 2.8-1. Proposed sampling schedule for investigation of effects on plant communities.
Parameters to be Sampled/Technique
Emergent vegetation
Species composition
Biomass, growth, and production
Heavy metals analysis
Submerged vegetation
Species composition
Biomass, growth, and production
Heavy metals analysis
Forested wetland
f Species composition
ro Biomass, growth, and production
Heavy metals analysis
Phytoplankton/epibenthic algae
Biomass, growth, and production
Bioassay
Epibenthic algae
Heavy metals analysis
Detrital cycling
Mapping of areal distribution of
component species
Bi- Bi-
monthly Monthly annually Annually Other
X (May through late September)
X
X (from early May to late September)
X (quarterly samples)
X (August or early September)
X (August or early September)
X (quarterly samples)
X (August or early September)
X (quarterly samples)
X (August)
X (if nuisance growth occurs)
X (quarterly samples)
X (one overflight in
spring, summer, and
early autumn)
-------
The proposed sampling schedule for the investigation of effects on plant
communities was presented in Table 2.8-1.
2.8.6 Macroinvertebrate Populations
The objectives of this portion of the study would be to: (1) determine
changes in invertebrate population structure caused by added wastewater;
(2) determine the potential for food chain magnification of trace metals by
aquatic invertebrates; and (3) determine the potential for disease transmis-
sion by invertebrates to other portions of the food web, including man. A
research program designed to meet these objectives (including references to
methods) is summarized in the following outline (a proposed sampling schedule
is provided in Table 2.8-2):
I. Literature review
A. Collect literature on study area, including general features (chemi-
cal, physical, geological, biological).
B. Review literature on study area and on freshwater invertebrates
(such as Buikema and Benfield 1980) to assist in selection of indi-
cator species and of the stages of life cycles of those species to
be examined for estimation of toxic effects.
C. Formulate specific hypotheses.
II. Changes in invertebrate population structure
A. Planning
1. Use same areas that vegetation study employs for stratified
random sampling; use same approach for location of samples.
2. Sample either as a function of distance from the discharge or
in similar control and impacted areas.
B. Field work
1. Collect quarterly replicate benthic samples at each vegetation
station, using one of the following alternative methods:
a. For deeper areas, samples should be collected with a Ponar
grab device.
b. For areas shallower than 1.0 meter, a coring device should
be employed such as that described by Merrit and Cummins
(1978) and used by Kaminski and Prince (1981) to study the
A-49
-------
Table 2.8-2. Proposed sampling schedule for investigation of effects on macroinvertebrates and insect communities.
I
tn
O
Parameters to be Sampled/Techniques
Macroinvertebrates
Population structure and abundance
Ponar grab device (deep areas)
Coring device (shallow areas)
Insects
Population structure and abundance
Relative sampling
Absolute sampling
Indicator species
Weekly
Frequency of Sampling
X (May to September)
X (May to September)
X (May to September)
Quarterly
X
X
-------
relationships between ducks and aquatic invertebrates at
the Delta Marsh in Manitoba, Canada. Swanson (1978a,
1978b) also described a coring device for use in shallow
wetlands that should be considered. The advantage of this
device is that it is calibrated for depth and volume,
which permits more accurate quantitative measurements.
c. Voigts (1976) sampled free-swimming invertebrates asso-
2
ciated with wetland vegetation using a 0.1 m dip net
pulled vertically through the water column. This method
provides a quantitative estimate of the density of in-
vertebrates per cubic meter of water. Voigts (1976) also
sampled randomly selected locations along permanent tran-
sects to obtain estimates of the mean number of inverte-
brates and an estimate of variability between samples.
Because abundance and diversity of aquatic invertebrates are
known to be correlated with the presence of aquatic plants
(Wetzel 1978; Voigts 1976), it is necessary to sample the
plants also.
a. Small coring devices such as that described by Swanson
(1978a, 1978b) cannot be used to adequately sample aquatic
plants. Aquatic plants must be harvested with a larger-
mouth device, such as that described by Wood (1975).
Krull (1970) used an Eckman dredge to sample benthic
plants and invertebrates simultaneously. The dredge is
equipped with an extra-powerful spring to ensure that the
plant material does not cause the mouth of the grab to
remain open. For areas of heavy plant litter that cannot
be sampled by any of the above methods, Kaminski and
Prince (1981) recommended use a steel frame covered with
nylon netting designed by Gerking (1957).
b. Sample three replicates at each station. Sort and weigh
vegetation samples.
c. Process samples in laboratory, to obtain following types
of data:
1) Mean invertebrate density and biomass at each station
sampled; do same for vegetation samples.
A-51
-------
2) Mean density and bioraass for each taxon at each
station.
3) Mean, standard deviation, range and coefficient of
variation for each station and taxon.
4) Use four different estimates of diversity for each
station: Shannon-Weaver (H); Simpson's index of
diversity (Simpson 1949); Simpson's index of domi-
nance; biotic index for tolerance of taxa to pollu-
tion using method of Chutler (1972).
5) Rank stations with respect to diversity, dominance,
biotic index values; compare with physical and chemi-
cal data.
6) Evaluate effectiveness of sampling or compare
impacted versus reference areas using rarefaction
technique of Sanders (1968).
7) Compare stations with each other using coefficient of
community (Whittaker and Fairbanks 1958, Johnson and
Brinkhurst 1971, Fay et al. 1978), and the Percent
Similarity of Community (Whittaker and Fairbanks
1958).
8) Classify organisms according to trophic status
according to Merrit and Cummins (1978). Also deter-
mine tolerance of organisms to organic decomposable
wastes based on information provided in Weber (1973).
III. Potential for transfer of trace metals or chlorinated hydrocarbons
through the food chain
A. Measure trace metal content of selected invertebrate species in
samples by neutron activation analysis (or atomic adsorption) of
subsampled dominant organisms from control and impacted areas or as
function of increasing distance from discharge.
1. Relate to levels in water and sediment as determined in other
parts of study.
2. Relate to literature.
3. Relate to levels observed in higher food chain organisms (fish)
sampled in other parts of the study.
A-52
-------
B. Evaluate impact of chlorine or chlorinated hydrocarbons on inverte-
brates
1. Can only be done indirectly via measurements of population
changes as per above.
2. Interpretation will be hypothetical and qualitative, based on
correlation of levels of chlorine and/or chlorinated hydrocar-
bons in relation to other contaminants and factors (oxygen
levels, sediment, etc.).
3. Could consider use of standard bioassay technique or other
laboratory type tests to determine chlorine toxicity.
4. Determine bio-magnification level if data are available to do
this.
IV. Potential role of invertebrates in transmitting disease
(Refer to Section-2.8.7 for methods)
V. Report preparation
2.8.7 Insect Populations
Witter and Croson (1976) provided a review of methods used to sample
insects in wetlands, and compared the relative effectiveness of each method.
Two basic types of methodologies can be employed: relative and absolute.
Relative methods, such as malaise traps, pitfall traps, and light traps, are
easier and less expensive to employ, and comparisons between areas are pos-
sible using these methods. However, the size of the catch obtained by rela-
tive sampling methods is affected by: (1) changes in population size; (2)
changes in insect activity; (3) changes in insect developmental stage; (4)
trap efficiency; and (5) variable response to traps by insects of different
orders. Absolute sampling methods, such as emergence traps, extraction of
soil cores or blocks, and clipping or vacuum suction of vegetation in a known
area, provide for a quantitative estimate of abundance, but are very costly to
employ because of the labor involved in collection and analysis.
A-53
-------
Southwood (1981) summarized information concerning various types of
"suction" traps that also can be used effectively to sample insects from the
air. These basically include the exposed cone, enclosed cone, and rotary
types of traps. Southwood (1981) provided detailed information on factors
affecting suction trap efficiencies (including density of insects, wind
speeds, and information on periodicity) and how to account for variations
produced by these variables. He also included a discussion of how to calcu-
late areal densities and total areal populations from catch data. This refer-
ence should be consulted prior to designing the study, because it is the most
up-to-date summary of methods and approaches of studying insect populations.
An additional possible approach would be to use the methods described by
Smith (1969), who studied the mosquitoes inhabiting sewage treatment oxidation
ponds in Missouri. His approach was to estimate egg densities, larval abun-
dance, and adult abundance. Egg density was estimated quantitatively by
counting eggs laid on artificial rafts placed in the field. The rafts, called
"artificial oviposition blocks", were made from polystyrene plastic of known
dimensions. Larvae were sampled with a long-handled dip net in the field, and
an estimate of the numbers per dip was made. Adults were sampled using the
standard New Jersey light trap and/or the USPIISCDC light trap. These methods
could be used to sample mosquitoes in wetlands affected by wastewater applica-
tion, and comparisons could be made to nearby "unaffected" areas.
Witter and Croson (1976) recommended a specific approach to studies of
insects in freshwater wetlands that takes into consideraton the factors dis-
cussed above. Their approach was to employ indicator species as the basis of
studying the particular wetland and to use this method as a means of predict-
ing the impact of wastewater application on resident insect populations. The
advantages of this approach are that it is more cost-effective, since fewer
numbers of insects must be collected and processed, and also that it specifi-
cally addresses the practical issues associated with wastewater application.
The disadvantages include the lack of understanding of natural fluctuations of
insect indicator species populations, which makes it difficult to relate
abundance to specific disturbances. Another difficulty is that little is
known about the breeding cycles of most indicator species, so that their
emergence may be missed during sampling. Despite these difficulties, the
A-54
-------
indicator species method probably is the most effective one to use for the
proposed study. This method is summarized below.
I. Literature review
A. Review literature on flora and fauna of region, and information on
local geology, soils, climate, and water chemistry
B. Formulate hypothesis
II. Plan study
A. Based on hypothesis, select indicator species
1. Criteria for choosing indicator species
a. Species must be characteristic components of fauna being
studied.
b. Populations of species must be known to change with para-
meter of interest (e.g., wastewater addition).
c. Species of medical or economic importance should be se-
lected - especially biting disease vectors.
d. Species should be ones that can be sampled easily by
techniques suitable to the habitat.
e. Species should be widespread and common.
2. Potential species for examination of issues.
a. Disease vector issue - horse flies, mosquitoes, deer
flies.
b. Water quality issues - chironomids; possible others.
B. Field study
1. Priority should be given to use of emergence trap, malaise trap
and light trap, based on recommendation by Witter and Croson
(1976), and the suction traps described by Southwood (1981);
alternatively, use methods described by Smith (1969).
2. Set traps for 24-hour periods each month from May to early
September in suitable locations within control and impacted
wetlands; perform other sampling during same periods.
3. Subsample to obtain workable sample size, sort samples, prepare
list of species collected.
A-55
-------
C. Analysis of data
a. Choose 10-12 indicator species using above criteria
b. Interpret results
D. Report preparation
The sampling schedule for investigation of the effects on insect communities
was presented in Table 2.8-2.
2.8.8 Fish Communities
Because methodologies specific to wetlands fisheries investigations have
not been developed, the methodologies described in this section are those
routinely used during fisheries studies. Where their utility in wetlands
investigations is limited or marginal, this fact is noted.
The introduction of wastewater into a wetland may cause species shifts
due to:
Changes in either the water level or the frequency and duration
of flooding
Changes in the forage base available to the fish community
Alteration of spawning success
Increase in mortality in certain populations
Increase in occurrence of diseases in fish.
Regardless of which of the above factor or factors may be affecting species
composition, a research program similar to the one outlined below should be
followed.
I. Background material
A. Review the scientific literature for information regarding the area
in question or similar areas.
B. Contact individuals knowledgeable about the area: e.g., city, state
agency, or Federal agency biologists; university personnel; local
fishermen.
C. Conduct a preliminary inspection of the area.
A-56
-------
II. Planning
A. Based on the water regime of the wetland, determine the basic com-
munity type or use that can be expected.
B. Based on the expected community type or use, determine the methods
that should be considered for collecting fish (Table 2.8-3).
C. Based on the information obtained during the detailed site surveys,
determine which of the gear types is appropriate for the wetland in
question.
III. Field work
A. Station location - Choose a suitable number of sampling stations,
based on the size of the receiving wetland and the volume of efflu-
ent. The arrangement of the stations normally will be related to
the distance from the discharge. All habitat types should be sam-
pled. A reference station should be established at a location
upstream from the discharge point or, less preferably, in an adja-
cent similar wetland.
B. Sampling frequency - Sampling should be conducted at least seas-
onally for a minimum of two years. Monthly sampling for a three-
year period would be preferable.
C. Use of the sampling gear - Weber (1973), American Public Health
Association (1976), and Hocutt (1978) discussed the standard sam-
pling gears, their proper use, and their limitations. A special
push net designed for use in wetlands has been described by Herke
(1969).
D. Retain voucher specimens for any unusual specimens.
The following institutions are recommended as depositories for
specimens:
University of Minnesota
Milwaukee Public Museum
University of Michigan
Ohio State University
University of Indiana
University of Illinois
Illinois Natural History Survey.
A-57
-------
Table 2.3-3. Methods for collection of fish.
Type of Community
General Forage Only Spawning
Seining Seining Seining
Gill netting Electrofishing Electrofishing
Hoop/fyke netting Push nets Hoop/fyke netting
Electrofishing Push nets
Push nets
A-58
-------
IV. Data analysis
A. Quantitative
1. Statistical techniques used in fisheries science have been
described by Ricker (1975).
2. General statistical procedures are described in standard bio-
statistic texts such as those authored by Zar (1974) and Sokal
and Rolf (1969).
3. Use of diversity indices have been discussed by Weber (1973).
B,. Qualitiative
1. Because of the problems associated with gear selectivity,
standardization of unit of effort, lack of suitable controls,
and the inherent difficulties associated with properly sampling
wetlands, quantitative treatment of the data may not be pos-
sible. Qualitative parameters to be examined should include
percent species composition, community dominants, changes in
the number of individuals or species captured, and differences
above and below the discharge.
V. Report preparation
2.8.8.1 Changes in Productivity and Biomass
The measurement of biomass" alone usually is of little value, because
fisheries scientists generally are more interested in the species of fish that
are present than in their total weight. However, in conjunction with other
data, statistics related to biomass and productivity can be useful. Two basic
parameters which could be examined include: (1) total weight and/or numbers
(by species or for the fish population as a whole); and (2) growth of indi-
vidual fish. Parameters related to populations are extremely difficult to
determine accurately. Methodologies for determining changes in productivity
or biomass are indicated in the following outline:
I. Collect background material (literature review and contacts)
A-59
-------
II. Planning
A. Biomass and productivity estimates would be useful only for wetlands
that support general fish communities. The fish collection methods
identified for general fish communities also would be applicable
here.
III. Field work
A. Population-related studies
1. Assess survival and mortality rates from age-class statistics.
2. Determine population statistics, using mark and recapture
methods.
3. Determine growth rates for populations, as described by Ricker
(1975).
B. Individual statistics - Use length and weight data to determine the
condition factor (K = w x 10 /I), when
length in millimeters (Carlander 1969).
condition factor (K = w x 10 /I), where w = weight in grams and 1
IV. Data analysis
Analysis and interpretation of population statistics and individual
parameters is extremely difficult and should not be attempted without a
firm understanding of the variables involved. Appropriate references are
Ricker (1975) and Carlander (1969).
V. Report preparation
2.8.8.2 Changes in Spawning Success
The conditions necessary for successful spawning often are more rigorous
than those necessary to support other portions of the life cycle. Successful
reproduction obviously is necessary for general populations to be self-
sustaining. For those species that use wetlands primarily as spawning and
nursery areas, successful reproduction in any particular wetland is not neces-
sary each year, provided that alternative spawning areas are available. If
alternative areas are not available, then successful spawning during at least
some years is crucial to the continued well-being of the species in question.
A-60
-------
Documenting changes in spawning success in wetlands is difficult for the
following reasons:
Trawling, the method of choice for collecting ichthyo-
plankton, usually is not possible in wetlands.
For reasons that are largely unknown, reproductive success
shows tremendous natural variability. Thus, cause and
effect relationships are difficult to establish.
It generally is not known how many fish must be recruited
into the population each year for the continued success of
that population.
The dynamic nature of wetlands, especially the seasonal
changes in water levels, makes it difficult to separate out
effects caused by natural factors (e.g., low water, high
temperature) from those caused by effluents.
The methodologies to be used in the determination of impacts on spawning
success are as follows:
I. Collect background materials (literature review and contacts)
II. Planning
A. Appropriate gear types would include fine mesh (1/16") seines and
ichthyoplankton nets (if possible) to collect larvae and electro-
/
fishing equipment and hoop or fyke nets to collect spawning adults.
/
Specialized gear such as a buoyant net or a push net may have to be
used.
B. Attempt to observe spawning activities: e.g., nest building, adults
"running."
III. Field work
A. Station location - Because the primary purpose is to document
the successful occurence of spawning, the exact location of stations
is not crucial. However, all habitat types (both substrate and
vegetational) should be sampled.
B. Sampling frequency - Bi-weekly from early March through the end of
July, for at least two (preferably three) consecutive years.
A-61
-------
IV. Data analysis
A. Quantitative - Quantitative analysis would not be possible in most
situations
B. Qualitative - Factors to be considered are:
1. Collection of "ripe" adults.
2.. Observations of spawning adults (e.g., carp wallowing in the
shallows, centrarchids (sunfish) or sticklebacks building
nests).
3. Numbers of larvae collected.
V. Report preparation
2.8.8.3 Determination of Toxicity
Figure 2.8-2 summarizes the methodologies that can be employed to deter-
mine fish toxicity and discuss problems in wetlands receiving wastewater. The
toxicity of municipal and industrial effluents has been well described (Tsai
1975; Brungs et al. 1978; and Spehar 1980, among others). The constituents of
primary concern are residual chlorine, ammonia, detergents, low dissolved
oxygen, pH, and heavy metals. The toxicity of effluents is best determined
using bioassay methodologies. The bioassays can be performed either by
pumping various dilutions of the effluent into aquarium tanks containing test
fish or by placing cages of fish at various points in the receiving wetland.
Effluent bioassays can be conducted to evaluate short-term (acute) toxicity,
long-term (chronic) toxicity, or sublethal effects such as reduced growth,
reduced hatching success, or bio accumulation. Caged fish bioassays generally
are used to estimate acute toxicity, but other parameters also can be
examined.
The following methodologies should be used to determine if the wastewater
effluent possesses significant toxicity:
I. Collect background information
A. Use the results of the water quality sampling progran to identify
those constituents that are present in sufficient concentrations to
be potentially toxic. Levels for the parameters of concern are
given in USEPA (1976).
A-62
-------
cr>
GO
Chemical
Parameters
Ammonia
Heavy metula
Chlorine
Dissolved oxygen
Surfactants
Fish Survival'
Measured during
Basic Water Quality
Sampling Program
Flah as Vectors for
Human Diseases
Assessed by
On-slte caged fish bloassays
Bioaccumulation
Heavy metals
Organica
Pathogen analysis «*
Tumor development 4
(Requires assistance of
"**"USFWS Laboratory Personnel)
Figure 2.8-2. Fish toxicity/disease considerations.
-------
B. Review the toxicity literature available for any constituents iden-
tified.
C. Use hydrology information to determine dilution ratios.
D. Inspect the site.
II. Field and laboratory work - Detailed methodologies for properly conduct-
ing all the bioassays described below are included in Dickson et al.
(1978).
A. If acute toxicity is a potential problem, conduct 96-hour acute
bioassays on the effluent, using appropriate test species.
B. If the 96-hour bioassays show that the effluent does possess acute
toxicity, caged fish studies can be done at a variety of places in
the wetland to determine how much of the wetland is being affected.
C. Effluents possessing no acute toxicity should be tested to determine
whether chronic toxicity may occur. Thirty-day exposures are rea-
. sonable.
D. Effluents possessing no toxicity, but containing conservative pollu-
tants such as heavy metals or certain organics, should be tested for
sub-lethal effects. Thirty-day fathead minnow embryo-larval tests
and bioaccumulation tests would be appropriate.
E. Bioaccumulation also should be examined by collecting large, adult
fish from various locations in the wetland and analyzing their tis-
sues for toxic residues.
III. Data analysis
Bioassay results should be analyzed using techniques described by Dickson
et al. (1978), American Public Health Association (1976), and Sprague
(1969, 1970, 1971). The US Food and Drug Adminins tration (FDA) has
action limits for certain tissue residues.
IV. Report preparation
2.8.8.4 Changes in Incidence of Disease and Potential for Fish Acting as
Vectors for Mammalian Diseases
A-64
-------
Janssen (1970) and Tsai (1975) have reviewed the relationship between
fish diseases and polluted waters and examined the possibility of fish acting
as vectors of mammalian diseases. Janssen concluded that most fish-borne
human diseases do not cause disease in fish. Tsai (1975) cited several
studies that showed a relationship between highly polluted waters and the
presence of certain diseases and tumors in fish. However, the nature of this
relationship is unclear at present.
Tsai (1975) cited several studies whose authors concluded that fish were
not important factors in the transmission of pathogenic bacteria. Although
this probably is true for most diseases, Janssen (1970) cited several authors
who did establish such links, and suggested that "...fish may be more impor-
tant vectors of human infectious disease than generally realized."
The methodologies to be used for determination of the incidence of di-
sease in fish and to assess the possibility of fish acting as vectors for
human disease are presented in the following outline:
I. Obtain background information
A. Review appropriate literature (Tsai 1975, Janssen 1970).
B. Contact researchers active in the field, particularly the USFWS
offices in Genoa WI and Leetown WV.
II. Collect fish from several locations in the wetland and send for analysis
to a trained fish pathologist at one or more of the following locations:
A. USFWS - Genoa WI
B. USFWS - Leetown WV
C. Department of Health or appropriate state laboratory for the
state in question
III. Data analysis
IV. Report preparation
The proposed sampling schedule for the investigation of effects on fish commu-
nities is given in Table 2.8-4.
A-65
-------
Table 2.8-4. Proposed sampling schedule for investigation of effects on fish communities.
Parameters to be Sampled/Technique
Diversity indices
Shannon-Weaver
Biomass
Total numbers »
Total weight
Condition factors
Species composition
Dominants
Community type
Reproductive indicators
Spawning behavior
Collection of "ripe" adults
Collection of larvae
Once
Frequency of Sampling
Bi- Tri-
Mont hly annually annually
X (spring, summer, and autumn)
X
X
X (spring and autumn)
X (March through November)
X (March through November)
X (spring or early summer)
X (spring or early summer)
X (spring or early summer)
-------
2.8.9 Methodologies for Investigation of Impacts on Wildlife Communities
The study of animal communities in wetlands is more difficult than the
study of plant communities because of: (1) the mobility of the animals;
(2) their capability to adjust their activities if weather conditions and
other environmental factors are not favorable; and (3) the fact that they may
be present only at certain times of the day or seasons of the year. Even if
present, an animal may not be observed or captured due to its wariness or
because its susceptibility to being trapped varies seasonally. In a study in
Florida, Jetter (1974) observed that marked amphibians could not be recaptured
in traps, but only by means of dipnets. Traps and other devices used in
terrestrial populations may have limited utility in some areas of the wetland
due to the presence of deep water. Many more types of methods and devices are
needed for the investigation of wildlife communities than for the investiga-
tion of plant, invertebrate, or fish communities due to the diversity of the
types of organisms and their activity patterns and habitat requirements.
Because of the above factors, wildlife-related studies to be performed on
the sites selected for investigation should involve determinations of changes
in the type and quality of the habitats present. The information obtained in
the baseline study can be used to select the types of research to be performed
on wildlife. The baseline data should also be used for comparison with habi-
tat conditions in a nearby reference area.
The majority of the techniques used in studies of wildlife populations
are described or referenced in Schemnitz (1980). This material should be
reviewed prior to the development of study designs for the wetlands to be
investigated. Appropriate journals and reports identified during the litera-
ture search should also be examined to obtain recent information on sampling
methods and instruments. State and Federal agency biologists familiar with
each study area should be contacted to obtain information on the area and the
types of species that may be present. A preliminary list of the steps to be
taken and the types of methods that could be used in an investigation of
baseline conditions and impacts are given in the following outline.
A-67
-------
I. Planning
A. Literature review
1. Obtain information on type of wetland community at site, pre-
vious studies at site.
2. Review Emlen (1971), States (1978), Schemnitz (1980) and other
recent literature to determine most appropriate sampling
methods for type of wetland and wetland community.
B. Develop study design
1. Determine potential impact sequences and interrelationships and
indicator or key species to monitor.
2. Determine sampling methods, parameters to be sampled, levels of
effort, periodicity and duration of sampling.
3. Determine types and degrees of precision of analyses to be
performed on data collected.
4. Correlate study design with designs for other biological
studies at site - vegetation, insects, invertebrates, fish.
C. Preparation (during overview or baseline survey)
1. Prepare cover map of vegetation communities, ecotones, struc-
tural characteristics of wetland and surrounding areas, in-
cluding treatment facility if nearby; determine extent of
canopy cover and layers of vegetation if forested area.
2. Prepare field survey forms to be used, obtain or construct
necessary equipment.
II. Field Work
A. Sample treated and reference areas both pre- and post-discharge;
sample during all four seasons of the year.
1. Amphibians
a. Determine relative abundance and species composition in
treated and reference areas.
b. Use drift fences in combination with pitfall and can
traps, cover traps, night-lighting, identification of
calling males, searching likely habitat, mark and release
techniques, direct observation, recorded calls to stimu-
late responses.
A-68
-------
2. Reptiles
a. Determine relative abundance and species composition in
treated and control areas.
b. Use similar methods as for amphibians.
c. Use traps, basking counts for turtles.
d. Use general habitat searches and night road counts for
snakes.
3. Birds
a. Determine relative abundance, species composition, change
in daily and seasonal use patterns.
b. Use mist-netting, transect studies, direct observation,
breeding male calls, nest location.
c. Band and record sex of birds netted; record number of
eggs, fledglings, juveniles of each species; determine
fledging success.
d. Use transect or quadrat methods to conduct census, es-
pecially during breeding season; use recorded calls to
»
stimulate bird responses.
4. Mammals
a. Determine relative abundance and species composition.
b. Use live-trapping, snap-trapping, direct observation of
animals and field signs, scent posts, drift fences.
c. Note sex, age, etc... of animals captured or observed;
collect standard measurements where possible (weight,
length, etc., depending on type of animal).
B. Alternate order in which areas are sampled to avoid time bias.
C. Indicate locations of animals observed or captured, nests, etc... on
cover map.
D. Check lists of species observed against current Federal and state
endangered and threatened species lists; report occurrences to
appropriate authorities; note species on Blue List of National
Audubon Society or other indicators of declining or rare species.
E. Deposit specimens collected in appropriate depository institution
for state; include all relevant information with specimens/
A-69
-------
III. Data Analysis
A. Compare species richness, species diversity, and equitability (even-
ness) for seasonal means and yearly means for treated and control
areas, using Shannon-Wiener index of general diversity (H) and
equitability index (E), as described in Odum (1971).
B. Use index of similarity (S) or dissimilarity (1-S) as described in
Odum (1971) to determine degree of difference between treated and
control areas.
IV. Report preparation
2.8.9.1 Changes in Habitat Structure and Components
Much of the information required for analysis of the habitat character-
istics can be obtained during the course of the plant, macroinvertebrate,
insect, and fish investigations if the study designs in these areas are cor-
related properly with the needs of the wildlife researchers. However, this
information must be organized in certain ways to be useful for the wildlife
investigations. The parameters of interest from the vegetation study pri-
marily are as follows:
Types of plant communities present
- Structural diversity
- Species composition
- Number and extent of ecotones (edges)
Locations of plant communities
- Degree of interspersion between vegetation and open-water areas
- Corridors for wildlife travel to and from the wetland
- Linear extent of land-water interface or edge.
An ecotone is a transition area between two or more types of plant com-
munities. It contains organisms present in both comnunities. The number of
species and number of individuals of each species are typically greater in the
ecotone than in the adjacent communities. This phenomenon is termed the edge
effect. It is a particularly important factor in the investigation of avian
A-70
-------
communities because of the tendency of many species to breed or nest in one
type of vegetation and to feed or rest in another. The amount of edge is
therefore a major factor in the determination of the carrying capacity of a
habitat (the number of individuals or breeding pairs of that species whose
life requirements can be met in a particular area).
For the purposes of this study, the classification system developed by
Golet and Larson (1974) may be more useful to indicate structural changes in
wetlands due to the introduction of wastewater than the recently developed
USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). This system groups wet-
lands primarily according to depth of surface water during the growing season,
degree of water level fluctuation, and dominant life forms of vegetation. The
system of Stewart and Kantrud (1971) would be appropriate for use specifically
in glaciated pothole areas. This system is based on differences in permanence
and alkalinity, with each class distinguished by 6 different zones of vege-
tation.
2.8.9.2 Changes in Species Richness and Density
An increase or decrease in the number of species of wildlife that use a
wetland receiving applied wastewater as compared to the absence of such a
shift in a reference site would be indicative of a significant affect on the
wildlife community in the treated area. However, care must be taken to ensure
that this change is not due to an external factor unrelated to the presence of
wastewater. Any difference in seasonal use of the treated and control areas
by wildlife should be noted. For comparison of wildlife use between study
sites, the guild concept may prove useful. For example, the species of birds
that use different wetlands of the same general type may differ for a variety
of reasons, but observations of the number of species that have similar ecol-
ogical requirements may be used to compare the changes in suitability of the
wetlands as habitat for that particular group (i.e., insect-eating songbirds,
seed-eating songbirds, or carnivorous wading birds). Use of the guild concept
would also permit estimates to be made of the types of changes that have
occurred in the wetland food chains.
A-71
-------
2.8.9.3 Changes in Abundance of Indicator Species
The quality of the habitat at a wetland treatment site also could be
determined by determining the presence or absence of certain indicator species.
or combinations of such species. Odum (1971) provided the following recom-
mendations on the selection of indicator species:
The species should have a narrow, rather than a wide, tolerance
range for the factor considered to be limiting;
Large species generally are better indicators than small species
because they are present for longer periods of time (have longer
life spans);
The selection should be made on the basis of evidence that the
factor in question is limiting; and
Numerical relationships between species, populations, and whole
communities often are more reliable as indicators than single
species, especially of pollution, because the group as a whole is
more reflective of environmental conditions.
States et al. (1978) suggested that the principal criteria for the selection
of animal species for investigation in a baseline study should include:
Species that are valuable for recreational purposes;
Species that are threatened or endangered;
Species that are important to the well-being of either or both of
the above groups;
Species that are critical to the structure and function of the
ecosystem; and
Species that serve as indicators of an important change in the
ecosystem.
States et al. (1978) recommended that the design of such studies be based on a
thorough knowledge of the ecological requirements of each species in order to
determine when, how often, and by what means the species should be studied.
They also noted that most techniques for the measurement of populations have
been developed for large geographic areas and large numbers of individuals,
and that the estimation of populations for a small study area would require a
local as well as a regional perspective.
A-72
-------
It is recommended that these general guidelines be followed if indicator
species are used to estimate changes in the quality of wildlife habitat at
wetland treatment sites. The limiting factor or factors (habitat require-
ments) that determine the presence or absence of the species must be identi-
fied first. Appropriate species or groups of species are then selected.
There may also be a threshold level for a particular factor below or above
which the species will not use the habitat. This also should be identified,
if possible. The threshold could be a particular water level, population of a
species of food plant or animal, etc...
The presence and if possible the numbers (density) of indicator species
should be measured in both treated and reference areas. These measurements
should be made over the course of at least two and preferably three years in
order to account for long-term variability.
2.8.9.4 Changes in Incidence of Disease, Wildlife Condition, and Potential
Human Disease via Wildlife
The first steps to be taken in the design of a study of the effects of a
wastewater discharge on wildlife health would include:
Development of a matrix of parameters to be measured, organisms
of concern, and optimal and problem conditions for each organism;
Identification of potential organisms to be studied at each
particular site; and
Identification of disease organism-environmental parameter inter-
action studies to be done in the laboratory.
The studies to be conducted at a particular wetland should be coordinated
with other research to avoid duplication of effort and to maximize the number
of parameters and areas of concern that can be investigated. The following
general outline of potential investigations on wildlife health at wetland
treatment sites was developed by personnel of the USFWS National Wildlife
Health Laboratory at Madison WI:
1. Di rect me asu r erne nt s
a. Diagnoses of causes of mortality
A-73
-------
b. Sampling of living populations
1) Wild
2) Sentinel - prior, during, after discharge. Test for impairment o:
biological systems using enzyme, hematological (blood), immu-
nological, reproductive tests
2. Indirect measurements
a. Condition
b. Reproduction
c. Population dynamics (including lifespan)
3. Environmental quality
a. Microbial fauna - diversity, numbers; culturing at discharge
b. Water quality
c. Known disease problems
1) Known areas
2) Potential areas
3) Control areas
Sentinel birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians could be used over
periods of time to determine the potential for adverse effects on wildlife
health. The sentinal animals used would have to be free from the diseases of
interest. They would be maintained in the study area for various periods of
time. Control sentinels should be placed on similar but unaffected reference
areas for these experiments to be valid.
Hematological and chemical parameters also should be measured. The major
factors to be measured are:
Changes in health;
Persistence and survival of organisms; and
Comparisons between similar areas.
Nonlethal samples (such as from the trachea and cloaca of birds) could be
taken from the sentinels for analysis. The samples should be sent to both the
National Wildlife Health Laboratory at Madison WI and the Patuxent MD facility
of USFWS (Patuxent Wildlife Research Center). The samples would be analyzed
for both chemical and pathological contamination. State agency personnel or
other researchers could maintain the sentinel wildlife, and collect and ship
samples to the laboratories. Any bacteriological or virological fieldwork
could be done by USFWS personnel from the Madison facility. For consistency,
A-74
-------
all such analyses from all study sites should be conducted by the same
research facility, except for additional samples that, may be sent to a similar
facility as a quality control measure or to permit the use of more specialized
equipment.
Because of the number of types of studies that could be performed, the
complexity of the design and implementation of these studies, and the tech-
nical expertise and complex facilities required, it is recommended that
appropriate personnel of the US Fish and Wildlife Service prepare the study
designs for these investigations. USFWS personnel would be able to identify
the timing and scope of each study element and the potential roles that state
wildlife biologists and laboratory personnel or other researchers would play.
The studies would require long-term commitments of funds and personnel.
The time frames, levels of effort, and products of such studies should be
determined by USFWS in cooperation with USEPA and any other cooperating agen-
cies or personnel involved (such as the Center for Disease Control Botulism
Laboratory in Atlanta GA). Personnel at the USFWS Wildlife Disease Laboratory
in Madison WI presently can perform research in the areas of parasitology,
pathology, and virology, as well as some investigations on enzymes.
Several wetlands in Indiana have been identified by state agency per-
sonnel as receiving treated wastewater that contains flows from poultry pro-
duction industries (the Maple Lane Duck Farm and Pokagon State Park). Live
virus used for vaccination of poultry may survive the wastewater treatment
process and enter a wetland treatment site, where it could infect waterfowl,
pheasants, and other avian species that inhabit or visit the area. These or
$
similar sites should be considered as candidate sites for studies of effects
on wildlife health. The only site identified in the inventory of discharges
as having experienced a botulism outbreak also is located in Indiana (Fremont
IN).
2.9 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR ENHANCEMENT OF
WILDLIFE HABITAT
The methodologies proposed for work in this area basically are the same
as those proposed in Section 2.8.8: a review of the existing literature,
A-75
-------
holding a workshop, performance of field experiments, and the development of
appropriate sections of a guidance document. Because of the close connection
between these investigations, it is recommended that the components of both
methodologies be conducted simultaneously by the same personnel. It is likely
that the same literature sources would be used and that the same personnel
would be contacted for study design assistance, worshop participation, etc...
The case study technique would be the most feasible method for develop-
ment of examples of wetland restoration with the use of wastewater. Such
studies should be performed on separate sites from those selected for case
study investigations of primary and secondary impacts, however, because of the
difference in objectives. The sites selected for the impact studies should be
manipulated as little as possible to allow the identification of the responses
of the various components of these systems to the introduction of wastewater.
The sites for the enhancement studies should be considered as experimental
laboratories for the testing of various techniques and combinations of
techniques for habitat enhancement, in combination with control of the intro-
duction, periodicity, and duration of wastewater flows. The sites used for
primary and secondary impact studies could be used as control sites, and
similar sites could be used as experimental sites at which various enhancement
techniques are implemented. Data from both types of sites could be compared
to obtain information on the effectiveness of the enhancement techniques at
wetland treatment sites.
The designs and time frames for these experiments should be developed
after the selection of the case study sites and the completion of the pre-
liminary literature investigations. It would be preferable to do this after
the workshop has been held, and to use potential case study sites as examples
for use in the workshop. Information on several potential sites should be
compiled and distributed to workshop attendees prior to the workshop. This
material should be selected on the basis of the results of the initial site
surveys and/or the information obtained during the inventory of sites prepared
for this draft report.
The field research design should include before-and-after evaluations of
control and experimental wetland treatment sites, both natural and artificial,
A-76
-------
to determine the changes in extent and quality of habitat. Some of these
changes may not be possible to determine over the two-year field research
period, but the methodology developed could be applied periodically by future
investigators to determine longer-term habitat enhancement results. The fact
that the surrounding upland areas provide habitat requirements for some
species of wetland wildlife, in addition to the reverse situation for upland
wildlife, must be considered in the selection of study sites and the develop-
ment of study designs, so that the potential benefits to both wetland and
upland wildlife are investigated. The effects of various adjacent land uses
and management practices, such as grazing, mowing, and controlled burning,
also must be taken into consideration in the investigation and analysis of the
timing, intensity, and duration of wildlife use of a particular wetland.
An objective system for evaluation of habitat should be selected to be
used in the measurement of habitat conditions and quality during baseline,
operational, and monitoring phases at each of the sites selected for investi-
gation. A number of non-monetary habitat evaluation systems were reviewed by
Shamberger et al. (1979) and Barker et al. (1980). Although the Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
constitute the most recent and objective tool for estimation of habitat value,
their utility is greatest at present for large water resource projects rather
than for the small wetlands that may be created or enhanced through the mech-
anism of wastewater application. The HEP procedures and valuation systems
such as that proposed by Reppert et al. (1979) are relatively complicated and
time-consuming to use, as compared to evaluation schemes such as that devel-
oped by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (n.d.). The HEP and
Reppert procedures are designed for estimation of the habitat value for rep-
resentative, rare, and/or economically important species, depending on the
criteria identified as important for the selection of the evaluation species
for that particular site.
The applicability and cost-effectiveness of available evaluations systems
to the needs of this study should be reviewed during the literature review and
site selection tasks, prior to the design of the research program for this
aspect of the full-scale study. If a simplified version of HEP is developed
by USFWS personnel for use in Midwestern wetlands of various types, this
A-77
-------
method of evaluation could be used to determine the increase in habitat value
from the enhancement/creation of wetlands by means of wastewater application.
At present, other systems of evaluation appear to be more suitable.
All field research that involves the management of wildlife habitat and
use of effects on fish and wildlife must be conducted in accordance with
Federal and state policies and requirements. All necessary permits for re-
search on government-owned or managed land, collection or use of migratory
species, etc... should be obtained during the design phase of such studies.
The schedule for the implementation of these methodologies would be
parallel to and coordinated with the methodologies proposed in Section 2.15.
The field research should be correlated with the biological investigations
proposed in Section 2.8. Because the timing of the tasks to be performed in
both areas depends on a number of factors and decisions, no schedule for this
work has been developed for this draft report. In general, the literature
review and personnel contact tasks would begin during the early part of the
Phase II study so that appropriate participants and information for the work-
shop could be developed as quickly as possible. Due to the time required for
the site selection process and the workshop, it is possible that the field
research tasks would not be performed until the second or third season of the
first year of the full-scale study. On balance, it is likely that more valu-
able results would be obtained from shorter but well-designed studies than
from studies that extend over a greater number of seasons but are not struc-
tured as well for the attainment of the desired results. The intent of these
studies would be the testing of the feasibility and success of various alter-
natives, rather than the determination of the long-term effects of an environ-
mental stress. Results could be obtained more quickly in this type of inves-
tigation because of the inclusion of the element of choice by individual
wildlife in response to the situations created. Nevertheless, it would be
preferable to conduct such studies over the longest time frame possible to
allow for variability in weather conditions, discharge conditions or problems,
types of wetlands, wildlife activity and habitat preferences, and other fac-
tors that may not be part of the experimental design.
A-78
-------
The roles, activities, habitat requirements, and natural cycles of the
various types of wildlife commonly associated with wetlands in the Midwest
should be clearly understood before the relsearch design is prepared. This is
particularly true of animals such as muskrjats and beaver, which play a major
role in the creation and maintenance of watjer levels in wetlands. Muskrats in
particular are opportunistic and can populate an area relatively quickly if
conditions are favorable, increase in number to the point where disease be-
comes a limiting factor, and then be reduced to a relatively low level for an
extended period of time. During this boonHand-burst cycle, they may "eat out"
a wetland and alter its value for other jspecies of wildlife significantly.
Errington (1963, as cited in Weller 1978) h|as described the major characteris-
tics of this cycle and its effect on avilan populations. The research also
must be correlated with the needs of otheri researchers at the sites and util-
ize the results of the other investigations where possible for minimization of
time requirements and maximum cost-effectiveness. It is anticipated that the
participation of Federal and state agency personnel will be required for the
investigations proposed for this issue category.
2.10 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
The major concerns identified by USEPA and by the participants at the
scoping meeting for this project dealt with long-term and toxic effects of
wastewater on the structure and function of wetland ecosystems. Methodologies
for investigation of the potential effects on human health from the use of
wetlands as treatment or discharge sites have not been developed in this
planning study. Similar types of investigations currently being conducted
for USEPA by other researchers include the following:
Health risks from viruses in reclaimed waste waters - California
Department of Health Services;
Efficiency of water treatment methods on Giardia cyst viability -
University of Oregon;
Disease transmission associated with land application of waste-
water - Hebrew University of Jerusalem; and
Development of methods for detection of viruses in water and
soil - Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
A-79
-------
If investigations to determine the potential for an increase in the
incidence of human communicable disease or the potential for alternative rates
of transmission associated with wetland treatment/disposal are desired by
USEPA, it is recommended that personnel at the schools of public health in
Region V (University of Illinois, University of Michigan, and University of
Minnesota) be contacted to participate in the development of such studies. If
time and funds do not permit suitable field investigations, a survey of recent
literature should be performed so that the results of recent research can be
»
included in the study. Estimates of the potential for transmission of dis-
eases to humans through consumption of fish and wildlife harvested from a
treatment site or by means of biting insects can be made if the studies on
insect, fish, and wildlife populations and associated disease potentials
proposed in Section 2.8.8.4 are conducted.
2.11 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON PLANT HEALTH
Methodologies for the determination of changes in plant species com-
position, productivity, and distribution and uptake of toxic substances are
discussed in Section 2.8. If desired, this research could be expanded to
include collection of plants that appear to be diseased. The services of a
plant pathologist would be required for examination of the specimens and
identification of pathogens. A proper field sampling program should be devel-
oped if more detailed studies are desired, with selection of appropriate
reference areas and sampling techniques.
2.12 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATING EFFECTS ON ANIMAL HEALTH
The first organ of the body in which harmful functional changes occur is
termed the "critical organ" or "target organ" (Duffus 1980). However, this
organ may not be the one in which the greatest accumulation of the substance
occurs. The critical organ is different for different substances and for
acute and chronic exposure levels. For example, the lung is the critical
organ for short-term exposure to high levels of atmospheric cadmium, but the
kidney is the critical organ for long-term, low-level exposure (Duffus 1980).
Changes that do not affect the function of the organ may provide an early
A-80
-------
indication of potential adverse effects. Measurements of the types and con-
centrations of blood constituents such as enzymes, serum proteins, and elec-
trolytes can be used to determine the occurrence of changes in the function of
various organs.
Because several toxic substances may be present simultaneously, it would
be difficult to identify and to estimate the types and extent of effects due
to each of the substances individually. Therefore, the health of animals in
an area treated with wastewater should be compared with the health of animals
in a similar untreated control area. This would require the use of "sentinel"
fish and wildlife that are known to be uncontaminated and that can be main-
tained under controlled conditions. In order to adequately compare the ef-
fects of wastewater constituents on the sentinel animals in the treated area
with the effects of the controlled conditions on the sentinel animals in the
control area, the concentrations of the substances of concern must be moni-
tored in the sediments, soil, water, invertebrates, and plants in both areas.
These investigations will be performed during the water, sediment, and biolog-
ical studies.
The ultimate goal of the research in this area is to identify the criti-
cal pathway for each toxic substance of interest through the ecosystem, so
that indicator species can be identified and techniques developed for moni-
toring of key parameters or functions of these organisms for early indication
of adverse effects. Duffus (1980) defined the critical path as the path from
which the greatest harm may be anticipated. The organisms that constitute the
first part of the path, such as certain macroinvertebrates, may be unaffected
by the toxic substance themselves but may accumulate and possibly biomagnify
the substance and then pass it on in concentrated form to higher levels of the
food chain, including man.
The methodologies for the investigation of the effects of wastewater
application on macroinvertebrates and insects are described in Section 2.8.6
Other than measurement of the effects on overall population and community
health (such as species abundance and species diversity), no health effects
will be investigated for these groups. Methodologies for estimation of ef-
fects on fish health are discussed in Section 2.8.7.4. Similar information
for effects on wildlife health is presented in Section 2.8.8.4.
A-81
-------
2.13 METHODOLOGIES FOR TESTING OF OVERLOADING AND STRESS
No methodologies are proposed for testing overloading here. However,
effects of overloading can be roughly estimated by comparing impacts on wet-
lands which have received similar loads of wastewater discharges over varying
periods of time. Some wetlands observed during the field survey appeared to
be overloaded and these could also be studied. It is also possible that
artificial wetlands could be used to study overload and stress effects simply
by varying the areal extent of the receiving wetland. For example, a single
discharge could be split several ways and routed through an equal number of
artificial wetlands representing a range of sizes. This would be equivalent
to varying the loading rate and would also allow the original discharge to
meet the NPDES permit effluent limits for secondary treatment. The impacts on
the receiving wetlands and the effectiveness of tertiary treatment as a func-
tion of loading rate could thus be determined.
2.14 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF DESIGN, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE,
AND MONITORING
2.14.1 Design
Hammer and Kadlec (1982) provide general guidelines for design of wetland
wastewater application systems. The relative desirability of different types
of wastewater application, application rates and degrees of required pretreat-
ment of waters entering a wetland are poorly understood however. Some of
these questions can be answered only by selection of sites suitable for such
investigation. Discharges may be Introduced to a wetland either as a point
source or linearly via several points along a pipe. The majority of the sites
identified during the inventory appear to be of the point discharge type,
while current research projects at Drummond WI, Bellaire MI, and Houghton Lake
MI are of the linear type. Thus, information is being developed that will
prove useful for comparison of the relative merits of these two methods of
application.
Additional design information will be provided by detailed studies on the
three sites mentioned previously. The capacity of a given wetland to assimi-
A-82
-------
late nutrients and to achieve other wastewater treatment goals will be identi-
fied as a result of the data collected. Size will undoubtedly be an important
factor in the ability of a wetland system to deal with added wastewater. The
sites chosen for investigation should therefore be selected partially on the
basis of the volume of wastewater added per unit area of effective wetland.
Because the type(s) and areal distribution of vegetation will be equally
important, it will be necessary to examine sites that have different types of
vegetative cover (i.e., cattail marshes vs. forested wetlands) in order to
identify differences in water treatment capability.
2.14.2 Operation and Maintenance
Hammer and Kadlec (1982) provide guidelines for operation and maintenance
of wetland wastewater application systems. A key variable with respect to
operation is the periodicity of wastewater application. The majority of
discharges probably are continuous during the period of application itself.
Several study sites with different periodicities of discharges should be
selected to permit interpretation and comparison of treatment effectiveness
and impacts.
Common agricultural and upland spray irrigation practices, in contrast,
utilize "resting" periods between periods of application of wastewater or
fertilizer. This procedure leads to alternate periods of high and low oxygen
content in the soil surface. Such periods may or may not be desirable for the
optimal function of a wetland system for wastewater treatment. Some research
has been conducted by USEPA which indicates that growth of certain wetland
plants is much poorer under continued anaerobic conditions (constant flooding)
(Sanville 1980). Gardner et al. (1972) in_ Lugo and Brown (1980) likewise
found that water depth and associated soil conditions accounted for 94% and
85% of the variability in numbers of live and dead trees, respectively, in a
sample plot. The number of stressed and dead trees increased with increasing
water depth, and the number of live trees decreased. Tree survival following
chronic flooding was shown to vary with tree size. Wetland plants grown in
soil saturated only one-third of the time or those maintained in water satu-
rated with oxygen grew more rapidly (Sanville 1980). It is recommended that
this technique be investigated, however. Excess flooding has also been shown
A-83
-------
to increase the incidence of nonparasitic diseases (Filer 1972 in Lugo and
Brown 1980) and to allow accumulation of toxic products and tranformation of
oxidized metals to toxic soluble forms in soils (Lugo and Brown 1980).
2.14.3 Monitoring
Based on the results of the first year of the full-scale study and on
additional, one or more experimental monitoring programs could be designed.
The monitoring program(s) would incorporate elements of the research being
performed that are identified as most effective in the determination of
impacts. These programs could be tested at different types of treatment sites
(both natural and artificial) within Region V for a period of several years.
The parameters to be monitored could be tailored to the specific issues at
each wetland.
2.15 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF ARTIFICIAL AND VOLUNTEER WETLANDS
2.15.1 Artificial Wetlands
Artificial wetlands exist at Listowel, Ontario (Wile et al. 1983),
Humboldt, Sasketchewan (Laksman 1980), and Brookhaven, Long Island (Small
1977). Only the Listowel and Humboldt facilities currently are in operation.
Other facilities are planned at Bement IL, Norwalk IA, and Wellsboro PA.
Volunteer wetlands exist at a number of other locations, although these are
not truly artificial because they were not designed as wetland treatment
systems. No site preparation or vegetation establishment was attempted at
those locations. Although information on the performance of artificial wet-
lands in wastewater renovation is not documented adequately at this time, the
Listowel and Brookhaven experiences can be used as a basis for the qualitative
interpretation of expected results and for planning of further investigations.
The performance of volunteer wetlands similarly can be assessed to some
extent, but the data base on these is not yet sufficient for design purposes.
The design and control of an artificial wetland treatment system would
depend upon three key parameters: proper hydrologic control, proper soil
substrate, and proper plant community establishment. Other types of vegeta-
tion would develop in some fashion, but would not be likely to influence the
A-84
-------
performance of the wetland in terms of wastewater renovation. However, the
presence and diversity of these species and the diversity of habitat structure
that they would provide would be important factors in habitat development and
species preservation. None of the above factors, nor the harvest of biomass
from such areas, have been researched to any extent. Appropriate diking and
channelling would allow control of water levels and flow rates with relative
ease. In summary, the major information needs at present are in the areas of
substrate quantification and selection and establishment of wetland plant
communities.
Based on the information presented above, it is proposed that investiga-
tions be made to determine both the transplant survival rate and the germina-
tion rate for seedlings and seeds of a number of species of commonly occurring
wetland plants. These should include cattails, rushes, reeds, sedges, grasses
(including wild rice), leatherleaf, willow, alder, and perhaps black spruce
and tamarack. (Studies on the use of floating aquatic plants such as duckweed
and submerged aquatic plants such as pondweed, both of which are fed on by
waterfowl are more appropriately performed under laboratory conditions. These
species are present for only part of the year, and populations vary with
changes in a number of environmental factors.) It also would be possible to
exercise some kind of control, and to obtain some research results, from the
startup of facilities such as the artificial treatment system which was origi-
nally proposed (and subsequently dropped from consideration) as an alternative
for Bement IL.
It is proposed to acquire a suitable site that is not currently a wet-
land, and to attempt to establish a variety of wastewater-tolerant species
selected from the list above. Seedling survival and germination'rate studies
can be achieved within the time span of two years, and results are expected to
be favorable, based on the work of Ewel (1979). Companion studies would
involve the denitrification and phosphorus uptake rates expected from the soil
substrates collected for the seedling and germination studies. Research
currently has begun on some aspects of this type of work at Michigan State
University (Burton, personal communication), and any research undertaken in
this should be correlated with this ongoing work to avoid duplication of
effort and to maximize the number and types of species to be examined.
A-85
-------
2.15.2 Volunteer Wetlands
Any of the methodologies for research in natural wetlands described in
any section of this report could be applied to the study of volunteer wetlands
as well. Both site status surveys and in-depth studies should be performed at
several sites.
Studies of such sites would yield valuable information on plant community
establishment and vegetation productivity. Water quality information would be
easy to obtain and transect information would be especially easy to obtain in
these typically geometrical wetlands. Wildlife frequently make extensive use
of such volunteer wetlands, and enjoy a protected status due to the access
limitations. Volunteer wetlands also would provide convenient locations at
which to conduct seedling germination studies. In addition, questions of
harvest might be explored more easily in these situations because of the ease
of vehicular travel. For example, the harvest of cattails could be accom-
plished by lowering water levels, allowing a sufficient period for drying of
the vegetation, and then using common harvest techniques for collection of the
above-ground biomass. Methods for the establishment and management of cattail
are described in Weller (1975), Linde et al. (1976), and Beule (1979). Volun-
teer wetlands also would be well suited to studies that require the destruc-
tion of some component of the wetland ecosystem, because of the isolation of
the sites and their present ownership.
2.16 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
Time and funding restrictions during the present Phase I study did not
permit extensive review of the many documents that contain information per-
tinent to mitigation of impacts on wetlands. It will be difficult to identify
specific mitigative measures to alleviate the effects of wastewater on wet-
lands when these effects, particularly the long-term effects, are not yet
known. It is anticipated that the results of the research to be performed
during the Phase II study, when combined with research results from studies at
other sites, would alleviate this information gap for some types of wetlands
in USEPA Region V.
A-86
-------
A second task that could be performed during this part of the full-scale
study would be to hold a regional mitigation workshop to obtain input from
various state and Federal agency personnel, university researchers, and other
knowledgeable persons and to identify the mitigation methods most appropriate
for use in the Region V states. This workshop also could serve to identify
methods of habitat enhancement, including species and techniques suitable for
restoration of wetlands and for creation of artificial or volunteer wetlands.
The results of the literature review and workshop could serve as the
basis for the development of a manual for use by facility planners and opera-
tors, government personnel, and consultants. The manual could be a printed,
full-size document with a bibliography, such as the one developed by USFWS to
summarize impacts, levels of possible mitigative measures, and monitoring
techniques associated with surface mining in the West (Moore and Mills 1977).
It could be developed as a smaller, spiral-bound document suitable for field
use, such as the one recently developed by USFWS for biologists assessing the
impacts of coal-fired power plants (Lewis et al. 1978). If funds for such an
effort would be limited, an inexpensive report-type manual without supplemen-
tary material could be prepared. An example is the wetland evaluation tech-
niques manual being prepared by the Division of Land Resource Programs of the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (n.d.), which currently is in opera-
tional draft form.
Finally, it is recommended that an intensive, pre-operational baseline
study be performed on at least one conventional wastewater treatment facility
to be constructed in USEPA Region V during the next several years where the
potential exists for impacts on wetlands. The area should be designated as a
long-term study site, and the primary and secondary impacts should be moni-
tored for a period of years, using a monitoring methodology such as that
proposed by Marcus (1979). Because of the long-term research commitment, such
a study most easily and efficiently would be conducted by state or university
researchers. Similar studies should be done on at least one artificial wet-
land and one volunteer wetland.
The methodologies to be employed for the identification of appropriate
mitigative measures are summarized in the following outline:
A-87
-------
I. Conduct literature review and identify sources of information in Region
V.
A. Review known literature on mitigation to identify material appro-
priate to wetlands. Also review previous facility plans and EISs to
determine types and levels of information currently used and needs
for additional information. Examples of the types of mitigation
measures to be investigated are included in Table 2.16-1.
B. Conduct search of computerized data bases, abstracts, etc... for
recent publications, ongoing research, or conferences.
C. Request state agency contacts in Region V and personnel from appro-
priate Federal agencies, such as USFWS and US Department of Trans-
portation (DOT), to determine if guidance documents or publications
with relevant information are in preparation. Also request names of
persons most knowledgeable concerning mitigation of impacts on types
of wetlands in Region V and enhancement of habitat in such areas.
II. Conduct workshop (optional)
A. After literature review task is completed, contact knowledgeable
persons identified in previous task to obtain additional informa-
tion, to develop structures for the workshop, and to request their
ideas,
B. Develop materials to be used at the workshop and select resource
personnel to participate on the basis of the data gaps and needs
identified.
C. Hold 1 to 2 day workshop. Design personnel and regulatory personnel
should be in attendance to explain types of facilities and needs of
each group of users.
D. Compile results of workshop and circulate to participants and appro-
priate reviewers for review and comment.
E. Revise compilation if necessary.
A-88
-------
Table 2.16-1. Examples of types of mitigation measures to be investigated.
Mitigation of Primary Impacts
Purchase, development, or construction of replacement areas
Careful siting of facility and interceptors
Control of sources of impacts (avoid fills control erosion and sedi-
mentation, revegetate quickly with natural cover, etc.)
Design and proper operation of ponds to avoid botulism problems
o Timing of construction to avoid disruption of animal reproduction
periods
Proper management
- Timing of harvest (if managed artificial or natural wetland) to
avoid flooding of cut plants such as cattail, which survive only
one year after flooding (Weller 1975)
- Maintain optimum open-water vegetation ratio for wildlife (Weller
1975; more enhancement than mitigation)
- Maintain appropriate loading ratio
- Timing and duration of discharge and control of discharge rate to
coincide with natural hydrological cycle (may require design of
larger retention ponds)
Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
Selection of facility plan alternative that is likely to result in
least amount of induced growth in or near wetlands in the planning
region
Restriction of usage of site and adjacent buffer areas by various
physical means (fencing, posting)
Restriction of impacts on other wetland areas by development of regu-
latory means (state or local ordinances, land-use plans, legislation)
Mitigation of Impacts of Research Investigations
Construction of elevated walkways
Determination of minimum quadrat size and number of replicates needed
for biomass samples, water quality monitoring stations, trap lines and
sampling transects, etc. - conduct stratified random sampling
Use nondestructive sampling methods where possible
A-89
-------
III. Develop guidance documents
A. Based on the information obtained from the literature review, the
workshop, and the results of the field investigations from the
full-scale study and from similar investigations, identify the
potential impacts and mitigative techniques. Also note the other
factors likely to be present that would exacerbate these impacts and
increase the overall stress on the wetland ecosystem or on partic-
ular components of the ecosystem.
B. Arrange information in logical sequence by phase (construction,
operation, or monitoring), by type of facility or treatment system,
and by type of impact. Use cross-referencing or indexing systems as
necessary. Develop illustrations and tables, matrices, and flow
charts to present information in simplified, easily usable manner
1. Include information on use of habitat evaluation methods as
appropriate to types of wetlands or levels of mitigation activ-
ities required.
2. Explain mitigation policies of agencies involved, including
FWCA requirements (check for updating or additions).
3. Include information on resource personnel in each state and
USEPA Region V available for consultation.
4. Include overview of major problems and appropriate corrective
actions.
5. Include mitigation of impacts from recreational, educational,
or research uses of site.
6. Include guidelines for methods of enhancing wetland habitats,
and resource personnel to contact in each state.
C. Prepare text and layout for various mitigation guidance documents as
required. Develop appropriate section for each document on how to
use document.
1. Manual for designers and planners
2. Guidance documents for impact assessment and review
D. Submit draft products to USEPA and to knowledgeable technical per-
sonnel (designers, biologists, review personnel) for examination and
review
A-90
-------
E. Revise and print or submit to USEPA for publication.
2.17 METHODOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF LEGAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Because of the lack of information in this area of investigation, a
number of methods could be used for compilation of legal and regulatory infor-
mation. However, because of the early status of the technology of using
natural or artificial wetlands as treatment sites and the consequent lack of
regulations and policies in this area, the participation of personnel at a
number of levels in federal, state, and local government would be required for
the effective performance of the studies proposed in the following sections.
The participation of these personnel should be coordinated by a neutral,
non-governmental party to ensure that all viewpoints and concerns are given
equal consideration. It is recommended that the report be based on and/or
modeled after previous work by researchers in this area, and that personnel
from an organization such as the Environmental Law Institute be involved in
the design and conduct of the study, either in an advisory or a participatory
capacity.
The areas of investigation, based on the issues and concerns identified
in Table 2.2-1 of the main Phase I report include:
Identification of the present federal and state policies, laws, and
regulations applicable to the use of natural, artificial, and volun-
teer wetlands as wastewater treatment sites;
Identification of the potential conflicts in jurisdictions between
various levels of government and between different states in USEPA
Region V, assessment of the implications of these conflicts for the
development of alternative technologies involving wetlands, and iden-
tification of potential measures to facilitate interagency cooperation
and to reduce or eliminate these conflicts;
Determination of the consistency of the use of natural wetlands for
wastewater treatment or discharge with current and pending wetland
protection laws and regulations;
Identification of the potential legal problems involved with the use
of wetlands as treatment sites;
Identification of the potential funding sources and responsibilities
for the acquisition, monitoring, and possible maintenance of a wetland
treatment site for wildlife habitat or as a natural area in addition
to its use as a treatment site;
A-91
-------
Identification of scientific and management information required for
the development of site selection, design, and monitoring criteria for
wetland discharge or treatment sites; and
Investigation of the public opinion of the use of natural wetlands for
wastewater discharge and treatment and a comparison of these results
with similar estimates of the acceptability of the development of
artificial or volunteer wetlands for such purposes.
2.17.1 Present Policies, Regulations, and Laws
A literature search should be performed to identify the present status
and content of Federal, state, and local laws and regulations applicable to
wetland discharge or treatment sites. Because of the multitude and variety of
such guidelines at the local level, one or more communities in each state in
Region V that have wetland protection ordinances or other pertinent ordinances
should be selected as examples. This task could be done primarily through
mail and telephone contact with designated agency contact personnel who would
be responsible for collection of the appropriate materials for a designated
agency. A coordination conference could be held after the draft report for
this task was prepared and circulated for review and comment. The partici-
pating agencies, in addition to USEPA, may include other Federal agencies with
jurisdiction in the Region V states, the six state pollution control agencies,
and other state agencies with appropriate responsibilities related to wet^-
lands. Representatives of public and other groups could attend as observers,
If feasible.
Additional information may become available during the course of the
Phase II study, such as a handbook on existing state and local government
regulatory programs that will include programs that control activities on
areas adjacent to inland wetlands (Environmental Law Institute 1980). This
document will be prepared jointly by the staff of the National Wetlands News-
letter and personnel from the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, and is
expected to focus on mitigation measures.
2.17.2 Identification of Conflicts
The report described in Section 2.16.1 also should include:
A-92
-------
Identification of present and potential conflicts and identification
of mechanisms to facilitate interagency cooperation and to eliminate
conflicts in jurisdiction, requirements, etc...; and
Identification of the compatability of the use of natural wetlands as
wastewater discharge or treatment sites with existing wetland pro-
tection regulations, policies, ordinances, etc...
Although the identification of apparent or potential conflicts may be
made by the personnel who conduct the literature review, the actual deter-
mination of the consistency of wetland treatment technology with a particular
law, regulation, order, or policy must be made by appropriate personnel from
the sponsoring agency during the comment period for the draft report.
2.17.3 Legal Problems
The identification of potential legal problems associated with the acqui-
sition, use, and change in use of a wetland used for wastewater treatment, and
possibly adjacent buffer areas also should be performed by personnel trained
in legal procedures and actions. The "taking" issue in particular has been of
concern in many court cases dealing with wetlands regulations and use (Kusler
1980), and undoubtedly will be a major issue at some proposed wetland treat-
ment sites. This task can be initiated prior to or concurrent with the inves-
tigations indicated in the previous sections, but will depend on the infor-
mation collected in these tasks and thus should be closely correlated with
them or performed by the same personnel.
2.17.4 Potential Funding Sources
This effort can be performed by the researchers for the previous four
tasks if sufficient information is provided by the agency contact persons or
by others who are familiar with current and proposed funding programs at both
Federal and state levels. It also may be appropriate for this to be a joint
effort during the coordination conference or a workshop attended by the re-
searchers and the contact persons.
A-93
-------
2.17.5 Identification of Scientific and Management Information
This task should involve the" principal researchers for the legal regu-
latory work, the principal investigators for the field research studies, state
and Federal agency personnel, and other appropriate persons as identified by
USEPA or other agencies of concern. If possible, a meeting should be held
just after the completion of the literature review tasks by the various field
research investigators. If this is not possible for financial or other
reasons, a conference or workshop could be held at the end of the first year
of field research, when the preliminary results of the field studies Based on
these results, and the results of studies at other treatment sites under
investigation, additional parameters may be included for investigation or
current research designs adjusted to provide the desired information. How-
ever, it is recommended that such determinations be made prior to the initi-
ation of the first year of field investigation, to permit the collection of
several years of comparable information using the same research designs and
sampling techniques.
2.17.6 Community Acceptance
A survey of community or governmental acceptance could be performed
through interviews with landowners or key personnel in the decision-making
process. The survey form developed by Dworkin (1978) could be adapted for use
in the investigation of community acceptance of wetland treatment sites. The
results of her study also would be helpful in the development of public
participation programs on the use of natural or artificial wetland as a waste-
water treatment alternative. If time and funds permit, a similar or less
extensive study could be performed at one or more communities in USEPA
Region V where a wetland treatment' alternative is proposed. Although such a
study may overlap the time frame for the field research elements of the Phase
II study, its results would prove useful to USEPA and other agencies for other
situations, and possibly could be incorporated into an EIS if such a document
is prepared. If possible, the study should include a comparison of opinions
for sites at which artificial or volunteer wetland alternatives also are
considered, or several different case study sites at which each of these
alternatives is related to conventional technical treatment.
A-94
-------
2.17.7 Case Studies
It is proposed that the history of the regulatory process for and sub-
sequent development of one or more wetland discharge sites be followed and
recorded during the course of the Phase II study. This documentation could be
combined with or conducted in parallel to the study on community acceptance of
wetland treatment sites proposed in Section 2.16.6. The effectiveness of the
various techniques, policies, and regulations developed and the problems
encountered at each stage in the process would provide valuable information
for initiators, planners, and regulators of other such projects. The poten-
tial legal problems in particular may vary with different states, local juris-
dictions, communities, types of wetlands, and wetland uses, and types of
wetland treatment systems (location, design, use of natural versus artificial
wetland, etc.).
2.17.8 Final Report
A final report of the results of the investigations and the conferences
or workshops described in this issue category should be prepared for use by
USEPA and other governmental agencies in Region V. This document may be
published as a single entry, if desired, and/or its contents summarized or
tabularized for inclusion in a generic EIS on the environmental effects and
issues associated with wastewater treatment facilities adjacent to or involv-
ing wetlands.
A-95
-------
LITERATURE CITED
American Public Health Association. 1976. Standard methods for the examina-
tion of water and wastewater. 14th Edition. Prepared in cooperation
with the American Water Works Association and the Water Pollution Control
Federation. Washington DC, 1,193 p.
American Society of Agronomy, Inc. 1965. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2.
Chemical and microbiological properties. Madison WI.
Banus, M. D., I. Veliela, and J. M. Teal. 1975. Lead, zinc and cadmium
budgets in experimentally enriched salt marsh ecosystems. Estuarine and
Coastal Marine Science 3:421-430.
Bartlett, D. S., and V. Klemas. 1980. Quantitative assessment of tidal wet-
lands using remote sensing. Environmental Management 4(4):337-345.
Benforado, J. 1981. Ecological considerations in wetland treatment of muni-
cipal wastewater. pp. 307-323, In; The Midwest Conference on Wetland
Values and Management, June 1981, St. Paul MM. Minnesota Water Planning
Board; Water Resources Research Center, University of Minnesota; Upper
Mississippi River Basin Commission; and the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
Benforado, J. 1981. Environmental concerns of wetland/wastewater treatment
systems. Paper presented at the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and
Management, June 17-19, 1981, St. Paul MN. Suggested use of degraded
natural wetlands for wastewater with overall objective of restoration
enhancement.
Beule, J. D. 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern
Wisconsin wetlands. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical
Bulletin No. 112. Madison WI, 40 p.
Brown, S. 1981. A comparison of the structure, primary reproductivity, and
transpiration of cypress ecosystems in Florida. Ecol. Monogr. 51: 403-
427.
Brungs, W. A., R. W. Carlson, W. B. Horning II, J. H. McCormick, R. L. Spehar,
and J. D. Yount. 1978. Effects of pollution on freshwater fish. Jour-
nal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 50(6):1,582-1,637.
Buikema, A. L., and E. F. Benfield. 1980. Effects of pollution on freshwater
invertebrates. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 52(6):
2,670-2,686.
Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume 2.
Third edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames IA, 752 p.
Chamie, J. P. M. 1976. The effects of simulated sewage effluent upon decom-
position, nutrient status, and litter fall in a central Michigan peat-
land. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI,
110 p.
A-96
-------
Cowardin, L. M. , V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifica-
tion of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS/
79-31. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
of Biological Services, Washington DC, 103 p.
Davis, G. J., and M. M. Brinson. 1980. Responses of submersed vascular plant
communities to environmental change. FWS/OBS-79/33. Prepared by East
Carolina University, Greenville NC, for the National Water Resources
Analysis Group, Eastern Energy and Land Use Team. US Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington DC, 70 p.
Delaune, R. D. , W. H. Patrick, Jr., and R. J. Buresh. 1978. Sedimentation
rates determined by CS-137 dating in a rapidly accreting salt marsh.
Nature 225:532-533.
Environmental Law Institute. 1980. Untitled notice, National Wetlands News-
letter 2(6):3.
Errington, P. L. 1932. An analysis of mink predation upon muskrats in North-
Central United States. Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Research
Bulletin 320:798-924.
Ewel, K. C. 1979. Cypress wetlands for tertiary treatment. Paper presented
at the Conference on Freshwater Wetlands and Sanitary Wastewater Dis-
posal, "Wetland Utilizaton for Management of Community Wastewater,"
10-12 July 1979, Higgins Lake MI. Williams and Works, Inc., and The
University of Michigan, and the National Science Foundation.
Ewel, K. C., and H. T. Odum. 1979. Cypress domes: nature's tertiary treat-
ment filter. pp. 103-114, In: Sopper, W. E. , and S. N. Kerr (Editors),
Utilization of Municipal Sewage Effluent and Sludge on Forest and Dis-
turbed Land. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
PA.
Franz, E. H. , and F. A. Bazzaz. 1977. Simulation of vegetation response to
modified hydrologic regions: a probabalistic model based on niche dif-
ferentiation in a floodplain forest. Ecology, p. 176-183.
Fritz, W. R., and S. C. Helle. 1977. Tertiary treatment of wastewater using
cypress wetlands. Report to the National Science Foundation. NSF-ENV76-
23276. Boyle Engineering Corporation, Orlando FL, 96 p.
Gerking, S. D. 1957. A method of sampling the littoral macrofauna and its
application. Ecology 38:219-226.
Greig-Smith, P. 1964. Quantitative Plant Ecology. Second Edition, Butter-
worth, Washington DC. 254 p.
Hackney, C. T., and 0. P. Hackney. 1978. An improved, conceptually simple
technique for estimating the productivity of marsh vascular flora. Gulf
Research Reports 6:125-129.
A-97
-------
Hammer, D. E., and R. H. Kadlec. 1980. Orthophosphate adsorption on peat.
(Draft). 6th International Peat Congress, Duluth MN, 19 p.
Hammer, D. E. , and R. H. Kadlec. 1982. (Preliminary Draft). Design prin-
ciples for. wetland treatment systems. Work conducted under cooperative
agreement between USEPA, Robert S. Kerr Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development, Ada OK, and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
Herke, W. H. 1969. A boat-mounted surface push-trawl for sampling juveniles
in tidal marshes. Progressive Fish Culturists 31:177-179.
Hocutt, C. H. 1978. Fish. pp. 80-103, In; Mason, W. T. (Editor), Methods
for the Assessment and Prediction of Mineral Mining Impacts on Aquatic
Communities. FWS/OBS-78/30. US Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington DC.
Kadlec, R. H. 1978. Wetlands for tertiary treatment. pp. 490-504, In;
Greeson, P. E., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors), Wetland Func-
tions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water Re-
sources Association, Minneapolis MN.
Kadlec, R. H. 1980. Monitoring report on the Bellaire wastewater treatment
facility. Utilization Report No. 4, February. Wetlands Ecosystem Re-
search Group, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
MI, 48 p.
Kaminski, R. M., and H. H. Prince. 1981. Dabbling duck and aquatic macro-
invertebrate responses to manipulated wetland habitat. Journal of Wild-
life Management 45(1):1-15.
Lakshman, G. 1981. A demonstration project at Humbolt to provide tertiary
treatment to the municipal effluent using aquatic plants. Saskatchewan
Research Council, Saskatoon, Canada.
Lee, K. W., R. J. Natuk, R. L. Simpson, and D. F. Whigham. 1977. Effects of
sewage on soil algae of a freshwater tidal marsh. Journal of Phycology
13: (supplement), 39 p.
Lewis, B. G., P. C. Chee, R. M. Goldstein, F. C. Korgenay, D. L. Mabes, L. F.
Scholt, and W. S. Vinikour. 1978. A biologist's manual for the evalua-
tion of impacts of coal-fired power plants on fish, wildlife, and their
habitats. FWS/OBS-78/75. Prepared by Division of Environmental Impact
Studies, Argonne National Laboratory, for US Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Power Plant Team. Ann Arbor MI, 206
P-
i>
Linde, A. F., T. Janisch, and D. Smith. 1976. Cattail - the significance of
its growth, phenology, and carbohydrate storage to its control and man-
agement. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin
No. 94. Madison WI, 27 p.
Lintock, J., and J. Iverson. 1975. Mosquitoes and human disease in Canada.
The Canadian Entomologist 107:695-704.
A-98
-------
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. No date. Manual for wetland evalua-
tion techniques. Operational draft. Division of Land Resource Programs.
Lansing MI, 20 p.
Moore, R. , and T. Mills. 1977. An environmental guide to surface mining,
Part 2: impacts, mitigation, and monitoring. FWS/OBS-78/04. US Depart-
ment of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins CO,
variously paged.
Mudroch, A., and 0. Mudroch. In press. Analysis of plant material by x-ray
flourescence spectrometry. Cited in Mudroch and Capobianco 1979.
Nichols, D. S. 1980a. Developing environmentally safe procedures for sewage
waste treatment using organic soils and peat materials. A problem analy-
sis for problem no. 3. Work Unit NC-1602; 4310 Watershed Management
Research. USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station,
Grand Rapids MN, 54 p.
Nichols, D. S. 1980b. Nutrient removal from wastewater by wetlands. Paper
presented at the 6th International Peat Congress. Duluth MN. USDA,
Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Grand Rapids MN,
23 p.
Nichols, D. S. 1980c. Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients
from sewage. USDA, Forest Service, Grand Rapids MN, 24 p. plus refer-
ences and illustrations.
Oduca, E. P. 1978. Value of wetlands as domestic ecosystems, pp. 9-18, In;
Montanari, J. H., and J. A. Kusler (Co-chairmen), Proceedings of the
Natural Wetland Protection Symposium, 6-8 June 1977, Reston VA. FWS/
OB.S-78/97. Sponsored by US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington DC.
Odum, E. P. 1979. The value of wetlands: a hierarchical approach. pp.
16-25, jn: Greeson, P. E. , J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Editors),
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Proceed-
ings of the National Symposium on Wetlands. American Water Resources
Association, Minneapolis MN.
Penman, H. L, 1956. Estimating evaporation. Transactions, American Geo-
physical Union 37:1.
Perry, J. 1981. Phosphorus flux in an urban marsh during runoff. Paper
presented at the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management,
17-19 June 1981, St. Paul MN. Minnesota Planning Board, University of
Minnesota, Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, and the Great Lakes
Basin Commission. >
Pope, Pamela R. 1981. Wastewater treatment by rooted aquatic plants in
sand and gravel trenches. USEPA, MERL ORD, Cincinnati OH.
Pratt, D. C., V. Bonnewell, N. J. Andrews, and J. H. Kim. 1980. The poten-
tial of cattail as an energy source. Report prepared for the Minnesota
Energy Agency, Minneapolis-St. Paul MN, 147 p.
A-99
-------
Reim, J. 1980. Sewage treatment in a sphagnum peat bog. Great Lakes Focus
on Water Quality 6(3):6-9.
Reynolds, B. J. 1976. An example of sewage disposal by spray irrigation.
pp. 218-220, In; Berg, G., H. L. Bodily, E. H. Lennette, J. L. Melnick,
and T. G. Metcalf (Editors), Viruses in Water. American Public Health
Association, Inc., Washington DC.
Richardson, C. J., W. A. Wentz, J. P. M. Chamie, J. A. Kadlec, and D. L. Til-
ton. 1976. Plant growth, nutrient accumulation, and decomposition in a
central Michigan peatland used for effluent treatment, pp. 77-118, In;
Tilton, D. L., R. H. Kadlec, and C. J. Richardson (Editors). Freshwater
Wetlands and Sewage Effluent Disposal. Proceedings of a National Sympos-
ium, 10-11 May 1976, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
Robertson, G. P., and P. M. Vitousek. 1981. Nutrification in the course of
ecological succession. BioScience 31(2);141-144.
Sanville, W. D. 1979. Productivity response of an Alaskan USA, wetland plant
community to nutrient enrichment. Proceedings of the Alaska Science Con-
ference 30:137. Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, US Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Corvallis OR.
Sather, J. H. (Editor). 1976. Proceedings of the National wetland classi-
fication and inventory workshop, University of Maryland, 20-23 July 1975.
FWS/OBS-76/09, Washington DC, 110 p.
Scheffe, R. D. 1978. Estimation and prediction of summer evapotranspiration
from a northern wetland. Master's thesis, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor MI, 68 p.
Small, M. M. 1976. Data report, marsh/pond system. Preliminary Report
No. 50600. US Energy Research and Development Administration. Brook-
haven National Laboratory, Upton NY, 28 p.
Smalley, A. E. 1958. The role of two invertebrate populations, Littorina
irrorata and Orchelimum fidicinum in the energy flow of a salt marsh
ecosystem. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens GA, 126
P-
Smith, L. W. 1969. The relationship of mosquitoes to oxidation pond lagoons
in Columbia MO. Mosquito News 29(4):557-563.
Sokal, R. R. , and F. J. Roholf. 1969. Biometry. W. G. Freeman and Co.,
San Francisco CA, 776 p.
Sommers, L. E. , D. W. Nelson, L. B. Owens, and M. Floyd. 1977. Phosphorus
dynamics in soils irrigated with municipal wastewater. Purdue University
Water Resources Research Center. Technical Report 99.
Southwood, T. R. E. 1981. Ecological methods, with particular references
to the study of insect populations. John Wiley and Sons, New York NY,
524 p.
A-100
-------
Sprague, J. B. 1969. Measurement of pollutant toxicity to fish, - I bioassay
methods for acute toxicity. Water Research 3:793-821.
Sprague, J. B. 1970. Measurement of pollutant toxicity to fish - II utiliz-
ing and applying bioassay results. Water Research 4:3-32.
Sprague, J. B. 1971. Measurement of pollutant toxicity to fish - III sub-
lethal effects and safe concentrations. Water Research 5:245-266.
States, J. B., P. T. Haug, T. G. Shoemaker, L. W. Reed, and E. B. Reed. 1978.
A systems approach to ecological baseline studies. FWS/OBS-78/21. US
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC,
variously paged, 220 p. plus appendices.
Steward, K. K., and W. H. Ornes. 1975. Assessing a marsh environment for
wastewater renovation. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation
47(7):1880-1891.
Swanson, G. A. 1978a. A simple lightweight core sampler for quantitating
waterfowl foods. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(3):426-428.
Swanton, G. A. 1978b. A water column sampler for intertebrates in shallow
wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(3):670-672.
Tilton, D. L. , and R. H. Kadlec. 1979. The utilization of a freshwater wet-
land for nutrient removal from secondarily treated wastewater effluent.
Journal of Environmental Quality 8(3):328-334.
Turner, R. E. 1976. Geographic variations in salt marsh macrophyte produc-
tion: a review. Contributions in Marine Science 20:47-68.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Algal assay procedure: bottle
test. National Eutrophication Research Program, Corvallis OR, 126 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Quality criteria for water.
EPA-440/9-76-023. Washington DC, 501 p.
Van Lairop, W. M. 1976. Digestion procedures for simultaneous automated
determination of NH , P, K, Ca, and Mg in plant material. Canadian
Journal of Soil Scietfce 56:425-432.
Weber, R. E. 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the
quality of surface waters and effluents. US Environmental Protection
Agency Environmental Monitoring Service 670/4-73-001. Cincinnati OH,
variously paged.
Weller, M. W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to management for marsh
wildlife. Iowa State Journal of Research 49(4):383-412.
Weller, M. W. 1979. Birds of some Iowa wetlands in relation to concepts of
faunal preservation. Proceedings, Iowa Academy of Science 86(3):81-88.
A-101
-------
Wentz, W. A. 1975. The effects of simulated sewage effluents on the growth
and productivity of peatland plants. Ph.D dissertation. The University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 112 p.
Wikum, D. , and M. Ondrus. 1980. The Drummong Bog project-growth of selected
plant species as a function of foliar and peat substrate nutrient concen-
trations. Report to the US Forest Service 16 June 1980. The University
of Wisconsin, Stout WI, 38 p.
Whittaker, R. H. 1967. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biological Review
42:207-264.
Wile, I., G. Miller, and S. Black. 1983. Design and use of artificial wet-
lands (draft manuscript), ITK Ecological Considerations in Wetlands
Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Proceedings of a Workshop, 23-25
June 1982, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. US Fish and Wildlife
Service and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Wile, I. 1980. An experimental approach to wastewater treatment using natur-
al and artificial wetlands. Progress report, 27 October 1980. Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, Ontario, Canada, 4 p. plus attachment.
Witter, J. A., and S. Croson. 1976. Insects and Wetlands, pp. 271-295, _In:
Tilton, D. L., R. H. Kadlec, and C. J. Richardson (Editors), Freshwater
Wetlands and Sewage Effluent Disposal. Proceedings of a National Sym-
posium, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, 20-11 May 1976.
Wood, R. D. 1975. Hydrobotanical methods. University Park Press, Baltimore
MD, 173 p.
A-102
-------
APPENDIX B,
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PLANNING
WETLAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
-------
Practical Considerations for Planning
Wetland Treatment Facilities
The purpose of this Technical Report and the future EIS is not to be a design
manual, although EPA is developing other publications in that area (Hammer and
and Kadlec, 1982). There are some practical thoughts and precautions for those
considering a wetland alternative, which have arisen from developing this tech-
nical report.
The success of employing natural processes in a wetland treatment system for
wastewater largely depends on the site's characteristics and both the planner's
and designer's understanding of the specific system on hand. There is a great
diversity both between wetland types and among individual wetlands of the same
general type. They differ not only in the kinds of vegetation present but in
their hydrology, productivity, nutrient cycling, soil adsorption capacity and
other characteristics. This natural variability makes a static engineering
approach unwise and -certainly less workable then with conventional modes of
wastewater treatment.
Because of the site-specific differences of wetlands, it is critical to under-
stand the nature of the site at the project planning stage rather than to adopt
a standardized design approach. Robert Kadlec, (personal communication, 1983)
has developed an informal, 2-step outline for evaluating potential sites in the
planning phase:
I. Site Identification and Preliminary Evaluation
A. Goals
1. Determine the size, type and location of potential wetland sites.
2. Determine wastewater parameters, and treatment requirements (of
State Water Pollution Control Agency).
3. Estimate hydrological and water quality status of potential sites.
4. Determine ownership and current management of sites.
B. Tasks
1. Inspection of USGS maps, aerial photos.
2. Ground level visual inspection.
3. Collection of existing data on hydrology and water quality, for
treatment plant and wetland.
4. Estimate organic matter depth and type.
5. Determine all links in the network of ownership and management.
II. Final Site Feasibility Determination/Preliminary Design
A. Goals
1. Hydrological patterns
B-l
-------
- 2 -
2. Water quality
3. Organic matter type and depth
4. Nutrient status of water, organic matter and flora
5. Types and relative abundance of algae
6. Cover types and geographical distribution
7. Treatment potential
8. Vertebrate use patterns
9. Human use patterns
B. Tasks
1. Water budget
a) Annual precipitation, cloud cover and solar radiation data
acquisition.
b) Streamflow data.
c) Water level records for wetland and adjacent water bodies.
d) Subsurface flow patterns.
e) Surface elevation survey.
f) Overland flow patterns.
2. Water quality
a) Nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride.
b) Coliforms, BOD, suspended solids.
c) pH, temperature, conductivity.
3. Soil processes
a) Type of organic matter
b) Ion exchange capacity of soil
c) Permeability
4. Flora
a) Algae inventory.
b) Plants - cover map, identify threatened and endangered species,
State and Federal.
B-2
-------
- 3 -
5. Use patterns.
a) Vertebrates (muskrats, beaver, ducks, geese).
b) Human.
6. Treatment potential small scale testing
a) Small, brief irrigation test.
(Tank truck and pump, ca. 1000 gpd for 20 days).
b) Assess nitrogen, phosphorus removals.
c) Assess water depth and movement patterns at discharge site.
d) Assess suspended solids, BOD removal.
e) Check plant, soil and algae response.
f) Estimate full-scale treatment parameters.
7. Develop environmental assessment report.
Implementing a potential wetland treatment system involves political as well as
technical factors. The planning stage is the ideal time to begin informal dis-
cussion with the State and Federal regulatory agencies responsible for water
pollution control, fish and wildlife resources and wetlands. Regulatory re-
quirements can be clarified and mitigative measures can be considered. Recog-
nize that for regulators there are frequently questions and controversy between
the value of the effluent as a resource and the capacity of wetlands to accom-
plish wastewater treatment. Philosophical differences may also exist between
the wastewater and the wetland management objectives at a site. At present,
many technical questions are unresolved, as this report demonstrates. It is
important for all parties to take the time and patience to arrive at some com-
mon ground in these planning discussions and to consider potential mitigative
measures. EPA Region V is working to develop informal procedures in this area.
Using natural wetlands for wastewater treatment is likely to be more controver-
sial than constructing "artificial" wetlands. Some situations where application
to wetlands is clearly unwarrented include rare or fragile wetland types, such
as a fen, or to a recognized wetland preserve or special resource area. Other
situations are much more amenable for consideration, such as a small community
located by large expanses of wetlands, with few large streams in the area. Con-
structed wetlands present their own special considerations and planning needs.
Flow patterns and transit time need to be carefully planned. Mechanical harvest
is indicated for nutrient removal and maintenance of hydraulic capacity.
With any wastewater technology there are trade-offs of costs, environmental im-
pacts, environmental benefits and implementability. For innovative or alterna-
tive technologies it is important to analyze these trade-offs against the risks
of conventional treatment processes rather than a hypothetical "zero risk" situ-
ation. For example, waterfowl impacts from treated wetland interaction could be
compared to actual waterfowl use of conventional sewage treatment lagoons. Nei-
ther situation is ideal, but they are comparable alternatives.
B-3
-------
- 4 -
As with other types of alternative technology, good planning is the key to
selecting a alternative when examining the option of wastewater application to
wetlands. Sufficient time and resources must be devoted to understanding the
site-specific alternative(s) and to evaluating whether or not they are workable,
desirable and cost-effective.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-656-816
B-4
------- |