Pasi_Wetlands manual-- a new-old green infrastruture

2011Urban
& Rural
Treatment
A New/Old Green Infrastructure
Wetlands ManuaL

A New/Old Green Infrastructure 3
Table of Contents
Introduction 9
Wetlands 10
What is a Wetland? 10
Wetland Definitions 10
Wetland Types 12
How do Wetlands Work? 16
Wetland Hydrology 16
Functions and Values 18
Types of Wetlands for Water Quality Treatment 20
Use of Restored Wetlands in Rural Areas 23
Introduction 24
Science Behind the Restored Wetland Treatment Best Management Practices 25
Application of the Restored Wetland Treatment Best Management Practices 26
Steps in setting up of a Restored WetlandTtreatment Best Management Practices 28
Use of Sub-Surface Wetlands in Urban Setting 33
Introduction 34
Sub-surface Flow Wetland Design 35
References 44

Urban and Rural Treatment Wetlands Manual 4
Preface
Wetlands have always been part of the ecosystem within which we live. They were, and still are in some places,
maligned as “useless” and “worthless.” Now we know better as we attempt to “re-engineer” wetlands systems to
solve our current runoff and water quality problems. This publication is an overview of some current research
based guidance on how improved natural degraded wetlands and constructed wetlands can assist us by becoming
“green infrastructure” to solve runoff and water quality problems.
Acknowledgements
This publication was written by Nidhi Pasi, a SUNY-ESF PhD candidate in Environmental and Natural Resources
Policy under the direction of Richard Smardon, PhD Professor of Environmental Studies and co-major investigator
for the CNY Watersheds Project. Further editorial and graphic assistance from the Environmental Finance Center
at the Syracuse Center of Excellence is provided by Khris Dodson, Samantha Cremona and Jon Davis. Much of the
content in this publication is based on two SUNY-ESF PhD dissertations. The agricultural waste treatment wetland
work is based on Lauren Johnson’s 2010 dissertation titled, Restored Wetland-Treatment: A Potential Water Quality
BMP. The other source for the urban CSO treatment wetland guidance comes from Guihan Wu’s 2008 disserta-
tion titled, A Case Study on Applying Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands (SFCWs) to Treat Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs). The US Environmental Protection Agency should be acknowledged for supporting Guihan Wu’s
work through the CNY Watershed Project. Also the Atlantic States Legal Foundation should be acknowledged for
supporting the early treatment wetland siting work as well as educational outreach work. Other individuals that
should be individually acknowledged are Samuel Sage, President of Atlantic States Legal Foundation; Dr. John Fer-
rante who worked with us on early siting work and Mr. Steve Giarruso for his technical guidance.
Richard Smardon, PhD Professor of Environmental Studies SUNY-ESF

Introduction
This publication explores the potential roles of restored wetlands in rural settings and constructed wetlands in
urban settings as water quality improvement best management practices (BMPs). With renewed emphasis on
“green infrastructure” as opposed to gray infrastructure, such applications can reduce runoff and improve water
quality in central New York. This publication summarizes more than 5 years of research in two SUNY-ESF PhD
dissertation research projects (Johnson 2010 and Wu 2008) plus the CNY Watershed Project (Briggs and Smardon
2010). Based on this research, we believe that both enhanced and constructed wetlands can play a valuable role as
water quality BMPs as well as restore multiple wetland functions.
What follows is a basic primer on what a wetland is, various types of wetlands, and how wetlands provide
valuable hydrological services. This section is followed by an overview of types of water quality treatment
wetlands, then restored wetlands for agricultural waste treatment and constructed wetlands for urban Combined
Sewer Overflow treatment. For the last two sections, design and implementation steps are presented as well as de-
tailed references for follow up.

Wetlands
What Is A Wetland?
The term wetland can be broadly understood. It is generally used by scientists to refer to areas that often include
three main components:
1. Presence of standing water, either at the surface or within the root zone during all or part of the year,
2. Unique soil conditions (hydric soils), and
3. Presence of vegetation (and fauna) adapted to surviving under unique, saturated conditions
(hydrophytes) and absence of flooding-intolerant vegetation.
Because of these characteristics it is difficult to formulate a precise definition. Also, since wetlands are at the
margins of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems exhibiting the characteristics of each-few definitions adequately
describe all wetlands. The ecotone position they occupy has been suggested as evidence by some that they are
mere extensions of either system (terrestrial or aquatic); and lack a separate identity.
However, in spite of these potential contradictions, there is need for some definition for scientists, regulators
and managers. The different interests, objectives and needs of these groups have led to the development of many
formal definitions. Relevant definitions for the purpose of this manual are listed below.
Wetland Definitions
U.S. Scientific Definition: Fish and Wildlife Service
This comprehensive definition was adopted in 1979, after several years of review. The definition was pre-
sented in a report titled, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of United States:
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where
the water table is usually at or near the surface or 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 sub-
strate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil
and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during, the
growing season of each year.
(Cowardin et al., 1979)
This definition is widely accepted by wetland scientists in the U.S. and serves as the basis for a detail
wetland classification and an updated and comprehensive inventory of wetlands in the U.S.

The International Definition
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in the Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, better known as the Ramsar Con-
vention, adopted the following definition of wetlands as written in Articles 1.1 and 2.1:
Article 1.1:
“For the purpose of this Convention wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural
or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the
depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.”
Article 2.1 provides that wetlands:
“may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres
at low tide lying within the wetlands”.
Legal Definition
This is the regulatory definition used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to legally define wetlands for
the purposes of the Section 404 of the 1977 Clean Water Act:
The term “wetlands” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1987)
Wetland Types
North America has a great abundance and a diversity of wetlands. A number of common terms have been used
over the years to describe this assortment. Classification schemes have also been developed for wetlands in dif-
ferent regions of the country.
The classification scheme used in the U.S. as part of the National Wetlands Inventory is complex, formal and
all-encompassing. A modified simpler version classifies seven major types of wetlands in the U.S. into two ma-
jor groups: coastal and inland.

Table 1: Types of Wetlands
Wetland Types
Coastal Wetland Ecosystems Inland Wetland Ecosystems
• Tidal salt marshes • Inland freshwater marshes
• Tidal freshwater marshes • Northern peatlands
• Mangrove wetlands • Southern deepwater swamps
• Riparian wetlands
EPA classifies wetlands on the basis of four major types-marshes, swamps, bogs and fens-providing a basic but
simplified scheme for understanding the diversity of wetland ecosystems (see chart on following spread)

Table 2: Types of Wetlands (EPA Classifications)
Wetland Types
Marshes Periodically inundated, saturated or flooded by water and characterized by
non-woody vegetation adapted to wet soil conditions
Tidal Coastal; are influenced by tides and often freshwater from runoff, rivers or
ground water. These types of wetlands maybe freshwater, brackish or saline.
Salt marshes are the most prevalent, have highest rates of primary
productivity, and are characterized by salt tolerant species like smooth cord-
grass, saltgrass and glasswort.
Tidal freshwater wetlands are located upstream from estuaries and lack of salt
stress allows greater diversity (cattail, wild rice, pickerelweed which support
diverse bird and fish species).
Non-tidal Inland freshwater or brackish; dominated by herbaceous plants and occur in
poorly drained depressions, floodplains and shallow water areas along the
edge of rivers and lakes. Example: Great Lakes coastal marshes, Florida ever-
glades, prairie pothole region.
Wet meadows Poorly drained areas, waterlogged after precipitation events, dry up during the
summer.
Wet prairies Similar to wet meadows but remain saturated longer, receive water from
streams along with precipitation and ground water.
Prairies potholes Small shallow ponds developed by snowmelt and rain in glacial pockmarks,
groundwater input also important; found in the Dakotas, Iowa, and the prai-
ries of the central Canadian provinces.
Vernal pools Shallow pools with a bedrock or hard clay layer, typically flooded in winter or
early spring.
Playa lakes Small shallow basins that collect rainfall and runoff from surrounding lands;
these are the low-lying areas in the Southern High Plains of the U.S.

Table 2: Types of Wetlands (EPA Classifications) Continued
Wetland Types
Swamps Primarily fed by surface water and dominated by trees and shrubs; occur in
either freshwater or saltwater; characterized by saturated soils during growing
season and standing water at other times. Examples: Virginia’s Great Dismal
swamp, Georgia’s Okefenokee swamp.
Forest Swamps Found in broad floodplains of the NE, SE and south-central U.S.; receive
floodwater, common deciduous trees include bald cypress, red maple, water
tupelo, and swamp white oak.
Bottom land
hardwoods
Found along river drainages in southeastern and central US where dominate
vegetation is determined by river flooding. Dominant species include Bald
Cypress, Water Tupelo, Black Willow, Silver Maple and Cottonwoods.
Shrub swamps Similar to forested swamps except that shrubby species dominate; Example:
buttonbush, swamp rose.
Mangrove swamps Coastal wetlands characterized by salt-tolerant tress, shrubs, growing in
brackish to saline tidal waters; extend from southern tip of Florida along the
Gulf coast to Texas
Bogs Freshwater wetlands characterized by peat deposits, acidic water, growth of
evergreen trees and shrubs, and a floor covered with sphagnum moss; are also
called precipitation-dominated wetlands as they receive most of their water
inputs from precipitation.
Nothern Bogs Found in the glaciated areas of NE and Great Lakes region of the U.S.
Pocosins Evergreen-shrub bogs located in the SE coastal plains
Fens Groundwater-fed peat-forming wetlands covered by grasses, sedges, reed
and wildflowers. They are called groundwater-dominated wetlands and are
characterized by less acidic water and higher nutrient levels. Tend to occur in
the glaciated areas of the northern U.S.

How Do Wetlands Work?
Wetlands are among the most important ecosystems on the earth. The swampy environment of the
Carboniferous period produced and preserved many of the fossil fuels on which we now depend. In more recent
times, wetlands have been identified as valuable sources, sinks and transformers of a multitude of chemical, bio-
logical and genetic materials.
In addition to their value in fish and wildlife protection, other benefits are recognized. They have been called the
“kidneys of the landscape” as they function as downstream receivers of water and waste from both natural and
anthropogenic sources. They stabilize water supplies and thus ameliorate some flood and drought situations. They
have been found to protect shorelines and recharge groundwater aquifers. They have been termed as “biological
supermarkets” for the extensive food chain and rich biodiversity role they support. They provide unique habitat for
a wide variety of flora and fauna. And most recently they have been described as carbon sinks and climate stabiliz-
ers. But how do wetlands work? What characteristics or features make them so unique and diverse in their uses?
Wetland Hydrology
As previously mentioned, hydrologic conditions are extremely important for the maintenance of a wetlands struc-
ture and function. It is the hydrology of the wetland that creates the unique physiochemical conditions that make
such an ecosystem different from both well-drained terrestrial systems and deepwater aquatic systems.
Precipitation, surface run-off, groundwater, tides and flooding rivers transport energy, sediments, organic matter
and nutrients to, from and within wetlands. These hydrologic inputs and outputs also determine the water depth,
flow patterns, and duration and frequency of flooding that, in turn, affects the biogeochemistry of soils and
ultimately affects the selection of biota in the wetland.
Hydrology also affects species composition and richness, primary productivity, organic accumulation and nutri-
ent cycling in wetlands. Generally, the productivity is higher in wetlands that have high flow-through of water and
nutrients or in wetlands with pulsing water inflow/outflow (seasonal pattern of water flow). Wetlands in stagnant
or continuously deep water have been observed to have low productivities, whereas wetlands that are in slowly
flowing strands or are open to flooding rivers have high productivities. Many wetlands that sustain long flooding
durations have lower species richness. Hydrology can limit or act as a stimulus to species richness. The richness
increases as flow-through increases, as the flowing water will tend to renew minerals and reduce
anaerobic conditions.
The effects of hydrology on wetland structure and function are a complicated series of cause-and-effect relation-
ships. A simplified conceptual model of the general effects of hydrology in wetlands ecosystems is provided in
Figure 1. The effects shown here are primarily on the chemical and physical aspects of the wetlands, which, in turn,
influence the biotic components of the ecosystem. The biotic components then have a feedback effect on
hydrology.

Figure 2: Conceptual diagram illustrating the effects of hydrology on wetland
establishment and function
Modifies and determines
Hydrology
Water level, flow, frequency, etc.
Physiochemical environment
Sediments, soil chemistry, water chemistry, etc.
Allowing specific
Biota
Vegetation, animals and microbes
Basin
geo-morphology
Climate
Which in turn
modifies the
physiochemistry
and hydrology
Which Modifies
(adapted from Mitsch and Gosselink 2000: 109)

Functions and Values of Wetlands
For years wetlands have been viewed as wastelands (as the periodic standing water and waterlogged soils prevented
their use for agriculture, forestry, or mineral production; for human habitation; or for commercial use), they are
now being recognized as an important ecosystem that provides essential functions/ services (Table 3) which are
valuable to humanity worldwide.
Hydrology
•Water storage and flood reduction
•Barriers to waves and erosion
•Maintenance of groundwater table
•Maintenance of surface water levels
•Stable shores and storm protection
Wetlands function like natural sponges, storing water and slowly releasing it to downstream
areas, lowering flood peaks. This reduces water’s momentum and erosive potential, reduces
flood heights, and allows for groundwater recharge, which contributes to base flow to sur-
face water systems during dry periods. Also, coastal and inland wetlands adjoining rivers
reduce the impact of tides and waves. This protects soil against erosion. Mangroves are
particularly resistant.
Biogeochemistry
•Maintenance of overall water quality
•Cycling and transformation of nutrients and other elements
•Retention of sediments
•Retention and transformation of dissolved substances and pollutants
•Accumulation of carbon/ peat
As water gets slowed by the wetland, it moves around the plants allowing the suspended
sediments to drop out and settle to the wetland floor. The reeds and grasses further increase
this process. Retention of this sediment upstream can enhance the quality of ecosystems
downstream along with lengthening the lifespan of downstream reservoirs and channels.
This reduces the need for costly removal of accumulated sediments from dams, locks, etc.
Wetlands also retain nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorous), through accumulation
by microorganisms in the subsoil and/or absorption by vegetation. Hence we have nutrients
from fertilizer application, manure, leaking septic tanks, and municipal sewage that are dis-
solved in water, filtered by the wetland leading to improved water quality and prevention in
eutrophication.
Habitat and Food Web Support
•Maintenance of primary productivity
•Maintenance of characteristic plant communities that serve as habitat
•Sustaining anadromous fish and other wetland- dependent aquatic species
•Maintenance of biodiversity
Table 3: Ecosystem services provided by wetlands (natural and restored)
(adapted from Spray and McGlothlin, 2004: 60, Kusler 1983)

As mentioned earlier wetland functions include water quality improvement, floodwater storage, fish and wildlife
habitat, aesthetics, and biological productivity. These functions can be translated into values depending upon the
estimation of the importance of its function(s) to society. In the recent past, humans have realized that the destruc-
tion of natural wetlands can (and has triggered) trigger a plethora of unpleasant and unproductive consequences
ranging from periodic flooding to deteriorating water quality to loss of habitat and wildlife. Table 4) lists the eco-
logical functions of the wetlands, the ecological effects of these functions (annual ecosystem goods and services ob-
tained) and the societal/ economic values (including future ecosystem goods/services obtained) that are impacted.
Table 4: Ecological functions to economic values of wetlands
Ecological Functions Ecological Effects Societal Economical Values
Intermediate
Goods and Services
Final Goods and
Services
Future Goods and
Services
Hydrological
Short-term surface
water storage; long-
term surface water
storage, maintenance
of high water table
Reduced down-
stream flood peaks;
maintenance of base
flows and seasonal
flow distribution of
hydrophytic plants
Flood control;
water storage;
irrigation and
sub-irrigation water
for agriculture
Flood damage
security; reduced
household
utility costs;
maintain sport
fishing habitat in
dry periods
Unique species,
landscapes and
ecosystems;
bequest value;
option value;
undiscovered goods
Biogeochemical
Transformation and
cycling of elements, re-
tention and removal of
dissolved substances,
accumulation of peat,
accumulation of
inorganic sediments
Maintenance of
nutrient stocks,
reduced transport
of nutrients, met-
als, etc; retention of
sediments and some
nutrients
Assimilation of
wastes; pollution
assimilation/ water
purification
Higher water
quality as an
amenity
Unique species,
landscapes and
ecosystems;
bequest value;
option value;
undiscovered goods
HabitatandFoodWeb
Maintenance of
characteristic plant
communities,
maintenance of
characteristic energy
flow
Food, nesting, cover
for animals; support
for populations of
vertebrates
Support for com-
mercial fisheries
and recreation;
provision of
commercially
harvested natural
resources (timber,
fur-bearers, etc.)
Unique species,
landscapes and
ecosystems;
bequest value;
option value;
undiscovered goods
(adapted from Spray and McGlothlin, 2004: 133)

Types Of Wetlands For Wastewater Quality Treatment
Natural wetlands have been used to treat wastewater for hundreds of years. Formal documentation of how these
natural wetlands affected wastewater quality began in the 1960s and 1970s. Research found consistent reductions
in the pollutant concentrations of wastewater as it passed through the microbial active wetlands. And by the late
1970s and early 1980s, this research led to the planning, development, and construction of discharges to natural
wetlands at many locations in North America, as well as the implementation of constructed wetland technology
for both habitat and water quality functions. Wetlands can be engineered and constructed for the
following reasons:
1. To compensate and offset the rate of existing wetland loss (constructed habitat wetlands),
2. To improve water quality (constructed treatment wetlands),
3. Provide flood control (constructed flood control wetlands),
4. To be used for the production of food and fiber (constructed aquaculture wetlands).
The wetland and the different treatment options can be grouped into the
following three categories:
1.Natural wetlands
a. Restored for habitat
b. Restored for treatment with surface flow
2.Constructed wetlands
a. Constructed to offset the historical and continuing losses of natural wetland functions
b. Constructed treatment wetlands specifically engineered with water quality improvement
i. With surface flow
ii. With sub-surface flow
Selection of the appropriate treatment option is a critical aspect in project planning. For the selected alternative to
be feasible and compliant it should satisfy technical, environmental, permitting and regulatory conditions. Alter-
native selection must be based on the best available information, including clear objectives, waste water source and
flow characterization, site specific conditions (including information on soils, native flora and fauna, etc.), permit-
ting feasibility, technical feasibility, cost of a particular alternative and so on. The alternative and design selection
also has to be followed by careful monitoring evaluation. In cases where technical feasibility of a treatment option
is not well-known due to unique characteristics of wastewater properties/flows; pilot projects need to implemented
to ascertain regulatory feasibility and public acceptance. Figure 2 represents steps that should be followed where
wetlands can be restored for treatment purposes.

(adapted from Spray and McGlothlin, 2004: 57)
Establish restoration goals and
treatment objectives
Identify the potential site
Identify limiting factors for
plants and animals
Develop treatment plan
Excavate grade and
establish hydrology
Plant seedlings, seeds or
cuttings
Monitor restoration process
Evaluate progress and adapt
management
Preliminary Planning
Design &
Implementation
Monitoring & Adaptive
Management
Figure 2: Steps in the Process of Wetland Restoration

Use Of Restored Wetlands In Rural Areas

Introduction
Agricultural nitrogen (N) non-point source1
(NPS) pollution can be effectively mitigated through strategies that
increase the capacity and effectiveness of nutrient sinks that trap dissolved and particulate nutrients; and result
in their conversion to the inert nitrogen (N2) gas. It has been estimated that through wetland sinks agricultural
Nitrogen NPS pollution to the Chesapeake Bay can be reduced by 50%. These reductions are a direct result of the
created physical, biological, and chemical environments promoting the biotransformation of ammonia and am-
monium, into nitrite and nitrate, and finally into inert nitrogen gases, which are removed from the water through
release into the atmosphere. This bioengineering approach to constructed wetlands; either through the sub-surface
flow system (SSF) or the free water surface system (FWS)2
, is being implemented to treat Nitrogen NPS with great
success. Data from more than two decades of extensive monitoring of Constructed Wetlands Practice Standard-
6573
(CW-656) has revealed significant reductions of NPS in treated runoff. However, recent studies have sug-
gested that the potential of natural wetlands (including restored natural drained wetlands) to attenuate N loadings
is high. Also, from an implementation standpoint, natural wetland treatment systems are simpler than constructed
wetlands. The designer must collect and deliver the wastewater, but nature has provided the basin and vegetation.
Use of natural wetlands
Unlike constructed wetlands, no two natural wetlands are identical. Their N biotransformation
function will depend upon various physical (basin dimensions); chemical (oxygen concentration gradient,
pH, temperature); and biological (indigenous bacterial species) variables. In spite of this, there is
considerable opportunity for not only treating N, but also additional pollutants along with the extra benefits
natural wetlands provide. These include:
• Sedimentation of particulates leading to removal of suspended solids and attached pH
• Reduce pathogenic organisms: 99% effective in removal of coliform bacteria
• Additional benefits: habitat, recreation, education, environmental open space
• Terrestrial carbon sink
Wetlands have not been traditionally viewed by humans as beneficial, and have been converted to a variety of
agricultural land uses such as pasture, hay land, cropland and farmsteads. These can be collectively termed as
drained wetlands. Following the national trend, New York State has lost (drained or destroyed) approximately
50% of its natural swamps and marshes. A wetland inventory in Chenango county reveals that most of the
farms in the county have wetlands (either farmed wetlands or converted wetlands). This means that hundreds
of drained wetlands are found on the farms, leading to a high probability that many are hydrologically con-
nected or located in close proximity to a source of agricultural Nitrogen NPS
pollution. So, given that:
1. Non point sources (NPS): fertilizer spread on cropland (N03
—
, mainly through leaching) and animal waste runoff from animal feedlot operations (AFO) (NH3
and
NH4
+
; surface runoff transports). It has been observed that growth in Nitrogen NPS pollution loads from agriculture has been found directly correlated to the expansion/
intensification of animal agriculture, specifically expansion of confined AFOs.
2. Free water surface system wetlands are relatively inexpensive to manage and maintain when compared to the sub-surface flow wetlands and traditional water quality
BMPs. FWS systems required the same amount of energy input for every kg of pollutant degraded in conventional treatment systems, but they use renewable energy.
There might be some reduction of efficiency in winter, in colder climates
3 Constructed Wetland Practice Standard-656 is a constructed shallow water ecosystem designed to simulate natural wetlands, to reduce the pollution potential of run-
noffs and waste water from agricultural lands to water resources.

• Most farms in NYS have drained wetlands,
• Many farms have significant Nitrogen NPS pollution sources,
• Constructed wetlands can significantly reduce agricultural N concentrations in runoff,
• There is incentive for farmers to restore wetlands, and
• Traditional water quality BMPs are expensive to construct and operate;
these drained wetlands can be potentially restored4
for water quality treatment (restored wetlands); as a
viable “alternative” water quality BMP.
The key aspect for success of restored natural wetlands to be utilized is the location with respect to NPS pol-
lution, the wetland basin and its hydrology.
Science Behind The Restored Wetland Treatment BMP
Restored wetlands can be used to treat agricultural runoff via the nitrogen cycle. Organic nitrogen, which is the
dominant form of N in the runoff from barnyards is readily converted to NH3
, NH4
+
and NO3
-
in downstream wa-
ter into N gases. Restored wetlands provide a favorable chemical, biological and physical environment for bacteria
to bio-transform the agricultural NPS nitrogen pollutants into N gases.
The key sequential bacterial bio-transformation steps to remove N are ammonification followed by nitrification
and concluding with de-nitrification. The chemo-heterotrophic5
bacteria transform organic N into ammonium
ions that are absorbed by plant roots; or taken up by anaerobic micro-organisms, or they can undergo nitrification
into NO3
-
. In anaerobic conditions, this NO3
-
is then converted to gaseous N (N2
, NO, NO2
, N2
O; these can be
harmlessly lost to the atmosphere) through the process of de-nitrification.
A restored wetlands N removal performance is dependent on several factors6
such as water depth and duration,
area and volume. Modification of these variables influences other factors (such as population size, contact, N
cycle continuity, kinetics and contact time) which influences N cycle bio-transformation. These variables can
be measured in a drained and restored wetland through the measures of flooded vegetative area, conductivity
distribution, O2
/ pH, water temperature and retention time. Bacteria must be in contact with pollutants to bio-
transform them. As most bacteria are sessile, unrestrained flows are essential to transport N pollutants to them.
Wetlands are typically stratified vertically into both aerobic and anaerobic zones. This helps in maintaining the
N cycle continuity which requires aerobic conditions (ammonification and nitrification) and anaerobic condi-
tions (de-nitrification). Vegetation plays an important role in the N cycle for beneficial microbes to metabolize N
through de-nitrification; and as been attributed as much as 90% of N removal in a constructed wetland. Addition-
ally, the longer the bacteria remains in contact with N, the greater is its probability to trap and transform it.
Site-specific data is paramount to design an efficient restored wetland treatment (RW-T) system to treat agricul-
tural NPS N polluted runoff due to the complex and highly variable mix of runoff contaminants, basin topography,
basin flow patterns, and soil/vegetation characteristics. Operational efficiency of the restored wetland (RW) has
4. USEPA (2000) defines restoration as a return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance and reestablishment of previous functions
and related physical, chemical and biological characteristics
5. Obtaining their nutrition and energy for growth from organic compounds
6. For further details refer to Kadlec and Knight (1996)

been found to increase as a direct result of additional retention time associated with the increased storage volume
of the wetland. However, it has been found that the overriding design criteria for a RW-T ultimately depends on the
contaminant of greatest local concern, that requires the longest retention time for its degradation, and the required
percent reduction of this contaminant.
Application of the RW-T BMP in the Field
Functional capacity of a wetland to transform N pollution can be measured in terms of concentration or estimated
to be high or low. This is determined by its internal and external characteristics. Studies have shown that NPS N
polluted runoff from AFOs, flowing through RW is transformed into N gases, via N-cycle bio-transformation.
Research indicates that N cycle operational efficiency is directly influenced by the following five N cycle variables:
1. Bacterial population size,
2. Bacteria and pollutant contact,
3. N cycle community,
4. Kinetics, and
5. Bacteria and pollutant contact time.
However, restoration’s greatest influence is on the variables of population size and contact time, which can be
quantified by flooded vegetative area and retention time.
Flooded vegetative area and retention time are dependent on the drained wetland’s internal variables of depres-
sional depth, surface area, and outlet shape; and the external variable of watershed runoff. Research shows that
generally a drained wetland with a flatter slope, larger surface area and more restrictive outlet has a greater
restoration potential for water surface area and storage volume. Also, the drained wetland’s ability to treat NPS
N pollution is significantly influenced by its watershed size: smaller watershed area to surface area ratios have a
greater affect on retention time. However, the appropriate size for a RW-T wetland ultimately depends on the con-
taminant of greatest local concern that requires the longest retention time for degradation and on the percent-
age reduction of the contaminant required by law and/or regulation.
Given the increasing need to improve water quality in agricultural watersheds along with limited budgets, RW-T
therefore, has significant potential. However, for RW-T to perform the bio-transformation potential, it must have
both the opportunity (presence of the drained wetland in a physical location to perform bio-transformation func-
tion) and the capacity (effectiveness of the wetland to actually perform the bio-transformation function
being considered).
NYS has sufficient number of drained wetlands that can serve as candidates for RW-T BMP projects. These drained
wetlands are in adequate numbers7
and in appropriate juxtaposition to the pollution sources to be feasible and
cost-effective alternative water quality BMP. Suitability based on GIS spatial relationship analysis, construction
7. USFWS’s National wetland inventory (NWI) and New York Sate Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) Wetlands Conservation
Law inventory exist, which have mapped the hydric soils in the state. USDA NRCS soil surveys has identified potential wetland restoration sites through
aerial image interpretation or inventories. USDA, with National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils (NTCHS), has developed a list of the nation’s hy-
dric soils. States have adopted the list which identifies all map units that are hydric or have a potential of having hydric soil inclusions. The local county
lists provide names of hydric soils, information on the composition and probable landscape position. This can be used in conjunction with local county
soil survey maps to physically locate hydric soils in the field.

feasibility and cost variables can be used to determine which drained wetlands could and should be restored. These
wetlands can then be ranked and rated to determine relative priority for implementation using additional variables
like ratios of wetlands size to herd size and wetland surface water storage to watershed runoff.
Thus, the RW-T suitability model which:
1. Selects hydric soil8
in close juxtaposition to dairy AFOs,
2. Rates each hydric soil/ wetland according to factors of operational efficiency, restoration costs, and
environmental policy, and
3. Ranks wetlands for implementation prioritization or targeting has been developed which identifies,
characterizes and estimates a drained-degraded hydric soil’s potential biotransformation functional
capacity to treat NPS N polluted runoff.
The RW-T suitability model’s conceptual protocol is divided into three distinct sequential hierarchal models:
selecting, rating and ranking the hydric soils. These selecting, rating and ranking protocol models have been
operationalized by transforming them into a variety of GIS9
and PC10
spreadsheet process models, that are
used to collect, organize, evaluate, manipulate and display data (Table 5).
Table 5: Restored Wetland- Treatment Suitability Model
Selection Process Model:
Spatially located and selected hydric soils within a 305m radius
Rating Process Model:
Evaluated each hydric soil on three factors. These three factors are each divided into 2 variables each, which have been trans-
formed into 6 quantifiable covariates.
Factors Variables Covariates
1. Operational efficiency • bacteria-pollutant contact time
• bacterial population size
• surface water retention time
• flooded vegetative area
2. Restoration costs • reconstruction feasibility
• utility to construct
• land use
• relative position to pollution source
(up or down slope)
3. National Wetland Policy • agricultural pollution priority
• wetland degradation status
• herd size
• extent of degradation due to farming practices
Ranking Process Model:
Prioritizes hydric soils by sorting the covariate values in the following order:
1. Herd size
2. Relative evaluation
3. Land use
4. Flooded vegetative area
5. Retention time
8. Hydric soils have an accumulation of organic matter resulting from prolonged anaerobic soil conditions associated with long periods of submergence and/or soil satu-
ration during the growing season
9. GIS process model-does geometric functions-to calculate distances, area and perimeter, and generate buffer; coincidence functions and adjacency functions
10. PC spreadsheet process model-empricial and theoretical formula computations, statistical analysis and data sorting functions

Steps In Setting Up a RW-T BMP
In order to site a restored wetland for a potential treatment BMP, the following steps need to be carried out in
sequential order. These are based on the RW-T suitability model illustrated in Table 5.
• Identify hydric soils or restored wetlands located at a “convenient distance” of 305 m from the AFOs
(animal feedlots) where the pollutant runoff needs to be treated.
The selected wetlands are then rated for their use based on efficiency, policy and cost factors:
• Natural undisturbed wetlands or restored wetlands for habitat are eliminated from the selection.
• Wetlands with a perennial river associated with a watershed greater than 80ha eliminated from selection.
• Wetlands with constructed utilities (roads, railways, pipelines and power line) eliminated from selection
• If multiple wetlands are selected in the buffer area of 305m around the pollution source, eliminate
(based on relative vertical position) all but the lowest elevation wetland.
• Wetlands with watershed area to wetland water surface area greater than 10:1 are eliminated to
allow higher retention time
• Wetlands with flooded vegetative area to herd size ratio smaller than 0.004ha:1 cow eliminated.
• Wetlands with retention times less than 1 day are eliminated.
The remaining rated wetlands from the total selection are now to be ranked or prioritized for targeted
implementation using the following sorting protocol:
• Rated wetlands are ranked by associated herd size. More animals are associated with more pollution
(manure), and hence demand higher priority.
• Wetlands with same herd size are then ranked by down slope position to the pollution source
• Wetlands with same pollution load and relative elevation are then ranked by land use from least to
greatest restoration cost in the order of: pasture, hay land, cropland, and finally farmstead.
• Wetlands with same pollutant load, relative elevation and land use are then sorted by largest to
smallest surface area
• Sort the remaining wetlands by longest to shortest retention time periods.
The final remaining wetland can now be successfully used for RW-T BMP. The details of these steps are provided
in the following table which also explains the logic behind each selection, ranking and rating step.
For more details or questions regarding the following table (Table 6), please refer to Johnson (2010) or contact
Dr. Lauren Locklin Johnson, (lauren.johnson@ny.usda.gov) District Conservationist, Chenango County Soil &
Water Conservation District. 11
11. Chenango County SWCD, 99 North Broad Street Norwich, NY 13815, 607.334.4632 ext

Table 6: Sequential Steps for Citing and Identification of a Restored Wetland for Water Quality Treatment for BMP
Steps Criteria What To Do Why? / From Where?
I. “Selection”of
Hydric Soils
1. Existence of N NPS
pollution (e.g. a dairy
AFO)
Identification of AFO using
the SWCD
localized definitions
County tax department
(shapes files of county tax parcels)
SWCD Cooperator files, USDA Farm
Service Agency Producer Files,
Produce shipping milk report
published by NYS Agriculture and
Market
2. Juxtaposition or dis-
tance from NPS;
located at a
“convenient distance”
Convenient distance is based
on cost of construction
associated with gravity and
pump manure transfer sys-
tems. Project requiring more
than 305 m of plumbing are
typically too costly or
mechanically impossible
based on present agricultural
waste management
engineering technology
USDA NRCS soil surveys and
Hydric soils list
II. “Rate” the
selected hydric
soils according
to 3 factors (ef-
ficiency, cost and
policy) in 7 steps
1. Environmental
Policy- wetland
determination-impact
of installed drainage
practices
Hydric soils interpreted as
undisturbed or restored for
habitat are eliminated from
further consideration
Undisturbed or restored wetlands for
habitat cannot be considered for use as
treatment wetlands as per USDA, EPA
and US FWS policy. This is deter-
mined by the drainage practices in the
hydric soils and can be reliably inter-
preted from its agricultural land use.
Land use can be determined by direct
field observations, aerial image land
cover interpretation to crop reporting
records.
2. Efficiency-Contact
time- retention use
Hydric soils with a ‘blue
line’ stream flowing through
eliminated
Blue line stream tool, used by USDA
NRCS, indicates a perennial river and
is associated with watershed greater
than 80ha.
3. Cost-Feasibility-land
use
Hydric soils with a utility
right of way, transportation
corridor, or a developed area
are eliminated.
Non-agricultural land uses used to
gauge the degree of wetland
drainage or conversion, to compare
the cost of restoration to benefits
received.
4. Cost-utility-relative
elevation (up slope/
down slope) of wetland
to the pollution source
Buffer hydric soils are evalu-
ated according to
relative vertical position,
with all but the lowest
elevation wetland being
eliminated
Waste treatment facilities upslope to
a pollution source are typically more
expensive.

Table 6: Sequential Steps for Citing and Identification of a Restored Wetland for Water Quality Treatment for BMP:
continued
Steps Criteria What To Do Why? / From Where?
(Continued from previous) 5. Efficiency-Contact
time-retention time
Hydric soils with watershed
area to wetland water surface
area should not exceed a 10:1
ratio
USDA NRCS constructed wetland
rule-of-thumb. Ratios greater than this
do not have sufficient retention time
to allow bacteria to adequately treat
polluted runoff.
6. Efficiency-population
size-flooded vegetative
area
Hydric soils with a flooded
vegetative area to herd size
ratio smaller than 0.004 ha:1
cow eliminated
USDA NRCS constructed wetland
rule-of-thumb. With smaller fractional
ratios, constructed wetlands perform
poorly as they exceed their treatment
loading capacity.
7. Efficiency-Contact
time-retention time
Hydric soils with
retention time less than one
day eliminated.
USDA NRCS constructed
wetland rule-of-thumb.
Retention time less than one day has
no significant effect on NPS N
pollution removal
III. “Rank” or target
the rated
hydric soils by
sequential
priority sort-
ing. The protocol
involves 5 steps
arranged in the
most significant
water quality
improving order:
Protocol is according to a guidance
developed by USACE, USFWS and
USDA NRCS
4. Herd Size Rank the rated hyrdic soils
by associated herd size (larg-
est to smallest)
Dairy herd is the most important
factor in quantifying potential
pollution risk
5. Relative elevation
(up/ down slope within
same herd size)
Hydric soils with same herd
sizes are sorted by down
slope then upslope positions
relative to pollution source
Costs of polluted runoff collection and
transfer system construction to value
of water quality improvement is used
by agencies to calculate cost-benefit
ratios to prioritize projects
6. Land use Hydric soils with same herd
size and relative elevation
are sorted by land use in
the following order: pas-
ture, hayland, cropland and
farmstead (least to great-
est modification or least to
greatest restoration cost)
Construction costs are associated with
collection, transfer system
components and cost of restoration
itself. The latter are related to degree of
drainage or modification.
7. Flooded vegetative area Hydric soils with same herd
size, relative elevation and
land use are sorted by sur-
face area (largest to smallest)
Greater the surface area, greater the N
cycle bio-transformation capacity
8. Retention Time Hydric soils with same herd
size, relative elevation, land
use and surface area are
sorted by retention time
(longest to shortest)
The longer the pollutant is in contact
with bacteria, greater is the probability
for its assimilation

Use of Sub-Surface Wetlands in the Urban Setting

Introduction
Urbanization can drastically alter the natural hydrologic cycle, destroying natural areas like wetlands that are
important for water quality and controlling urban storm water runoff. The urban pollutant loads increase with
the imperviousness of the watershed. Urban and suburban runoff including storm water runoff non-point source
pollution, contributes significantly to the pollution load of U.S. inland water surfaces (Kadlec and Knight 1998).
Additionally, the stormwater flows and concentrations are episodic, changing rapidly in volume, duration and
intensity. These flows can carry rural sediment/nutrient loads into urban settings where the pollutant loads are
further augmented by increased runoff from impervious surfaces such as parking lots, roadways, rooftops, etc. The
resultant runoff can include suspended particulate matter and nutrients (especially N and P) from vehicle exhaust
and atmospheric deposition, trace metals from metal corrosion, materials from worn brake lining and tires, salts
(deicing salts), and a wide array of complex hydrocarbons (such as motor additives, pesticides, rubber, oil and
grease. In central New York (CNY), combined sewer overflows add raw sewage to this pollutant mix.
Urbanization around many watersheds in CNY, like Onondaga Lake and its contributing tributaries, has destroyed/
degraded vast areas of wetlands to such an extent that they can no longer provide their normal wetlands functions
to the riparian system. The most prominent loss has been to the natural buffering capacity of the wetlands which in
combination with the history of industrial, domestic and storm-water runoff pollution has led to the degradation
of several water systems. An effective way to deal with this wetland loss along with water quality and quantity goals
would be adoption of constructed wetlands as storm water and waste water management which can provide onsite
solutions to water quantity/quality and restoring wetland habitat resources that have been lost to urban develop-
ment activities.
Use of constructed wetlands
Constructed wetlands are planned systems designed and constructed to employ wetland vegetation to
assist in treating wastewater in a more controlled environment than occurs in natural wetlands. The use of
constructed wetlands for waste water treatment takes advantage of the same principles in a natural system,
within a more controlled environment. They can be designed for a variety of treatment objectives, as
influent ranges from raw wastewater to secondary effluent. As mentioned in the previous chapter, data from
more than two decades of extensive monitoring of Constructed Wetlands Practice Standard- 65712
(CW-656)
has revealed significant reductions in the treated runoff. The use of constructed wetlands comes with several
advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages include flexibility in site location, potential to treat more wastewater in smaller areas
than with natural wetlands, optimal size can be designed for anticipated waste, and they cause no
alteration to natural wetlands.
Disadvantages in using constructed wetlands over natural ones include cost and availability of suit-
able land, site grading, cost of construction (cost of gravel or other fill), cost of plant harvesting
and disposal, breeding habitats for nuisance insects or disease vectors, may generate odors, pre-
treatment maybe needed to avoid problems of bio-accumulation in wildlife, and so on.
Regulatory constraints, discharge standards and permit requirements
12. Constructed Wetland Practice Standard-656 is a constructed shallow water ecosystem designed to simulate natural wetlands, to reduce the pollution potential of
runoff and wastewater from agricultural lands to water resources.

Municipal discharges to wetlands must meet minimum technology requirements and conform with state wa-
ter quality standards. Clean Water Act and EPA regulations govern discharges of wastewater to waterbodies
in the U.S., including any wetlands considered to be “waters of the USA.” Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. EPA regulates
wastewater discharges to natural wetlands through this NPDES permit program. EPA uses a case by case ap-
proach to evaluate the use of natural wetlands for treatment purposes. It encourages the use of constructed
wetlands through its innovative and alternative technology provisions. Projects that may result in any filling
or other alteration of wetlands will generally need to obtain a Section 404 permit13
and may have to address
other federal requirements. Constructed wetlands designed, built, and operated as wastewater treatment sys-
tems are, in general, excluded from the definitions of “waters of the USA.” However, in some cases, wetlands
created to enhance wildlife and abandoned treatment lagoons that have developed dependent wildlife popula-
tions have been considered waters of the U.S.
Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Design
In subsurface flow treatment wetlands (SSW), the flows are fed to a gravel bed with pore spaces. Within these
pores spaces, bacteria and algae do most of the treatment work in aerobic and anaerobic conditions year round. It
has been shown that planted gravel beds achieved greater than 90% removal of chemicals. Several design recipes
can be found in the literature for SSF wetlands. Some of these procedures are rules of thumb (as was the case with
natural restored wetlands), based on intuition and analogs, and others are based on data analysis and application of
physio-chemical principles. It is necessary for SSF wetland treatment to determine/ define the quantity and quality
of water to be treated and the goals of the treatment.
Preliminary feasibility
The goal is to identify potential sites, estimate wetland size and determine if there is sufficient land available
for a wetland. Cost estimates for the potential sites or projects would also be looked at at this stage.
Identification of potential sites proposed for creating wetlands
Sites identified for constructed wetlands need to be assessed for:
• Existing infrastructure to determine the ease of access,
• Ownership and availability of the site: if the land must be purchased, a significant cost is
incurred, including the market price of land and ancillary acquisition costs,
• Engineering feasibility,
• Hydrology,
• Nature of soils on the site, and
• Topography: determines the amount of earth moving and the presence of large flat land
area can influence potential costs. It also determines the need of pumps to move water to
and from the site, which is an important cost consideration,
• Drainage area, and
• Upstream pollutant loading characteristics (including locations/ proximity of combined
sewer overflows, if applicable).
13. Proposal to use natural wetlands for wastewater treatment involving some alteration of the wetlands, such as building dikes is generally neccessary to obtain a permit
for the discharge of dredged or fill material from the Army Corps of Engineers (or appropriate state agency) under Section 404 of Clean Water Act before such construc-
tion will be allowed.

Sites which have large flat areas with presence of naturally wet areas are suitable for development of treatment
sites. It is beneficial to identify wetland areas destroyed/lost due to urbanization within the drainage area to
potentially locate the proposed constructed wetland site to derive the additional benefit of restoration of eco-
system services provided by wetlands. The former wetlands areas can be estimated using National Wetland
Inventory maps produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Preliminary sizing
Each regulated water quality parameter requires its own particular wetland area for reduction to the desired
level. Depending on regulations and retention time, the maximum size of the individual treatment areas is
selected.
Preliminary economics
This includes the basic capital costs, operating and maintenance costs and comparison of costs for potential
sites with those of conventional treatment options.
Engineering considerations and draft designs
The goal is to maximize treatment volume and efficacy. Typically there is a distribution box that distributes
water based on the amount of flow and changes its distribution over time. Then there is a grit chamber in
which the solids are dropped, and then the flow proceeds to the various buried gravel beds. Within these beds
is a very course stone with pore spaces for bacteria and algae to do their work. The treated flow then moves
towards the creek and is pumped back into the creek. Aquatic species can be planted on top of the gravel beds
depending on whether the water levels in the beds and the frequency of flooding can support these species.
Stream (Hydrological) flow and stage calculations
To determine the quantity of water that will flow through SSW treatment it is essential to calculate both base-
line and storm discharges. The amount and timing of the water to be treated is the first and foremost item to
consider in design. This information should include the possible seasonality of flows and anticipated progres-
sion of flows over the life of the design. This is more important for wetland design when compared with con-
ventional water treatment plants because of the implied life cycle of the process and the nature of urban and
industrial growth. Conventional water treatment plants are traditionally planned for a 20-year life expectancy,
but wetlands can function for a far longer period.
Flows, whether municipal, industrial, or storm water, are often seasonal in character. It is necessary to antici-
pate those patterns because the wetland must function appropriately under these variable hydraulic condi-
tions. Monthly flow estimates are required for most point source projects, but storm water systems require a
definition of frequencies of events and their magnitude and timing. The sampling and calculation for baseline
flow should be done for at least one year or seasonal sampling should be done to capture the variations (or the
different stages of flood flow) in the quantity of water entering SSW treatment. The frequency for this baseline
sampling can be twice a month. A flow meter can be used to measure the velocity (V) of the CSO (storm water
discharge). The discharge is then calculated using the following equation:
The information on water quantities and timing is then assembled into annual and monthly water budgets for
design, including seasonal events that are important. Sometime this data may be available through the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations located at the water source.

Treatment potential
The treatment achieved in SSW systems depends on the volume and frequency of the inflow and also the char-
acteristics of the inflow. Hence the treatment potential depends upon the following factors: hydraulic load-
ing, retention, vegetation. However, the amount of water and the amounts of pollutants that reach the storm
water treatment wetlands from contributing watersheds and/or urban surrounding are typically not known
in advance. The number and duration of events that produce input are variable so it is difficult to define the
retention time and hydraulic loading.
Nature of influx (Hydraulic loading): Water quality testing needs to be done for major pollutant
sources for the SSW treatment system. To obtain better knowledge of the water quality aspects for
the storm water or CSO discharge it is advisable to conduct at least a 1-year period of water qual-
ity data gathering. Major pollutant sources for the discharge is determined by assaying 5-day bio-
logical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS),
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Ammonia (NH3
), total phosphorous, pH, salinity, alkalinity, fecal
coliform, Iron, Mercury, Lead, hydrocarbons, Chromium, Benzene, pesticides, herbicides, poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and arsenic.
Baseline sampling is done at the storm sewer outflow (SSO) (inflow) and upstream , however for
an event sampling (when there is sever overflow), three samples should be taken; at the CSO, an
upstream water sample and a downstream sample.
Retention (detention) time / Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT): This can be obtained using the water
quality data for the baseline and CSO; total maximum daily loads and water quality-based efflu-
ent limits defined by policy (NYDEC) for effluent concentration data; maximum concentration
measured in the last year’s sample for influent data; and adopting the average rate constant from 14
operational sub-surface flow treatment wetland systems.
Vegetation in the system: The gravel bed will require planting because the media is not optimal for
germination. The presence of macrophytes is important for pollutant removal functions. The three
genera of wetland plants most frequently used are:
• Phragmites australis has remarkable growth rates, root development and tolerance to satu-
rated soil conditions
• Typha spp.
• Scirpus spp.
• But in our own Research (Wu 2008) two species did quite well – Prairie Cordgrass
(Spartina pectinata) and Sweet grass (Hierochloe odorata) and did much better in terms
of survival as well as provide better habitat and aesthetic value.
Q = V x A
Q = discharge
V = velocity of the CSO discharge
A = area of the CSO channel transects.

Table 7: Sequential Steps for citing and identification of a Constructed Wetland for Water Quality Treatment for BMP
.
Steps Criteria What to do/ Why? From Where?
1. Identification of
potential sites
1. Existing infrastructure This determines ease of access
2. Ownership and
availablity of the site
If the land must be purchased,
a significant cost is incurred,
including the market price of
the land and ancillary
acquisition costs.
3. Engineering feasibility location and costs
4. Hydrology rate of flow
5. Nature of soils on the site This can affect design and
construction cost. For
example, if the wetland is
required to be relatively
impermeable to protect
groundwater, and the soils on
site are permeable a liner may
be required, adding to costs.
6. Topography Determines the amount of
earth moving, hence
presence of large flat land area
can influence costs. It also
determines whether pumps
will be needed to move water
to/from the site, further add-
ing cost considerations.
7. Drainage area storm sewershed
8. Upstream pollutant load-
ing characteristics
This will also include
locations/proximity of
combined sewer overflows
2. Preliminary Sizing Water quality regulations and
retention time
Depending upon the regulated
parameter and the retention
time; the maximum of the
individual treatment areas is
selected as the final size
Refer to Chapter 20 & 21,
Kadlec and Knight (1996).
Regulatory parameters for
treatment can be obtained
by the NYSDEC

Table 7: Sequential Steps for citing and identification of a Constructed Wetland for Water Quality Treatment for BMP; continued
Steps Criteria What to do/ Why? From Where?
3. Preliminary Economics Costs of basic capital and
operation/maintenance
These need to be compared
for all potential sites identified
and costs of conventional
treatment facilities
4. Stream Flow Calcula-
tions
Baseline flow and storm
discharges
Amount and timing of the
water to be treated is the key
Min. 1 year water quantity
sampling or seasonal
sampling to capture varia-
tions. Data may also be
available through United
States Geological
Survey (USGS)
5. Nature of Influx (hydrol-
ical loading)
BOD5, COD, TSS, TKN,
NH3, total Ph, pH, salinity,
alkalinity, fecal coliform, Iron,
Mercury, Lead, hydrocarbons,
Chromium, Benzene, pesti-
cides, herbicides, PCB, arsenic
Concentrations of pollutants
in the water to be treated are
critical to the sizing process.
Minimum one year water
quality sampling or
seasonal sampling to
capture variations.
6. Retention Time 1. Water quality data for the
baseline and CSO
Calculations Refer to Chapter 19, 20
and 21, Kadlec and Knight
(1996)
2. Total maximum daily
loads
Calculations
3. Water quality-based ef-
fulent limits defined by
policy for effluent concen-
tration data
Calculations Regulatory policy limits
defined by NYSDEC
4. Adopting the average
rate constant from 14
operational sub-surface
flow treatment wetland
systems
7. Vegetation in the System Presence of macrophytes is
important for pollutant
removal functions
Three commonly planted
species are:
• Phragmites australis
• Typha spp.
• Scirpus spp.
Better species for habitat
include: Prarie Cordgrass
and Sweet Grass

References
ASWM, Association of State Wetland Managers. 2000. Watershed- based wetland planning and evaluation. Pro-
ceedings of a Symposium at the Wetlands Millennium Event held August 6-12 in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Bendoricchio, G., L.D. Cin, J. Persson. 2000. Guidelines for free water surface wetland design. Ecosystems Bd.
8:51-91
Brinson, M.M. 1993. Changes in function of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13(2): 65-74.
Cedfeldt, P., M. Watzin, B. Richardson. 2000. Using GIS to identify functionally significant wetlands in the north-
eastern United States. Environmental Management 26: 13-24.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. D. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats
of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, Washington, DC.
Dugan, Patrick (Ed). 2005. Guide to wetlands. Firefly Books Ltd.
EPA, Office of Water: Wetlands, oceans and watersheds - http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
Hammer, Donald A. (1989). Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment- municipal, industrial and agricul-
tural. Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Johnson, Lauren Locklin. 2010. Restored Wetland- Treatment: A potential water quality BMP. Doctoral disserta-
tion, State University of New York- College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Kadlee, Robert H. and Robert L. Knight (1996). Treatment Wetlands. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
Kusler, Jon. 1987. Our national wetland heritage- a protection guidebook. Washington D.C.: Environmental Law
Institute.
Kusler, Jon . 2007. Wetland Assessment. Association of State Wetland Managers. P1-10.
Mitsch, William and James Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Palmeri, J.F. and M. Trepel 2002. A GIS based Score system for siting and sizing of created or restored wetlands:
two case studies. Water Resources Management. 16: 307-328.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands- http://www.ramsar.org/
Spray, Sharon L. and Karen L. McGlothlin (Eds). 2004. Wetlands. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
USACE 1995a. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions us-
ing hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
USACE 1995b. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic
assessment to ravine wetlands. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

USDA NRCS 2001. United States Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001.
Hydric soil list of Chenango County, NY, Syracuse, NY.
USDA NRCS 2006. United States Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service. Indiana
wetland mitigation policy. Technical reference- Wetland Science
USDA NRCS 2006. United States Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service. National
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) Evaluation procedure. Washington, DC.
USDA NRCS 2007. United States Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service. Resource
management system quality criteria and guidance documents. http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov
USFWS 1980. United States Department of Interior- Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation proce-
dure. Washington, DC.
Welsch, David J.; Smart, David L.; Boyer, James N.; Minken, Paul; Smith, Howard C.; McCandless, Tamara L.
1995. Forested Wetlands. NA-PR-01-95. Radnor, PA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Area
State & Private Forestry.
Woltemade, C.J. 2000. Ability of restored wetlands to reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus concentrations in the
agricultural drainage water. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 3: 303- 309.
Wu, Guihan. 2008. A Core Study on Applying Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands (SFEWS) to Treat Com-
bined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) SUNY/ESF unpublished disseration, Syracuse NY. 177pp

Pasi_Wetlands manual-- a new-old green infrastruture

Pasi_Wetlands manual-- a new-old green infrastruture

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Pasi_Wetlands manual-- a new-old green infrastruture

Pasi_Wetlands manual-- a new-old green infrastruture