Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

EPA832-R-93-005

September 1993

Constructed Wetlands

for Wastewater Treatment

and Wildlife Habitat

17 Case Studies
The symbol on the cover of this report was developed in 

Washington State by a group of state and federal agencies 

working in cooperation with a private real estate firm, 

Port Blakely Mill Company. It is available free of charge 

for use in any program dealing with wetland preservation 

and enhancement. To date, organizations in 33 states are 

using the symbol. For more information, contact: 

Ellin Spenser

Port Blakely Mill Company

151 Madrone Lane

North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 

or call (206) 842-3088.
Table of Contents

❍ Acknowledgements

❍ Foreword

❍ Introduction

❍ Background

❍ Free Water Surface Constructed Wetlands Systems

❍ Location and Characteristics of 17 Free Water Surface System Success 

Stories

❍ Sources of Additional Information 

❍ Grand Strand, SC (Carolina Bays) 

❍ Houghton Lake, MI 

❍ Cannon Beach, OR 

❍ Vermontville, MI 

❍ Arcata, CA 

❍ Martinez, CA (Mt. View Sanitary Dist.) 

❍ Marin Co., CA (Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Dist.) 

❍ Hayward Marsh, CA (Union Sanitary Dist.) 
❍ Orlando, FL (Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project) 

❍ Lakeland, FL 

❍ Incline Village, NV 

❍ ShowLow, AZ (Pintail Lake & Redhead Marsh) 

❍ Pinetop/Lakeside, AZ (Jacques Marsh) 

❍ Fort Deposit, AL 

❍ West Jackson Co., MS 

❍ Hillsboro, OR (Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve) 

❍ Des Plaines River, IL 

❍ Concerned Citizen Questionaire 
Acknowledgements

This compilation of constructed wetlands system case studies 

was prepared with funding assistance from the U.S. EPA's 

Office of Wastewater Management under the direction of 

Robert K. Bastian of the Municipal Technology Branch. 

The following individuals and organizations provided 

significant resource support and were responsible for the 

preparation of the individual case study write-ups: 

Robert L. Knight; 

CH2M-Hill (Gainesville, FL)

Grand Strand, SC; 

West Jackson Co., MS; 

Fort Deposit, AL; 

Incline Village, NV 

Robert H. Kadlec; 

University of Michigan and 

Wetland Management Services 

Houghton Lake, MI; 

Vermontville, MI; 

Des Plaines River, IL 

Mel Wilhelm; 

U.S. Forest Service/Apache Sitgreaves Nat'l. Forests with 

assistance from the U.S. EPA Center for Environmental 

Research Information, Cincinnati, OH 

ShowLow, AZ; 

Pinetop/Lakeside, AZ 

Francesca C. Demgen; 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants 

(Oakland, CA) 

The operational experience and research 

results reported in the available literature 

suggest that the growing interest in the use 

of constructed wetlands as a part of water 

treatment offers considerable opportunity 

for realizing sizable future savings in 

wastewater treatment costs for small 

communities and for upgrading even large 

treatment facilities.

Martinez, CA; 

Hayward Marsh, CA; 

Marin Co., CA; 

Cannon Beach, OR 
Robert A. Gearheart; Humbolt State University

Arcata, CA 

Jon C. Dyer, 

JoAnn Jackson, 

John S. Shearer and staff; Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (Winter Park, FL), 

Orlando, FL; 

Lakeland, FL 

Dale Richwine, 

Linda Newberry and Mark Jockers; 

Hillsboro, OR (Unified Sewerage Agency) 

Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve 

In addition, insights on the habitat value and wildlife usage of many of the facilities described were 

provided by field data collected and summarized by the EPA Environmental Research Lab., Corvallis, 

OR, in cooperation with ManTech Environmental Technology Inc.; the Cooperative Fish & Wildlife 

Research Unit, Dept. of Wildlife & Range Sciences, University. of Florida-Gainesville; and the Nevada 

Department of Wildlife. 

The case studies were not subject to the Agency's peer and administrative review. Mention of specific 

case studies does not constitute endorsement or categorical recommendation for use by the U.S. EPA. 

While EPA believes that the case studies may be very useful to the reader, EPA does not select or 

endorse one alternative technology over other approaches to treat or reuse wastewater effluents. 
Foreword

Extensive research efforts have provided considerable insight into the design, operation 

and performance of natural and constructed wetlands treatment systems.

Intensive studies carried out for 

over 5 years at Santee, CA, 

evaluated the performance of 

constructed wetlands 

experimental units planted with 

reeds, cattails, and bulrush..

Wastewater treatment is a problem that has plagued man ever since he 

discovered that discharging his wastes into surface waters can lead to 

many additional environmental problems. The Clean Water Act (P.L.92-

500 passed in 1972 and its more recent amendments) led to the 

construction of many new wastewater treatment facilities across the 

country to help control water pollution. In the future add-on processes 

will be needed to upgrade many of these treatment facilities. In 

addition, more attention will need to be given to controlling the many 

small volume, point sources as well as the numerous non-point sources 

of water pollution if the water quality objectives of the Clean Water Act 

are ever to be fully realized. 

Today, a wide range of treatment technologies are available for use in 

our efforts to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation's waters. During the past 20 years, 

considerable interest has been expressed in the potential use of a variety 

of natural biological systems to help purify water in a controlled 

manner. These natural biological treatment systems include various 

forms of ponds, land treatment and wetlands systems. As a result of 

both extensive research efforts and practical application of these 

technologies, considerable insight has been gained into their design, performance, operation and 

maintenance. Much of this experience has been summarized in project summaries, research reports, 

technical papers and design guidance. 

Some of the earliest investigations to explore the capabilities of various wetland and other aquatic plant 

systems to help treat wastewater were undertaken in various European countries by Seidel, Kickuth, de 

Jong and others. Related studies were eventually undertaken by Spangler, Sloey, Small, Gersberg, 

Goldman, Dinges, Wolverton, Reddy, Richardson and others in numerous locations across the U.S. 

Kadlec, Odum and Ewel, Valiela, Teal, and others have undertaken long-term assessments of the 

capabilities of several types of natural wetlands to handle wastewater additions. Funding provided by the 

National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and others has played an important role in stimulating the development of the available 

information and guidance on constructed wetland treatment systems in the U.S. 
Long-term observations and 

studies of northern wetlands 

receiving wastewater 

effluents have followed the 

impact of changes in nutrient 

loadings and hydrology on 

vegetation and wildlife use at 

projects such as the 

Drummond Bog in Northern 

Wisconsin.

The operational experience and research results reported in the available 

literature suggest that the growing interest in the use of constructed 

wetlands as a part of water treatment offers considerable opportunity for 

realizing sizable future savings in wastewater treatment costs for small 

communities and for upgrading even large treatment facilities. At the same 

time, as is demonstrated by the 17 wetland treatment system case studies 

located in 10 states that are presented in this document, these systems can 

provide valuable wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife, as well 

as areas for public education and recreation. Clearly such systems create an 

opportunity to contribute to the Nation’s efforts to restore, maintain and 

create valuable wetland habitat. 

Michael B. Cook, Director

Office of Wastewater Management 

Robert H. Wayland III, Director

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 

Constructed wetlands are being effectively used to help 

protect the quality of urban lakes by improving the 

quality of stormwater runoff in urban areas such as at the 

Greenwood Urban Wetland, a former dump site, in 

Orlando, Florida.
17 Case Studies

Introduction

Many of the same values 

associated with natural 

wetlands can also be realized 

by wetlands constructed for 

wastewater polishing.

The potential for achieving improved water quality while creating 

valuable wildlife habitat has lead to a growing interest in the use of 

constructed wetlands for treating and recycling wastewater. While land 

intensive, these systems offer an effective means of integrating 

wastewater treatment and resource enhancement, often at a cost that is 

competitive with conventional wastewater treatment alternatives. This 

document provides brief descriptions of 17 wetland treatment systems 

from across the country that are providing significant water quality 

benefits while demonstrating additional benefits such as wildlife habitat. 

The projects described include systems involving both constructed and 

natural wetlands, habitat creation and restoration, and the improvement 

of municipal effluent, urban stormwater and river water quality. Each 

project description was developed by individuals directly involved with 

or very familiar with the project in a format that could also be used as a 

stand-alone brochure or handout for project visitors. 
17 Case Studies

Background

In the Southeast alone, over 500 natural 

wetlands such as this cyprus strand in Florida 

receive discharges from POTWs and other point 

sources.

Natural wetlands (e.g., swamps, bogs, marshes, fens, sloughs, 

etc.) are being recognized as providing many benefits, 

including: food and habitat for wildlife; water quality 

improvement; flood protection; shoreline erosion control; 

and opportunities for recreation and aesthetic appreciation. 

Many of these same benefits have been realized by projects 

across the country that involve the use of wetlands in 

wastewater treatment. 

Many freshwater, brackish, and saltwater wetlands have 

inadvertently received polluted runoff and served as natural 

water treatment systems for centuries. Wetlands, as waters of 

the U.S., have been subjected to wastewater discharges from 

municipal, industrial and agricultural sources, and have 

received agricultural and surface mine runoff, irrigation 

return flows, urban stormwater discharges, leachates, and 

other sources of water pollution. The actual impacts of such 

inputs on different wetlands has been quite variable. 

However, it has only been during the past few decades that 

the planned use of wetlands for meeting wastewater 

treatment and water quality objectives has been seriously studied and implemented in a controlled 

manner. The functional role of wetlands in improving water quality has been a compelling argument for 

the preservation of natural wetlands and in recent years the construction of wetlands systems for 

wastewater treatment. A growing number of studies have provided evidence that many wetlands systems 

are able to provide an effective means of improving water quality without creating problems for wildlife. 

However, in some cases evidence has shown a resulting change in wetland community types and a shift 

to more opportunistic species. 

There remain, however, concerns over the possibility of harmful effects resulting from toxic materials 

and pathogens that may be present in many wastewater sources. Also, there are concerns that there may 

be a potential for long-term degradation of natural wetlands due to the addition of nutrients and changes 

in the natural hydrologic conditions influencing these systems. At least in part due to such concerns, 

there has been a growing interest in the use of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. 

Constructed wetlands treatment systems are engineered systems that have been designed and constructed 

to utilize the natural processes involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial 

assemblages to assist in treating wastewater. They are designed to take advantage of many of the same 
processes that occur in natural wetlands, but do so within a more controlled environment. Some of these 

systems have been designed and operated with the sole purpose of treating wastewater, while others have 

been implemented with multiple-use objectives in mind, such as using treated wastewater effluent as a 

water source for the creation and restoration of wetland habitat for wildlife use and environmental 

enhancement. 

A recently expanded Subsurface Flow 

constructed wetland system serves the small 

community of Monterey in Highland Co., 

Virginia.

Constructed wetlands treatment systems generally fall into 

one of two general categories: Subsurface Flow Systems

and Free Water Surface Systems. Subsurface Flow Systems 

are designed to create subsurface flow through a permeable 

medium, keeping the water being treated below the surface, 

thereby helping to avoid the development of odors and other 

nuisance problems. Such systems have also been referred to 

as "root-zone systems," "rock-reed-filters," and "vegetated 

submerged bed systems." The media used (typically soil, 

sand, gravel or crushed rock) greatly affect the hydraulics of 

the system. Free Water Surface Systems, on the other hand, 

are designed to simulate natural wetlands, with the water 

flowing over the soil surface at shallow depths. Both types of 

wetlands treatment systems typically are constructed in 

basins or channels with a natural or constructed subsurface 

barrier to limit seepage. 

Constructed wetlands treatment systems have diverse 

applications and are found across the country and around the 

world. While they can be designed to accomplish a variety of 

treatment objectives, for the most part, Subsurface Flow 

Systems are designed and operated in a manner that provides limited opportunity for benefits other than 

water quality improvement. On the other hand, Free Water Surface Systems are frequently designed to 

maximize wetland habitat values and reuse opportunities, while providing water quality improvement. 
17 Case Studies

Free Water Surface Constructed Wetlands Systems

"The wide diversity of organisms coupled with the high level of productivity makes a 

marsh a hot bed of biological activity. The most striking improvement is the removal of 

suspended solids. Suspended solids in the Arcata STP are algae which supply oxygen in 

their secondary treatment ponds. These algae solids become entrapped, impacted, and 

isolated in small quiescent areas around the stems and underwater portions of aquatic 

plants as the water moves through marshes. The algal solids in these quiescent areas 

become food sources for microscopic aquatic animals and aquatic insects. This predation 

plays an important part in removing the solids and in moving energy through the food 

chain in the wetland. Over time, wetlands continue to separate and deposit suspended 

solids building deltas comprised of organic matter. At some point this detrital layer in the 

bottom of the marsh along with dead aquatic plants may need to be removed. Based on 

Arcata's experience this maintenance requirement is not expected until at least 8-10 years 

of operation at design loads."

Just how do constructed wetlands, in this case free water surface systems, remove pollutants from the 

wastewater effluent? These systems affect water quality through a variety of natural processes that occur 

in wetlands. An explanation of the major processes involved are effectively described by Robert A. 

Gearheart in a paper contained in the proceedings of a conference on wetlands for wastewater treatment 

and resource enhancement at Humbolt State University in Arcata, CA, during 1988 1

: 

Dissolved biodegradable material is removed 

from the wastewater by decomposing 

microorganisms which are living on the 

exposed surfaces of the aquatic plants and 

soils. Decomposers such as bacteria, fungi, 

and actinomycetes are active in any wetland 

by breaking down this dissolved and 

particulate organic material to carbon dioxide 

and water. This active decomposition in the 

wetland produces final effluents with a 

characteristic low dissolved oxygen level 

with low pH in the water. The effluent from a 

constructed wetland usually has a low BOD 

as a result of this high level of decomposition. 

Aquatic plants play an important part in 
supporting these removal processes. Certain aquatic plants pump atmospheric oxygen into their 

submerged stems, roots, and tubers. Oxygen is then utilized by the microbial decomposers attached to the 

aquatic plants below the level of the water. Plants also play an active role in taking up nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and other compounds from the wastewater. This active incorporation of nitrogen and 

phosphorus can be one mechanism for nutrient removal in a wetland. Some of the nitrogen and 

phosphorus is released back into the water as the plants die and decompose. In the case of nitrogen much 

of the nitrate nitrogen can be converted to nitrogen gas through denitrification processes in the wetland." 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/Eastern 

Municipal Water District Wetlands 

Research Facility, San Jacinto, California. 

This site is a popular spot for local schools 

to tour and study wetlands ecology. One of 

the multi-purpose elements of the project is 

public education and recreation.

Free Water Surface constructed wetlands treatment systems and 

related natural systems used as a part of treatment systems have 

been successfully used across the country. Many of these 

systems have been designed and operated to not only improve 

water quality, but to also provide high quality wetland habitat 

for waterfowl and other wildlife. Many of the systems are 

operated as wildlife refuges or parks as well as a part of 

wastewater treatment, reuse or disposal systems. In some cases 

these systems also provide an area for public education and 

recreation in the form of birding, hiking, camping, hunting, etc. 

The operational experience and research results reported to date 

suggest that the growing interest in managing constructed 

wetlands systems as a part of wastewater treatment and habitat 

creation/maintenance efforts offers considerable opportunities 

for the future. The technical feasibility of implementing such 

projects has been clearly demonstrated by full-scale systems in 

various parts of the country. However, it is also clear that there 

is still a long way to go before such systems will be considered 

for routine use. While existing projects have demonstrated the 

potential for future use of constructed wetlands systems, there 

is an obvious need for further study to improve our 

understanding of the internal components of these systems, 

their responses and interactions, in order to allow for more 

optimum project design, operation and maintenance. 

1 Allen, G.H. and R.A. Gearheart (eds.). 1988. Proceedings of a 

Conference on Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and Resource 

Enhancement. Humbolt State Univ., Arcata, CA.

Case Studies

Descriptions of 17 carefully selected projects located in 10 states (see Figure 1) are provided that help 
describe the full range of opportunity to treat and reuse wastewater effluents that exist across the country 

today. They include systems involving both constructed and natural wetlands, habitat creation and 

restoration, and the improvement of municipal wastewater effluents, urban stormwater and river water 

quality. Many of the projects received Construction Grants funding and several were built on Federal 

lands. All experience extensive wildlife usage, some providing critical refuge for rare plants and animals. 

Several are relatively new projects while others have been operating for 15-20 years. There are projects 

involving as few as 15 acres and several with more than 1,200 acres of wetland habitat. Among those 

described in this document are projects which have received major awards such as the ASCE Award of 

Engineering Excellence, the ACEC Grand Conceptor Award, and the Council Award, the ESA Special 

Recognition Award, and the Ford Foundation Award for Innovation in a Local Government Project. 

The case studies demonstrate that wastewater can be effectively treated, reused and recycled with free 

water surface wetland systems in an environmentally sensitive way. They also demonstrate that 

wastewater treatment and disposal can be effectively integrated into recreational, educational, and 

wildlife habitat creation/wetland restoration efforts so as to enhance the value of a city’s capital 

investment in wastewater treatment facilities. Greater recognition of these model projects may help lead 

to projects of high quality being developed in the future. 
Sources of Additional Information

Allen, G.H. and R.H. Gearheart (eds). 1988. Proceedings of a Conference on Wetlands for Wastewater 

Treatment and Resource Enhancement. Humbolt Sate Univ., Arcata, CA 

Brinson, M.M. and F.R. Westall. 1983. Application of Wastewater to Wetlands. Rept. #5, Water 

Research Inst., Univ. of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC 

Brix, H. 1987. Treatment of Wastewater in the Rhizosphere of Wetland PlantsùThe Root Zone Method. 

Water Sci Technol., 19:107-118 

Brown, M.T. 1991. Evaluating Constructed Wetlands Through Comparisons with Natural Wetlands. 

EPA/600\3-91-058. EPA Environmental Research Lab., Corvallis, OR 

Chan, E., T.A. Bunsztynsky, N. Hantzsche, and Y.J. Litwin. 1981. The Use of Wetlands for Water 

Pollution Control. EPA-600/S2-82-086. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Lab., Cincinnati, OH 

Confer, S.R. and W.A. Niering. 1992. Comparison of Created and Natural Freshwater Emergent 

Wetlands in Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecology & Management. 2(3):143-156 

Cooper, P.F. and B.C. Findlater. 1990. Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control. IAWPRC. 

Pergamon Press, Inc., Maxwell House, NY 

Etnier, C. and B. Guterstam. 1991. Ecological Engineering for Wastewater Treatment. Bokskogen, 

Gothenburg, Sweden 

Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum (eds). 1984. Cypress Swamps. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL 

Gamroth, M.J. and J.A. Moore. April 1993. Design and Construction of Demonstration/Research 

Wetlands for Treatment of Dairy Farm Wastewater. EPA/600/R-93/105. EPA Environmental Research 

Laboratory, Corvallis, OR 

Gersberg, R.M., S.R. Lyon, B.Y. Elkins, and C.R. Goldman. 1984. The Removal of Heavy Metals by 

Artificial Wetlands. EPA-600/D-84-258. Robt. S. Kerr Env. Research Lab., Ada, OK 

Gersberg, R.M., B.V. Elkins, S.R. Lyon and C.R. Goldman. 1986. Role of Aquatic Plants in Wastewater 

Treatment by Artificial Wetlands. Water Res. 20:363-368 

Godfrey, P.J., E.R. Kaynor, S. Pelczarski and J. Benforado (eds). 1985. Ecological Considerations in 

Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY 
Experimental studies continue to be carried out in 

Florida and many other parts of the country as well as 

overseas to evaluate the performance of a variety of 

constructed wetlands systems.

Good, R.E., D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson 

(eds). 1978. Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological 

Processes and Management Potential. Academic 

Press, New York, NY 

Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark & J.E. Clark (eds). 1979. 

Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our 

Understanding. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., 

Minneapolis, MN 

Hammer, D.A. (ed). 1989. Constructed Wetlands for 

Wastewater Treatment - Municipal, Industrial & 

Agricultural. Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI 

Hammer, D.E. and R.H. Kadlec. 1983. Design 

Principles for Wetland Treatment Systems. EPA600/S2-83-026. EPA Municipal Environmental 

Research Lab, Cincinnati, OH 

Hook, D.D. et. al. 1988. The Ecology and 

Management of Wetlands (2 vols.). Croom Held, 

Ltd., London/Timber Press, Portland, OR 

Hyde, H.C. R.S. Ross and F.C. Demgen. 1984. Technology Assessment of Wetlands for Municipal 

Wastewater Treatment. EPA 600/2-84-154. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Lab., Cincinnati, 

OH 

IAWQ/AWWA. 1992. Proceedings of Wetlands Downunder, An International Specialist Conference on 

Wetlands Systems in Water Pollution Control. Int'l. Assoc. of Water Quality/Australian Water & 

Wastewater Assoc., Univ. of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia 

Kadlec, R.H. and J.A. Kadlec. 1979. Wetlands and Water Quality IN: Wetlands Functions and Values; 

The State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Assoc., Bethesda, MD 

Kusler, J.A. and M.E. Kentula (eds). 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. 

Island Press, Washington, DC 

McAllister, L.S. July 1992. Habitat Quality Assessment of Two Wetland Treatment Systems in the Arid 

West--Pilot Study. EPA/600/R-93/117. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR 

McAllister, L.S. November 1992. Habitat Quality Assessment of Two Wetland Treatment Systems in 

Mississippi--A Pilot Study. EPA/600/R-92/229. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR 
The operational experience and 

research results reported in the 

available literature suggest that 

constructed wetlands treatment 

systems are capable of producing 

high quality water while supporting 

valuable wildlife habitat.

McAllister, L.S. November 1993. Habitat Quality Assessment of 

Two Wetland Treatment Systems in Florida--A Pilot Study. 

EPA/600/R-93/222. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, 

Corvallis, OR 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand 

Reinhold Co., New York, NY 

Moshiri, G.A. (ed). 1993. Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality 

Improvement. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL 

Newton, R.B. 1989. The Effects of Stormwater Surface Runoff on 

Freshwater Wetlands: A Review of the Literature and Annotated 

Bibliography. Publ. #90-2. The Environmental Institute, Univ. of 

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 

Nixon, S.W. and V. Lee. 1986. Wetlands and Water Quality: A Regional Review of Recent Research in 

the U.S. on the Role of Freshwater and Saltwater Wetlands as Sources, Sinks, and Transformers of 

Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Heavy Metals. Technical Rept. Y-86-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS 

Reddy, K.R. and W.H. Smith (eds). 1987. Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. 

Magnolia Press, Inc., Orlando, FL 

Reed, S.C., E.J. Middlebrooks, R.W. Crites. 1988. Natural Systems for Waste Management & Treatment. 

McGraw Hill, New York, NY 

Reed, S.C., R. Bastian, S. Black, and R. Khettry. 1984. Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Cold 

Climates. IN: Future of Water Reuse, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium III. Vol. 2:962-972. 

AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO 

Richardson, C.J. 1985. Mechanisms Controlling Phosphorous Retention Capacity in Freshwater 

Wetlands. Science 228:1424-1427 

Stockdale, E.C. 1991. Freshwater Wetlands, Urban Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution Control: A 

Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. 2nd Ed. WA Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, WA 

Strecker, E.W., J.M. Kersnar, E.D. Driscoll & R.R. Horner. April 1992. The Use of Wetlands for 

Controlling Stormwater Pollution. The Terrene Inst., Washington, DC 

Tilton, D.L. and R.H. Kadlec. 1979. The Utilization of a Freshwater Wetland for Nutrient Removal from 
Secondarily Treated Wastewater Effluent. JEQ 8:328-334 

Tourbier, J. and R.W. Pierson (eds). 1976. Biological Control of Water Pollution. Univ. of Pennsylvania 

Press, Philadelphia, PA 

U.S. EPA. February 1993. Natural Wetlands and Urban Stormwater: Potential Impacts and Management. 

EPA843-R-001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, DC 

U.S. EPA. July 1993. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Technology 

Assessment. EPA832-R-93-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC 

U.S. EPA. September 1988. Process Design ManualùConstructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems 

for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA 625/1-88/022. Center for Environmental Research 

Information, Cincinnati, OH 

U.S. EPA. October 1987. Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and 

Disposal. EPA 430/09-88-005. Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington, DC 

U.S. EPA. September 1985. Freshwater Wetlands for Wastewater Management Environmental 

Assessment Handbook. EPA 904/9-85-135. Region IV, Atlanta, GA 

U.S. EPA/U.S. F&WL Service. 1984. The Ecological Impacts of Wastewater on Wetlands, An 

Annotated Bibliography. EPA 905/3-84-002. Region V, Chicago, IL and U.S. F&WL Service, 

Kearneysville, WY 

U.S. EPA. 1983. The Effects of Wastewater Treatment Facilities on Wetlands in the Midwest. EPA 

905/3-83-002. Region V, Chicago, IL 

Whigham, D.F., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988. Impacts of Freshwater Wetlands on Water Quality: 

A Landscape Perspective. Environmental Management 12:663-671 

WPCF. 1990. Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment; Manual of Practice FD-16. Water Pollution 

Control Federation, Alexandria, VA 
Bottles with representative samples (taken from the influent [on left] to final [on right] sample 

stations) from the Houghton Lake, MI, wetland treatment system which has been in operation 

since 1978.
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Carolina Bays: A Natural Wastewater Treatment 

Program

Background

Site Description

Operations and Management

Performance

Ancillary Benefits

Awards

Acknowledgements
Background

In cross section, Carolina bays are shallow, bowl-shaped depressions, often 

filled with peat and surrounded by sandy ruins.

Carolina bays are mysterious land 

features often filled with bay trees 

and other wetland vegetation. 

Because of their oval shape and 

consistent orientation, they are 

considered by some authorities to 

be the result of a vast meteor 

shower that occurred thousands of 

years ago. Others think the natural 

forces of wind and artesian water 

flow caused the formation of lakes, 

which later filled with vegetation. 

Whatever their origin, over 

500,000 of these shallow basins 

dot the coastal plain from Georgia 

to Delaware. Many of them occur 

in the Carolinas, which accounts 

for their name. Most Carolina bays 

are swampy or wet areas, and most of the hundreds present in coastal Horry County, South Carolina, are 

nearly impenetrable jungles of vines and shrubs. Because of population growth and increased tourism in 

Horry County, expansion of essential utility operations was required. The regional water utility, the 

Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority (GSWSA), retained CH2M HILL in the late 1970s to evaluate 

wastewater treatment and disposal options. 

Locations to dispose of additional effluent were extremely limited because of sensitive environmental 

and recreational concerns. The slow-moving Waccamaw River and Intracoastal Waterway, into which 

existing facilities discharged, could not assimilate additional loading without adverse effects on water 

quality and resulting impacts on tourism and recreational activities. 

On the basis of extensive research and pilot studies, CH2M HILL recommended discharging effluent 

from a new 2.5 million gallon per day (mgd) wastewater treatment plant to four nearby Carolina bays. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers the use of wetlands to be an emerging 

alternative to conventional treatment processes. As a result, EPA Region IV and the South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control awarded an Innovative /Alternative Technologies 

funding grant for the Carolina bays treatment project, enabling GSWSA to provide expanded collection, 

treatment, and disposal services at affordable costs. 

This grant was used for planning, pilot testing, design, and construction of the full-scale Carolina Bay 

Natural Land Treatment Program. 
Site Description

Fourbays covering 700 acres make up the Carolina 

Bay Natural Land Treatment System. Plant 

succession in these bays is naturally controlled by 

fire as seen in Bay 4B (second from left).

After 5 years of intensive study to evaluate viable 

treatment and disposal alternatives, four Carolina bays 

were selected as treatment sites. Site selection criteria 

focused on three primary factors: 1) distance from the 

wastewater source, 2) available treatment area, and 3) 

environmental sensitivity. The bays chosen for the 

GSWSA treatment complex had been previously 

affected by man and were the least environmentally 

sensitive of the bays considered. 

Carolina Bays 4-A and 4-B are joined along a portion 

of their margins and encompass about 390 acres of 

dense, shrubby plant communities with scattered pine 

trees. This plant association is called "pocosin" after an Indian word describing a bog on a hill. A 

powerline right-of-way bisects Bay 4-A and also cuts through the southern end of Bay 4-B. 

The 240-acre Pocosin Bay (Bay 4-C) is also dominated by pocosin vegetation and is filled with up to 15 

feet of highly organic peat soils. This bay had received the least amount of prior disturbance and is being 

used only as a contingency discharge area. Bear Bay (Bay 4-D) covers 170 acres and is dissimilar from 

the other bays because it is densely forested by pine and hardwood tree species. A large portion of this 

Carolina bay was cleared for forestry purposes in the mid-1970s but has since been revegetated with a 

mixture of upland and wetland plant species. 

Carolina Bay Project Summary

George R. Vereen WWTP

Design flow = 2.5 mgd

Pretreatment by aerated lagoons in

.............parallel trains, one completely

.............suspended lagoon and three partially

.............suspended lagoons per train

Lagoon total area = 4.4 acres

Total aeration = 192 hp

Disinfection by contact chlorination

Carolina Bays

Average hydraulic loading rate = 1 in./week Effluent distribution system 
7,000 feet of 10-inch aluminum piping 30,000 feet of elevated boardwalks

Final effluent permit limits 

BOD5 monthly average 12 mg/l

TSS monthly average 30 mg/l

NH3 summer (Mar-Oct) 1.2 mg/l

NH3 winter (Nov-Feb) 5.0 mg/l

UOD summer (Mar-Oct) 481 lb/day

UOD winter (Nov-Feb) 844 lb/day

Total treatment area = 702 acres 

Bay 4A

.............combined = 390 acres

Bay 4B

Bay 4C (Pocosin Bay) = 142 acres

Bay 4D (Bear Bay) = 170 acres

Biological criteria (allowable % change) 

.................... Bay

4A 4B 4C 4D 

Canopy cover 15 15 0 50

Canopy density 15 15 0 50

Subcanopy cover 15 15 0 50

Plant diversity 15 15 0 50

Project Cost Summary

Pilot system .................................................. $411,000

Vereen WWTP ........................................... 3,587,000

Effluent distribution system

............ (including land) .................................. 2,490,000

Engineering (pilot and 

............ full scale) and monitoring .................. 1,332,000

Total cost .................................................. $7,820,000
Operations and Management

High-nutrient water in the bays 

increases plant productivity.

The carefully planned and monitored use of Carolina bays for 

tertiary wastewater treatment facilitates surface water quality 

management while maintaining the natural character of the bays. 

Aluminum pipes distribute the treated 

effluent.

After undergoing 

conventional primary and 

secondary treatment 

processes at the George R. 

Vereen Wastewater 

Treatment Plant, the 

wastewater is slowly released 

into a Carolina bay for 

tertiary treatment, rather than 

directly to recreational 

surface waters of the area. 

The plants found in the 

Carolina bays are naturally adapted to wet conditions, so the 

addition of a small amount of treated water increases their 

productivity and, in the process, provides final purification of the 

wastewater. 

The treated effluent can be distributed to 700 acres within the four 

selected Carolina bays through a series of gated aluminum pipes 

supported on wooden boardwalks. Wastewater flow is alternated among the bays, depending on effluent 

flow rate and biological conditions in the bays. 

Water levels and outflow rates can be partially controlled in Bear Bay through the use of an adjustable 

weir gate. Natural surface outlets in the other three bays were not altered by construction of the project. 
Performance

Compliance with biological criteria protects the Carolina Bay plant 

communities from undesirable changes.

Operational water quality since 1987 indicates significant assimilation 

of residual pollutants is occuring in Bear Bay.

In 1985, after site selection was completed and before wastewater distribution began, baseline studies 

were conducted on the hydrology, surface water, and groundwater quality and flora and fauna of Bear 

Bay. Treated effluent was first discharged to the bay in January 1987, and monitoring was continued to 

measure variations in the water quality and biological communities. By March 1988, the pilot study had 

been successfully completed and the Carolina Bay Natural Land Treatment Program was approved for 

full-scale implementation by EPA and South Carolina regulatory agencies. 

In October 1990, the Carolina Bay Natural Land Treatment System was dedicated as the Peter Horry 

Wildlife Preserve and began serving the wastewater treatment and disposal needs of up to 30,000 people. 

Ongoing monitoring indicates that significant assimilation is occurring in Bear Bay before the fully 
treated effluent recharges local groundwater or flows into downstream surface waters. Biological 

changes have been carefully monitored, with the main observed effect being increased growth of native 

wetland plant species. 

Variations in the water quality of Bear Bay are closely monitored.
Ancillary Benefits

Wetland plan communities 

easily adjust to changing 

conditions

The Carolina Bay Natural Land Treatment Program not only serves 

wastewater management needs but also plays an important role in 

protecting the environment. Although the Carolina bays have been 

recognized as unique, 98 percent of the bays in South Carolina have been 

disturbed by agricultural activities and ditching. The four bays in the 

treatment program will be maintained in a natural ecological condition. 

These 700 acres of Carolina bays represent one of the largest public 

holdings of bays in South Carolina. 

The use of wetlands for treatment can significantly lower the cost of 

wastewater treatment because the systems rely on plant and animal 

growth instead of the addition of power or chemicals. Also, the plant 

communities present in the wetlands naturally adjust to changing water 

levels and water quality conditions by shifting dominance to those 

species best adapted to growing under the new conditions. 

Pitcher plants occur naturally in the 

Carolina bays.

Carolina bays provide a critical refuge for rare plants and 

animals. Amazingly, black bears still roam the bays' shrub 

thickets and forested bottom lands just a few miles from the 

thousands of tourists on South Carolina's beaches. Venus 

flytraps and pitcher plants, fascinating carnivorous plants that 

trap trespassing insects, occur naturally in the Carolina bays. 

In addition, the bays are home to hundreds of other interesting 

plant and animal species. 

The Carolina Bay Nature Park, to be managed by GSWSA, is 

currently being planned. The focal point of the park will be an 

interpretive visitor center open to the public. This simple 

structure will be designed and built in harmony with its 

surroundings on a sand ridge overlooking two Carolina bays. The center will feature displays about black 

bears and Venus flytraps as well as theories on the origin of the Carolina bays, their native plant 

associations, including the associated sandhill plant communities, and their use for natural land 

treatment. 
The visitor center will be the hub for three hiking trails, including 

a 5-minute walk through an adjacent cypress wetland; a 45-

minute trail though Pocosin Bay and associated titi shrub swamp 

and long-leaf pine uplands; and a one-hour walk through a 

heavily forested Carolina bay and its adjacent sandhill plant 

communities. 

Combined with the interpretive nature center, the hiking trails 

and boardwalks will provide public access, scientific research, 

and educational opportunities that were previously unavailable. 

The designation of the Peter Horry Wildlife Preserve in October 1990 was the first step in establishing 

this park. 

An interpretive visitor center is planned as the focal point of the 

Carolina Bay Nature Park.
Awards

In 1991, the Carolina Bay Natural Land Treatment Program won 

the Engineering Excellence Award, Best of Show, from the 

Consulting Engineers of South Carolina. 

The American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) Grand 

Conceptor Award, considered the highest national honor in the 

consulting engineering field, was awarded to CH2M HILL in 

1991 for its implementation of the Carolina bays project. ACEC 

selected the project from a field of 127 national finalist entries, 

each of which had earlier won in state or regional engineering 

excellence competitions. 

.

Acknowledgements

Numerous individuals and organizations have shared the vision necessary to implement the Carolina Bay 

Natural Land Treatment Program. Some of the key organizations and individuals include the following: 

Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority

George R. Vereen, Former Chairman

Sidney F. Thompson, Chairman

Douglas P. Wendel, Executive Director

Fred Richardson, Engineering Manager

Larry Schwartz, Environmental Planner

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Samual J. Grant, Jr., Manager, 201 Facilities Planning Section

G. Michael Caughman, Director, Domestic Wastewater Division
Ron Tata, Director, Waccamaw District

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Harold Hopkins, Former Chief, Facilities Construction Branch, Region IV

Robert Freeman, 201 Construction Grants Coordinator, Region IV

Robert Bastian, Office of Wastewater Management

CH2M HILL

Richard Hirsekorn, Project Administrator

Robert L. Knight, Project Manager and Senior Consultant

Douglas S. Baughman, Project Manager

South Carolina Coastal Council

H. Stephen Snyder, Director, Planning and Certification

South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

Stephen H. Bennett, Heritage Trust Program

Ed Duncan, Environmental Affairs Coordination

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Harvey Geitner, Field Supervisor

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Don Hill, Director, 404 Section

This brochure was prepared by CH2M HILL for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Natural Wetlands for Wastewater Polishing, 

Houghton Lake, Michigan

System Description

History

Hydrology

Water Quality

Soils and Sediments

Vegetation

Public Use

Animals

Permits

Operator Opinions

Awards

People

Literature
System Description

The wetland treatment site is located southwest of the lake. The 

land belongs to the State of Michigan and is dedicated to public 

and research uses. Dots indicate water monitoring stations.

The 

community 

of 

Houghton 

Lake, 

located in 

the central 

lower 

peninsula 

of 

Michigan, 

has a 

seasonally 

variable 

population, 

averaging approximately 5,000. A sewage 

treatment plant was built in the early 1970’s 

to protect the large shallow recreational lake. 

This treatment facility is operated by the 

Houghton Lake Sewer Authority (HLSA). 

Wastewater from this residential community 

is collected and transported to two 5-acre 

aerated lagoons, which provide six weeks 

detention. Sludge accumulates on the bottom 

of these lagoons, below the aeration pipes. Effluent is then stored in a 29-acre pond for summer disposal, 

resulting in depth variation from 1.5 feet (fall) to 10.0 feet (spring). Discharge can be to 85 acres of 

seepage beds, or to 85 acres of flood irrigation area, or to a 1500 acre peatland. The seepage beds were 

used until 1978, at which time the wetland system was started up. The wetland has been used since that 

time, with only occasional discharges to seepage or flood fields. The average annual discharge is 

approximately 120 million gallons. Secondary wastewater is intermittently discharged to the peatland 

during May through September, at the instantaneous rate of 2.6 mgd. 

Provisions for chlorination are available, but have not been used, because of low levels of fecal coliform 

indicator organisms. Water from the holding pond is passed by gravity or pumped to a 3-acre pond which 

would provide chlorine removal in the event of the necessity of its use. Wastewater from this pond is 

pumped through a 12-inch diameter underground force line to the edge of the Porter Ranch peatland. 

There the transfer line surfaces and runs along a raised platform for a distance of 2,500 feet to the 

discharge area in the wetland. The wastewater may be split between two halves of the discharge pipe 

which runs 1,600 feet in each direction. The water is distributed across the width of the peatland through 

small gated openings in the discharge pipe. Each of the 100 gates discharge approximately 16 gallons per 
minute, under typical conditions, and the water spreads slowly over the peatland. The branches are not 

used equally in all years. 

The peatland irrigation site originally supported two distinct vegetation types. One called the sedgewillow community included predominantly sedges (Carex spp.) and Willows (Salix spp.). The second 

community was leatherleaf-bog birch, consisting of mostly Chamaedaphne calyculata (L.) Moench and 

Betula pumila L., respectively. The leatherleaf-bog birch community also had sedge and willow 

vegetation, but only in small proportions. The edge of the peatland contained alder (Alnus spp.) and 

willow. Standing water was usually present in spring and fall, but the wetland had no surface water 

during dry summers. The leatherleaf-bog birch cover type generally had less standing water than the 

sedge-willow cover type. Soil in the sedge-willow community was 3-5 feet of highly decomposed sedge 

peat; while in the leatherleaf-bog there is 6-15 feet of medium decomposition sphagnum peat. The entire 

wetland rests on a clay “pan” several feet thick. 

The original leatherleaf-bog community also had 

sedge and willow vegetation in small proportions, 

and very low abundance of cattail.

The wetland provides additional treatment to the 

wastewater as it progresses eventually to the Muskegon 

River eight miles away. Small, natural water inflows 

occur intermittently on the north and east margins of the 

wetland. These flows are partially controlled by beaver. 

Interior flow in the wetland occurs by overland flow, 

proceeding from northeast down a 0.02% gradient to a 

stream outlet (Deadhorse Dam) and beaver dam seepage 

outflow (Beaver Creek), both located 2-3 miles from the 

discharge (Figure 1.) Wastewater adds to the surface 

sheet flow. Hydrogeological studies have shown that 

there is neither recharge or discharge of the shallow 

ground water under the wetland. 

The treated wastewater arriving at the peatland is a good 

effluent which contains virtually no heavy metals or 

refractory chemicals. This is due to the absence of 

agriculture and industry in the community. Phosphorus 

and nitrogen are present at 3-10 ppm, mostly as 

orthophosphate and ammonium. BOD is about 15 ppm, and solids are about 20 ppm. Typical levels of 

chloride are 100 ppm, pH 8, and conductivity 700 mmho/cm. The character of the water is dramatically 

altered in its passage through the wetland. After passage through ten percent of the wetland, water quality 

parameters are at background wetland levels. The system has operated successfully in the treatment of 

1900 million gallons of secondary wastewater over the first sixteen years. 
History

The Porter Ranch peatland has been under study from 1970 to the present. Studies of the background 

status of the wetland were conducted during the period 1970-74, under the sponsorship of the Rockefeller 

Foundation and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The natural peatland, and 6m x 6m plots 

irrigated with simulated effluent, were studied by an interdisciplinary team from The University of 

Michigan. This work gave strong indications that water quality improvements would result from wetland 

processes. 

Subsequently, pilot scale (100,000 gal/day) wastewater irrigation was conducted for the three years 1975-

77. This system was designed, built and operated by the Wetland Ecosystem Research Group at The 

University of Michigan. NSF sponsored this effort, including construction costs and research costs. The 

pilot study results provided the basis for agency approval of the fullscale wetland discharge system. 

The full scale system was designed jointly by Williams and Works, Inc. and the Wetland Ecosystem 

Research Group at The University of Michigan. Construction occurred during winter and spring, 1978, 

and the first water discharge was made in July, 1978. Compliance monitoring has been supplemented by 

full scale ecosystem studies, spanning 1978 to present, which have focussed on all aspects of water 

quality improvement and wetland response. Those studies have been sponsored by NSF, and in major 

part by the Houghton Lake Sewer Authority. 

This wetland treatment system has functioned extremely well for nutrient removal over its sixteen year 

history. 

Table 1. Economics

Capita (1978 Dollars)

.

Holding Pond Modification.................................$38,600

Decholorination Pond.........................................153,200 

Pond-Wetland Water Transfer.............................83,600 

Irrigation System................................................112,800

Monitoring Equipment............................................9,700

Total................................................................$397,900

.
Annual Operating Costs (1991 Dollars)

.

Pumping...............................................................$2,000

Monitoring................................................................800 

Maintenance.............................................................500 

Research..............................................................12,000

Total..................................................................$15,300
Hydrology

Figure 2

Water moves at about 30-100 m/d with a depth of about 20 cm.

On average, most of the water added to the wetland finds its way to the stream outflows. But in drought 

years, most of the water evaporates; and in wet years, rainfall creates additions to flow. During most of 

the drought summers of 1987 and 1988, all the pumped water evaporated in the wetland. 

Water flow is strongly depth dependent, because litter and vegetation resistance is the hydrologic control. 

Doubling the depth causes a ten-fold increase in volume flow. Therefore, when the pump is turned on, 

water depths rise only an inch or two. For similar reasons, a large rainstorm does not flood the peatland 

to great depths. 

There are no man-made outlet control structures, but both man and beaver have relocated the points of 

outflow, via culvert and dam placements. Inflows at E1 and E2 have ceased (see Figure 1). The point of 

principal stream outflow has changed from E8 to E9; and E9 has been relocated three times, twice by 

beaver and once by man. 

The soil elevations in the discharge area were originally extremely flat, with a gentle slope (one foot per 

mile) toward the outlet. There has developed a significant accumulation of sediment and litter in the 

irrigation area, which has the effect of an increased soil elevation. This acts as a four-inch-high dam. As 

a consequence, the addition of wastewater along the gated irrigation pipe gives rise to a mound of water 

with the high zone near and upstream of the discharge pipe; in other words, there is a backgradient 

"pond". Depth at the discharge is not greater, but depths are greater at adjacent up and downstream 

locations. There is a water flow back into the backgradient pond, which compensates for evaporative 

losses there. But most water moves downgradient, in a gradually thinning sheet flow. (see Figure 2) 
The hydroperiod of the natural wetland has been altered in the zone of discharge: dryout no longer occurs 

there, even under drought conditions. 

Table 2. Summary of Water Budgets.

Thousands of m3, 1.0 km2 zone. Inventory change not shown

The interval is the pumping season, typically May1-September 14.

Year Precipitation minus

Evapotranspiration

Wastewater

Addition

Watershed

Runoff Outflow Outflow Percent

1978 80 240 0 135 56

1979 -4 384 18 333 87

1980 -137 407 0 304 75

1981 99 455 30 558 123

1982 -38 404 20 386 96

1983 -110 485 132 487 100

1984 -24 546 73 602 110

1985 44 379 0 347 92

1986 -11 465 0 412 89

1987 -273 347 0 74 21

1988 -311 425 0 114 27

1989 -153 672 0 522 78

1990 -43 622 0 628 101

1991 -100 724 0 624 86

1992 -250 (est) 719 0 469 65

Averages -82 485 18 400 80
Water Quality

The phenomena interior to the irrigation zone lead to gradients in the concentrations of dissolved 

constituents in the direction of water flow. As the water passes through the ecosystem, both biotic and 

abiotic interactions occur which reduce the concentration for many species, including nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sulfur. Surface water samples from the wastewater irrigation area are collected and 

analyzed throughout the year. The changes in water chemistry as a function of distance from the 
discharge point are monitored by sampling along lines perpendicular to the discharge pipe, extending to 

distances up to 1000 meters. Such transects are made in the former sedge-willow area, along the central 

axis of the wetland. 

The transect concentration profiles are all similar. Water flow carries materials a greater distance in the 

downgradient (positive) direction than in the upgradient direction. Through the early years of operation, 

the zone of concentration reduction increased in size; background concentrations are now reached at 

distances of about 500 meters downstream of the discharge. The advance of nutrient concentration fronts 

during the application of wastewater is illustrated by tracking the location of phosphorus drop-off. 

Concentrations in excess of 1.0 mg/liter were confined to within 440 meters of the discharge point in 

1990. It appears that nutrient removal processes are stabilizing. 

Nitrogen species 

include organic, 

ammonium and 

nitrate/nitrite 

nitrogen. The 

wetland microorganisms convert 

nitrate to nitrogen 

gas. Other bacteria 

convert 

atmospheric 

nitrogen to 

ammonium, which 

is in short supply; 

both for the natural 

wetland and for 

the fertilized zone. 

Large amounts are 

incorporated in 

new soils and in extra biomass. 

Because the irrigation zone is imbedded in a natural wetland of larger extent, care must be taken in the 

definition of the size of the treatment portion of this larger wetland. A zone extending 300 meters 

upstream and 700 meters downstream, spanning the entire 1000 meter width of the wetland, encompasses 

the treatment zone with room to spare. Nutrient removal is essentially complete within this zone; some 

background concentrations will always be present in outflows. 

The reductions in dissolved nutrient concentrations are not due to dilution, as may be seen from the water 
budgets. There are summers in 

which rainfall exceeds 

evapotranspiration, but on 

average there are evaporative 

losses, which would lead to 

concentration increases in the 

absence of wetland interactions. 

It is possible to elucidate the 

mechanisms by which waterborne substances are removed in 

this freshwater wetland 

ecosystem. There are three 

major categories of removal 

processes: biomass increases, 

burial, and gasification. The 

production of increased biomass 

due to nutrient stimulation is a 

long-term temporary sink for 

assimilable substances. Accretion of new organic soils represents a more permanent sink for structural 

and sorbed components. A few species, notably nitrogen, carbon and sulfur compounds, may be released 

to the atmosphere, and thus are lost from the water and the wetland. Mass balance models have been 

constructed that adequately characterize these processes on both short and long term bases. 

Some substances in the wastewater do not interact as strongly with the wetland as do nutrients. Chloride, 

calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium all display elevated values in the discharge affected zone. 

Chloride, especially, moves freely through the wetland to the outlet streams. 

Oxygen levels in the pumped water are good, approximately a 6 mg/l average. In the irrigation zone, 

levels are typically 1-2 mg/l in surface waters. The surrounding, unaffected wetland usually has high DO, 

representing conditions near saturation. The zone of depressed oxygen increased in size as the affected 

area increased, as indicated by the advance of an oxygen front both upgradient and downgradient. In 

addition, the diurnal cycle appeared to be suppressed in the irrigation zone. 

Redox potentials indicate that the sediments are anaerobic in the irrigation area, even at quite shallow 

depths. Steep gradients occur, leading to sulfate and nitrate reduction zones, and even to a 

methanogenesis zone, only a few centimeters deep into the sediments and litter. 

Treatment Area and Nutrient reductions

DIN = Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen = Nitrate plus Ammonium Nitrogen TP = Total Phosphorus.
Area, ha DIN, mg/l TP, mg/l

Year In Out Reduction

% In Out Reduction%

78 10 0.56 0.10 82 2.85 0.063 97

79 13 3.68 0.10 97 2.87 0.047 98

80 17 3.22 0.10 97 4.41 0.068 97

81 24 2.83 0.094 97 2.83 0.088 96

82 30 5.85 0.093 98 3.27 0.064 98

83 55 3.76 0.148 96 2.74 0.066 97

84 50 10.04 0.078 99 4.52 0.079 97

85 48 7.64 0.194 98 4.11 0.099 97

86 46 9.63 0.176 98 5.26 0.063 99

87 46 4.26 0.244 94 2.90 0.074 97

88 61 6.26 0.080 99 2.66 0.086 97

89 54 8.13 0.156 98 1.66 0.047 97

90 67 8.14 0.119 99 2.93 0.112 96

91 76 7.80 0.122 99 2.59 0.147 94

AVERAGES: 5.69 0.129 96 3.31 0.074 97
Soils and Sediments

Wastewater solids are relatively small in amount and deposit near the discharge. Incoming suspended 

solids average about 25 mg/l, and the wetland functions at levels of about 5-10 mg/l. But internal 

processes in both natural and fertilized wetlands produce large amounts of detrital material, thus 

complicating the concept of "suspended solids removal". 

After more than a decade, sediment 

and litter accumulation total about 15 

Some fraction of each year's plant litter does not decompose, but 

becomes new organic soil. It is joined by detritus from algal and 

microbial populations. Such organic sediments contain significant 

amounts of structural components, but in addition are good sorbents 

for a number of dissolved constituents. The accretion of soils and 

sediments thus contributes to the effectiveness of the wetland for 

water purification. The natural wetland accreted organic soils at the 

rate of a two to three millimeters per year, as determined from 

carbon-14 and cesium-137 radiotracer techniques. The wastewater 

has stimulated this process to produce a net of ten millimeters per 

year of new organics in the discharge area. The maximum 

accumulation rate is located a short distance downflow from the 

discharge. 

Sediment fall in the discharge area totals several millimeters per 
cm.

year, and this combines with 

wetland leaf litterfall to produce a 

large amount of large and small 

detritus. The majority of this 

detritus decomposes each year, but 

there is an undecomposable 

fraction. The result of continued 

generation and deposition of 

sediments, combined with the 

accumulation of the mineralized 

fraction of leaf and stem litter, is the 

accretion of new organic soil. 

Part of the sediments are 

suspendible, and are transported by 

the flowing water. The rate of travel 

caused by sequential suspension and sedimentation is much slower than the rate of water flow; solids 

move only some tens of meters per year. 

Estimated mass balances for particulate, transportable solids indicate the large internal cycle 

superimposed on net removal for the wetland. 
Vegetation

Many changes have occurred in the composition, abundance and standing crops of the wetland plants in 

the zone of nutrient removal. There are two observable manifestations of the wastewater addition: 

elevated nutrient concentrations in the surface waters, and alterations of the size, type and relative 

abundance of the aboveground vegetation. Vegetative changes occur in response to changes in hydraulic 

regime (depth and duration of inundation) and to changes in water nutrient status. The treatment area is 

taken to be the greater of these two measurable areas for each year. 

When a wetland becomes the recipient of 

waters with higher nutrient content than those 

it has been experiencing, there is a response 

of the vegetation, both in species 

composition and in total biomass. The 

increased availability of nutrients produces 

more vegetation during the growing season, 

which in turn means more litter during the 

non-growing season. This litter requires 

several years to decay, and hence the total 

pool of living and dead material grows 

slowly over several years to a new and higher 

value. A significant quantity of nitrogen and 

phosphorus and other chemical constituents are thus retained, as part of the living and dead tissues, in the 

wetland. This response at the point of discharge in the Houghton Lake wetland has been slow and large. 

Below ground biomass responded differently from above ground biomass, however. Original vegetation 

required greatly reduced root biomass in the presence of added nutrients; 1500 gm/m2 versus 4000. 

However, the sedges initially present were replaced by cattail, which has a root biomass of 4000 gm/m2. 

Approximately 65 hectares of the wetland have been affected in terms of visual vegetative change. Some 

plant species - leatherleaf and sedge—have been nearly all lost in the discharge area, presumably due to 

shading by other species and the altered water regime. Sedges in the discharge zone went through a large 

increase followed by a crash to extinction. Species composition within the discharge area is no longer 

determined by earlier vegetative patterns; cattail and duckweed have totally taken over. Cattail has 

extended its range out to about 600 meters along the central water track. 
The cattail cover type did not exist in enough abundance (1.76% of the peatland area) to warrant study in 

pre-irrigation years, but was present in many locations (17% of all test plots). The early years of 

wastewater addition produced a variable but increasing annual peak standing crop of cattail. This change 

has been completed in the irrigation area, and there is no space for more plants, nor can they grow any 

larger. 

The willows and bog birch are decreasing in numbers in the irrigation area. The fraction standing dead is 

low because the dead shrubs are pulled down by the falling cattail. Nonetheless, a high fraction of the 

standing stems are now dead. Further, the number of surviving clumps of stems is decreasing. 

The aspen community near the pipeline completely succumbed in 1983. A second aspen island, located 

500 meters downgradient, had also totally succumbed by 1984. The aspen on the edges of the peatland 

have died in backgradient and side locations where the shore slopes gradually. The alteration of the water 

regime has caused tree death along much of the wetland perimeter, in a band up to 50 meters wide at a 

few locations. Long-dead timber at these locations indicates that similar events may have occurred 

naturally in the past. 
Public Use

The project was not designed for purposes of public use, but a set of 

regular users has evolved. The site serves several organizations as a 

field classroom. Each year, the sixth grade science classes from the 

Houghton Lake School pay visits—and ask the best questions. 

Ducks Unlimited and the Michigan United Conservation Clubs also 

schedule trips to the wetland. The Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources includes field trips to the system as part of their annual 

training course. And, Central Michigan University conducts a 

portion of its wetlands course at the site. 

Many visitors, some from as far as New Zealand, come to inspect 

the treatment facility to learn of its performance. 

The authorized operating period is set to allow deer hunting: the 

discharge is stopped in September to permit the wetland to "relax" 

from the influence of pumping. The bow-and-arrow season in 

October, and the rifle season in November, both find numerous 

hunters on and near the wetlands. Those hunters receive a 

questionnaire, which has demonstrated nearly unanimous 

acceptance of the project. The only complaint is that the boardwalk allows too easy access to the 

wetlands. 

Duck hunting and muskrat trapping have occurred on an intermittent basis. These activities are new to 

this wetland, which was formerly too dry to support waterfowl and muskrats. 
Animals

In addition to game species, coyotes, bobcats and raccoons frequent the 

wetland. Small mammals include a variety of mice, voles and shrews. 

The relative numbers have shifted with time in the discharge area; 

generally there are now fewer and different small mammals. The number 

of muskrats has increased greatly in the irrigation zone. 

Bird populations have also changed. The undisturbed wetland (1973) 

contained 17 species, dominated by swamp sparrows, marsh wrens and 

yellowthroats. In 1991, the irrigation zone had 19 species, dominated by 

tree swallows, red wing blackbirds and swamp sparrows. 

Insect species and numbers fluctuate from year to year, with no 

discernible pattern. In some years there are fewer mosquitoes near the 

discharge; in other years they are more numerous there. There are 

typically more midges in the discharge zone, and fewer mayflies, 

caddisflies and dragonflies. 
Permits

The project operates under two permits: an NPDES permit for the surface water discharge, and a special 

use permit for the wetlands. 

The Michigan Water Resources Commission issues the NPDES permit in compliance with the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act. Both the irrigation fields and the wetlands are permitted. The wetlands part 

of the permit establishes three classes of sampling locations: the effluent from the storage or 

dechlorination ponds, a row of sampling stations approximately 800 meters downgradient from the 

discharge pipeline in the wetland (Figure 1), and steamflows exiting the wetland. Lagoon discharges are 

monitored weekly; interior points and stream outflows are measured monthly. Each location has its own 

parameter list (Table 3). The interior wetland stations are the early warning line. Background water 

quality was established in pre-project research. Target values are set which are the basis for assessing the 

water quality impacts at the interior stations. 
The special use permit is issued by the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources. Under this permit, the Roscommon County Department of Public Works is granted 

permission to maintain a water transporting pipe across State-owned lands, maintain a wooden walkway 

on the peatlands to support a water distribution pipe, and to distribute secondarily treated effluent onto 

the peatlands. Under the terms of this permit, if circumstances arise that are detrimental to plant and 

animal life, the project comes under immediate review. Detrimental circumstances include detection of 

toxic materials, excessive levels of pathogenic organisms and excessive water depths. There has not been 

such an occurrence. This permit also requires monitoring of plant and animal populations, hydrology and 

water quality. 

Water samples were collected for analysis at the points of input and output from the wetland for purposes 

of compliance monitoring. Water chemistry data for these inflows and outflows shows no significant 

increases in the nitrogen or phosphorus in the wetland waters at these exit locations. 

Table3. Permit Monitoring Points and Target Values

L = Lagoon Discharge I = Wetland Interior O = Stream Outflow

Parameter LocationBackground

Value

Target

Value

Chloride L, I, O 28 mg/l .

pH I, O 7.0SU 8.0 SU

Ammonium Nitrogen L, I, O 0.7 mg/l 3 mg/l

Nitrate Nitrogen L, I, O 0.04 mg/l 0.12 mg/l

Nitrite Nitrogen L, I, O 0.008 mg/l 0.1 mg/l

Total Phosphorus L, O . .

Total Dissolved Phospohorus L, I, O 0.05 mg/l 0.5 mg/l

BOD5 L, O . .

Suspended Solids L . .

Fecal Coliforms L . .
Operator Opinions

Mr. Brett Yardley, operator of the facility, believes "It is a great system. It has low maintenance, and is 

good for the community." Importantly, he feels that the regulators (Michigan DNR) are "on my side." 

The comments he receives are all positive. 

Awards

Clean Waters Award 1974, 1985

Michigan Outdoor Writers Association

Award of Merit 1977

Michigan Consulting Engineers Council

Award for Engineering Excellence 1977

American Consulting Engineers Council

State of Michigan Sesquicentennial Award 1987

Michigan Society of Professional Engineers

People

The treatment facility is operated by: 

Mr. Brett Yardley

Houghton Lake Sewer Authority

P. O. Box 8

1250 S. Harrison Road

Houghton Lake, MI 48629

Wildlife and land use considerations are coordinated by: 

Mr. Rich Earle

Research/Surveys Section Head

Houghton Lake Wildlife Research Station

Box 158

Houghton Lake Heights, MI 48630
Research is conducted and archived by: Dr. Robert H. Kadlec 

Wetland Ecosystem Research Group

Department of Chemical Engineering

Dow Building

The University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2136

Literature

Several thousand pages of documentation exist for this project. The principal categories of documents 

are: 

* Annual reports. Each operating year: compliance monitoring results; research results 

for vegetation, hydrology, internal water chemistry; and research results for all types of 

animals, insects, and invertebrates. 

* Research reports. Background studies and pilot system performance are contained in 

several reports and monographs. 

* Technical papers. Forty published papers appear in a wide variety of literature sources, 

and involve many authors. 

* Dissertations. Fourteen MS and PhD theses have originated from the project. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Cannon Beach, OR - Wooded Wetlands for 

Wastewater Treatment

The History of the Project

Design

Construction and Operation

Costs and Benefits

A Nature Study Guide
The History of the Project

Confrontation led to a City commitment to 

pursue a biological solution instead of 

more high-tech treatment units to upgrade 

the treatment system.

Ducks, geese, elk? These are not usual inhabitants of a 

wastewater treatment system. But in Cannon Beach, Oregon, 

particularly in the fifteen acres of the wooded wetlands cells of 

the system, they are a common sight. How did this come to 

pass? 

Let's look a little closer. The City of Cannon Beach had a 

problem--how to treat and dispose of its wastewater. With much 

citizen involvement, a cost-effective ecologically-interactive 

wastewater treatment facility was created. This Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) funded "Innovative/Alternative" 

treatment system uses an existing wooded wetland to provide 

the final stage of the treatment process. 

Effluent structures during winter flooding 

(when wetlands are typically not 

operated).

Here's the story. The three-celled sewer lagoon complex in 

existence at the time of the passage of the Clean Water Act of 

1972 could not meet the more stringent effluent quality 

standards set by the Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ). In response to this situation, the City began a 

Facilities Plan. The completed plan recommended options for 

system upgrading which met with considerable community 

opposition. 

At this point in 1977, a Sewer Advisory Board was formed. The 

City of Cannon Beach is a resort community and during the 

tourist season the population swells from a permanent size of 

1,200 to many times that number. Any design considered by the 

Sewer Advisory Board would have to be able to accommodate 

these large fluctuations in wastewater flows. 

Confrontation led to a City commitment to pursue a biological solution instead of more high-tech 

treatment units to upgrade the treatment system. The bureaucratic struggle that ensued lasted eight years 

and the remarkable result of these meetings was the consolidation of a set of ideas which emerged as yet 

another facility plan addendum. The issues deliberated included: the use and integrity of the wetlands, 

elk habitat, chlorination, point of discharge, birdlife, the extent of ecological upset, berming and baffling, 

fencing costs, and the risks of using new treatment techniques. It is a tribute to the professionals 

representing the various agencies involved in these meetings that, in spite of diverse and sometimes 

disparate responsibilities and divergent goals, negotiations took place in a spirit of cooperation and 

compromise sufficient to allow development of an approvable treatment scheme. 
Typical vegetation in the majority of the 

wetlands (brush, sedges, and ferns).

This scheme, the wetlands marsh wastewater treatment 

system, appeared in draft Facilities Plan Addendum No. 2 in 

October, 1981 and became final in March, 1982. The Plan 

subsequently was adopted by the City Council and 

approved by all the appropriate agencies through the State 

Clearinghouse review process. Shortly thereafter, a grant 

application was completed and submitted to the DEQ and 

EPA and approval of funding for the project was granted in 

September, 1982. 
Design

1998 Dry Weather Design

Population, Flows and Loading

Population Equivalents4085

Lagoons

....... Flow 0.68 mgd

Ave. Detention Time 7-15 days

. BOD 817 lbs/day

. TSS 817 lbs/day 

Wooded Wetland

. Flow 0.42 g/ac/day

. BOD 14 lbs/ac/day

. TSS 18 lbs/ac/day

How does the treatment facility work? 

Contrary to popular belief, raw sewage, or 

wastewater as engineers prefer to call it, is 

over 99% pure water. About half of it 

comes from toilets and most of the rest is 

from kitchen sinks, showers, bathtubs, and 

washing machines. The Cannon Beach 

treatment system consists of a four-celled 

lagoon complex followed by two wooded 

wetland cells which serve as a natural 

effluent polishing system. 

The objective of the wetland treatment is to 

meet water quality requirements with 

minimal disturbance to the existing wildlife 

habitat. Dikes, containing water control 

structures, formed the wetland cells, constituting the only physical alteration to the natural wetland. The 

fifteen acres of wetlands are primarily red alder, slough sedge and twinberry, including the remnants of 

an old growth spruce forest. These wetlands act as a natural filter to complete the treatment process, and 

the wildlife is not disturbed. 

Design of the wooded wetland wastewater treatment system, along with improvements to the existing 

lagoon system, began in December, 1982. The design of treatment system improvements and the wetland 

system centered around meeting stringent effluent limitations imposed by the DEQ. Technically 

speaking, the wastewater treatment focuses primarily on the reduction of both biochemical oxygen 

demand (BOD) and suspended solids (TSS). The average monthly limitations were 10 mg/l of BOD and 

TSS during dry weather and 30 mg/l of BOD and 50 mg/l of TSS above Ecola Creek background levels 

during wet weather. 

The principal mechanisms in achieving BOD and TSS reductions in wetland systems are sedimentation 

and microbial metabolism. Absence of sunlight in the canopy covered wooded wetland contributes to 

significant algae die-off and subsequent decomposition. The two-celled wetland system was designed 

with multiple influent ports into the first cell, multiple gravity overflow into the second cell, and a single 

discharge from the second cell to Ecola Creek. Each cell was designed with approximately 8.0 acres 

surface area to be operated in series. 

Improvements to the existing lagoon system were to provide capacity through the design year of 1998. 

They centered around three major improvements: upgrading the hydraulic capacity of the system; 

decreasing the loading to the facultative lagoon system with the addition of an aerated lagoon; and 

adding a chlorine contact chamber to provide adequate disinfection before discharging to the wetland 
Effluent structures and vegetation l$ in 

north dike.

marsh system. 

The operational strategy developed around: 1) operating the 

upgraded facultative lagoon system during the wet weather period 

of the year, and 2) operating the aerated/facultative lagoon system 

along with the wooded wetland system during the dry weather 

season. 

AB Aeration Basin C Chlorine contact 

chamber 

1, 2, 3 Facultative Lagoons WOP Winter outfall pipe 

S Sludge disposal pits Cell 1, Cell 

2 

Wetland treatment 

cells 
Construction and Operation

Construction of the wastewater facility improvements began in July 1983 and the facility officially began 

operation in June 1984 when flows from the facultative lagoons were initially pumped into the wetland. 

The system was initially operated with the aerated lagoon effluent flowing in series to the three 
facultative lagoons, with chlorinated effluent pumped to the wetland cells which were operated in series. 

The discharge from the system into Ecola Creek is approximately 25% to 50% of the influent flow with 

the remainder lost through evapotranspiration and seepage. The wetlands cells were initially operated at 

an approximate average depth of one foot and a detention time of 10-14 days. 

Lagoon effluent BOD and TSS have averaged 27 mg/l and 51 mg/l respectively, while the wetlands 

effluent BOD and TSS averaged 6 mg/l and 11 mg/l respectively. Background water quality in Ecola 

Creek has averaged 6 mg/l BOD and 13 mg/l TSS. The wetland removes an average of 12% of the 

influent BOD while removing 26% of influent TSS. Operating efficiency has improved over time with 

respect to BOD and TSS. In 1991, an average of only 3 mg/l of BOD was discharged. For TSS, the past 

two years have shown average discharge concentrations of 2 and 5 mg/l respectively. These rates were 

significantly lower than those of five out of the first six years of operation. 
Costs and Benefits

Elk browse on their long-time path to Ecola Creek, 

along the edge of the wooded wastewater wetland, 

just 700 feet from downtown Cannon Beach.

Click on picture for larger image.

The system has been a success. Performance of the 

system has exceeded expectations as the effluent has 

come close to meeting the 10/10 effluent limitations 

without considering the background water quality. The 

City has met its monthly permit requirements with only 

one exception with respect to concentrations in the first 

eight years of operation. The water quality impact on 

the creek has been significant, only 25% of the mass 

discharge loading directly reaches the creek. 

The capital costs of the total system improvements 

were $1.5 million in 1983. Of that, approximately 40% 

was classified innovative and alternative under the 

provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, thus higher 

funding was provided by EPA. The City received an 

approximate 80% grant from the EPA. A significant 

portion of the City’s share has been financed through a 

loan from Farmers Home Administration. 

The total Sewer Department’s 1992-1993 budget is 

approximately $600,000. The total operational costs of 

the pond/wetland treatment facility represents 

approximately 12% of this figure. Staff includes one 

full-time operator who devotes approximately half of 

his time to plant operation and laboratory work, a 

weekend public works utility person, and a summer student intern. 

Sewer billings are based on water usage, using a base rate of $7.50 for the first 600 cubic feet and $1.25 

for each additional 100 cubic feet. This rate has remained unchanged since 1983. A 10% across-theboard increase is currently under consideration. 
A Nature Study Guide

Treatment of facultative lagoon effluent through the use of a natural wooded wetland has been 

demonstrated as an effective method over the eight years of operation. The City’s direct discharge to 

Ecola Creek has been reduced and it’s quality has been improved resulting in improved water quality for 

the creek. The capital, operation, and maintenance costs utilizing the wetland treatment system are 

significantly less than alternative systems. The treatment lagoons and wetland cells are a physical reality 

and an integral part of the City. Involvement in this sewerage project has resulted in a heightened 

awareness of the physical setting in which we live, the biological processes of which we are a part, and 

the society in which we function. 

Within the site, the stream flows, trees and 

plants grow, and animals and birds come 

and go.

The City has cooperated with the school system in setting up a 

partnership. Educational materials that integrate social studies 

and science have been developed cooperatively using a City 

liaison person and resource teacher. As well as serving as a 

nature study site, the treatment marsh has been the focus of 

programs devised by Citizen Education. Waterfowl have been 

monitored by citizen effort. Tours are conducted for 

environmentally oriented classes, for groups of teachers, for 

sewer operators, for those seeking wastewater treatment 

solutions for their communities and for local citizens, as well as 

any interested individuals. 

The organic nature of the sewerage facilities, the lack of 

offensive odor and the open layout of the facility contribute to a 

land use scheme that has a minimal disruption to the 

environment. Very few visitors realize that the City's sewerage 

facilities are just 700 feet from the downtown shopping area! Within the site, the stream flows, trees and 

plants grow, and animals and birds come and go. Numerous species of wild ducks can be seen on the 

lagoons, elk can be seen in the wetlands area, fishing, walking, and bird watching take place here. 

This brochure is dedicated to the memory of Don Thompson, "The Thinker and the Doer of the Cannon Beach Sewer." 

Contributors--Dan Elek, Jerry Minor and Francesca Demgen 

Produced by--Woodward-Clyde Consultants 

Graphic Design--Chris Dunn 

EPA Project Manager--Robert Bastian
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Vermontville, Michigan - Reuse of Municipal 

Wastewater by Volunteer Freshwater Wetlands

Introduction

Hydrology

Permits

Water Quality

Vegetation

Wildlife

Operating and Maintenance Activities

Costs

Contacts

Performance
Introduction

Figure 1

Layout of the Vermontville wastewater treatment system. Inflow may be directed to 

either of the two lagoons. The lagoons are discharged into wetlands 1-3. Wetland 4 

no longer receives a direct discharge; but seepage water from the uphill units reemerges into wetland 4.

Vermontville is a rural 

community located 25 miles 

southwest of Lansing. The 

local maple syrup industry is 

active; each year a festival 

brings thousands of visitors 

to this community of 825 

residents. Vermontville 

considers itself “the sweetest 

little town in Michigan.” 

There is no evidence of the 

high growth and bustle of 

more urban areas; in fact the 

local Amish folk tie up their 

horses and buggies on Main 

Street. Mayor Beverly Sue 

Billanueva runs the town and 

its only restaurant. 

The Clean Water Act of the early 1970’s dictated that Vermontville upgrade its wastewater treatment 

capabilities. In common with many other small communities, Vermontville could not afford to own or 

operate a “high tech” physical-chemical wastewater treatment plant. But it was situated to utilize the landintensive natural systems technology, and decided to do so. In 1972, they opted for facultative lagoons 

followed by seepage beds. Those seepage beds unexpectedly became wetlands, a system which works 

remarkably well and is liked by the operators. 

System Description

The municipal wastewater treatment system at Vermontville, Michigan consists of two facultative 

stabilization ponds of 10.9 acres (4.4 ha), followed by four diked surface (flood) irrigation fields of 11.5 

acres (4.6 ha) constructed on silty-clayey soils. The system is located on a hill with the ponds uppermost 

and the fields at descending elevations (Figure 1). After 1991, the nineteenth year of operation, the fields 

are totally overgrown with volunteer emergent aquatic vegetation, mainly cattail. The system was 

designed for 0.1 MGD and a life of twenty years. It is presently operated at about three-quarters of design 

capacity. 

The Vermontville system was intended, in the conceptual stages, to provide phosphorus removal both by 

harvesting of terrestrial grasses and by soil-water contact as wastewater seeps downward from the 

irrigation fields. Up to four inches of water applied over several hours time once each week would flood 

the fields briefly until the water seeped away. The upper pond (Lagoon 1, Figure 1), has separate 
discharge lines into fields 1 and 2, and the lower pond (Lagoon 2) has separate discharge lines into fields 

3 and 4. Fields 1-4 have all been colonized by volunteer wetland vegetation, and are now eutrophic 

emergent marshes. 

Figure 2

Cross section of the Vermontville wastewater treatment system. The units are set on a steep 

hillside, with large driving forces for hte gravity flow from lagoons to wetlands. Elevations 

shown on the left are in feet above sea level. Overflow occurs out of wetland 4 to the right.

Pond-stabilized 

wastewater is 

released into each 

wetland by gravity 

flow through 10-in. 

(0.25 m) main and 8-

in (0.2m) manifold 

pipe having several 

ground level outlets 

in each wetland. The 

lagoons and 

wetlands are 

terraced on a steep 

hillside (Figure 2), 

providing ample 

driving force for 

gravity flow. Should 

the water level 

exceed 6 in. (15.2 cm), water would overflow to the next wetland by means of standpipe drain. All 

applied water would seep into the ground before leaving the treatment area. 

The system is operating nearly in this manner today. There is a constant surface overflow from the final 

wetland, made up of ground-recycled wastewater which enters the final field at springs. The direct surface 

overflow from wetland 3 has been taken out of service. Essentially, the system is a seepage wetland 

complex and very similar to a conventional flood irrigation facility. The vegetation and relatively small 

surface overflow from the final wetland provides an established system in which to evaluate the treatment 

aspects of seepage combined with lateral flow-through wetlands, the potential nutrient removal and 

wildlife values of these strictly voluntary wastewater wetland, and the economics of the system. 

A thorough study of water quality and other aspects of system was conducted in 1978, by Dr. Jeffrey 

Sutherland of Williams and Works and Professor Frederick Bevis of Grand Valley University. This work 

was sponsored by The National Science Foundation. 
Hydrology

During 1990, approximately 29 MG of wastewater was introduced into the lagoons. This was a dry year. 

Evaporation exceeded rainfall and snowmelt, leaving only about 22 MG to discharge to wetlands 1, 2, 

and 3. There was no lagoon discharge to wetland 4. About 7 MG were lost to evaporation in the wetland 

cells, 13 MG infiltrated to groundwater, and 2 MG overflowed from wetland 4 to the receiving stream. 

Wetland 4 receives its water from interior springs fed by the groundwater mound under the upgradient 

wetlands, most importantly wetland 3. The direct discharge to wetland 4 was discontinued, since it was 

in close proximity to the system outflow point, and was clearly short-circuiting water across wetland 4. 

Effluent discharged from the system has therefore passed through the lagoons, then through the upper 

wetlands, the soils under the site, and finally through the last wetland. 
Permits

The facility operates under an NPDES Permit issued by Michigan DNR. The outflow from wetland 4 is 

to an unnamed tributary of the Thornapple River, which is protected for agricultural uses, navigation, 

industrial water supply, public water supply at the point of water intake, warm water fish and total body 

contact recreation. There are presently no industrial dischargers. The discharge limitations from the 

treatment wetlands 

Table 1. Discharge limitations for the Vermontville wastewater treatment facility.

ParameterDates Daily Minimum Daily Maximum 30-Day Average 7-Day Average

CBOD5 4/15-4/30 . 25 mg/l 17 mg/l

14 lb/d 21 lb/d

. 5/1-9/30 . 10 mg/l 5 mg/l

4.2 lb/d 8.3 lb/d

. 10/1-10/31 . 16 mg/l 11 mg/l

9.2 lb/d 13.3 lb/d

TSS 4/15-4/30

5/1-10/31 . . 20 mg/l30 mg/l

30 mg/l

45 mg/l

NH4-N

4/15-4/30

5/1-9/30

10/1-10/31

. .

7 mg/l

2.2 mg/l

5 mg/l

.

TP All Year . . 1.0 mg/l

0.83 lb/d .

DO

4/15-4/30

5/1-9/30

10/1-10/31

5 mg/l

6 mg/l

5 mg/l

. . .

pH All Year 6.5 9.0 . .
Water Quality

Figure 3

Both CBOD and TSS fluctuate in the outflow from the wetlands, but the seasonal 

averages are quite low; 3.5 mg/l for CBOD; 4.2 mg/l for TSS. (Data are for 1990)

Compliance Monitoring

The overflow from final 

wetland field 4 contains a 

fairly constant volume of 

effluent which has seeped 

from the higher elevation 

wetlands, flowed through the 

ground, and entered field 4 

springs. This treated effluent 

is of high quality, as is the 

ground water recovered from 

the project's monitoring 

wells. The outflow is 

monitored weekly. Total 

suspended solids (TSS) was 

well within permit limits at 

all times during 1990 (Figure 

3), indicating that the wetlands had effectively filtered and settled particulate material. 

Carbonaceous biological oxygen demand (CBOD) also remained within 30-day average permit limits in 

1990, and there was only one excedance of the seven-day permit limit of 5 mg/l. The CBOD load in the 

surface discharge was less than 10% of that allowed by the permit. 

Figure 4.

The nutrients phosphorus and ammonium nitrogen were well within limits in the 

Total phosphorus in the 

surface discharge was also 

well within permit limits, 

with an average 1990 value 

of 0.24 mg/l compared to the 

permit level of 1.0 mg/l 

(Figure 4). The same was true 

for ammonium nitrogen, 

which averaged 0.86 mg/l 

compared to the 2.2 mg/l 

permit requirement. Both 

phosphorus and nitrogen 

display considerable 

variability, which is 

characteristic of many 

wetland systems. The 
wetland outflow in 1990. The seasonal average total phosphorus was 0.24 mg/l; 

ammonium nitrogen averaged 0.86 mg/l.

seasonal trends in ammonium 

nitrogen—an increase 

followed by a 

decrease—have been observed at other sites, and are therefore probably real. They are likely due to the 

changing processes of plant uptake and decomposition. Figure 3. Both CBOD and TSS fluctuate in the 

outflow from the wetlands, but the seasonal averages are quite low; 3.5 mg/l for CBOD; 4.2 mg/l for 

TSS. (Data are for 1990) Dissolved oxygen averaged 7.0 mg/l in 1990, with a range from 5.4 to 9.4, 

which included a four excedances of minor nature. pH ranged from 6.6 to 7.2, well within the permit 

range. Fecal coliform counts (Figure 5) are within limits for surface water discharges, but are higher than 

at other comparable wetland sites. 

Research Results

Figure 5

Fecal coliform bacteria counts also fluctuate in the outflow from the wetlands, but 

the seasonal average is quite low; the geometric mean value was 77 (Data are for 

1990).

Some of the more detailed 

water quality results for 

1978 are summarized in 

Figure 6. Greater than twofold dilution across the 

system was evident in the 

decreasing chloride 

concentration from 280 mg/l 

in the effluent to 124 mg/l in 

the ground water. Pond 

effluent was 25% diluted 

with respect to influent. 

Although a few inches of 

precipitation in excess of 

evaporation from the ponds 

occurred during the summer, 

the 25% dilution was more 

importantly due to excessive 

snow and ice meltwater 

added to the ponds in spring 1978. The 25% dilution between the pond effluent and the water standing in 

the wetlands was due principally to a large number of sampling dates coinciding with significant rainfall. 

Greater than 20 inches (50.8 cm) of rain fell in the 4 11⁄42 months from June to mid October, which was 

approximately 50% higher than the normal rate. The decrease in concentration between irrigation fields 

and ground water was due to mixing of wastewater with more dilute ambient ground water. 

Phosphorus was removed to the extent of around 97% between the wetland fields and the ground water, 

which was sampled from monitoring wells placed at depths ranging from roughly 10 ft. to 25 ft. (3.0 m to 

7.6 m) below the wetland floors. Most removal of phosphorus occurs in the upper 3 ft. (0.9 m) of soils 

judging from a small number of lysimeter samples which averaged 0.11 mg/l total P and 0.06 mg/l orthoP, with ranges of 0-0.3 mg/l and 0-0.2 mg/l, respectively. The average removals of phosphorus effected 
Figure 6

Profiles of water quality in 1978. Lagoons and wetlands and soils are 

functioning to remove nutrients in this system. During the early life of the 

facility, there were lagoon discharges directly to wetland 4; and there was 

surface overflow directed from wetland 3 to wetland 4. This resulted in some 

short-circuiting to the surface outflow; and consequently higher phosphorus 

numbers than in the present mode of operation.

in the upper 3 ft. (0.9 m) of soils 

were approximately 95%. 

Levels of nitrate-nitrogen 

increased approximately 60% 

between the pond discharge and 

the wetland standing water, 

indicating that aerobic bacteria 

were at work in the wetland 

waters. On the other hand, the 

sediments were anaerobic as 

evidenced in the fetid odor 

which evolved when they were 

disturbed. Loss of some of the 

nitrate by denitrification was 

apparently occurring. Lysimeter 

samples showed nitrate-nitrogen 

ranging from 0.0 to 0.9 mg/l, 

which suggested that 

denitrification of approximately 

60% of the nitrate occurred in 

the shallow wetland soils. The 

ambient ground water contained 

higher levels of nitrate-nitrogen 

than did the seeping wastewater, 

perhaps indicating some further nitrification during passage through the soil. 

Levels of TKN and ammonia-nitrogen seemed not to change much between the pond discharge and the 

wetland waters. But this constancy was likely only apparent, with organic nitrogen and ammonia 

probably being produced through anaerobic decomposition in the wetland sediments and being consumed 

in the aerobic wetland waters. 
Vegetation

The wetlands were observed to contain eight plant communities in 1978. These included areas dominated 

by grassland, duckweed, cattail and willow. In 1991, the grassland and duckweed communities were no 

longer significant. The wetlands are now dominated entirely by cattail and willow shrubs and trees. 

Standing crops (above ground plant parts) for the wetlands varied from a minimum of 830 to over 2,200 

gm/m2 in the wetlands in 1978. Visual estimates in 1991 indicate that the standing crops are presently 

somewhat higher than that maximum, and more uniform. There appears to be approximately 3,000 

gm/m2 at all locations, not counting trees. Because the wetlands are located on an exposed hillside, 

winds can and do blow down the cattails. The result is a patchy stand of cattail, about three meters in 

height where it is erect, and flat on the surface elsewhere. 

The phosphorus in the prevailing cattail standing crop is significant compared to the phosphorus released 

into the wetlands. Cattail harvesting would therefore be a means of reducing effluent phosphorus. But 

harvesting is not needed for phosphorus removal in seepage wetland settings where subsurface soil types 

and volumes are adequate to effect phosphorus removal before effluent ground water reaches receiving 

streams. The expense and difficulty of harvesting further preclude its use at Vermontville. 
Wildlife

Casual observation reveals the wastewater-grown wetlands have significantly added to the acreage of 

suitable, adequately isolated habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife in the Vermontville area. Natural, 

interrupted zones of attached aquatic plant life fringe the nearby Thornapple River, but these are narrow, 

small and easily accessible to fisherman and other recreationists. The wastewater wetlands are part of a 

restricted public access area. 

The Vermontville volunteer wetland system created marshland habitat suitable for waterfowl production 

otherwise not present in the immediate area. Many other types of birds also nest in the marshes, 

including red-wing blackbirds, American coot, and American goldfinch. Waterfowl (blue-winged teal 

and mallard), shorebirds (gallinule, killdeer, lesser yellow-legs, and sandpiper) and swallows use the 

wetland pond system for feeding and/or resting during their migration. Great blue heron, green heron, 

ring-neck pheasant, and American bittern have also been seen frequenting the wetlands. 

These volunteer wetlands are also important habitat for numerous amphibians and reptiles. These include 

snapping and painted turtles, garter and milk snakes, green and leopard frogs, bullfrogs and American 

toads. Muskrats inhabit the wetlands, while raccoon, whitetail deer, and woodchuck are seen feeding in 

the wetlands. 
Operating and Maintenance Activities

Very little wetland maintenance has been required at Vermontville. The berms are mowed three or four 

times per year, for aesthetic reasons only. Water samples are taken on a weekly frequency at the surface 

outflow. The discharge risers within the wetlands are visited and cleaned periodically during the 

irrigation season. There is essentially nothing to be vandalized, and there have been no repairs required. 

Wetland number two contains more and larger 

willows. Together with the narrow leaved cattail, 

these two species dominate the wetland.

The dikes are monitored for erosion, which has not 

been a significant problem. Muskrats build lodges and 

dig holes in the dikes; and woodchucks also dig holes 

in the berms. Therefore, a trapper is allowed on the site 

to remove these animals periodically. The operator also 

periodically tears the muskrat lodges apart. 

There are no bare soil (tilled) areas to be plugged 

through siltation caused by rain splash, spray irrigation, 

or flood-suspension of inorganic soils. The 

Vermontville wetlands showed buildup of three or four 

inches (0.1 m) or organic residues largely in the form of 

cattail straw after six irrigation seasons (1972-78). That 

litter mat is still of the same thickness today, but is 

accompanied by a small accretion of new organic 

sediments and soils. There was one attempt to burn the 

accumulated detritus, which proved to be difficult, and 

of no value in the system operation or maintenance. The amounts of this material have not compromised 

the freeboard design of the embankments over the system’s 19+ year operational period. Tree control has 

not been practiced at Vermontville, and the wetlands now contain willow trees up to several meters in 

height. No hydraulic problems have been experienced due to these trees, or any other cause. 
Costs

The Vermontville ponds and wetlands cost $395,000 to build in 1972. Much of this expense was incurred 

for grading, because of the uneven topography of the site. 

The operating and maintenance costs associated with the wetlands portion of the treatment system are 

quite low. In 1978, these were approximately $3,500 per year, of which $2,150 was labor and field costs, 

and the balance for water quality analytical services. In 1990, these same costs totalled about $4,200, 

including $3,400 for labor and field costs. 

The ponds at Vermontville are set into a hillside that drops off more than 70 

feet. This view of lagood 2 shows the high and wide berms that this relief 

necessitates. In late summer, these are covered with a profusion of 

wildflowers.

Contacts

The treatment system is under 

the supervision of Mr. Tony 

Wawiernia, Superintendent, 

Department of Public Works, 

121 South Main Street, 

Vermontville, MI 49096. Phone 

(517) 726-1429. 

The designers and engineers for 

this facility were Williams and 

Works, Inc., 611 Cascade West 

Parkway S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 

49506.

Phone (616) 942-9600. 

Professor Fred Bevis visits the site with his students on a regular basis, and collects information on 

vegetation and other aspects of the ecosystem. Fred is Chairman of the Department of Biology, Grand 

Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401.

Phone (616) 895-3126. 
Performance

The 1978 research work is detailed in a report to The National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF 

ENV-20273, May 1978. This report is available from the National Technical Information Service. 

Conference reprints summarizing the work were prepared, and may be obtained by contacting Professor 

Bevis: 

Applied Ecology Group 11628 104th Ave. West Olive, MI 49460-9632 

Sutherland, J. C. and F. B. Bevis, 1979. Reuse of Municipal Wastewater by Volunteer Fresh-Water 

Wetlands. IN: Proceedings of Wetland Reuse Symposium, Vol. 1, p. 762-781. AWWA Research 

Foundation, Denver, CO. 

Bevis, F. B., 1979. "Ecological Considerations in the Management of Wastewater-Engendered Volunteer 

Wetlands," presented at the Michigan Wetlands Conference, MacMullan Center, Higgins Lake, MI. 

A brief summary description also may be found in: 

Sutherland, J. C., 1982. "Michigan Wetland Wastewater Tertiary Treatment Systems," 

Chapter 16 in: Water Reuse,

E. J. Middlebrooks, ed., Ann Arbor

Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Arcata, California - A Natural System for 

Wastewater Reclamation and Resource 

Enhancement

Introduction

Stage in Treatment Plan

Arcata Marsh and Sanctuary: Points of Interest

Specifications

Acknowledgements
Introduction

...a constructed wetland system can be a cost efficient and environmentally sound wastewater treatment 

solution.

The constructed wetland system is the cornerstone of 

Arcata's urban watershed renovation program. This 

program includes major urban stream restoration, log 

pond conversion to a swamp habitat, pocket wetlands 

on critical reaches of urban streams, and an 

anadramous wastewater aquaculture program to 

restore critical commercial recreational and ecological 

important populations. The Arcata project is a 

demonstration of wastewater reuse, ecological 

restoration, and reuse of industrial, agricultural and 

public service land. 

Arcata Site Plan

Situated in the heart of the redwood country and 

along the rocky shores of the Pacific Northcoast, the 

City of Arcata is located on the northeast shore of 

Humboldt Bay in Northern California, 280 miles 

north of San Francisco. Arcata, with a population of approximately 15,000, is a diverse community 

whose resourcefulness and integrity has demonstrated that a constructed wetland system can be a cost 

efficient and environmentally sound wastewater treatment solution. In addition to effectively fulfilling 

wastewater treatment needs, Arcata's innovative wetland system has provided an inspiring bay view 

window to the benefits of integrated wetland enhancement and wastewater treatment.

What is the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary?

Arcata is a small town located on the north-eastern side of Humboldt Bay, about 280 miles north of San 

Francisco. Humboldt Bay is a focal point where timber resources and marine resources cross paths as 

they struggle to sustain Humboldt County's economy. Resource management is a practice that receives 

high priority and expert advice in this scenic niche of the Pacific Northcoast. Arcata, with a population of 

approximately 15,000, is a diverse community whose resourcefulness and integrity has served to lead the 

city down a successful path marked by innovative decisions and maintained by pride. So, when the city 

faced making a change in their wastewater treatment methods, they demonstrated that a constructed 

wetland system can be a cost efficient and environmentally sound wastewater treatment solution. In 
addition to effectively fulfilling wastewater treatment 

needs, Arcata's innovative wetland system has 

provided an inspiring bay view window to the benefits 

of integrated wetland enhancement and wastewater 

treatment. 

How did the project evolve?

Arcata 

established its 

innovative 

treatment 

system as a 

result of 

extensive 

community 

involvement and a series of political events. In the early 1970's, 

Arcata's active wastewater treatment plant discharged 

unchlorinated primary effluent into Humboldt Bay. In 1974 the 

State of California enacted a policy which prohibited discharge of 

wastewater into bays and estuaries unless enhancement of the 

receiving water was proven. In response to this policy the local 

Humboldt Bay Wastewater Authority proposed the construction of 

a state sponsored regional wastewater treatment plant that would serve all the communities in the 

Humboldt Bay vicinity. The plant was to have large interceptors around the perimeter of the bay with a 

major line crossing under the bay in the region of active navigation. The proposed treatment facility was 

energy intensive, with significant operational requirements. Effluent from the proposed plant was to be 

released offshore into an area of shifting sea bottom and heavy seas during winter storms. As the scale of 

the regional treatment plant grew, the costs and difficulties of incorporating other communities became 

apparent 

Arcata established its innovative treatment system as a result of extensive community involvement and a 

series of political events.

Recognizing the constraints of the local environment and criteria for wastewater treatment, the City of 

Arcata began exploring the design of a decentralized system which employed constructed wetlands. 

Wastewater aquaculture projects at the City of Arcata started as early as 1969 and had been successful in 

raising juvenile Pacific Salmon and Trout in mixtures of partially treated wastewater and seawater. This 

project demonstrated that wastewater was a "resource" that could be reused and not simply to be viewed 

as a disposal problem. With this philosophy a city Task Force on Wastewater Treatment determined that 

the natural processes of a constructed wetland system could offer the city an effective and efficient 
wastewater treatment system. From 1979 to 1982 the city, and associated proponents of alternative 

wastewater treatment, experimented with partially treated wastewater and the natural processes of 

wetland ecosystems. These experiments demonstrated that constructed freshwater wetlands could be 

utilized to treat Arcata's wastewater and at the same time enhance the biological productivity of the 

wetland environment into which treated wastewater was discharged. The Task Force determined that a 

constructed wetland system was extremely cost effective. Moreover, a successful system offers the city a 

vital wetland ecosystem that could be used for the rearing of salmon and steelhead as well as offer the 

community a unique site for recreation and education. 

With the aid of the Arcata City Council and political representatives in the state capital, the city received 

authorization in 1983 to develop the constructed wetland system and incorporate its use at the original 

Arcata Wastewater Treatment Plant. The wetland system that exists today was completed in 1986. Since 

that time the natural ability of marsh plants, soils and their associated microorganisms has successfully 

been utilized to meet the need for a cost-effective and environmentally sound wastewater treatment 

technology that meets federal and state mandated water quality requirements. 

Who cares and what are the benefits?

At the same time that wetland wastewater 

technology has been used to successfully meet 

water quality criteria, it has also aided in restoring 

a degraded urban waterfront. Prior to the 

installation of its wetland treatment system, the 

City of Arcata's waterfront was the site of an 

abandoned lumbermill pond, channelized sloughs, 

marginal pasture lands, and a closed sanitary 

landfill. Today, Arcata's waterfront has been 

transformed into 100 acres of freshwater and 

saltwater marshes, brackish ponds, tidal sloughs 

and estuaries. Because of the wetland 

communities and wildlife habitats that the 

waterfront now supports, the area in its entirety 

has come to be known as the Arcata Marsh and 

Wildlife Sanctuary (AMWS.) The AMWS's three 

freshwater wetlands are Gearheart, Allen and 

Hauser Marshes. They were constructed to 

receive treated wastewater, thereby treating the wastewater further and enhancing the receiving water at 

the same time. These enhancement marshes are a host of aquatic vegetation that, in association with 

Klopp Lake and the adjacent estuaries and ponds, have further provided an extraordinary habitat for 

shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors and migratory birds. 

As a home or rest stop for over 200 species of birds, the AMWS has developed a reputation as one of the 

best birding sites along the Pacific North Coast. The Redwood Region Audubon Society uses the site on 
a regular basis for its weekly nature walks. For the past 10 years, docents trained by the Society have 

explained the role the wetlands play in attracting birds and mammals, as well a s their role in managing 

the water quality of Humboldt Bay. The beauty and uniqueness of the AMWS has served as inspiration 

to many artists, whose products range in form from plays and poems to photographs and paintings. 

Arcata has become an international model of appropriate and successful wastewater reuse and wetland 

enhancement technologies. Over 150,000 people a year use the AMWS for passive recreation, birdwatching, or scientific study. Visitors from around the world have come to Arcata to investigate its 

success in wastewater management. Students of all ages and institutions use the AMWS for scientific 

study. In 1987, the City of Arcata was selected by the Ford Foundation to receive an award for this 

wastewater wetlands project as an innovative local government project. This award included a $100,000 

prize to be used to fund the establishment of the Arcata Marsh Interpretive Center. The Center focuses on 

the historical, biological and technical aspects of the AMWS, and attempts to meet the informational and 

educational demands of the wastewater treatment system. 

Today, Arcata's waterfront has been transformed into 100 acres of freshwater and saltwater marshes, 

brackish ponds, tidal sloughs and estuaries.

Take a look at some of the living environments of the Arcata resources. (JPG format, 39KB)
Stage in Treatment Plan

Take a look at the Stage in Treatment Plan

Arcata's present wastewater treatment plant consists of seven basic components. These are the 

headworks, primary clarification, solids handling, oxidation pond, treatment marshes, enhancement 

marshes and disinfection. Each one of these components will be detailed as follows. 

Headworks: The "headworks" component of Arcata’s wastewater treatment plant is the first phase in the 

treatment of raw sewage and consists of technologies aimed at removing inorganic materials from the 

raw sewage. The technologies include two screw pumps that lift the sewage fifteen feet and pass it 

through bar screens, a parshall flume (for flow measurement) and grit separators before it enters the 

clarifiers. 

Primary Clarification: Two clarifiers are used to settle out any 

remaining suspended material that passes through the headworks. 

The liquid form of sewage that results from clarification flows to 

the oxidation ponds, completing primary treatment. The solids 

that settle out in the clarifiers are pumped to the digesters. 

Sludge Pumping and Stabilization/Cogeneration: The sludge 

from the clarifiers is pumped first to the primary digester and then 

the secondary digester. The digestors mix the sludge by 

recirculating methane gas with compressors. The digestors were 

designed in conjunction with a methane recovery and 

cogeneration system. The cogeneration component is designed 

burn the methane gas and utilize the heat to aid in the digestion 

process. 

Oxidation Pond: The oxidation ponds efficiently remove 

approximately 50 percent of the BOD and suspended solids that 

remain after primary treatment. Long detention times and natural 

processes (see diagram showing plant and animal roles) accomplish these reductions. 

Treatment Marshes: The treatment marshes reduce the levels of suspended solids and BOD 

concentrations that remain in the oxidation pond effluent. The three, two-acre treatment marshes in 

operation are located north of the oxidation ponds. They were created by subdividing the previous 

oxidation ponds. All treatment marshes were planted with hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus), a 

freshwater marsh plant native to the Humboldt Bay area. This plant’s effectiveness as a treatment species 

was shown by Marsh Pilot Project data. The treatment marsh’s effluent is combined at a pump station 

where it is pumped to the disinfection facility. 
Enhancement Marshes: After the first chlorination, wastewater is directed to the enhancement marshes, 

which are located northwest of the oxidation ponds. The three enhancement marshes cover a total of 31 

acres. These marshes are managed to maintain the greatest diversity of aquatic plant species and to 

maintain or improve water quality. Flow is directed through the enhancement marshes with sluice gates 

and wooden stop-log weirs. After disinfection, the wastewater flows into George Allen Marsh, then 

Robert Gearheart Marsh, and finally Dan Hauser Marsh. The effluent from Hauser Marsh is pumped 

back to the disinfection facility. 

Disinfection: Chlorine gas is used to disinfect Arcata's waste water before it is discharged to the 

enhancement marshes and again before it is discharged into Humboldt Bay. Because of this “doubleTM 

chlorination” two chlorine contact basins are necessary. These basins are built as one unit, which is 

located immediately south of the headworks. Any free chlorine remaining in the final effluent after the 

60 minute contact time is removed with sulfur dioxide. 
Arcata Marsh and Sanctuary: Points of Interest

1 Robert Gearheart Marsh: Completed in 1981, this marsh was built from pastureland and now uses 

treated wastewater as the sole water source. 

2 George Allen Marsh: Also completed in 1981, this marsh was built on an abandoned log deck and is 

enhanced with wastewater. 

3 Dan Hauser Marsh: The final marsh to be irrigated with treated wastewater before returning to the 

treatment plant for disinfection and release into to the bay. This marsh was a barrow pit for the closure of 

the adjacent landfill. 

4 Mount Trashmore: This grassy hill has been reclaimed from a sealed sanitary landfill that operated 

during the 1960's and 70's. 
7 Arcata Boat Ramp: The only concrete boat ramp maintained in Arcata Bay, this serves as an access 

point for sport boating, duck hunting, and sport shellfish harvesting. 

11 Butcher’s Slough: Butcher’s Slough is a restored estuary receiving feed from Jolly Giant Creek, the 

principal watershed in Arcata. A California Coastal Conservancy Project returned the estuary to its 

original alignment and ecological value. This slough serves as home to the Coastal Cutthroat Trout. 

12 Butcher's Slough Marsh: An old log pond restored to provide swamp-like habitat in the Arcata Marsh 

and Wildlife Sanctuary. 

16 AMWS Interpretive Center: This is the site where the AMWS Interpretive Center is built. This center 

will attempt to meet the educational demands of the treatment system. 

5 Frank Klopp Lake: This brackish lake was also a barrow pit for the closure of the landfill and is now a 
popular loafing area for shorebirds, a feeding area for diving birds and river otters, and a place for 

artificial-bait-only sport fishing. 

6 Treatment Marshes: Three 2.5 acre constructed wetlands which process oxidation pond effluent to 

secondary standards prior to release to the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary. 

8 Wastewater Aquaculture Project: Fish hatchery and ponds where salmon, trout and other fish are raised 

in a mixture of wastewater and seawater. 

9 Marsh Pilot Project: These ten 20’ X 200’ marsh cells have been used since 1980 to demonstrate the 

effectiveness of constructed wetlands to achieve water quality and habitat goals. 

10 Oxidation Ponds: These 45 acres of ponds, built in the late 1950’s, treat Arcata’s wastewater to 

secondary standards. 

13 Arcata Bay: This bay produces more than half of the oysters grown in California and is home to a 

variety of other aquatic animals. 

14 Headworks Facility: This is the place where the influent to the treatment system is received. 

15 Discharge Point: This is the point where a mixture of treatment of marsh effluent and enhancement 

marsh effluent is discharged into the Arcata Bay side of Humboldt Bay. 
Specifications

Design Population............................................19,056

Average Annual Flow.....................................2.3 mgd

Maximum Monthly Flow.................................5.9 mgd

Peak Flow....................................................16.5 mgd

BOD's Load............................................4100 lbs/day

TSS Load................................................3400 lbs/day 

Headworks

Mechanically Cleaned 

..... Bar Screens..................................2 at 5 mgd each

Gravity Grit Removal......................................144 ft.2 

Primary Treatment

2 Primary clarifiers ....................26 ft. diam./60 ft. diam

Retention time at design flow.............................3.8 hrs.

Retention time at max. monthly flow...................1.4 hrs. 

Treatment Marshes

Total area......................................................7.5 acres

Ave. Depth............................................................2 ft.

Total detention time at design flow...................1.9 days

Chlorination/Dechlorination

Volume................................................185,400 gallons

Retention time at design flow.............................58 min.

Retention time at max. monthly flow...................30 min.

3 Enhancement Marshes

Total area.........................................................31 acres

Ave. depth...........................................................1.5 ft.

Retention time at ave. flow...................................9 days 
Acknowledgments - Elected Officials

Lynne Canning

Elizabeth Lee

Bob Ornelas

Sam Pennisi

Victor Schaub Mayor

City Staff

Frank Klopp Director of Public Works

Steve Tyler Deputy Director of Public Works

David Hull Aquatic Resources Specialist

Supporting Organizations

California Coastal Conservancy

California State Water Resources Control Board

California Coastal Commision

California Department of Fish and Game

Humboldt State University

Redwood Regional Audubon Society

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cover Painting--Jim McVicker
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Martinez, CA - The Mt. View Project: A Community 

Success Story

The Mt. View Project: A Community Success 

Story

The Marsh Began to Grow

Where Does the Water Come From?

Keeping the Wetland Wet
The Mt. View Project: A Community Success Story

Mt. View Sanitary District (MVSD) provides wastewater treatment for approximately 16,000 people 

living in and around Martinez, California. This community, led by an independent-minded Board of 

Directors and a forward-thinking engineer, created the first wastewater wetlands on the West Coast. The 

project saved the rate payers millions of dollars and established a valuable wildlife habitat in the process. 

This is the story of how Mt. View Sanitary District created a wastewater wetland for the enrichment of 

both the community and wildlife. 

Mt. View Sanitary District Wetlands are 

located adjacent to large industrial facilities.

Sewage treatment plants, by their very nature, are often 

located at the fringe of development. The year Mt. View 

Sanitary District was established —1923, it was located 

outside the City of Martinez, in rural Contra Costa County, 

California. 

Mt. View was created as a special district to treat the 

wastewater from the rural portions of the county 

surrounding Martinez and was to be governed by a board of 

five publicly elected directors. 

The board was an independent group and did not easily accept the Regional Water Quality Control 

Board's (RWQCB) idea in the late '60s of consolidating all of the small treatment facilities into a large 

regional plant. The result would have required pumping MVSD’s wastewater to a neighboring facility to 

be treated, effectively dissolving their district. Not only would it have usurped their control, but it also 

was going to cost over $6 million. The District decided to search for an alternative. 

MVSD tried to sell its water to neighboring industrial 

plants and to the highway department for irrigation. The 

District considered constructing its own deep-water 

diffuser in nearby Carquinez Straits, at a cost of $2.38 

million. Warren Nute, the District’s engineer at the time, 

observed that the regulations the RWQCB were using 

stated that if the treated effluent was creating an 

environmental benefit, then the District would not have 

to remove its effluent discharge from Peyton Slough, a 

small creek, influenced by tidal action along part of its 

length, that delivers the District's effluent to Carquinez 

Straits and San Francisco Bay. The District then set about 

creating the first wetland on the West Coast using secondary treated effluent, to provide environmental 

benefits. 
The Marsh Began to Grow

Bird usage from 1989-1991 in Mt. View Sanitary District Wetlands

In 1974 the District began with a simple 10-acre wetland divided into two sections. The area that was created by 

scraping away the topsoil became a shallow, open-water pond. The other area, whose topsoil was not disturbed, 

was quickly colonized by emergent vegetation, such as cattails. 
In 1977 the marsh was expanded to include 10 more acres of land divided into three marsh areas. One was 

constructed as an open-water pond with islands to provide protected nesting habitat for waterfowl. 

A second marsh was seeded with plants to provide food for waterfowl, such as water grass and alkali bulrush 

(Echinochloa crusgalli and Scirpus robustus). The third area was designed in a serpentine fashion to provide 

maximum water/plant contact to enhance treatment effectiveness. 

The Mt. View Sanitary District marshes are located in an urban environment and the marsh is bisected by an 

interstate highway. The next 22 acres, added to the marsh system in 1984, were located across the interstate to 

the north. This area had been seasonally flooded and the District merely had to make minor changes to water 

control structures to allow the marsh's inclusion in the system. The most recent addition to the wastewater 

wetland complex is a 43-acre section that also is located to the north of the interstate and adjacent to the 

previous 22 acres. 

A variety of habitat types and controlled public access promote 

wildlife use of the wastewater wetland.

The wetlands area totals 85 acres. This bountiful 

wildlife habitat includes plants, animals, fish and 

invertebrates. Some of the animals are permanent 

residents of the marshes, while others are temporary 

visitors that stop along their migratory journey. 

Plants grow in the marshes as well as on the levees 

surrounding the marshes and a riparian corridor is 

beginning along Peyton Slough. There are emergent 

plants rooted in the bottom muds as well as 

submerged plants. 

Wetland plants provide food and shelter for marsh 

biota and improve water quality. Birds, mammals, 

reptiles and amphibians eat plant leaves, seeds and 

roots of the more than 70 species of marsh and riparian vegetation. Dense growths of marsh bulrushes provide 

nesting sites for songbirds as well as ducks. 

The most visible animals at the marshes are the more than 123 species of birds. The diversity of aquatic habitats 

attracts mallard and cinnamon teal to rest and feed in the open-water areas; avocets and black-necked stilts to 

probe for invertebrates in the mudflats; and red-winged blackbirds to nest among the cattail stands. There are 

resident birds in the wetland, such as song sparrows and American coot, in addition to migrant birds, as 

exemplified by sandpipers and pintail. 

There are more than 15 species of birds that nest in the wetland. The area provides valuable nesting sites for 

waterfowl, shorebirds and songbirds. The wetland is also important because fresh drinking water is a 

requirement for ducklings. Later, as the ducklings mature, they develop salt glands that allow them to drink 

saline water. However, until that time, they must be reared in a freshwater environment. In an area such as San 

Francisco Bay, which has lost nearly all of its freshwater wetlands, appropriate nesting habitat is a valuable 

resource provided at the Mt. View wastewater wetland. 
Fish also inhabit Peyton Slough and the marshes. Small fish eat midge and mosquito larvae to help keep the 

marsh free of these nuisance insects, and in turn they are preyed upon by herons and egrets. The discarded 

carapace of a crayfish is evidence of the raccoon's evening meal. Other marsh wildlife includes everything from 

pond turtles to striped skunks and an occasional river otter. A total of 34 species of fish, mammals, reptiles and 

amphibians have been observed at the wetland. 

Schematic of the Mt. View Sanitary District marsh creation project.
Where Does the Water Come From?

Mt. View Sanitary District provides secondary treatment to 

approximately 1.3 million gallons per day of wastewater 

from approximately 16,000 residents in the Martinez, Calif., 

area. Although there is some light industry and commercial 

development within the District's service area, the primary 

source of the wastewater is residential. The District 

maintains strict pretreatment standards and prohibits the 

discharge of heavy industrial waste into its sewerage system. 

The treatment train includes comminution, primary 

sedimentation, biological treatment by a two-stage, high-rate 

trickling filter, a biotower for ammonia removal, secondary 

sedimentation, effluent chlorination, dechlorination with 

sulphur dioxide, and sludge processing. A flow equalization 

basin assists in equalizing storm flows to the treatment plant to maximize efficiency. 

Monitoring is conducted on the treatment plant influent, effluent, marsh discharges and the receiving 

water. Although the primary purpose for constructing the wetland is to create wildlife habitat, it also 

improves water quality for some parameters. There are numerous processes by which plants contribute to 

water quality improvements, including direct uptake of nutrients by algae and some rooted vegetation. 

The plants foster settling of particulate matter by slowing water movement and greatly increase the 

contact with microorganisms that live on the surfaces of emergent plants. These microorganisms 

metabolize pollutants, decreasing their dissolved concentrations in the water. Monitoring shows that 

wetland nutrient concentrations follow a stable seasonal cycle that varies little from month to month, but 

clearly shows a difference between the cold, wet season (November through April) and the warm, dry 

season (May through October). 

The concentration of nitrates decreases in the wetland during the summer months. There is limited 

evidence to suggest that the wetland is removing cadmium, copper, silver and zinc. In addition, periodic 

special monitoring studies are undertaken to answer specific questions concerning the processes or biota 

within the wetlands. Studies at the marsh have included an ammonia study and a fisheries and benthic 

invertebrate study. 

Doubtless the largest special study, however, occurred after the 1988 spill of 440,000 gallons of crude oil 

into the marsh from an adjacent refinery. The cleanup efforts included picking up oily water by vacuum 

trucks, rototilling of contaminated soils and hand-cutting vegetation in less inundated areas of the marsh. 

The recovery of the marsh's vegetation and soils was monitored closely and eight months later this 

section of the wetland resumed operation. 
Mt. View Sanitary District treatment plant.
Keeping the Wetland Wet

In 1974 MVSD created its wetland and, as with other man-made environments, routine operations and 

maintenance are required. Tasks required on a weekly or monthly basis include removing debris that 

collects behind weirs, examining levees for erosion and inspecting for animal burrows that could lead to 

levee failure. 

The frequency of vegetation harvesting in the shallow marsh areas has proven to be related to its surface. 

Smaller marsh plots need to be harvested more frequently than larger areas. Marsh A-1 is approximately 

one acre and has had vegetation removed a number of times during the past 18 years. Similarly, a threeacre marsh plot that had internal levees subdividing it into smaller waterways also was in need of 

harvesting and levee rearranging after 10 years. Whereas the larger Marsh A-2, approximately four acres, 

is only now ready to be harvested after 18 years of operation. 

Early maintenance activities included stocking the marshes with mosquito 

fish as predators for mosquito larvae. The mosquito fish population became 

self-sustaining after the first few years. There were so many of the small 

fishes that for a period of time, the MVSD marshes supplied fish to a local 

natural history museum to feed their live exhibits. The original 10-acre 

marsh construction project cost only a few thousand dollars, and the first 

10-acre expansion cost $85,000. The District already owned the land for 

these segments of the marsh creation project. The first 22 acres to the north 

of the interstate were acquired by the California State Department of Fish 

and Game and is managed by MVSD. The 43 acres acquired in 1985 were 

purchased for $204,887. It is likely that more acreage will be added to the wetland in the future as a 

result of the settlements from the oil spill. The annual operation and maintenance budget includes labor 

for marsh monitoring, special research studies, vegetation harvesting and levee repair. These costs 

average $30,000-$50,000 annually. 

The total cost of the marsh over the past 18 years is less than one-third the cost ratepayers would have 

had to contribute to the neighboring treatment plant's deep-water diffuser.*

Not only has the experiment been cost effective, but the marsh itself boasts a long list of contributions to 

the community. Visitors spend hundreds of hours enjoying the marsh and its wildlife. Bird watching and 

nature photography are favorite pastimes of local, regional and international visitors. Students from 

elementary through college come to observe and do research projects at the wetland. 

The wetland provides open space in a rapidly developing county. The freshwater habitat is a link on the 

Pacific Flyway used by migratory birds. The effluent is viewed as a resource creating wildlife habitat and 

maintaining a small, freshwater surface inflow to San Francisco Bay, which has lost most of its 

freshwater tributaries. 
The wetland serves as an outdoor laboratory for 

learning. Students from local elementary schools 

as well as college students are interested in the 

marsh.

The creation of Mt. View Sanitary District's wetland 

system is a community success story. The independent 

District was willing to question regional policy makers 

and in so doing pioneered the creation of wetland habitat 

using secondary treated effluent, saving local citizens 

millions of dollars.«

* This brochure is dedicated to the memory of J. Warren 

Nute, who pioneered the development of wastewater 

wetlands on the West Coast. 

« This brochure was created with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Requisition 

No. A22190 

Robert Bastian---

.....U.S. EPA, Project Officer

Francesca Demgen, Woodward-Clyde Consultants---

.....Project Manager

Dick Bogaert and Francesca Demgen---

.....Photography
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Marin Co., CA - Wetlands as a Part of Reuse and 

Disposal: Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District

Introduction

History

Treatment and Reclamation

Water Quality

Costs and Benefits

Project Information
Introduction

The District has created a multi-faceted reclamation 

project that includes a fresh-water marsh, irrigated 

pasture, storage ponds, a saltwater marsh and miles 

of trails for hiking, biking and bird watching.

Where can you find herons roosting in trees and 31/2 

miles of public access trails on the edge of San Pablo 

Bay? The answer is at Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary 

District's Wastewater Reclamation Project in Marin 

County, California. The District has created a multifaceted reclamation project that includes a freshwater 

marsh, irrigated pasture, storage ponds, a saltwater 

marsh and miles of trails for hiking, biking and bird 

watching. 

History

A regional planning effort for eastern Marin and 

southern Sonoma counties began in the early 1970's. 

The goal of the planning was to improve effluent water quality to meet the increased requirements of the 

Clean Water Act. The best apparent alternative identified in 1977 was to discharge treated effluent to the 

shallow waters of the Bay, but only on high tides, and to begin reclamation for landscape irrigation. 

The agencies determined that this did not afford the 

shallow waters of San Pablo Bay, the northern most 

portion of San Francisco Bay, enough protection. They 

decided to require an elimination of any discharge of 

treated wastewater effluent to the shallow fringes of the 

Bay and its tributary creeks during the summer months. 

The planners were frustrated by the moving target, but 

they went back to the drawing boards and developed a 

plan for treatment and disposal that would meet all of the 

requirements. In order to meet a requirement of no 

summer discharge the plan needed to include storage 

capacity and alternative disposal options. So they developed a project that included many forms of reuse 

and disposal. 

Las Gallinas' wastewater reclamation project is a 385 acre complex including 200 acres of irrigated 

pasture, 40 acres of storage ponds, a 20 acre freshwater wetland, a 10 acre salt marsh, and landscape 

irrigation. The District has an agreement with the local water agency for reclamation of up to 350 million 

gallons of treated effluent per year for landscape irrigation. 

Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District was formed in 1954 by residents who were faced with serious 
health problems from failing septic tanks and pollution in Gallinas Creek. The District now serves a 

community of approximately 30,000 people in northern Marin County. The District's influent is 

predominantly residential including discharges from some commercial and light industry sources. The 

treatment facility has a design capacity of 2.9 million gallons per day. 

The planners were frustrated by the moving target, but they went back to the drawing boards and developed a plan for 

treatment and disposal.
Treatment and Reclamation

Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District

Design Criteria

Design Year................................2001

Population...................................34,711

Average Dry Weather Flow.........2.69 mgd

Peak Dry Weather Flow..............4.3 mgd

BOD Loading..............................5434 lbs/day

TSS Loading................................5738 lbs/day

Irrigated Pasture...........................200 acres

Marsh/Pond.................................20 acres

Storage Ponds..............................40 acres

Irrigated Landscaping...................20 acres

The treatment plant was expanded and upgraded in 1984, 

when the reclamation project was constructed. The 

project received state and federal Clean Water Grant 

funds for 87.5% of the costs. The treatment consists of 

grit removal, clarification, two stage biofiltration, 

ammonia removal, filtration, chlorination, and 

dechlorination. The treated effluent goes to a 

combination of the marsh, the creek, or the storage 

ponds, depending on the time of year. For nine months 

out of the year the effluent from the marsh is discharged 

to Miller Creek and San Pablo Bay. During June, July, 

and August, the discharge is stored in 40 acres of ponds 

and used to irrigate the pasture and for the water 

agency's recycling program. 

The 200 acres of pasture is subdivided into sections so 

that it may be irrigated on a rotating schedule. The 

irrigation must be done in June, July, and August to 

dispose of the effluent, however depending on the 

weather and the needs of the pasture, it is usually 

irrigated through November. The irrigation schedule rotates among the fields with a goal of the disposal 

of a target number of gallons per month. 

Marin County is located on a narrow peninsula north of San Francisco. The County’s drinking water 

reservoirs have relatively small watersheds and under extreme draught conditions have been nearly 

emptied. In seeking to develop new sources of water, the water district approached Las Gallinas to 

discuss the potential for reclamation. The agreement that was developed allows the water district to 

purchase up to 350 million gallons of Las Gallinas’ effluent per year. The effluent receives further 

treatment and is then sold for landscape irrigation, helping the limited potable water supply to stretch 

further. 

The 20 acre freshwater marsh/pond was designed to incorporate a number of different wildlife habitat 

types into a single unit. This is accomplished by varying the depths of the water and the types of 

vegetation that colonize each area. The central area is the deepest, more than six feet under normal 

operation. The deep central area is ringed by a two foot deep zone that was designed to become inhabited 

by emergent vegetation such as tall thin bulrushes. There is an overflow zone that is only inundated 

during winter rains and when the marsh/pond is needed occasionally to store additional effluent near the 

end of the summer. The five islands are the final physical component of the marsh. 

The most important part of the marsh/pond is not its physical configuration but its biological inhabitants. 
The wide variety of plants and animals make the area interesting to the many visitors that walk, jog, or 

bike around the perimeter. There are many regular bird watchers that keep track of the resident and 

migratory populations that use the reclamation project. Members of the Marin Audubon Society have 

observed over 147 species of birds in the reclamation project areas. 

There are over 40 species of plants in the marsh/pond 

ranging from submerged pond weeds to emergent cattails. 

There are willow trees and acacias on the islands, grasses, 

and shrubs on the banks. The grasses on the islands produce 

seeds that are eaten by small rodents and serve as cover for 

waterfowl nesting. Mallards, coots, and Canada geese nest 

and raise their young at the marsh/pond. A portion of one of 

the islands is barren and has a gentle slope up from the 

water. This area is a favorite resting place for the cormorant. 

The island's trees provide roosting habitat for a wide variety 

of birds including snowy and great egrets, black-crowned 

night heron and the great blue heron. Occasionally there is 

even competition for roosting space among the tree 

branches. A long-eared owl rested not so peacefully in a willow tree one February afternoon when a redshouldered hawk perched barely 3 feet above its head in the same tree and screeched incessantly, trying 

unsuccessfully to get the owl to move. 

The wading herons and egrets and the diving pelicans and cormorant are probably attracted to the 

wetland not only for resting but to feed on the plentiful small fish in the pond. The flock of dozens of 

large white pelicans that frequent the marsh are a favorite of visitors. There are small mosquito fish as 

well as carp that grow to fourteen inches in length. Many other animals use the marsh/pond including 

noisy bullfrogs, snakes that shed their old skins intertwined among the tall grasses, raccoon, jack rabbits, 

deer and muskrat. The muskrats aren't always welcomed by the wetland manager because they tend to 

dig tunnels in the levees. 

The salt marsh restoration project was completed to diversify the types of wildlife habitat. The salt marsh 

is fed by water from the Bay and does not receive any treated effluent. 
Water Quality

The Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District produces a high quality, advanced secondary effluent. The 

average flow in 1992 was 2.7 million gallons per day, during the months when the effluent is discharged 

to Miller Creek and the Bay. The purpose of the treatment plant and reclamation project is to keep as 

much of the pollutant load from entering the environment as possible. In 1992 the plant removed 95% of 

the organic material that would enter the creek and bay. These biochemical oxygen demanding 

substances would use oxygen to complete decomposition. It is this oxygen that is needed by fish and 

other aquatic organisms for their survival. The concentration of ammonia in the effluent is reduced 

substantially, to a level that is not harmful to fish in the marsh/pond or the creek. 

Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District

Effluent Water Quality, 1992 Averages

Parameter Monitoring

Frequency

Average

Concentration

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 3x/wk 9.9mg/L

Total Suspended Solids 3x/wk 14mg/L

Oil and Grease 1 mo <5mg/L

Settleable Solids daily 0.06m/l/L/hr

pH daily 6.6 units

Ammonia Nitrogen 1/mo 2.3mg/L

Arsenic 1/mo <2ug/L

Cadmium 1/mo <1ug/L

Chromium 1/mo <2ug/L

Copper 1/mo 18ug/L

Cyanide 1/mo <10ug/L

Lead 1/mo <2ug/L

Mercury 1/mo 0.3ug/L

Nickel 1/mo 3.5ug/L

Silver 1/mo 2.3ug/L
Zinc 1/mo 75ug/L

Phenols 4x/yr <50ug/L
Costs and Benefits

The reclamation project was constructed in 1984 for a cost of 

$6.5 million dollars, including the land acquisition. 

Approximately 87.5% of the project funding was from state and 

federal Clean Water Grant funds administered by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. The project was recognized 

for Engineering Excellence in a competition sponsored by the 

Consulting Engineers Association of California and indeed the 

residents of the District are proud of the treatment system and 

enjoy the benefits of the reclamation project. Each and every 

day people can be seen walking dogs, gazing through 

binoculars at their favorite birds, and jogging around the 

marshes. 

Developed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants

Project Manager---Francesca Demgen

EPA Project Manager---Robert Bastian

Graphic Design---Chris Dunn 

This brochure was created with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Requisition 

No. A22190. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Hayward Marsh, CA - Wetlands from Wastewater: 

The Hayward Marsh Expansion Project

The Hayward Marsh Expansion Project: 

Wetlands from Wastewater: The History of the 

Project, Marsh and Shoreline

The Two Phases

Wastewater: Resource Versus Liability

Flora and Fauna

Gathering the Data

The Promise of Wastewater Wetlands

Project Information
The Hayward Marsh Expansion Project: Wetlands 

From Wastewater

Can treated sewage effluent be used to enhance and create wetlands? This brochure documents the 

innovative and effective use of secondary wastewater on wetlands in a northern California coastal 

community. The community, Hayward, is on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. The project, 

Hayward Shoreline Marsh Expansion Project, is a part of a larger marsh restoration and enhancement 

plan. 

Biodegradable mesh was laid on banks near inlet and 

outlet structures during construction.

The Hayward Shoreline Marsh Expansion Project 

addresses two growing urban issues: the restoration 

and enhancement of declining wetlands areas in the 

United States, and the additional treatment and 

beneficial uses that can be achieved from the 

utilization of wastewater. The shoreline and marsh 

in this case are roughly 172 acres of a 400-acre 

restoration and enhancement area. The source of the 

wastewater is primarily residential and light 

industry. 

The History of the 

Project, Marsh and 

Shoreline

In 1971 the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency was formed by five groups to restore about 1,800 

acres of Hayward shoreline. The five included: the City of Hayward, Hayward Area Recreation District, 

East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), and the Hayward and San Lorenzo Unified School Districts. 

The 1,800-acre area had been a part of the Bay area salt-and-brackish-marsh system until the later part of 

the 19th century. At that time the marsh was eliminated by creation of a dike to hold out tidal action to 

allow for commercial salt production. Salt production ceased in the 1940s, but the area was not returned 

to marshland until more than 40 years later. 
The Two Phases

A 27-acre corner of Hayward 

Marsh has been set aside as a 

preserve for the salt marsh 

harvest mouse.

The restoration and enhancement of the diverse 400-acre marsh—part of the 1,800 

acres of Hayward shoreline-was planned in two phases. The first phase was 

completed in 1980 when extensive grading and breaching of the dikes allowed 

tidal action to be restored to approximately 200 acres. This created the conditions 

necessary for natural restoration of a tidal cord grass and pickleweed salt marsh. 

The second phase, the Hayward Shoreline Marsh Expansion Project, involved 

restoring 172 acres to fresh and brackish marshes. Using existing and newly 

created channels and dikes, a five-basin marsh system was formed. This second 

phase of newly created fresh and brackish marshes began operation in April 1988 

and relies on secondary treated wastewater as its freshwater source. 

Funding for the 172-acre marsh expansion totaled $713,570 and has come from 

four sources: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for designs and specifications; 

City of Hayward for design, contract documents and permits; the EBRPD's appropriation from the 1980 

California Parklands Act for marsh enhancement and recreational facilities; and a grant from the State Coastal 

Conservancy for the major portion of construction. 

EBRPD and the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) are the joint holders of the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the marsh. Flow to the marsh, primarily from Union Sanitary District, is 

diverted from EBDA’s forcemain, which runs along the eastern edge of the Bay and discharges effluent from six 

municipal wastewater treatment plants to the deep waters of San Francisco Bay. The anticipated success of the 

Hayward Marsh may provide EBDA and its member agencies with the opportunity to develop other constructed 

wetlands along the Bay. 

EBRPD has acquired control of the site, 

including the 400 acres designated for 

marsh restoration, by purchase of 495 

acres and by long-term lease with other 

agencies. EBRPD is responsible for the 

operation and maintenance of the marsh. 

When completed, the Hayward Marsh will 

be the largest restoration and enhancement 

project on the West Coast to date. 

The 172-acre area is actually divided into 

six sections: the five basins mentioned 

earlier and a preserve set aside for the salt 

marsh harvest mouse, an endangered 

species. The five basins include three 

freshwater basins and two brackish water 

basins. 

Basin 1 receives the treated, chlorinated 
Schematic of the Hayward Shorline Marsh Expansion Project.

Vegetation begins to colonize Basin 2A, a 

newly created freshwater marsh.

secondary effluent. The water that enters 

the marsh meets standards for both 

biochemical oxygen demand and 

suspended solids, as well as for coliform 

bacteria. Residual chlorine is allowed to 

dissipate in this basin. Basin 1 is about 15 

acres and is operated at a depth of 

between 5 and 8 feet. From Basin 1 the 

water is discharged to a channel leading to 

Basins 2A and 2B. 

Basins 2A and 2B are identical 35-acre freshwater marshes with internal channels and islands. The marshes were 

designed to have a range of depths: there are shallow areas of two feet or less and the perimeter and internal 

channels are six feet deep. Basins 3A and 3B are brackish and receive a combination of approximately 25 percent 

bay water and 75 percent effluent from Basins 2A and 2B. These two basins are each 30 acres and also have 

internal channels and islands. 

The 27-acre mouse preserve, on the southeastern corner of Hayward Marsh, is an area of pickleweed marsh set 

aside specifically as habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse. This area receives storm water runoff, but not 

treated effluent. 
Wastewater: Resource Versus Liability

Wastewater has been treated and reused successfully as a water and 

nutrient resource in agriculture, silviculture, aquaculture and golf course 

and green belt irrigation. By regarding wastewater as a resource rather 

than a liability, it is now being viewed as water pollution control with 

positive benefits. 

The Hayward Shoreline Marsh Expansion Project has three main 

objectives: creation of a diversified marsh system using secondary 

effluent; maximization of public benefits including wildlife habitat, 

preservation of open space, and creation of educational, research and 

aesthetic opportunities; and meeting NPDES requirements. 

The marsh system removes pollutants from the 

treated wastewater it receives, so its final 

discharge to the bay is water of higher quality.

The increased interest in wastewater wetlands treatment 

systems can be attributed to three factors: recognition of the 

natural treatment functions of aquatic plant systems and 

wetlands, particularly as nutrient processors and buffering 

zones; emerging or renewed application of aesthetic, wildlife 

and other incidental environmental benefits associated with 

the preservation and enhancement of wetlands; and rapidly 

escalating costs of construction and operation associated 

with conventional treatment facilities. Constructed wetlands 

have become attractive as a treatment and disposal 

alternative for secondary wastewater for several reasons: 

they physically entrap pollutants through adsorption in the 

surface soils, in organic litter and on suspended particulates; through their utilization and transformation 

of pollutants by microorganisms; and because of their low-energy and low-maintenance requirements to 

attain consistent treatment levels. 
Flora and Fauna

The first plants to emerge at 

Hayward Marsh were grasses, fat 

hen and pickleweed which had 

colonized the levees prior to project 

construction. Recolonization by 

plants has been slowed somewhat 

because of residual soil salinities 

from earlier commercial salt 

production and because topsoil was 

disturbed during construction. 

Planting efforts have met with 

varying degrees of success. Seeds of 

alkali bulrush (Scirpus robustus) and 

watergrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) 

were eaten by ducks. Shoots of other 

bulrush species were eaten by 

waterfowl and geese or were 

dislodged by high winds. 

Subsequent planting efforts have 

been more successful due to 

protective cages that exclude 

predators and help block the wind. 

Once the plants become well 

established the cages will be 

removed. 

There are 3 main species of terns 

that forage at the marsh including 

the Forster's tern (pictured above). 

The endangered Least tern stopped 

The fauna that use the marsh include waterfowl, shorebirds, small 

mammals, amphibians, reptiles and fish. As many as 94 species of 

birds have been recorded using the site for feeding, nesting, hunting, 

foraging or as a refuge during high tide. Hayward Marsh is 

strategically located on the bird migration route known as the Pacific 

flyway. On any given day during the winter migratory season, 
at Hayward Marsh on its migratory 

journey and nested successfully in 

1990. Efforts to provide suitable 

nesting habitat for the tern include 

covering one of the islands with 

crushed oyster shells.

thousands of ducks can be seen resting on the freshwater marshes. 

Birds using Hayward Marsh have been categorized as follows: 

dabbling ducks, shorebirds, diving ducks, fish-eating birds, gulls and 

landbirds. Dabbling ducks include mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, 

cinnamon teal and the northern shoveler. Dabblers feed on or near the 

surface of the marsh and eat seeds and shoots of aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates, minnows, snails, 

grain, grass and insects. 

Shorebirds also migrate through San Francisco Bay and use the brackish water sections of Hayward 

Marsh during the spring and fall. Common visitors to the marsh include the American avocet, blacknecked stilt, Caspian tern, Forster's tern, sandpiper, willet and killdeer. 

Geese, ducks, and shorebirds produce 

hundreds of offspring at the marsh each 

year.

Diving ducks have included the scaup, canvasback, bufflehead 

and ruddy duck. Diving ducks feed either within the water 

column or by diving to the bottom for mollusks, crustaceans, 

aquatic insects and invertebrates, crayfish and, to a lesser 

degree, aquatic plants. 

Fish-eating birds have included heron, egret, grebe, tern and 

pelican. Fisheaters either wade or dive for food. Their diet, in 

addition to fish, may include crustaceans, aquatic insects, 

frogs, small vertebrates and crayfish. It was not at all a 

coincidence that a large flock of opportunistic pelicans visited 

immediately after hundreds of pounds of Sacramento blackfish 

were introduced to the marshes. 

Land birds at the marsh have included raptors, such as an 

endangered peregrine falcon that preys upon ruddy ducks and 

sandpipers. The marsh is within the peregrine‘s established territory. Seed-eating songbirds and insect 

eaters such as swallows are regular inhabitants of the marsh area. 
Gathering the Data

Marsh Influent Water Quality 1990

Range mg/l

Biochemical Oxygen Demand...........5.2-22.0

Suspended Solids...........................10.3-22.0

Oil and Greese.......................................3-10

Cyanide...........................................<.01-.04

Residual Chlorine...............................6.0-9.3

pH (Units)..........................................7.0-7.4

Arsenic..........................................<.01-.002

Cadmium.......................................<.01-.039

Chromium..............................<.00003-.0074

Lead..........................................<.0002-.036

Mercury (1)...................................<.000025

Nickel...........................................<.005-.13

Zinc...............................................<.001-.14

Selenium................................<.00005-.0022

(1) None of the 11 samples contained concentrations 

above the detection limit.

The EBRPD, EBDA and the Union Sanitary District 

(USD) are the team responsible for providing the 

treated effluent to the marsh, monitoring the water 

quality within the system and managing the wetland. 

The team's tasks include everything from analyzing 

for residual chlorine to sampling fish and aquatic 

invertebrate populations. 

One of the most beneficial aspects of the Hayward 

Marsh Project is that the team is encouraging and 

supporting research studies of the effect of effluent 

heavy metals on the marsh and its inhabitants. EBDA 

and USD have contracted with the University of 

California-Berkeley, Hayward State University and 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants to conduct a threeyear research project to study heavy metals in the 

marsh. 

Research questions and answers are complicated by 

the complexities inherent in a marsh. There are many 

chemical reactions, biological interactions and 

physical processes that take place every day in this 

172-acre marsh. The research project first has to 

identify all of the major biological organisms that 

live in the marsh. This means counting birds and 

their nests, digging up worms and other invertebrates 

that live in bottom muds, and identifying the plants 

that grow in, on, and right up through the water. 

Wetland Design Criteria

Average Daily Flow (1)..............9.68 mgd

Maximum Daily Flow (2)..........25.92 mgd

Minimum Daily Flow (3)........................0

Bay Inflow (4)..............................2.5 mgd

Total Wetland Area...................172 acres

The second step is to determine the concentration of 

metals in the water, the sediment, and the plants and 

animals living in the marsh. There are 10 metals for 

which the marsh is being tested: arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, 

silver and zinc. 

There are three methods being used to study the marsh. 

First, the wetland itself is being sampled. Second, a 
Detention Time.............................14 days

Basin 1.......................................15 acres

Marsh 2A....................................35 acres

Marsh 2B....................................35 acres

Marsh 3A....................................30 acres

Marsh 3B.....................................30 acres

Mouse Preserve...........................27 acres

(1) This is Union Sanitary District treated effluent.

(2) Maximum flows may be used as a management 

tool, such as to flush waterfowl disease bacteria 

out of hte system.

(3) The ability to shut off the flow facilitates 

maintenance.

(4) Bay water mixes with the treated effluent in 

Marshes 3A and 3B.

mesocosm or small-scale marsh located adjacent to 

Hayward Marsh is being used to create and test future 

conditions that will occur in the marsh. And third, 

laboratory experiments mimicking sediments, water 

and phytoplankton are being used to isolate and 

analyze specific metal-uptake processes that occur in 

the field. This extensive research program is partially 

funded by an $80,000 grant from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency with the remainder 

of the total research costs of $539,000 supported by 

EBDA and USD. The park district supports the 

research efforts with in-kind services. 

Trace amounts of heavy metals are a normal 

occurrence in our environment. The key questions 

research will answer include: 1) Are the metals being 

concentrated in the wetland? and 2) Are the metals 

having an adverse effect on the marsh's biota? To 

predict potential effects to the wildlife, the 

concentrations of metals in the organisms will be 

measured and then compared with published values for 

metals that have been found harmful to wildlife.

Water Quality Analyses

Parameter Daily

Basin 1

Weekly

Basins 2A, 

2B, 3A, 3B &

2x/week

Basins 1, 2A 2B

Receiving Water

Monthly

Basin Effluents 

1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 

3B &

Receiving Water

Biweekly

12 Stations in 

Marsh

Dissolved Oxygen * * . . *

Temperature * * . . *

pH * * . . *
MPN Coliform 

Bacteria

* . . . .

Ten Metals . . . * .

Total Ammonia . . * * *

Un-ionized Ammonia . . * * *

Nitrites . . * * *

Nitrate . . * . .

Salinity . . . * .

Chlorophyll a . . . * .

PAHs . . . * .

Suspended Solids . . . * .

Avian Census . . . * .

Fish Bioassay . . . * (1) .

Ten Metals Analysis: Analysis for 10 metals is being performed twice on multiple samples of sediments, 

fish, emergent and floating vegetation, phytoplankton, addled eggs, acquatic invertebrates and benthic 

invertebrates in both Hayward Marsh and the mesocosm.

(1) Effluent only
The Promise of Wastewater Wetlands

Growing numbers of communities around the 

country have created wetland projects to create 

wildlife habitat and to further treat secondary 

effluent as a low-cost, energy-efficient disposal 

alternative. This method is especially suitable for 

smaller communities with available land. 

A wastewater wetland created as a treatment 

facility will be designed differently than one built 

primarily to enhance wildlife habitat. The 

differences may be in design depths, basin 

configurations, flow rates and vegetation types. 

But a wetland built as a treatment facility may also 

yield other benefits. It may be useful for some 

wildlife and may provide recreational trails. 

Likewise, a wastewater wetland created for 

wildlife habitat may also improve the quality of 

water that flows through it to the sea. 

The Hayward Marsh Expansion Project is a case-in-point of innovative engineering and science applied 

to the conversion of secondary wastewater effluent into a resource; a project that holds great promise for 

a growing environmental problem. 
This brochure was created with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Requisition 

No. A22190. 

Robert Bastian, U.S. EPA

............Project Officer

Francesca Demgen, Woodward-Clyde Consultants

............Project Manager

Mark Taylor, EBRPD

............Photographer
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Orlando, FL - Wetland Treatment Systems: A Case 

History - The Orlando Easterly Wetlands 

Reclamation Project

Introduction

Project Background

Siting Considerations

Permitting Considerations

Wildlife Considerations

Developing the Wetlands

Wetland Components

Measuring Success

Community Acceptance

Project Information
A Case History: Orlando Easterly Wetlands 

Reclamation Project

Introduction

Project Location.

Wetlands have been the victim of progress in America. Research 

indicates that less than half of the 215 million acres of wetlands 

originally present in the United States prior to settlement 

remained by the mid 1970s. Much of this loss is due to the 

conversion of wetland areas into farmland. 

Today, wetlands are recognized as a valuable natural resource. 

They help maintain the quality of our environment; provide 

habitat for a variety of plants and animals, including rare and 

endangered species; and offer a number of socio-economic 

benefits, ranging from flood protection to recreation 

opportunities. 

In operation since 1987, the Orlando 

Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project 

has demonstrated its successs as a 

treatment facilility, reuse project, and 

wildlife habitat.

The critical role which wetlands can play in reclaiming valuable 

freshwater resources is also recognized. Unlike the technology 

of the late 1960s and 1970s, which focused on the disposal of 

wastewater effluents as quickly and efficiently as possible 

(usually through discharge into streams, lakes, or oceans), 

wetlands treatment technology involves passing wastewater 

effluent or stormwater runoff through a wetland system. By 

acting as a natural filter for the pollutants that remain even in 

advanced treated wastewater effluent, wetland systems can 

polish the effluent so that it can be safely returned to fresh water 

sources. 

One of the largest constructed wetland treatment systems built to 

date is the Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project. Post, 

Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) served as design 

engineers for the City of Orlando, Florida. Background issues, 

special considerations, and performance results from this award-winning facility are discussed next. 
Project Background

The Orlando Easterly Wetlands was constructed 

on pasture land in an area which had been a 

natural wetland prior to human settlement and 

cattle grazing

The Little Econlockhatchee (Little Econ) is a primary 

tributary to the Econlockhatchee River (Econ), which in 

turn is a primary tributary to the St. Johns River (SJR). The 

SJR system drains portions of the middle and upper east 

coast of Florida to the Atlantic Ocean. Over the years, 

much of the floodplain around both the SJR and the Econ 

system has been altered by drainage systems and 

subsequently converted to grazing lands for cattle. By 

1980, 16 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the 

eastern Orange County area, discharged either primary or 

secondary effluent to the Little Econ. 

The effects of these WWTP discharges on the Little Econ 

included decreased dissolved oxygen levels and the 

occurrence of Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth), 

Hydrilla verticillata, Najas guadalupensis, the duckweeds, 

and Panicum spp. which at times completely covered sections of the channel in the Econ system, and 

also contributed to frequent algae blooms in Lake Harney, a node within the SJR. (Located about one 

mile downstream of the confluence with the Econ, Lake Harney serves as a key indicator of water quality 

conditions in the Econ watershed.) 

As part of a commitment to improve water quality conditions in the Little Econ, the City of Orlando 

began construction of an advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plant which would replace a number of 

the existing package plants. By 1980, Phase I of the Iron Bridge Regional Water Pollution Control 

Facility (WPCF) was underway. 

Iron Bridge WPCF

Original Permit Conditions

BOD5 5 mg/L (1001 lb/d)

TSS 5 mg/L (1001 lb/d)

TN 3 mg/L (600 lb/d)

TP 1 mg/L (200 lb/d)

Permit regulations imposed on the Iron Bridge WPCF by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP) were very stringent. Limitations for 

both effluent concentrations and loadings were based on the Phase I flow 

rate of 24 MGD. This meant that the capacity of future expansions to the 

treatment plant would be severely limited by the allowable effluent 

loading criteria in the USEPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) and FDEP permits, or the City would have to find an 

alternative discharge point. 

Faced with a growing population and the need for additional wastewater 

treatment capacity, the City sought alternative effluent disposal options. An analysis of potential options 

was completed in 1984. The overall scope of the study included an investigation of such disposal options 

as deep well and aquifer injection, spray irrigation, moving the discharge point to another sub-basin of 
the SJR system, water hyacinth treatment, and both natural and constructed wetlands treatment. 

The conclusions of this study ranked the construction of a wetland for effluent disposal adjacent to the 

floodplain of the SJR as the number one alternative. Selection criteria included economics, restoration of 

previously lost wetlands, and creation of a wild-life habitat. 
Siting Considerations

Critical to the successful design of the City's wetland system was 

the selection of an appropriate location. The site selected was 

about 1,640 acres in size and located about two miles west of the 

main channel of the SJR. Review of historical data, including 

surveys conducted in the late 1850s, indicated that much of the 

site was previously part of the wetland system adjacent to the SJR. 

An elaborate series of ditches had been used to drain the site when 

it was converted to pastureland shortly after the turn of the century 

. Since this conversion, it had been operated as a cattle ranch. 

Using this site meant that more than 1,200 acres of land would be 

restored to its natural wetland state. 

Soil characteristics were another important consideration in site location. The surficial soils at the City's 

wetland system are generally fine sands underlain by clayey soils. The depth of the clayey soils range 

from the surface to several feet below the soil surface, and tend to restrict water movement downward to 

the groundwater. 

A hydraulic gradient that exists across the site directs groundwater flows toward the east, away from 

residential wells located west of the site. 

Berms divide the 1,220-acre wetland system into treatment cells which 

provide additional nutrient removal to treated effluent passing through 

the site.

At the time the City acquired the site, 

most of the on-site surface waters were 

routed to a main canal that drained to a 

backwater area of the SJR. The course 

of the main canal bisected a natural 

wetland owned by the St. Johns River 

Water Management District 

(SJRWMD) known as Seminole Ranch. 

This canal formed part of a stormwater 

management system on the SJRWMD 

land that altered the natural wetland 

such that transitional and upland 

vegetation were invading the site. 

By using the discharge waters from the City's wetland treatment system, wetland hydrology on about 600 

acres of the Seminole Ranch is being restored. Today, the water discharged from the City's wetland 

moves by sheet flow through Seminole Ranch prior to discharge into the SJR. 

Existing topography was also a key consideration in selecting the project site. With a topographic 

gradient of about 15 feet across the site, the land slopes downward from the west to the east. The wetland 
design used this gradient to divide the site into seventeen cells such that the average drop in elevation 

across each cell was limited to approximately three feet. This allows each treatment cell within the 

wetland system to be operated at dry season and wet season water depths that could range from sheet 

flow to a maximum depth of three to five feet. 
Permitting Considerations

Anhingas and other bird species find the 

Orlando Easterly Wetlands to be a safe 

haven for raising their young.

Fluctuating water levels are critical for the maintenance of 

desired plant communities within wetland treatment systems. 

The primary objective in designing the City's system was to 

use macrophytic communities to facilitate additional nutrient 

removal for up to 20 mgd of treated effluent from the Iron 

Bridge WPCF. The original permit issued by FDEP limited 

flow to 8 mgd, due in part to the untested nature of the system. 

Flow increases of about 3 to 5 mgd to a maximum of 20 mgd 

are being permitted by FDEP as the system demonstrates its 

ability to operate successfully at each increase. The current 

system is operating at a flow rate of 13 mgd, and the City has 

received approval from FDEP to increase flow to 16 mgd. 

FDEP and USEPA did not allow the City to use existing 

permit conditions or wasteload allocations as the basis for nutrient limitations of the wetland discharge. 

This situation was largely due to the continued degradation of water quality conditions in Lake Harney. 

The USEPA NPDES and FDEP permits require that the wetlands' discharge meets existing background 

water quality conditions in nearby natural wetlands as well as complies with the loadings established 

under the wasteload allocation for discharges to the Little Econ. 

The City conducted a 2.5-year water quality study in conjunction with the SJRWMD and FDEP to 

estimate the nitrogen and phosphorus limits for the wetland's operating permits. The nitrogen and 

phosphorus permit limits generated by this study are 2.31 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L, respectively. 

Wildlife Considerations

A secondary objective of the Orlando Easterly Wetlands project was the creation of a wildlife habitat. 

During the conceptual design phase, the wildlife management area was thought of as a function of the 

wetland treatment process rather than as a specific plan for specific wildlife species. However, as 

permitting and design proceeded, wildlife issues shifted from simple descriptions of potential species 

occurrences in the general area of the wetland to the design of specific habitat types. This inclusion of 

areas designed as a wildlife habitat within the City's wetland system allows the project to serve as a 

valuable wildlife refuge and opens up the site for other uses in addition to wastewater treatment and 

disposal. 
Developing the Wetlands

Approximately 1,220 acres of the project site were developed into the Orlando Easterly Wetlands project. 

The system is divided into seventeen cells oriented across the site so that the first twelve cells comprise 

about one-third of the total project area. The mixed marsh includes three cells that also comprise about 

one-third of the total area. The remaining two cells form the hardwood swamp. The cells were defined by 

constructing a series of earthen berms and were planted using about 2.1 million aquatic wetland plants. 

Vegetation originally planted in the wetland are shown in Figure 2. 

All fill material used to construct the berms was excavated from a borrow pit (shown as the lake in 

Figure 1) located in the eastern part of the site. The habitat potential of the lake is enhanced by the use of 

an irregular shoreline, the varied slope of the littoral zone, the varied water depths (e.g., the rim ditch 

used to de-water the site was left in place and now averages up to 45 feet deep), and the placement of 

construction debris within the lake for fisheries habitat. 

The system began operation in September 1987. AWT effluent is pumped about 7 miles from the Iron 

Bridge WPCF to a three-way splitter box at the wetland system, after which the water flows by gravity to 

the outfall structure. Rectangular weir structures are used to control the flow internally; two-inch flash 

boards are removed or inserted as needed. The berm design includes a three-foot freeboard capacity for 
storage of stormwater inputs. This design allows the operators to 

control the flows into and out of any given cell without 

influencing the operation of the remaining areas of the wetland 

treatment system. The average travel time through the Orlando 

Easterly Wetlands varies from about 21 days during the dry 

season to about 65 days during the rainy season. 
Wetland Components

Figure 2

Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation 

Project Species Planted

Red Maple (Acer rubrum)

Water hyssop (Bacopa caroliniana)

Canna (Canna flaccida)

Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense)

Spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa)

Pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)

Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine)

Blue flag (Iris hexagona)

Soft rush (Juncu s effusus)

Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)

Sweet bay (Magnolia virginica)

Stone wort (Nitella sp.)

Cow lily (Nuphar luteum)

Water lily (Nymphaea odorata)

Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)

Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon)

Knot grass (Paspalum distichum)

Smartweed (Polygonum punctatum)

Pickerelweek (Pontederia cordata)

Pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis)

Swamp laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)

Arrowhead (Sagittaria graminae)

Arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia)

Water enters the Orlando Easterly Wetlands system through 

the 12 cells that form the deep marsh. The deep marsh cells 

generally have an average depth of 3 to 3.5 feet and were 

planted with cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus 

spp.). These areas were planned as cattail communities at 

the conceptual design stage, because the scientific literature 

at the time provided more information about using this 

species than any other species for wastewater treatment. 

Bulrush and Cattail communities remove and store most of the nutrients 

from effluent entering the wetland system.

Because cattails are potentially capable of competitively 

eliminating other native plant species and consequently 

reducing the diversity of the emergent plant communities in 

the SJR basin, the SJRWMD voiced concern about the 

formation of such a large cattail community so near to the 

SJR. In response, PBS&J designed a large-scale in-situ 

experiment for the City to test the treatment capabilities and 

competitive effects of cattail versus bulrush communities. 

As a result, the first 12 cells of the City's system are planted 

with either cattails, bulrush, or a combination of the two. 

To date, the results indicate there are subtle differences 

between the two plant species relative to water quality 

improvement. The bulrush cells appear to have a slightly 
Three-square bulrush (Scripus 

americanus)

Giant bulrush (S. Californicus)

Soft stem bulrush (S. Validus)

Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens)

Thalia (Thanlis geniculata)

Cattail (Typha domingensis)

Cattail (T. latifolia)

Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)

greater nutrient uptake capacity than the cattail cells. The 

bulrush also have proven to be more tolerant of water level 

fluctuations than the cattails. The deep marsh cells are 

designed to take advantage of the microbial communities 

associated with the littoral zones within the cattail and 

bulrush communities to remove and store most of the 

nutrients entering the wetland system. 

The deep marsh cells are followed by three mixed marsh 

cells. The mixed marsh is designed as a transition point 

between the water treatment aspects of the wetland 

treatment system and those associated more closely with 

wildlife habitat. Approximately 30 plant species were 

planted in the mixed marsh cells, and approximately 100 

other species have become self established from the seed bank or off-site wetlands since system start-up. 

More than 200 animals species use 

the Orlando Easterly Wetland as 

habitat today.

Overall, the vegetative communities within the mixed marsh cells 

provide a very diverse habitat structure. The mixed marsh cells act 

as a nutrient polishing step to the deep marsh cells and maintain 

nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations at lower levels than those 

found in the deep marsh. An apparent difference in the nutrient 

removal processes in the deep marsh and mixed marsh cells is that 

the former relies more on bacterial uptake while algae are more 

dominant in the latter. 

The final component of the Orlando Easterly Wetlands system is the 

hardwood swamp. This area is specifically designed as a wildlife 

habitat area. About 160,000 trees were planted throughout the cells, 

intermixed with an understory similar to that typical of the mixed 

marsh. In addition, an existing cypress (Taxodium spp.) head was 

preserved, and the lake, developed from the borrow pit, was located 

within these cells. Although the hardwood swamp cells were not 

expected to play a significant role in the nutrient uptake before 

system start-up, they have since proven to produce a net release of 

phosphorus back into the water column. This release of phosphorus 

can be partially attributed to the number of rookeries located within 

these cells. The nesting bird species typically found in the rookeries 

include several heron and egret species. 
Measuring Success

Wetland system designers included an 

operational plan for maintaining 

target communities and refuges for 

forage species.

In 1984, at the conclusion of the initial study which examined 

disposal alternatives, the City established the goal of creating a 

wetland treatment system that would provide both effluent polishing 

and a wildlife management area. Since system start-up, the 

performance of the Orlando Easterly Wetlands relative to nitrogen 

and phosphorus uptake and storage has been better than originally 

predicted by the design (see Table 1). 

The data in Table 1 show that the Orlando Easterly Wetlands project 

has consistently discharged a water quality that is better than the 

permit requirements. The discharge has, in fact, been statistically 

equal (æ < 0.05) to the water quality conditions in the SJR, both 

upstream and downstream of the discharge point (see Table 2). These 

data indicate that the system has acted to recover a resource-- fresh 

water--that now is being used to hydrologically restore the SJRWMD 

wetland site. 

The annual performance of the system is shown by the data in Tables 

3 and 4, with reference to Figure 1 for the station locations. These 

data indicate the system has performed very well for the first four years of operation. This can be 

partially attributed to the level of commitment by the City of Orlando to operate the system as a 

treatment process and as a wildlife habitat area. Operational procedures, such as varying water depths, 

employed by the project have attempted to minimize nutrient releases while maximizing the ability of the 

wetland treatment system to remove and store nutrients. The data in Table 4 also show that phosphorus 

concentrations are reduced to about 0.05 mg/L at the discharge point from the mixed marsh. 

Water quality data are only one indication of the success of the Orlando Easterly system. Another 

measure of success is the diversity of the system and the array of wildlife species attracted by this 

diversity. 
Table 1

TN and TP Discharge 

Concentrations*

. Flow 

(mgd)

TN 

(mg/L)

TP 

(mg/L)

FDEP 13.00 2.31 0.200

1988 10.00 0.84 0.095

1989 13.33 0.92 0.076

1990 13.28 0.93 0.090

1991 12.90 0.80 0.087

* This table compares the first four 

years of compliance data for the 

Orlando Easterly Wetlands project with 

the current FDEP permit criteria for TN 

and TP discharges. Flows shown 

represent influent discharges to the 

wetland system.

Figure 4

Orlando Easterly Wetlands 

Reclamation Project Observed 

State and Federally Listed 

Animal Species

Roseate spoonbill

Limpkin

Gree-backed heron

Little blue heron

Snowy egret

Tricolored heron

Peregrine falcon

Florida sandhill crane

Woodstork

Everglades snail kite

American alligator

Eastern indigo snake

The system has demonstrated that if properly managed, a constructed wetland can be used for water 

treatment, water quality improvement, and diverse wildlife habitat. In fact, data collected to date indicate 

that the system may attract more species than surrounding natural wetlands and generally may support a 

higher resident population than similar natural habitat areas (see Figure 3). The latter can be directly 

attributed to the higher productivity rates within the system. 

The design of the Orlando Easterly Wetlands includes the preservation of upland areas around the site. 

Maintenance of the upland/wetland ecotone has increased the value of the potential habitat for wetlanddependent species. 

The design also included an operational plan, i.e. managing water depths for maintaining the hydroperiod 

(optimal water depths and duration) for targeted vegetative communities in the system. This plan 

addresses procedures for maintaining the refuges for the forage species, which ultimately will lead to 

stabilizing the habitat of higher wildlife species such as birds, alligators, and otters. 

Another measure of the Orlando wetlands success is the number of listed species which use the site 

(shown in Figure 4). To date, 145 bird species have been observed on site and 10 of these species are 

state or federally listed and are currently utilizing the system as part of their habitat. The sandhill crane 

and Everglades kite have successfully nested in the wetlands and fledged young during the third and 

fourth years of operation. This usage pattern of the wildlife habitat also serves as an on-going natural 

bioassay of the system, showing that the water quality goals have been met in full. 
Table 2

Comparison of TN and TP Discharge Concentrations with the Annual Averages of Receiving 

Waters

(First Four Years)

. TN (mg/L) .............. TP (mg/L)

. 1988 1989 1990 1991 . 1988 1989 1990 1991

HS10 0.84 0.92 0.93 0.80 . 0.095 0.076 0.090 0.087

SJR1 0.87 0.88 1.08 1.05 . 0.137 0.074 0.098 0.053

SJR5 0.87 0.89 0.89 1.09 . 0.149 0.071 0.084 0.116

SR 0.95 1.00 1.09 1.06 . 0.117 0.070 0.080 0.067

HS10 = Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project Discharge

SJR1 = Station in the St. Johns River Upstream of HS10

SJR5 = Station in the St. Johns River Downstream of HS10

SR = Average Annual Concentration for Seminole Ranch Monitoring Stations

Table 3

Comparison of TN Annual Averages Through the Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation 

Project

(First Four Years)

Nitrogen (mg/L)

Station (1) 1988 1989 1990 1991 Area (2)

WP1 4.18 5.52 2.83 2.44 0

WP3 1.53 1.92 0.98 2.20 11

WP4,5 1.51 1.74 1.00 1.02 16

WP6 1.27 1.59 1.09 1.11 32

MM8 0.96 1.22 1.19 1.25 67

HS10 0.84 0.92 0.93 0.90 100

.

(1) These stations include influent and effluent samples in addition to four internal strat.

(2) Area equals the percent of wetland area upstream of the listed sample station.

Table 4

(First Four Years)
Phosphorus (mg/L)

Station (1) 1988 1989 1990 1991 Area (2)

WP1 0.572 0.720 0.41 0.23 0

WP3 0.103 0.080 0.16 0.37 11

WP4,5 0.102 0.065 0.14 0.12 16

WP6 0.106 0.070 0.11 0.11 32

MM8 0.091 0.050 0.05 0.06 67

HS10 0.095 0.076 0.09 0.087 100

.

(1) These stations include influent and effluent samples in addition to four internal strat.

(2) Area equals the percent of wetland area upstream of the listed sample station.
Community Acceptance

Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project Awards

1987 PBS&J Project Excellence Award

1988 Florida Institue of Consulting Engineers Excellence Award

ACEC Excellence in Engineering Award

1990 FDEP Secretary's Award, Florida Department of Environmental 

Regulation

1990 State of Florida Governor's Environmental Award

1992 Water Environment Federation Outstanding Achievement Award 

(included with other City achievements) over the past 10 years 

Orlando Easterly Wetlands 

Reclamation Project Costs

Land Acquisition.........$4,411,000 

Wetlands Development

.......... Structural...........4,232,000

.......... Vegetation.............750,000 

Force Main...................8,491,000 

Effluent Pump 

Station....1,982,000 

Engineering....................1,659,000 

Total.........................$21,525,000 

The success of the Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation Project is 

attributed not only to its success as a wastewater treatment facility and 

reuse project, but also to the benefits it offers surrounding communities. 

For visitors who wish to enjoy the beauty of Florida wildlife in a natural 

habitat, a portion of the project functions as a wilderness park with 

nature trails and seasonal camping facilities which are open from midJanuary through September. 

For area schools with environmental educations programs, it serves as a 

natural laboratory and research facility. The result is a project which 

exemplifies the current trend toward socially responsible environmental 

management. 

Acknowledgements

Photo courtesy of Seth Blitch

Numerous individuals have shared in the efforts to create and 

implement the Orlando Easterly Wetlands Reclamation 

Project. Listed below are some of the key groups and 

individuals: 

USEPA

Robert K. Bastian

Office of Wastewater Management

Washington, D.C. 

City of Orlando, FL

Bill Frederick, Mayor

Robert C. Haven, P.E.

..........Chief Administrative Officer

Thomas L. Lothrop, P.E.

..........Director, Environmental Services

Elizabeth T. Skene, P.E.

..........Assistant Bureau Chief, Wastewater

Alan R. Oyler, P.E.

..........Assistant Bureau Chief, Wastewater

William P. Allman

..........Manager, Iron Bridge WPCF

FDEP

Alex Alexander, P.E.

..........Disrtrict Director, Central District

Carlos Rivero deAguilar, P.E.

..........Program Administrator for Water Facilities

Christianne Ferraro, P.E. 

..........Program Manager for Domestic Waste

James Hulbert

..........Environmental Administrator

PBS&J

Phillip E. Searcy, P.E.

..........Senior Executive Vice President

JoAnn Jackson, P.E.

..........Project Engineer

Seth B. Blitch

..........Project Biologist
John S. Shearer, P.E.

..........Director of Environmental Services

Prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.

1560 Orange Ave., 

Suite 700 

Winter Park, FL 32789 

(407) 647-7275 

Editors:

Jon C. Dyer, P.E.

Kathe Jackson 

EPA Project Officer: Robert K. Bastian 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lakeland, FL - Wetland Treatment Systems: A Case 

History - The Lakeland Wetland Treatment System

Introduction

Project Background

Wetland Design

Site Conditions

Operational Results

Project Information
A Case History: Lakeland Wetland Treatment 

System

Introduction

Figure 1

Plan view of the site showing the relative locations of the 

internal cells.

Click on picture for larger image.

The City of Lakeland (City) operates a 1,400 acre 

wetland treatment system located just |east of the 

town of Mulberry, Florida. The wetland system 

serves as the final treatment process for the City 

of Lakeland's 10.8 mgd Glendale Wastewater 

Treatment Plant and their 4.0 mgd Northside 

Wastewater Treatment Plant. These treatment 

plants serve a combined population of 

approximately 79,000 people within the city 

limits, as well as portions of the unincorporated 

areas of Polk County. 

Many of the natural upland and wetland 

communities within Polk County and the 

surrounding counties have been replaced by 

agricultural and industrial development. Citrus 

and phosphate mining industries have altered the 

landscape around Lakeland to a greater extent 

than any other development activity. The 

phosphate mines have provided the most dramatic 

changes to the lands in Polk County by not only eliminating the natural ecosystems, but also by 

significantly altering the topographic nature of these areas. 

Restoration efforts within most of the abandoned mine sites have been limited in scope at best, since no 

real efforts generally are made to restore the original topography and vegetative communities. Instead, 

upland areas are normally replanted as monoculture pine forests, while most aquatic areas are comprised 

of lakes formed in unfilled mine pits. Most emergent wetland communities are restricted to the littoral 

zones of the lakes or are usually dominated by monoculture stands of cattails (Typha spp.) and/or 

Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana). 
Project Background

Originally, the City began treating wastewater on the Glendale site in 1926 using a 2.5 mgd primary 

treatment plant. This plant began discharging effluent to Banana Lake via Stahl Canal, a practice that 

continued for more than 65 years. In 1939 the City upgraded the treatment plant with trickling filters to 

achieve secondary treatment. In the late 1950's and 1960's, the City rebuilt the trickling filters and 

expanded the facility to 10 mgd. The City began diverting up to 5.5 mgd of effluent from the Glendale 

treatment plant to the newly constructed C.D. McIntosh Jr. Power Plant for use as cooling water. In 1981 

effluent pumped to the power plant was further treated on the power plant site and discharged (rapid 

infiltration) to the surficial aquifer adjacent to Lake Parker, thereby reducing the flows and loadings to 

Banana Lake. In 1988, the City expanded the wastewater treatment system to include its newly 

constructed 4.0 mgd Northside plant. When the Northside plant went on-line, it became the primary 

source of cooling water for the power plant. 

One of the lakes located at the 

downstream end of the 

wetlands.

The sustained effluent discharge to Banana Lake, along with agricultural 

development in the Banana Lake watershed, severely degraded the water 

quality of the lake and down stream waterways. Early in 1983, the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) indicated that 

the City's discharge permit to Banana Lake would not be renewed due to 

water quality problems in the lake. For this reason, both FDEP and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) negotiated compliance 

schedules with the City to cease discharging effluent to Stahl Canal and 

Banana Lake. 

Faced with compliance schedules to cease discharging to Banana Lake, 

the City retained Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) to 

develop and evaluate viable effluent disposal alternatives. Analysis of these alternatives indicated that 

disposal via an artificial wetland system would be the most cost effective method of effluent disposal for 

the existing Glendale plant. The Glendale facility has since been rerated to 10.8 MGD. The wetland site 

selected includes 1,600 acres that were formally used by W.R. Grace Inc. as a phosphate settling area. 

The site is characterized by a series of seven cells surrounded by levees. (See Figure 1.) Process waters 

from the previous mining operation were recycled through the cells to settle solids out of the water 

column. Overflow from the recycle system is discharged to the Alafia River. This process created a soil 

gradient across the cells where course-grained sands settled on the influent side of cells 1, 2, and 3, while 

fine clayey sediments settled on the effluent side of the cells. The settling process also created a 

significant topographic gradient in the first three cells that slope downward from the influent to effluent 

sides of the cell. The sediments in cells 4 through 7 are predominately nearly level fine clayey soils. A 

shallow lake still exists on the downstream side of Cell 5, while cells 6 and 7 remain as deep lakes. 
Figure 2. The influent structure aerates the water as it enters 

the wetland.
Wetland Design

Weirs located along berms 

covered with grout-filled fabric 

revetments distribute flow into 

the cells 2 and 3.

Since 1987, approximately 1,400 acres of the project site have been used 

as part of the wetland treatment system. This area provides a permitted 

treatment capacity of 14 mgd of secondary effluent, although the current 

flows average approximately 8.0 mgd. Effluent is pumped from the 

Glendale plant polishing ponds through 6.4 miles of force main to the 

wetland system. In 1989, the influent to the wetland system was 

augmented by the inclusion of blow down waters from the Unit No. 3 

cooling tower at the McIntosh Power Plant, along with periodic 

discharges from the ash ponds. Blow down waters from the power plant 

are mixed with effluent from the wastewater treatment plants at the 

Glendale plant and are then pumped to the wetland. 

The H-flume outlet structure controls 

flows leaving the wetlands.

The introduction of the cooling waters and the ash pond effluent 

has significantly increased the total dissolved solids 

concentrations to the wetland. As an example, the average 

annual influent conductivity levels have increased. 

The influent enters the wetland through a cascade inlet structure, 

as shown in Figure 2. The inlet structure is designed to aerate 

the influent waters through turbulent fall down the structure's 13 

steps. The flow is split at the inlet structure between two 

Fabriform lined ditches that lie along the eastern boundary 

(influent side) of Cell 1. Water is discharged from the 

distribution ditches through weirs located every 100 feet along 

the ditch. Flow rates through individual weirs can be controlled 

by the addition or removal of flashboards. Once the water passes 

through the cell it is collected and discharged to Cell 2. This general pass through and collection system 

is repeated in cells 2 and 3. These three cells have the greatest change in topography. This system helps 

better distribute flow in these cells.. Cells 4 through 7 do not have distribution ditches. An H-flume outlet 

structure located at the south end of Cell 7 is used to monitor and control flows leaving the wetland site. 

A meteorological station provides data to assist in the preparation of annual water budgets for the 

wetland. 
Site Conditions

In operation since 1987, the Lakeland 

Wetland Treatment System offers wildlife 

a natural habitat.

When the City assumed control of the wetland site, much of the 

interior of cells 1 through 4 were covered by cattails and Carolina 

willow. Upland islands within the cells generally were vegetated 

by undesirable grass/herbaceous species, and in some areas by 

pine (Pinus spp.) and live oak (Quercus virginiana) tree species. 

Vegetation in the upstream areas of Cell 5 was a mixture of 

cattails and Carolina willow, while the downstream half of the 

cell was a shallow lake system that was ringed by a dense 

population of water hyacinths (Eichhornia crassipes). Densities 

of algal populations in this lake often created a lime green color 

in the open water areas. 

Although minimal disruption of the existing wetland vegetation 

within the treatment cells resulted from the construction 

activities, restoration grant monies received by the City from the 

Florida Department of Natural Resources were used to plant trees 

including black gum, red maple, sweet bay, swamp laurel oak, bald cypress, dahoon holly, and pop ash, 

within certain areas of cells 1 through 5. Secondly, the water hyacinths were removed from Cell 7 in 

response to concerns, voiced by the Polk County Environmental Services Division, that operation of the 

wetland system would increase mosquito production in areas covered by water hyacinths. 

The areas along the eastern sides of cells 1 and 2 were originally barren sands or sparsely covered by 

upland grass species. These were the only areas planted with herbaceous wetland vegetation during 

construction. In both cells the pre-construction vegetation was cleared to allow the site to be graded. 

Initially, the highly permeable sandy soils made it difficult to establish wetland vegetation in these areas. 

However, after five years of operation both areas now support dense communities of wetland vegetation. 
Operational Results

Table 1.

Water quality results for the first four years of 

operation

. Parameter

. BOD

(mg/L)

TSS

(mg/L)

TN 

(mg/L)

TP 

(mg/L)

Influent 3.88 5.60 10.36 9.05

G3 1.14 1.74 2.79 6.54

Effluent 3.12 4.70 1.99 4.22

Original 

Goals 5.0 10.0 3.0 Exempt

Existing 

Permit 

Conditions

5.0 5.0 3.0 mpt

* Effluent phosphorus limits are exempted due to 

the high background phosphorus levels in the 

receiving stream. 

Project Capital Costs

The original design objectives for the wetland 

treatment system were to improve the City's 

effluent quality beyond the secondary level 

(shown in Table 1 as Original Goals). Since startup of the wetland system, state legislation was 

enacted that required the wetland to meet even 

more advanced wastewater treatment levels (also 

shown in Table1 as Existing Permit Conditions). 

Table 1 provides a summary of the influent 

BOD, TSS, TN & TP concentrations, water 

quality after passing through the first two cells 

(represented by station G3) that are primarily 

emergent wetlands, and the final effluent 

discharge structure. The average annual 

concentrations for the first four years of 

operation are presented, as well as the FDEP and 

USEPA permit limits. As shown, the wetland 

effluent quality has consistently met the permit 

limits, with the exception of TSS for 1990 and 

1991. This can be at least partially attributed to 

increased algal populations in the last four cells 

within the wetland. Cell 7 previously was 

covered by water hyacinths, which served to 

limit the concentration of algae near the effluent 

structure. The removal of the water hyacinths in 

response to county concerns has allowed the 

algal concentrations to increase which appears to 

interfere with the wetlands ability to maintain 

TSS concentrations below permit limits. The 

City currently is working with FDEP, USEPA, 

and PBS&J to lower water levels in cells 3 

through 6, and to increase the density and 

distribution of macrophytic vegetation in cells 4 

through 7. Increased densities of macrophytic 

vegetation in the latter four cells should help 

limit the density of algae in these cells and, 

consequently, reduce their contribution to TSS in 

the effluent. 

The wetland also has provided habitat for a 
Wetland . $3,100,000

Pipeline . $2,800,000

Pump Station . $780,000

Total . $6,680,000 

variety of 

wildlife 

species. 

Most 

notable 

are the 

large 

rookeries 

formed by 

wood 

storks (Mycteria americana), white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), cormorants (Phalacrocorax 

auritus) anhingas (Anhinga anhinga), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and several egret and heron species 

on the upland islands within cells 5, 6, and 7. In addition, there are several bobcat (Felix rufus) and otter 

(Lutra canadensis) families now living within the boundaries of the wetland. 
The wide variety of wildlife inhabitint the wetlands includes anhinga and 

numerous other waterfowl.

Acknowledgements

Numerous individuals have contributed to the success of the Lakeland Wetland Treatment System. Listed 

below are some of the key groups and individuals. 

City of Lakeland

John K. Allison, former Public Works Director

Virgil Caballero, Wastewater Superintendent

David Hill, Project Biologist

FDEP

Edward G. Snipes Jr. , Permit Coordinator

G.J. Thabaraj, Engineer

Bhupendra Vora, Grants Coordinator USEPA

PBS&J

R. Morrell, Project Director

M. Walch, Project Manager 

K. Keefer, Project Engineer 

J. Jackson, Project Engineer

USEPA

Robert K. Bastian
Office of Wastewater Management

Washington, D.C. 

Prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.

1560 Orange Ave., Suite 700 

Winter Park, FL 32789 

(407) 647-7275 

Editors:

Jon C. Dyer, P.E.

John S. Shearer, P.E., Director, Environmental Services
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Incline Village, NV - Incline Village General 

Improvement District Wetlands Enhancement 

Facility: A Total Evaporative Constructed Wetland 

Treatment/Disposal System

Background

Site Description

Operations and Management

Performance

Ancillary Benefits

Acknowledgements
Background

The Incline Village Wetlands Enhancement Facility is located 

south of Carson City, Nevada, about 10 miles east of Lake 

Tahoe.

Incline Village, Nevada, uses a constructed 

wetland for disposal of secondary effluent. 

Starting with an existing, mineralized, warmwater wetland near Minden, Nevada, the 

Incline Village General Improvement District 

developed a system which uses natural 

processes both to renovate wastewater and 

benefit wildlife. With this system, Incline 

Village can meet several goals to protect the 

environment: 

● dispose of treated effluent effectively 

and economically 

● expand the existing wetland habitat for 

wildlife 

● provide an educational experience for 

visitors 

Until 1975, effluent treated at the Incline 

Village General Improvement District's 3.0-

mgd activated sludge plant was exported from 

the Lake Tahoe Basin and discharged into the 

Carson River during the winter and used for 

irrigation of hay fields during the summer. 

A discharge permit issued in 1975 required either more stringent treatment standards or a year-round, 

land-based disposal system. In 1979, a facility plan funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and prepared by CH2M HILL recommended meeting a zero surface discharge standard by using 

land application during the growing season and constructed wetland enhancement during the remainder 

of the year. Local agency reviews and public hearings were held, and the wetland concept was finally 

approved in 1982. The project was designed by the environmental engineering firm, Culp·Wesner·Culp, 

with technical assistance from Dr. Robert Kadlec of the Wetlands Research Group. The design was 

completed in 1983 and construction was finished in November 1984. 
A resident population of 

Canada geese use the berms 

and islands for nesting.

A 20-mile pipeline carries the treated effluent from the treatment plant to 

the Wetlands Enhancement Facility. Constructed wetland cells, berms, a 

flood dike, and a distribution ditch are the main components of the 

system. The 770-acre site is made up of several distinct areas: 

● constructed wetlands 

● natural warm-water wetlands 

● seasonal storage/waterfowl areas 

● effluent storage area 

● upland area

Eight constructed wetland cells are the primary disposal area for the 

treated effluent. There is no surface discharge from the wetland disposal 

area because of evaporative water losses. Each cell has a deep channel 

down its center that discourages growth of emergent vegetation and 

furnishes a landing area for waterfowl. Islands within this channel serve 

as nesting sites. 

Wetland treatment cells with islands were 

constructed around the existing warm-water 

wetlands.

The natural warm-water 

wetland provides a natural 

habitat for plants and animals and is not part of the disposal 

process. 

The seasonal storage/waterfowl areas store excess water 

during periods of low evaporation and high rainfall. They are 

dry during summer and fall, except for a small ponded area 

fed by warm-water springs. Three islands in this area provide 

nesting habitat for waterfowl. Each of the islands was 

planted to provide food, screened areas, and trees for birds. 

The 2.8-million-gallon effluent storage area is used only 

during high flows or heavy rainfall. The 200-acre upland area is used to dispose of effluent by spray 

irrigation during extended rainy weather. 
Operations and Management

The treated effluent passes through the 390-acre system of wetland cells and is disposed of through 

evaporation, transpiration (evaporation through plants), and percolation (seepage through soil). The 

system works in harmony with the existing warm-water wetlands, adapts well to year-round fluctuations 

in weather and temperature, and meets state and EPA water-quality requirements while avoiding surface 

discharge to the Carson River. 

Effluent flows from Cell 1 through Cells 2, 3, and 4 before overflowing to the distribution ditch. 

Overflows from Cells 3 and 4 are diverted to Cell 5 for storage and evaporation. Water that must be 

stored is held in Cells 6, 7, and 8. 

Using weather instrumentation and monitoring equipment, plant operators determine rainfall, 

evapotranspiration and percolation rates, and groundwater quality. These data are used to estimate the 

evaporation rates at the site and to determine compliance with groundwater quality standards. 

The size of the constructed wetland needed for evapotranspiration and percolation of effluent was 

determined by calculating several water balances for the site. Evaporation rates were estimated with the 

Penman method and were based on limited data available for the area. Subtracting the evapotranspiration 

and percolation from the rainfall yielded the net water loss from the site. Dividing the net water loss into 

the effluent volume gave an estimate of the required acreage. 

Percolation is critical to successful operation of the project. At least 1.1 inches of percolation per month 

is required at the projected flow rate. If percolation occurs at this rate, only 175 acres are needed to treat 

the effluent. If percolation does not occur, as much as 450 acres would be required. 
The Incline Village Wetlands Enhancement Facility includes a total of 770 acres of wetlands and uplands.
Performance

The concentration effect of evaporation can be seen in the increase of total dissolved solids as water moves through 

the cells.

The concentration of ammounium nitrogen is reduced as the water flows through 

the cells.

Because there is zero discharge to surface waters from the Incline Village Wetlands Enhancement 

Facility, no surface water quality criteria must be met. However, many parameters of regulatory interest 

are monitored in the wetland cells. Even though all surface water evaporates or is lost to percolation, 

water quality improvements can be observed as the water passes through the cells in a serial pattern. 

For seven years, nitrogen and phosphorus levels have been reduced in the water, even during the winter. 

Nutrients in the last cells display only 2 to 3 percent of the concentration values in the incoming 

wastewater effluent. 

The effect of evaporation can be seen in the increases of total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride ion as 

water moves through the cells. The evaporites in the original desert soils are rearranged by water 

movement, with increases in concentrations in the downstream cells. However, there is no evidence of a 
continuing buildup of these ions in the downstream cells. Apparently, transport of solutes from upstream 

to downstream cells has reached a balance with other processes. 

Wetlands Design Criteria

Flow, Average Annual......................1.66 mgd

Flow, Maximum Daily.......................2.68 mgd

Influent Quality

.......... Suspended Solids...................20 mg/l

.......... BOD5....................................20 mg/l

.......... TDS.......................................240 mg/l

.......... Total Phosphorus as P............6.5 mg/l

.......... Total Nitrogen as N................25 mg/l

Constructed Wetland Area

.......... Cell 1......................................37.9 acres

.......... Cell 2......................................33.2 acres

.......... Cell 3.......................................27.3 acres

.......... Cell 4.......................................23.4 acres

.......... Cell 5 (overflow area)................117.3 acres

.......... Cell 6 & 7 (floodplain area).......105.6 acres

.......... Cell 8 (seasonal storage)................42.5 acres

Wetland Depth

.......... Emergent Marsh......................................0.5 feet

.......... Open Water......................................2.0-3.0 feet
Ancillary Benefits

Plant Communities

The yellow-headed blackbird prefers 

nesting in the emergent marsh areas.

Vegetation is essential to the success of the wetland. Plants 

increase evapotranspiration by as much as 20 percent in the 

summer and improve water quality. Wetland vegetation 

includes rush meadow, threesquare bulrush, tule cattail, and 

willow thickets. Upland vegetation consists primarily of 

sagebrush, rabbitbrush, greasewood, and salt grass, which 

tolerate the alkaline soils. Floodplain vegetation includes 

rabbitbrush and salt grass, plants which can exist in saline, silty 

loam, and clay soils. 

Project implementation has allowed existing plant species to 

flourish. Careful planting of hundreds of trees and bushes 

added a new component to the ecosystem, with taller 

vegetation providing new perching and nesting areas for hawks 

and eagles. 

Wildlife Habitat

Migratory trumpeter swans find winter 

habitat at the wetlands enhancement 

facility.

 

The wetlands provide three types of wildlife habitat: 

permanent wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and uplands. 

Many types of aquatic and nonaquatic wildlife coexist at the 

site. Aquatic invertebrates such as insects, worms, snails, and 

crayfish eat algae and other plants and serve as food for larger 

organisms. Fish such as largemouth bass, black bullhead, 

green sunfish, mosquito fish, and carp were identified before 

construction and were transferred to several areas within the 

site. 

Birds occupying the site include ducks and geese, shore birds, 

raptors (hawks and eagles), and passerine (such as blackbirds). 

Many migratory species travel through the Carson Valley and 

nest on the islands in the seasonal storage/waterfowl area or 

the grassy areas along the edges of the cells. Animals common 

to the area include deer, coyote, skunk, mink, muskrat, rabbit, squirrel, chipmunk, and the western 

yellow-bellied racer. 
Recreational Uses

An observation area is provided at the operations building in the southeast corner of the site to encourage 

the public to enjoy and learn about man's use of his natural environment. Observation trails traverse the 

warm-water wetlands and created wetlands so that visitors may experience the diverse wildlife and 

vegetation at the site and see how the project operates. 

The natural warm-water wetlands provide a year-round 

habitat when the constructed wetland cells are dry.
Acknowledgements

Incline Village General Improvement District

Elected Trustees

Robert Wolf, Chairman

Pamela T. Wright, Vice-Chairman

Roberta Gang, Secretary

Jane Maxfield, Trustee

Greg McKay, Trustee

Professional Staff

Robert A. Hunt, General Manager

John F. Shefchik, District Engineer

Don N. Richey, Sr., Operations Superintendent

Grant Funding

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 9

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Construction Grant Section 

Design Team

CH2M HILL

..........Facilities Plan and Conceptual Design

Robert Chapman, Project Engineer

Richard Mishaga, Environmental Scientist

Culp$#183;esner$#183;, Design

Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group, Wetlands Consultation

Robert Kadlec, Senior Consultant

This brochure was prepared by CH2M HILL for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Project Cost
Description Amount

Engineering/Inspection $423,493

Land $772, 503

Construction $3,568,000

Total Project $4,963,996

Innovative/Alternative grants funded 85 percent of the project. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

ShowLow, AZ - Pintail Lake and Redhead Marsh: 

Created Wetlands in Northern Arizona

Background/History

Treatment Facility

Site Description

Design and Layout

Operation and Monitoring

Response

Acknowledgements
Background/History

Treated municipal wastewater is being used in N.E. Arizona to create some very interesting wetlands. 

Wildlife response to this new habitat has been dramatic with over 120 species of birds using them. The 

local community is justly proud of this example of environmental innovation and cooperation.

The City of Show Low built its first wastewater collection and treatment system in 1958. It consisted of 

sewer lines, serving the original townsite and contiguously built up areas of the city, and two stabilization 

ponds for treatment. Effluent was discharged directly into Show Low Creek, adjacent to the treatment 

plant, eventually reaching Fool Hollow Lake. Nutrient loading resulted in accelerated lake 

eutrophication, algae blooms, and resulting fish kills. 

In 1970, with the cooperation of the U.S. Forest Service, wastewater discharge into the creek was halted. 

The effluent was pumped two miles north to a natural depression known as Telephone Lake where it 

contributed to the development of wildlife habitat. In 1977, due to increasing population and resulting 

effluent flows, the treatment system was expanded to include additional natural depressions to the East 

which became known as Pintail and South Lake Marshes. In Pintail Lake the U.S. Forest Service began 

to construct islands to enhance waterfowl reproduction. 

By 1982 wastewater flows exceeded the treatment plant's design capacity. Discharges directly into Show 

Low Creek and decreased quality of effluent delivered to the marsh treatment areas resulted in degraded 

habitat quality and sharply decreased waterfowl populations. In 1985 the City began to work on a long 

term solution to the problems of treatment plant capacity and providing high quality effluent to the 

created wetlands. 

The solution selected was to deepen and improve the existing treatment lagoons by adding aeration, 

increase pumping capacity, add stabilization ponds for secondary treatment, increase the capacity of 

Telephone Lake for effluent storage, and add additional marsh capacity for final treatment and reuse. 

Pintail Lake in winter.
Treatment Facility

Aerial view.

The City of Show Low wastewater 

treatment facility now consists of two 

aerated lagoons that may be operated in 

series or parallel, a lift station with two 

1,150 gpm pumps, four biological 

stabilization ponds that may also be 

operated in series or parallel, a chlorination 

contact chamber, effluent storage and 

clarification in Telephone Lake, nutrient 

removal in constructed riparian areas, and 

eventual reuse in constructed waterfowl 

marshlands. 
Site Description

The created wetlands at Pintail Lake and Redhead Marsh are located 4 miles north of the City of Show 

Low, Arizona. This is in the high country of northeastern Arizona. The wetlands are on National Forest 

Service Lands administered by the Apache/Sitgreaves National Forests. 

Weather Summary

Month Average

High Temp.

Average

Low Temp.

Historic

Record Low

Average

Precip.

Jan 44.2°F 17.7°F -25°F 1.40"

Feb 48.3°F 21.0°F -11°F .96"

Mar 53.8°F 25.4°F -7°F 1.25"

April 63.9°F 32.1°F 11°F .60"

May 73.0°F 38.5°F 14°F .31"

Jun 82.8°F 47.6°F 27°F .50"

Jul 85.5°F 55.5°F 42°F 2.47"

Aug 82.9°F 54.1°F 37°F 2.25"

Sept 79.4°F 47.6°F 25°F 1.22"

Oct 68.5°F 35.7°F 10°F 1.46"

Nov 55.3°F 24.8°F -9°F 1.06"

Dec 45.6°F 18.9°F -16°F 1.87"

The climate has a dominant influence on the 

functions of the created wetlands. This area 

has four definite seasons. Spring is very 

windy with gusts over 50 mph. This can 

cause severe bank erosion if vegetation isn't 

established. Net evaporation can exceed 12 

inches per month in May and June. Summer 

is characterized by the onset of a monsoon 

type pattern with frequent showers and high 

night time temperatures. Fall is ushered in 

as the rainfall diminishes and nights get 

colder. Winter is marked by colder 

temperatures and the wetlands freeze over. 

Ice may occur 1 to 2 months of winter. 

Snow depths of 3 to 12 inches are common. 

Water control structure at Redhead Marsh.

The soils of this area are heavy clays with low water 

permeability. The natural vegetation is typical pinyon-juniper 

woodland. This is a very common vegetation type in this area. 

The topography is flat to moderately sloping with some natural 

basins which form Pintail and Telephone Lakes. The elevation 

above sea level is 6,350 to 6,380 ft. 

Evaporation from wetland surfaces is a key factor affecting their functions. Total evaporation exceeds 

precipitation by 48 inches per year. The evaporative loss is greatest during the months of May and June 

which account for one half of the year's total. During winter months evaporation is near zero, so ponds fill 

up and total storage capacity becomes a concern. 
Design and Layout

Since the construction of the first wetland at Pintail Lake in 1978, there 

has been a gradual evolution of the wetlands. In 1985 a major expansion 

occurred with the construction of Redhead Marsh. This surge of 

construction was required as effluent volumes produced began 

exceeding treatment and disposal capacities. The present system is 

designed to handle 1.42 million gallons of wastewater per day to serve a 

population of 13,500. 

Size of Wetlands

Telephone Lake..........45 

acres

Pintail Lake.................57 

acres

South Marsh...............19 

acres
Redhead Marsh..........49 

acres

Bullseye Marsh.............1 

acre

Ned Lake...................15 

acres

Riparian Area..............15 

acres

Total Acres = 201 acres 

The system was designed to integrate several lakes and marshes into an effective wetlands complex. 

Flexibility in management options was built in to accommodate changes from year to year. The water 

delivery system was designed to provide additional treatment before the effluent reaches Redhead Marsh. 
Operation and Monitoring

The 

main techniques used in operating the wetland complex involve the management of the water. The 

quantity, quality, and delivery routes are varied to manage the wetland habitat. The flexibility designed 

into the system allows a variety of management options. For example, water control structures with 

adjustable water boards are used to hold water levels at desired levels. Water can be diverted away from 

some ponds to allow them to dry up. This is desired to allow for maintenance and to accomplish 

vegetation management goals. 

Monitoring of the wetlands is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality by the City of Show Low. Additional monitoring is conducted by the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Forest Service. 

As water progresses through the system, water quality improves. For example, secondary effluent 

coming from the polishing ponds flows into Telephone Lake, then into an open channel which delivers it 

to the riparian area. After the riparian area, the water flows into another open channel and is finally 

delivered to pond one of the Redhead Marsh. During this delivery process the water quality greatly 

improves. The following charts show the removal rates for nitrogen and phosphorus as water moves 

through the system. 
Response

Pintail Lake and Redhead Marshes have exceeded the original objectives and expectations. What started 

out as a project to favor waterfowl has developed into a complex of wetland ecosystems with a wide 

range of benefits. Similar projects in other areas have been developed as a result of the success here. 

Vegetation 

Experience has shown that the addition of water to these previously arid sites brings on dramatic 

vegetation changes. A prime objective has been the establishment of a vigorous vegetative cover. Cattail, 

water grass, spike rush, and various sedges have become established naturally in the created wetlands 

while others such as hardstem, softstem, and alkali bulrushes and sego pondweed have been successfully 

planted. 

Animal 

The response of animals to the new wetlands has been exciting. After 3 years of data collection on Pintail 

Lake, L. Piest (1981) stated: “The response of breeding waterfowl has been dramatic. I estimated that 

1,544 ducklings or 76.4 ducklings per hectare (30.93 per acre), were produced in 1981.” The response of 

other birds has been similar with the establishment of cormorant and black-crowned night heron 

rookeries in the new wetlands. 

Shorebirds using Telephone Lake.

To date ten bird species which are classified as 

endangered, threatened, or sensitive have been seen 

using the wetlands. These include the bald eagle, 

peregrine falcon, osprey, northern goshawk, snowy 

egret, belted kingfisher, American avocet, sora rail, 

black-crowned night heron, and the double-crested 

cormorant. Four of these species (the avocet, sora rail, 

blackcrowned night heron, and cormorant) have been 

found nesting here. A survey done in 1991 to 

document total bird use on a weekly basis found 120 

different species of birds using the created wetlands. 

Some of the birds are predators, feeding on fathead 

minnows, a small fish that inhabits part of this 

wetland system. Other animals found in the wetlands 

include rocky mountain elk, mule deer, pronghorn, 

black bear, coyote, raccoon, and various kinds of amphibians. 

People are also attracted to these wetlands for a variety of reasons— to relax and watch animals is 

probably the intent of most people. Facilities were provided to improve wildlife viewing at Pintail Lake. 

School groups often use these wetlands for environmental field trips. The concepts of wastewater 

cleanup and recycling have more meaning after experiencing the created wetlands. 
Acknowledgements

Newly established cormorant rookery.

Since the first wetland was built at Pintail Lake 

in 1978 to the present, the wetlands have been a 

cooperative effort. The "core team," which 

started the project and continues to make it 

successful today, include the City of Show Low, 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

Other groups have also played a major role. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has 

provided guidance and funding for this 

innovative wastewater treatment project. The 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

is involved in the monitoring and operational 

permitting process. 

The wetland project is also supported by the 

local communities. This includes the local 

schools with their field trips. The White 

Mountain Chapter of the Audubon Society with 

the field trips and work projects. 

References

L. Piest, 1981. "Evaluation of Waterfowl 

Habitat Improvements on the Apache/Sitgreaves 

National Forests, Arizona." USDA/Forest 

Service. 119pp. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pinetop/Lakeside, AZ - Jacques Marsh: A Created 

Wetland in Northeastern Arizona

History

Wastewater Treatment Facility

Site Description

Design and Construction

Operation and Monitoring

Response

Acknowledgements
History

Cooperation between public agencies and nature can have amazing result. The innovative decision to 

use treated municipal wastewater to create wetland wildlife habitat continues to pay off for the local 

community. Like a biological magnet, the new wetlands attract a wide variety of wildlife and of course 

people to watch them.

Jacques Marsh is a constructed wetland that is a component of the 

wastewater management system of the Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary 

District. It is the result of a cooperative effort between the U.S. 

Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the 

Pinetop Lakeside Sanitary District. The manmade marsh was 

constructed on National Forest Service Lands in an area with no 

historical ponds, lakes or wetlands. However, once established the 

marsh closely represents a natural wetland in terms of plants and 

wildlife present at the site. 

The surface and groundwaters of the community were considered 

to be contaminated in the 1970's and the Pinetop-Lakeside 

Sanitary District was formed in 1973 to clean up these waters. 

With assistance of an EPA construction grant the wastewater 

collection system, a 2 million gallon per day secondary treatment 

plant and Jacques Marsh were completed in 1980. The 127 acres of marsh and ponds currently receive 

about one million gallons of treated wastewater per day. 

The community is proud of its decision to construct Jacques Marsh to recycle their reclaimed water 

rather than discharge effluent from the treatment plant into Billy Creek which runs through the area. 

Many worries about pollution and human contact were eliminated and a striking wildlife area was 

created. The use of Jacques Marsh for recreation, outdoor education, and wildlife has been well worth the 

effort. 

Jacques Marsh 1990.
Wastewater Treatment Facility

The wastewater treatment plant operated by the Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District is a 2 million gallon 

per day activated sludge plant. Treatment consists of comminutors, hydrostatic screens and a vortex grit 

system followed by aeration in a 2 million gallon oxidation channel. Organic material in the wastewater 

is stabilized during this part of the process. 

Following aeration for 24 hours in the channel, the flow is directed into two secondary clarifiers 

(sedimentation tanks) for separation of the organic solids from the treated wastewater. In the secondary 

clarifiers, solids are settled out by gravity and recycled to the oxidation channel, or removed. The 

effluent is drawn from the top of the secondary clarifiers, chlorinated and pumped to the Jacques 

Wetlands Marsh System. 

The sludge that is removed is pumped to an aerobic digester. Following digestion, the sludge is 

dewatered (concentrated) by Somat Dewatering Screws and pumped to an Eweson Co-Composting 

digester to be mixed with municipal solid waste. This 12 week process reduces 20 tons of material (14 

tons of municipal solid waste plus 6 tons of sludge) to around 11 tons of marketable compost. Since this 

co-composting facility became operational, it has utilized 100% of the sludge from the wastewater 

treatment plant and 80% of the residential solid waste produced by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. 

PLSD's on-site testing lab.
Site Description

The created wetlands at Jacques Marsh are located 1 mile 

north of the town of Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona. This is in 

the high country of northeastern Arizona. The wetlands are 

on National Forest Service Lands administered by the 

Apache/Sitgreaves National Forests. 

The climate has a dominant influence on the functions of 

the created wetlands. This area has four definite seasons. 

Spring is very windy with gusts over 50 mph. This can 

cause severe bank erosion if vegetation isn't established. 

Net evaporation can exceed 7 inches per month in May and 

June. Summer is characterized by the onset of a monsoon 

type pattern with frequent showers and high humidities. 

Plants respond quickly to the higher night time 

temperatures. Fall is ushered in as the rainfall diminishes and nights get colder. The first frosts occur 

during the last part of September. Winter is marked by colder temperatures and the wetlands freeze over. 

Ice may occur for 1 to 2 months of winter. Snow depths of 6 to 16 inches are common. 

The clay soils of the Jacques Marsh site are of volcanic origin. They have low permeability to water. This 

is a key factor in the wetland design. The natural soils were used to form the marsh basins. 

The natural vegetation of the site was ponderosa pine, Utah juniper and pinyon pine. This is a very 

common vegetation type in this mountain area. The animals occurring in this area include rocky 

mountain elk, mule deer, Merriam turkey, black bear, and coyotes. Common birds are Stellers jay, 

western bluebird, redshafted flicker, and raven. Waterfowl are common where water occurs. The 

Intermountain Biotic Province is the greatest source of waterfowl using this site. 

Weather Summary

Month Average

High Temp.

Average

Low Temp.

Historic

Record Low

Average

Precip.

Jan 44.3°F 16.0°F -23°F 1.92"

Feb 46.1°F 18.1°F -18°F 1.30"

Mar 50.0°F 21.7°F -13°F 1.91"
April 59.7°F 27.9°F 0°F .93"

May 69.0°F 33.8°F 8°F .43"

Jun 78.1°F 40.7°F 20°F .57"

Jul 80.5°F 49.1°F 30°F 3.13"

Aug 77.5°F 48.1°F 32°F 3.40"

Sept 74.4°F 41.6°F 21°F 1.82"

Oct 65.6°F 32.6°F 6°F 1.89"

Nov 53.6°F 23.4°F -3°F 1.34"

Dec 46.5°F 18.2°F -18°F 1.96"
Design and Construction

Net Evaporation

Month . Inches

Jan . +.32

Feb . -1.33

Mar . -3.75

May . -6.22

Apr . -7.62

Jun . -8.49

Jul . -4.34

Aug . -3.29

Sep . -3.74

Oct . -2.55

Nov . -1.31

Dec . +.57

Total . -41.75

Pond Sizes

Pond

Number .

Surface

Acres

1 . 16.36

2 . 21.86

3 . 18.56

4 . 4.66

5 . 7.70

6 . 10.95

7 . 12.08

Equalization

Basin . 35.0

Total . 127.17

Jacques Marsh is different than most constructed wetlands 

because it doesn't occupy a natural basin or drainageway. 

The relatively level site was selected because it has a clay 

soil of sufficient depth to provide material for dike 

construction and a low percolation rate. 

Several hundred soil borings were made to map the size and 

thickness of the clay layer. Heavy earth moving equipment 

performed the necessary cut and fill to create the dikes and 

islands which form the physical features of the marsh. 

A pipeline was installed to carry the reclaimed water which 

is pumped up hill from the treatment plant to the marsh. 

Outlets allow for water to be pumped directly into 5 of the 7 

ponds. Interpond concrete structures allow water to flow 

from one pond into another. These structures are equipped 

with water boards to maintain predetermined water levels in 

each pond. This flexibility of managing water levels is a key 

factor in operating the marsh. 

The "V" shaped nesting islands were designed to retard wave erosion. The points of 

the islands face the prevailing wind and the back sides provide back water areas for 

resting waterfowl. The purpose of the islands is to provide nesting sites which are 

safe from predators such as skunks and coyotes. The perimeter of the area was fenced to keep out 

domestic livestock. 
Operation and Monitoring

The effluent produced by the Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District's treatment plant has the following 

characteristics: 

. Range Mo. Avg.

Biological Oxygen

Demand 2-3 mg/l 2.4 mg/l

Total Suspended

Solids 1-13 mg/l 6.4 mg/l

Turbidity 2.1-5.4 ntu 3.6 ntu

. . .

Aerial view of treatment facility.

The treated wastewater is provided to a combination of the 7 

ponds each year in accordance with the habitat management 

plan. Waterfowl habitat needs and plant requirements are the 

primary factors affecting management of the ponds and 

marsh. 

As water proceeds from one pond to another in the marsh, 

nitrogen and phosphorus are removed from the water. These 

nutrients are taken up by plants and animals and contribute 

to the overall productivity of the marsh. The following 

summarizes the removal rates for nitrogen and phosphorus 

for the months of February, March, April and May 1991: 

. Total N

(mg/l)

Total P

(mg/l)

Effluent 20.35 7.90

Pond 1 6.23 4.10

Pond 2 5.35 4.75

In addition to monitoring surface water quality, the Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District samples 3 shallow 

wells on a quarterly basis to insure groundwater quality is not being impacted. 
Response

What started out as a curiosity, putting wastewater to good use, has now become an attraction to many 

forms of life. Visitors are usually treated to a surprise package of sights and sounds provided by a vibrant 

marsh ecosystem. 

In the winter bald eagles are a common sight and in the summer peregrine falcons are occasionally seen. 

The peak periods of waterfowl use occur during the spring and fall migration. The islands provide 

excellent duck nesting habitat. Elk are attracted to the marsh in the fall and winter where they consume 

the dry vegetation. 

Of course the diversity of plants and animals attracts many human visitors. The area is popular with the 

viewing and hunting public. Jacques Marsh is a point of local pride. The residents of the cities of Pinetop 

and Lakeside have supported the project since it's inception. 

A major side benefit of the created marshes has been the opportunity for interaction with the local 

schools. The marshes now function as outdoor classrooms where many environmental principles are 

taught including recycling and water cleanup. In 1989 a local group of 140 fourth graders were treated to 

the sight of a peregrine falcon hunting shore birds as they toured the wetland. 

Elk using Jacques Marsh
Acknowledgements

Jacques Marsh is the result of many agencies and individuals 

working toward common goals. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency provided much of the funding under the 

Clean Water Act. The Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District 

provided funding and constructed the system. The Arizona 

Game and Fish Department agreed to maintain the wetland 

after construction. The Apache/Sitgreaves National Forests 

provided 255 acres of land and developed the habitat. The 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality provided 

technical guidance and operational permits for the facility. 

The wetland came together as a result of dedicated effort, 

and a vision of the future held by several people. Adrian 

Hill, District Forest Ranger of the Apache/Sitgreaves 

National Forests, and Jack O'Neil, Game Specialist for the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, worked hard at 

garnering their respective agencies support for the project. 

U.S. Forest Service Wildlife Biologists Leon Fager and 

James McKibben provided the technical and planning 

support to make the project viable. The Board of Directors of 

the Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District played a key role in 

obtaining the support of the local communities. This group 

of dedicated individuals didn't permit doubt, policy, politics, or the "but it's never been done here before" 

attitude to stop them. Jacques Marsh is a tribute to them and to many others who followed for the past 17 

years. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Fort Deposit, AL: Constructed Wetland Treatment 

System Case History

Background

System Description

Operations and Management

Performance

Ancillary Benefits

Acknowledgements
Background

Post-aeration is essential for compliance 

with the effluent standard for dissolved 

oxygen.

The town of Fort Deposit, located south of Montgomery, 

Alabama, has a population of slightly more than 1,500. Until 

1985, the town's wastewater was treated in a 10-acre waste 

stabilization pond and consistently met discharge limits. In 

1985, a new discharge permit was issued by the Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management. This permit 

required the town to meet more stringent standards based on 

water quality limitations in the receiving water. Since the 

town's stabilization pond was unable to meet the new 

standards, an administrative order requiring the town to 

upgrade its system was issued. 

An engineering analysis of treatment alternatives was 

conducted by the environmental consulting firm CH2M HILL 

to compare a variety of conventional and innovative 

technologies. On the basis of an evaluation of environmental 

benefits, reliability, and cost, treatment by constructed 

wetlands was selected as the most cost-effective approach for 

compliance with the new permit limitations. 

The use of constructed wetlands to remove impurities in 

wastewater and to consistently achieve treatment levels that 

meet permit requirements was an emerging technology in 

1985. To assist with funding their new system, the town 

applied for and was awarded a $610,000 U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Innovative/Alternative Technology grant for its wetland project. This 

additional funding, coupled with low construction and maintenance costs associated with the wetland 

system, reduced the financial impact of the upgrade on the community and provided it with a system that 

would require only slightly more maintenance than the existing stabilization pond. 
System Description

The Fort Deposit constructed wetland treatment system uses an aerated 

lagoon for pretreatment followed by two parallel wetland cells.

As designed, the Fort Deposit 

wetland treatment system includes 

the following main components: 

● An 8.9-acre aerated pond 

● Two 7.5-acre constructed 

wetland cells 

● A 0.1-acre post-aeration 

pond 

The town's existing stabilization 

pond was modified to provide more 

effective pre-treatment. The 

modifications included relocating 

the influent and effluent points and 

adding floating mechanical aerators. 

Seven acres of the pond were 

aerated, leaving the remaining area 

to serve as a settling basin. These modifications improve 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and 

ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) removal efficiency, reduce organic and solids loading to the wetland cells, 

and provide additional flexibility in the overall treatment process. 

The wetland cells are configured side by side. Each cell covers 7.5 acres and has an aspect ratio (length to 

width) of 4.6:1. The cell floors are slightly sloped for easy draining during maintenance. Although most 

of the 15 acres of wetland cells are less than 2 feet deep, each cell has three "deep zones," which are 4 

feet deep and about 20 feet wide. The deep zones remain free of rooted marsh vegetation, thus allowing 

effluent to be redistributed through the system and providing atmospheric aeration. The deeper water in 

these zones also furnishes year-round habitat for aquatic life, particularly mosquito fish and wetland 

birds. 

The parallel operation of the two wetland cells gives the town the ability to direct all flow through a 

single cell during wetland resting and maintenance periods. Moreover, the rate of flow to each cell can be 

varied to allow flexibility in operations and to aid in testing or research. 

The treated effluent enters a post-aeration pond after passing through the wetland cells. This system 

component is used to meet the effluent dissolved oxygen limits specified in the permit. This 75,000-

gallon earthen pond is equipped with a floating mechanical aerator. Final effluent flow rate from the postaeration pond is continuously measured by a Parshall flume. 
Operations and Management

Outlet weir structures allow water level 

control for adjustment of hydraulic 

retention time.

Influent distribution to the wetland cells is 

enhanced by perforated pipes on a rip-rap 

slope across the width of the wetland 

cells.

In the Fort Deposit 

wetland system, 

wastewater is treated by 

the naturally occurring 

bacteria and fungi that 

colonize the sediments on 

the bottom of the cells 

and the stems and leaves 

of the wetland vegetation 

below the water level. 

These microorganisms 

help transform and remove organic matter and nutrients that 

might otherwise degrade adjacent surface waters. 

The vegetation in the two wetland cells was selected to simulate 

a natural wetland and included an initial planting of 68,000 

cattail and bulrush plants. 

Influent from the aerated pond is distributed to the cells by pipes 

with 1-inch holes drilled at 10-foot intervals. 

This method of 

distributing influent 

starts the flow through the treatment system and reduces the 

buildup of solids at the head of the wetland cells. 

The system is designed so that the effluent takes up to 30 days 

to flow through the wetland cells. The actual retention time 

varies seasonally to account for changes in the reaction rate of 

microorganisms in the cells. Because the microorganisms react 

more quickly at higher temperatures, the retention time can be 

decreased during the summer and still provide the required 

contact time for effective removal of impurities. Conversely, 

during the winter's colder temperatures, the reaction rate of the 

microorganisms is lower and the retention time is increased by 

raising water levels. 

Aluminum stop logs, located in three outlet structures along the 

width of each wetland cell, control cell water depth and 

promote the flow of effluent through the treatment system. 
Dense stands of submerged cattail stems 

and leaves serve as growth media for 

microorganisms that feed on impurities in 

the influent. The natural transfer of 

atomospheric oxygen to these microbes is 

essential in removing organic matter and 

ammonia from the wastewater.

After treatment by the wetland cells, effluent is conveyed to the 

post-aeration pond, where it receives supplemental aeration 

from a floating aerator. 
Performance

Deep zones in the wetlands provide open water for 

ducks and wading birds, enhance flow distribution 

in the wetland cells, serve as a sump for settling 

solids, and provide additional hydraulic residence 

time in the wetland cells.

Construction of the cells began in June 1989, with 

planting starting during May 1990. By August 1990, 

the vegetation provided almost complete cover, and 

operation of the wetland cells began. Since then, with 

only one exception for NH3, the Fort Deposit 

constructed wetland treatment system has consistently 

achieved permit compliance and has caught the 

attention of others seeking a low cost, dependable 

natural treatment system. Because of its outstanding 

contribution to water resource conservation, the Fort 

Deposit system received several awards including the 

Alabama 1991 Governor's Conservation Achievement 

Award, the Alabama Engineering Excellence Award, 

and the Grand Award from the American Consulting 

Engineers Council. 

....... Month BOD5 TSS Nitrogen

.

. In Out In Out TKN In NH3Out

1990August 102 5 137 10 20.0 0.57

. September 27 8 101 18 11.0 0.66

. October 30 3 168 18 19.0 0.78

. November 27 3 127 10 14.0 0.93

. December 15 4 71 9 10.0 2.60

1991January 20 5 52 10 8.0 1.10

. February 13 4 18 4 11.0 0.74

. March 26 7 40 8 19.0 0.89

. April 22 10 97 15 10.0 0.70

. May 21 9 52 20 80.0 0.35

. June 29 10 72 25 5.0 0.94

. July 33 7 69 10 21 6.43

. August 56 7 183 7 20.0 0.90

. September 24 4 87 12 10.0 0.99

. October 30 8 125 18 6.0 0.75

. November 32 4 106 7 11.0 0.21

. December 33 12 64 16 11.5 0.87

1992January 39 4 83 19 10.0 0.38

. February 22 4 32 4 6.7 0.15

. March 34 4 58 5 10.0 0.22
. April 31 4 119 3 12.0 0.51

Wetland effluent BOD5 and total suspended solids 

(TSS) are consistenly in compliance with permit limits 

despite variable inflow quality to the wetland cells. 

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is mineralized in the 

wetland cells to NH3 and then nitrified to achieve the 

low discharge limits.
Ancillary Benefits

The Fort Deposit wetlands continue to 

diversify as new plant species colonize the 

cells.

In addition to improving the quality of the effluent discharged to 

the receiving stream, the creation of the Fort Deposit constructed 

wetland treatment system has significantly increased wildlife. 

This new habitat provides cover and food for various types of 

wetland-dependent vertebrate and invertebrate life including a 

variety of ducks and wading birds and their prey. 

As a result of the wetland's success and the desire of others to 

adopt similar technology, the town is receiving visitors from 

other areas of the state and the nation. 

Fort Deposit

Wetland Design Criteria

Average Daily Flow 0.24 mgd

Influent Quality

.....BOD5 40 mg/L

. TSS 100 mg/L

. TN 20 mg/L

. NH3-N 10 mg/L

.

Effluent Criteria

. BOD5 10(18)a mg/L

. TSS 30 mg/L

. NH3-N 2(5)a mg/L

. pH 6-9 units

.

Areas

. Lagoon 10 acres

. Wetland Cells (2) 7.5 acres each

.

( )a winter limits December-April
Acknowledgements

The Waterworks and Sewer Board of the Town of Fort Deposit

Henry Crenshaw, Chairman

Leo Goldsmith, Board Member

W.O. Ward, Board Member

David Edwards, Manager

Consulting Engineers

Dennis A. Sandretto,

CH2M HILL 

Project Manager

Robert L. Knight,

CH2M HILL Project 

Environmental Scientist

Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Truman Green, 

Chief, Municipal Branch, 

Water Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robert Freeman,

Municipal Grants Program, 

Region IV

This brochure was prepared by CH2M HILL for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

West Jackson Co., MS: Constructed Wetland 

Treatment System Case History

Background

System Description

Operations and Management

Performance

Ancillary Benefits

Acknowledgements
Background

The West Jackson County Constructed Wetland Treatment System (CWTS) was built in two phases 

between 1990 and 1991 to provide additional effluent treatment and disposal capacity for the Mississippi 

Gulf Coast Regional Wastewater Authority's (MGCRWA) regional land treatment facility. Located north 

of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, the West Jackson County constructed wetlands consist of three parallel 

treatment systems that cover 56 acres. 

The land treatment facility was originally designed to treat an annual average daily flow of 1.6 million 

gallons per day (mgd). Initially, this capacity was sufficient to treat the wastewater produced within the 

service area, which is primarily from household sources. However, following heavy rainfall events, 

hydraulic capacity of the land treatment facility was exceeded, and excess flow was bypassed directly 

into Costapia Bayou. Wetlands were constructed to increase the site's overall treatment capacity to 2.6 

mgd and to eliminate this periodic bypass. 

Spray irrigation is used for effluent treatment and disposal at West Jackson County 

during dry weather.
System Description

As designed, the West Jackson County Natural Land Treatment System includes the following main 

components: 

● a 75-acre lagoon/storage facility 

● a 380-acre land application system 

● three constructed wetland treatment systems, CWTS1, CWTS2, and CWTS3, with a combined 

area of 56 acres 

● a 0.2-acre post-aeration pond

Wastewater is conveyed to the regional land treatment facility by a pressurized force main. Initial 

treatment is provided as the effluent moves through the three cells of the lagoon, which remove grit and 

settleable solids and reduce suspended and dissolved organic materials. The effluent flows by gravity to 

the distribution pump station where debris is removed by two traveling screens. The effluent is then 

pumped to the distribution system. 

The partially treated effluent is applied to crops on two sites: a 245-acre southern site, located on 

Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge lands, and a 170-acre northern site, located on 

MGCRWA-owned land. Permanent big-gun sprinklers are used to apply the effluent. Underdrains on the 

land treatment fields transfer excess percolate to wetland ponds on the Refuge that provide nesting 

habitat for the endangered sandhill cranes. These birds have also benefited from this project through their 

use of the spray fields as feeding habitat. 

Alternatively, the effluent can be pumped to the 22-acre CWTS1 or be gravity fed to the 34-acre CWTS2 

and CWTS3 sites. CWTS1 consists of two cells that operate in series. Effluent from Cell 1A flows over 

eight adjustable weirs into Cell 1B. From there, Cell 1B effluent flows into an open collection ditch 

where it flows by gravity to the post-aeration pond north of CWTS2. 

CWTS2 and CWTS3 are two separate, parallel treatment trains that operate in series. CWTS2 has three 

cells and CWTS3 has two cells. CWTS2 and CWTS3 are directly downgradient from the lagoon; 

therefore, influent flows by gravity at a constant rate up to 1.0 mgd. After being measured, the influent is 

split between the two treatment trains by a concrete flow splitter. Approximately 65 percent of the flow 

goes to CWTS2, and the rest to CWTS3, resulting in a uniform loading per acre to the treatment trains 

even though they are different sizes. 

After treatment in the three CWTS, all wetland outflows are combined in the effluent collection ditch and 

conveyed to the post-aeration pond, which is equipped with two floating aerators. The post-aeration pond 

effluent passes through a Parshall flume for flow measurement, then through the outfall pipe where it is 

discharged into Costapia Bayou. 
Operations and Management

Cattails are the primary wetland species 

used for water quality treatment.

Constructed wetland systems can provide a high level of wastewater treatment with low operation and maintenance 

requirements and low energy costs. In the West Jackson County 

CWTS, wastewater is treated by the naturally occurring bacteria 

and fungi that colonize the sediments on the bottom of the cells 

as well as the stems and leaves of the vegetation below the 

water's surface. These microbes help transform and remove 

organic compounds and nutrients that might otherwise result in 

pollution of adjacent surface waters. 

The bottoms of the CWTS cells are slightly sloped for easy 

draining during maintenance. Each wetland cell has three or 

more "deep zones," which are 5 feet deep and about 20 feet 

wide. The deep zones remain free of rooted marsh vegetation, 

allowing them to redistribute effluent through the system and 

provide atmospheric aeration. The deeper water in these zones 

furnishes year-round habitat for aquatic life, particularly 

mosquito fish and wetland-dependent birds such as waterfowl. 

Operation of the West Jackson County CWTS is based on shallow, overland flow conditions in the first 

half of the wetland cells. Water depth increases to a maximum of about 1 foot at the downstream end of 

the cells. This operational strategy takes advantage of the fact that higher dissolved oxygen (DO) occurs 

in shallow, higher velocity areas of the wetland cells. 

The West Jackson County CWTS was initially planted with cattail and bulrush plants. The CWTS also 

has been naturally colonized by 43 other wetland plant species, providing a high level of biological 

diversity. 

Influent from the pretreatment lagoon is distributed to the wetland cells by pipes with 2-inch holes drilled 

at 10-foot intervals. This method of distributing influent begins the flow through the treatment system 

and is critical for effective use of the CWTS for water quality treatment. 

The effluent flows through the cells for up to 12 days to provide a high quality effluent. To account for 

seasonal changes in the reaction rate of microorganisms in the cells, the retention time is varied by 

changing water depths. Because the microorganisms react more quickly at higher temperatures, the 

retention time can be decreased during the summer and still provide the required contact time for 

effective treatment. Conversely, during the winter's colder temperatures, the reaction rate of the 

microorganisms is lower; therefore, the retention time is increased by raising water levels. Deep water 

zones provide effective redistribution of water flows along the length of the wetland cells. Stainless steel 

outflow weirs control cell water depth and promote the flow of effluent through the treatment system. 
After it is treated in the CWTS, effluent is conveyed to the post-aeration pond, where the flow rate and 

water quality are measured before final discharge. 

Post-aeration is essential for consistent compliance with the dissolved 

oxygen permit limit of 6.0 mg/l.
Performance

West Jackson County

Constructed Wetland Design Criteria

Wetland Design Flow 1.6 mgd

Influent Quality

.......BOD 5 45 mg/L

....... TN 12.5 mg/L (167 lb/d)

Effluent Criteria

.......BOD5 10 (13)a mg/L

.......TSS 30 mg/L

.......NH3-N 2 mg/L

.......pH 6-8.5 units

.......DO 6 mg/L

.......Fecal coliforms 2200 col/100ml

Areas (acres)

.......CWTS1 Cell A

Cell B

12

10

.......CWTS2

Cell A

Cell B

Cell C

9.7

7.8

4.0

.......CWTS3 Cell A

Cell B

9.2

3.3

a() December-April,

BOD5 = Five-day biochemical oxygen demand,

TN = Total nitrogen,

TSS = Total suspended solids,

NH3-N = Ammonia nitrogen,

DO = Dissolved oxygen

Construction of Phase I of the CWTS 

began in February 1990. The earthwork 

and planting were completed in July 1990, 

and startup and flows to this phase began in 

August 1990. Plant cover was fully 

established in Phase I by October 1990. 

Construction of Phase II began in June 

1990 and was completed about 8 months 

later. Influent flows to this phase began in 

October 1990 and planting was completed 

in April 1991. Plant cover was fully 

established in Phase II by June 1991. 

Water quality measurements made since 

June 1991 following complete plant 

establishment indicate that the West 

Jackson County constructed wetlands will 

effectively reduce BOD5 and TSS 

concentrations to less than 8 mg/L. These 

reductions occur in spite of variable BOD5 

and TSS inflow concentrations. 

One of the key goals of the West Jackson 

County CWTS is ammonia nitrogen (NH3-

N) reduction. Performance of the CWTS 

has been variable to date, with 3 out of 12 

months having outflow NH3-N levels 

above the limit. High outflow NH3-N 

concentrations have been associated with either high TKN loadings (over 3 pounds per acre per day) or 

with high flows (over 2 mgd). Operational control of peak flows, TKN loading, and water level 

adjustment are currently being used to optimize this wetland system's nitrogen removal potential. 

Water Quality Measurements

....... Month BOD5 TSS Nitrogen

.

. InOutInOut TN In NH3Out
1991June 28 9 40 15 7.3 1.2

. July 13 5 41 15 4.4 1.3

. August 23 4 49 10 15.2 1.0

. September19 2.5 35 5 17.7 2.3

. October 27 4 35 4.5 14.5 3.5

. November46 3 36 4 13.5 3.9

. December 39 4 29 7 6.9 1.3

1992January 23 4 17 8 11.0 1.4

. February 19 5 12 4 14.5 1.6

. March 19 5 16 5 15.4 1.7

. April 28 4 18 4 12.2 1.2

. May 24 4.5 31 6.5 6.9 0.05

BOD5 outflow concentrations have remained below 5 mg/L since vegetation colonization was 

completed in June 1991. TSS outflow concentrations have settled to less than 8 mg/L since 

September 1991. NH3 outflow concentration is dependent on the mass loading of TN and has 

remained below 2 mg/L as long as TN loading is less than 167 lb/d (3 lb/ac/d).
Ancillary Benefits

In addition to improving the quality of the effluent discharged to the receiving stream, the creation of the 

West Jackson County CWTS has resulted in significant wildlife benefits. This new wetland habitat 

provides food and cover for various types of wetland dependent vertebrate and invertebrate life. The 

aquatic invertebrate populations throughout the wetlands provide food for fish and birds. 

The 45 wetland plant species identified to date, combined with open water zones and shallow edge areas, 

have resulted in a diversity of wildlife habitats and high populations of wild-life species. Sixty-two bird 

species were identified in or around the wetlands during 1991. About 37 of these species are considered 

to be wetland-dependent. Bird populations during the winter, spring, and fall seasons are dominated by 

ducks, sora rails, swamp sparrows, and wading birds. Summer bird population studies indicate the 

presence of at least 7 nesting bird species and a total of 30 species in and around the wetlands. 

Winter bird populations include ducks, rails, sparrows, coots, 

herons, egrets, and many other wetland species.
Acknowledgements

Mississippi Gulf Coast Regional Wastewater Authority

Curt Miller, General Manager

Donald Scharr, Senior Engineer

Linwood Tanner, Chief Operator

Consulting Engineers

Clay Sykes, 

CH2M HILL Project Manager

Robert Knight, 

CH2M HILL 

Project Environmental Scientist

Carl Easton, 

CH2M HILL Resident Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bob Freeman,

Municipal Grants Program, 

Region IV

This brochure was prepared by CH2M HILL for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Hillsboro, OR - Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve

Introduction

Wetlands Water Source

Putting the Polish on Wetlands for Water 

Quality Management

The Dynamics of a Real-World Experiment 

Enhancement for Wildlife

Education, Research and Passive Recreation

Acknowledgements
Working together for water quality, wildlife habitat, education and passive recreation.

At the south edge of 

Hillsboro, Oregon, lies the 

damp, tranquil sanctuary of 

the Jackson Bottom 

Wetlands Preserve. Nearly 

650 acres of low-lying 

floodplain on the edge of 

the Tualatin River, about 

80 percent of the area is 

classified as wetlands. 

Early mapmakers 

dismissed the damp bottomlands as a “mirey swamp” suitable only for dredging, draining, and farming. 

Over the years, agricultural and sewage disposal practices created a highly degraded landscape of limited 

value for wildlife use, dominated by introduced grasses. 

Since 1979, the Jackson Bottom Steering Committee has been working 

together on an innovative project aimed at changing those conditions 

and transforming this "mirey swamp" into a wildlife and water quality 

"living laboratory." The Steering Committee, made up of a unique 

alliance of economic interests, environmental groups and public 

agencies, spent the first 10 years on efforts directed primarily toward 

improving the area's wildlife habitat and passive recreation values. 

In 1989, the coalition broadened its efforts and began investigating the 

use of natural and constructed wetland systems for water quality 

management as part of the Unified Sewerage Agency's effort to improve 

water quality in the Tualatin River. 

At the Jackson Bottom Wetlands, the Steering Committee has a unique opportunity to manage the 

wetland's multiple goals. Jackson Bottom provides a chance to increase the diversity of resident and 

transient wildlife, improve water quality, provide rich research and educational experiences, offer passive 

and non-consumptive forms of recreation, and attract tourists in an area of rapidly expanding urban 

population. 

The 1989 Jackson Bottom Concept Master Plan clearly outlined the main goals of the Jackson Bottom 

Wetlands Preserve. 
Enhancement for Wildlife:

Attract a more diverse wildlife 

population by expanding and 

restoring the preserve to 

provide food and shelter to a 

variety of birds and animals. 

Water Quality Management:

Develop the Jackson Bottom 

Experimental Wetland to 

investigate the feasibility of 

using wetlands to “polish” 

effluent from a secondary wastewater treatment plant for the 

removal of phosphorus and nitrogen before discharging to the 

water quality-limited Tualatin River. 

Passive Recreation: Provide access to areas of the wetland and 

the Tualatin River for hiking, bird watching, angling and other 

passive natural resource-associated activities. 

Education and Research: Encourage educational use through interpretive signs and displays, 

development of educational materials for schools and groups, providing site tours and assisting 

researchers with research projects. 

The Jackson Bottom Steering Committee

● City of Hillsboro

● Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)

● Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

● Greater Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce

● Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District

● Portland Audubon Society

● Friends of Jackson Bottom

● Oregon Graduate Institute

● Washington County Education Service District

● The Wetlands Conservancy

● Portland Bureau of Environmental Services

● Pacific University

● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wetlands Water Source

Historically, the damp landscape of Jackson Bottom owes its source of water to the regular flooding of 

the Tualatin River. The flooding creates the bottomland wetlands which make up the majority of Jackson 

Bottom. 

Today, water from regular winter flood is 

supplemented in the summer by secondarily treated 

effluent from a nearby Unified Sewerage Agency 

treatment plant. This cleaned wastewater helps to 

maintain the restored wildlife habitat. In return, the 

wetlands filter the effluent before it's returned to the 

river. 

Since 1979, enhancement projects have created and 

restored several types of wetlands once typical in the 

basin. The additional wetland types include deep and 

shallow ponds, wet meadows, riparian wetlands and 

fresh-water marshes. Edging the east side are also 

forested wetlands and upland habitat. 
Putting the Polish on Wetlands for Water Quality Management

Wetlands, ponds and lagoons have long played a role in wastewater treatment. In many areas, partially 

treated wastewater is filtered through wetlands for suspended solids (SS) and biochemical oxygen 

demand (BOD) removal. 

The Jackson Bottom Experimental Wetland (JBEW) is taking this process one step further. Using 

secondarily treated effluent from the Unified Sewerage Agency's (USA) Hillsboro Wastewater Treatment 

Plant, USA's researchers are investigating the use of wetlands to “polish” the wastewater for removal of 

phosphorus and nitrogen. These nutrients are abundant in the effluent of conventional secondary 

treatment plants. This experimental program is part of USA“s comprehensive effort to reduce loads of 

phosphorus and nitrogen entering the water quality-limited Tualatin River. 

Built in the summer of 1988 with operation beginning in 1989, the JBEW occupies about 15 acres on the 

eastern edge of the Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve. The Experimental Wetland is actually a series of 

17 parallel cells, each built to contain effluent for varying amounts of time, with different soil types and 

different vegetation patterns. Since July 1989, testing has been conducted to measure the success rates of 

the soils and vegetation to "polish" the effluent. 
Jackson Bottom 

Experimental Wetland

Design and Operational 

Criteria

Cell Design Criteria; 15.6 Acre 

Wetland (17 Parallel Cells)

Cell Size, Capacity Total

Width 18.3 to 22.4 ft .

Length 1250 to 1280 ft .

Depth

46 percent at 1 ft

54 percent at 3 

ft.

.

Surface 

Area

22,000 to 30,600 

sq. ft

0.5 to 0.7 acres

430,600 sq. 

ft

9.9 acres

Water Level0.5 to 2.75 ft .

Volume 254,000 to 

427,000 gal 4.8 mil gal.

Introduced Cattail (Typha 

latifolia) .

.....

Vegetation

Sago pondweed

.....(Potamogeton 

pectinatus)

.

Soil

..... Cove 

Series 5.4 acres .

..... Wapato 

silty loam 6.2 acres .

..... Labish 

mucky clay 3.4 acres .

JBEW Operational 

Parameters

. 1989 1990 1991

Days 77 108 118
Operational Period

July 

25-

Oct 

17

June 

25-

Oct 

10

June 

19-

Oct 

10

Hydraulic cm/d 7.0 4.0 5.5

.......Loading 

Rate in/d 2.8 1.6 2.6

Average 

Flow/cell gpm 30 19 24

Detention Time days 5-10 5-27 4-12

Mass Loading Rates

.......Phosphorus kg/ha/da5.2 3.4 2.4

. lb/ac/da 4.6 3.0 2.1

.......Nitrogen kg/ha/da14.9 7.7 11.0

. lb/ac/da 13.2 6.9 9.8

After three years of testing and extended research on JBEW, interesting results have surfaced . The 

Experimental Wetland is improving the quality of the effluent—it is lower in both phosphorus and 

nitrogen when it leaves the cells. Research has shown, although plants serve important functions in the 

filtering, the soils have proved to be the main elements in binding up the phosphorus, thereby preventing 

it from reaching the nearby Tualatin River. 

Water quality is the focus of the JBEW, but education and wildlife have also benefited from this 

innovative project. The construction of the wetlands has provided food, nesting and rich habitat for many 

wetland species. The Experimental Wetland has also provided valuable educational opportunities for 

teachers, students and researchers from schools and universities throughout the region. 

As research continues to determine how to best meet the state's water quality standards, the Jackson 

Bottom Wetlands Preserve serves as a model for improving water quality and managing multiple goals. 

JBEW Outflow Data, Three 

Year Average

. InfluentEffluent

Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand (mg/L) 5.1 3.0

Chemical Oxygen 

Demand (mg/L) 42 47

Alkalinity (mg/L) 86 126

Total Solids (mg/L) 312 326

Total Dissolved Solids 

(mg/L) 304 316
Total Suspended Solids 

(mg/L) 7.7 9.6

Ammonia-N (mg/L) 8.4 3.0

Total Kjeldahl NitrogenN (mg/L) 11.9 4.8

Nitrate/Nitrite-N (mg/L) 7.3 0.5

Total Phosphorus 6.3 3.8

Soluble Ortho 

Phosphorus-N (mg/L) 5.0 3.0

Chloride (mg/L) 59 66

Enterococcus (#/100 ml)3 75

Chlorophyll a (ug/L) 0.9 28.7

Groundwater Monitoring 

Data

Shallow Wells Within JBEW

. Drinking 

Water Std198919901991

Nitrate/Nitrite 

(mg/L) 10 0.39 0.04 0.02

Chloride 

(mg/L) 250 102 63 49

pH 6.0-9.0 7.2 6.4 6.6
The Dynamics of a Real-World Experiment

Gathering data from a dynamic, realworld experiment presents challenges. 

Variables that can easily be controlled 

in a lab, may be unpredictable in a 

dynamic process. 

JBEW researchers have worked to 

carefully control the variables within 

their reach, yet remain flexible enough 

to adjust for changes in a dynamic 

system. Among the impacts that have 

affected the JBEW are: 

● Non-native vegetation. Planted vegetation (cattails, sago pondweed) struggled to compete with 

the non-native plants (reed canary grass, Lemna, Azola) that dominate much of Jackson Bottom. 

● Phosphate detergent ban.In 1991, a region-wide phosphate detergent ban dramatically reduced 

the concentration of phosphorus in USA's effluent. As a result, the amount of phosphorus entering 

JBEW dropped as did the percent removal. 

● Plant operations. In 1991, the Hillsboro Treatment Plant was no longer able to operate in 

nitrification mode due to a 25 percent increase in service area. This resulted in higher ammonia 

and lower nitrate effluent entering JBEW.

Enhancement for Wildlife

Jackson Bottom is part of a larger Tualatin River wildlife/wetland 

corridor. This rich corridor provides essential stop-over feeding and 

resting spots for migrating waterfowl traveling the Pacific Flyway. It 

is also an important habitat for other species of wildlife. Much of 

this habitat has been lost to agriculture and development. But with 

projects like the Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve, crucial links in 

this increasingly fragmented ecosystem are being reconnected, 

enhanced and protected. 

Though degraded by past human practices, Jackson Bottom is 

coming alive with a newly developed diversity thanks to the 

dedicated efforts of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the 

Friends of Jackson Bottom, Ducks Unlimited and other groups. 

What was once a flat meadow of exotic reed canary grass, with little 

feeding or nesting opportunities for native species of wildlife, is now 

being transformed into a complex patchwork of wetlands and upland 
habitat. The wildlife ponds and marshes created using recycled wastewater are bordered by cattails, reeds 

and rushes, native willows, dogwood, ash and elderberry. This increased diversity of plants provides food 

and shelter for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other wetland wildlife. Resident populations now 

include Canada geese, many species of ducks, rails, herons, osprey, bald eagles, nesting red tailed hawks, 

harriers, and several owl species. Larger mammals include rare sightings of deer, elk, mink, beaver, 

coyote and fox. 

Until the habitat has sufficiently recovered, nesting sites are supplemented with floating goose platforms 

and boxes for swallows, bats, wood ducks and kestrels. The enhancement projects offer the opportunity 

to become involved with wildlife agencies and provide rich habitat for wildlife. 
Education, Research and Passive Recreation

From early morning walks in the thick morning fog to 

sophisticated research by soil scientists, there are many 

opportunities to enjoy and learn from this natural resource 

without harming it. 

Research, education and passive recreation activities are a 

major component of the 1989 Jackson Bottom Concept 

Master Plan. Research efforts conducted by the Unified 

Sewerage Agency, the Oregon Graduate Institute and other 

regional colleges and universities are providing answers 

and posing new questions about ecosystems and their role 

in water quality management. 

Education is a top priority, too. Spearheaded by the 

Wetland Coordinator and Friends of Jackson Bottom, 

students and teachers are learning about this astonishing 

natural system through tours and field work. The Friends 

group has developed wetlands curriculum and sponsors a 

variety of events year-round. In 1992, a state grant enabled 

Jackson Bottom to hire a part-time Wetlands Educator to 

coordinate a pilot educational program. 

Trails, viewsites and viewing shelters offer visitors a glimpse into the workings of this rich ecosystem. 

The Kingfisher Marsh Interpretive Trail, designed and built by the Friends group, offers visitors a mile 

long walk through wetland and upland habitat along the rarely seen Tualatin River. Future plans call for 

more trails and improved river access.

For information on the Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve and the Jackson Bottom Experimental 

Wetlands, please contact: 
Jackson Bottom 

Wetlands Coordinator

City of Hillsboro

123West Main Street

Hillsboro, OR 97123

(503) 681-6206 

Unified Sewerage 

Agency

155 North First Street

Hillsboro, OR 97124

(503) 648-8621 

Acknowledgments

This publication was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Special thanks to the Unified 

Sewerage Agency of Washington County, City of Hillsboro and Linda Newberry for their contributions. 

Nest photo on page 156 and family photo on page 161 courtesy of Friends of Jackson Bottom. The 

salamander photo on page 157 courtesy of Audubon Society of Portland, Oregon. 
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1993 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Des Plaines River, IL - The Des Plains River 

Wetlands Project: Wetlands for River Water Quality 

Improvement

System Description

Hydrology

System Performance

Water Quality Responses

Vegetation Responses

Wildlife Use

Acknowledgements

Research Groups
System Description

Wetlands EW3 and EW4 are encircled by access roads, 

and bordered by US Highway 41 (bottom) and 

Wadsworth Road (left). Flow enters EW3 from the left, 

and enters EW4 from the bottom. Both discharge to a 

swale (top right), which is connected to the Des Plaines 

River. On this aerial infrared photo, water is black and 

cattails are dark red.

The Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration 

Project is designed to produce the criteria necessary 

for rebuilding our river systems through the use of 

wetlands and for developing management programs 

for the continued operation of the new structures. 

The research program is assessing wetland 

functions through large-scale experimentation, 

controlled manipulation of flow rates and water 

depths, testing of soil conditions, and the 

employment of a wide variety of native plant 

communities. 

Four wetlands have been constructed near 

Wadsworth, Illinois, for purposes of river water 

quality improvement. The river drains an 

agricultural and urban watershed, and carries a nonpoint source contaminant load of sediment, 

nutrients and agricultural chemicals. The site is 

located 35 miles north of Chicago. It incorporates 

2.8 miles of the upper Des Plaines River and 450 

acres of riparian land. The river flows south, 

draining 200 square miles in southern Wisconsin 

and northeastern Illinois. Eighty percent of the 

watershed is agricultural and 20 percent urban. The 

river is polluted with non-point source contaminants 

from a variety of land use activities, and point source contaminants from small domestic treatment plants. 

In support of previous agricultural uses, low-lying portions of the site were drained by means of tiles. 

Past uses of the site included pasture and a Christmas tree farm which resulted in the demise of most of 

the original wetlands and associated fauna and flora. 

Water is pumped from the river to the wetlands, from a point just south of Wadsworth Road. This energy 

intensive alternative was necessary because of site constraints, and because of the desire to explore a 

wide range of hydraulic conditions. Gravity diversion would be a preferred alternative in most 

applications of this technology. Water leaving the wetlands returns to the river via grassy swales. 
Hydrology

The river is a "good old muddy midwestern stream." Shown here at 

average flow, it regularly floods a large amount of bottom land. In the 

summer of 1988, a severe drought caused it to dry to a disconnected 

string of pools.

The Des Plaines River enters the site from the north, passing 

under the Wadsworth Road bridge. It is relatively wide and 

shallow under normal flow conditions—100 feet wide and 

about 2 feet deep. This reach exhibits channel stability, 

primarily because of the low energy state of the river. Stream 

velocities average less than 1 foot per second. The gradient is 

1.2 feet per mile. 

About 15% of the variable stream flow is pumped to the 

wetlands, and allowed to return from the wetlands to the river 

through control structures followed by vegetated channels. 

Native wetland plants have been established, ranging from 

cattail, bulrushes, water lilies, and arrowhead to duckweed and 

algae. Pumping began in the 1989, and has continued during 

the ensuing spring, summer and fall periods. The experimental 

design provides for different hydraulic loading rates, ranging 

from 2 to 24 inches per week. Intensive wetland research began in late summer 1989, and continues to 

present. 

The hydrology of the wetland complex has been studied extensively. Groundwater investigations showed 

a relatively complex local flow pattern, with some groundwater interactions with the river. Wetland EW5 

leaks to groundwater, as does wetland EW5 to a minor extent. For WY 1990 (October 1989-September 

1990), precipitation and evapotranspiration were equal. 
Pumping creates a fountain effect at the inlet to each 

wetland.

Pumping occurred for all weeks in 1990, but was 

discontinued in winter in subsequent years. The pump 

is run on weekdays, for a prescheduled period. In WY 

1990, it was run 10.5% of the time. Outflow from the 

wetlands is controlled by weirs. Thus the hydrologic 

regime is cyclic, with increasing water levels and flows 

during the few daily hours of pumping, followed by a 

lowering of water levels and a slowing of flows during 

the off hours. 

Annual Average Water budget Compnents,

WY1990 (cm/day)

. EW3 EW4 EW5 EW6

Inflows

Surface Inflow 5.36 1.46 5.01 2.78
Precipitation 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26

Outflows

Discharge 5.36 1.46 4.80 0.35

Evapotranspiration 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26

Seepage 0.00 0.00 0.21 2.43

River enters the site from the north, passing under the Wadsworth Road 

bridge. It is relatively wide and shallow under normal flow conditions 100 

feet wide and about 2 feet deep. This reach exhibits channel stability, 

primarily because of the low energy state of the river. Stream velocities 

average less than 1 foot per second. The gradient is 1.2 feet per mile.
System Performance

The wetland internal flow patterns are not ideal in any 

sense of the word. The nominal detention times in the 

wetlands range from one to three weeks under moderate 

to high flow conditions. Some of the pumped water 

moves quickly toward the outlet, and reaches it in about 

one days time. Other portions of the pumped water are 

trapped in the litter and floc near the wetland bottom. Still 

other portions are slowed by plant clumps, or blown off 

course by the wind. The net effect is that some water 

takes three times as long as the average to find its way out 

of the wetland. 

Tracer studies have been run at Des Plaines, using lithium 

chloride as the tracer material. A sudden dump of 

dissolved lithium is made into the wetland inflow. The 

outflow is then analyzed for the lithium, which appears at 

varying concentrations and at various times after the 

dump. These tests have established that the degree of mixing within the wetlands is higher than expected. But surprisingly, 

there is not a great deal of difference between wetlands, even though they differ in shape.

Suspended Solids In and Out of 

the Des Plaines Wetlands (mg/l)

. Inlet EW3 EW4 EW5 EW6

FA89 8.0 2.0 2.4 2.6 3.0

WI89 7.1 5.0 3.6 4.2 3.0

SP90 24.2 5.5 4.5 2.9 3.3

SU90 47.7 5.7 14.9 4.3 13.9

FA90 50.1 10.8 7.4 5.4 4.4

SP91 63.9 5.8 7.4 2.4 6.2

SU91 123 6.0 6.8 3.2 7.8

FA91 66.0 10.8 6.7 25.8 NF

AVG 48.8 6.5 6.7 4.9 6.1

% Removal 87% 86% 90% 87%

The primary water quality problem of the river is associated with 

turbidity. With a mean concentration of 59 parts per million, over 5,000 

tons of suspended solids enter the site per year via the Des Plaines River 

and Mill Creek. Seventy-five percent of these solids are inorganic and 

95 percent are less than 63 microns in size. Sediment removal 

efficiencies ranged from 86-100% for the four cells during summer, and 

from 38-95% during winter. 

A fish story developed in 1990. The solids in the 

wetland effluents were steadily increasing with each 

passing week. The source of the problem was found: 

a large number of carp were growing up in the wetlands. These fish foraged in the wetland sediments, causing resuspension of 

solids. They entered as fry in the pumped water, and grew to 8-10 inches over the first two years of the project. The solution 

was to draw down the wetland water levels, in winter 1990-91, and freeze out the carp. Solids removal returned to the 

previous high levels of efficiency.
Carp rooted up sediments and impaired sediment 

removal efficiency. They were frozen out and 

removed.
Water Quality Responses

Suspended Solids In and Out of 

the Des Plaines Wetlands (mg/l)

. Inlet EW3 EW4 EW5 EW6

FA89 0.052 0.018 0.013 0.014 0.018

WI89 0.073 0.053 0.030 0.058 0.024

SP90 0.057 0.044 0.015 0.017 0.023

Other observed river water quality problems 

included violations of the state water quality 

standards for iron, copper, and fecal coliforms. 

These pollutants are found only occasionally, and 

not in dangerously high concentrations. Although 

not detected in amounts exceeding the federal Food 

and Drug Administration's criteria, dieldrin, DDT 

and PCBs have been found in fish flesh samples. 

DDT, DDE and PCBs were also found in low 

concentrations in the river borne sediments. The 
SU90 0.117 0.038 0.055 0.035 0.062

FA90 0.131 0.024 0.007 0.017 0.011

SP91 0.089 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.002

SU91 0.119 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.009

AVG 0.091 0.027 0.019 0.022 0.021

% Removal 65% 78% 73% 75%

old pesticides are pervasive everywhere else in the 

environment, and so will be in these wetlands. The 

river bears a significant nutrient load, as evidenced 

by nitrate and phosphorus. These fertilizers peak 

seasonally, corresponding to runoff timing and 

land use practices within the watershed. 

Agricultural practices within the basin produce 

pollution with atrazine, at concentrations which 

peak in excess of the federal drinking water standard. According to the results of benthic surveys, the 

stream is classified as semi-polluted. 

Phosphorus removal efficiencies average 65–80%. However, efficiency is lower in winter and higher in 

summer. That is partly because the riverine concentrations of phosphorus are very low in winter, and 

partly because biological processes slow in the cold temperatures. Winter runoff in the watershed is 

overland, over frozen soils or ice and snow. The result is low phosphorus in the river in winter. 

Most phosphorus enters the wetlands associated with mineral suspended solids. These solids settle 

quickly, and may not freely exchange their phosphorus with the wetland waters. In addition, there is a 

large biotic cycle of growth, death and decomposition at work, which leaves a residual of organic 

sedimentary material. The deposition from this cycle exceeds the deposition of incoming river solids by a 

wide margin. Both processes immobilize phosphorus in these wetlands. During the early years, 

phosphorus is also tied up in the new biomass associated with these developing ecosystems. 

Nitrate Nitrogen Reduction, (mg/l)

. Inlet EW3 EW4 EW5 EW6

FA89 2.46 1.46 0.04 1.27 0.08

WI89 2.15 0.67 0.17 1.51 0.25

1990 1.87 0.54 0.24 0.53 0.32

1991 1.22 0.23 0.10 0.18 0.18

AVG 1.80 0.61 0.15 0.70 0.22

AVG % 66% 92% 61% 88%

There are a variety of nitrogen forms in the river 

water. About 0.6 mg/l of organic nitrogen enter the 

wetlands, and the same amount leaves. Very low 

ammonium nitrogen concentrations are found in 

both river and wetland waters: about 0.05 mg/l. 

Nitrate varies seasonally in the river, in response to 

urban and agricultural practices. High spring and 

fall concentrations are echoed by similar variations 

in the nitrate content of the wetland effluent 

waters. However, in the warm seasons, a 

considerable amount of the incoming nitrate is 

removed, presumably due to denitrification. This 

microbially mediated process appears to be more 

efficient in the wetlands with lower hydraulic 

loading rate, which is equivalent to increased detention time since depths are comparable. Thus the 

overall effect of the wetlands is to control the nitrate in the water when sufficient contact time is 

available. 

Atrazine, a triazine herbicide, exists in many streams in the upper midwestern part of the United States, 

including the Des Plaines River, due to use patterns in the watershed. The atrazine-wetland interaction is 
very complex, including removal from the area by convection in the water, loss of chemical identity by 

hydrolysis to hydroxytriazine and dealkylation, and sorption on wetland sediments and litter. Atrazine 

transport, sorption and identity loss were studied at the site, and in accompanying laboratory work. 

Sorption was effective for soils and sediments, but the more organic materials, such as litter, showed a 

stronger affinity for atrazine than the mineral base soils of the wetland cells at Des Plaines. 

Atrazine was found to degrade on those sediments according to a first order rate law. Therefore, outflows 

from the Des Plaines wetland cells contained reduced amounts of atrazine compared to the river water 

inputs. During 1991, atrazine peaked in the river due to two rain events. Only about 25% of the incoming 

atrazine was removed in wetland cell EW3, but 95% was removed in wetland cell EW4. The explanation 

is that the detention time in EW4 is longer than in EW3. 
Vegetation Responses

Water clarity is generally excellent at 

the wetland outflow.

Efforts at vegetation establishment were initially thwarted by the 

extreme drought conditions of 1988. The planting of white water 

lily (Nymphea odorata) showed small success, and American 

water lotus (Nelumbo lutea) did not survive. 

The development of the macrophyte plant communities has been 

monitored from project startup. Sixteen 2m x 2m permanent 

quadrats were established in each wetland cell. Data were 

acquired on species composition and biomass for all plants in 

each quadrat. Plants were individually measured, and a 

correlation between dry weight and leaf size was developed. Thus 

biomass could be determined non-destructively. There was an 

overall increase in species as volunteer wetland vegetation 

replaced the terrestrial vegetation of pre-pumping. 

Number of Species of

Wetland Plants

. EW3 EW4 EW5 EW6

1988 2 21 22 29

1989 9 19 14 17

1990 26 28 20 26

1991 25 33 22 27

Fourteen species were observed 

in 1990 that were not present in 

1989, and ten species from 1989 

did not reappear; these later 

being mostly upland species. 

The first year of inundation 

caused the death of many 

upland species, such as cottonwood (Populus deltoides). The growing 

seasons of 1989, 1990 and 1991 all displayed an increase in the amount 

of cattail (Typha spp.). Productivity increased from 200-400 dry grams 

per square meter in 1989 to 600-800 in 1990. The growing season of 1990 produced extensive blooms of 

macrophytic algae, predominantly Cladaphora. 
Wildlife Use

Bird populations have grown much larger than in the pre-wetlands period for the site. For migratory 

waterfowl, there has been a 500% increase in the number of species, and a 4500% increase in the number 

of individuals from 1985 to 1990. Forty-seven species of birds nested on the site in 1990, a 27% increase 

over preproject numbers. 

The fall 1990 bird survey turned up a number of interesting species, including the state endangered piedbilled grebe and black-crowned night heron, and also the great egret, American bittern, and the sharpshinned hawk. The state-endangered yellow-headed blackbird and least bittern nest successfully at the 
site. 

Muskrats have moved in, and constructed both dwelling houses and feeding platforms. And, beaver are 

now resident in the wetlands. They chewed off quadrat corner posts—most of the 256 posts initially 

placed. They attempted to dam the wetland EW3 outflow nearly every night in 1992. 
Acknowledgements

Support for the project has been provided by a large number of both private and governmental agencies. 

Contributions have been both in-kind and financial. 

Abbott Laboratories

AMOCO Foundation

Annexter Brothers

Atlantic Richfield Foundation

Badger Meter Co.

Borg-Warner Foundation

Campanella & Sons, Inc.

Caterpillar Foundation

Chauncey and Marion Deering-McCormick Foundation

Commonwealth Edison Company

Exxon Company USA

Garden Guild (Winnetka)

Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelly

Hartz Construction Co., Inc.

Illinois Department of Energy 

and Natural Resources

International Minerals and 

Chemical Corporation

J. I. Case

Kelso-Burnett Co.

Lake County Forest Preserve District

Land and Lakes Company

Material Service Corporation

Midcon Corporation

Morton Arboretum

National Terminals Corporation

Olson Oil Company

Open Lands Project

Prince Charitable Trust

R. R. Donnelly & Sons

Sidney G. Haskins

Sudix Foundation

The Brunswick Foundation

The Indevco Group

The Joyce Foundation

The Munson Foundation

U. S. E. P. A.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USX Foundation, Inc.

ISPE Outstanding Engineering Achievement of 1991: The Des Plaines River 

Wetlands Demonstration Project 

Ecological Society of America: Special Recognition Award, 1993
Research Groups

Blue horizon marker particles just after 

placement. As sediments accumulate, these 

marker particules become buried. The amount of 

overlying sediment may then be determined at 

later times.

Project research has been conducted by several 

organizations: 

College of Lake County

Wetlands Research, Inc.

Iowa State University

M. C. Herp Surveys

North Dakota State University

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Northern Illinois University

Northwestern University

The Illinois State Water Survey

The Illinois Institute of Technology

The Illinois State Geological Survey

The Morton Arboretum

The Ohio State University

The University of Michigan

Western Illinois University 

For the project bibliography, project reports or other 

information, contact the not-for-profit coordinating 

organization: 

Wetlands Research, Inc.

53 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone 312-922-0777 

Fax 312-922-1823
Concerned Citizen Questionaire

In order for the Municipal Technology Branch to be effective in meeting your needs, we need to understand

what your needs are and how effectively we are meeting them. Please take a few minutes to tell us if this

document was helpful in meeting your needs, and what other needs you have concerning wastewater

treatment, water use efficiency, or reuse.

Indicate how you are best described:

[ ] concerned citizen [ ] local official [ ] researcher

[ ] consultant [ ] state official [ ] student

[ ] other [ ] Federal official [ ] teacher

Name (optional): ____________________________________________

Phone No. (optional) : ________________________________________

Email Address (optional):______________________________________

[ ] This document is what I was looking for.

[ ] I would like a workshop/seminar based on this document.

[ ] I had trouble [ ] finding [ ] ordering [ ] receiving this document.

[ ] The document was especially helpful in the following ways:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

[ ] I was unable to meet my need with this document. What I really need is:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

[ ] I found the following things in this document which I believe are wrong:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

[ ] What other types of technical assistance do you need?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

We thanks you for helping us serve you better. To return this questionaire, print this page out and fax it to

202-260-0116 or send it to:

Municipal Technology Branch (4204)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street SW

Washington, DC 20460