Wastewater Treatment Wetland in Pilot

Mountain State Park

Authors:

E. M. Bennett
J. H. Guthrie
M. K. Harper
R. R. Moore
B. T. Smith

Advisor: Dr. Michael Burchell

April 29, 2011

 Page 1 of 52

Abstract:

The Pilot Mountain State Park in western North Carolina is open year round to tourists, campers,
and hikers. To treat the municipal waste produced, the park has an on-site wastewater treatment
plant permitted to treat 10,000 gallons per day. The effluent from the package treatment plant
currently discharges into Grassy Creek, which is classified as a Water Supply IV stream that
connects to Winston-Salem’s drinking supply. The pollutant and nutrient levels of the treated
waste meet state requirements, but the park would like to reduce them further to set an example
and be good stewards to the environment. Of greatest concern are the nitrate levels being
released which have been observed to be up to 30 times greater than that of the receiving body of
water. The design team was asked to design a tertiary treatment system to further treat the
effluent before being introduced to Grassy Creek. To address this issue, the team designed a
wastewater treatment wetland which utilizes the maximum amount of available space and made
design decisions to minimize cost. Three designs were created in order to select one design that
best balanced pollutant removal and cost. For the selected design candidate, design candidate 1,
the maximum observed influent concentration of 31 mg/l is expected to be reduced to 7 mg/l, a
reduction of 78%. Additionally, nitrate reduction is expected to be as high as 99% in the warmest
month and 48% in the coldest month. With an estimated average influent nitrate concentration of
9 mg/l, the nitrate concentration will be reduced to an annual average of 2 mg/l, a reduction of
77%. The total estimated cost of this design is $50,000.
 Page 2 of 52

Table of Contents
Abstract: .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction: .................................................................................................................................... 4
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 4
Background Information ............................................................................................................. 4
Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Materials and Methods:................................................................................................................... 8
Site Visits and Surveys ............................................................................................................... 8
Feasibility Analysis..................................................................................................................... 9
k-C* Model for Nitrate Reduction .......................................................................................... 9
Nitrate Loading Analysis ...................................................................................................... 10
Theoretical Efficiency........................................................................................................... 11
Hydraulic Retention Time..................................................................................................... 11
Water Balance ....................................................................................................................... 11
Soils....................................................................................................................................... 12
Design ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 15
Results and Discussion: ................................................................................................................ 15
Site Visits and Surveys ............................................................................................................. 15
Feasibility Analysis................................................................................................................... 17
Water Balance ....................................................................................................................... 22
Soils....................................................................................................................................... 23
Design ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 26
Permitting.............................................................................................................................. 27
Cost ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Conclusions:.................................................................................................................................. 27
Acknowledgments: ....................................................................................................................... 28
List of References: ........................................................................................................................ 29
Figures........................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix 1: Construction Scope of Work ................................................................................ 33
Appendix 2: Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................. 35
 Page 3 of 52

Appendix 3: Planting Instructions ............................................................................................ 37

Appendix 4: Calculation Package ............................................................................................. 38
1 Key ..................................................................................................................................... 38
2 Pilot Mountain ................................................................................................................... 39
2.1 Stormwater Calculations ................................................................................................. 39
2.2 Clean Water Diversion .................................................................................................... 39
2.3 Inlet Pipe ......................................................................................................................... 40
2.4 Pipe Outlet Protection ..................................................................................................... 40
2.5 Flashboard ....................................................................................................................... 40
2.6 Planting ........................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix 5: Budget .................................................................................................................. 43
Design Candidate 1 ............................................................................................................... 43
Design Candidate 2 ............................................................................................................... 45
Design Candidate 3 ............................................................................................................... 47
Appendix 6: Derivation ............................................................................................................ 49
Appendix 7: Gantt Chart ........................................................................................................... 51
 Page 4 of 52

Introduction:

Problem Statement
Pilot Mountain State Park, in western North Carolina, recently installed a new package
wastewater treatment plant on-site (Figure 20) to treat the municipal waste from the park’s
facilities. The park is open year round to tourists, campers, and hikers and is permitted to treat
10,000 gallons per day. The effluent from the wastewater treatment plant currently discharges
into a Water Supply IV stream, Grassy Creek. The monthly allowable ammonium concentration
of the effluent is 11.1 mg/L. The pollutant and nutrient levels of the treated waste meet state
requirements, but the park would like to reduce them further to set an example and be good
stewards of the environment. Currently the system uses a two stage package system implemented
by The Smith Sinnet Associates, PA. To ensure the health of the stream and further minimize
discharge levels, a tertiary wastewater treatment method is needed. Nutrient levels are of the
greatest concern, thus the denitrification capacity of a wastewater treatment wetland makes it an
appropriate design selection. Area is available for the construction of a wetland on the site of the
wastewater treatment plant, but space is limited. The budget for the project is expected to be low,
so keeping costs low will be a major design constraint.

Background Information
There are many widely accepted definitions for wetlands. According the Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act a wetland is defined as:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by the surface or ground water (hydrology) at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation (hydrophytes) typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions (hydric soils). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and
similar areas. (Fangmeier, Elliot, Workman, Huffman, & Schwab, 2006, p. 272)

Jurisdictional wetlands, as regulated by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers under Section 404,
must exhibit all three characteristics: hydrology, hydrophytes, and hydric soils. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service define wetlands as having one or more of the following three attributes:

1. At least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes;

2. The substrate is predominately undrained hydric soils; and,
3. The substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at
some time during the growing season of each year. (Fangmeier et. al, 2006, p. 271)

All these definitions combine three factors: hydrology, soils and vegetation. Hydrophytes are
plants which thrive where water is at or near the surface. Hydric soils are saturated for long
intervals during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions near the surface (Fangmeier
et. al. 271).
 Page 5 of 52

Constructed wetlands are built to treat wastewater or stormwater and are controlled by inlet and
outlet conditions. Wastewater can have high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen, phosphorous, and fecal coliform bacteria. Wastewater
treatment wetlands can be classified as surface flow or subsurface flow wetlands. The
disadvantage of subsurface flow wetlands is their tendency to clog (Fangmeier et. al, 2006, p.
283-284). Figure 1 depicts a surface flow wastewater treatment wetland that treats the waste of
Richmond Hill, a community in Georgia.

Figure 1. Richmond Hill community wastewater treatment wetland (City of Richmond Hill Georgia, 2011)

Nitrogen can occur in many forms in wetlands depending on oxidation-reduction state, several of
which are important in a wetland’s biogeochemistry. Nitrogen transformation in wetlands
involves several microbial processes which are displayed in Figure 2. A wetland serves as a
bioreactor because it is an engineered environment that supports biological activity. With the
presence of anoxic conditions in wetlands, microbial denitrification transforms nitrate to gaseous
forms of nitrogen which are released into the atmosphere. Nitrate serves as an electron acceptor
in wetland soils that are depleted of oxygen. Humans release excess nitrogen into the system
through activities such as fertilizer manufacturing, increased use of nitrogen-fixing crops, and
fossil fuel burning. Wetlands serve as potential “sinks” for nitrogen (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000,
p. 171).
 Page 6 of 52

Figure 2: Nitrogen transformations in wetland (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000)

Nitrogen mineralization converts organically bound nitrogen to ammonium nitrogen as the

organic matter is being decomposed and degraded. The pathway can occur in both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions and is referred to as ammonification. Mineralization of simple soluble
organic nitrogen is given as:

NH2CONH2 + H2O → 2 NH3 +CO2

NH3 + H20 →NH4+ + OH-

When the ammonium ion (NH4+) is formed it can be absorbed by plants through their root
systems or by anaerobic microorganisms and converted back to organic matter. Under high- pH
conditions (pH > 8), excessive algal blooms can form and the ammonium ion can be converted to
NH3, which is then released in to the atmosphere through volatilization. The ammonium ion can
also be immobilized through ion exchange onto negatively charged soil particles. With the
anaerobic conditions of wetlands, ammonium is normally restricted from further oxidation. The
gradient of high concentrations of ammonium in the reduced soils and low concentration in
oxidized layers causes an upward diffusion of ammonium to the oxidized layer. In an aerobic
environment, ammonium nitrogen can be oxidized through the process of nitrification in two
steps. The first step is facilitated by Nitrosomonas bacteria while the second step is facilitated by
Nitrobacter bacteria:

2NH4+ + 3O2 →2NO2- + 2H2O + 4H+ + energy

2NO2- + O2 →2NO3- + energy

Nitrate (NO3-) is more mobile in solution. Denitrification occurs in anaerobic conditions where
nitrate acts as a terminal electron acceptor. The reduction of oxygen yields the most energy but
when oxygen is absent, nitrate has the highest reduction potential and many microorganisms can
 Page 7 of 52

utilize the nitrate instead of oxygen (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009, p.149).. This pathway is
represented in Figure 3.. This process results in the loss of nitrogen because it is converted to
gaseous nitrous oxide (N2O) and molecular nitrogen (N2):

C6H12O6 + 4NO3 → 6CO2 + 6H2O +2N2

Denitrification is inhibited
ted in acidic soils. Nitrogen fixation can convert N2 gas to organic
nitrogen starting the cycle over again. This can be a significant source of nitrogen for some
wetlands. In wetlands, nitrogen fixation can occur in overlying waters, in the aerobic soil layer,
in the anaerobic soil layer, in the oxidized rhizosphere of plants, and on the leaf and stem
surfaces of plants (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000, p. 172172-173).

Figure 3: Nitrification and denitrification in wetlands

((NRCS, 2007 and I.M. Hagenbuch, 2007)

Vegetation plays an important role in the chemical processes that take place in wetlands. The
submerged plant matter provides surface area for the growth of bacteria, algae, and protozoa
which break down dissolved organic matter and utilize nutrients in the wetland for
oxidation/reduction reactions, as described above (Cronk & Fennessy, 2001, pp.341).
.341). By
sustaining microbial activity the wetland becomes more effective at removing wastewater
contaminants. The vegetation has many other roles which contribute to the effectiveness of
treatment wetlands. Plants increase sedimentation by dissipating en energy
ergy throughout the water
column, which prevents re-suspension
suspension of solids and they provide shade to the water column,
keeping algae growth under control (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009, p.96). An essential function of
decomposing vegetation is to provide a carbon ssource
ource for the denitrifying bacteria. A carbon
source acts as an electron donor which is essential for the dentrification process to take place. As
the microorganisms break down the carbon source the donated electrons are accepted by nitrate
whose reduction yields energy (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009, p.149)
p.149).
 Page 8 of 52

Denitrification is the main mechanism for nitrate removal in wetlands, and it is the only
mechanism that completely removes nitrate from the system (Birgand et al., 2007).
Denitrification occurs predominately at the soil-water interface, called the hyporheic zone. The
rate of denitrification is affected by the presence of oxygen, pH, organic carbon supply, water
temperature, nitrate supply, and the population of denitrifying bacteria (Tisdale et al., 1993).
Most of the factors will stay relatively constant or will vary at a slow rate. However, temperature
can vary often and rather significantly. Denitrification rates have been observed to increase more
than ten times with a temperature increase from 5 °C to 27 °C (Dawson and Murphy, 1972).
Accordingly, research shows that nitrogen removal rates are greatest in the summer and lowest in
the winter (Birgand et al., 2007). Because water temperature plays a very large role in the rate of
denitfication and the fact that water temperature is likely to fluctuate often, it is important to
model the denitrification rate as a function of water temperature to get the most accurate analysis
of nitrate removal.

Objective
The overall goal of the designed wetland is to lower nutrient and pollutant levels of the
wastewater discharged into Grassy Creek. Implementing a wetland will also reduce the volume
of water entering the stream due to losses through infiltration and evapotranspiration and,
therefore, decrease the loading of these nutrients and pollutants. While designing the wetland, the
design team would like to optimize the function of the wetland as well as reduce the cost of
implementing the wetland to satisfy the client’s needs. The wetland will need to maximize the
removal of nitrogen from the wastewater. This will be achieved through the denitrification of
nitrate in the anaerobic conditions that occur in the saturated wetland soils. To provide more
treatment of the effluent, hydraulic retention time will be taken into consideration in the design.
The design also needs to be low maintenance in order to reduce continuing costs. These
objectives will be considered to design the wastewater treatment wetland.

Materials and Methods:

Site Visits and Surveys

Two site visits were taken during the course of this design project. During the first site visit, a
land and soil survey of the area of interest (Figure 21) around the package wastewater treatment
plant was conducted. A total station, tripod, rod, prism, and data collector were used for the land
survey. A 3-inch hand soil auger was used to describe several soil profiles to a depth of 5-feet
below the surface in multiple areas. Soil samples were analyzed on site for soil texture and depth
of water table. Important locations that were necessary for creating a design were surveyed:
bench marks, the stream, the gravel road, soil sample locations, the fence line, pipe inverts, the
wastewater treatment plant and other structures in the waste treatment area. Ideas were discussed
 Page 9 of 52

with the client and the proposed area for the wetland was analyzed for possible places to
discharge the wetland.

The main purpose of the second site visit was to acquire GPS data points. The bench mark
locations and points along the wastewater treatment structures were re-surveyed in order to
increase the precision of the survey data. Point elevations were used to create surfaces for cut/fill
calculations and pipe invert elevations aided in pipe design. A macroinvertebrate survey was
conducted as well. Water samples were taken above and below the wastewater treatment outlet
and also from an unaffected tributary that connects upstream.

Feasibility Analysis
After the site visits, a feasibility analysis was performed on the areas delineated by the site
survey and initial design candidates in order to determine if levels of denitrification could be met
that would deem building a treatment wetland practical. Several methods of estimating nitrate
removal and wetland hydrology were used in the analysis.

k-C* Model for Nitrate Reduction

The k-C* first-order area-based degradation model (Kadlec and Knight, 1996, p. 436) was used
to analyze each design candidate for expected post-treatment nitrate concentration.

‫ ܥ‬− ‫∗ܥ‬
ܳ ∗ ln ‫ܥ‬௜ − ‫∗ ܥ‬
௢
‫=ܣ‬
்݇

Where:

A= Area of wetland, m2
Q= Inflow, m3/yr
kT= Nirate rate constant for temp T, m/yr
Ci= Input concentration, mg/l
Co= Output concentration, mg/l
C*= Background concentration, mg/l
The effective area of each wetland design candidate was known while the output concentration
was unknown, so the model was rearranged to solve for Co given the area:

‫ܥ‬௜ − ‫∗ ܥ‬
‫ܥ‬௢ = ஺∗௞೅ + ‫∗ܥ‬
݁ ொ
The nitrate removal rate constant, kT, was found using a modified Arrhenius relationship (Kadlec
and Knight, 1996, p. 403) to correct for water temperature.

்݇ = ݇ଶ଴ ߠ (்ିଶ଴)
 Page 10 of 52

Where:

kT= Temperature-dependant nitrate removal rate constant, m/yr

k20= Nitrate removal rate constant @ 20 °C, m/yr
T= Water temperature, °C
θ= empirical temperature factor for nitrate reduction, dimensionless
An estimated temperature factor for nitrate reduction of 1.09 was used (Kadlec and Knight,
1996, p. 406). In order to increase the accuracy of the design candidate analysis, a reference
wetland in Lakeland, Florida, was selected to determine the appropriate nitrate removal rate
constant, kT, to use. The Lakeland wetland is located in a region with a climate similar to Surry
County, NC, and has similar hydrologic and nutrient loading characteristics to the design
candidates. Data from the Lakeland wetland gave an average nitrate removal rate constant of
23.8 m/yr at an average water temperature of 22.6 °C (NADB, 1993). Adjusted using the
modified Arrhenius relationship, the k20 used was 19.02 m/yr.

Determining the appropriate input nitrate concentration was difficult as the site operator does not
sample for nitrate concentration monthly. Only four data points were provided. Using the data
points and other knowledge of the site, a typical input nitrate concentration was assumed to be 10
mg/l. An appropriate background nitrate concentration was determined to be 0.1 mg/l through
discussion with Dr. Burchell, an Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist in Ecosystem
Restoration in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department at North Carolina State
University (personal communication, March 27, 2011).

The area for each design candidate was determined using the CAD drawings for each wetland.
The effective area was measured at the 0.5’ water depth of the wetland.

Maximum, average, and minimum daily inflow and water temperature values are monthly
averages taken from the NPDES Permit Compliance System (EPA, 2011). Records were only
available from between March 2009 and June 2010. Data from overlapping months was
averaged.

Nitrate Loading Analysis

The nitrate loading rate was determined for each design candidate.

‫ܳ ∗ ܥ = ݁ݐܴܽ ݃݊݅݀ܽ݋ܮ‬

Where:

Loading Rate= Nitrate loading rate, kg-NO3 /day

C= Nitrate concentration, kg-NO3 /m3
Q= Outflow, m3/day
 Page 11 of 52

For each design candidate, the estimated nitrate concentration of the effluent from k-C* model
analysis was converted to units of kg-NO3 /m3. Outflow data used in k-C* model analysis was
converted to m3/day.

Theoretical Efficiency
The theoretical nitrate removal efficiency was determined for each design candidate. The
equation for theoretical nitrate removal efficiency was derived (personal communication,
Birgand, 2011). The derivation for theoretical nitrate removal efficiency is shown in Appendix 6:
Derivation. The equation is shown below:
௞೅
%‫ = ݂݂ܧ‬൬1 − ݁ ିு௅ோ ൰ ∗ 100

Where:
%Eff= Theoretical nitrate removal efficiency, %
kT= Temperature-dependant nitrate removal rate constant, m/day
HLR= Hydraulic loading rate, m/day

The kT used is the same rate constant used for k-C* model analysis, converted to units of meters
per day. The Hydraulic Loading Rate is:

ܳ
‫ = ܴܮܪ‬100 ∗
‫ܣ‬
Where:
Q= Inflow, m3/day
A= Wetland area, m2

Hydraulic Retention Time

The theoretical hydraulic retention time of the wastewater within the wetland indicates how
much contact time the wastewater will have with denitrifying bacteria. This equation assumes
plug flow through the wetland:

ܸ∗‫݌‬
‫=ݐ‬
ܳ
Where;
t= hydraulic retention time, days
V= volume of wetland basin, m3
p= porosity, 1.0 for surface-flow wetlands
Q= flow rate through wetland, m3/day
Water Balance
A general water balance for a wetland was constructed and can be viewed in Figure 4. The
balance accounts for the treatment plant inflow, surface run-off, precipitation, evapotranspiration
 Page 12 of 52

(ET), soil infiltration, groundwater discharge, and wetland outflow. Climate data was obtained
for both precipitation and ET. Precipitation data was collected from the State Climate Office of
North Carolina as the 30-yr yr normal for a local weather station in Mount Airy, NC. The ET data
was obtained from the NC Climate Retrieval and Observat
Observations
ions Network of the Southeast
Sout
Database (NC CRONOS) as a 10 10-year
year average pan evaporation from a local weather station. The
pan evaporation data was multiplied by 75% for assumed ET rates, as recommended by the EPA
(2000, p. 76).

Figure 4. Water balance

Soils
To determine if a liner should be implemented to prevent water loslosss or gain through the bottom
surface of the wetland,, the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the bottom wetland material
recommends that soils with Ksat values less than 10-6 cm/s are
must be determined. EPA recommen
adequate as an infiltration barrier (2000, p. 93). The bottom of the wetland will be graded down
to the sandy loam horizons. Figure 618.88 of the NRCS National Soil Survey Handbook
describes a sandy loam soil of high bulk density (1.72 g/cm3, representing compacted conditions
of the wetland bottom) to have a Ksat value of 10-4 to 10-3 cm/s (2011).

Design
The survey points from the site visit were imported into AutoCAD Civil 3D 2010 and a survey
database was created. With this data, the points were placed into
to point groups and labeled with a
description and an elevation. A raster image of the location of the wastewater treatment was
obtained from
rom the North Carolina State’s Geographic Information Systems database and added to
the current drawing in AutoCAD. With this raster data, the survey points were translated to
 Page 13 of 52

North Carolina State Plane US Feet Coordinates. These points were then used to delineate the
existing structures, wastewater treatment plant, tree line, Grassy Creek, fence, and roads. Once
the points were translated, the LIDAR contour data of Surry County for two foot intervals from
the North Carolina Department of Transportation was downloaded and incorporated with the
supplemental topographical survey data to create a digital surface of the area of interest.

Three design candidates were created for the client. These candidates can be found in the design
documents. The first design candidate will maximize all available area and will discharge in to a
clean water diversion. The second design candidate will maximize all available area, not
incorporate a bentonite liner, and discharge in to the riparian buffer next to the stream. The third
design candidate will have less area in order to not take out the existing fence and will discharge
in to a clean water diversion.

Once the existing surface was created, a design surface was created for each wetland of the
design candidate. Grading on AutoCAD Civil 3D 2010 was completed from the existing surface.
The grading process was repeated for each design candidates with the only difference being the
size and shape of the initial wetland base feature line as well as the starting elevations of the
wetland base. With the grading for all the design candidates, the design wetland surface was
created to display existing and design contour lines. A wetland design surface can be seen below
in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Wetland design surface, design candidate 1

Currently the piping between the waste water treatment plant, flow meter, and dechlorinator is 6”
PVC. The size of inlet pipe was determined using the capacity equation found in Soil and Water
 Page 14 of 52

Conservation Engineering (Fangmeier et. al, 2006, p. 196) The head causing flow was assumed
to be the elevation
levation difference between the pipe inlet and the pipe outlet. The friction loss
coefficients were determined based upon components used for each design.

The outlet structure is crucial to keep an effective water depth in the wetland. The outlet
structure that will be implemented is a flashboard riser. The flashboard riser was sized using weir
and orifice equations as shown in Appendix 4: Calculation Package.

The clean water diversion in the design was sized for a 10 year storm according to the EPA
guidelines for non-critical areas (2000, p.92)
p.92). Calculations for the clean water diversion can be
seen in Appendix 4: Calculation Package. These equations and coefficients were taken from Soil
and Water Conservation Engineering
Engineering.

Erosion control measures were developed for the design even though the project is less than one
acre and a site plan and E&S Protection
otection plan
plans are not expected to be required as separate
submittals. In order to implement thisthis, all design candidates have tree protection fence along the
tree line, silt fence outside the tree protection fence to capture sediment, and wattles every 100’
100
in the clean water diversion to decrease the velocity in the diversion to facilitate the settling of
sediments. Four alignments were created to allow stationing and to create four profiles for each
of the design candidates. These profiles consist of the existing and design surface. A
representative
tative profile is shown below iin Figure 6. A budget was created in Appendix 5: Budget.
Budget
A budget was madee for all the design candidates to give to the client.

Figure 6. Representative profile – design candidate 1

 Page 15 of 52

Plans were then created for the client. For this a title block was created and added to all sheets
which consisted of the sheet number, sheet title, client, designers’ name and information, scale,
north arrow, and date. A cover sheet was created which consisted of a vicinity map, county
location, site coordinates, surveyors, and engineers. A table of contents was created to guide the
client and contractor through the plans. Details are provided in the design plans to provide more
information on the components of the design. The plans were plotted to Arch D sheets
(24”X36”) and to PDF files to be presented to the client. These three different proposed plans
will be delivered to the client for the final design selection.

Vegetation
Wetland vegetation was researched in order to determine which species would be most
appropriate for the designed wastewater wetland. The plants are divided into four groups based
on their growth form: emergent, submerged, floating leaved and floating (Cronk & Fennessy,
2001, p.13). Emergent plants have stalks and leaves that emerge from the water surface while
submerged plants remained entirely submerged beneath the water surface. Floating leaf plants
have leaves that float on the water with roots that are anchored in the soil while floating plants
float unattached to the soil bed. It has been shown through research that only a few plants can
thrive in high-nutrient treatment wetlands; those plants include bulrushes (Schoenoplectus,
Scirpus) and cattails (Typha) (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000, p. 713).

Results and Discussion:

Site Visits and Surveys

The survey points taken during the first site visit can be seen on Figure 19. The results water
samples taken on October 27, 2010 are shown below in Table 1:
Table 1. Water samples at wastewater treatment plant outlet in October

Pollutant Concentration

Nitrate (NO3-) 30.6 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 3.33 mg/l

Biological Oxygen Demand <2 mg/l

(BOD)

Ammonium (NH4+) 0.177 mg/l

 Page 16 of 52

Fecal Coliform <1 col/100 ml

From these samples it can be concluded that the pollutant that needs to be reduced is nitrate at
30.6 mg/L and ammonium is not of concern. With the macroinvertebrate study during the second
site visit, the health of the stream was confirmed upon finding water pennies, gilled snails, an
amphipod, and a salamander (EPA, 2011). Water samples taken during the second site visit are
seen below in Table 2:
Table 2. Water samples taken in january above and below the outlet and a tributary

TKN
NO3-N/NO2-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L)
(mg/L)

ABOVE 0.33 0.25 0.144

BELOW 0.08 0.23 0.09

TRIBUTARY 0.15 0.11 0.09

With the water samples it can be concluded that the outlet contributes no significant source of
pollutants during the colder off season of Pilot Mountain State Park.

A typical soil profile was developed for the area and is shown in Figure 7. The profile consisted
of a loam surface (0-10”) transitioning to a sandy loam in the next 2 horizons (10-34”), and
finally to a loamy sand (34-60+”). Evidence of the seasonal high water table was seen at 34” as
indicated by the low chroma color (chroma less than or equal to 2). No restrictive layers of rock,
clay, or saprolite were encountered on any of the sampled sites. It was noted that a good portion
of the topsoil in the desired area of the wetland was fill material placed during the removal of an
existing dry bed used with the previous waste system so topsoil will need to be imported for the
wetland.
 Page 17 of 52

Profile Description
A (0-10”): Reddish-Brown
Brown Loam
Bw1 (10-24”): Reddish-Brown
Brown Sandy Loam
Bw2 (24-34”): Yellowish-Brown
Brown Sandy Loam
Bg (34-60”+): Gray Loamy Sand

Figure 7. Typical soil profile

rofile

Feasibility Analysis
Nitrate reduction analysis was performed for each design candidate using the kk-C*
C* model
(Kadlec and Knight, 1996, p.436) assuming an average input nitrate concentration of 10 mg/l.
The average nitrate loading expected from each wetland was determined as shown in Figure 8.

Average Output Nitrate Loading Rate for each Wetland Design

Candidate
0.140

0.120
Nitrate Loading (kg-NO3 /day)

Input Load
0.100

0.080 Wetland 1
Output
0.060 Load
Wetland 2
0.040 Output
Load
0.020 Wetland 3
Output
0.000 Load
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month

Figure 8.. Comparison of expected nitrate loading rate of each wetland design candidate
 Page 18 of 52

Wetlands 1 and 2 show similar nitrate loading due to their similar size. During the summer, all
three wetlands reach very low nitrate loading rates. Significant nitrate loading rate reduction is
achieved by all design candidates, but wetland 1 and 2 perform better year-round than wetland 3
due to the size differential.

Theoretical Nitrate Removal Efficiency for each Wetland Design

Candidate vs. Average Monthly Water Temperature
80
100

Avg. Water Temperature (°F)

75
90
70
Nitrate Removal (%)

80
65 Wetland 1
70
60 60
Wetland 2
50 55
40 50
Wetland 3
30 45
20 40 Avg Water
10 35 Temp
0 30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month

Figure 9. Theoretical nitrate removal efficiency expected for each wetland design candidate

The theoretical nitrate removal efficiency was determined for each design candidate as shown in
Figure 9. The results for removal efficiency are similar to the results for nitrate loading; wetlands
1 and 2 have very similar removal efficiencies. Each wetland design candidate is expected to
approach 100% nitrate removal during the warm summer months as the water temperature rises
and biological activity increases. Again, wetlands 1 and 2 out-performed wetland 3 on a yearly
basis.

Due to the superior expected nitrate removal efficiency over wetland 3 and the necessity for a
liner (which will be discussed later in the results), wetland 1 is the design candidate that is
recommended to Pilot Mountain State Park. Further analysis of wetland 1 was performed to give
the client more detailed performance expectations.
 Page 19 of 52

Theoretical Nitrate Reduction Efficiency in Wetland 1

100
Max
Nitrate Reduction (%)

80
Avg
60
Min
40

20 Min (@Max
Permitted Q)
0
Mar

Oct
Jan

Jun

Nov
Aug

Dec
Apr

Jul

Sept
Feb

May

Month

Figure 10. Theoretical nitrate reduction efficiency expected for Wetland 1 given certain conditions

As shown in Figure 10, the minimum expected nitrate reduction efficiency (average observed
inflow, minimum nitrate removal rate constant) is expected to be above 90% during the warmest
summer months. The low spike in nitrate reduction during September is due to the increased
hydraulic loading experienced during the park’s busiest time, the autumn leaf season. Wetland 1
is expected to maintain at least 20% nitrate reduction efficiency during the coldest winter
months, with the possibility of seeing up to 50% reduction efficiency.

Input Nitrate Loading vs. Ouptut Nitrate Loading and Concentration for
Wetland 1
0.140 6.00
Nitrate Loading (kg-NO3/day)

Nitrate Concentration (mg/l)

0.120 5.00
0.100 Load (Max
4.00 Reduction)
0.080
3.00 Input Load
0.060
2.00
0.040 Concentration
1.00 (Max Reduction)
0.020
0.000 0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month

Figure 11. Comparison of input and output nitrate loading rates for Wetland 1

As shown in Figure 11, the reduction in nitrate loading rates provided by wetland 1 are
significant year-round, especially as the water temperature warms and denitrifying bacteria
 Page 20 of 52

become more active. With an expected average input nitrate concentration of 10 mg/l, wetland 1
is expected to provide nitrate removal to a concentration of as little as around 5 mg/l in the
coldest months and very close to the background concentration of 0.1 mg/l during the warmest
months.

Output Loading vs Input Nitrate Concentration for Wetland 1

0.300 4000
Nitrate Loading Rate (kg-NO3/day)

3500
0.250
3000

Inflow (gallons/day)
0.200
2500 35 mg/l

0.150 2000 20 mg/l

10 mg/l
1500
0.100 5 mg/l
1000 Avg Inflow
0.050
500

0.000 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month

Figure 12. Comparison of output loading rates dependant on input nitrate concentration for Wetland 1 with a
hydrograph

Figure 12 illustrates the nitrate loading rates that wetland 1 is expected to provide given 5 mg/l,
10 mg/l, 20 mg/l, and 35 mg/l input nitrate concentration. Based on the sample data provided by
the site operator and other local considerations, the input concentration is likely to be within the
10-20 mg/l range on average. Again, as denitrifying bacteria become more active during the
warm months, nitrate loading rates are reduced to near-zero for even the highest input nitrate
concentrations that are expected. The hydraulic loading stays relatively constant through the
year, so it will not make a big difference on the nitrate loading rate.
 Page 21 of 52

Min, Avg, and Max Hydraulic Retention Time for Wetland 1

25

20
Retnetion Time (days)

15

HRT, Avg Observed Q

10
HRT, Max Observed Q
HRT, Max Permitted Q
5

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Month

Figure 13. Minimum, average, and maximum hydraulic retention time for Wetland 1

A hydraulic retention time of between 5 and 14 days is recommended for wastewater treatment
wetlands (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000, p. 701). As shown in Figure 13, the average HRT of
wetland 1 is expected to stay well above the minimum recommended HRT. This indicates that
there will be ample time for wastewater to be treated within the wetland. If the wetland receives
the maximum permitted 10,000 gpd, then the HRT will still be very close to 5 days.

Min, Avg, and Max Hydraulic Loading Rate for Wetland 1

16.0
Hydraulic Loading Rate (cm/day)

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0 Max Permitted
6.0 Max Observed

4.0 Avg Observed

2.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Month

Figure 14. Minimum, average, and maximum hydraulic loading rate for Wetland 1
 Page 22 of 52

As Figure 14 shows, ann analysis of the expected hydraulic loading rate of wetland 1 indicates
that with average inflows, wetland 1 will remain within the recommended HLR for treatment
wetlands of 2.5 - 5.0 cm/day (Mitsch
Mitsch & Gosselink
Gosselink, 2000, p. 699).. With the maximum observed
inflows, the wetland will remain within the recommended range for 10 months out of the year.
The hydraulic loading rate and hydraulic retention time and closely tied together. The results
from these analyses indicate that the wetland will be able to handle the expected hydraulic
loading while providing the desired performance.

Water Balance
As shown in Figure 15, the
he surface runoff can be controlled by use of the clean water diversion.
It was determined that a clean water diversion will be placed next to the wetland to divert any
runoff from surrounding areas awa
away from the wetland. The soil infiltration and groundwater
discharge is controlled by the permeability of the soil surface. A clay liner could be used to
eliminate these two factors. With the use of a diversion and a clay liner, a simplified water
balance would
ould include all factors but surface runoff, infiltration, and groundwater discharge.
Both the inflow and outflow to the wetland can be controlled by inlet and outlet structures. The
only factors that cannot be controlled within the balance are precipitati
precipitation
on and ET.

Figure 15.. Water balance that incorporates a clay liner to eliminate infiltration and groundwater discharge
d

The precipitation and ET data was compiled and the net gains
ins and losses were computed as
shown in Table 3. The max monthly gain is 2.9” as observed in January and the max loss is 1.21
as observed in June. These changes in water level are not expected to adversely affect wetland
vegetation; the wetland will neither dry
dry-up nor flood under these conditions.
 Page 23 of 52

Table 3. Precipitation and evapotranspiration data

Month Precipitation 75% ET Net

(in) (in) (in)
January 4.0 1.1 2.9
February 3.4 1.3 2.0
March 4.4 2.8 1.7
April 3.9 4.0 (0.1)
May 4.7 4.8 (0.1)
June 4.0 5.2 (1.2)
July 4.4 5.1 (0.7)
August 3.8 4.6 (0.8)
September 4.3 3.5 0.8
October 3.4 2.1 1.3
November 3.5 1.3 2.2
December 3.3 0.9 2.4
Total 47.0 36.5 10.4

*Precipitation Data obtained from NC Climate Office for weather station 315890-Mt Airy 2 W
(COOP).

*ET Data obtained from NC CRONOS for weather station KMWK- Surry County Airport.

Soils
The Ksat value (10-4 to 10-3 cm/s) indicates current soil conditions are inadequate to serve as an
infiltration barrier. A clay liner will be recommended for this wetland so that failure of the
system will not occur. Bentonite, a high shrink-swell clay material, should be applied to the
graded surface at a rate 1.5 lb/ft2 and incorporated into the graded surface by tillage (NRCS,
1997, p. 521C-2). After incorporation, this layer should be compacted lightly.

Additionally, a clay liner is recommended because it would be advantages for the wetland to
hold water 100% of the time to maintain anaerobic conditions at the soil-water interface. If the
wetland were to become completely dry, then oxygen would be introduced into previous-
anaerobic zones that were hosting denitrifying processes. Anaerobic conditions would have to be
restored which would reduced the nitrate removal efficiency of the wetland until the soil-water
interface returned to its anaerobic state. Additionally, the wetland will not perform as predicted if
it is allowed to dry out because the nitrate removal models assume saturated conditions 100% of
the time.

A 6-inch layer of topsoil should be added on top of the soil/bentonite mixture so the wastewater
treatment wetland can optimize its treatment. This will provide media to support plant growth as
well as a protection barrier for the clay liner. The topsoil should be rich in nutrients to ensure
proper growth and health of the wetland vegetation. It is recommended that topsoil be hauled in
for this layer because much of the current topsoil is fill material of unknown origin. This layer
 Page 24 of 52

should be graded with a generally undulating surface to increase surface area and microbial
activity.

Design
The grading of the wetland was completed based on recommendations by the EPA Manual and
NOAA precipitation depth. The base of the wetland was created as a feature line with a 0.5%
slope in order that the base of the wetland would have a 0.5% slope as recommended by the EPA
Manual. From this feature line, the surface was graded up to a relative elevation of 2.7’ with 3:1
side slopes. The 2.7’ was graded to account for 0.2’ of bentonite to inhibit exfiltration, 0.5’ of
topsoil, 1’ of water depth and 1’ of freeboard. The 1’ water depth is recommended per Dr.
Burchell (personal communication, 2011). 3:1 side slopes are recommended by the EPA. The
EPA generally recommends having a freeboard depth of 2’. Because of the use of a diversion
ditch, no stormwater runoff enters the wetland. Therefore, 1’ of freeboard will be sufficient for
storing the precipitation for storm events. Additionally, occasional flooding will not harm
wetland vegetation and the structure exists in a flood-plain and is down-grade from any
structures. Once this grading was completed, the design surface was graded back to the original
surface with a 3:1 side slope. An infill was created in the bottom of the wetland and an 18” deep
pool was added in the area adjacent to the flashboard riser to complete the grading for the design
surface. (EPA, 2000, p. 92)

Based on the capacity equation found in Soil and Water Conservation Engineering (Fangmeier
et. al, 2006, p. 196) 6” PVC was determined to be adequate for the inlet pipe to the wetland as
shown in Appendix 4: Calculation Package. 6-inch Schedule-40 PVC pipe was chosen to be used
with accompanying components for the design candidates. The outlet of the wetland inlet pipe
will be composed of a 6”x4”x4” double wye with two spans of 4” PVC connecting. The wye will
be capped at the end, allowing a simple cleanout method if needed. The water will be split
between the two 4-inch pipes, delivering it to two separate areas of the wetland. This is intended
to decrease dead zones, and normalize flow across the width. The design for the inlet pipe can be
seen in the design documents and in Figure 16 below:
 Page 25 of 52

Figure 16. Inlet detail

A flashboard riser was chosen because it is economical and adjustable. The flashboard riser
consists of 6” flashboards which can be added or removed to control water depth. The
adjustability of the wetland water depth is beneficial because the wetland can be drained in case
of an emergency or if the system is breached. Additionally, varying water-level
level is important for
establishing neww vegetation after planting. The design of the flashboard riser can be seen in the
design documents and in Figure 17 below:

Figure 17. Flashboard riser outlet structure

 Page 26 of 52

A clean water diversion was added to the east side of the wetland in order to capture any
stormwater runoff before it entered the wetland. Aluminum diversions covered with railroad
ballast were added throughout the wetland with spacing of 14’-20’. These diversions were
created to decrease dead zones and increase retention time by lengthening flow path as
recommended by the EPA (EPA, 2000, p. 92). The design for these diversions is shown below in
Figure 18. Benches are often used to control flow path, the aluminum diversions were designed
to have a smaller footprint and allow more space for vegetation.

Figure 18. Aluminum Diversion

After treatment analysis and designing, certain factors about the design candidates were
observed. The first design candidate has higher treatment potential due to a larger surface area.
The second design candidate has the largest surface area for treatment but does not have a
bentonite liner to inhibit exfiltration and is set deeper into the existing surface resulting in larger
net volume of soil cut. The lower elevation is important so that water sits below existing grade so
that any exfiltration is into the soil below the wetland and not through berms. Design candidate 3
has less surface area for treatment. Construction sequence and maintenance plans can be found in
Appendix 1: Construction Scope of Work and Appendix 2: Maintenance Plan.

Vegetation
The final selection of wetland species to be planted in the designed wetland is bulrush, cattail,
and pickerelweed. Bulrush and cattail are to be planted in alternating section throughout the
water depth in the wetland. The pickerelweed will be planted around the 6 inch water depth.
Pickerelweed is a wetland plant that blooms large purple flowers. The primary purpose of this
species is to add to the aesthetics of the wetland, as requested by the client. Grasses are also
going to be purchased and planted on the berm surrounding the wetland and diversion ditch. The
planting plans and instructions are located in Appendix 3: Planting Instructions and in the design
documents.
 Page 27 of 52

Permitting
One consideration for the wetland design is permit requirements. The specific permit
requirements necessary will depend on where the effluent water from the wetland is discharged.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater treatment and disposal
permit is needed for any direct discharges of wastewater to surface waters of the state to be in
compliance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act as well as state regulations. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) issues NPDES permits for discharges of treated wastewater to surface
waters. Because the treatment wetland is changing the process of the treatment system, a major
modification of the existing NPDES permit will be needed. A major modification uses the same
forms as a new permit application and can be obtained from DWQ. After obtaining an NPDES
permit, an Authorization to Construct (ATC) permit may be obtained from the Construction
Grants and Loans Section of the DWQ. To remain in compliance with section 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act additional permits and certifications may be needed, often referred to
collectively as 401/404 permits.

The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for issuing 404 permits and the NCDWQ is the
state agency responsible for issuing 401 water quality certifications (WQC). A 401 WQC is
required to ensure and certify that a project will not violate any water standards and is needed for
any projects that impact wetlands or waters. Depending on where the effluent of the water is
discharged, an Isolated and Other Non-404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Permit may be
needed. To remain in compliance with section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act the design
candidates avoid areas that may be delineated as jurisdictional wetlands.

Cost

Of the three budgets, represented in Appendix 5: Budget, design candidate 3, is the least costly.
This is to be expected since it is the smallest wetland and would require less earthwork. Design
candidate 1 is slightly more expensive than design candidate 3 due to a larger surface area
resulting in more earthwork. Design candidate 2 is the most expensive design candidate due to
the lower base elevations which results in the largest amount of earthwork.

Conclusions:

Of the three designs, Design Candidate 1 was selected as the best wastewater treatment solution.
This design accomplishes all objectives stated for this project. This conclusion was reached after
considering many factors. The major differences between design 1 and design 2 are the clay liner
and method of water dispersal from the flashboard riser. It was determined the sandy loam soil
was not suitable as an infiltration barrier; therefore, a clay liner is recommended if the client does
not want the system to fail. Design 2 also would require disturbance of the riparian buffer,
whereas design 1 will not disturb any of the riparian buffer. Due to these factors, design
candidate 2 is not a recommended option. The major difference between design 1 and design 3 is
 Page 28 of 52

the size of the wetland. Design 3 has less surface area which, in turn, will provide less treatment
of nitrate. Design candidate 1 should be implemented on a treatment, design and economic basis;
design candidate 1 was selected as the best solution. The next step will be to present the client
with the design candidates for their evaluation.

Acknowledgments:

This project has been supported by the client, Mr. Windsor, Pilot Mountain State Park
Superintendent. We acknowledge the Blue Ridge Environmental Consultants, P.A and ACH
Constructors, LLC for providing guidance in design and material selection. This paper draws on
the knowledge of many groups and individuals who have been involved in research of treatment
wetlands. We express gratitude to them all with special thanks to Dr. Michael Burchell, our
senior design advisor, and Dr. François Birgand. We are grateful to Dr. Michael Boyette, our
senior design professor, for his assistance and direction during the project development.
 Page 29 of 52

List of References:

Birgand, F., R. W. Skaggs, G.M. Cheschier, and J. W. Gilliam. (2007). Nitrogen removal in
streams of agricultural catchments: A literature review. Critical Reviews in Environ. Sci.
and Tech. 37(5): 381-487.

City of Richmond Hill, Georgia (site creator). (2011). Wetlands 1 [photograph], Retrieved April
25, 2011, from: http://www.richmondhill-
ga.gov/PublicWorksDepartment/WaterWastewaterSystems/tabid/100/Default.aspx

Cronk, J. K., & Fennessy, M. S. (2001). Wetland Plants Biology and Ecology. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press LLC.

Dawson, R. N., and K. L. Murphy. 1972. The temperature dependency of biological

denitrification. Water Res. 6(1): 71-83

Fangmeier, D. D., Elliot, W. J., Workman, S. R., Huffman, R. L., & Schwab, G. O. (2006). Soil
and Water Conservation Engineering (5th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar
Learning.

Garbisch, E. W. (1986). Highways and wetlands, compensating wetland losses. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Government Printing Office,
1987.

Hagenbuch, I.M. (creator). (2007). Nitrification.Denitrification [flow chart], Retrieved March 30,
2011, from: http://www.nano-reef.com/articles/?article=17

Kadlec, J. A., and Wentz, W. A. (1974). “State-of-the-art survey and evaluation of marsh plant
establishment techniques: Induced and natural Volume I: Report of research,” Contract
Report D-74-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental
Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.

Kadlec, R. H., & Knight, R. L. (1996). Treatment Wetlands. Boca Raton, FL : Lewis Publishers.

Kadlec, R. H., & Wallace, S. D., (2009). Treatment Wetlands (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor
& Francis Group, LLC.

Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2000). Wetlands. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

NADB (North American Treatment Database). 1993. Electronic database created by R. Knight,
R. Ruble, R. Kadlec, and S. Reed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Copies
available from Don Brown, U.S. EPA, (513) 569-7630.
 Page 30 of 52

NRCS-Natural Resources Conservation Service (site creator). Drawing of threesquare bulrush

plant with roots [drawing]. (2007). Retrieved March 30, 2011, from: http://www.mt.nrc
s.usda.gov/technical/ecs/plants/technotes/pmtechnotemt37/threesquare.html

Olin, T. J., Fischenich, C., & Palermo, M. R. (2000). Wetlands Engineering Handbook.
Retrieved from http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wrpre21/wrpre21.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011, January 31). Biological Indications of Watershed
Health. Retrieved February 8, 2011, from: http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/html/invertebr
ate.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Constructed Wetlands-Treatment of Municipal

Wastewaters Manual. Cincinati, Ohio: Office of Research and Development.

US Natural Resource Conservation Services. (2011). National Soil Survey Handbook.

Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part618ex.html.

US Natural Resource Conservation Services. (1997). Field Office Technical Guide: Pond
Sealing or Lining, Bentonite Sealing (No.) Code 521C. Georgia: US Department of
Agriculture.
 Page 31 of 52

Figures

Figure 19. GIS data and original survey points

 Page 32 of 52

Figure 20. Wastewater treatment plant

Figure 21. Proposed area for wetland

 Page 33 of 52

Appendices

Appendix 1: Construction Scope of Work

The scope of work is intended to cover all work contained in this and all other applicable design
documents. The scope of work includes, but may not necessarily be limited to, all labor,
materials, and supervision to complete the work in accordance to the design documents. It shall
be the bidder’s responsibility to review all design documents and fully understand the project and
scope of work. For the purposes of this document, “Subcontractor” refers to this bidder and
“Owner” refers to Pilot Mountain State Park and related agencies and “EOR” refers to the
engineer on record for the project. All work shall be in strict accordance with all Local, State,
and Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. All construction shall be in accordance to 29 CFR
1926 “Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.” A construction start date in March is
recommended so that planting can begin in April.

Project Scope and Sequence

1. The Subcontractor shall review all design documents and related reports.
2. Subcontractor shall coordinate all permitting with Owner, DENR, and DWQ.
3. Subcontractor shall be responsible for coordinating with all other contractors and for
supervising their lower tier subcontractors if applicable.
4. The Subcontractor shall keep the work areas clean and is responsible for protecting all
work and materials stored on site.
5. Any construction track out must be cleaned and kept clear from the main road at all
times.
6. Any deviation from design documents shall be allowed only at the approval of the EOR
and Owner.
7. The scope of work includes installing tree protection, erosion and sediment controls,
fencing, rough and fine grading, piping, wetland structures, seeding, and planting.
8. The Subcontractor is responsible for developing and submitting a site-specific Health and
Safety Plan and shall designate a safety representative.
9. Subcontractor will layout, supply, install, maintain, and remove all erosion control and
tree protection systems in accordance to the design documents.
10. Subcontractor will excavate diversion ditch and install wattles per the design documents
before any other grading is to continue.
11. Diversion ditch shall be immediately seeded according to the seeding instructions in the
design documents.
12. Subcontractor is responsible for all construction dewatering and shall ensure that all
sediment is controlled and that no effluent from construction dewatering is pumped into
the stream or riparian buffer.
13. The fence in the area of the wetland should be removed and temporary fencing installed
to protect the existing treatment plant until permanent fencing is installed. The
 Page 34 of 52

Subcontractor shall submit to the Owner a report outlining how much, if any, of the
existing fence the Subcontractor intends to reuse.
14. The excavation work includes, but may not be limited to, excavation, stockpiling,
protection and relocation of excavated soils as well as loading soils into vehicles for
hauling when necessary.
15. The location of all temporary stockpiles should be approved by the EOR and Owner and
stockpiles must be protected to prevent erosion and sediment runoff.
16. Any excavations of trenching deeper than 4’ shall be considered a confined space and
shall follow the requirements for trenching in 29 CFR 1926.
17. The subcontractor shall provide fencing, signs, and/or flagging to warn of any open
ditches to protect site personnel.
18. Include all labor, equipment, and materials to complete all piping.
19. All piping work shall comply with all applicable codes and standards of the Plastic Pipe
Institute (PPI).
20. The Subcontractor shall be responsible for receiving, moving, securing, and storing all
piping required for the project.
21. The Subcontractor shall submit manufacturer’s technical data for all equipment used.
22. Coordinate with surveyor to complete as-built surveys including the location of all
piping.
23. Some deviation from the piping layout may be allowed with the approval of the EOR.
24. When backfilling trenches, the backfill level be placed evenly along the entire length. No
backfill materials shall be placed over frozen earth.
25. Bentonite shall be added at a rate of 1.5 lb/ sq ft and incorporated into the soil in a 0.2 ft
layer and topsoil shall be added in a 0.5ft layer across the entire wetland.
26. Wetland structures shall be installed concurrently with rough and fine grading in the most
logical order as determined by this subcontractor.
27. Flashboard Riser structure shall be constructed and installed per the design documents.
28. Sheet diversions shall be installed by driving galvanized sign post into ground so 2 ft
remain above the topsoil layer and spaced no more than 12 ft apart. Corrugated sheeting
shall be attached with bolts that may be removed for any future wetland maintenance.
29. Corrugated sheeting shall be installed along the grade and topsoil shall be backfilled
against them.
30. Topsoil shall be finely graded and stabilized; the wetland base may have a generally
undulating surface in accordance to design specifications.
31. After topsoil has been properly compacted and stabilized, wetland shall be planted
according to design documents as soon as seasonal conditions allow.
 Page 35 of 52

Appendix 2: Maintenance Plan

A maintenance plan is important for the performance of the wetland and prevents the conditions
of the wetland vegetation from being changed. Problems from not developing and following a
wetland can include: invasion of unwanted plant species resulting in a major alteration of the
vegetation and its effectiveness, insufficient vegetation cover to prevent erosion and loss of
substrate, changes to topography, colonization by exotic plant species and other pest organisms,
and an increased time for the wetland to reach peak effectiveness (Olin, Fischenich , & Palermo,
2000, p. 7-97). It is particularly important for the maintenance plan to be followed through the
first growing season as the vegetation is becoming established (Garbisch, 1986), but the wetland
should be monitored and maintained throughout the life of the wetland. The wetland should be
monitored to determine if any vegetation needs to be replaced, if any damage needs to be
repaired, to determine if any additional controls are needed, and during and after winter months
to determine if freezing has caused any damage to vegetation or wetland topography.

To determine the need for supplemental or replacement vegetation a visual assessment of the
wetland should be made. For this treatment wetland a vigorous stand of wetland vegetation is
desired in all areas except for the deep pool adjacent to the flashboard riser. The deep pool depth
ahead of the flashboard riser is intended to prevent encroachment by wetland vegetation. Any
vegetation found in this deep pool should be removed and discarded or removed and replanted
into any under vegetated areas of the wetland. Any vegetation that needs to be removed shall be
done through hand removal and not by any mechanical harvesting or herbicides. For this
wetland, either standardized vegetation sampling or a photographic record should be used to
compare vegetation to previous seasons. For a wetland of this size, a photographic record can
assist with making a determination of any replanting needs from a visual assessment. Litter and
debris can also damage the wetland and should be removed anytime they are scene in or adjacent
to the wetland. Whenever possible planting should be conducted with the wetland is drained; the
wetland can be drained by removing flashboards and directing flow to the existing outlet.

Mowing is an important part of the maintenance plan for seeded areas on the outside of wetland
banks and inside the grassed diversion ditch. Mowing can help to reduce weeds and weed seed
production as well as preventing the invasion of woody plants in areas where they are not desired
(Olin et al, 2000, p. 7-106). Mowing should be to a height of approximately 4 inches. Grass
should not be mowed in a manner such that more than one quarter of their height is cut during
any single mowing event, this will reduce the stress on grass. Having established grass is
important to maintain the topography of the wetland and protect wetland berms. The Tall Fescue
species called for in the design documents may go dormant during the summer; during these
times mowing is still important to prevent infiltration by weeds and woody plants. During the
late fall and early winter the fescue may also go dormant, an overseeding with rye grass as
mentioned in the planting instructions can continue grass cover into later seasons.
 Page 36 of 52

Maintaining grass on all banks and diversion ditches is important to maintain site topography and
prevent erosion. The wetland should be periodically inspected for any evidence of erosion such
as sediment deposit or erosion rills. If any evidence of erosion is found immediate steps should
be taken to control and repair the damage. Animals can also cause damage to the wetland,
beavers and burrowing animals can have negative impacts on the performance of the wetland and
steps should be taken to control them at the first sign of damage. After planting, wetland
vegetation can be susceptible to waterfowl and other small mammals (Kadlec and Wentz, 1974).
The interior of the wetland in design candidates one and three utilize a bentonite liner. If any
seepage is indicated through the wetland berms, the topsoil in the area may need to be stripped
and bentonite reincorporated into the soil in the area to prevent damage to the berms and to
maintain water level. Water level in the wetland needs to be maintained to encourage vegetation,
after planting particular care must be made to follow the water level instructions in the planting
guidelines. Water level manipulation can be used to encourage or discourage vegetation (Olin et
al, 2000, p. 7-109).

Wetland vegetation needs to be continually monitored for signs of plant disease. Diseases affect
different plants in different ways and are often of greatest concern when plants are stressed due
to climatic conditions such as high temperatures and humidity (Olin et al, 2000, p. 7-110). Dead
or diseased plants should be removed to discourage the spreading of any fungi or disease
organisms. In cases where only parts of plants are affected, pruning can simulate new growth to
compensate for the damage (Olin et al, 2000, p. 7-111).
 Page 37 of 52

Appendix 3: Planting Instructions

The site is ready for planting after all soils have been properly compacted and as soon as
seasonal conditions allow. Planting should be done at least six weeks prior to filling with water
and following the design documents. For sites subjected to high physical stresses, transplantation
has a higher success rate than seeding so plants should be transplanted (Olin et al, 2000, p. 7-43).
Plants may be stressed from being packed shipped and stored so post nursery cares are important.
Keep plants watered and shaded. Losses from heat stress and drought occur when planted in
summertime. Plants should be ordered at least six months in advance to ensure availability of
species. Ensure that temperatures will remain above forty (40) degrees Fahrenheit before
planting. All planting should be in accordance to any instructions provided by the supplier and
all supplier information should be retained for future planting needs. Seedlings should be
handled with care and planted as soon as possible after arriving. Seedling roots should not be
exposed to direct sun or wind and root moisture may be maintained by submerging them in
buckets or using a wet burlap sack (Olin et al, 2000, p. 7-66). The planting hole should be sized
appropriately to provide space for seedling roots. Seedling roots should be no less than a half
inch deep but not so deep that roots are bent within the hole. Root depth is critical for the
survival of the plant (Olin et al, 2000, p. 7-66). Any soil plugs shall be place in stabilized soils
and gently tamped to ensure good contact between soil and plug. After planting, the wetland
should be saturated with 1 inch of water for 4 to 5 weeks. After the sixth week, or when plants
show new growth, water levels should be gradually increased to support erect upright forms.
Stems and leaves must be above water level to prevent drowning. If after six weeks the plants do
not take hold, replant new plants in between existing plants in the same row fashion. If planting
cannot take place six weeks prior to hard frost, postpone until spring. Refer to design plans for
further information.
 ‫‪Page 38 of 52‬‬

‫‪Appendix 4: Calculation Package‬‬

‫‪1 Key‬‬
‫ܽ݁ݎܣ ݁݃ܽ݊݅ܽݎܦ = ܣܦ ‪1.‬‬
‫݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊݁ܿ݊݋ܥ ݂݋ ݁݉݅ܶ = ‪௖‬ݐ ‪2.‬‬
‫ܽ݁ݎܣ ݁݃ܽ݊݅ܽݎܦ ݊݅ ‪ℎ‬ݐܽܲ ݓ݋݈ܨ ݐݏ݁݃݊݋ܮ = ‪௧೎‬ܮ ‪3.‬‬
‫ܮ ‪ℎ,‬ݐܽܲ ݓ݋݈ܨ ݐݏ݁݃݊݋ܮ ݃݊݋݈ܣ ݁ܿ݊݁ݎ݂݂݁݅ܦ ݊݋݅ݐܽݒ݈݁ܧ = ‪௧೎‬ܪ ‪4.‬‬
‫ݕݐ݅ݏ݊݁ݐ݊ܫ ݈݈݂ܴܽ݊݅ܽ = ݅ ‪5.‬‬
‫ݐ݂݂݊݁݅ܿ݅݁݋ܥ ݂݂݋݊ݑܴ = ܥ ‪6.‬‬
‫݈݁݊݊ܽ‪ℎ‬ܥ ݈ܽ݀݅݋ݖ݁݌ܽݎܶ ݂݋ ܽ݁ݎܣ = ‪்௥௔௣‬ܣ ‪7.‬‬
‫ݐ݂݂݊݁݅ܿ݅݁݋ܥ ݏݏ݁݊‪݃ℎ‬ݑ݋ܴݏ ‪ܽ݊݊݅݊݃ᇱ‬ܯ = ݊ ‪8.‬‬
‫ݏݑܴ݅݀ܽ ݈ܿ݅ݑܽݎ݀ݕܪ = ܴ ‪9.‬‬
‫݁݌݋݈ܵ = ܵ ‪10.‬‬
‫݈݁݊݊ܽ‪ℎ‬ܥ ݂݋ ݁ݏܽܤ = ܤ ‪11.‬‬
‫ݏݎ݁ݐ݊ܧ ݁݌݅ܲ ݎ݁ݏܴ݅ ݀ݎܽ݋ܾ‪ℎ‬ݏ݈ܽܨ ݁ݎ݋݂ܾ݁ ݈݁݊݊ܽ‪ℎ‬ܥ ݂݋ ݌݋ܶ = ‪12. ܶ௕௘௙௢௥௘௣௜௣௘‬‬
‫ݏݎ݁ݐ݊ܧ ݁݌݅ܲ ݎ݁ݏܴ݅ ݀ݎܽ݋ܾ‪ℎ‬ݏ݈ܽܨ ݎ݁ݐ݂ܽ ݈݁݊݊ܽ‪ℎ‬ܥ ݂݋ ݌݋ܶ = ‪13. ܶ௔௙௧௘௥௣௜௣௘‬‬
‫ݏݎ݁ݐ݊ܧ ݁݌݅ܲ ݎ݁ݏܴ݅ ݀ݎܽ݋ܾ‪ℎ‬ݏ݈ܽܨ ݁ݎ݋݂ܾ݁ ݈݁݊݊ܽ‪ℎ‬ܥ ݂݋ ‪ℎ‬ݐ݌݁ܦ = ‪14. ݀௕௘௙௢௥௘௣௜௣௘‬‬
‫ݏݎ݁ݐ݊ܧ ݁݌݅ܲ ݎ݁ݏܴ݅ ݀ݎܽ݋ܾ‪ℎ‬ݏ݈ܽܨ ݎ݁ݐ݂ܽ ݈݁݊݊ܽ‪ℎ‬ܥ ݂݋ ‪ℎ‬ݐ݌݁ܦ = ‪15. ݀௔௙௧௘௥௣௜௣௘‬‬
‫݁݌݅ܲ ݎ݁ݏܴ݅ ݀ݎܽ݋ܾ‪ℎ‬ݏ݈ܽܨ ݐݑ݋‪ℎ‬ݐ݅ݓ ݕݎݐ݁݉݋݁ܩ ݈݁݊݊ܽ‪ℎ‬ܥ ‪ℎ‬ݐ݅ݓ ݓ݋݈ܨ = ‪16. ܳ௦௧௢௥௠௘௩௘௡௧‬‬
‫݁݌݅ܲ ݎ݁ݏܴ݅ ݀ݎܽ݋ܾ‪ℎ‬ݏ݈ܽܨ ‪ℎ‬ݐ݅ݓ ݕݎݐ݁݉݋݁ܩ ݈݁݊݊ܽ‪ℎ‬ܥ ‪ℎ‬ݐ݅ݓ ݓ݋݈ܨ = ‪17. ܳ௦௧௢௥௠௘௩௘௡௧ା௣௜௣௘‬‬
‫݁݌݅ܲ ݎ݁ݏܴ݅ ݀ݎܽ݋ܾ‪ℎ‬ݏ݈ܽܨ ݐݑ݋‪ℎ‬ݐ݅ݓ ݓ݋݈ܨ ݀݁ݐ݈ܽݑ݈ܿܽܥ = ‪18. ܳ௖௔௟௖௕௘௙௢௥௘ ௣௜௣௘‬‬
‫݁݌݅ܲ ݎ݁ݏܴ݅ ݀ݎܽ݋ܾ‪ℎ‬ݏ݈ܽܨ ‪ℎ‬ݐ݅ݓ ݓ݋݈ܨ ݀݁ݐ݈ܽݑ݈ܿܽܥ = ‪19. ܳ௖௔௟௖௔௙௧௘௥ ௣௜௣௘‬‬
‫݁݌݅ܲ ݂݋ ܽ݁ݎܣ = ‪௣௜௣௘‬ܣ ‪20.‬‬
‫ݓ݋݈݂ ݃݊݅ݏݑܽܿ ݀ܽ݁ܪ = ܪ ‪21.‬‬
‫ݐ݂݂݊݁݅ܿ݅݁݋ܥ ݏݏ݋ܮ ݁ܿ݊ܽݎݐ݊ܧ = ‪௘‬ܭ ‪22.‬‬
‫ݐ݂݂݊݁݅ܿ݅݁݋ܥ ݏݏ݋ܮ ݀݊݁ܤ = ‪௕‬ܭ ‪23.‬‬
‫ݐ݂݂݊݁݅ܿ݅݁݋ܥ ݏݏ݋ܮ ݐ݅ݑ݀݊݋ܥ = ‪௖‬ܭ ‪24.‬‬
‫݁݌݅ܲ ݂݋ ‪ℎ‬ݐ݃݊݁ܮ = ‪௣௜௣௘‬ܮ ‪25.‬‬
‫‪ℎ‬ݐ݃݊݁ܮ ݊݋ݎ݌ܣ ݊݋݅ݐܿ݁ݐ݋ݎܲ ݐ݈݁ݐݑܱ = ‪௔‬ܮ ‪26.‬‬
‫‪ℎ‬ݐܹ݀݅ ݊݋ݎ݌ܣ ݊݋݅ݐܿ݁ݐ݋ݎܲ ݐ݈݁ݐݑܱ = ‪27. ܹ௔‬‬
‫ݎܹ݅݁ ݂݋ ‪ℎ‬ݐ݃݊݁ܮ = ܮ ‪28.‬‬
‫ݐ݂݂݊݁݅ܿ݅݁݋ܥ ݎܹ݅݁ = ‪௪‬ܥ ‪29.‬‬
‫݂݁ܿ݅݅ݎܱ ݂݋ ݎ݁ݐ݊݁ܥ ݎ݁ݒܱ ݎ݁ݐܹܽ ݂݋ ݐ‪݁݅݃ℎ‬ܪ = ‪௢‬ܪ ‪30.‬‬
‫ݐ݂݂݊݁݅ܿ݅݁݋ܥ ݂݁ܿ݅݅ݎܱ = ‪ௗ‬ܥ ‪31.‬‬
‫ݎܹ݅݁ ݁ݎ݋݂݁ܤ ݎ݁ݐܹܽ ݂݋ ݐ‪݁݅݃ℎ‬ܪ = ‪௪‬ܪ ‪32.‬‬
‫݂݁ܿ݅݅ݎܱ ݂݋ ݎ݁ݐ݁݉ܽ݅ܦ = ݀ ‪33.‬‬
‫ݕݐ݅ݒܽݎܩ ݀ݎܽ݀݊ܽݐܵ = ݃ ‪34.‬‬
‫݂݁ܿ݅݅ݎܱ ݂݋ ܽ݁ݎܣ = ܣ ‪35.‬‬
‫ܽ݁ݎܣ ݂݁ܿܽݎݑܵ = ܣܵ ‪36.‬‬
 Page 39 of 52

37. ‫ݐ݃݊݁ܮ = ܮ‬ℎ

2 Pilot Mountain
2.1 Stormwater Calculations
‫ = ܣܦ‬3.34
଴.ଷ଼ହ
‫ܮ‬௧ ଷ
ቈ ‫ܪ‬೎ ቉ 130.4 ଴.ଷ଼ହ
ቂ ቃ
= 16
௧௖
‫ݐ‬௖ = < 5 ݉݅݊‫ݐ ݁ݏݑ → ݏ݁ݐݑ‬௖ = 5 ݉݅݊‫ݏ݁ݐݑ‬
128 128
݅݊
݅ = 6.80 ; 10 ܻ݁ܽ‫݉ݎ݋ݐܵ ݎ‬
ℎ‫ݎ‬
‫ = ܥ‬0.150

݂‫ ݐ‬ଷ
ܳଵ଴ = ‫( = ܣܦ݅ܥ‬0.150)(6.80)(3.34) = 3.41
‫ݏ‬
2.2 Clean Water Diversion
‫ ܣ‬ଶ ଵ
‫݃݊݅݊݊ܽܯ‬′‫݊݋݅ݐܽݑݍܧ ݏ‬: ܳ௖௔௟௖ = ܴଷܵ ଶ
݊
‫்ܣ‬௥௔௣ = 2.25 ݂‫ ݐ‬ଶ

݊ = 0.06 ; ܴ݁‫ܤ ݏݏ݈ܽܥ ݁ܿ݊ܽ݀ݎܽݐ‬: ݈݈ܶܽ ‫݁ݑܿݏ݁ܨ‬

ܴ = 0.37 ݂‫ݐ‬

ܵ = 0.03݂‫ݐ‬/݂‫ݐ‬

‫ = ܤ‬3.0 ݂‫ݐ‬

ܶ௕௘௙௢௥௘௣௜௣௘ = 6.0 ݂‫ݐ‬

ܶ௔௙௧௘௥௣௜௣௘ = 6.60 ݂‫ݐ‬

݀௕௘௙௢௥௘௣௜௣௘ = 0.5 ݂‫ݐ‬

݀௔௙௧௘௥௣௜௣௘ = 0.6 ݂‫ݐ‬

ܳ௦௧௢௥௠௘௩௘௡௧ = 3.41 ݂ܿ‫ݏ‬

ܳ௦௧௢௥௠௘௩௘௡௧ା௣௜௣௘ = 4.78 ݂ܿ‫ݏ‬

ܳ௖௔௟௖௕௘௙௢௥௘ ௣௜௣௘ = 3.47 ݂ܿ‫ݏ‬

 Page 40 of 52

ܳ௖௔௟௖௔௙௧௘௥ ௣௜௣௘ = 5.31 ݂ܿ‫ݏ‬

ܳ௦௧௢௥௠௘௩௘௡௧ < ܳ௖௔௟௖௕௘௙௢௥௘ ௣௜௣௘ ; ‫ݐ ݕ݁ݒ݊݋ܿ ݈݈݅ݓ ݊݋݅ݏݎ݁ݒ݅ܦ ݎ݁ݐܹܽ ݈݊ܽ݁ܥ‬ℎ݁ ݂݈‫ݓ݋‬

ܳ௦௧௢௥௠௘௩௘௡௧ା௣௜௣௘ < ܳ௖௔௟௖௔௙௧௘௥ ௣௜௣௘ ; ‫ݐ ݕ݁ݒ݊݋ܿ ݈݈݅ݓ ݊݋݅ݏݎ݁ݒ݅ܦ ݎ݁ݐܹܽ ݈݊ܽ݁ܥ‬ℎ݁ ݂݈‫ݓ݋‬

2.3 Inlet Pipe

‫ܣ‬ඥ2݃‫ܪ‬
1. ‫ ݈݈ݑ݂ ݃݊݅݉ݑݏݏܣ‬, ‫= ܳ ;ݓ݋݈݂ ݁݌݅݌ ݐ݈݊݁ݑܾݎݑݐ‬
ඥ1 + ‫ܭ‬௘ + ‫ܭ‬௕ + ‫ܭ‬௖ ‫ܮ‬

‫ܣ‬௣௜௣௘ = 0.20 ݂‫ ݐ‬ଶ ; 6 ݅݊ܿℎ ‫݃݊݅݌݅݌‬

‫ ݁ݐܽ݀݅݀݊ܽܥ ݊݃݅ݏ݁ܦ ݊݋ ݀݁ݏܽܤ‬2; ‫ = ܪ‬5.28 ݂‫ ݐ‬ଶ

‫ܭ‬௘ = 0.50

‫ܭ‬௕ = 2.40

‫ܭ‬௖ = 0.50 ݂‫ି ݐ‬ଵ

‫ܮ‬௣௜௣௘ = 49 ݂‫ݐ‬

ܳ௖௔௟௖ = 0.32 ݂ܿ‫ݏ‬

ܳ௖௔௟௖ > ܳௗ௘௖௛௟௢௥௜௡௔௧௢௥ ; ܲ݅‫ݐ ݕ݁ݒ݊݋ܿ ݈݈݅ݓ ݁݌‬ℎ݁ ݂݈‫ݓ݋‬

2.4 Pipe Outlet Protection

݀଴ = 8.00 ݅݊ܿℎ݁‫ݏ‬

‫ܮ‬௔ = 5 ݂‫ݐ‬

ܹ௔ = ݀଴ + ‫ܮ‬௔ = 5.7 ݂‫ݐ‬

݀ହ଴ = 8 ݅݊ (‫)ܤ ݏݏ݈ܽܥ‬

݀ = 1.5݀ହ଴ = 12 ݅݊

2.5 Flashboard
ଷ
1. ‫ ݀ܽ݋ݎܤ‬− ‫݃݊݅ݖ݅ܵ ݎܹ݅݁ ݀݁ݐݏ݁ݎܥ‬: ܳ = ‫ܥ‬௪ ‫ ܪܮ‬ଶ

‫ = ܮ‬3.08 ݂‫ݐ‬

‫ܥ‬௪ = 3

‫ܪ‬௪ = 0.22 ݂‫ݐ‬

 ‫‪Page 41 of 52‬‬

‫‪ଵ‬‬
‫‪)ଶ‬ܪ݃‪(2‬ܣ ‪ௗ‬ܥܰ = ܳ ‪݅݊݃:‬ݖ݅ܵ ݂݁ܿ݅݅ݎܱ ‪2.‬‬

‫‪ௗ = 0.6‬ܥ‬

‫ݐ݂ ‪௢ = 0.67‬ܪ‬

‫‪݀ = 8 ݅݊ܿℎ‬‬

‫ݐ݂ ‪ = 0.349‬ܣ‬

‫‪ ଶ‬ݏ‪/‬ݐ݂ ‪݃ = 32.2‬‬

‫‪2.6 Planting‬‬
‫‪݁ 1‬ݐܽ݀݅݀݊ܽܥ ݊݃݅ݏ݁ܦ ‪1.‬‬

‫‪ ଶ‬ݐ݂ ‪ = 5576‬ܣܵ‬

‫‪ ଶ‬ݐ݂ ‪ = 4‬ݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪1‬‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪ℎ = 700‬ݏݑݎ݈݈ݑܤ‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪݈ܽ݅ = 700‬ݐݐܽܥ‬

‫ݐ݂ ‪ = 2‬ݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪1‬‬

‫ݐ݂ ‪ = 339‬ܮ‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪݁݁݀ = 170‬ݓ݈݁ݎ݁݇ܿ݅ܲ‬

‫‪݁ 2‬ݐܽ݀݅݀݊ܽܥ ݊݃݅ݏ݁ܦ ‪2.‬‬

‫‪ ଶ‬ݐ݂ ‪ = 5837‬ܣܵ‬

‫‪ ଶ‬ݐ݂ ‪ = 4‬ݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪1‬‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪ℎ = 730‬ݏݑݎ݈݈ݑܤ‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪݈ܽ݅ = 730‬ݐݐܽܥ‬

‫ݐ݂ ‪ = 2‬ݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪1‬‬

‫ݐ݂ ‪ = 350‬ܮ‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪݁݁݀ = 180‬ݓ݈݁ݎ݁݇ܿ݅ܲ‬

 ‫‪Page 42 of 52‬‬

‫‪݁ 3‬ݐܽ݀݅݀݊ܽܥ ݊݃݅ݏ݁ܦ ‪3.‬‬

‫‪ ଶ‬ݐ݂‪ = 3807‬ܣܵ‬

‫‪ ଶ‬ݐ݂ ‪ = 4‬ݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪1‬‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪ℎ = 480‬ݏݑݎ݈݈ݑܤ‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪݈ܽ݅ = 480‬ݐݐܽܥ‬

‫ݐ݂ ‪ = 2‬ݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪1‬‬

‫ݐ݂ ‪ = 288‬ܮ‬

‫ݏݐ݈݊ܽܲ ‪݁݁݀ = 150‬ݓ݈݁ݎ݁݇ܿ݅ܲ‬

 Page 43 of 52

Appendix 5: Budget
Design Candidate 1
Wetland Dimensions
Area 0.128 ac
5575.68 sq ft
Cut/Fill 115 cu ft
Haul 77 cu ft
Topsoil 2787.84 cu ft
103 cu yd

Item Price Quantity Total

Substrate 50 lb Bentonite (CETCO) $9.49 168 $1,594.32

13 cu yd Topsoil $345.00 8 $2,760.00
Riprap (ton) $50.00 4 $200.00

Subtotal $4,554.32

Item Price Quantity Total

Plants Bullrush $1.00 700 $700.00
Cattails $1.00 700 $700.00
Pickerelweed $1.00 170 $170.00
Kentucky Tall Fescue
No. 30-20 lb bag $30.00 2 $60.00
Rygrass- 50 lb bag $60.00 1 $60.00

Subtotal $1,690.00

Price/Volume Volume (cu ft) Total

Earthwork Cut/Fil $3.00 115 $345.00
Haul $9.50 77 $731.50

Subtotal $1,076.50

Item Price Quantity Total

Diversions Corragated Sheets $20.00 14 $280.00
Galvanized Sign posts $26.00 18 $468.00

Subtotal $748.00
 Page 44 of 52

Item Price Quantity Total

Piping 6" PVC- 10' pipe $35.00 5 $175.00
4" PVC- 10' pipe $13.00 1 $13.00
6" PVC Pipe Tee $30.00 1 $30.00
6" PVC Gate valve $250.00 2 $500.00
6" 45⁰ Elbow $20.00 2 $40.00
6" 90⁰ Elbow $18.00 1 $18.00
6"x6"x4"x4" Wye $90.00 1 $90.00
8" corrugated pipe- 25'
(20ft/roll) $50.00 2 $100.00
Flashboard Riser $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00

Subtotal $2,466.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Labor Surveying (per hour) $150.00 20 $3,000.00
Site work- 5 man crew
(per hour) $225.00 80 $18,000.00
Site Work- 3 man crew
(per hour) $165.00 80 $13,200.00

Subtotal $34,200.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Equipment Bachoe $2,500.00 1 $2,500.00
Trencher $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
Bobcat $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00

Subtotal $4,500.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Silt fence- 200 ft
Area Protection (100ft/roll) $25.00 4 $100.00
Straw wattle (25 ft) $25.00 2 $50.00
Wooden Stakes
(50/bundle) $16.00 1 $16.00
Tree Protection Fence-
200 ft (100ft/roll) $36.00 4 $144.00
5ft Steel t-post $4.00 80 $320.00

Subtotal $630.00

Total Costs: $49,864.82

 Page 45 of 52

Design Candidate 2
Wetland Dimensions
Area 0.134 ac
5837.04 sq ft
Cut/Fill 3 cu ft
Haul 655 cu ft
Topsoil 2918.52 cu ft
108 cu yd

Item Price Quantity Total

Substrate
13 cu yd Topsoil $345.00 9 $3,105.00
Rip Rap (ton) $50.00 3 $100.00

Subtotal $3,205.00

Price Quantity Total

Plants Bullrush $1.00 730 $730.00
Cattails $1.00 730 $730.00
Pickerelweed $1.00 180 $180.00
Kentucky Tall Fescue
No. 30-20 lb bag $30.00 2 $60.00
Rygrass- 50 lb bag $60.00 1 $60.00

Subtotal $1,760.00

Price/Volume Volume (cu ft) Total

Earthwork Cut/Fil $3.00 3 $9.00
Haul $9.50 655 $6,222.50

Subtotal $6,231.50

Price Quantity Total

Diversions Corragated Sheets $20.00 16 $320.00
Galvanized Sign posts $26.00 18 $468.00

Subtotal $788.00
 Page 46 of 52

Item Price Quantity Total

Piping 6" PVC- 10' pipe $35.00 5 $175.00
4" PVC- 10' pipe $13.00 1 $13.00
6" PVC Pipe Tee $30.00 1 $30.00
6" PVC Gate valve $250.00 2 $500.00
6" 45⁰ Elbow $20.00 2 $40.00
6" 90⁰ Elbow $18.00 1 $18.00
6"x6"x4"x4" Wye $90.00 1 $90.00
8" slotted corrugated
pipe- 200 ft (20ft/roll) $50.00 10 $500.00
Flash board riser $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00

Subtotal $2,866.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Labor Surveying (per hour) $150.00 20 $3,000.00
Site work- 5 man crew
(per hour) $225.00 80 $18,000.00
Site Work- 3 man crew
(per hour $165.00 80 $13,200.00

Subtotal $34,200.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Equipment Bachoe $2,500.00 1 $2,500.00
Trencher $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
Bobcat $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00

Subtotal $4,500.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Silt fence- 200 ft
Area Protection (100ft/roll) $25.00 2 $50.00
Tree Protection Fence-
200 ft (100ft/roll) $36.00 2 $72.00
5ft Steel t-post $4.00 40 $160.00

Subtotal $282.00

Total Costs: $53,832.50

 Page 47 of 52

Design Candidate 3
Wetland Dimensions
Area 0.0874 ac
3807.144 sq ft
Cut/Fill 69 cu ft
Haul 114 cu ft
Topsoil 1903.572 cu ft
71 cu yd

Item Price Quantity Total

Substrate 50 lb Bentonite (CETCO) $9.49 116 $1,100.84
Top Soil $345.00 6 $2,070.00
Riprap (ton) $50.00 4 $200.00

Subtotal $3,170.84

Price Quantity Total

Plants Bullrush $1.00 480 $480.00
Cattails $1.00 480 $480.00
Pickerelweed $1.00 150 $150.00
Kentucky Tall Fescue
No. 30-20 lb bag $30.00 2 $60.00
Rygrass- 50 lb bag $60.00 1 $60.00

Subtotal $1,230.00

Price/Volume Volume (cu ft) Total

Earthwork Cut/Fil $3.00 69 $207.00
Haul $9.50 114 $1,083.00

Subtotal $1,290.00

Price Quantity Total

Diversions Corragated Sheets $20.00 12 $240.00
Galvanized Sign posts $26.00 16 $416.00

Subtotal $656.00
 Page 48 of 52

Item Price Quantity Total

Piping 6" PVC- 10' pipe $35.00 9 $315.00
4" PVC- 10' pipe $13.00 1 $13.00
6" PVC Pipe Tee $30.00 1 $30.00
6" PVC Gate valve $250.00 2 $500.00
6" 45⁰ Elbow $20.00 2 $40.00
6" 90⁰ Elbow $18.00 1 $18.00
6"x6"x4"x4" Wye $90.00 1 $90.00
8" corrugated pipe- 25'
(20ft/roll) $50.00 2 $100.00
Flashboard Riser $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00

Subtotal $2,606.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Labor Surveying (per hour) $150.00 20 $3,000.00
Site work- 5 man crew
(per hour) $225.00 80 $18,000.00
Site Work- 3 man crew
(per hour $165.00 80 $13,200.00

Subtotal $34,200.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Equipment Bachoe $2,500.00 1 $2,500.00
Trencher $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
Bobcat $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00

Subtotal $4,500.00

Item Price Quantity Total

Silt fence- 200 ft
Area Protection (100ft/roll) $25.00 4 $100.00
Straw wattle (25 ft) $25.00 2 $50.00
Wooden Stakes
(50/bundle) $16.00 1 $16.00
Tree Protection Fence-
200 ft (100ft/roll) $36.00 4 $144.00
5ft Steel t-post $4.00 80 $320.00

Subtotal $630.00

Total Costs: $48,282.84

 Page 49 of 52

Appendix 6: Derivation
The derivation began with two equations for mass of nitrate:

‫ܣ ∗ ݐ∆ ∗ ܴ = ܯ‬

ܴ =݇∗‫ܥ‬ ‫ܦ ∗ ܣ ∗ )ݐ(ܥ = ܯ‬

Where:
M= Mass of nitrate, M
R= Removal rate, M* T-1*L-2
∆t= Change in time, T
A= Area, L3
k= Nitrate removal rate constant, L*T-1
C= Nitrate concentration, M*L-3
D= Depth, L
Each equation was differentiated with respect to time:

݀‫ݐ݀ ∗ ܣ ∗ ܥ݇ = ܯ‬ ‫ܯ‬ᇱ = ‫ ݐ(ܥ‬+ ݀‫ܦ ∗ ܣ ∗ )ݐ‬

Finding the change in mass:

‫ ܯ‬− ‫ܯ‬ᇱ = ‫ )ݐ(ܥ[ ∗ ܦ ∗ ܣ‬− ‫ ݐ(ܥ‬+ ݀‫])ݐ‬

Setting
݀‫ ܯ = ܯ‬− ‫ܯ‬′

Gives:
݇‫ )ݐ(ܥ[ ∗ ܦ ∗ ܣ = ݐ݀ ∗ ܣ ∗ ܥ‬− ‫ ݐ(ܥ‬+ ݀‫])ݐ‬

Dividing each side by common terms gives:

݇‫ ݐ(ܥ ܥ‬+ ݀‫ )ݐ‬− ‫)ݐ(ܥ‬
− =
‫ܦ‬ ݀‫ݐ‬
Taking the limit of each side:

݇‫ܥ‬ ݇‫ܥ‬
lim − =−
ௗ௧→଴ ‫ܦ‬ ‫ܦ‬
‫ ݐ(ܥ‬+ ݀‫ )ݐ‬− ‫ܥ݀ )ݐ(ܥ‬
lim =
ௗ௧→଴ ݀‫ݐ‬ ݀‫ݐ‬
Gives:
݀‫ܥ‬ ݇
= − ݀‫ݐ‬
‫ܥ‬ ‫ܦ‬
Integrating both sides:
 Page 50 of 52

݀‫ܥ‬
஼ ௧
݇
න = − න ݀‫ݐ‬
஼బ ‫ܥ‬ ଴ ‫ܦ‬

݀‫ܥ‬
஼ ௧
݇
න = − න ݀‫ݐ‬
஼బ ‫ܥ‬ ଴ ‫ܦ‬

݇
ln ‫ ܥ‬− ln ‫ܥ‬଴ = − (‫ ݐ‬− 0)
‫ܦ‬
‫ܥ‬ ݇
ln =− ‫ݐ‬
‫ܥ‬଴ ‫ܦ‬

Exponentiating both sides:

஼ ௞
୪୬
݁ ஼బ = ݁ ି஽ ௧

‫ܥ‬ ௞
= ݁ ି஽ ௧
‫ܥ‬଴

Solving for C:
௞
‫ܥ = ܥ‬଴ ݁ ି஽௧

Efficiency is:
‫ݐ(ܥ‬௢ )
‫ = ݂݂ܧ‬1 −
‫ܥ‬଴
௞
‫ܥ‬଴ ݁ ି஽௧
‫ = ݂݂ܧ‬1 −
‫ܥ‬଴
௞
‫ = ݂݂ܧ‬1 − ݁ ି஽௧

Solving for percent efficiency and substituting time/depth to 1/Hydraulic Loading Rate gives:
௞೅
%‫ = ݂݂ܧ‬൬1 − ݁ ିு௅ோ ൰ ∗ 100
 Page 51 of 52

Appendix 7: Gantt Chart

Figure 22. Gantt chart first semester

Figure 23. Gantt chart second semester