| Line 1: | Line 1: | 
|  | [[File:Kortright-farm-june-2011.jpg|thumb|Wetlands fed by stormwater at Kortright Farm, Vaughan ON]] |  | [[File:Kortright-farm-june-2011.jpg|thumb|Wetlands fed by stormwater at Kortright Farm, Vaughan ON]] | 
| − |   | + | {{TOClimit|2}} | 
|  | ==Overview== |  | ==Overview== | 
| − | Constructed wetlands are similar to [[SWM ponds]] in function and design, with the most significant differencebeing that they are designed to incorporate shallow zones for wetland [[plants]]. A facility is normally characterized as a wetland if shallow zones (<0.5 m deep) make up more than 70 % of its volume.
 | + | Free-water surface flow wetlands are most commonly employed for stormwater treatment and are similar to [[SWM ponds]] in function and design The most significant difference is the extent to which they are designed to incorporate shallow zones for wetland [[plants]]. A facility is normally characterized as a wetland if shallow zones (<0.5 m deep) make up more than 70 % of its volume.   | 
| − |   |  | 
|  | {{textbox|Wetlands are an ideal technology for:   |  | {{textbox|Wetlands are an ideal technology for:   | 
| − | *Text A | + | *Enhancing biodiversity | 
| − | *Text B | + | *Providing a more aesthetic aquatic landscape  | 
|  | }} |  | }} | 
|  | + |  | 
|  | + | Sub surface flow systems provide generally lower health and safety risks and are sometimes employed to handle stormwater in combination with another wastewater stream. | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | ==Planning considerations== |  | ==Planning considerations== | 
|  | {|class="wikitable" |  | {|class="wikitable" | 
| − | |+ Types of Constructed Wetland<ref>Grant, N., M. Moodie, and C. Weedon. 2000. Sewage Treatment Solutions. p. 35–67. In Sewage Solutions: Answering the Call of Nature. Centre for Alternative Technology Publications.</ref><ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. A HANDBOOK OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS: A guide to creating wetlands for agricultural wastewater, domestic wastewater, coal mine drainage and stormwater.</ref> | + | |+ Types of Constructed Wetland<ref>Grant, N., M. Moodie, and C. Weedon. 2000. Sewage Treatment Solutions. p. 35–67. In Sewage Solutions: Answering the Call of Nature. Centre for Alternative Technology Publications.</ref><ref name="EPA">United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. A HANDBOOK OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS: A guide to creating wetlands for agricultural wastewater, domestic wastewater, coal mine drainage and stormwater.</ref><ref>Jacques Whitford Consultants, 2008. CONSTRUCTED & ENGINEERED WETLANDS p. 1-21</ref> | 
|  | |-   |  | |-   | 
|  | !Free-water surface flow |  | !Free-water surface flow | 
| Line 29: | Line 30: | 
|  | |style="text-align:left;"|'''Pros''' |  | |style="text-align:left;"|'''Pros''' | 
|  | *Well established technology |  | *Well established technology | 
| − | *Low cost
 | + | *May be natural looking, although often rectilinear in plan  | 
| − | *May be natural looking |  | 
|  | *Need little to no gradient |  | *Need little to no gradient | 
|  | *Provides buffer to discharge |  | *Provides buffer to discharge | 
|  | *Good pathogen removal from die off and predation |  | *Good pathogen removal from die off and predation | 
|  | *Minimal maintenance |  | *Minimal maintenance | 
| − | *Wide range of plants suitable | + | *Wide range of [[Wetland: list|plants]] suitable | 
|  | *Robust |  | *Robust | 
|  | |style="text-align:left;"|'''Pros''' |  | |style="text-align:left;"|'''Pros''' | 
|  | *High levels of treatment possible |  | *High levels of treatment possible | 
| − | *DIY possible (to lower cost)
 | + | *May be run without power if significant gradient is available | 
| − | *May be run without power if significant gradient is avaialble | + | *Can be attractively designed to generate interest in the technology, may be any shape.   | 
| − | *Can be attractively designed to generate interest in the technology.   | + | *Maintenance is technically simple. Sludge easily removed | 
| − | *Maintenance is technically simple |  | 
|  | *Biologically complex and robust |  | *Biologically complex and robust | 
|  | *Failure tends to be gradual |  | *Failure tends to be gradual | 
| Line 53: | Line 52: | 
|  | |style="text-align:left;"|'''Cons''' |  | |style="text-align:left;"|'''Cons''' | 
|  | *Requires more land |  | *Requires more land | 
|  | + | *Multiple substrate layers will promote stratification and channelization | 
|  | |style="text-align:left;"|'''Cons''' |  | |style="text-align:left;"|'''Cons''' | 
|  | *Requires fall of at least 1.5 m to provide sufficient treatment |  | *Requires fall of at least 1.5 m to provide sufficient treatment | 
| Line 60: | Line 60: | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | ==Design== |  | ==Design== | 
|  | + |  | 
|  | + | ===Sizing free-water=== | 
|  | {| class="wikitable" |  | {| class="wikitable" | 
| − | |+Design parameters for free-water surface flow wetlands <ref>Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and CH2M Hill Canada. 2018. Inspection and Maintenance Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed Wetlands (T van Seters, L Rocha, and K Delidjakovva, Eds.).</ref> | + | |+Design parameters for free-water surface flow wetlands <ref name="TRCA">Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and CH2M Hill Canada. 2018. Inspection and Maintenance Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed Wetlands (T van Seters, L Rocha, and K Delidjakovva, Eds.).</ref> | 
|  | !Element   |  | !Element   | 
|  | !Design Objective   |  | !Design Objective   | 
| Line 71: | Line 73: | 
|  | |- |  | |- | 
|  | |Treatment Volume   |  | |Treatment Volume   | 
| − | |Provision of appropriate level of protection (Table 3.2) | + | |Provision of appropriate level of protection   | 
| − | |style="text-align: left|See Table 3.2 | + | |style="text-align: left|See [[#.|below]] | 
|  | |- |  | |- | 
|  | |Active Storage |  | |Active Storage | 
| Line 118: | Line 120: | 
|  | *Preferred pipe slope: > 1 %;   |  | *Preferred pipe slope: > 1 %;   | 
|  | *If orifice control used, 75 mm diameter minimum;   |  | *If orifice control used, 75 mm diameter minimum;   | 
| − | 8Minimum 100 mm orifice preferable
 | + | *Minimum 100 mm orifice preferable   | 
|  | |- |  | |- | 
|  | |Maintenance access   |  | |Maintenance access   | 
| Line 130: | Line 132: | 
|  | |style="text-align: left|Minimum 7.5 m above maximum water quality/erosion control water level |  | |style="text-align: left|Minimum 7.5 m above maximum water quality/erosion control water level | 
|  | |} |  | |} | 
|  | + |  | 
|  | + | ===.=== | 
|  | + | {| class="wikitable" | 
|  | + | |+Water volume storage requirements based on catchment type and receiving waters<ref name ="TRCA"/> | 
|  | + | !rowspan=2|Performance level | 
|  | + | !colspan=4|Storage volume (m<sup>3</sup>/Ha) required according to catchment impervious cover  | 
|  | + | |- | 
|  | + | !35% | 
|  | + | !55% | 
|  | + | !70% | 
|  | + | !85% | 
|  | + | |- | 
|  | + | |80 % TSS removal||80||105||120||140 | 
|  | + | |- | 
|  | + | |70 % TSS removal||60||70||80||90 | 
|  | + | |-  | 
|  | + | |60 % TSS removal||60||60||60||60 | 
|  | + | |} | 
|  | + |  | 
|  | + | ===Modeling sub-surface=== | 
|  | + | '''[http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/Water_Sanitation/SubWet2/index.asp SubWet 2.0]''' is a modeling tool for <u>sub-surface flow wetlands</u> (both 100% constructed and naturalized/adapted). It can be used to simulate removal of nitrogen (including nitrogen in ammonia, nitrate and organic matter), phosphorus and BOD<sub>5</sub> in mg/l and the corresponding removal efficiencies (in %). Although the model has been calibrated already with data from cold and warm climates, users can further calibrate and validate it using local data observations. | 
|  | + |  | 
|  | + | ==Materials== | 
|  | + | ===Planting=== | 
|  | + | See [[Wetlands: Plants]] | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | ==Performance== |  | ==Performance== | 
|  | Relative to a wet pond, a constructed wetland may offer added pollutant removal benefits due to enhanced biological uptake and the filtration effects of the vegetation. |  | Relative to a wet pond, a constructed wetland may offer added pollutant removal benefits due to enhanced biological uptake and the filtration effects of the vegetation. | 
|  | + | Early stage wetlands readily sorb phosphorus onto substrates and sediments. Phosphorus removal in wetland systems is usually carried out by incorporating alum sedimentation ponds or [[sand filters]] as cells of the system, and/or by polishing wetland effluent in an iron-dosed mechanical filter.<ref>Jacques Whitford Consultants, 2008. CONSTRUCTED & ENGINEERED WETLANDS p. 1-21</ref> | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | Freezing temperatures in winter and early spring can reduce treatment if the wetland either freezes solid or a cover of ice prevents the water from entering the wetland. If under-ice water becomes confined, water velocities may increase, thereby reducing contact times<ref name="EPA" />. Runoff in excess of maximum design flows should be [[Overflow#routing|diverted]] around the wetland to avoid excessive flows through the wetland. |  | Freezing temperatures in winter and early spring can reduce treatment if the wetland either freezes solid or a cover of ice prevents the water from entering the wetland. If under-ice water becomes confined, water velocities may increase, thereby reducing contact times<ref name="EPA" />. Runoff in excess of maximum design flows should be [[Overflow#routing|diverted]] around the wetland to avoid excessive flows through the wetland. | 
| Line 138: | Line 166: | 
|  | STEP (under previous name SWAMP) conducted their own research into the performance of stormwater wetlands, the project page and report can be viewed [https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/home/urban-runoff-green-infrastructure/conventional-stormwater-management/constructed-wetlands/performance-assessment-of-an-open-and-covered-stormwater-wetland-system-aurora-ontario/ here]. |  | STEP (under previous name SWAMP) conducted their own research into the performance of stormwater wetlands, the project page and report can be viewed [https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/home/urban-runoff-green-infrastructure/conventional-stormwater-management/constructed-wetlands/performance-assessment-of-an-open-and-covered-stormwater-wetland-system-aurora-ontario/ here]. | 
|  |  |  |  | 
| − | ===Modeling===
 | + | Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority have been undertaking a coastal wetland monitoring project across Durham region, see [https://www.cloca.com/lwc/monitoring_coastal.php here]. | 
| − | '''[http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/Water_Sanitation/SubWet2/index.asp SubWet 2.0]''' is a modeling tool for subsurface flow wetlands (both 100% constructed and naturalized/adapted). It can be used to simulate removal of nitrogen (including nitrogen in ammonia, nitrate and organic matter), phosphorus and BOD5 in mg/l and the corresponding removal efficiencies (in %). Although the model has been calibrated already with data from cold and warm climates, users can further calibrate and validate it using local data observations.
 |  | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | ==Gallery== |  | ==Gallery== | 
| Line 147: | Line 174: | 
|  | *[[SWM ponds]] |  | *[[SWM ponds]] | 
|  | *[[Dry ponds]] |  | *[[Dry ponds]] | 
|  | + | *[[Plants]] | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | ==External links== |  | ==External links== | 
| Line 152: | Line 180: | 
|  | *[https://cawt.ca/ Centre for Advancement of Water and Wastewater Technologies at Fleming College] |  | *[https://cawt.ca/ Centre for Advancement of Water and Wastewater Technologies at Fleming College] | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | + | ===Articles for review=== | 
|  | + | #Kennedy, G., and T. Mayer. 2002. Natural and Constructed Wetlands in Canada: An Overview. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 37(2): 295–325. doi: 10.2166/wqrj.2002.020. | 
|  | + | #Bendoricchio, G., L. Dal Cin, and J. Persson. 2000. Guidelines for free water surface wetland design. EcoSys Bd 8: 51–91. http://www.pixelrauschen.de/wet/design.pdf (accessed 9 May 2018). | 
|  | ---- |  | ---- | 
| − | Kennedy, G., and T. Mayer. 2002. Natural and Constructed Wetlands in Canada: An Overview. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 37(2): 295–325. doi: 10.2166/wqrj.2002.020.
 |  |