THE STUDY OF POLLUTANT REMOVAL FROM URBAN STORMWATER USING A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND HONOURS PROJECT Department of Environmental Management Victoria University of Technology VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 3 0001 00166564 7 Name: Bram Mason Supervisor: Dr Paul Lam October 1994 FTS THESIS 363.728 409945 MAS
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
THE STUDY OF
POLLUTANT REMOVAL
FROM
URBAN STORMWATER
USING A
CONSTRUCTED WETLAND
HONOURS PROJECT
Department of Environmental Management
Victoria University of Technology
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
3 0001 00166564 7
Name: Bram Mason
Supervisor: Dr Paul Lam
October 1994
FTS THESIS 363.728 409945 MAS
363.728409945 MAS 30001001665647 Mason, Bram The study of pollutant removal from urban stormwater using a
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many individuals I would like to extend my sincere gratitude towards
in helping me accomplish this honours project. I would like to thank Dr Paul Lam
for first accepting to be my supervisor for this project and for continually
guiding and instructing me in various tasks as well as being p^a^fen^and keen to
respond to any queries and difficulties that presented themselves throughout
the acedemic year.
I am also grateful to Vincent Pettigrove from Melbourne Water for letting me
work on the Shankland Wetland.
Cn ^
My sincere thanks i ^ l s o extended to Dr Mani Sripada and Patrick Lai for their
support and help.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION COMPONENT PAGE
1 . 0 ABSTRACT 1
2 .0 INTRODUCTION 2
3.0 AIMS 10
4.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS 11
5.0 RESULTS 14
6.0 DISCUSSION 22
7.0 CONCLUSION 36
8.0 APPENDI:^CB5 41
1.0 ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the Shankland Valley Wetland
for its ability to treat urban stornnwater pollutants. Monitoring was conducted
during two nnoderate storm events and two non-storm events. Pollutant
concentration was measured at 24 hour intervals over periods of approximately
one week.
Data indicated that the wetland was reducing some pollutants but seemed
to increase the concentration of others. It was also found that Roxburgh Park
seems to be the major contributor of pollutants to Shankland wetland. The
receiving waterway, Yuroke Creek, had higher concentrations of phosphorus than
the stormwater drains (SWD). Since phosphorus is a limiting nutrient for algal
growth, it was found that it may be worth directing the f low of Yuroke creek
through the wetland to reduce the concentration. G e n e r ^ all other pollutants
were lower in Yuroke dxeek than the effluent from the wetland. Therefore/it is
possible to say that during the period tested, the Shankland Wetland is situated
in the correct position to treat pollutants so as they do not increase in Yuroke
€reek and any downstream catchments. A brief macroinvertebrate study was also
carried out for future reference.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 REASONS FOR STUDY
Stormwater run-off from roofs, parking lots, roadways, and landscapes
impacts and degrades water quality and habitat values within existing water
courses. The Shankland Wetland was primarily designed to reduce the bulk of the
pollutants that enter the waterways during the first part of a storm. Shankland
drain (from Meadow Heights) was considered to need the
t reatment , compared to the stormwater drain (SWD) from Roxburgh Park. This
was because Roxburgh Park stormwater is ment to be treated to a reasonable
extent by the wetlands north of Somerton road (appendix A).
A comparison has been made between American and Australian urban data
to help identify monitoring needs in Australian urban catchments (Bufill M.C,
1993). From this particular article it was found that more monitoring and treatment
was needed in the highly urbanised areas. Not many articles were found initially
on the monitoring and treatment of urban runoff, then the chance arose to do a
study on a newly constructed wetland servicing the Roxburgh Park and Meadow
Heights housing estates wi th Melbourne Water. A more comprehensive literature
search was carried out and the fol lowing was recognised. There is a lack of data
on the treatment performance of constructed wetlands (Brix.H, 1993). A more
thorough understanding of the transport and fate processes that are operative in
constructed wetlands is needed (Tchobanoglous.G, 1993). There ( ^ ^ s o m e
questions concerning wetland treatment system longevity, the effects on wetland
biota, and design innovations to enhance pollutant assimilation (Knight.RL, et al.,
1993). Additional research is also needed to determine the adequate pollutant
loading rates to assure the biological integrity of wetlands (Ethridge B.J, et al.,
1993)
2.2 WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Urban stormwater runoff has been found to cause severLdissolved oxygen
depletion, poor water clarity, and extensive algal growth, particularly during the
summer recreational months in Washington (Bautista M.F.). Accumulative effects
such as eutrophication and toxicity resulting from nutrient, heavy metal and
organic micropollutant loadings are also associated with stormwater pollution (Ellis
J.B., 1990; Jacobsen B.N, 1993; Segarra-Garcia R. and V.G. Loganathan, 1992).
The majority of stormwater pollutants mentioned above are associated with
par t icu la t^as a result of adsorption to solids and other surface processes.
Therefore effective particulate removal via sedimentation and filtration by
vegetative cover should yield efficient pollutant reductions (Ellis, 1990).
Water quality data collected at Lake Lacamas Washington, suggested that
phosphorus was the limiting nutrient in controlling the amount of biological activity
in the Lake (Bautista M.F, 1993).
It has been found that when urban stormwater was treated using a gross
pollutant trap followed by a wetland detention facility, nitrate levels were found
to increase during the winter months (Bautista M.F, 1993). Howevei^since the
Lake where the resulting treated water was being drained into was phosphorus
linnited, it is thought that the nitrate should not adversely affect the lake. The
Shankland wetland which comes under study in this thesis is a fresh water system
as is Lake Lacamas, so any high levels of nitrate resulting from treatment should
not cause any adverse g t f j c t s downstream in Yuroke ^reek.
It is hard to distinguish between a "clean" and "dirty" water catchment. Ellis
1990, reported that variations between these dirty and clean catchments can be
wi th in an order of magnitude, whilst the variation in quality between different
runoff events can be within a factor of three.
Leachate from disused landfill sites can cause major problems if allowed to
enter the natural water course. It is important to minimise the polluting potential
of the leachate before this occurs. Hadden and Murphy 1994, noted the potential
of using a wetland to treat the leachate before entry into the natural water course.
They also noted that if a wetland is used to collect any surface runoff before it has
a chance to soak into the soil of disused landfill sites, leachate will be minimised.
The type and amount of pollutants that can be found in stormwater is highly
variable with pollutant characteristics closely related to land use and rainfall
characteristics (Livingston E.H, 1993). The catchment area serviced by the
Shankland wetland was___farmland\ becoming residential. One area is already
established. Meadow Heights, the other area is a new housing estate, Roxburgh
Park.
Of primary importance to water quality is the first washing action that
stormwater has on accumulated pollutants in the water-shed after a long period
of time without rain. This washing action is termed the "FIRST FLUSH". During
this first storm, impervious surfaces are washed creating a shock loading of
pollutants into the water shed (Livingston E.H, 1993). Studies in Florida USA, have
indicated that the first flush caries 90 % of the pollution load from a storm event
(Livingston E.H, 1993). The importance of the first flush is also recognised by
Bautista, 1993.
For treatment of the entire runoff body, a storage space large enough to
hold the runoff is needed. This results in the total pollutant load being trapped and
eventually treated; otherwise an overflow can occur leading to contamination of
the receiving water body (Segarra-Garcia. R, 1992).
Pollutants can also ^ ^ ^ e c ^ t h e macroinvertebrate population. The
semipermanent flooding which contains the pollutants has been reported to
eliminate environmental cues necessary for oviposition, embryonic development
and hatch among dominant taxa (Neckless, H.A, et al, 1990). This leads to the
depletion of density of total invertebrates.
2.3 POLLUTANT TREATMENT MECHANISMS
Wetlands allow transformations of some elements, function as a sediment
filter, or act as temporary sinks. One major factor that leads to pollutant reduction
is dilution from the small amount of water from the storm water drains, entering
the large body of water, the wetland. Pollutants can be lost to the atmosphere by
volatilisation, incorporation into sediments or biota, or can be degraded. Generally
initial removal mechanisms are physical and chemical followed by biological
processes (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1986; and Kusler & Kentula, 1990). Other more
specific factors are mentioned below.
Treatment of pollutants using a biofiltration system or something similar can
be enhanced if the underlying soil has a relatively high organic content and cation
exchange capacity (Ellis. J.B, 1990).
Sedimentation and filtration are important in the reduction of pollutants. For
these processes to be successful, the designed f low rate must be at a minimum.
Flow rates above 0.5 - 0.8 c ^ _ J r e able to destroy vegetation and inhibit
sedimentation (Ellis. J.B, 1990).
The slope where macrophytes grow can the treatment efficiency.
Generally the minimum slope for biofilters should be 2% and the maximum slope
being 4%. Emergent species can be planted on a flatter slope. The main objective
of the gradient is to maximise vegetation and soil contact of pollutants (Ellis. J.B,
1990).
Once the solids have been filtered through the biofilter and settle to the
bot tom of the pond/wetland, it is estimated that the solids will stay there for
approximately one hundred years (East. C, 1994).
Given the influence on growth rate of algae from phosphorus and nitrogen,
their importance in urban runoff is of considerable interest and concern.
2.3.1 PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL:
Phosphorus is required for algae to grow. Algae can grow at phosphate levels as
low as 0 .05 mg/L. For growth i n h i b i t i o n j ^ ^ ^ k ^ required well below 0.5 mg/L
(Manahan. S.E, 1991). In nnunicipal wastes, phosphate can be found around the
concentrat ion of 25 mg/L (Manahan. S.E, 1991). This usually differs from
stormwater concentrations by a factor of 10 (Livingston. E.H, 1993). The forms
of phosphate typicallpre; o-phosphates, polyphosphates and insoluble phosphates
/ (Manahan. S.E, 1991).
Phosphorus removal may occur due to primary settling of solids; due to
aeration such as an activated sludge unit, or; after secondary waste treatment
(Manahan. S.E, 1991). Constructed wetlands incorporate primary settling in a
Gross pollutant trap, and secondary settling due to the slow movement of water
through macrophyte beds in the wetland.
Where high levels of dissolved oxygen and pH are found, efficient
phosphorus removal has been attained as high as 60-90% (Manahan. S.E, 1991).
When gas is removed by the degradation of organic material, the levels of C 0 2 are
relatively high, which results in a low pH due to the presence of carbonic acid.
This results in the phosphorus being in the form of H2P04'
With aeration rates in relatively h a ^ water, the C02 is removed, and the pH
rises and the fol lowing reaction occurs;
5 Ca'^ + 3HP0 + HjO - - > Ca50H(P04)3 (s) + 4H
7
The precipitated phosphate in the form of hydroxyappatite or other form of calcium
phosphate is incorporated into the suspended solids that later settle into the sludge
(Manahan S.E, 1991). This reaction is hydrogen ion dependent and an increase in
concentrat ion drives the equilibrium back to the left. If anaerobic conditions
prevail, the sludge becomes more acidic due to the abundance of C02 and calcium
returns to solution.
2.3.2 NITROGEN REMOVAL:
In freshwater systems nitrogen is the next important chemical to remove to
reduce algal growth. Nitrogen is generally present as organic nitrogen or ammonia.
The ammonia is oxidised to nitrate through the presence of nitrifying bacteria.
Nitrogen can also be removed through NHS gas, even more if the pH is
substantially higher than the pKa of the NH4'' ion (Manahan. S.E, 1991).
Nitrification coupled with denitrification is an adequate technique for the
removal of nitrogen. First the ammonia and organic nitrogen are converted to
nitrate under aerobic conditions;
NH^^ + 2O2 (nitrifying bacteria) - > NO3" + + H2O
This nitrate can then be converted to nitrogen gas by bacteria with a sufficient
Richardson C.J and C.B. Craft, 1993; and Brix .H, 1993). This is a strongly
seasonal process, with 90% or more running off during winter or spring months
(Harper .D, 1992).
Phosphorus adsorption and retention in freshwater wetland soil is controlled
by interaction of redox potential, pH, Fe, Al, and Ca minerals, and the amount of
phosphorus in native soils (Lindsay A.L, 1979, and, Faulkner S.P and C.J.
Richardson, 1989). Redox potential and pH both control the mobility of
phosphorus in the environment. In acidic soils, inorganic phosphorus is adsorbed
to hydroxides of iron and aluminium, and may precipitate as insoluble iron-
phosphates and aluminium-phosphates. In soils with a pH above 7.0, phosphorus
is transformed to insoluble precipitates of calcium phosphate (Richardson C.J. and
C.B. Craft, 1993).
Both phytoplankton and macrophytes are able to take up large amounts of
phosphorus. Recent studies show that phytoplankton are more efficient at
uptaking phosphorus than macrophytes (Howard-Williams C, 1985).
Emergent wetland vegetation also takes up phosphorus from the
surrounding soil environment. After these plants die, a lot of the stored
phosphorus is returned to the surface water. Therefore the short term effect of the
rooted emergent vegetation is to release phosphorus from the sediment to the
water column. Root and residual decomposition products result in long term
phosphorus storage due to peat (Richardson C.J. and C.B. Craft, 1993).
29
In the majority of freshwater systems, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for
algal growth (Baker .L.A, 1993). If there is an excess of phosphorus, it can lead
to algal blooms, especially during warm dry conditions. It has been reported that
total phosphorus concentrations paralleled suspended solid concentrations.
However, total phosphorus concentrations were probably associated with
fluctuations in point sources. Where increases occurred in phosphorus, statistical
associations between total phosphorus increases and measures of fertilised
acreage and cattle population were found.
Suspended solidj^removal efficiency can be found in table 7, section 5.2. An
incomplete data set for suspended solids meant that a t-test was unable to be
preformed. A general look at the data available would seem to indicate that the
effect of rain on suspended solid removal is minimal if any.
Suspended solids are generally removed from a water body by gravitational
settling and filtration due to emergent vegetation. Suspended solid concentrations
may be increased jn a pond due to the action of turbulence caused by wind and
wave action on the shore (Hellawell J.M, 1986). Suspended solid concentrations
only pose a threat to freshwater communities when they are present either at
abnormally high levels or for long periods, thereby changing the nature of the
habitat.
Suspended solid concentrations may effect the aquatic environment in the
following ways:
(1) Reducing light penetration effecting the photosynthetic rates of algae and
submerged macrophytes.
30
(2) Exerting mechanical effects on organisms by increasing abrasion, clogging
the respiratory surfaces or interfering wi th feeding through inadvertent collection
of feeding appendages.
(3) Modi fy ing the nature of the habitat by changing the character of the
substratum when they collect by settlement as f lows are reduced.
The ultimate effect on the biota of suspended solids is clearly dependent upon the
nature of the material held in suspension, including size, density, nutritive value,
toxic i ty, and its potential for bacterial decomposition (Hellawell J .M, 1986).
If available storage is provided to hold an entire runoff event, the total
wash-off load (amount of pollutants in one runoff event) will be trapped and
eventually treated or diluted to an acceptable concentration; otherwise an overf low
of the pollutants occurs into the accepting water body. In this case Yuroke ^ e k
(Segarra-Garcia .R and V.G. Loganathan, 1992). This could lead to an increase in
the amount of nutrient leaving the wetland, thereby reducing the removal
eff iciency of the wetland.
6.3 EFFECTS ON YUROKE CREEK FROM EFFLUENT RELEASED FROM WETLAND:
Comparing the results for coliform concentration in upstream and downstream
^ g r o k e creek, " A c t i o n 5.3,the one generalisation that can be made is that
upstream concentrations of coliforms are higher than downstream concentrations,
most of the time. Between these two sampling sites is the outlet for the wetland.
It seems that the water from the wetland is diluting the creek water, reducing the
concentration of coliforms in the creek. For the purpose of removal of coliforms
31
f rom Yuroke creek, it seems a good idea to transfer the water f rom the creek
through the wet land.
Land uses further upstream Yuroke creek (at A t twood Creek) will effect the
pollutant load in the creek at the site near the wetland. The area at A t twood Creek
is unsewered and relies on septic tanks to treat domestic sewage. The septic tanks
could be failing resulting in the higher concentrations of coliforms before the
wet land. However^since the difference is very small, this is unlikely. Paddocks
adjoining the Shankland wetland where Yuroke ^ e e k f lows through, have horses
and catt le that use the creek for drinking water. These animals defecate in and
around the creek. Horses and cattle are warm blooded and therefore have
col i forms in their guts. These coliforms are released in the faeces, and may end
up in the creek. This seems to be the most probable answer to the high
concentrat ion of colifoms in upstream, site 6, Yuroke Creek.
Suspended solid concentrations during periods of no rain are higher
downst ream Yuroke creek than upstream. However |this value does f luctuate
slightly. Therefore during dry periods the wetland increases the suspended solid
loading of Yuroke creek. However^wind causing waves on the wetland water
surface wil l increase suspended solids. Wind velocity was not measured during
sampling. If the wind was strong, this could help explain the increase in
concentrat ion downstream.
During wet periods the wetland dilutes the loading of suspended solids in
Yuroke & e e k . See section 5.3. Rain could be beneficial for the treatment of
suspended solids.
32
Nitrate concentration was higher upstream Yuroke creek then after the
wetland during periods of no rain. This could mean that the nitrate in the wetland
it being treated efficiently so that the effluent leaving the wetland is low in nitrate.
The effluent would then dilute the concentration of nitrate in Yuroke creek.
Thereforeyt would be even more beneficial to divert Yuroke creek through thg/
wetland.
Nitrate concentrations increase downstream Yuroke 6reek during wet
periods. This could mean that the rain has diluted the concentration of nitrate in
upstream Yuroke creek. As well as the wetland reaches its treatment limit for
nitrate and releases excess nitrate to Yuroke creek. Looking at the graphs for
nitrate in section 5.3, the downstream concentration of nitrate during the dry
period is around 200 uqlL. Howeverjduring the wet interval the concentration of
nitrate downstream was around 350 t/g/L.
This fairly consistent increase during the wet interval would seem to support
the idea that the wetland has reached its treatment limit or holding capacity for
nitrate. The extra water could also increase aeration of the water leading to
physical oxidation of nitrogen compounds to nitrate.
Nitrite concentrations show no consistent data during periods wi th no
rain. This is probably because of the transformations of the nitrogen cycle varying
the amount of nitrite.
When It did rain it was found that nitrite was higher downstream of the
wet land than upstream. The wetland may have reached its treatment limit or
holding capacity thereby releasing nitrite into the creek.
33
During periods of rain and no rain the concentration of total oxidised
nitrogen followed a similar trend. That is, the concentrations downstream were
higher than upstream of the wetland. Therefore the wetland is increasing the
concentration of total oxidised nitrogen in Yurokeg,reek.
From the graphs of o-phosphate in section 5.3p generalisation can be made
as to what is happening to o-phosphate. Upstream concentrations seem higher
than downstream of the wetland concentrations. Therefore the wetland probably
does not increase the concentration of o-phosphate in Yuroke ^eek during wet or
dry periods. The wetland possibly dilutes the o-phosphate in the creek.
Generally upstream of the wetland has high concentrations of total
phosphorus compared to downstream of the wetland. |:his is similar to o-
phosphate. Once again the wetland is probably treating the total phosphorus
efficiently and diluting the concentration of total phosphorus in Yuroke creek.
6.4 MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY OF YUROKE CREEK AND SHANKLAND
WETLAND:
Examination of table 8 in section 5.4, one can note the prevalent trend in
the increase in macroinvertebrates in the water column downstream of the
wetland. Organisms found in upstream Yuroke 6reek and in the wetland combine
with other organisms to increase the diversity of Yuroke (^eek after the wetland.
The habitat after the wetland does not seem greatly altered from the habitat before
the wetland.
34
Suspended solids depositing in downstream Yuroke €reek, the addition of
excess nutrients and the possible increase in flow during storms from the wetland
seem the only dangers to the macroinvertebrate population and diversity in Yuroke
6reek. Any increase in deposition of solids and nutrients that may occur from the
wetland will almost certainly be resuspended and washed away during winter
spate^"tFiereby cleaning the creek for the next deposition.
35
7.0 CONCLUSION:
Seasonal variations, the local hydrology, and the channelisation of
Shankland wetland will all effect the concentration of nutrients and the abundance
of biota in the wetland and Yuroke^reek.
The major contributing storm water drain (SWD) for phosphorus compounds,
nitr i te and suspended solids during wet or dry conditions comes from Roxburgh
Park. Meadow heights SWD was confirmed as carrying the highest concentrations
of nitrate and coliforms.
Looking at results comparing concentrations in the SWD(s) and Yuroke
creek, it is possible to say that during the period tested, the Shankland wetland is
si tuated in the correct position to treat pollutants so as they do not increase in
Yuroke ^reek and any downstream catchments.
It was shown that rain may increase the removal of nitrite in the wetland
before entering Yuroke ^reek. The wetland reduced nitrate efficiently to the same
extent during wet and dry periods. During periods of rain, the removal of total
oxidised nitrogen was sufficient, but during dry periods, TON concentrations
increased through the wetland. ortho-Phosphate, total phosphorus and suspended
solids were also reduced through the wetland to the same extent during wet and
dry periods.
It was also found that the wetland did not increase the concentration of
coliforms, o-phosphate, total phosphorus or total oxidised nitrogen during wet or
dry periods in Yuroke Creek.
36
Suspended solid concentration only increased in Yuroke creek when it did not
rain. When it did rain, nitrate and nitrite concentrations increased inYuroke Creek
after the addition of effluent from the wetland.
The macroinvertebrate study was only carried out for future reference if
.-.succession studies are carried out on Shankland wetland. As a result^the
infornnation provided was brief.
37
8.0 REFERENCES
Argent . B A , N .E . B o o t k , T . F W , C . E . Jones, J.Kent, B . N . Man,' an<l R . H . Reed. , A pilot U K evaluation of a rapid defined suLstrate metkod for eniimeration of total coliforms and Escherichia coJi in water.
Baker. L .A . , introduction to nonpoint source pollution and wetland mitigation, pp. 7 - 4 1 . In: R .K. Olson (ed.), U . S . EPA, Created and natural wetlands for controlling nonpoint source pollution. C.K. Smoley, 1993.
Bautista. M . F and N . S . Geiger., Wedands for stormwater treatment, Water Environment and Tecknology, 5, (7), 1993 .
B r e e n . P . F . A . , A mass balance metkod for assessing tke potential of artificial wetlands for wastewater treatment, Water Res. 2 4 : 6 8 9 , 1990 .
Brix. H . , Wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands: system design, removal processes, and treatment performance. In: G.A. Moskiri (ed.), Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Lewis Pukliskers, 1993.
BufiU. M . C , M.J. Bovd and W . Leamp recka., Comparison of stormwater quantity and quality data for U S A and Australian urkan catckments In: G.A. Moskiri (ed.). Constructed wetlands or water quality improvement. Lewis Pukliskers, 1993.
East . C.Jr. , Natviral system in Louisiana cleans up. Water Environment and Tecknology, Fekruary, 1994 .
Elks . J .B. , Bioengineering design for water quality improvement of urkan runoff. Paper 1.4, Construction Industry Researck and Information Association, Middlesex Polytecknic, U K , 1990 .
Etkridge. B.J, and R .K . Olson . , Researck and information needs related to nonpoint source pollution and wetlands in tke water sked: A n E P A perspective. In: R.K. Olson (ed.), U .S . E P A , Created and natural wetlands for controlling nonpoint source pollution. C.K. Smoley, 1993 .
Fa i i lkner . S .P , and C.J. Rickardson. , Pkysical and ckemical ckaracteristics of freskwater wetland soils. In: Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Mimicipal, industrial
and agricxdtural, D .A. Hammer (Ed.). Lewis pukkskers, Ckelsea, MI , 4 1 - 7 2 , 1989-
Harper. D. , Eutropkication of Freskwaters, principals proklems and restoration. Ckapman and Hall, London, 1992-
Hellawell. J.M., Biological indicators of freskwater pollution and environmental management. Elsevier Appked Science Pukliskers, London and New York, 1986.
in HeLert^P.D.N. , A revision of tke taxonomy oi" tke genus Daphnia (Crustacea : DapknJae) i South Eastern Australia, Australian Journal of Zoology, 25, (371-98), 1977.
H icks . D .B and Q.J. StoLer., Monitoring of constructed wetlands for wastewater. In: D.B. Hicks and Q.J. StoL er. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Municipal, industrial and Agricultural, Lewis Putliskers Inc., Ckelsea, Mickigan., pp 477-455 , 1988.
Howard-Wi l l i ams . C., C cycling and retention of N and P in wetlands: a tkeoretical and applied perspective. Freskwater Biol. 15:391, 1985.
Jacoksen. B.N. , Effects of stormwater disckarges to small lakes. In: G.A. Moskiri (ed.), Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Lewis Pukliskers, 1993.
Knigkt. R.L, R.W. Rut l e , R.H. Kadlec, and S. Reed., Wetlands for wastewater treatment: performance datakase. In: G.A. Moskiri (ed.), Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Lewis Pukkskers, 1993.
Kusler and Kentula., Wetland creation and restoration: Tke status of tke science. Island Press, Waskington D.C., 591, 1990.
Lindsay. A.L. , Ckemical equilikria in soils, Wiley and Sons, New York, 1979-
Livingston. E.H., Use of wetlands for urkan stormwater management, In: R.K. Olson (ed.), U .S . EPA, Created and natural wetlands for controlling nonpoint souxce pollution. C.K. Smoley, 1993.
M a n a k a n . S .E. , Environmental Ckemistry 5 Edition, Lewis Pukliskers, Mickigan, USA, 1991.
Mi tsck and Gosselink., Wetlands, Van Nostran Reinkold, New York, 1986.
Neck les . H.A, H.R. Muxkin, and J.A. Cooper., Influences of seasonal flooding on macroinvertekrate akimdances in wetland kakitats., Freskwater Biology, 23, pp 311-3 2 2 , 1 9 9 0 .
Nutta l . P.N. , Uptake of pkospkorus and nitrogen \iy Myriophyllum aquaiicum (Velloza) Verd. growing in a wastewater treament system. Aust. J. Mar. Freskw. Res., 36 , 493-507, 1985 .
O'Neil l . P. , Environmental Ckemistry, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1985.
Olson. R . K , Evaluating tke role of created and natural wetlands in controlling nonpoint source pollution. In: R.K. Olson (ed.), U.S. EPA, Created and natural wetlands for controlkng nonpoint source pollution. C.K. Smoley, 1993.
Pul l in . B .P , and Hammer . D.A., Aquatic plants improve wastewater treatment, Water Environment and Tecknology, Marck, 1991.
Rickardson. C.J, and C.B. Craft., Effective pkospkorus retention in wetlands: fact or fiction, In: G.A. Moskiri (ed.). Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Lewis Putliskers, 1993 .
Seg 'arra-Garcia . R, and V.G. Loganatkan. , Stormwater detention storage design under random pollutant loading. Journal of water resources planning and management, vol. 118, No. 5 , 1 9 9 2 .
Tckokanoglous . G., Constructed wetlands and aquatic plant systems: Researck, design, operational, and monitoring issues. In: G.A. Moskiri (ed.), Constructed wetlands for water quakty improvement. Lewis Pukliskers, 1993.
Va lcar reL M, and M.D. Luque de Castro., Automatic metkods of analysis, volume 9, Elsevier, 1988 .
Selected Pkys ica l and Gkemical Standard Metkods, 17 tk Edition., L.S . Clesceri, A E > Greenkerg, and R.R. Trussell (Ed.)., American Puklic Healtk Association. 1990.
APPENDIX A
ROXBURGH PARK WETLANDS
APPENDIX B
MAP OF SHANKLAND WETLAND
Figure W E T L A N D S I T E AND C O N S T R A I N T S
0 . 0 1 S E 0 . 1 5 1 0 . 0 0 7 • 0 . 0 3 ; 0 1 0 . 00-7) 0 . 00-7 ' Q _ 0 n 7 i
' i • i ; , ..
1 S / 4 . / 3 4 , ; i i : 1 1— :
n 1 1 1 . 2 S i 0 - 3 1 ! 3.-71 1 . 9 3 1 0 2 6 i 0 . 1 3 I 0 . 9 1 0 . 4. 1 11 2 1 . 3 i 0 . 2 3 1 3 . 9 1 1 . 9 : 0 2 -7 i 0 . 1 S 0 . 9 i 0 . 4. 3 m e a n 1 , 2 S i 0 . 2 9 S i 3 . S i 1 .94.: 0 . 2 S 5 ! 0 . 1 - 7 0 . 9 1 0 . 4. 2 S O 0 . 3 ; 0 . 0 2 : 0 . 0 1 ; 0 - O S . 0 0 1 i 0 . 0 1 0 • 0 . 0 1 S E 0 . 0 2 ! 0 - O i l 0 . 0 0 - 7 ' 0 . 0 4. 1 0 . 0 0 "7 i 0 . 0 0 V 0 ; 0 . 0 0 7
is>/-a/s><i ; ! 1 i j i
n 1 0 . S 3 i 0 . 1 9 ^ 0 . 1 9 i 0 . 2 4. i 0 2 3 i 0 - 1 S j 0 . 2 2 i 0 . 2 3 n 2 0 - S i ; 0 . 1 3 1 0 . 1 9 i 0 . 2 i 0 2 3 i 0 . 1 7 1 0 . 2 1 i 0 . 3 m e a n 0 . 6 2 ! 0 . 1 S S i 0 . 1 9 i 0 . 2 2 i 0 . 2 3 i 0 . 1 s I 0 . 2 1 S i 0 . 2 9 S D 0 - 0 1 ; 0 . O i l 0 1 0 . 0 3 ; 0 1 1 0 0 ! 0 . 0 1 i 0 . 0 1
S E 0 . 0 0 i 0 . 00-7 j 0 i 0 . 0 2 ! 0 j 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 0 7 ! 0 . 0 0 7
1 ! i ! i i i :
2 0 / 4 . / 3 4 . ! 1 i : 1 i
n 1 0 - 2 9 i 0 . 2 1 : 0 . 2 3 : 0 . 2 S i 0 . 3 7 ! 0 . 1 3 i 0 . 1 7 ; 0 . 1 7
j n - r i i 3 9 S . 6 6 9 . O 2 : S 5 S , ^ S i • 3 O O O i 3 S 6 2 i X O 9 . 0 7 - i 3 X 3 . X s i 2 2 s A S ITa^eiT-i I 8 9 3 . S 2 1 S 7 X . 3 S i S 6 X O O i 3 ^ O . " 7 x 1 3 S S 0 9 i X 0 3 0 0 i 3 X S A S ! 2 2 A A 3
S O I S . 3 2 i 3 . 3 ] S . ^ 3 ! X O o i 0 - 3 i x s x o o i 3 2 3 i 2 . 3 S E ! • a . . S 2 i 2 . 3 3 ; • i . S 5 i O . 7 - x ! 0 s A : X . 0 " 7 ! 2 2 3 i X 9 S
x 3 / d . / 9 - 3 . i 1 j i :
n X ! 3 3 4 . S . O . i X 6 5 ^ i • 7 0 S . S i S ' 7 X . - 3 . - 7 ! 3 9 - 7 _ 0 S i X S 0 . 3 7 - i S 5 S - X ; 2 3 S 0 3
n 2 3 3 S O - s i X S 3 9 . 3 i • 7 X 2 . S i S 3 X . i l ! 3 3 2 0 X i X - 7 X . X 3 1 S A S 2 3 ! 2 3 3 3 X m e ai n 3 3 ^ 3 ; X S S . 9 1 X O . < S S i 5 - 7 S . A ^ i 3 3 9 S A i X s s . -7 S 1 5 S X X V • 2 3 A S - 7
S O , 3 . - 7 3 1 X O . O S i 3 . O A i • 7 . 0 2 ; X 0 S A i •7 . S X ; s 9 3 ; X 9 2 S E 2 - S <1. i . X 3 2 . X 5 ; ^ . 9 S : • 7 S 2 S . 3 3 i A 9 A i X 3 S
i ' : i i 1 :
X 9 / ^ / 9 A i • ^ : i i i n X X 3 " 7 S . - T - i X 1 9 X ; X 4 X 6 . X i 3 3 2 . 3 - a i A O S s A ; 3 S 2 - S 1 3 S S " 7 S i 3 S S A 3
n 2 X 3 - T - O . X ! X s o o i X ^ 2 O . 2 1 3 9 X . X 2 i A X X - 3 2 i 3 A 9 . 9 - 7 1 3 S 0 S 6 ! 3 S 0 • 7 3
a n ! X 3 - 7 3 . i X 9 S . S 1 X i X 3 . X i 3 3 6 . " 7 3 : A O S S 3 i 3 S X . 2 9 1 3 3 3 _ X S i 3 S 3 0 3
s n • a . « . a i S . A - i i 2 . 9 X 1 e . 2 X 1 A - A A i X . 3 S i 3 _ S S ! 3 _ 3 2
S E 1 3 . 2 3 i - i . S 5 i 2 . 0 6 1 ^ . 3 9 ! 3 X A i X . 3 2 1 2 - : 2 _ 3 S
^ i • i i i i 1 1
2 0 / - a . / 9 4 . 1 i ! i i i • n X ! 9 . s i 2 S 4 . S i X - a . O O . 2 1 3 X S . A S i 3 S S . 9 9 i X 3 A . S 9 i 3 2 A . X V • 2 9 A - S A
m 2 1 9 9 O . ^ S . 2 S 3 O . X i X O 3 . 2 1 3 2 0 . 2 X i 3 9 0 . 6 2 i X 3 A . 0 2 j 3 2 S S 3 1 2 9 A . S A
1 9 S - T - . A 3 1 2 S 3 - 7 - . S i X ^ O X - T ' 3 X 3 . 3 A 1 3 3 3 3 X ; X 3 A . 3 S i 3 2 S 3 S i 2 9 A . S A
S O j ' I . 2 X i X O . S 2 i 2 . X -a. i 2 . S S i 3 . 2 - 7 i 0 . AT- j X - S - 7 i 0
S E ! 2 . 9 3 i • 7 . A A i X . S X i X . S - 7 i 2 . 3 X I 0 . 3 3 i X - X S i 0
1 9 e - r . 2 I 3 S 9 I
3 S 2 X . i l i 3 9 S >
3 S 3 - X i
3 S O - S 2 !
X -a X . "T" A i : S T' . T- 9 ! X a a . x - 7
T n i a a n x g - 7 - 3 . 3 !
a . s -4. i
3 S 3 S . x i X 3 9 7 . s ! 3 S X . 9 2 i
X 9 - " T - S I
X 3 . 9 S i
2 . x r 7 !
X - S 3 i
s - ^ a - x x i X - a . - a - . - T - - T - i 2 S S - S 9 . X 9 2 - 3 2
3 S O - S S i X - a . 3 . 2 6 i 2 8 S - 2 a . i X S - T - . 2 S
X X - 9 - a . i 2 . X -J. j o - 6 'I i •T' - X S
S . - ^ ^ i X . S X i o . - i s l S . 0 3
APPENDLX 3
n 1 i A 4 - 3- \ 3 3 . -i 2 1 5 3 . X 6 ; 3 9 •3. S . -1 -i . "7 S 1 2 . a -7 ! 3 X . 6 7 1 X 9 . 5 n 2 ; •a. s - s i 3 O . X 2 i s a . 2 X I 3 2 . e 2 1 ^ o . a 2 ! 2 O . 9 i 3 5 .621 2 5 . S 2
! •a 6 -3 S 1 3 X - V7- i S S . S 9 i 3 6 . O S i •a- 2 . T' 9 i 2 2 . a 9 i 3 3 . 6 S i 2 2 . S 6 SD
i 3 . X e i 2 - 33| 3 . S-7 i _ as i 2 . a i 2 . a i 2 . 7 9 ! a. . 3 3
SE = - 2 5 i X . 65 S i 2 . 3 2 ! 3 _ -i 3 ! X . 9 V X . 9 a i X . 9 7 ! 3 . O 6
i i
n 1 i a s . <s s i a 1 X 2 S 1 7-7 _ •7 3 i 2 a . 9 • •7 . S 3 : 3 O . 7 i X 9 . 9 T-
n 2 9 2 . X 9 i o i X 2 O . S 2 1 7 9 3 T' : 2 3 . O S i X O . X X ! 3 3 . x ; 2 S . 6 2
mean 9 O . 9 2 i o i X 2 2 . a X , 7 a S 5 : 3 X ) 3 . a 2 : 3 -i . J. i 2 2 . a
SD 1 - a i O : 3 . x ; 1 . s 2 - 9 : X - 3 2 i 5 .231
SE X . 2 -7 i O : 2 . X 9 ^ o S 2 2 . O S ; X - 2 9 3 - 7 •: 2 -a 3
I • i i ; , ! : 1
n X i s . 3 2 i O ^ •7.25! 2 e ^ S i 2 -7 . 9 s : 9 . 41 2 3 . S 4 i X 3 -6 7
n 2 1 o . S 2 i O i a . 3 2 1 3 o . 9 9 i 2 S . 2 X i X 3 . s ; 2 O . a. S i X 6 . ~ 2
mean 9 . > O : •7 . 7 9 i 2 a _ a a 2 S . 5 9 ! X X . 5 ] 2 2 i X 5 . 2
SD 1 . 6 3 1 O i O . 7 cS i 2 9 9 I X . 9 4 i 2.97^ 2 . X a 1 . X 6
SE I 1 . X S ! o i O . S ! 2 . X X ; X . 3 i 2 . X i X . 5 4 ! X . S 3
1 i i i i i i i
i 1 ! i : 1 !
n i X s - i O i X9 . 2 S i S S . •7 A i s 2 . X ; X O . 3 X ! d. 7 . 9 3 i 2 2 . •tt 6
n 2 1 X 9 . a a i O 1 2 S . <3 X j s o . X 3 • S 9 . 2 X j X 3 . X ; 5 O . 7 X j 2 S . S 2
mean XT- . 3 9 ! O i 2 2 . 3 i S 2 . 9 A i SO . a X1 X X . 7 X i d,9 . 3 2 1 2 3 . 9 9
SO i 2 . 3 9 i oi 4. . S i 3 . 9 "7 1 2 . 2 <S i X . 9-7 • X . 9 7 ; 2 . X 6
SE i 1 X . <3 9 ! o i 3 . X 3 1 2 -a X i X . s : X . 3 9 i X . 3 9 i X . S 3
i i i ; i : i i
! 1 i i i ' i
n X i - •7 s i o i XO-2S! a. 3 39 ! S3 , 3 i a . 9 s i 3 6 . 6 X • X -7 . a. 3
n 2 X2 . ox i o i 8 . 6 2 ! S o 3 1 SO . a X i a 1 d. X . 2X1 X a . 2 X
X 2 . 39! o i 9 . -a. 1 A -7 . O X i S 2 . O 6 i a . A a i 3 a . 9 X i X T' . a 2
SD i o . S3 i o i X . XS i •a. a A 1 X - -76 1 o . s a 1 3 . 2S 1 O . 5 S
SE 1 O -3-71 o 1 o - ax ! 3 •a. 2 i X . 2 -a. i o . -aa i 2 . 3 i o . 3 9
APPENDIX 4
1 T O T A L OXXPISED
! • m<3r/x.
nxts^OGEN
^ r I s y A / 9 4
i S X T E S X T S i SXI-E SXTS n xa.Qa i
: S X T E S I SX-XE X-7 - X5i xa . 15 4 i
i SXT?S
xa - V3 xa . as; x& - 3 x a - !
m atn. xa - 4X
xe-sa i 2Q . QSi
X-7 . Q V i
xa - -7x1
xa - sal
X 9 _ 2 -T' xa - V«I X9 - 2.3 i X-7 . i XS . - 3X xa _ a3• X9 - 3 Xi
! 1 1 ! i 1 n 2. i i v . S O x-7 29 ! X9 4 9 i 2 O 2T' I X a 3 a 1 X9 . s 2 2 o <S n 3 i x-7 . S 3 x-7 QX X-7 _ 3 2 X9 _ 4-7 i 2 O X4[ X a 4 3 i X9 s s 2 2 OX raea-n 1 X-7 . S5 X -7 - a X X -7 3 X X9 4 a i 2 O 2x1 X a 4 X i 1 X9 s a 1 22 O 4 SD ! O . O 2 i a - o <s 1 o _ 02 i o _ OX i O _ o 9 i o O 4 ! ' o O 4 1 O 04 SE ! o . O X ! o _ 04 i 1 o ox 1 O o X ; O O 6 i o O 3 i o O 2 I o O 2
i i ! i !
13/4/94 i i ; ^ i ;
n i i x-7 . 9 s ! X a o s ! 2 O - 99 ; X 9 7 2 i 2 O 3 3 j X s _ 9-7 i x-7 2 S ! XT' S4
n 3 1 X 3 . O 2 ! X a _ X X i 20 _ a 2 i X9 _ a X 1 2 O 3 S j XT' 0-7 i XT' 3 2 i X T- 4 9
rao a-rt i & & ! X a - oa i 2 O _ 9 X i X 9 _ -ZT' i 20 _ 3 s : X-7 O 2 1 i X T" _ 2 9 1 X-7 S 2
SD i O . o s i o _ O 4 i O _ X 2 O _ OS i O _ o 2 i o O -7 O O S i o O 4
SE i o O 4 O O 3 i o O 3 i O o 4 ; o - o X : o O S i o O 4 1 o O 3
S ! i i ; : i i
! 1 i i 1 1 !
n X X s . S4 1 x-7 -7 S> XS 4 X j X 9 -7 X i X s - -i 1 X9 •7 2 X 9 _ XX i 2 O _ a 2 n 2 i X a . 4 S> i X-7 7x1 X<S s a 1 X 9 - s s i X s - 3 a i X 9 s a i X9 X 9 i 2 O 7 3
X a -5 2 ! X -7 _ 7 5 ! X6 - s ; X 9 . -7 i X s _ 3 9 i t 9 . -7 ! X 9 X s i 20 _ T? a SD i o . O 4 i o O 6 i o X 2 1 o O 2 i o O X 1 O _ O 3 o O s ; o _ O s SE i o . O 3 i o _ O 4 O _ o a i o ox i o O X i o - O 2 i o - O 4 i o O 4
i i 1 i i : 1 i
20/4/94 ! : 1
n X i X s . a s 1 X -7 XS i X-7 3 X i X 9 s s ; X 9 - 2 X ! x-7 - O X X 9 - 4 6 i X s - 9 S
n 2 X 6 . •7 -7 X-7 _ O 2 X-7 3 9 X 9 '.Si X 9 - 3 -7 i X -7 X2 i X9 5 2 i X T- O -7
X s . S X 1 XT' 09 i XT' 3 S i X 9 5 3 i X 9 - 2 9 i X 7-- OT' 1 X 9 - 49 XT' - OX
SD ! o . o <s ! O _ O 9 ! O o s i o _ 04 i o - X X i O O S i o 04 i O o a
SE i o . O 4 j o OS i o _ 04 i O - O 3 i o o a j O O S i O - O 3 i O - o s
i i 1 i i i 1 i
2X/4/94 i i i j i i 1
n i i X a . 2 a i x-7 2S i 20 _ 99 ! X9 X2 j XS - X2 i X s 3 2 1 XS - 9T' i XT' - 3 9
r. 2 i X a • 3 3 i x-7 2 4 1 20 a -7 i X9 X3 i X s - X-7 i X s - 2 a i X s - O S i XT' - 4 3
inaa,i-i i X a . 3 X 1 X -7 2S i 20 93 i X9 X 3 i X s XS i X s . . 3 j X s - O X ! X-7 - 4X
SD i o . 0 4! O _ ox i O o a 1 o O X j o - O 4 i O - O 3 ! O - OS i O - 03
SE 1 o . O 3 i o O X 1 O _ OS j o O X i o 03 1 o - O 2 i o - O 4 i o - O 2
APPENDIX 5
n ! . S . S . I 0 .1 -79 . -Zl s s - o x i •7 a , a s i 3 - 7 . . o x i _ 2 <5-r » . 2 . i 5 3 X- X 2 a 3 . o s > l S X . _ 2 X- l •7 0 _ x x i 3_-7 2 . a . 3 1 3 9 . 2 S i <S-0 - 5 9 xn«2»-c»r3t. ! 0 - a - x - x s i S 3 _ X X i • 7 4 . -7 i 3 _-7« . . . ^ y i 3 & . X 3 ! 6 - 2 _ 4 . . 3 S D . i 2 — 0 . - " 7 9 i 2 . ..-7 S-i 2 - . . S . 9 i - X . V i S i 2 - , 6
S . E . i 3 S . S . i 0 - 5 S . ! X . . S > 4 i 3 9 ^ 4 . - 3 6 . i 3 .. S 4 i X _ X 2 . i 3 9 a
' ! i i : i i :
i i i i !
n X . i _ a i a s i - o a _ 4. i 3 X 2 _ 4. i 4 a _ - 7 a i 9 3 - . a 3 ! 4 0 - . 9 ; 6 6 - 9 2
n . 2 . i a s 3 2 X - 2 9 i 3 X S - • 7 9 i 4. = i .. ^ -1 1 9 C L - a 9 i _ »S.S i 6 9 — 0 a
m ^ e a - n . j 3 . S - 7 . 9 2 ; a -7 3 S i 3 X 9 . 3 S i 3 X 4 . X i 4 -7 I 9 2 . 3 6 ; 4 2 . 7 S i 6 S
s o 2 _ 4 S ! 2 - -7 S i 2 _ 4 i 2 - s 2 1 2 _ 0 a i 2 _ s s l X - S 3
S E . ; 3 . 3 - 2 ! X _ •7 3 i X - 9 4 i X _ "7 j X - 7 a Q O 1 X _ 4 - 7 i X _ a s ; 3 a a
! i i i i i 1 i
X 9 - a . X s> ! i 1 ! ! i
3 . 1 O-O -7 3 4 3 9 2 _ 3 i 3 "7 _ 4. 2 i a x _ x - 7 1 X 4 a _ a i X 2 9 - S i X 2 - 7 - 3
n . 2 . 1 3-3 . - a i -7-7 _ 3 2 j 9 0 - X 2 i 3 a _ s s 1 a < s - 2 3 i X 4 . 4 . _ - 7 < s i X 3 2 - x ; X 3 0 _ 6
• t n - ^ e u r v 3-0 . _ 3 . 3 L i •7 s 3 a 1 i 9 X - 2 X i 3 - 7 _ 9 9 i a 3 _ "7 i X 4 < s - -7 a i X 3 0 - a 1 X 2 a - 9 5
S D 1 0 - s a l 2 •7 S 1 i X - S 4 i 0 - a x i 3 - s a i 2 _ a s i X - a A i i 2 - 3 3
S E . i 3 - 3 . 2 1 X 9 S i i X - 0 9 ! 0 - s - 7 : 2 _ 5 3 i 2 - 0 2 ! X - 3 X . 6 S
i 1 1 1 i 1 !
2 . 0 / 4 / 9 4 i 1 i ; ! 1 i
9 2 - X 9 1 4 i S 2 a i 5 X - s a l X 2 . 9 S i X 2 - 7 - S 1 2 x 0 - s 1 « s - 4. 1 x a 4 . - 9
n . 2 1 9 S _ 2 3 . i 4 0 3 X 1 S 3 - < 3 x ; X 0 - 9 2 ; X 3 0 - X 2 j 2 X S - -7 2 i <S& - X X X 9 0 - a X
9 4 _ 2 { 4 3 - 3 S 2 _ S 9 j X X - 9 4 ! X 2 a . a x j 2 X 3 - X X i • s s - 2 9 i X a T - . S S
S D i 2 . 3 4 4 2 2 X - 4 S i X - 4 4 j X - a s i 3 - S 9 i 0 _ 2 S • 4 - x a
S E 1 2 , 0 X 2 9 a i X . a 3 ! X - 0 2 i X - 3 x i 2 . S X O . x a i 2 . 9 6
1 ! 1 i • 1 ;
i i i i r
!
n . a . 2 X - x a •7 s i 3 - 7 - 3 x ! 9 0 - V 2 i • 7 3 - X 9 i X 2 9 - 9 i 6 4 . 6 a 1 9 9 . -7 a
n . a i 2 2 - X 3 j i ^ s & 2 3 a - 2 3 1 9 6 - 2 9 i - 7 0 - 2 3 1 X 3 3 - 9 - 7 j ! 6 0 - 4 S ! X O 3 - 6 2
2 X . S S j • "7 S 3 X 3 - 7 . •7-7\ 9 3 - S X i •7 X - X ! X 3 X - 9 4 i 6 2 . 5 ' 7 1 X O X - -7
s o I 0 . « V i i 0 4 4 0 . s s l 3 - 9 4 1 2 - 0 9 i 2 - a a 1 1 2 - 9 9 ! 2 - - 7 2
S E ! 0 - 4 - 7 ! i 0 - 3 X 0 . 4 s ! 2 - " 7 9 i X . 4 a 1 2 . 0 4 1 i 2 . X X i X . 9 2
APPENDIX 6
:n 2. ! O - i s 4 I o -532! O _ 2 O A i 0 0 a X i 0 - 02 ! 0
1
25 9 i 0 .
! XT' X i 0 2 X s ;n S 1 O . 1 o - 5xa i O - 2XX i 0 0 a 3 i 0 oxa i 0 229 i 0 -X a 9 1 0
m«a.i-i ! o . i s 9 i o - S2S j o 20 a i 0 0 a 2 i . 0 0 X 9 i 0 2 4 J. i 0 - X a t 0 2X9 SD 1 O . O Q v ! o - ox 1 o o o s 1 0 0 0 X ! 0 0 0 X I 0 0 2X ; 0 .03) 0 0<D a. ss ; o . o o s i o - ao-7 > Q O O ^ 0 0 0 X ' 0 0 0 X : 0 OXS 1 0 . 0 0 9 i r» 0 n ^
! ! ! ' 1 : i 1 i ; ; ^ i ;
;n i i O . 2 -a i o - O S X i O - 0 0-76 1 0 0 3 ^ i 0 22-i i 0 . X ! 0 X 3 -7 'n 2 i O . 2 i X i o - o a 9 i o a X i 0 0 9 9 i 0 0 s 2 1 0 2s X : 0 . X 3 S 0 2 0 X mejari O - 2 2 S i o -O 3 S i o - a A 3 i 0 0 a a : 0 0 4 3 1 0 2 A 3 j 0 . X 3 a 0 X <S 9 SD o . o 2 X : o -o o s : o 002; 0 0 X S i 0 0x3; 0 0 2 6 , 0 . 0 0 a. 1 0 0 O. 5 SE O - O X s i o O O -i o _ 0 0 X i 0 _ 0 X X 1 c 0091 0 0 X a 1 0 . 003; 0 0 3 2
• i i i : i i i i i i i 1 j 1
n a. i O . O -a. i o -O 3 i o X 3 i 0 X 5 2 i 0 2 X S i 0 X s a 1 0 . X 2 S i 0 X 3 n 2 i O - XX ! o -OSS! o -xsa 1 0 _ X 2 3 i 0 _ 2 3 <S 1 0 X -r 3 i 0 . X A 3 i 0 X3 2I m«aLri i O - O s i Q O S X i o X s <s ; 0 X 3 a i 0 _ 2 2 S i 0 X -7 X ; 0 -X 3 S 1 0 X 3 a so ; O - O 4. 9 1 o -o X X; o _ 0 XX ; 0 0 2 X : 0 _ 0 X A i 0 _ 0 0 4 i 0 . 0 X 2 i 0 00a SE O . O 3 S i o a o a i o 0 0 a i 0 0 X 5 • 0 - 0 X ; 0 0031 0 . 0 0 a 1 0 0 0 6
' ' i i i 1 ! I 20/A/9-1 i : ; ; i 1
n 3. ! o . o s 1 o o S 2 ! o Q -7 9 i 0 2 3 X ; 0 2 X ! 0 _ X 0 3 1 0 - X s : 0 a -r
n 2 : O - O S 2 i o O -7 X 1 o _ 0 a 3 i 0 2 0 X i 0 2 S X ; 0 XX a : a . 2 0 9 : 0 - X
m^ajn. i O . O 5 S i o _ o S 2 ! o _ a a X ; 0 -2XS ! 0 -2 S X 1 0 X X X i 0 . X a s i 0 0 a s
SD i o . o o s i o OX3 ! o _ 0 0 3 1 0 _ 0 2X i 0 0 X -a. i 0 _ 0 XX 1 0 -0351 0 _ 0 2 X
SE i o . o o s i o _ O O 9 i o _ 0 a 2 i 0 OXS i o . oxi 0 -0 o a i 0 -0 25 i o _ OXS
i j i i i ! ! 1
t I 1 1 1 ! !
n i ! O - O 2 A i o X O 2 i o 0 s s i 0 - X S i 0 -XX3 i 0 -xsa i 0 -X S 9 1 0 . 3
n 2 i O-02Vt o X23 i o _ 0-7X i 0 -XS-a ! 0 -X2xi 0 - X 2 i 0 -X S 3 i 0 - 2 a X
mosLri i O . O 2 <S i o XX3i a 0 s i 0 _ X S T- i 0 X X-T' i 0 . x s i 0 . xsxi 0 - 29 X
SD 1 O . O O 2 ! o O X 5 1 o 0 XX i 0 _ 0 0 11 0 0 0 S ! 0 -0 X X i 0 . 0 0 3! 0 - 0 X 3
SE 1 O - O O X i o -O XX i o - 0 0 s i 0 - 0 0 3 ! 0 - 0 0 A i 0 - 0 0 a i 0 . 0021 0 - 009
APPENDIX 7
CALCULATIOIM OF M A S S F L O W R A T E
A N D
R E M O V A L EFFICIENCIES
Concentration was converted to g/L. Scince we know how many litres per day
of water was flowing down the S W D or yuroke creek, from the flow rate data, appendix 8, we can calculate how many
grams per day was coming down each S W D / Yuroke Creek.
Removal efficiencies were then calculated from influent and effluent flow rates.
APPENDIX 8
FLOW RATE DATA
FLOW RATE IN DRAIN WITH RAIN INFLUENCE = 8,640 L/DAY
FLOW IN DRAIN WITH NO RAIN INFLUENCE = 3,600 L/DAY
FLOW RATE AT SAMPLE POINT 6 = 4,320 L/DAY
FLOW RATE AT SAMPLE POINT 8 = 4,320 L/DAY
The above are crude measurements, flow rates will differ at each point depending upon environmental conditions
APPENDIX 9 COLIFORM rFECTS ON YUROKE C
2 3 / 5 - 2 8 / 5 / 9 4 1 6 / 6 - 2 3 / 6 / 9 4
2 4 6 8 1C
TIME (days)
3 / 8 - 7 / 8 / 9 4
° upstream • downstream with standard error COLI - COLIFORMS
100)
8 10
TIM]
SUS' APPENDIX 10
ED SOLIDS EFFECT ON YUROKE CREEK
15/4-19/4/94
0.5 23/5-28/5/94
0.4
SS mg/L
0.3 -
0 . 2 -
0.1 -
a 10 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10
TIME (DAYS) riM
16/6-23/6/94 ° ups t r eam • downs t r eam
with standard error
8 10
TIME
APPENDIX 11 NITRATE EFFECTS ON YUROKE CREEK
[03
1 5 / 4 - 1 9 / 4 / 9 4 2 3 / 5 - 2 8 / 5 / 9 4
0 2 4 5 8 10
TIME (days)
TO 3 •g/
1 6 / 6 - 2 3 / 6 / 9 4
600 ^ , ^ r 500 -
400 -
300 -
3 / 8 - 7 / 8 / 9 4
200 8 10
° upstream • downstream
•with standard error
APPENDLX 12 NITRITE EFFECTS ON YUROKE CREEK
1 5 / 4 - 1 9 / 4 / 9 4
8 10
ME (days)
N02 f ig /
23/5-28/5/94
riM 8 10
16/6-23/6/94
" 0 2
TIME
N02 p g /
3/8-7/8/94
upstream downstream with, standard error
8 10
APPENDIX 16
SUSPENDED SOLIDS DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
4 T
3 T
^ 5 i ! ]_ I
0.55-rv
0 ^
/ \ / \ \
DPATN
CREEK
4 DAY
7
APPENDIX 17
NITRATE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
1600 J
1^00 i I
1200 i 1000 I 800 600 i 400 200 -
0
/
4 5 nav
DRAIN !
CREEK
7
APPENDIX 18
NITRITE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
1 in -1 9n -
100 I S 80 i
/\ / \
/ \ DRAIN
S I 40 i,
! Of) i
/ CREEK
4 DAV
7
APPENDIX 19
TON DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YDKOKS CSEEK
T
9 n i
1 ^ X
10
nPAjM ! j
CREEK
n 4
nav
APPENDIX 20
ortho-PHOSPHATE DIFFEP.ENCE IN -SWD AND YUP.OKS CREEK
350 J
300 [
250 -
2 00 1 '=;n 1
J, inn I ~ 50 X 0
/
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
. / / \
\
3 4 5 nav
i " DRAIN i t ' CREEK
APPENDIX 21
TP DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
0.9 -
I 0.7^ 0.6 i
cri. i - T
0.4 -
0 . 2 i 0 . 1 ^ - -
0 J
/\ / \
\ / \ /
J
3 4 DAY
nPATM !
CREEK
7
APPENDIX 22
COLIFOPH DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKS CREEK
APPENDIX 23
SUSPENDED SOLIDS DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE
CREEK
0 , 45 I
0 , 4 -i / \ / \
= 0.35 i /
5 t / ^ 0.254/
y 0.2"
g 0 , 15
i O.X^
0,05 i
\
0 ^
sita 3
site 6
3 4
na V
APPENDIX 24
NITRATE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUHOKE CREEK
1400 T
I—1 o
1200 1000 800 600 I 400 -200 -
0 3 4
DAYS
APPENDIX 25
NITRITE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YTJROKE CREEK
40 ' 35 -3 0 --
^ 25 I II 20 I ^ 15 T
1 /
/A / \
/ \ /• \
\ site 3 site 6
/ \ M 5 f
1 DAYS
APPENDIX 26
ortho-PHOSPHATE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
400 350 300 I
5 25n -!• — I o 200
" ~ ' i 100 T 50 I 0 ^
sita 3
site 6
3 4 DAY
APPENDIX 27
COLIFORM DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YIIROKS CSSEK
60000 y i cannon i
, 40000 I T nnnn
2 0 0 0 0 -! / 10000 t
\ \ \
\
drain
0 3
DAYS
APPENDIX 28
NITHATE DIFFERENCE IH SWD MID YURCE CREEK
1000 J 900 i SOO I: 700 I 0 N
5 0 0 i
400 I 300 j-U-200
i 100
N 3
RIA VC
APPENDIX 29
NITRITE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
-) n
on 1 \
/ \
/ \
/ \ 1 O I /
5 cp-i
3 nave
APPENDIX 30
TON DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
0.9 J n Q i W • W 1
0.7 i 0.6 i i 0 • 5 -r 0.4 I 0.3 I 0.2 i 0.1 i
I 0
- L k .
drain creek
3 DAY
APPENDIX 31
3 / S / S> ortllQ-PHOSPHATE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK 400 T t 350 ^ ! 300 I
i 250 -!-r—!, 2no 1 I . 150 f/ 100 50 0 4-
1
/
/ dirai ! i
3 DAYS
APPENDIX 32
T P D I P F E R E H C E SWD AND YUROKS CHEEK
600 J r i ' !
50 0 4- x
4 00 - / \ / cr'
— T nn I
2 0 0 -
1 0 0 -
0
— =-• \
3
DAY
\ i. I
APPENDIX 33
COLIFORM DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
3 0 0 0 0 T !
2 5 0 0 0 ^ I
_ 20000 ^
^ 1 5 0 0 0 I o j
1 0 0 0 0 J I
5 0 0 0 t i
0 i-
/ \ / \
/• • \ / \
\
/ /
V
4 5
DAY
DRAIN
CREEK
APPENDIX 34
2L3 /
SUSPENDED SOLIDS DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YIIROKE CREEK
1.8 J 1.6 r 1.4 i
1 1.2 T CO 3_ i
^ n . R 1 e " ' I 0 . 6 i
0 . 4. i i
0.2 r Q-0 4-1
\ / \
4 5 na.v
7
/ i DPJb-IN CREEK
APPENDIX 35
NITRATE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK
1400 J 1200 I 1000 t
«nn i ' ' ' I finn 1
I
400 i 200 -
i n
riRAT-NI
CREEK :
2 3 4 5 DAY
7
APPENDIX 36
1 6 / 6 / S> 4 : 23/ e / 1 NITRITE DIITEREHCE IN SWD AND YUKOKE CREEK
160 J 140 --1 2 0 --
1 0 0 -i
Rn 1 I 60 t 40 I
cr-.j — - -
/ X /
/
4 5 DAY
7
•Q
OR A T M
-c CREEK
APPENDIX 37
ortho-PHOSPHATE DIFFERENCE IN SWD AND YUROKE CREEK