Constructed Storm-Water Wetland Installation and Maintenance: Are We Getting It Right?

Abstract

Constructed storm-water wetlands (CSWs) have become one of the more popular storm-water control measures (SCMs). CSWs offer a hybrid between larger detention technologies like storm-water wet ponds and newer green infrastructure technologies. The systems are characterized as being predominately shallow retention practices, with water elevations sufficiently low to support diverse flora and fauna. Figs. 1(a–c) illustrate several successful examples of CSWs. Many researchers have found that CSWs remove sediment, nutrients, and metals from storm-water runoff (Greenway 2004; Hathaway and Hunt 2010; Line et al. 2008; Kohler et al. 2004; Wadzuk et al. 2010). One of the principal drivers for the use of storm-water wetlands is the amount of credit awarded to them by various governmental agencies with respect to nutrient removal and sequestration [North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) 2009]. The apparent improvement in nutrient capture from storm-water runoff over that of storm-water wet ponds is one of the main reasons designers choose CSWs over the more traditional wet pond. Extensive coverage of vegetation allows for several pollutant removal mechanisms: filtration of particles, stabilization of sediments, nutrient uptake, microbialrhizophere interaction to promote nitrification and denitrification, and the provision of increased surface area for biofilm/periphyton growth (Greenway 2004). In regions where thermal loads threaten cold water fisheries, CSWs have been shown to release cooler water to streams than do wet ponds because of the shading caused by the vegetation—but absent from wet ponds (Jones and Hunt 2010). Some concerns have also presented themselves with respect to CSWs, which have prevented the practice from outright replacing the wet pond. Foremost among them is the threat of mosquito infestation that wetlands invariably face in relation to the public (QDNR 2000). Research has shown that exorbitantly high mosquito populations need not accompany CSWs, provided they are diversely vegetated (Greenway et al. 2003; Hunt et al. 2006). However, if wetlands are allowed to become monocultures of specific mosquito-protective plants, such as Typha spp. (commonly referred to as cattails in the United States), they can become the very mosquito breeding grounds that the public fears (Greenway et al. 2003; Hunt et al. 2005). If storm-water wetlands are to be constructed, they must both (1) meet their intended water quality (and hydrologic) design goals and (2) not be a public nuisance. Anecdotal observation of CSWs constructed worldwide shows how many well-intended CSW designs fail. Two principal reasons were identified: One appears to be that not enough care was taken to ensure the storm-water wetlands’ normal pool elevation was appropriately shallow (that is, often the elevation of water in CSWs is too deep). The cause has been previously identified by Greenway et al. (2007). The second is clogging of the outlet structure that artificially raises the elevation above normal pool for extended periods of time. In both cases, simple preventative actions could be taken to ensure constructed storm-water wetlands maintain their designed integrity. The purpose of this forum is to document how poor design and inadequate management of two CSWs caused each to effectively become wet ponds, which results in (1) a reduced efficiency in the removal of some pollutants; (2) a degradation of biodiversity, which leads to an increased risk of having the wetlands become mosquito breeding grounds; and (3) degraded aesthetics.