Department of the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government

Integrated Constructed Wetlands

Guidance Document for Farmyard

Soiled Water and Domestic Wastewater
Applications
Foreword

Our high quality water resources are a valuable national asset and represent an
essential foundation of our way of life. In addition to supplies of potable water and
wastewater services for households, industries such as agriculture, manufacturing,
tourism and fisheries also depend upon having abundant supplies of consistently good
quality water.

Measures to protect and improve water quality such as the continuing investment in
wastewater treatment facilities under the Water Services Investment Programme and the
Nitrates Action Programme are contributing much to address the challenge of nutrient
enrichment of our waters. We have made significant investments over recent years in
infrastructure to protect and enhance water quality, but further work is required in
order to achieve our targets under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) by 2015.

As announced in this Department’s Statement of Strategy and in the Water Services

Investment Programme 2010-2012, it is envisaged that integrated constructed wetlands
(ICWs) will play an increasingly important role in Ireland’s drive to reach our WFD
targets by providing environmentally sustainable and cost-effective wastewater
treatment facilities, particularly in smaller rural locations.

Ireland has pioneered the development of the ICW concept over the past two decades
for use in the treatment of polluted wastewater through natural biological processes.
ICWs integrate the sustainable management of land, water and biological resources
consistent with the ecosystem approach, to promote conservation and to enhance
biodiversity. In addition they have the potential to deliver on a substantial range of
other ecosystem services, including flood attenuation, amenity and recreation.

Conventional wastewater treatment systems will continue to be appropriate in large

urban areas, however ICWs sustainably use local natural materials in their
construction, require a minimum of maintenance and have low energy requirements
during use. Thus they are an extremely cost-effective way of treating wastewater from
small communities.

This guidance document provides a practical framework for good practice in the
design, site selection, construction and maintenance of ICWs. The particular focus of
this volume is on ICWs designed for the treatment of point sources of farmyard soiled
water and for domestic waste water. Later volumes are planned to deal specifically with
ICWs designed for applications such as the treatment of landfill leachate and diffuse
agricultural pollution. It is aimed at practitioners in the field of wastewater treatment,
planners, policy makers and other interested parties in both the public and private
sectors.

The publication of this guidance would not have been possible without the
commitment and dedication of many organizations and individuals (duly
acknowledged elsewhere) whose knowledge and expertise was essential in bringing the
project to fruition. I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to all
concerned.

___________________________
Mr. John Gormley T.D.,
Minister for the Enviornment,
Heritage and Local Government.
November 2010
Contents

Acknowledgements 6

Background: Integrated Constructed Wetland (ICW) concept 7

Chapter 1: Introduction 9
1.1 Social, economic and environmental coherence in managing
water-vectored pollution 9
1.2 Restoring emergent-vegetated wetlands and their environmental services 11
1.3 Integrated Constructed Wetlands 13

Chapter 2 Site Assessment – General Overview 16

2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Key issues for assessment 16
2.3 Selecting the location of an ICW 17
2.4 Risk Based Approach 19
2.5 Key Environmental Receptors 22
2.6 Hazard Characterisation 23
2.7 Site Suitability 28

Chapter 3 Undertaking the Site Assessment 31

3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Approach to Site Assessment 31
3.3 Desk Study and Collation of Supporting Information 32
3.4 Visual Site Assessment 38
3.5 Trial Holes and Trenches 43

Chapter 4 The Regulatory Process 48

4.1 Introduction 48
4.2 Relevant Legislation 48
4.3 Planning Pre-Consultation 48
4.4 Information required when making a planning application 49 3
4.5 Planning Timescale 49
4.6 Discharge Licence Requirements 50

Chapter 5 Designing an Integrated Constructed Wetland (ICW) 53

5.1 Introduction 53
5.2 The ICW Process 54
 5.3 Preparation for the Design 54
5.4 ICW Area Requirements 55
5.5 Configuration/Layout of ICW 57
5.6 ICW Consolidation and Vertical Layout 61
5.7 Health and Safety Considerations and Final Design Drawings 62
5.8 Wetland Vegetation 63
5.9 The Competency of the designer 66
5.10 Summary of ICW Design Recommendations 67

Chapter 6 Construction 68
6.1 Introduction 68
6.2 Pre-Construction 68
6.3 Construction 69
6.4 Fencing 74
6.5 Construction of Final Bio-monitoring Pond(s) 74

Chapter 7 Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring 76

7.1 Maintaining Surface Flow 76
7.2 Maintaining Access 76
7.3 Removal of Accumulated Sediments/Detritus 77
7.4 Monitoring 77

References 82

Further Reading 89

APPENDIX A Groundwater Response Matrix for Integrated Constructed

Wetlands (ICW systems) 91
APPENDIX B Assessment methodology for ammonium sensitivity 95
APPENDIX C Site Assessment Form 98
APPENDIX D Soil Analysis Guide 107
APPENDIX E Minimum Licence Controls for ICW Systems 111
APPENDIX F Preliminary Safety and Health Plan for Integrated
Constructed Wetlands 112
4
APPENDIX G Site Selection Flowchart 117

GLOSSARY 118
 Figures and Tables

Fig. 1.1 Schematic diagram of an Integrated Constructed Wetland 13

Fig. 1.2 Example of a typical ICW system 13

Table 2.1 Key Issues and site characterisation 17

Fig. 2.1 Schematic representation of the differences between terrestrial

soils and wetland soils showing drainage and impedance to water
infiltration to ground 21

Table 2.2 Key environmental issues 22

Table 2.3 Influent composition of farmyard soiled water ICWs monitored
in the Annestown/Dunhill catchment 23
Table 2.4 Influent composition of wastewater ICW systems monitored in
Glaslough, Co. Monaghan 24
Table 2.5 Effluent composition from farmyard soiled water ICW systems
monitored in the Annestown/Dunhill catchment 26
Table 2.6 Effluent composition of wastewater ICW systems monitored in
Glaslough, Co. Monaghan 26

Fig. 2.2 Wastewater ICW system, Glaslough, Co. Monaghan 27

Table 2.7 Typical characteristics of Groundwater below Farmyard Soiled

Water ICW systems (Carroll et al 2005) 28
Table 3.1 Soil/Subsoil Characteristics 45
Table 3.2 ICW Decision Issues 47
Table 4.1 Optimum Planning Timescale 50

Fig. 5.1 Aerial View of ICW showing curvilinear fit of segments/ponds to

landscape contours 53
Fig. 5.2 Indicative relationship between P reduction and ICW area 57
Fig. 5.3 ICW showing landscape-fit; in this example the ICW configuration
reflects the meandering of the adjacent water body 59
Fig. 5.4 Cross-sectional view of wetland cell showing embankment 5
and water depths 61

Table 5.1 Plant species to be used in ICW systems 65

Table 5.2 Summary of ICW Design Recommendations 67

Fig. 6.1 Spring planting and establishment by autumn of bare-rooted

greater pond sedge (Carex riparia) 73
 Acknowledgements

The Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government wishes to

acknowledge and thank the many individuals who contributed to and assisted with the
preparation of this Guidance Document, in particular the representatives of the
organisations listed hereunder who participated on the Steering Group and Scientific &
Technical Advisory Group.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (Environment and Engineering Services

Division, Forestry Division)
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Fisheries Board
Eastern Regional Fisheries Board
Office of Public Works
County & City Managers’ Association
Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government (Planning Section, Water
Quality Section, National Parks & Wildlife Service)
Éamon de Buitléar

The Department also acknowledges the contribution of the Design Manual for
Constructed Farm Wetlands for Scotland & Northern Ireland and the earlier work
carried out by the ad-hoc ICW team which was further developed to produce this
Guidance Document.

6
 Background: Integrated Constructed Wetland (ICW) concept

National and EU legislation requires enhanced management of water and water-

vectored pollutants. The ‘Integrated Constructed Wetland’ (ICW) concept provides an
alternative strategy to conventional practice. The concept has been applied for the past
14 years delivering a successful model of social, economic and environmental
coherence (the three pillars of sustainable development). The ICW concept strives to
deliver this as comprehensively as possible for a wide range of sources of polluted
waters.

By adopting and implementing a strategy that integrates the management of land,

water and biological resources, whilst promoting conservation and sustainable use in
an equitable way, the ICW concept addresses the objectives of the EU Water
Framework Directive (WFD) and has further advantages. The ICW concept has the
potential to deliver on a substantial range of other ecosystem services, most notably
carbon sequestration, (subject to further processing of detritus on removal), flood risk
management, amenity and recreation, education and landscape aesthetic.
The intention of the ICW concept is to optimise water management and integrate the
benefits from its associated wetland infrastructure to deliver a wide range of
environmental returns, such as the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, the
delivery of good ecological status, the protection of fisheries and improved landscape
aesthetics. The ICW concept is predicated on the sciences underpinning restoration
ecology and natural resource management. In addition, the broad principles of the
UNEP/CBD’s ‘Ecosystem Approach’ and the Ramsar-1971 Convention’s ‘wise use of
wetlands’ are applied.

The concept can provide a practical and cost-effective solution for both the
management of water resources and the delivery of good ecological status for water
and its dependent habitats. While the ICW approach has the potential, with further
research and development, to address livestock wastewater, road/urban runoff, landfill
leachate and industrial wastewater, this Guidance Document focuses on dealing with
domestic wastewater and farmyard soiled water.

7
8
Chapter 1: Introduction

This Guidance Document is prepared for the application of the ‘Integrated Constructed
Wetland’ (ICW) concept in the management of point sources of farmyard soiled water
and domestic wastewater. Although primarily focusing on the treatment of domestic
wastewater and farmyard soiled water, the fundamental principles are generic and,
with further research and development, applicable to the management of polluted
waters from other sources e.g. landfill leachate, animal wastewater/ slurries, mining
waste, sludges and urban/road runoff1,2,3. Further guidance on specific issues on
management of polluted waters from these sources may issue to be added to this
Guidance Document.

The purpose of this Guidance Document is to provide comprehensive guidance for the
assessment, design and construction of ICW systems. This document parallels a similar
manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland4 and existing guidelines for Finland5. The
steps are outlined, ranging from assessing the appropriateness of an ICW in the first
instance, to its design, installation and the monitoring process. This involves several
decisions at each stage of the assessment and development process. The experience
and results, upon which this document is based, indicate that an effective, robust and
sustainable ICW can be established in a range of suitable locations. There will,
however, be variations in design and construction reflecting the site’s location and its
specific characteristics.

1.1 Social, economic and environmental coherence in managing water-vectored

pollutants
Across the world, social, economic and environmental coherence is sought in the
management of wastewater and water-vectored pollution6,7. This coherence is
increasingly required in addressing problems of pollution to both surface and ground
water from various point and diffuse sources8. Achieving such coherence requires that
the interlinked bio-geochemical dynamics of atmosphere, water and soils are
addressed. There is now an awareness of the capacities of certain types of wetlands to
achieve effective water management9. These include a range of environmental services
such as the reduction of flooding, provision and safeguarding of water resources and 9
the improvement of water quality10. More specifically, constructed wetlands are
increasingly considered effective for the management of water quality issues relating to
wastewater11,12,13.

A common goal with regard to the management of polluted waters is the need for
‘closed-loop’ systems; making full use of the residual values of water-vectored
 constituents in a way that does not impact negatively on the environment and that is
both socially and economically acceptable. These goals include the retrieval of
energy14, or its sequestration as organic or chemical carbon15, the recycling of nutrients16
and the reuse of water17 especially in drought-stressed conditions/regions. These goals
are sympathetic to the universally accepted principles of the ‘Ecosystem Approach’,
which promote a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living
resources, promoting nature conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way18.
The principles enshrined in the Ecosystem Approach are increasingly seen as the
framework for action with regard to sustainable water and natural resource
management19,20.

Using the fact that polluted waters have constituents that are an appropriate substrate
for further biological activity21, wetlands can provide social, economic and
environmental opportunities for integrated land and water management. One such
approach has been under development since the mid-1990s in Ireland. Rather than
being solely based upon environmental engineering, the concepts of restoration
ecology22 were applied, mimicking the structure of shallow emergent vegetated
wetlands23. This approach was termed the ‘Integrated Constructed Wetland’ (ICW)
concept1. This ICW concept combines various approaches to water, land and living
resource management by integrating three objectives:

- water quantity and quality management, including flood-hazard management;

- landscape-fit towards improving site aesthetics;
- enhancement of biodiversity.

The integration of these objectives is made with the expectation of achieving synergies
that might not otherwise be achieved if traditional land management strategies had
been adopted. The fundamental objective is the sustainable and holistic management
of polluted waters and associated land and water resources. The ICW concept
continues to be developed by applying the principles of ‘adaptive management’2.

Whilst initially developed for the farming community of the Annestown stream
catchment (c. 25km2) in south County Waterford, the ICW concept has potential for
application for the management of diverse point and diffuse polluted waters24. The
10
appropriate application of the ICW principles has relevance in contributing towards
achieving good chemical and ecological status for inland, transitional and coastal
waters as required under the EU Water Framework Directive.

Three factors are considered to be key when determining the successful application of
constructed wetlands to the holistic management of wastewater, namely:
- the ammonium-N concentration of the influent, and its effective removal
through nitrification and de-nitrification;
- phosphorus capture and retention, (which is generally considered to be the
most wetland area-dependent parameter25,26); and
- whether local soil materials are capable of providing effective protection to
groundwaters.

This Document provides guidance for developers and regulators appropriate to the
influent and site-specific needs and is based on:

1. The ‘Ecosystem Approach’ (as promoted by the Convention on Biological

Diversity and the Ramsar (1971) Convention on Wetlands, www.cbd.int ).
2. The principles of ‘restoration ecology’22.
3. Watershed analytical techniques27.

The guidance contained in this document is based upon experience gained from the
design, construction and operation of about 60 ICW systems built over the past 14
years. Two fundamental requirements are that ICW systems adequately treat
wastewaters and that any discharges from an ICW are beneficial or neutral in their
impact on the natural resources and ecologies of the location in which they are placed.

It is clear from the experience gained that ICWs can be:-

- economically viable, (taking account of capital costs, running costs and labour
costs),
- environmentally sustainable, providing capacities for water, carbon and nutrient
re-use, and
- an important addition to the landscape with significant amenity and biodiversity
values.

While they are not a substitute for natural wetlands, they have a role in restoring values
lost through drainage and associated land management.

1.2 Restoring emergent-vegetated wetlands and their environmental services

Natural wetlands are transitional zones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 11
Wetlands have been vulnerable to drainage, in-filling and conversion to agricultural
and forestry lands. Most of Ireland, and indeed Europe, has been intensively drained
with consequential loss of the important bio-geo-chemical processes that are
associated with land-water interfaces28. These processes and their supporting structures
provide critical environmental services for sustaining human well-being29,30. These
 services are most evident in shallow emergent vegetated wetland ecosystems that were
once very common throughout the country.

Natural wetlands may form wherever water slows or settles on its passage to the sea.
The saturation of soil catalyses a cascade of fundamental bio-geo-chemical changes in
soil structure and processes. Suites of microbial, plant and animal communities that
have evolved to live in water and water-saturated soils exploit these changes and
establish their own dynamic equilibrium by facilitating the retention of water and the
defence of their habitats29,30. The dynamic equilibrium found in many ecosystems is
maintained by various bio-geochemical feedback mechanisms, which in the case of
shallow, emergent vegetated wetlands are:

1. The consequence of the soil becoming waterlogged and anaerobic29,30,31,32,33.

2. The low water-pressure-head (Typically 100mm – 200mm head).
3. The establishment of durable biofilms that resist water infiltration34,35,36,37
4. The production and persistence of phenolic and poly-phenolic compounds that
impede water infiltration, resist organic matter decay further facilitating water
retention38
5. The production of methane that inhibits the loss of water through capillary-pore
structures39,40

Thus, once established, wetlands have an innate capacity to sustain themselves

provided there is an adequate supply of water. Indeed the suites of microorganisms,
plants and animals that have evolved to such wetland conditions interact to facilitate
their continued occupancy.

Within an ICW, this can be achieved by having a sequential, shallow multi-celled

system that receives influent and associated water that is continuous or intermittent in
supply, sufficient to replace what may be lost through evapotranspiration, surface flow
discharge and infiltration to ground.

Of the diverse range of wetland types that are recognised by the 1971 International
Ramsar Convention for the conservation of wetlands (there are 42, grouped into three
categories), it is those classified as palustrine, emergent wetlands41 that come closest to
12
describing ICW structure and function, and that are used for this document.
These shallow, emergent-vegetated, surface-flow wetlands have robust and sustainable
capacities to improve water quality26,28,29.

Organic matter, suspended solids, faecal micro-organisms, nitrogen and phosphorus

loadings, heavy metals, endocrine altering substances amongst other water-vectored
constituents have been shown to be intercepted, attenuated or metabolised from the
wetland through-flow32,33,42,43,44. The mechanisms for their reduction are biological,
physical and chemical and largely depend upon the rate of the three-dimensional
hydraulic through-flow, which is fundamentally dependent upon the area and
configuration of the wetland3,4,23,32,43,45.

1.3 Integrated Constructed Wetlands

An ‘Integrated Constructed Wetland’ (ICW) is a series of shallow, interconnected,
emergent-vegetated, surface-flow wetland compartments that receive/intercept water-
flows from a variety of sources. ICWs can deal with domestic wastewater (primary,
secondary or tertiary) and farmyard soiled water and have the potential, subject to
further research and development, to address wastewater from food processing, water-
vectored animal waste, organic and animal sludges, landfill leachate, road/urban
runoff and intercepted diffuse water-vectored pollution. The schematic diagram in
Figure 1.1 and photograph in Figure 1.2 are examples of a typical ICW system.

Figure 1.1 Schematic diagram of an Integrated Constructed Wetland

13

Figure 1.2 Example of a typical ICW system

 ICW systems are distinguished from traditional ’treatment wetlands’ by the integration
of water flow and quality management with that of landscape-fit and biodiversity
enhancement. The generally larger land areas used in ICW designs, compared with
those used in other constructed wetland designs, deliver enhanced treatment with
emphasis on phosphorus removal, and provides for greater system robustness and
sustainability. The concept advocates wherever possible the use of on-site soils and
topography, locally occurring plant species, and curvilinear embankments that
harmonise with the local landscape.

The multi-cellular configuration of ICW systems operates as a series of containment

structures that provide a number of sequential defensive intercepts with enhanced
control of the contaminant gradient through the whole system. Each cell functions as
an individual wetland ecosystem with its own distinct features, influents and effluents.
Thus each cell has the capacity to impact differently on the adjacent environment. This
effect is proportionate with the cells receiving the most contaminated influent being the
most hydrated and ‘lined’ with organic matter and having the least potential to lose
water through infiltration to the ground whilst the most distant wetland cells receive the
least contaminated water and may be the least hydrated46 .

The volume of influent polluted water can be greatly increased from rainfall falling on
paved and covered areas. The volume of precipitation is generally difficult to forecast in
Ireland and changes in rainfall patterns predicted by climate change are likely to
increase volumes of run-off entering collection systems.

During intense rainfall events conventional wastewater treatment systems may not be
able to deal with all polluted waters, which could lead to pollution of surface waters
and ground water47,48,49. Furthermore, sludges that require further management are
produced. When ICW systems are appropriately sized, designed and built they can
treat all intercepted effluents including short-term increases in volumes.

Advantages:
1. An effective multiple-bunded intercepting infrastructure for treatment of polluted
water within a defined area
2. Use of local materials with minimum ‘external costs’.
14
3. Low maintenance requirements.
4. Ease of commissioning/decommissioning.
5. Sustainable over a long lifetime (50 years or more).
6. A robust and segmented system designed for long life and ease of management,
with each segment having its own integrity, nutrient and biological status.
7. Increased biodiversity.
8. An inbuilt bio-monitoring capability that is in keeping with the principles
underlying the EU Water Framework Directive and the needs of regulation.
9. Recycling of captured nutrients in a de-watered/compost form after a period of
time (c. 10 to 20 years)
10. Carbon sequestration and low energy demands (subject to guidance on
methodology by EPA).
11. Potential to recycle treated water and sequestered organic matter.
12. Landscape fit and enhanced scenery.
13. Creation of an aesthetically enhanced area with potential recreational capacity.

Disadvantages
1. Requires dedicated land
2. Requires competent skills for design, site analysis and characterisation, and
construction.
3. Requires regulatory authorisation by planning permission and discharge
licensing.
4. Construction and establishment of vegetation may be weather dependent.
5. Creation of a potential water hazard if deep areas are included.
6. May pose a threat to surface and ground waters If inadequately designed,
constructed, or managed,
7. Will require ongoing informed management, monitoring and licensing.

Evaluation of alternative methodologies of dealing with domestic waste water suggest

that there may be considerable advantages with ICW systems for villages and small
towns due to savings in capital and operational costs50,51.

The design and installation of ICW systems require a multidisciplinary approach to

bring an understanding of wetland function.

15
 CHAPTER 2: Site Assessment-General
Overview

2.1 Introduction
In keeping with the Ramsar (1971) and UNEP/CBD ‘Ecosystem Approach’ the decision
to use an ICW will be made on a joined-up evaluation of scientific, technological,
environmental, economic, logistical criteria, and the specific needs of the client. A
systematic and logical approach should be followed towards assessing a potential site
and the wastewater as to suitability for an ICW. An early assessment of a site’s overall
suitability and the properties/nature of the influent are required in order that time and
expense are not wasted.

Chapters, 2 & 3 provide detailed guidance on how to assess a site’s suitability by

collecting sufficient information in order to:

1. Determine if the ICW can be safely developed on the site.

2. Demonstrate that the construction and placement of an ICW will not create a
negative impact on the environment, particularly waters downstream or down-
gradient.
3. Provide adequate site data for an appropriate design.
4. Provide baseline information to regulators to enable planning/discharge
conditions to be set.
5. Provide information to prospective contractors, in order to obtain a realistic
construction price and limit the risk of encountering difficult ground conditions
during construction.

This approach termed ‘Site Assessment’ comprises various tasks, including a desk study,
visual assessment, and site tests.

2.2 Key issues for assessment

In addition to the environmental function of an ICW, it is an essential requirement of
16 the ICW concept to explicitly address the social, economic and ecological
considerations of the site, whereby the needs of all stakeholders in the management of
the land and water resources that are linked to a site need to be given appropriate
consideration. Particular regard must be given to all water quality discharges, achieving
an appropriate landscape-fit and enhancing biological diversity.
As the ICW concept is based on integration into the immediate and adjacent
environment, site characterisation must investigate how this requirement can be
achieved and optimised. This requirement is detailed below (See Table 2.1 below). The
assessment should be rigorous and comprehensive and ensure that any high-risk
elements are thoroughly assessed.

KEY ISSUES IMPLICATION for SITE

CHARACTERISATION
Not relying solely on hard engineering Ensuring that sufficient information is
measures which may isolate the system gathered to demonstrate that any
from the environment significant risk can be controlled by
natural protection afforded by the ICW,
enhanced only where necessary by hard
engineering measures.

Facilitation of natural treatment processes Ensuring that the nature and properties of
the influent are known, that adequate
land space is available and that the
system can operate with low or zero
energy requirements.

Obtaining a good landscape fit Ensuring that the topography and the
existing landscape is adequately surveyed
and assessed.

Enhancing biodiversity Understanding local ecological

conditions and complementing them
with an appropriate range of wetland
plant species and establishment patterns
towards encouraging a diverse range of
habitats.

Table 2.1 Key Issues and site characterisation

17
2.3 Selecting the location of an ICW
As biodiversity protection and enhancement is central to the ICW concept the first step
in site selection is to ensure that development of an ICW would not directly damage a
site of high biodiversity value.
 A desk study will determine whether the site is within a proposed or candidate Special
Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) or Natural Heritage Area
(NHA) designated for nature conservation under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC),
Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) or Wildlife Act, 1976 (as amended 2000, 2009)
respectively. Information on these sites is available at www.npws.ie/en/MapsData, and
further data may be requested from NPWS using the data requests form available at
www.npws.ie/en/DataPolicy. If the proposed ICW site is within an SAC or SPA, an
Appropriate Assessment in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive must be
conducted in order to ascertain whether the ICW could have a significant negative
impact on the integrity of the designated site. Guidance on Appropriate Assessment is
available from the EU website (http://ec.europa.eu/environment
nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_assess_en.pdf) and the
Department’s website (www.environ.ie). The Appropriate Assessment process may
result in the approval, modification or rejection of the ICW proposal by the appropriate
regulatory authority.

The assessment must also determine whether the ICW discharges, either via surface or
ground, to any SAC, SPA or NHA. If it does so, an Appropriate Assessment will be
required to determine whether the effect is positive, negative or neutral.

ICWs should not be located such that they will have significant negative impacts on
any of the habitats or species for which a nature conservation site is designated, on the
site’s overall integrity or on any other protected species.

Not all sites of high biodiversity value are in protected areas and therefore a field visit
will be required to describe the site’s habitat according to the Heritage Council’s guide
to habitats in Ireland52, and to document the dominant plant species. Appropriate
ecological expertise will be required for such a survey. The presence of protected plant
species and use of the site by protected wild animals must also be assessed. The use of
site assessment protocols such as those widely used in EIA assessments can assist this
process. In general, when considering the location of ICWs sites, those with low
current biodiversity value should be selected, unless that would significantly decrease
the overall environmental benefits to be derived from the ICW. In particular, an ICW
should not be located within a natural wetland, unless it can be clearly demonstrated
18
through careful analysis that the environmental benefits gained by its construction
significantly outweigh the negative impacts on the wetland.

A complementary approach, to the avoidance of areas of high biodiversity value, is to

focus the selection of ICW sites on those areas which currently have low nature
conservation values at a farm and local level, such as reclaimed/drained/
improved/degraded areas. On most farms these will form a much higher proportion of
the farm than those with higher nature conservation values. ICW location on former
wetlands, which have been drained and have lost most of their characteristic species,
or on artificial wetlands such as farm ponds, as long as these do not hold protected,
Red List or rare species, is allowed. The same applies to widespread wet rushy pasture
on surface water gleys such as occurs in many drumlin areas. Wetlands should not be
drained to allow ICW systems to be constructed.

2.4 Risk Based Approach

The general environment is by its nature variable and subject to exogenous
disturbances. When considering changes to land and water management a
precautionary approach is required whereby potential risks are identified and rated and
then appropriately minimised or mitigated. Potential risks are therefore an important
consideration in the overall approach to site assessment and design. Risk based
assessment provides a framework for evaluating and managing pressures and impacts
on identified ‘receptors’.

The generally recommended tool for environmental risk assessment is the ‘Hazard-
Pathway-Receptor’’.

Risk can be defined as the likelihood (or expected frequency) of a specific adverse
consequence. Applied to ICW systems, it expresses the likelihood of impacts arising
from the construction or operation of, in this instance, an ICW and its water-vectored
pollutants, i.e. the potential Hazard.

A Hazard presents a risk when it is likely to significantly and negatively affect the status
of a valued resource such as surface or groundwaters or natural and built heritage i.e.
the Receptor. An impact can only occur if a significant linkage or pathway is
established between the Hazard and the Receptor. For the hazards under
consideration, key factors to minimise or mitigate the risk are velocity (addressed by
having an appropriate wetland configuration) and associated residence time (addressed
by having adequate functional wetland area) and sub-soil quality to deliver the
required impermeability.

Absolute protection from hazards and impacts is not possible and only a degree of 19
protection can be provided. Surface water and groundwater protection are often the
primary reason for the installation of an ICW system in the first instance. The
adsorption of potential pollutants from discharges-to-ground into subsoil clays of
sufficient depth is generally regarded as the main process of attenuation53,54.
 An additional suite of well-documented processes and structures also
exist29,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,39,40 to provide more sustainable protection than that from adsorption
and soil structure alone. High impedances to infiltration are delivered by the biofilms,
organic matter and humic substances that develop rapidly within wetlands once
established. This impedance is further augmented by biological feedback mechanisms
that secure water retention. Wetland soils provide an effective processing medium,
especially for the denitrification of nitrate-N and ammonium-N due to of the presence
of available carbon for heterotrophs34,36,55,56,57,. See schematic diagram (Fig. 2.1) below. It
is therefore essential that the factors determining the establishment of a functional
wetland soil are addressed including the significant attenuating processes within both
the wetland detritus and underlying soils. Notwithstanding the beneficial attenuating
mechanisms within and beneath ICWs, these mechanisms may be bypassed if the ICW
is not located, designed and maintained in accordance with this Guidance Document.

20
 21

Figure 2.1 Schematic representation of the differences between terrestrial soils and
wetland soils showing drainage and impedance to water infiltration to ground
 2.5 Key Environmental Receptors
The key environmental receptors in the context of an ICW (Scholz and Lee, 2005) are
shown below in Table 2.2.

RECEPTOR ISSUES

Surface Water Generally the wetland will discharge to a surface water feature
(receptor) and a discharge licence will be required. The
assimilative capacity of the receiving water will need to be
assessed. Discharge water quality is primarily determined by
wetland area thus sizing is critical.
Groundwater There will be limited infiltration to the aquifer (receptor), which
will need to be assessed in keeping with groundwater protection
criteria. Nearby water supply sources need protection and the
potential for conduits examined.
Soil/subsoil The existing topsoil and subsoil will be exposed to fundamentally
different environmental regimes (changing from an oxygenated to a
waterlogged anaerobic state). The topsoil will be used as the
rooting medium for plants in the wetland. The newly developing
wetland soil will accumulate nutrients (predominantly
phosphorous and nitrogen). The subsoil has a role in containing
and attenuating residual infiltrating pollutants, principally
ammonium-N, that may pass through the wetland soil horizon
(Pathogens and P are removed primarily by detritus in the upper
soil layer. Denitrifying bacteria are found in both upper and lower
layers.
Landscape An appropriate landscape fit is a key objective for all ICW systems
and therefore needs to be comprehensively addressed
Flora and Fauna There is considerable capacity for ICW systems to enhance
biodiversity. Nevertheless, care will need to be taken to ensure that
any protected area such as SACs or NHAs are not negatively
impacted upon.
Air Minor odours may be associated with the wetland, and their
22 potential impact needs to be assessed,

Human The potential impact on the enterprise, users, and neighbouring

owners and properties needs to be assessed.

Archaeology Site considerations need to include all aspects of former site use
and archaeological artefacts

Table 2.2 Key environmental issues.

2.6 Hazard Characterisation

1. General
The principal contaminants, which constitute the Hazard, are dependent on the water-
vectored pollutants. The influent water volume may be increased by rainfall and the
volume of polluted water that enters an ICW system is related to the rainfall pattern,
duration and intensity.

Precipitation influenced inflow is an hydraulic driver affecting ICW function, including

maintenance and vitality. Precipitation can be of varying intensity often with extended
wet or dry periods. The ICW concept is designed to cope with the widest possible
range in precipitation. The key design components are therefore the provision of
adequate size and infrastructural robustness to deal with the range of flow conditions
whilst maintaining the level of treatment.

2. Typical Characteristics of ICW Influent Composition

The composition of influents to ICW systems can be very variable (See that for
farmyards, Table 2.3 below45,58, and for wastewater Table 2.4 below51).

Parameter Farm ICW Influent Standard Number of

(mean concentrations) Deviation samples
COD mg/l O2 1908 6119 463

BOD5 mg/l O2 816 3941 386

Ammonium mg/l N 64 127 609

Nitrate mg/l N 2.6 6.2 151
Molybdate Reactive 10 8.3 618
Phosphate mg/l P

Table 2.3 Influent composition of farmyard soiled water

ICW systems monitored in the Annestown/Dunhill catchment

23
 Parameter Farm ICW Influent Standard Number of
(mean concentrations) Deviation samples
COD mg/l O2 1178.68 642.0 101

BOD5 mg/l O2 853.86 552.4 99

Ammonium mg/l N 33.99 10.47 108

Nitrate mg/l N 6.38 5.72 98
Molybdate Reactive 4.28 2.28 102
Phosphate mg/l P

Table 2.4 Influent composition of wastewater ICW systems

monitored in Glaslough, Co. Monaghan

Additional volumes of influent derived from intercepted runoff (e.g. roads, urban,
farmyards) can be calculated from rainfall figures and the interception area, (e.g. for an
interception area of 5,000 m2 which experiences rainfall of 1,000 mm per annum, the
calculated theoretical volume of soiled water will be a maximum of 5,000 m3 per
annum, an average of approximately 13m3 per day). The influent peak volume will
however be highly variable. For example, during a storm-event, where 100mm of rain
falls over a 2-day period the volume of soiled water for such a site area will be about
250 m3 per day (although evaporation and soakage at interception will reduce this
volume).

Precipitation-generated volumes may be many orders of magnitude greater than that

originating solely from direct sources.

The impact of precipitation relative to defined point sources can be illustrated as

follows: Typically dairy washwater is about one third of the annual volume of water
from intercepted precipitation on open dairy farmyard areas (typical washwater volume
generated per cow is 50 litres per day). During individual extreme events, (e.g. 50 mm
rainfall over a 24 hr period), washwater can be as little as 2% of the volume of water
generated from precipitation on open farmyard areas2.
24
This large variation in the flow to the wetland must be accommodated in the design by
relating the necessary wetland area and the hydraulic residence time to the total
precipitation-interception area (i.e. farmyard and its curtilage). A more detailed
description of the influent is described23,45. The limiting factor with regard to influent
composition and ICW functional vitality is ammonium -N concentration2. Sustained
concentrations exceeding 100 mg/l and flux concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l
negatively impact upon the emergent vegetation with consequential die-off. Thus,
exceeding these concentrations will incur loss of vegetation. Consequently significant
abuse of an ICW through exceeding its influent concentration limits will be apparent to
any assessor/regulator.

3. Phosphorus Accumulation
Within the various segments of the ICW, there will be accumulation of sediment and
necromass, particularly in the upper (proximal) segments. It is in this detritus matrix
that the phosphorus is captured and accumulates over time. The concentration of P in
this sediment can be of the order of 3kg per tonne dry weight46. (The multi-segmented
ICW design facilitates P retention as each segment has its own P-dynamics.)

Estimates of the P build-up in the first ICW segment would suggest that it can be
removed at intervals commensurate with the need to remove detritus (typically at
approximately 10-20 year intervals and used as a farm fertiliser, in accordance with
farm nutrient management plans, by land-spreading). Removal is preceded by
circumventing through-flow, dewatering and in-situ composting. This composted
sediment poses minimal risk to the environment while it remains in the ICW. However,
once removed it needs to be managed in ways that avoid risk to waters. The storage
requirements specified for farmyard manure in the European Communities (Good
Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations, S.I. No. 101 of 2009 should
be applied to the removed ICW detritus/sediment. Alternatively the material removed
may be used as fuel with the ash derivative recycled, for example, as a fertiliser. It is
important to note that the extracted material has capacity for a range of uses, otherwise
the material may be considered a waste and a potential environmental hazard.
Guidance for detritus/sediment (and associated nutrients) re-use will have to comply
with the regulatory regime in force at the time of removal.

4. Typical Characteristics of Discharges from Integrated Constructed Wetlands

The typical characteristics of the discharges from farmyard soiled water ICW systems to
surface waters and to groundwater are outlined in Table 2.5 below. These are based on
6 years of data from farmyard ICW systems in Co. Waterford. A review of discharge
data (5 years) is also available45. Table 2.6 below gives recent data from a combined
wastewater system built c. 2007 showing higher levels of attenuation and contaminant
removal51. 25
 Parameter ICW Discharge Standard Number of
(mean concentrations) Deviation samples
COD mg/l O2 65 65 514

BOD5 mg/l O2 15 18 408

TSS mg/l 21 41 424

Ammonium mg/l N 0.8 2.3 646
Nitrate mg/l N 1.6 2.3 577
Molybdate Reactive 1 1.5 658
Phosphate mg/l P
E Coli CFU/100mls 401 1363 68

Table 2.5 Effluent composition from farmyard soiled water ICW systems monitored
in the Annestown/Dunhill catchment (All data until August 2007)

Parameter ICW Discharge Standard Number of

(mean concentrations) Deviation samples
COD mg/l O2 37.23 26.66 104

BOD5 mg/l O2 4.88 5.15 99

TSS mg/l 8.88 17.97 100

Ammonium mg/l N 0.34 0.48 108
Nitrate mg/l N 0.30 0.25 101
Molybdate Reactive 0.025 0.035 100
Phosphate mg/l P
E Coli CFU/100mls 2 2 5

Table 2.6 Effluent composition of wastewater ICW systems

26 monitored in Glaslough, Co. Monaghan

(Note – Glaslough ICW system has an average daily load of 1,400 p.e. at
present on a system designed for 1,750 p.e. with a total segment area of 32,500 m2)
 Figure 2.2 Wastewater ICW system, Glaslough, Co. Monaghan

It is important to note that the volumes discharging from the wetland are periodically
and volumetrically variable and there can be periods, particularly during summer
months, when little or no discharge occurs to surface water. Water levels may fall
below the outfall level in any wetland cell creating freeboard which further delays
water through-flow on resumption of wet weather.

Exfiltration from an ICW will not be uniformly distributed, as the proximal wetland
segments may have significantly lower infiltration rates due to the sealing effect of
accumulating organic matter mentioned above. This effect will be less in the distal
segments. 27
 Parameter Groundwater Depth at 3 m Standard Deviation
below ICW
(Mean Concentrations)
Ammonium mg/l N 4 4
Nitrate mg/l N 0.2 1.5
E Coli CFU/ 100ml 25 27
Molybdate Reactive <0.01 0.04
Phosphate mg/l P

Table 2.7 Typical characteristics of Groundwater below

Farmyard Soiled Water ICW systems (Carroll et al 2005)

2.7 Site suitability (General Requirements)

There are a number of pre-requisites that must be addressed before embarking on the
assessment of a site’s suitability for an ICW. These are as follows:

1. Restrictions on Construction of an ICW

It is essential that the construction of a wetland does not itself become a source of
pollution or lead to the loss of significant intrinsic value at the site. These are of two
distinctly different types; those dealing with water resources per se. and those dealing
with significant values of archaeology and nature conservation.

A proposed ICW should not be considered for

1. Sites within 60m up-gradient of any well or spring used for potable water.
2. Sites within the inner protection zone of a public groundwater supply source,
where the vulnerability rating is classified as extreme.
3. Sites within 300m up-gradient of a public supply (>10m3/day or >50 persons)
borehole, where an inner protection zone has not been identified.
4. Sites within 25m of a dwelling.
5. Land beneath the projected crown area of mature trees.
6. Sites where the possibility of collapse cannot be ruled out (e.g. where swallow
28 holes and similar karst features are known to be near the surface).
7. Sites within 15m of an exposed karst feature.
8. Sites where construction of the ICW may negatively impact a site of natural
heritage value without carrying out an appropriate assessment as required by the
Habitats Regulations.
9. Sites where construction of the ICW may negatively impact a site of cultural
heritage value.
10. Sites where adequate land area is not available.
11. Sites in close proximity to a watercourse (no less than 10m from the initial and
second ponds and no less than 5 m for subsequent ponds,).
12. Sites that cannot be adequately protected from flood damage.
13. Where neither surface water discharge nor exfiltration is possible in situations
where an adequate receiving water is not available.

2. Surface Water Protection Requirements

If it is proposed to discharge from the ICW to a watercourse, then the ICW should be of
sufficient size or the receiving watercourse should have adequate assimilative capacity
to cope with the discharge (See Section 3.3 below).

3. Groundwater Protection Requirements

A desk study of existing information will help establish the soil types and
hydrogeological setting in terms of aquifer classification and groundwater vulnerability.
The site assessment works will confirm or modify this information. There are a number
of basic requirements which will provide adequate protection for groundwater. These
are summarised in groundwater protection responses and further details are provided
in Chapter 3 and in Appendix A.

The five corner-stone processes that control the establishment, development and
maintenance of wetland conditions have been shown in practice to provide adequate
safeguards for the protection of associated ground and surface water receptors.

Apart from having a practical (for construction) thickness of subsoil, it is not necessary
to impose further groundwater protection measures except in sensitive situations
described below.

1. To facilitate the initial establishment of hydric wetland soils and to provide

adequate protection to groundwater resources, a 500mm thickness of subsoil
with a maximum permeability of 1x10-8 m/s is required underlain by a further
500mm of sub-soil.

2. Where a regionally important aquifer is present and the groundwater

vulnerability rating is high or extreme the upper 750mm should be enhanced to 29
achieve a permeability of 1x 10-8 m/s underlain by a further 250mm of sub-soil.

3. Where highly permeable sand and gravel or fractured bedrock is encountered

and are in hydraulic contact with the water table the ICW should only be
constructed if 750mm of low permeability material can be provided over the
 sand and gravel or fractured bedrock, with the upper 500mm enhanced to
achieve a permeability of 1 x 10-8 m/s.

4. Where there is a risk of catastrophic hydraulic leakage, for example in some

areas of karst geology or areas liable to collapse or subsidence (mined areas), an
increased depth of subsoil to 1,500 mm is required or alternatively, declining
the site as being inappropriate for an ICW.

5. All geomembrane-lined ICW ponds shall be underlain by at least 150 mm of

subsoil, the upper 50 mm of which may be a protective fine sand layer
depending on the requirements of the lining contractor. The geomembrane shall
be overlain by subsoil with a minimum thickness of 200 mm of low to moderate
permeability and plastered with remoulded subsoil.

4. The Competency of the Assessor

The person undertaking the assessment must have appropriate competency to:

1. Collect and interpret the recorded and field information;

2. Make a visual assessment of the site and be capable of identifying situations
where a specialist may be needed;
3. Assess the likely impact on existing or potential aquatic receptors and site
values;
4. Assemble the necessary information from disparate sources towards designing
an appropriately sized wetland, including understanding of both terrestrial and
wetland soil ecology and their bio-geochemical processes.

30
CHAPTER 3: Undertaking the Site
Assessment

3.1 Introduction
The purpose of site assessment is to determine the suitability of a particular site for the
construction of an ICW. This chapter details an approach for completing the site
assessment.

A site assessment is essential to enable a decision on whether an ICW is appropriate

and to provide the basis for the ICW design. The data collected should be used to
achieve the most appropriate design for an ICW on the site considering all available
social, economic and environmental needs.

A site assessment form (Appendix C) will aide the collation of site data and act as a
checklist to assist with the decision-making process. This form, when completed, will
provide a record of the site assessment and design process. The text below follows the
layout of this ‘Site Assessment Form’, and completion of the Form will benefit from
being used in combination with the text below.

Since an ICW will interact with the wider environment and can enhance the
surrounding landscape, the visual aspects of construction are important and the use of
visual records (such as photographs or video) to support the design process is strongly
advised.

3.2 Approach to Site Assessment

The following key steps must be undertaken:

A. Desk study and collation of supporting information

B. Visual Assessment
B.1. Characterisation of the waste water – e.g. farmyard inventory,
population equivalent (PE), and volumetric ranges.
B.2. Evaluation of ‘receptor’ sensitivity and location. 31
C Site Tests
C.1 Trial hole
C.2 Soil characteristics and particle size analysis
D. Decision process, and preparation of recommendations.
 3.3 Desk Study and Collation of Supporting Information

1. Preliminary Consultation
A preliminary consultation with the client is necessary in order to:

1. Establish the current waste water management practice(s).

2. Establish in general terms, the volume and composition of the waste water to the
potential ICW.
3. Establish the client’s rationale for the management of the waste water under
consideration.
4. Provide the client with an understanding of an ICW system’s function and how it
can contribute to sustainable use of natural resources.

A good understanding between designer and client of these issues is necessary with
information exchanged on budget costs for the project and other logistical items. The
decision to consider building an ICW may originate with the client but may involve the
adviser/designer in the decision and procurement process.

The client may have particular reasons for considering the use of an ICW and these
should be noted as they may highlight potential receptors and habitats at risk.

The current management regime for any water-vectored pollutants should be

established. Improvement of the existing or future waste water management other than
by the use of an ICW may be a preferable option and this needs to be discussed with
the client or adviser.

The nature of water-vectored effluent material and the area of intercepted precipitation
(including the likely ICW area) will need to be established.

The approximate size of the required wetland (See Chapter 5.4 below) needs to be
discussed and recorded in order to give the client an indication of the overall land area
required for the wetland. The rationale for the area required needs to be explained and
agreed in order to ensure full compliance with the design needs.

32
The name, address, and contact details of the client should be confirmed and some
general items in the form can be filled out at this time.
2. Collation of Relevant Environmental Data and Desk Study

General
The purpose of this activity is to:

i. Obtain information relevant to the site

ii. Identify targets at risk
iii. Establish if there are site restrictions
iv. Shortlist options if more than one location is being considered.

A desk study involves the assessment of available relevant data pertaining to the site
and adjoining area to determine whether the site has any restrictions on the
development of an ICW. The following information will need to be collated and
documented.

Topography
Base maps can be purchased from the Ordnance Survey of Ireland, or from regional
map shops. A set of maps suitable for planning applications, termed a planning pack is
the most suitable way to buy the maps and these can be used later for the preparation
of any planning application.

The relevant ‘Discovery Series’ 1:50,000 scale map will establish the regional
topographical context, showing slopes and contours, surface water features and other
relevant topographical features. The grid reference for the site should be determined
(computed from the Discovery Map).

The best available base map information is at scales of 1:2,500 and 1:10,000. These
maps provide useful information on the immediate topography and may identify
potential sites of natural or cultural heritage. (Refer to www.npws.ie for further
information on such sites)

Climate
Basic data on the annual rainfall in the area should be determined. Other information
of relevance may include evaporation, evapotranspiration, and wind direction data.
The main sources of this data are the Meteorological Service (www.met.ie) and other 33
commercial websites.

Surface Water
Identify potential candidate receiving watercourses for the ICW from O.S. maps.
Information on surface water flows and quality may be obtained from the EPA
 (www.epa.ie ), OPW (www.opw.ie), or Local Authority for larger water courses in the
vicinity of the site. If this information is not available, receiving water flows (above the
proposed discharge point) must be estimated by either:

1. Empirical formulae
2. Appropriate computer-package model
3. Direct flow measurement.

The method of estimating the receiving water flow should be noted in the Comment
column in Appendix C2.3. If necessary, expert advice should be sought.
Approximate catchment areas for surface water features may be estimated from
discovery series maps.

Surface discharge volume from the ICW can be calculated using the following general
formula:

DISCHARGE (m3 per annum) = (A + B+C) – (D + E),

Where;

1. A = specific initial effluent volume for treatment

2. B = Intercepting (e.g. paved and roofed) area (m2) X annual rainfall (m)
3. C = ICW area (m2) X annual rainfall (m)
4. D = ICW area (m2) X annual evaporation and vegetation transpiration and
interception(m)
5. E = ICW area (m2) X annual infiltration rate (m).

The baseline chemical analysis data for the receiving waters should be determined; a
minimum of 3 sets of sample results should be obtained. Results may be available
from the EPA or local authority. If direct monitoring is required, samples should be
gathered at regular intervals over at least a three-month period (to include a period of
prolonged dry weather, typically between the 1st July and the 30th September) at a
point immediately upstream of the proposed discharge location. Analysis should be
provided for the following parameters: 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD),
34
molybdate reactive phosphate (MRP), suspended solids (SS), ammonium-N, nitrate-N
and nitrite-N. Where a water quality Q (ecological status) rating is available, it should
be noted along with any other water quality data. Water Framework Directive river
body status should be given where available.
The general formula to describe the mixing of a discharge with river water is:

(Qu x Cu) + (Qd x Cd)

Cds = ----------------------------------
(Qu + Qd)

Where:

Qu = the river flow upstream of the discharge

Cu = the concentration of pollutant in the river upstream of the discharge
Qd = the flow of the discharge
Cd = concentration of pollutant in the discharge
Cds = the concentration of pollutant in the river downstream of the discharge

Details of the effect of the ICW discharge on receiving water quality should be
calculated for the following parameters: BOD, MRP, Ammonium-N and Nitrate-N, and
any other relevant parameter, based on the characteristics of the effluent. Use of
average flows should suffice for most situations, as the ICW discharge flow is directly
influenced by and proportional to rainfall. The above calculations will indicate if
adequate assimilative capacity for the discharge is available in the proposed surface
receiving watercourse.

Compliance with the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface

Waters) Regulations 2009 (S.I. No. 272 of 2009) and with the European communities
Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regualtions (S.I. No. 9 of 2010) will be
required.

Groundwater
The existing sources of water used by the client should be established, i.e. whether
mains, private, or group water scheme.

The relevant geological and hydrogeological information for the site should be
compiled.

The Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 35
are the principal sources of this information (websites at www.gsi.ie and www.epa.ie).
These websites list available groundwater protection schemes. The GSI produces maps
of Groundwater Resources (Aquifers) and Vulnerability to Contamination (Groundwater
Vulnerability). These are combined to produce a map of Groundwater Protection
Zones. In general this information is available from the website, but the relevant
 contact details, if further information is required, are: The Groundwater Section,
Geological Survey of Ireland, Beggars Bush, Dublin 4, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle, Wexford.

In addition, a national aquifer map is available on the GSI website, and it is possible to
zoom in to the area in question and print the relevant excerpt if required.

Note: If a Groundwater Vulnerability Map has not been produced by the GSI for a
particular area, then the extremely vulnerable areas may be obtained from the relevant
River Basin Districts (RBD) project. General soil and subsoil maps are available from
Teagasc (www.teagasc.ie). The shallow rock areas delineated on Teagasc subsoil maps
are indicated at the 1m contour. Soil (topsoil) maps are also available from Teagasc.
Existing data, available from the GSI, includes the location of outcropping bedrock and
karst features and existing depth to bedrock data from their well databases. From this,
areas of shallow subsoils (rock within 1m of surface) can be delineated. This can then
be used in the desk study. Where information from the GSI well and karst databases
are used in a desk study, the townland in which the feature is located (or more specific
location if available) should be highlighted on a map

The data, when compiled should be compared to the groundwater protection response
matrix in Appendix A to establish the preliminary groundwater protection response for
the proposed development.

The investigation and any licensing requirements in relation to groundwater will

depend on the type of ICW proposed.

In the case of an ICW where a discharge to surface water is possible, the amount of
water going to ground is relatively low if a maximum infiltration rate of 1 x 10-8 m/s or
better is achieved. (see sections 2.7 above). Mineral-N contained in the ICW infiltrate
is considered to be the key potential pollutant of groundwater. An ICW with all
shallow cells (100-300mm), and a surface water discharge, will have a variable low
total-N loading discharging to ground due to both flow and denitrification. The
approach outlined in Appendix B will assist in the initial assessment.

36
In the absence of a suitable surface receiving water for an ICW designed and
constructed in accordance with this Guidance Document, a final discharge to
groundwater may be considered in appropriate circumstances.

Where the final discharge is less than 5m3/day on average, a detailed geotechnical/
hydrogeological assessment/investigation is not required.
Where the final discharge exceeds 5m3/day on average, a detailed geotechnical/
hydrogeological assessment/investigation is essential and should be carried out prior to
site selection.

Guidance on such assessment/investigation is being developed by the Environmental

Protection Agency and is expected to be published by mid-2011. An ICW designed on
the basis of a final discharge to groundwater should not be proposed without carrying
out such assessment/investigation. The Environmental Protection Agency should be
consulted pending publication of such guidance.

Natural & Cultural Heritage

Particular attention must be given to areas of natural and cultural heritage and where
such locations are being considered for an ICW, discussions should firstly take place
with the appropriate state agencies. The relevant local authority will have a list of
designated NHAs, candidate SPAs and SACs and an inventory of protected
structures/archaeological sites. These locations are also available, and regularly
updated, on the National Parks & Wildlife Service website, www.npws.ie. The client
may also be a good source. If more detail is required Government bodies such as the
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) and the Office
of Public Works (OPW), can be contacted to discuss particular areas.

Drainage
The drainage patterns of the area being examined are critical, and field drainage maps
for the particular area should be sought from the landowner or their advisor/agent.
General information on the density of drainage in the area can be determined from the
topographical maps. Heavy soil types should alert the assessor to the possibility of
hidden drains. Reference to older, (prior to 1950), 6 inch or 25 inch maps will indicate
previously wet areas which may now be drained.

Wet and heavy soils, where drainage is most likely to be found, should be singled out
for special scrutiny to remove drainage infrastructure. Experience over the past 14 years
has shown that undetected land drains are the principal cause of ICW systems having
inadequate hydraulic retention.

Public Utilities 37
The first point of confirmation for public utilities should be the client. The local
authority should be consulted with regard to the possible location of public water
supplies and water mains in the area. Locations of gas lines, electricity cables, and
communications networks need to be confirmed in consultation with all the relevant
utilities. The local office for each utility should be contacted. Contact details can be
found in the telephone directory for the area.
 Desk Study Assessment
All the information collected through the desk study should be examined.

This overall information may highlight the inappropriateness of a potential site on the
basis of the location being of significant archaeological, natural heritage or historical
value or identify potential constraints. To avoid accidental damage, a trial hole
assessment should not be undertaken in areas which are, or adjoining, significant sites
(e.g. SACs, NHA’s) without appropriate prior permission from the statutory authority.

In summary, the outcome of the desk study will be as follows:-

- A review of the topographical maps will have identified, in particular, steep

slopes.
- Once the aquifer and vulnerability classes are established, reference to the
groundwater protection matrix will allow determination of the appropriate
response and the requirements necessary for that response. The on-site
assessment will later confirm or modify such responses.
- The geological information collated will have indicated the potential of
encountering karst or high resource value aquifers.
- The subsoils information will have highlighted the likelihood of encountering
gravels or potentially suitable material.
- The soil map information may indicate the presence of low permeability
material (e.g. boulder clays and gleys).
- The prevailing climatic data, the available dilution, and any constraints relating
to land drainage, utilities, and planning will have been established.

By this stage it may be possible to eliminate sites that present insurmountable

constraints.

3.4 Visual Site Assessment

The purpose of the visual site assessment is to:

1. Verify desk study findings.

2. Make an on-site assessment of the hazard.
38
3. Evaluate the sensitivity of the identified receptors, in particular watercourses and
groundwater features.
4. Focus possible location/choice for an ICW.
1. On-Site Hazard Evaluation
The site work should begin with a visual assessment of the source of waste waters to be
managed. The time of visit is important, in that the principal challenges may not be
apparent on a dry day, but may be more apparent on a wet day.

It is useful to make a sketch of the proposed source, or use a map already obtained
from the client to orientate the evaluation.

The various component sources of waste waters, require examination including the
contributing interception area and computed run-off. The ability of each of these
components to generate waste water needs to be evaluated and the expected annual
volume of total waste water approximated for each component. The existing
arrangements with regard to run-off should be established and examined noting all
drains that may be intercepted by the ICW.

Photographs should be taken of the site, to record the general layout and structures,
and various features of interest.

The purpose of this exercise is to establish a thorough picture of the client’s site
management profile, and to assist in completion of the design and planning
application. It is important that the client is present during this process to discuss all
water management activities that may impinge on the ICW and occur through the year.

2. Visual Assessment of Receptors

Topography and Landscape Fit

A topographical survey should be commissioned to survey the candidate site and the
proposed ICW area and the scope of this survey should be decided at this stage.

The survey information will be used principally in the design process, to make
optimum use of topography and minimise earthworks costs. The topographical survey
will also allow the production of cross-sections through the proposed ICW area, which
will assist in construction planning and costing.

The survey should include all relevant components of the waste water identified above 39
and should allow computation of any contributing area.

The potential receiving waters and topographical setting of the proposed wetland
system should be examined to assess the landscape fit and the possible discharge
options. Again, photographic recording is strongly advised.
 The landscape position reflects the location of the site in the landscape, e.g. crest of
hill, valley, slope of hill.

Ideally the site should be down slope of the source of waste water and any associated
interception area to allow gravity flow. A minimum 1m drop is required from the
waste water source to the base of the first proposed ICW segment/cell, to allow for
build up of sediment59. The slope of the chosen site should be estimated. Steep slopes
should be avoided and preference given to sites that are mostly level. (This will have
safety, cost, land-take and functional advantages.)

It is expected that some sites, that may be the most suitable for the construction of an
ICW, are sites that are marginal for agricultural purposes, on the basis that they are
wet. However as outlined in Section 2.3 above, such wet areas may contain or be part
of areas with current high natural values and in such cases the ICW should be located
elsewhere so that the ICW’s contribution to biodiversity enhancement is optimised and
any negative effects minimised. Prior to selecting such a site a biodiversity
impact/benefit assessment should be carried out using the Heritage Council’s “A Guide
to Habitats in Ireland”52. Wet sites should also be examined to ensure that no protected
species are to be found therein. In this regard, the methodology published by the
National Parks and Wildlife Service should be used (www.npws.ie).

In most cases ground conditions on these sites will be conducive to constructing and
sealing ponds and this will be apparent to the trained eye but this may not always be
the case and an assessment and description of the sub-soils must be made.

Wet sites have inherent advantages for ease of construction and the establishment of
vegetation. They are also those most likely to remain hydrated and may provide
opportunities for additional aquatic features that could enhance the economic and
social values of the overall exercise. Additionally, such sites may be preferable on the
basis of land cost. However wet sites tend to have additional water inflow from up-
slope and ground water sources, and may have intensive drainage infrastructure that
needs to be thoroughly addressed (sections 5.3 and 6.3.2).

A general overview of land use, density of dwellings, surface water ponding, water
40
bodies, drainage, vegetation, and condition of the ground should be made, and the
relative distances of potential receptors from the ICW established. Special emphasis
should be placed on understanding the site’s drainage, including the location of
existing land drainage infrastructure, as this may impact on the ICW and the overall
drainage performance of the site.
Surface Water
The position and type of surface water features should be noted as this will give an
indication of the relative permeability of the ground.

Based on the desk study, a watercourse should be identified for the discharge from the
wetland.

A characterisation of the nominated receiving water should be made, including

measurement of channel depth and width, evidence of flow (such as tide marks, debris
etc) and estimation of assimilative capacity. Photographs should be taken.

Any information on water quality should be examined and water samples taken if no
information is available.

Other surface water features such as ponds, lakes, beaches, natural wetlands, streams,
drainage ditches, etc. should be identified.

Groundwater
Existing wells/boreholes within 300m of the proposed site should be identified and
their distance and direction in terms of groundwater flow determined. Groundwater
levels may be determined as part of the trial hole programme. Baseline groundwater
quality data should be collected at this time where available. Swallow holes, or
collapsed features such as “dolines” should be noted. Sites on karst geology must
receive special attention with regard to their capacity to establish and maintain a
wetland infrastructure.

Road cuttings and any open excavations in the vicinity of the site should be examined,
to provide information on the subsoil profile. Similarly, the shape and nature of banks
in watercourses can provide useful insights to the ground conditions.

Utilities
Information gathered during the desk study can be verified at this stage

Cultural and Natural Heritage

Using the information from the desk study, a visual assessment of the site should be 41
undertaken. If the desk study had identified any protected sites nearby, then the
assessment may require archaeological input. Photographs should be taken for
reference.
 Assessment of a site should identify any potential areas of archaeological interest or
areas for nature conservation such as Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas
of Conservation (SACs), Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) and areas of local interest
particularly existing wetlands with intact emergent vegetation. Ideally the site should
have no or low value for archaeological and nature conservation, such as improved
pasture, croplands and areas that have been heavily modified or drained and should
not be the habitat for any protected, Red List or rare species.

The general vegetation should be described and photographed. Trees that may
potentially be close to the wetland should be mapped. A vegetation assessment may
support the identification of suitable ground conditions for an ICW. Existing wetland
emergent vegetation may provide sources of emergent plants that might be used in its
establishment.

Human
Location of dwellings or other places of assembly such as nearby schools, churches,
hospitals, etc. which are not marked on the available maps, should be established and
their distance from the ICW site determined. Overhead wires, poles and any other
utilities should be marked on drawings.

The prevailing wind direction across the proposed ICW site should be identified, and
the sensitivity of any receptors downwind identified. Impact from any localised heavy
rainfall events should be particularly noted.

Drainage Systems
All sites must be examined for the presence of drains. Sites that may once have been
wet will require special attention, because of the greater possibility that existing
drainage infrastructure may be in place. Land-drains have proved to be the single most
important factor affecting the hydraulic integrity of ICW systems as they may be a
conduit for water loss short-circuiting the wetland system. Conversely, these sites,
because they are generally wet and marshy, are often ideal for wetland construction
and/or regeneration. This should be evaluated as part of the site assessment.

Interpreting the Results of the Visual Assessment

42
The relevant set back distances should be referenced and adjustments made as
necessary. Sites that cannot satisfy these requirements may be identified at this time.

The nature of the hazard should be fully understood at this stage and this will need to
be linked to the topographical survey.
Ideally the proposed receiving water should be fully assessed and samples taken for
baseline analysis. If EPA or local authority water quality data is available it should be
used.

A reasonable understanding of the geological and hydrogeological setting will be

established, and will be verified as part of the trial hole, soil analysis and percolation
test.

Any possible constraints imposed by the presence of Natural or Cultural Heritage

features will be understood, and the potential of encountering drainage systems will
have been evaluated.

At this stage the choice of site for the ICW should be clearly apparent.

3.5 Trial Holes and Trenches

1. General
The trial-hole and in some instances trial trenches, are probably the most critical
element of the site characterisation, as their assessment will form the basis of whether
or not an ICW can be constructed on the site. The purposes of the trial hole are to
determine:

1. The soil and subsoil characteristics

2. The depth to the water table
3. The depth to and nature of bedrock (if encountered)
4. The location and extent of any field drains

If the trial hole and trench tests can be arranged to coincide with the visual assessment
of the proposed site it can save time and expense.

2. Conducting and Logging the Trial Holes and Trenches

The trial-holes should be dug to at least 2 m, but up to 3 m, if possible, below the
proposed base level of the ICW. It is critical to allow for slope. They should be spaced
to give a representative sample of the site’s soil and subsoil conditions. Full Health &
Safety (H&S) requirements must be satisfied in the excavation and examination of the 43
Trial Holes. A minimum of 3 holes should be dug throughout the proposed ICW area.
Further trial holes may be required on sites where the ground conditions are
considered to be variable, or where the proposed ICW is particularly large. Suggested
minimum number of trial holes is as follows:
 Area of KW At least 3

< 0.5 ha At least 3

> 0.5 ha < 1.0 ha At least 4
> 1.0 ha < 1.5 ha At least 5
> 1.5 ha < 2.0 ha At least 6
> 2.0 ha At least 7

The trial-hole should be kept as small as practicable. Topsoil depth and its description
should be recorded. The subsoil characteristics of key interest are:

1. texture,
2. structure,
3. compactness,
4. colour,
5. layering,
6. depth to bedrock and
7. depth to water table.

An accurate description of the subsoils is required to enable design and re-use to be

considered. The sub-soils should be recorded in a professional manner with reference
to the BS 5930 Standard description method (Ref Appendix D for summary method).
Groundwater conditions should be described, and if necessary the holes should be left
open for 48 hours (and securely protected), or fitted with a standpipe to enable
groundwater levels to be established.

An assessment of the suitability of subsoils for construction of embankments should be

made together with an initial assessment of their suitability as an ICW base sealing
layer. Confirmation soil-testing will be required and this should comprise particle size
distribution (PSD) tests as outlined below.

44 Trenching across the slope (sometimes around the perimeter of the site) is the best way
of assuring the land-drainage status of the site. Trenches where deemed necessary
should be sufficiently deep and clear-cut to allow for detection of possible field drains
and groundwater flows.

3. Interpreting the findings from trial holes and trenches

Table 3.1 sets out the subsoil characteristics, which determine suitability for the
construction of an ICW.
 FACTORS SIGNIFICANCE

Texture Cohesive materials comprising clay or silt are the

least permeable. Sands and gravels (granular
material) will present difficulties with construction
due to their high permeability

Colour Colour is a good indicator of the state of aeration of

the soil/subsoil. Free draining unsaturated
soils/subsoils are in the oxidised state at all times and
exhibit brown, reddish brown and yellowish brown
colours. Saturated soils/subsoils are in a reduced
state and exhibit dull grey or mottled.

Depth to rock Subsoil must have sufficient depth for ease of

construction and for added protection for ground
water

Depth to water table Unlikely to be a problem in low permeability

subsoils, but can be significant in highly permeable
subsoils (Darcy’s law must be applied)

Assessment of permeability Sites underlain by natural low permeability material

may not require enhancement to satisfy the
requirements

Table 3.1 Soil/Subsoil Characteristics

The uniformity of the characteristics (outlined in Table 3.1) between trial holes must be
considered.

4. Particle Size Distribution Test

A particle size distribution test (PSDT) is an indicator of the hydraulic permeability of
the subsoil. For the required permeability of 1x10-8m/s, the clay content should be
13% or greater.
45
In circumstances where the clay content is 13% or more but there is evidence from the
‘Visual Assessment’ and/or ‘Trial Hole’ tests that the permeability of the subsoil is
greater than 1 x 10-8 m/s (for example, the area is free draining or the BS5930
description of the subsoil is silt), it may be advisable to assume that the 1 x 10-8 m/s
requirement is not automatically met in these circumstances, and that enhancement at
the construction stage may be required to achieve this level.
 Where clay content is less than 13% but more than 10% the sub-soil can be enhanced
to achieve a permeability of 1 x 10-8 m/s.

Because of the relatively large area of ground covered by ICW systems, a minimum of
3 PSDTs will be required at the proposed formation level. This level (depth) should be
recorded in Appendix B3.3 under “Other information”. Similar to the trial hole
scenario, the number of PSDTs should be increased with the size of the proposed ICW.

Area of ICW No. of PSDTs

Minimum At least 3
> 0.5 ha < 1.0 ha 4
> 1.0 ha < 1.5 ha 5
> 1.5 ha < 2.0 ha 6
> 2.0 ha 7

The most appropriate soil horizon for use as a liner material should be identified.
Representative samples shall be taken from this horizon for laboratory testing at an
approved laboratory to determine clay content to BS1377. Before commencement of
this tests all particles greater than 20 mm in diameter should be removed.

5. Decision Process and Preparation of Recommendations

Table 3.2 summarises the information collected from the desk study and site
assessment phases. The information is used to decide whether an ICW can be
constructed on the site. A detailed outline of the general decision-making process for
constructed farm wetlands including two useful decision trees has been published4. A
decision tree from this document is presented in Appendix G.

Recommendations should be outlined in relation to any site-specific requirements

necessary for the ICW design.

46
 Information Key Issues Implications
Collected
Topography Slopes, land profile Design, overall layout,
landscape fit
Surface water Receptor sensitivity Set back distances,
Receiving water assimilative discharge licence
capacity,
possible flood levels Possible flood levels

Hydrogeological Receptor sensitivity Design of ICW base,

setting set back distances,
monitoring

Cultural heritage Distances from sensitive sites Statutory and planning

Natural heritage Site value Statutory and planning

distances from sensitive sites
Climate Rainfall, receptors downwind Design sizing of ICW,
orientation and layout of
ICW

Human Possible odours Set back distances and

design features
Housing Proximity Set back distance

Farm inventory, Hazard assessment Design sizing of ICW

survey
Depth to rock Pathway assessment Design, base details, site
suitability

Subsoil type (BS Pathway assessment Design, construction and

5930) site suitability

PSDT results (BS Required fines and clay content Design, construction and
1377) site suitability

Depth to water table Pathway assessment Design, construction and 47

site suitability

Table 3.2 ICW Decision Issues

 Chapter 4: The Regulatory Process

4.1 Introduction
The construction of an ICW must conform, like any other development, to the statutory
and regulatory requirements contained in the relevant national legislation and
regulations. In general ICW systems intercepting point sources of polluted water
require full planning permission and discharge licensing. The purpose of this section is
to outline to the designer/applicant the relevant governing legislation and the
procedures and documentation required at each stage of the Planning Stages.

4.2 Relevant Legislation

The construction of ICW systems is regulated by the following European and National
primary and secondary legislation:

− Local Government (Water Pollution) Act of 1977 and Local Government (Water
Pollution Amendment) Act of 1990, and subsequent Regulations.
− Local Government (Planning & Development) Act of 2000 and subsequent
Regulations.
− EPA Act 1992 and 2007
− EU Water Framework Directive and subsequent Regulations.
− European Communities Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations,
2007, S.I. No. 684 of 2007
− European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations
2009, S.I. No. 272 of 2009
− European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters)
Regulations, 2009, S.I. No. 101 of 2009.
− European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations
2010, S.I. No. 9 of 2010
− European Union (Natural Habitats) Regulations, S.I. No. 94 of 1997

4.3 Planning Pre-Consultation

Pre-application consultation with the relevant planning authority is always advised in
48
advance of lodging a planning application. It will assist in establishing whether or not
the development is acceptable in principle and will then help highlight relevant
development plan requirements, identify procedural and technical requirements,
including any fees or charges and minimise the need for the planning authority to seek
additional information.
Once the applicant has some idea of the approximate details of the ICW planning
proposal, with approximate sizing, location, and site characteristics (Ref Appendix C),
s/he should enter into discussion with the local planning authority to ascertain their
specific requirements in regard to the lodging of a planning application to ensure that
the proposal will be consistent with these requirements. As outlined in Section 3.3
above there may be issues in relation to site status, arising from its location, for
example within or adjacent to a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection
Area (SPA), or Natural Heritage Area (NHA) or in the vicinity of a National Monument.
If this is the case, further investigation may be required, or even consideration of an
alternative site.

All planning authorities now have websites, on which information relating to the
preparation and lodgement of a planning application can be easily accessed. This
allows each applicant to determine what is required in the preparation of a planning
application in advance of pre-planning consultation and will also ensure a more
productive consultation. In the case of an ICW application, which will involve a
discharge licence at the final stage, there is scope here for discussion of the likely
discharge licence conditions, on the basis of typical expected effluent characteristics
from an ICW (see 2.6 above), and ideally the inclusion of some form of bio-monitoring
in the final pond (See 5.5 below).

4.4 Information required when making a planning application

When lodging a planning application, an applicant will be required to submit specific
information that is statutorily required to validate a planning application. These
statutory requirements include specifications as to the number of copies of various
documents to be submitted and requirements in relation to advertising and site notices.
All these requirements are set out in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-
2007 and are normally available directly from the planning office of each local
authority, or can be downloaded from the DEHLG website. Within the period of two
weeks before submission of the planning application, a notice must be placed in an
approved newspaper, and a site notice erected on the land in a ‘conspicuous’ position.

4.5 Planning Timescale

A planning authority must make a decision on a planning application within 8 weeks
from the date the application is lodged unless further information is requested. If further 49
information is sought from the applicant it must be requested within the 8 week period
and the planning authority then has 4 weeks from the day of receipt of the further
information to make a decision on the application. If the application requires an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) the timescales will be longer. The following
table gives a general guide to the timescale involved in most cases.
 Start Notice published in paper and site
notice erected
Within 2 weeks of notice Lodge application
5 weeks from date of lodgement Application is validated by the planning
authority. Submissions or objections
must be lodged.

Between 5 and 8 weeks later Planning authority must issue notice of

their decision on the application.
Alternatively, they may request further
information.

4 weeks after issue of notice of decision. If no appeal is made, the planning

authority will issue grant of permission,
or outline permission, except where they
have already made a decision to refuse
permission.
Table 4.1 Optimum Planning Timescale

An appeal can be made to An Bord Pleanala against the decision of the planning
authority by the applicant or by a third party but it must be made within 4 weeks
beginning on the date of the decision of the planning authority and this will add
significantly to the timescale above. It should be noted, however, that a third party can
only appeal if they have already made an objection at the planning application stage.
An Bord Pleanála has an objective to decide appeals within 18 weeks of receipt. This is
not always possible and in such event all parties will be informed of the reasons why
the decision is delayed.

In conclusion therefore, it generally takes a minimum of 12 weeks for a final grant of

permission to issue, and, subject to further information being requested, or appeals
being lodged, the decision on an application may take up to a total of between 30 and
40 weeks. These timescales must be considered by the applicant when planning the
likely construction period and possibly going to tender for the construction work.

50
4.6 Discharge Licence Requirements
The construction of an ICW may require a discharge authorisation in addition to
planning permission, depending on the promoter/developer of the ICW, either by:
(i) A discharge licence to surface water issued by the local authority under the
Water Pollution Acts 1977 & 1990. Under the Local Government (Water
Pollution) Regulations, 1978, S.I. No. 108 of 1978, a discharge to groundwater
of domestic sewage not exceeding 5 m3/day is exempt from licensing by local
authorities. Therefore all other discharges to groundwater require a discharge
licence to groundwater issued by the local authority under the Water Pollution
Acts 1977 & 1990.
(ii) An Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) licence issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency if the ICW is associated with an activity listed
in the First Schedule of the Environmental Protection Agency Acts 1992 to 2007,
e.g. slaughter plant, dairy plant;
(iii) A waste licence issued by the Environmental Protection Agency if the ICW is
associated with an activity listed in the Third or Fourth Schedules of the Waste
Management Acts 1996 to 2008, e.g. landfill;
(iv) A waste water discharge licence (for agglomerations >500 population
equivalent) or a waste water discharge certificate of authorisation (for
agglomerations <500 population equivalent) issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency if the ICW is associated with a local authority waste water
treatment system.

The discharge authorisation must be applied for separately from the planning
permission, with separate fee structures. This must be completed before
commencement of construction to avoid any possible conflict with the planning
permission.

An application for a discharge licence should be made to the relevant local authority
on a standard application form obtained from that local authority. An application for
an IPPC licence, waste licence or waste water discharge licence should be made to the
Environmental Protection Agency on a standard application form that can be obtained
from www.epa.ie/downloads/forms/lic/

In general, the following information should be provided in support of an application

for a discharge authorisation. The required level of detail will vary based on the risk
posed by the ICW.
51
− Source, quantity and quality of waste water entering ICW;
− ICW design and layout, including permeability of base and sides of ICW ponds;
− Details of the site assessment (as outlined in Chapter 3);
− Hydrogeological conditions of the site, including subsoil type and permeability,
depth to bedrock, depth to water table, aquifer characterisation and
 vulnerability rating, details of any wells in the area, and where relevant,
background groundwater quality and proposed groundwater monitoring regime
(see Section 7.4 Groundwater Monitoring).
− Quantity and quality of waste water to be discharged to receiving waters
(primary discharge to surface water and predicted losses to groundwater) from
ICW;
− Details of the proposed receiving water, including flow (dry weather, 95%ile
and median flows), existing quality upstream and downstream of the discharge
point(s), Water Framework Directive status and risk category, assimilative
capacity, proposed monitoring regime, presence of any areas for the abstraction
of water intended for human consumption, etc.
− Details of any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the discharge(s), identification
of impacts and mitigations measures as appropriate.

A discharge authorisation shall set standards for the quality of effluent discharge to
surface water from the ICW and frequency of required maintenance, monitoring and
reporting. The standards for quality of effluent discharge shall be determined on a
case-by-case basis and shall be subject to the assimilative capacity of the receiving
waters. The European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters)
Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 272 of 2009, established stricter ambient standards than
those which previously applied. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently
preparing guidance on assimilative capacity calculations for receiving waters and this
will be made available to the public.

Appendix E gives guidance on minimum licencing requirements for ICW systems.

52
Chapter 5: Designing an Integrated
Constructed Wetland (ICW)

5.1 Introduction
The ICW concept and the context in which systems may be deployed have been
outlined above (Chapter 1). Their design recognises the multi-faceted requirements of
the site, the potential influent/s and the potential of multiple land use for the overall
development including the use of in-situ accumulated materials. The most important
factor in designing an ICW is to recognise that it is not a proprietary design but a
conscious and deliberate attempt to implement a holistic approach to natural resource
management within the context of achieving sustainable development. It is
fundamentally an ecological concept and is not suited to a formulaic design, with each
site having its own special ecological characteristics and requirements. (See Fig 5.1
below).

Fig 5.1 Aerial View of ICW showing curvilinear fit of segments/ponds to

landscape contours
53

This chapter gives guidance on the designing of ICW systems for the treatment of
polluted water streams including any unavoidable surface water run-off to the ICW.
The content and strength of influent for which the ICW concept was initially developed
(farmyard soiled water) is given in table 2.3 above. The nature of this influent is that it
is highly variable in strength and flow and clearly demonstrated that ICW systems
 could have a wide range of application covering many water-vectored effluent types.
The steps below guide the assessor (client and regulator) through the ‘Design Process’.
The ultimate aim is to ensure that any potential polluted water source is anticipated
and dealt with, that the ICW will be robustly built and long lasting, and that the
completed ICW will enhance the surrounding landscape, contribute to biodiversity and
provide a range of ecosystem services, including products that might be used locally.

5.2 The ICW Process

Both anaerobic and aerobic microbial digestion are the primary processes that treat the
inflowing pollutants. Emergent plant species, their litter and allochthonous organic
material provide one of the main surface structures upon which microbial populations
are supported, primarily forming bio-films while also facilitating the occurrence of
pelagic microbial suspensions. The wetland vegetation also provides the hydraulic
resistance to surface flows, increases aerobic biofilm reactive surface area and supports
the precipitation of particulate matter. Necromass from both micro-organisms and
vegetation contribute to the sealing integrity of the wetland and help provide carbon
based energy sources for anaerobic digestion, denitrification, methanogensis and other
supporting functions. Such functions also extend to the underlying soil and associated
structures. In addition the wetland environment provides opportunities for a diversity
of other (non-emergent) plants and animals, the interaction of which contributes to the
overall biological function of the constructed wetland4,23,60,61,62.

5.3 Preparation for the Design

A critical element in approaching the design of an ICW is an understanding of:

1. The functionality of shallow, surface-flow, emergent-vegetated wetland

ecologies
2. Familiarity with the available information on the site, in particular the results of
the ‘Site Assessment’ (Chapter 3 above, and Appendix C) and site layout.
3. Understanding of the nature and impact of an ICW on the landscape.

It is essential that the designer be fully familiar with the proposed site, through actually
visiting the site and by speaking with the landowner/client. This ensures the client’s
wishes and requirements will be taken on board, and that the designer can consider
54
the incorporation of existing landscape features into the proposed design, in particular,
the visual aspect of the ICW design will require dialogue with the client.

The designer must be able to visualise the finished product, and its impact on the
surrounding environment (here experience and demonstration are considered
essential). The optimal use of the land contours is critical, particularly in achieving
optimal length to width ratios for the various segments of ICW systems. It is advisable
to follow the natural contours of the landscape as far as possible to ensure minimal cut
and fill during construction and to maintain low length to width ratios.

An understanding of a site’s needs/layout and drainage points is of particular

importance. In some cases there will be a number of entry points to the initial
segment/cell of the ICW. It is recommended that all existing and potential sources of
pollution be captured, anticipating any management changes and accidental
occurrences. Springs and land drains on the proposed ICW site must be identified and
managed, preferably by being diverted away from the wetland, though their entry into
any additional monitoring ponds to the system (Section 5.5 below) can be useful in
maintaining necessary water levels or in the reuse of treated water. Failure to divert
extraneous water can cause stability problems with the ICW base, leakage to
groundwater and a reduced hydraulic residence time.

The design for an ICW will include a minimum of 3 to 4 emergent-vegetated and

shallow wetland segments/cells of similar size, although, dependent on location and
topography this number may be extended. The first segment requires particular
attention especially if it is to receive runoff from different point sources (as in the case
of the farmyard sources of soiled water) or liable to receive influents of varying levels of
contamination.

5.4 ICW Area Requirements

Critically, in order to achieve the necessary hydraulic retention, the most essential
elements in ICW design are sizing, positioning and configuration. In general, the larger
an ICW relative to its inflow the greater its capacity to treat that influent. The area
requirements for ICW systems are primarily focused upon the capacity of the system to
capture and retain soluble phosphorus (molybdate reactive phosphorus, MRP). Unlike
carbon and nitrogen, phosphorus does not commonly have an atmospheric phase and
is generally the limiting factor in determining the efficacy of an ICW because of its
tendency to be biologically recycled.

The present overall sizing formula for an ICW system has been developed from the
observed performance of more than 20 ICW systems treating farmyard soiled water and
domestic waste water over the past 14 years. Particular attention has been paid to 55
understanding and addressing the robustness and sustainability of ICW systems with
regard to total phosphorus and MRP removal from through-flow. As ICW systems are
primarily surface-flow systems, hydraulic retention time is determined by wetland
surface area. As ICW systems are ‘open systems’, hydraulic retention is also greatly
influenced by intercepted precipitation events. These will be of varying amplitudes that
 may be more than 50 times the average polluted water stream volume as in the case of
farmyard soiled water and combined wastewater/stormwater sources. Performance data
have shown that in the case of both sources a minimum of 1.3 times the interception
area is required to achieve MRP concentrations in the last ICW cell of 1.0 mg/l for
farmyard effluent in the South County Waterford area1.

As a precautionary and ecosystem based approach prevails, it is recommended that the

functioning (water surface) area of a farmyard soiled water ICW requires an area
calculated on the basis of twice the associated interception area. For domestic
wastewater treatment an area of 20-40m2 per person equivalent (p.e.) is required. A
further land area allowance of about 25 percent of this calculated wetland area must
be made to encompass the ancillary embankment areas of the overall site.

For farmyard soiled water treatment, the area occupied by an ICW is typically 1-2% of
any individual farm area. These indicative area requirements for the ICW based upon
the interception area and influent volume is generally a minimum area requirement.

Larger areas may be used especially where lower levels of phosphorus discharge are
required. Further additional ponds may be added for water retention or monitoring
purposes (Ref. Section 5.5 below).

Farmyard Soiled Water ICW

Area Required (m2) = (2 x Interception Area*) x 1.25**

Domestic Wastewater ICW

Area Required (m2) = (Population Equivalent x 20 to 40***) x 1.25**

* Interception Area = Full farmyard, inclusive of roof areas, and any other areas
requiring run-off capture
** Supporting infrastructure = Area taken up by embankments and associated
access.
*** 20 m2/p.e. for wastewater free of storm water increasing to 40 m2/p.e. when
storm water is also included

56
 Fig 5.2 Indicative relationship between P reduction and ICW area

5.5 Configuration/Layout of ICW

1. Basic Configuration
Configuration and residence time interact by ensuring that the waste water is dispersed
and flows with minimum velocity and preferential flow throughout each segment/cell
of the ICW system. An ovoid shape and optimal aspect (length to width ratio) of less
than 4:1 is ideal. This in turn is augmented by having an appropriate number of
wetland segments/cells. Additionally, the greater the emergent vegetation density the
slower the rate of flow of the influent through the system (i.e. hydraulic impedance).
The segment/cell shape should ensure that as much area of the ponds/lagoons are
utilised by having a level base and optimal water depth. Curvilinear shapes that ideally 57
follow the land contours, are encouraged and will facilitate good distribution. While a
length to width ratio of less than 4:1 is considered the ideal this may not always be
possible, especially on sloping ground and a compensatory increase in area is advised.

It is recommended that a minimum of 4 segments/cells of similar size be constructed

for any individual ICW system with a maximum surface area of any one pond in the
 order of 25% of the overall wetland area4,23,45. Ideally the first segment/cell in the ICW
system should receive special attention as it will be the first to be dewatered and its
detritus removed (after a period of 10 to 20 years), thus reinforcing the requirement of
its area to be 20% to 25% of the overall required ICW area. An additional parallel first
segment/cell may be placed to receive uninterrupted influent while maintaining
optimal treatment; otherwise dewatering and detritus removal will have to take place
during appropriate (dry) weather conditions.

Particular hardy species of emergent wetland plants such as species in the genera
Typha, Glyceria, Carex and Scirpus are recommended for this first segment/cell as the
strength of influent may at times be such as to damage the growth potential of other
plant genera. This potential toxic tendency in the first segment/cell is balanced by the
fact that during high flux flow periods (i.e. high rainfall periods) the concentration of
the influent is diluted and plant vigour can be re-established.

The corollary of this is, that during dry periods, the influent concentration is greater
and requires shallower conditions to facilitate nitrification and avoids the negative
synergy between water depth and ammonium-N concentration.

Each segment/cell of the sequential multi-celled ICW arrangement functions as an

individual wetland ecosystem. It has its own distinct features, influents and effluents.
Thus each segment/cell has the capacity to impact differently on the adjacent
environment. This is proportionate - the segments/cells receiving the most
contaminated influent are the most hydrated and lose least water through infiltration to
the ground whilst the distal wetland cells receive the least contaminated water and are
the least hydrated and have a higher risk of soil infiltration albeit only on an occasional
basis.

2. Landscape Fit/Layout
As previously stated, the landscape-fit of an ICW is one of its explicit objectives. It
recognises the potential value of utilising the natural contours and features of the
existing landscape. This in turn leads to economic savings in construction costs
because of the reduction in cut and fill volumes.

58
Land forming the ICW structure requires a level of sensitivity to ensure that the final
structure fits into the landscape. Whilst subsequent vegetation development may help
achieve this there is a basic need for the overall structure to look “natural” and have a
degree of sympathy with the surrounding countryside. This is generally achieved
through best fit of the topographical layout of the ICW within the natural topography of
the site. The forming of the structure to fit the landscape usually has the added
advantage of reducing the ICW maintenance, enhancing its amenity value and
improving its functional longevity. A typical ICW layout is illustrated in Fig. 5.1 above.
The profiles and infrastructural details required to support habitat development are best
addressed at this stage. The incorporation of existing vegetation, particularly trees,
should be given consideration where appropriate, an exception being where deep or
wide rooted trees might potentially damage the sub-soil liner or embankments.

The development of the transitional habitat or “ecotone” between the terrestrial

embankment and the aquatic wetland zones can be achieved when constructing the
embankments, after the broad shape of the various wetland segments is achieved.
These may include some shallow and deep areas and be positioned in either south or
north facing positions or both. Wide, very shallow and low elevated edges to the
embankments are ideal. An ICW is a very dynamic ecosystem and such habitat
infrastructure may be of a transient structure unless managed and maintained.

Experience has shown that preferential placement of ICW systems on wet sites (not
designated as SACs or NHAs or a habitat for protected species) has inherent advantages
for ease of construction and the establishment of additional aquatic features that can
enhance the economic and social aspects of the exercise. Furthermore, such sites tend
to be both preferable to the land owner and more water retentive thus facilitating water
reuse.

59

Fig 5.3 ICW showing landscape-fit; in this example the ICW configuration reflects
the meandering of the adjacent water body
 3. Additional Ponds and Receiving Areas
The floral and faunal composition of receiving waters is probably the best indicator of
water quality. Having a receiving water body at the outlet of an ICW will thus reflect
the ICW’s performance over a number of weeks, months or even years. This is highly
desirable for assessing performance and is of particular value to regulatory
authorities60,61,62.

The provision of an additional area (to that required for most ICW systems) in order to
treat water to even higher limits of quality can be applied to areas where there is this
need (e.g. where there is low assimilative capacity in receiving waters). The additional
area will be especially effective in diminishing surface flow, where the water table is
below the base of the ICW, as this will increase water-loss through evapotranspiration,
interception and infiltration to ground. A sufficiently large additional seasonal or
monitoring pond may greatly reduce, or entirely remove, any surface water discharge
from an ICW. (Water balance is achieved through surface water flow, precipitation/
infiltration and evapotranspiration/interception). An additional area of bunded wet
woodland of alder or other appropriate tree species will be particularly effective for
diminishing or altogether removing all surface water discharge. The construction of
these additional wetland and ponded areas at the end of the ICW system, while not
mandatory, is strongly encouraged, so as to realise other potential values for the site
including:

a) Fishing and water based amenities where adequate water is available

b) Enhanced biodiversity and vertebrate wildlife
c) Further reduction in the mass flow of nutrients, thus having the potential to
protect nutrient sensitive water bodies
d) Increased capacity to store water for longer periods before discharge to surface
water thus aiding flood control.
e) Reuse of water and as a source during periods of drought.

The construction of open-water ponds require that their water depth is greater than 1
m, thus a shallower safety shelf (c. 300-400 mm) should circumscribe all areas of
deeper open water. This shelf may be planted with emergent vegetation or left to
vegetate naturally. If stocked with trout or other salmonids a central depth greater than
60
2 m is required. This pond also presents opportunities for aquatic and submerged plant
communities and can be of significant amenity value.

It is important that in designing the side slopes and transition area of any final bio-
monitoring pond, that they have gently sloping sides and that buffer vegetation areas
are provided so as to ensure adequate safety for visitors to the site. Where space is at a
premium, the transitional area may be reduced or omitted, but in general its inclusion
promotes greater plant and animal diversity, and improves the safety aspects of the site.

5.6 ICW Consolidation and Vertical Layout

Fig 5.4 below contains recommended vertical layouts including a recommended
maximum water depth of 300 mm. The overall berm height of each cell should be 1
m, to allow for build-up of sediment and leaf necromass, and adequate water depth
and freeboard. The base and sides of each treatment pond or segment of the ICW
require a permeability value of 1x10-8 m/s or lower (Ref 2.7 above). The achievement
of this level of permeability is based on combining the ‘Site Characterisation’ results
with an appropriate method of construction, as outlined in Chapter 6 below.

Fig. 5.4 Cross sectional view of wetland cell showing embankment and water depth

As referred to in Section 5.4 above, the embankment area around an ICW increases the
area requirement by approximately an additional 25%. This additional area is required
for access, safety, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and the needs of
biodiversity. A total minimum embankment width of 9 m from the beginning of the
land-water transitional (ecotone) area from one side of the embankment to that of the
other will result. Where space is at a premium the ecotone area may be reduced. In
general, such areas have high conservation value and provide greater overall 61
sustainability besides enhancing safety of the system.

The conveyance of the through-flow from pond to pond through the system is achieved
typically by the use of 150 mm diameter PVC/HDPE pipes. These pipes include an
elbow fitted to each outlet point to control water depth to accommodate detritus build
 up over time. During low flow periods evaporation rates also tend to be high, often
resulting in little or no output from the ICW to the receptor surface waters for what may
occasionally be several months. The development of “freeboard” capacity during such
dry periods further enhances hydraulic retention when increased flows re-occur.
Discharge during periods of high precipitation will generally occur when greater
assimilative capacity is available in the receiving waters. This synchronicity of flows
from ICW systems with the natural weather systems reduces further the likelihood of a
pollution event.

The inlet pipe to the first segment/cell should enter at a very minimum of 500mm
(ideally >1 m) above the initial design water level, (there need be no minimal head
difference for subsequent cells). The inlet and outlet points should be designed to
allow for safe access for sampling and monitoring purposes. An area (c. 1m2),
composed of coarse stones/rocks at the beginning of each segment/cell, underneath the
influent discharge pipe, may support some enhanced hydraulic distribution and
aeration. It will also provide a hard standing area for access and monitoring.

5.7 Health and Safety (H and S) Considerations and Final Design Drawings
A typical preliminary H and S Plan are given in Appendix F attached. This plan reflects
the generally safe nature of the final ICW layout, with particular concern for access by
the general public and by monitoring personnel. Where access is possible, it may be
advisable to include signage near deeper areas of the system. Fencing may be
necessary, in particular at the initial receiving area, where the risk from faecal
contamination is relatively high. Because of the generally shallow depth, gentle
embankment slopes, vegetation density, and the overall landscape-fit, there is
minimum risk of drowning. The inclusion of specific safe access to outlet points for
monitoring personnel mentioned above is a particular feature to enhance health and
safety. Specific attention must be given to deeper ponds by the placement of warning
signs and life buoys as appropriate.

All final design drawings should include the necessary H and S requirements and:

a) be clearly laid out to show location and layout details to a contractor at a

minimum scale of 1:500
62
b) indicate any specific site features which are to be avoided, or alternatively
included
c) include detailed cross sections at minimum scales of 1:100
5.8 Wetland Vegetation

1. General
Vegetation plays a variety of essential roles in the performance of ICW systems by
providing:

i) Hydraulic resistance and increased residence time

ii) Large surface-area skeletal structure to support microbial bio-films
iii) Oxygen transport to the soil substrate to aid the breakdown of organic pollutants
iv) Necromass/detritus that facilitates the long-term storage of phosphorus, and
ensures the source of carbon for anaerobic metabolism, including the
denitrification of ammonium-N and nitrate-N
v) Long-term storage of sequestered carbon through necromass accumulation
(typically 30-60 tonnes per hectare per year)
vi) Reinforcement of the wetland soil structure through reducing infiltration and
providing enhanced integrity to the wetland base structure
vii) Increased landscape-fit opportunities due to plant varieties
viii) Reducing the level of noxious smells from initial wastewater
ix) Intercepting precipitation thus reducing the overall hydraulic loading and
through-flow

The primary vegetation types used in ICW systems are emergent plant species
(helophytes). These species have evolved to enable them to root in soils with no
available or limited soil oxygen supply, growing vertically through the water column
with most of their leaves/stems in the air. They have specially adapted tissues that
facilitate oxygen storage and its transportation from the leaves through the stem to the
roots. They may have year-round growth and photosynthesis or be seasonally
deciduous.

2. Recommended species for use in ICW Systems

While more than a hundred native species can be used, in general about 12 species
have most commonly been used from the following genera:- Carex, Typha,
Sparganium, Glyceria, Eleocharis, Iris, Schoenoplectus, bolboschoenus, Cladium. Soil
and water characteristics influence the type and performance of plant species for each
wetland segment/cell of an ICW. These emergent plant species (helophytes) have a 63
structure and capacity to tolerate permanent water depths in excess of 200mm that
may have ammonium-N concentrations that may occasionally exceed 100mg/l.

Specific species selection depends upon; water depth, turbidity, pH, ammonium-N
concentration, soil type and ionic strength for each wetland segment/cell.
 Ammonium-N concentration is a dominant factor in the establishment and vigour of
emergent vegetation. Stress from ammonium-N varies with some species having very
low tolerance and others appearing to survive periodic concentrations greater than 280
mg/l1. The species mix for an ICW system should be selected to optimise the overall
performance of the system including its aesthetics and biodiversity.

Table 5.1 lists the species recommended for use in large scale ICW systems.

These species should be appropriate to the majority of ICW systems. Should the
species listed below be judged insufficient, then other native emergent species may be
considered, provided it is clearly documented why the use of this species is necessary
and the species is native to the general region or locality of the ICW system. Use
should be in accordance with the information available from the National Biodiversity
Datacentre (www.biodiversityireland.ie).

The use of non-native species may be considered in circumstances where the non-
native species does not have the potential to invade natural ecosystems. The use of
non-native species must comply with any Regulations, notices or advice on non-native
and/or invasive alien species issued by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government under the Wildlife Act, 1976, as amended (2000, 2009). Under no
circumstances should noxious alien (invasive) species be used (see
www.invasivespeciesireland.com).

64
 Botanical name Common name Notes

Iris pseudacorus Yellow Flag Where cell water depth is less

than 20cm
Glyceria maxima Reed Sweet-grass Capable of withstanding high
pollution at shallow depth
Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary-grass Within secondary cells and
adjacent embankments
Typha angustifolia Narrow leaved bulrush For use in regions where the
species already occurs and
where water depth may
fluctuate
Typha latifolia Bulrush For use in shallow water
Bolboschoenus Sea Club-rush For effluents with high
maritimus conductivity
Schoenoplectus Common Club-rush Generally for use in areas of
lacustris water depth > 20cm
Schoenoplectus Grey Club-rush For effluents with high
tabernaemontani conductivity
Eleocharis palustris Common Spike-rush For areas where short
vegetation is required
Cladium mariscus Saw Sedge For use in areas where there is
hard water
Carex riparia Great Pond-sedge Widespread use
Carex rostrata Bottle Sedge Shallow water
Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary-grass For use in final ponds
Sparganium emersum Unbranched Bur-reed For use in final ponds
Equisetum fluviatile Water Horsetail For use in final ponds
Persicaria amphibia Amphibious Bistort For use in final ponds
Potentilla palustris Marsh Cinquefoil For use in final ponds
Oenanthe crocata Hemlock Water-dropwort For use in final ponds 65
Apium nodiflorum Fool’s Water-cress For use in final ponds
Veronica scutellata Marsh Speedwell For use in final ponds
Alisma plantago- Water-plantain For use in final ponds
aquatica

Table 5.1 Plant species to be used in ICW systems

 The common reed, Phragmites australis, (frequently the only species used in other
types of constructed wetland systems) may be used for limited purposes as it may be
invasive and eventually dominate the whole ICW system thus decreasing biodiversity2.
In addition, its deep roots tend to open up pathways through the wetland base and may
make certain sites more vulnerable to drying out especially during prolonged dry
periods. As shallow surface water wetland habitats have a greatly reduced distribution
due to a long history of drainage, it may not be obvious as to what species are most
suited to the range of social, economic and environmental potential of ICW structures.
The final segments/cells of an ICW system also may provide opportunities to explore
ecological restoration especially for obligate aquatic and immersed species.

3. The provenance of plants

Plants used must have a native provenance in order to avoid erosion of native genetic
variation and, in so far as practicable, should have a regional or local provenance. If
an ICW is proposed for within or upstream of an SAC, SPA or NHA, local provenance
must be used and the methods by which these plants are to be obtained (or
propagated) must be detailed in any Appropriate Assessment required (See Section
2.3). Where non-native species are used, every effort should be made to source plants
propagated in Ireland in order to avoid the introduction of associated non-native
species, particularly invertebrates and submerged and floating aquaticmacrophytes.
Subsequent species enrichment, by additional planting, may be possible, or indeed
sometimes necessary. Planting density and establishment are dealt with in Chapter 6
below.

5.9 The Competency of the designer

The person undertaking the design must have appropriate competency to collect and
interpret all the relevant and disparate information necessary to affect the ICW
objectives. A wide understanding of wetland ecosystem structure, function and
process in relation to the nature of the polluted water, site conditions and hydraulic
challenges are essential. This includes identifying situations where a specialist advice
may need to be taken.

66
5.10 Summary of ICW Design Recommendations

Key Design Criteria Guidance Comment

ICW area relative to Minimum 2:1 ratio and Effective wetland cell area does
intercepted area 20-40m2/PE. (section 5.4) not include bank area
Number of wetland Minimum of 4 cells and There may be additional cells,
cells less than 6 recommended such as monitoring ponds or
(section 5.3) for water recycling.
Additional Ponds Not mandatory but Facilitate monitoring, provide
desirable (section 5.5) additional site values, and
reduce direct water discharges
Length/width ratio for 2:1 or less optimal Long narrow channels should
cells (aspect) recommended, 4:1 be avoided, as this increases
maximum. Otherwise velocity and can lead to lower
additional area needed phosphorus retention and to
(section 5.5) scouring/flushing during high
flows
Relative size of Cells should be of similar All cells should be of relatively
individual cells size with the first cell similar size to allow water to
ideally 20% to 25% of flow at as slow a velocity as
overall ICW area to possible to facilitate P capture
facilitate P capture (section and retention
5.4)
Depth 100 to 300 mm (sections Shallow water levels are
5.4 and 5.6) necessary to facilitate emergent
plant growth and nitrification/
denitrification processes and
for safety
Plant Selection Variety of species, and Role of plants is species
planting density (section specific and multifunctional
5.8)
Soil depth below 0.5 metres minimum with This will allow wetland to
wetland cells less than 1 x 10-8 m/s develop.
infiltration rate. (Refer to
section 2.7 for additional
for sensitive situations)

Distance to surface 10 metres minimum 67

watercourse recommended

Minimum distance to 60m

downgradient potable
groundwater source

Table 5.2 Summary of ICW Design Recommendations

 Chapter 6: Construction

6.1 Introduction
All aspects covered in the previous chapters on the Concept, Design, and Site
Assessment of ICW systems, must coalesce during construction. The explicit drawing
together of its three fundamental components; water management (flow and quality),
landscape-fit and biodiversity, are achieved during this phase. Any specific planning
conditions must also be taken on board. The competence of the contractor and those
charged with supervising the construction are essential. In time it is expected that a
larger number of competent designers, site assessors, contractors and construction
supervisors, with recognised standards and portfolios of reference projects will become
available.

This chapter broadly sets out the process to be followed by the developer in order to
ensure that all elements of the ICW design are taken on board during this ‘Construction
Phase’.

6.2 Pre-construction

1. Appointment of Contractor
Once planning approval and a discharge licence has been obtained, and the client is
free to move ahead with construction, the first stage is the appointment of a competent
contractor. This stage should ideally involve the original designer of the ICW. There are
a number of basic items required of an appointed contractor:

1. A track record in the construction of ICW or similar systems; if not, the

contractor should be asked to demonstrate ability in the use of heavy machinery
and earth moving towards achieving the ICW construct.
2. Possess basic technical ability in the interpretation of technical drawings and
building to specification and most particularly levels.
3. Possess a H&S Statement and be asked to produce a Safety Plan for construction
of the particular ICW.
68 4. The appointed contractor should be able to demonstrate sensitivity to landscape
and ground conditions through previous works.

2. Initial Consultation and Site Visit

Once the contractor is agreed, a number of preliminary actions need to precede the
construction of an ICW. Foremost of these is the consultation between land-
owner/client, designer and contractor. This consultation should include:
1. Any specific directions from the local planning authority
2. Understanding of the construction work to be undertaken, through examination
of the design drawings and agreement as to how it is to be done.
3. Agreed pricing and payment arrangements.
4. Joint pre-construction visit by all key players to the site to confirm the work to
be done and how it will be done, and who does what. In particular all safety
issues should be resolved; including site access issues and any specific H &S
issues identified in the ‘Site Characterisation’ such as overhead wires, poor
quality farm bridges etc.

When works are ready to commence a ‘Commencement Notice’ must be submitted to

the planning authority. Before commencement of construction, the contractor must
also understand that agreement and commitment to the following points are
particularly important:

1. Building to the design with pre-agreed tolerances for what is to be achieved

including the levels of the wetland floor and embankments, sealing of the
wetland, configuration of embankments and preparation of the planting
medium.
2. Disclosure of the position of any springs, land drains or other features/artefacts
that may have been missed during site assessment should they become apparent
during construction.
3. Closure/diversion of all land drains and springs within and contiguous to the
entire wetland area of the ICW structure.
4. Agreed planting programme, specifying:- plant species, size/physiological status,
planting density, whether bare rooted or container grown, and the planting
method.

6.3 Construction

There are five basic tasks in the construction of ICW systems:

1. Site safety during and after construction

2. Effective use of the site’s soils and topography during construction
3. The land forming of the structure to meet the design configuration and that it fits 69
appropriately with adjacent topography.
4. The building of the bunded structure with a robust integrity that can withstand
weather extremes, re-entry by heavy machinery, particularly in the first
segments/cells (for removal of accumulated detritus/sediments) and maintenance
of vehicular traffic along embankments.
 5. The embankment/bank profiles to support habitat diversity.

1. Site Preparation
Effective use of the site’s soils and topography during construction is essential to
minimising costs and obtaining best use for the ICW. The topsoil on the site will
usually have important, valuable properties that are conducive to vegetation
establishment and enhancing ground water quality. The topsoil for each segment of the
ICW should be stripped and stored for re-use during the final stages of construction.
This should include topsoil under the footprint of the embankments.

Sites may be variable in their permeability and depth of subsoil; consequently subsoil
or soil parent material may need to be distributed to achieve adequate coefficients of
uniformity. These items should be clear from site characterisation and design
documents. In particular the required soil depths are determined from the site
characterisation and recommendations of Section 2.7 above.

The use of topography in minimising cut and fill should be reflected in the construction
approach. This is emphasized in the design and the final fitting of the ICW into the
landscape.

2. Management of Existing Drainage Systems

It is essential to minimise ground and surface water flows from surrounding drainage
and overland sources, typically those from land drainage structures and sloping-
ground, entering the ICW. These structures are not always revealed at the site
assessment stage, and may only be discovered during construction. It is absolutely
essential to prevent any loss of water contained within the ICW through any form of
land drainage that may have existed on the site prior to construction.

Generally the interception and diversion of drainage and surface water is best achieved
through the construction of an intercepting drain up-slope of the ICW. This water can
ideally be re-directed to an outlet drain, or be allowed to enter any monitoring or
additional segment/cell of the ICW. Prevention of water loss from within the ICW
through existing drains is achieved through their total removal or destruction within the
outer footprint of the entire ICW.
70

3. Construction of the wetland base

There are two basic water-retaining elements in any ICW, the wetland base and the
embankments. To achieve the necessary water retention, several methods may be
deployed, depending on site topography, soil type, and quantity, and machinery
available.
The construction of the wetland base is required to achieve sufficient integrity to
prevent both leaks and excessive seepage and maintain hydric conditions for the
formation of the wetland soil. A permeability of 1x10-8 m/s is necessary to both
establish the wetland soil and protect ground water (see Section 2.7 above). Methods
of achieving this level of permeability depend upon a site’s subsoil analysis results. This
may be achieved, following removal of topsoil, by various means including:

1. Levelling of ICW base area on sites where subsoils already have the required
impedance.
2. Compaction of the subsoil, in layers of approximately of 150-200 mm, using
vibrating rollers on the more permeable soils to achieve 500mm depth of sub-
soil liner.
3. Machine tracking with water on intermediate subsoils and again with the
redistributed topsoil. This puddling technique is the method found to be the
most effective. It has additional advantages in that it will demonstrate the water
retention capacity of the wetland cell and provides optimal conditions for the
establishment of vegetation.
4. Where subsoils are unsuitable, as indicated in the ‘Trial Hole Analysis’,
imported material consisting of boulder clay or other high-clay content soil
material may be substituted. This in turn should be compacted in layers of
approximately 150-200 mm or puddle as in 3. above. An alternative is to use a
geo-membrane or bentonite liner which may be as cost effective as importing
suitable material.

The accumulation of organic matter from the influent will further decrease the rate of
exfiltration as a result of the organic nature of the detritus. The essential component in
achieving the necessary impedance to infiltration is that the structure remains
adequately hydrated and the supporting soil free from conduits. If allowed to dry out
and to be colonised by terrestrial vegetation, hydraulic conductivity may increase.

The construction machinery necessary to carry out the work will depend on site
conditions and the scale of the undertaking, and may range from wheeled multi-tasked
excavators to large tracked backhoe excavators and bulldozers.

Topsoil, because of its organic content, gathered at the site during the preliminary stage 71
of construction is ideally suited to achieving impedance to infiltration and should be
conserved for redistribution in preparation for final sealing and planting/seeding. The
use of puddling where topsoil and/or subsoil is mixed with water to make self-levelling
slurry is a proven method for achieving the required level of impedance where there
may be some doubt with regard to infiltration. In some instances the extra topsoil may
 need to be used to enhance sealing. The use of water in the preparation of the wetland
surface and for planting should be ideally available at this phase as it may facilitate a
range of construction needs, such as the final levelling and the provision of optimal
conditions for planting/seeding of the emergent plant species. A lysimeter placed 200-
400mm under a wetland cell will allow for qualitative and quantitative assessment of
infiltrating water. Lysimeters must be fixed in place so that any collected water is
accessible and reflects the adjacent soil conditions.

4. Construction of Embankments
Embankment construction needs to be to standards that will support vehicular traffic
such as tractors, have slopes that minimise soil creep and be resistant to weather
erosion. A layered and tracked building method in layers of approximately 200 mm is
recommended and has proven both effective and efficient.

The slope of the embankment should never be less than 1:1 - for biodiversity
enhancement 2:1 or even wider ratios have special merit. The top profile of the
embankment should be adequately compacted, level and wide enough to allow a
tractor and mower to travel on safely. Corner and junction areas are required to be
sufficiently wide to allow for easy turning of vehicles. This is supported by the
curvilinear layout generally indicated in the ICW design.

Embankment construction should also be made up from the on-site materials and
ideally exclude topsoil that can be used for puddling. The aim is to have low
permeability in the embankments to allow for any future increasing water level in any
of the wetland segments. The same construction principles apply as with the
construction of the wetland base.

5. Water Retention Test

Notwithstanding that water absorption by soil, evaporation and rainfall may make the
task of confirming that an ICW will retain water difficult, testing for this is probably the
best indicator of compliance for client, designer, contractor and regulator. Puddled
soils, subsoils and topsoil, in association with a free water surface will allow any
conduits to be identified including missed drains and excessively porous patches. In
addition the flatness of the soil's top surface can be checked.
72

This may be undertaken by filling the individual ICW segments/cells with water until a
satisfactory degree of water-loss is confirmed. Where an appropriate water source is
not available it may be necessary to conduct this test in wet weather.
6. Landscape Fit
Land forming of the ICW structure requires a level of sensitivity by the designer and
contractor to ensure that the final structure fits into the landscape. The ICW design
layout will have indicated basic shape and configuration, however the contractor will
in many instances be influential in interpreting and implementing the designer’s plan
and the quality of what is finally achieved on site. Good communication between
designer and contractor is essential.

7. Establishment of Vegetation
Various methods for establishing vegetation are effective. Success depends upon
conditions and management of the wetland during the establishment period.

Figure 6.1 Spring planting and establishment by autumn of bare-rooted greater pond
sedge (Carex riparia)

The use of bare-rooted planting stock (Fig 6.1 above) usually requires a period of
settling-in. They should ideally be planted in spring or summer, when the settling-in
period is approximately 2 weeks to 1 month. They are normally planted at 1 to 2
plants per square metre and with the wetland initially operating at minimum depth of
approximately 100 mm. Planting accompanied by water should be undertaken as soon
as possible after construction.

Pot-grown plants are the quickest to establish and minimise time-loss before operation.
They are generally used for small ICW systems. The physiological status of pot-grown 73
plants is important and if immature seedlings or plants have too little vegetative
emergence above water they may fail. Juvenile plants are more vulnerable to pollution
than physiologically older plants. An integral mixture of plant species gives added
robustness to the overall system and allows for a measure of self-design through inter-
species competition.
 Direct seeding of appropriate species will require minimal water depth and turbidity to
allow seeds to germinate and seedlings to develop to a physiologically mature state so
that they may withstand the influents in each wetland segment. They also require that
competition from residual vegetation and the seed bank in the topsoil be minimised.
Setting seeds during the winter period ensures better germination in the following
spring/summer. Seeds should ideally be collected from local sources.

The establishment of vegetation on the embankments may be left to natural

regeneration or be seeded with grass/clover or native meadow mixtures. The planting
of small tree and shrub species will usually enhance the overall landscape fit and
biodiversity. Tree species that have the capacity to grow to large stature should not be
grown on embankments lest they might endanger the integrity of the embankment
should they become up-rooted.

6.4 Fencing
Appropriate fences should be erected to the required standards to control, where
needed, the access of people and livestock and where (or when) required under any
planning conditions. The shallow depth of the ICW and the surround of any deeper
water such as the monitoring pond, provides a degree of built-in safety. Permanent
stock-proof electric fencing has, in the main, been adequate for farm ICW systems but
more closed or robust physical fencing may be necessary in certain situations
especially near habitation. Generally though, people should have easy access to the
wetland and visits and intimacy with it should be encouraged.

6.5 Construction of Final Bio-monitoring Pond(s) (Ref Section 5.5 above)

The construction of optional bio-monitoring pond(s), which may be an addition to the
basic required ICW area, will depend upon its location, form and size. This is
influenced by topography/landscape position, overall size of the treatment structure,
site availability, the availability of water (whether from the preceding segments or from
adjacent water sources) and anticipated amenity use. This pond may, or may not, have
additional clean influent water from groundwater or surface water, such as existing
springs, streams, or land drains. Achieving appropriate landscape fit, safety and
biodiversity are essential. The sealing of this pond is primarily for the purposes of
retaining water and its aquatic habitats. The provision of such ponds should be
74
encouraged and not seen as a incidental accompaniment.

The landscape fit will require special attention to the adjoining land and may have
generally lower embankment heights. Safety marginal areas around the inside edges of
the pond with a minimum width of 2-3m should be shallow with a finished depth of
less than 0.5m. The central depth should be greater than 2m if trout are to be
introduced. The final outcome will, on the basis of experience to date, reflect the
capabilities of the machine operator and their interaction with the designer. Discharge
to the adjacent watercourse may be through an adjustable pipe, open channel,
conduit/sluice, or some form of diffusion zone in situations where little or no discharge
is required. The use of an adjustable pipe elbow allows the water to be monitored and
managed more easily.

75
 Chapter 7: Operation, Maintenance, and
Monitoring

7.1 Maintaining Surface Flow

A fundamental requirement of the ICW concept and its design is that it be as self-
managing and as self-maintaining as possible. The initial management requirements
must be achieved within the physical, chemical and biological dynamics of wetland
ecosystem function. The key operational necessity to achieve this is that water depths
(100-300 mm) for the various ICW segments/cells should be maintained at these
depths. If left unmanaged the accumulation of sediments and decaying organic matter
combined with changing vegetation structure will eventually cause channelling-type
flow to develop thus reducing retention time and plant contact. To minimise such
channelling, surface flow must be maintained through the incremental raising of the
water level in the various wetland segments. This is achieved through raising (and
under special conditions where excessively deep, lowering) pipe invert levels, as
appropriate.

As water depth and contaminant concentration, especially that of ammonium-N, can

impact synergistically on emergent plants, the overall impact of increasing the water
depth on the vegetation must be anticipated and carried out in small incremental steps.
It is undesirable to suddenly reduce a wetland cell’s water level through the release of
water from one segment to the next as water, especially from the more polluted upper
segments, may contain excessive ammonium, which could negatively impact on more
sensitive vegetation. If there is a need to reduce levels, lowering the pipe/sluice when
there is freeboard, or by small incremental amounts over longer periods, is appropriate.

7.2 Maintaining Access

Access to the wetland segments is generally maintained by having trackways along the
top of the embankments. Their maintenance can be achieved through mowing once or
twice per year or in some situations by grazing stock.

76 Maintenance should remove any trees that may grow to large stature on the
embankments. Trees of small size or larger trees at appropriate locations may be
tolerated and even encouraged, as long as the stability of the banks and their integrity
are not compromised.

Fences should be maintained with particular attention to preventing livestock from

gaining access to the overall ICW site (though there are situations where, through
design, livestock can be managed on the site, e.g. where embankments are sufficiently
wide and shallow and resistant to erosion). Any fences restricting personnel access
should be maintained to the level required.

7.3 Removal of Accumulated Sediments/Detritus

Sediments, detritus and necromass will accumulate in all segments of an ICW. This will
be greatest in the first segment where there is also the greatest phosphorus
accumulation. Accumulated detritus should be removed when the depth of water of
water is less than 200mm from the top of the surrounding embankment for that
segment. This material will need to be periodically removed and managed in
accordance with the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection
of Waters) Regulations, 2009, S.I. No. 101 of 2009. The nutrient (in particular
phosphorus) content of the accumulated material needs to be quantified, so that it may
be appropriately used when removed. There are various options for the treatment and
use of this material. The simplest is land spreading on farmland after dewatering and
in-situ composting. Alternatively the dewatered material may be compressed and dried
for combustion or pyrolytic treatment. Land spreading should be planned to meet the
requirements of GAP Regulations and be in accordance with farm nutrient
management plans. The typical phosphorus content of wetland detritus in the initial
wetland cell is of the order of 3 kg per tonne dry weight.

The initial removal of sediments is anticipated to be 10 to 20 years after the

establishment of an ICW. The organic material that lies close (approximately 100 mm)
to the wetland’s floor should be retained, in order to maintain the integrity of its sealing
properties. Where possible the vegetation should be removed initially and separately
for use in the re-establishment of the segment. This operation will ideally be carried
out during a drier summer period. The segment can be initially dried out by diverting
the influent directly to the second segment and by wind-rowing before final removal
for storage or direct land application. While the phosphorus content of the detritus may
exceed farm needs/limits the dewatered material has high and rising economic value
and can be traded.

7.4 Monitoring
Monitoring of surface and groundwater discharges may be required to comply with
discharge licence requirements and to determine if the ICW is functioning as designed. 77
The emphasis on ecosystem function of ICW systems facilitates a range of monitoring
opportunities that are generally not practicable in other treatment wetland systems.
Any one of these monitoring approaches listed below, or a combination of approaches,
may be utilised. This wider range of monitoring parameters may be used to better
understand the performance of the ICW, and the wider values for the site, while the use
 of indicator species (plant and animal) may be both less costly and more informative.
This biological monitoring will be especially effective in establishing compliance with
good farming practice and detecting abuses.

1. Surface Water Monitoring

Where the primary discharge from the ICW is to surface water, the licence (IPPC/Waste
or Waste Water Discharge Licence) will specify the monitoring requirements for the
discharge. Typical parameters required by the licence to be monitored in the ICW
discharge may include:

− Flow (continuous monitoring using on-line flow meter with recorder);

− pH;
− Temperature;
− Biochemical Oxygen Demand;
− Chemical Oxygen Demand;
− Suspended Solids;
− Ammonium (as N);
− Nitrate (as N);
− Total Phosphorus (as P) and
− Ortho-phosphate (as P).

The licensee may be required to install a composite sampler and continuous flow
monitoring. This, however, will be dependent on the scale of the ICW, the discharge
volume and quality, and the receiving water scale and quality. All samples should be
collected on a 24-hour flow proportional composite basis.

1) Chemical composition of the final surface discharge (and at discharges from

individual segments within the system) with specific attention to BOD,
ammonium-N, nitrate-N, and phosphorus
2) Vegetation composition, vigour and growth, with a recognition that some
species are more tolerant to contaminated water than others63.
3) Invertebrate monitoring of all or final segments of the system will provide
reliable continuous insight of ICW performance and its biological value as an
ecosystem60,61,62
78
4) Turbidity in ‘still-open-water bodies’ as is found in the final segment of an ICW
can provide indirect indication of eutrophic status and consequently of its
performance23.
5) Volumetric discharge may cease during dry periods. This is a common
characteristic of many ICW systems as their functional cleansing area is
relatively large. Evapotranspiration during dry periods (an evapotranspiration
 rate of 1 mm/day will remove 10 m3/ha/day) and seepage into the ground (a
permeability of 1x10-8 m/s will absorb 8.64 m3/ha/day) together create freeboard
that at the discharge point may prevent any discharge for long periods even in
the wetter parts of the country. Monitoring discharge volumes will provide a
broader understanding of the environmental and ecological performance and
capacity of ICW function.
6) Bio-monitoring – Various fish species can be introduced to the final pond/s to
give an indication of the quality of the final effluent. Inland Fisheries Ireland
should be consulted as to the appropriate species, stocking rates etc. In general
the presence of salmonids such as salmon or trout indicates a high level of water
quality. Such surface water monitoring will only be possible where adequate
depth and hydrology prevail e.g. where the monitoring pond is at or below the
local water table or where there is an additional supply of water during dry
periods.

Faecal indicator organisms - Levels of faecal indicator organisms may require

recording, though research results to date indicate that ICW systems have the capacity
to reduce their presence greatly, even in the initial cells. Very low or undetectable
levels of e-coli can be expected in the ICW surface water effluent.

As noted previously, the ICW concept allows for a final stage monitoring pond (with or
without fish) prior to discharge. Such ponds provide additional insight into the ongoing
performance of an ICW over many seasons and much longer, even indefinitely. While
such a monitoring pond may provide additional water quality management services it
should not be included in the design calculation of the wetland’s functional area
requirement. Nevertheless, evapotranspiration, interception and exfiltration to the soil
from a monitoring pond may increase the freeboard and decrease surface discharge
during dry weather periods. The addition of such additional wetland/ponded areas can
greatly enhance the amenity and biodiversity values of the overall site thus making the
exercise of building an ICW one with multiple benefits.

2. Ambient Monitoring of Receiving Waters

Where the primary discharge from the ICW is to surface water, the licence (IPPC/Waste
or Waste Water Discharge Licence) will generally specify a requirement for ambient
monitoring of the receiving waters upstream and downstream of the ICW discharge. 79
The ambient monitoring programme should be appropriate to the scale of the activity
and the site specific characteristics. The suitability of ambient monitoring locations
should be agreed with the EPA. Typical parameters to be monitored in the receiving
waters may include:-
 − pH;
− Conductivity;
− Dissolved Oxygen;
− Biochemical Oxygen Demand;
− Chemical Oxygen Demand;
− Suspended Solids;
− Ammonium (as N);
− Nitrate (as N);
− Nitrite (as N);
− Total Phosphorus (as P);
− Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus (as P);
− Faecal Coliforms; and
− Biological Quality (Q Rating) or Small Streams Risk Score (SSRS) Assessment.
(This assessment must be undertaken by a qualified person)

3. Groundwater Monitoring
Any requirement for specific groundwater monitoring will depend on a risk-based
evaluation of the likely impacts on a) the groundwater beneath and down-gradient of
the ICW, b) down-gradient wells or c) nearby surface water receptors. Therefore,
groundwater monitoring requirements will be site specific.

Where groundwater monitoring is considered to be necessary, sampling of

groundwater up-gradient of the ICW is recommended. The design of the monitoring
network down-gradient of the ICW should be focussed on the underground pathways
likely to transmit pollutants and on the receptor at risk.

The recommended list of parameters is given in the table below:

Chemical Analysis Parameters Analysed

Suite
Basic Monitoring Field Analysis: pH; Dissolved Oxygen; Temperature;
Suite Conductivity

Laboratory Analysis: pH; Conductivity; Colour; Nitrate;

80
Ammonium; Nitrite; Total Phosphorus; Molybdate Reactive
Phosphorus; Total Organic Carbon; Turbidity; Alkalinity; Total
Hardness; Iron; Manganese; Sodium; Potassium; Chloride;
Calcium; Sulphate; Magnesium; Total Coliforms & Faecal
Coliforms (E-Coli).
The frequency of sampling will depend on the assessment of the risk posed by the ICW.
However, quarterly sampling is recommended as the minimum frequency. This can be
amended following evaluation of the initial test results.

Groundwater can be monitored in a number of ways. The sampling of existing and new
wells adjacent to or within the ICW and its curtilage.

1. Sampling of adjacent groundwater hydraulically connected to the wetland.

2. The use of piezometers and lysimeters to measure ground water quality and
quantitative flow within or adjacent to the ICW.
3. The use of adjacent watercourses, upstream and downstream of the wetland, to
establish overall impact of the associated ICW system’s hydrosphere.
4. Monitoring of ground water prior to commissioning an ICW will provide insight
into any impact that an ICW may have on groundwater when it is operating.
Consideration should be given to the impact of saturating the topsoil used in the
wetlands construction that will increase ammonium concentration in the pore-
water of the wetland soil even before the reception of polluted water.

Any or all of the above approaches require attention to delivering results that regulators
can have confidence in. This is best achieved by describing the methodologies used,
by demonstration, and by presenting results/analyses.

81
 References

1. Harrington, R., and C. Ryder. 2002. The use of integrated constructed wetlands
in the management of farmyard runoff and waste water. In Proceedings of the
National Hydrology Seminar on Water Resource Management: Sustainable
Supply and Demand. Tullamore, Offaly. 19th Nov. 2002. The Irish National
Committees of the IHP and ICID, Ireland. 55-63.

2. Harrington, R. E. J. Dunne, E. J., P. Carroll, P., J. Keohane, J., and C. Ryder, C.,
(2005) The concept, design and performance of integrated constructed
wetlands for the treatment of farmyard dirty water. In: Nutrient Management in
Agricultural Watersheds: A Wetlands Solution, edited by E. J. Dunne, K.R. Reddy
and O.T. Carton. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 179-188.

3. Harrington, R., Carroll, P., Carty, A., Keohane, J., Ryder, C., 2007, Integrated
Constructed Wetlands : concept, design, site evaluation and performance,
International Journal of Water, Vol. 3, No.3 pp. 243 - 256

4. Carty, A. H., Scholz, M., Heal, K, Keohane, J., and Dunne, E., 2007. Constructed
Farm Wetlands: Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland, Scottish
Environmental Protection Agency and the Northern Ireland Department of
Environment EHS, Reference No. S/15059/06.

5. Puustinen M., Koskiaho J., Jormola J., Järvenpää L., Karhunen A., Mikkola-Roos
M., Pitkänen J., Riihimäki J., Vikberg M. S. P., 2007, Maatalouden
moivaikutteisten kosteikkojen suunnittelu ja mitoitus, Soumen ympäristökeskus,
Helsinki, Finland

6. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan C. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy.

82 7. Chadwick, D. R., Fish, R. D., Oliver, D. M. Heathwaite, A. L.,Hodgson, C. J.,

Winter M. 2008. Management of livestock and their manure to reduce the risk
of microbial transfers to water - the case for an interdisciplinary approach.
Trends in Food Science & Technology 19, 240-247.

8. Mainstone, C.P., Dils, R.M., Withers, P.J.A., 2008. Controlling sediment and
phosphorus transfer to receiving waters – a strategic management perspective for
England and Wales. Journal of Hydrology 350, 131–143.
9. Bullock, A., Acreman, M. 2003. The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 7, 358-389.

10. Maltby, E., 2009. Functional Assessment of Wetlands: Towards Evaluation of

Ecosystem Services. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK.

11. Knight, R.L., Payne, V.W.E., Borer, R.E., Clarke, R.A., Pries, J.H. 2000.
Constructed wetlands for livestock wastewater management. Ecological
Engineering 15, 41-55.

12. Cronk, J.K. 1996. Constructed wetlands to treat wastewater from dairy and
swine operations: A review. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 58, 97-114

13. Tanner, C.C., Kloosterman, V.C. 1997. Guidelines for Constructed Wetland
Treatment of Farm Dairy Wastewaters. NIWA Science and Technology Series No.
48. Christchurch, New Zealand. 68pp.

14. Wilkie, A.C. 2006. The other bioenergy solution: The case for converting
organics to bioga. Resource: Engineering & Technology for a Sustainable World
13, 11-12.

15. Fellman, J.B., Franz, E.H., Crenshaw, C.L. and Elston, D. 2008. Global estimates
of soil carbon sequestration via livestock waste: a STELLA simulation.
Environment, Development and Sustainability.

16. Petersen, S. O., Sommer, S. G., Beline, F., Burton, C., Dach, J., Dourmad, J. Y.,
Leip, A., Misselbrook, T. H., Nicholson, F., Poulsen, H. D., Provolo, G.,
Sorensen, P., Vinneras, B., Weiske, A., Bernal, M.-P., Bohm, R., Juhasz, C.,
Mihelic, R. 2007. Recycling of livestock manure in a whole-farm perspective.
Livestock Science 112, 180-191.

17. Scott, C. A., Faruqui, N. I., Raschid-Sally, L. 2004. Wastewater Use in Irrigated
Agriculture: Management Challenges in Developing Countries, in: Scott, C. A.,
Faruqui, N. I., Raschid-Sally, L. (Eds.), Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture:
Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities. CAB 83
International/IWMI/ IDRC. pp1-10

18. Maltby, E. 2000. Ecosystem Approach: From Principle to Practice. Ecosystem

Service and Sustainable Watershed Management in North China, International
Conference, Beijing, P.R. China, August 23-25, 2000.
 19. Hartje, V., Klaphake, A., Schliep, R. 2003. The international debate on the
ecosystem approach: Critical review, international actors, obstacles and
challenges. BfN Skripton 80. Bonn, Germany.

20. Apitz, S.E., Elliot, M., Fountain, M., Galloway, T.S. 2006. European
Environmental Management: Moving to an Ecosystem Approach. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management 2, 80-85.

21. Cantrell, K.B., Ducey, T., Ro, K.S., Hunt, P.G., 2008. Livestock waste-to-
bioenergy generation opportunities. Bioresource Technology 99, 7941–7953

22. Jordan, W.R., M. E. Gilpin and J. D. Aber. 1987. Restoration Ecology: A synthetic
approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.342
pp.

23. Scholz M., Harrington R., Carroll P., and Mustafa A., 2007, The Integrated
Constructed Wetlands (ICW) Concept, Wetlands, 27 (2), 337-354.

24. Carty A., Scholz M., Heal K., Gouriveau F. and Mustafa A., 2008. The Universal
Design, Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for Farm Constructed Wetlands
(FCW) in Temperate Climates, Bioresource Technology (in press).

25. Reddy, K. R., Kadlec, R. H., Flaig, E., Gale, P. M. 1999. Phosphorus Retention in
Streams and Wetlands: A Review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science
and Technology 29, 83-146.

26. Pant, H.K., Reddy, K.R., Lemon, E. 2001. Phosphorus retention capacity of root
bed media of sub-surface flow constructed wetlands. Ecological Engineering 17,
345-355.

27. Bormann, F. H., and G. E. Likens, 1981. Pattern and process in a forested
ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York, 253 pp.

28. Otte, M. L. 2003. Wetlands of Ireland. University College Dublin Press, Dublin.
84
256 pp.

29. Van der Valk. A.G., 2006, The Biology of Freshwater Wetlands, Oxford
University Press, USA

30. Mitsch W.J.and Gosselink J.G., 2007, Wetlands, 4th edition, Wiley, USA 600 pp.
31. Scheffer M., Carpenter S., Foley J.A., Folke C. and Walkerk B. 2001,
Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems, Nature, 413, 591-596

32. Scholz M. and Lee B.-H., 2005, Constructed Wetlands: A Review, The
International Journal of Environmental Studies, 62 (4), 421-447.

33. Scholz M., 2006, Wetland Systems to Control Urban Runoff, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands 327 pp.

34. Kim I.S., Jang, A., Ivanov, V., Stabnikova, O., Ulanov, M., 2004. Denitrification
of Drinking Water Using Biofilms Formed by Paracoccus denitrificans and
Microbial Adhesion. Environmental Engineering Science Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 283-
290. 2003

35. Dennis, M. L. and Turner J. P., 1998. Hydraulic Conductivity of Compacted Soil
Treated with Biofilm. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 124:2, 120-127

36. Essa, M. H., 1997, Effect of Biofilm on the Physical properties of Sands
Contaminated with Phenol. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part
A; Environmental Science and Engineering & Toxic and Hazardous Substance
Control, A32;2, 1109-1123

37. Flanagan P. J., 1992, Parameters of Water Quality Interpretation and Standards.
Environmental Research Unit. 94 pp

38. Freeman, C., Ostle, N. and Kang, H., 2001, An enzymic ‘latch’ on a global
carbon store, Nature, 409, 149.

39. Tokida T., Miyazaki T., Mizoguchi M., Seki K., 2005, In situ accumulation of
methane bubbles in a natural wetland soil, European Journal of Soil Science, 56,
389-395

40. Kellner E., Price S. and Waddington J.M., 2004, Pressure variations in peat as a
result of gas bubble dynamics, Hydrological Processes, 18, 2599-2605 85

41. Cowardin L.M., Carter V., Golet F.C., LaRoe E.T., 1979, Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Department of the
Interior, fish and Wildlife Services, Washington D.C.
 42. Moshiri, G.A.,1993, Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement,
Lewis, USA 632 pp.

43. Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment wetlands. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, 893 pp.

44. Shappell N. W., Billey L.O., Forbes D., Matheny T.A., Poach M.E., Reddy G.B.
and Hunt P.G., 2007, Estrogenic Activity and Steroid Hormones in Swine
Wastewater through a Lagoon Constructed-Wetland System, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 41, (2), pp 444–450

45. Scholz M., Sadowski A. J., Harrington R. and Carroll P., 2007, Integrated
Constructed Wetlands Assessment and Design for Phosphate Removal,
Biosystems Engineering, 97 (3), 415-423.

46. Carroll, P., R. Harrington, J. Keohane, and C. Ryder, 2005. Water treatment
performance and environmental impact of integrated constructed wetlands in
the Anne valley watershed, Ireland. In: Nutrient Management in Agricultural
Watersheds: A Wetlands Solution, edited by E. J. Dunne, K.R. Reddy and O.T.
Carton. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 207-217.

47. Richards, K. 1999. Sources of nitrate leaching to groundwater in grasslands of

Fermoy, Co. Cork. Ph.D. thesis, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.

48. Bartley, P., 2003. Nitrate responses in groundwaters under grassland dairy
agriculture. Ph.D. thesis, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.

49. Rodgers, M., P. Gibbons, and J. Mulqueen, 2003. Nitrate leaching on a sandy
loam soil under different dairy wastewater applications In IWA Proc. 7th
International Specialised Conference on Diffuse Pollution and Basin
Management, UCD, Dublin, Ireland. Aug. 2003.

50. Culleton, N., E. Dunne, S. Regan, T. Ryan, R. Harrington and c. Ryder, 2005.
Cost effective management of soiled water agricultural systems in Ireland. In:
86
Nutrient Management in Agricultural Watersheds: A Wetlands Solution, edited
by E. J. Dunne, K.R. Reddy and O.T. Carton. Wageningen Academic Publishers,
The Netherlands. 260-269.

51. Doody, D., O. Hofmann, 2008 Preliminary economic and environmental

assessment of an Intgrated Constructed Wetland (ICW) at Glaslough, Co
Monaghan to treat sewage-water. Presentation to Institute of Civil Engineers.
52. Fossitt J., 2000. Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council.

53. Fannin C.A., 2006, An evaluation of the chemical attenuation capacity of UK

mineral liner and geological barrier materials for landfill leachate compounds,
Quaterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 39, 267-281

54. Buss S.R., Herbert A.W., Morgan P., Thorton S.F., Smith J.W.N., 2004, A review
of ammonium attenuation in soil and groundwater, Quaterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 37, 347-359

55. Harrison, J.J., R.J. Turner, L.L.R. Marques and H.Ceri, 2005 Biofilms: A new
understanding. American Scientist pp. 508-515

56. Bragazza L. and Freeman C., 2007, High nitrogen availability reduces
polyphenol content in Sphagnum peat, Science of the Total Environment, 377
(2007) 439–443

57. Wu, J., Gui. S., Stahl, P., and Zhang, R., 1997, Experimental Study on the
Reduction of Soil Hydraulic Conductivity by Enhanced Biomass Growth. Soil
Science, 162 (10), 741-748

58. Mustafa, A., Scholz, M., Harrington, R. and Carroll, P., 2009, Long-term
performance of a representative integrated constructed wetland treating
farmyard runoff, Ecological Engineering, 35 (5), pp 779-790.

59. Scholz M. and Zettel S., 2004, Stormwater Quality Associated with a Full Silt
Trap Discharging into an Urban Watercourse, The Journal of the Chartered
Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 18 (4), 226-229.

60. Becerra Jurado, G., Masterson, M., Harrington, R. & Kelly-Quinn, M. (2007).
Evaluation of sampling methods for macroinvertebrate diversity estimation in
heavily vegetated ponds. Hydrobiologia. In press. Methodology used for
sampling the ponds.

61. Becerra Jurado, G., Johnson, J. & Kelly-Quinn, M. (2007) A new record of 87
Dytiscus circumflexus Fabricius 1801, from Co. Waterford. Irish Biogeographical
Society. In press. A potentially rare water beetle in Ireland.
 62. Becerra Jurado, G., Johnson, J., Feely, H., Harrington, R. & Kelly-Quinn, M.
Biodiversity potential of Integrated Constructed Wetlands for treating farmyard
wastewater. Freshwater Biology. In preparation. Full analysis of biodiversity
potential for ICWs.

63. Ellenberg, H. 1986. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen oekologisches sicgt.
Vierte Aufl., Verlag Eugen Ulmer: 900-915EPA, 2002. Interim report: the
biological survey of river quality 2001. Environmental Protection Agency,
Johnston Castle, Wexford, Ireland.

88
Other References for Further Reading

APHA (American Public Health Association), 1992 & 1996. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 17th & 19th editions, APHA AWWA WEF,
Washington, D.C.

Coulter, B. 2004. Nutrient and trace element advice for grassland, tillage, vegetable
and fruit crops. Teagasc, Johnstown Castle Research Centre, Wexford 95pp.

Feehan, J. and G. O’Donovan. 1996. The Bogs of Ireland: An Introduction to the

Natural, Cultural and Industrial Heritage of Irish Peatlands. University College Dublin,
Dublin 518 pp.

Government Publications Office. 2006. European Community (Good farming practice

for protection of waters) regulation 2006. 49 pp

Harrington, A., 2005. The relationship between plant vigour and ammonium
concentrations in surface waters of constructed wetlands used to treat meat industry
wastewaters in Ireland. In: Nutrient Management in Agricultural Watersheds: A
Wetlands Solution, edited by E. J. Dunne, K.R. Reddy and O.T. Carton. Wageningen
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 219-223.

Keohane, J.P. Carroll, R. Harrington and C. Ryder (2005) Integrated constructed

Wetlands for farmyard dirty water treatment: a site suitability assessment. In: Nutrient
Management in Agricultural Watersheds: A Wetlands Solution, edited by E. J. Dunne,
K.R. Reddy, K.R. Reddy and O.T. Carton. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands. 196-206.

Geonha, K., 2004, Hydraulic Conductivity Change of Bio-Barrier Formed in the

Subsurface by the Adverse Conditions including Freeze-Thaw Cycles. Cold Regions
Science and Technology, 38(2-3) 153-164

Lee B.-H. and Scholz M., 2007, What is the Role of Phragmites australis in 89
Experimental Constructed Wetland Filters Treating Urban Runoff? Ecological
Engineering, 29 (1), 87-95.

Mitsch W.J. and Jørgensen S. E., 2003, Ecological Engineering and Ecosystem
Restoration, Wiley, USA 424 pp.
 Pickett, S.T.A., W.R. Birch, S.E. Dalton, T.W. Foresman, J.M. Grove and R.
Rowantree.1997. A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban
areas. In Urban Ecosystems, Springer Science and Business Media B.V. P. 185-199.

Strack M., Kellner E. and Waddington J.M., 2005, Dynamics of biogenic gas bubbles in
peat and their effects on peatland biogeochemistry, Global Bio-geochemical Cycles
(American Geophysical Union), 19, GB1003

90
APPENDIX A

Groundwater Response Matrix for Integrated

Constructed Wetlands (ICW systems)

An explanation of the role of groundwater protection responses in a groundwater

protection scheme is given in Groundwater Protection Schemes (DoELG/EPA/GSI,
1999).

The role of the groundwater response matrix is to provide an initial evaluation of the
general suitability of a site, in this case for an ICW, from a hydrogeological perspective,
as part of the desk study. It can also be used to indicate the measures that may be
required to meet the required specification.

The geological and hydrogeological data that place a site within a response category is
general to an area, and not specific to a site. It is therefore incumbent on the developer
to demonstrate that the site conditions of a specific site are determined, before a
decision is taken on the suitability or otherwise of a site. Examples of uncertainty on
available data can include depth to rock values (and hence vulnerability ratings) and
the presence of sand/gravel.

A risk assessment approach is taken in the development of this response matrix. The
appropriate response to the risk of groundwater contamination from an ICW in the
different hydrogeological settings in Ireland (see Table 1) is given by the assigned
response category (R) appropriate to each protection zone – see Table 2.

91
 Table 1: Matrix of Groundwater Protection Zones

Vulnerability Source Protection RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA

Rating Area Aquifer Category

Inner Outer Regionally Locally Poor

(SI) (SO) Important Aquifer Important Aquifer Aquifer

Rk* Rf Rg Lg Ll/Lm Pl Pu

Extreme SI/E SO/E Rk/E Rf/E Rg/E Lg/E Ll/E Pl/E Pu/E
High SI/H SO/H Rk/H Rf/H Rg/H Lg/H Ll/H Pl/H Pu/H
Moderate SI/M So/m Rk/M Rf/M Rg/M Lg/M Ll/M Pl/M Pu/M
Low SI/L SO/L Rk/L Rf/L Rg/L Lg/L Ll/L Pl/L Pu/L

directions of decreasing risk to groundwater

Table 2: Response Matrix for ICWs

Vulnerability Source Protection RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA

Rating Area Aquifer Category

Inner Outer Regionally Locally Poor

(SI) (SO) Important Aquifer Important Aquifer Aquifer

Rk* Rf Rg Lg Ll/Lm Pl Pu

Extreme R4 R34 R33 R32 R4 R4 R31 R31 R31

High R24 R23 R22 R21 R21 R21 R1 R1 R1
Moderate R24 R23 R22 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
Low R23 R23 R22 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
92

*A small proportion of the country (~0.6%) is underlain by locally important karstic

aquifers (Lk); in these areas, the groundwater protection responses for the Rk
groundwater protection zone shall apply.
R1 Acceptable, subject to meeting the following requirements:

1. The ICW shall be underlain by at least 1000 mm of cohesive subsoil.

2. An upper portion of the subsoil, which will vary in thickness as set out
below depending on the risk posed by the ICW, shall have a permeability
of less than 1x10-8 m/s. Where this is present in situ, (i.e. the subsoil is
classed as CLAY (using BS5930) or, in certain situations, SILT/CLAY, and
has a clay content of >13% (where the particle size distribution is
adjusted by excluding materials larger than 20 mm), and is free from
preferential flowpaths, the surface of the excavated portion of the pond
will require plastering with remoulded subsoil. Where the subsoil is
considered to have a permeability of greater than 1x10-8 m/s (i.e. is
classed as SILT or, in certain situations, SILT/CLAY, and the clay content is
<13% but >10%,) the subsoil must be enhanced by compaction or
puddling to achieve the required permeability standard. Where the
subsoil is classed as SAND, GRAVEL or SILT (in circumstances where the
clay content is <10%), suitable subsoil or other material must be
provided for the liner.
3. The upper 500 mm shall have a permeability of less than 1 x 10-8 m/s
4. Where the subsoil is sand/gravel, the upper 750 mm of the liner shall be
installed with a permeability of less than 1x10-8 m/s.
5. The ICW shall be at least 60m away from any well or spring used for
potable water.

R21 Acceptable, subject to normal good practice, meeting requirements 1, 2 , 4 and

5 above, but with the following additional requirement
6. The minimum thickness of subsoil with a permeability of less than 1x10-8
m/s shall be 750 mm.

R22 Acceptable, subject to normal good practice, meeting design requirements 1, 2,

4, 5 and 6 above, and the following additional requirements:

7. The ICW shall be at least 15 m away from karst features that indicate
enhanced zones of high bedrock permeability (e.g. swallow holes and
dolines (collapse features)). 93
8. The site assessment shall pay particular attention to the possibility of
instability in these karst areas.

R23 Acceptable, subject to normal good practice, meeting requirements 1, 2, 4, 5,

6, 7 (in karst areas) and 8 (in karst areas).
 R24 Acceptable, subject to normal good practice, meeting requirements 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,
7 (in karst areas) and 8 (in karst areas), and the following additional
requirement:

9. Where microbial pathogens and/or high nitrate concentrations are known

to be present in the water supply source, more detailed site investigation
and/or restrictive design requirements may be necessary.

R31 Not generally acceptable, unless requirements 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 can be met (Note
1).
R32 Not generally acceptable, unless requirements 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 can be met (Note
1).

R33 Not generally acceptable, unless requirements 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 can be met

(Note 1).

R34 Not generally acceptable, unless requirements 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in karst areas), 8

(in karst areas), and 9 can be met (Note 1).

R4 Not acceptable

Note 1: Establishing the required minimum subsoil thickness beneath the ponds will be
difficult to achieve.

94
APPENDIX B

Assessment methodology for ammonium sensitive waters

The main potential pollutant of concern for groundwater is ammonium-N; high

ammonium concentrations are generally found beneath ponds in circumstances where
anaerobic conditions exist – 4 mg/l as N is given in Table 2.7. This is considerable
higher than the surface water Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) for good status
waters of 0.065 mg/l N. This is also the proposed groundwater threshold value (TV).

Careful evaluation and prediction of the likely impact of ammonium-N beneath ICWs
is required as part of the site evaluation. The following factors should be considered:

• Area of ponds; the larger the area, the greater the nitrogen load entering
groundwater.
• Stream flows and surface water ammonium-N concentrations; the dilution
capacity of the stream depends on both factors.
• Status of nearby stream; where the stream is classed as ‘high status’, the surface
water EQS for total ammonium is 0.04 mg/l N (mean); where the stream is ‘good
status’ the surface water EQS is 0.065 mg/l N (mean).
• Permeability of base of ponds; this dictates the nitrogen loading entering
groundwater, assuming that the ammonium concentration in groundwater is 4
mg/l N.
• Presence of a well down-gradient of ponds; the drinking water limit for
ammonium-N is 0.3 mg/l.
• Aerobic/anaerobic conditions in the groundwater beneath the ponds and
between the ponds and down-gradient receptors; where aerobic conditions are
likely to be present, the ammonium will be oxidised and therefore the nitrogen
will pose a significantly reduced risk to receptors. In circumstances where the
ICW ponds are located in low-lying areas close to a stream, anaerobic
conditions will often be present beneath the ponds and between the ponds and
the stream. However, in circumstances where there is an unsaturated zone
beneath the ponds, aerobic conditions are likely to be present. 95

High ammonium-N concentrations will not pose a significant threat to receptors in

most circumstances as properly installed ICWs are likely to have permeabilities less
than 1x10-8 m/s, thus reducing the pollutant loading. In addition, sensitive receptors
may not be present down-gradient of an ICW.
 During the site assessment phase, a quick appraisal of the site conditions, taking
account of the factors mentioned above, can be undertaken.

The following equation can be used to estimate the minimum average stream flow
required to maintain the ammonium concentrations below the EQS for ammonium-N:

Qu/s = ((Qgw/86.4)(Cgw - Cd/s))/(Cd/s - Cu/s) where:

Qu/s = the flow rate in the river upstream of the discharge (l/s)
Cu/s = the concentration of ammonium-N in the river upstream of the discharge
(mg/l)
Qgw = the rate of the groundwater discharge (m3/d)
Cgw = the concentration of ammonium-N in the groundwater discharge (mg/l)
Cd/s = the concentration of ammonium-N in the river downstream of the
discharge (mg/l)
86.4 = conversion factor to l/s.

Worked Example:

− Pond area = 3 ha.

− Permeability of base of ponds = 1x10-8 m/s. Therefore groundwater input from
beneath ponds = 30 m3/d.
− Average ammonium concentration in groundwater = 4 mg/l N.
− Existing average ammonium concentration in stream = 0.03 mg/l N (if no
ammonium data exist or cannot be estimated from nearby streams, assume this
concentration for the purpose of the calculation).
− Assume that good status must be maintained in the stream and so the relevant
EQS is 0.065 mg/l N.

Qu/s = ((Qgw/86.4)(Cgw - Cd/s))/(Cd/s - Cu/s)

Qu/s = ((30/86.4)(4 – 0.065))/(0.065-0.03)
Q u/s= 40 l/s

96
This is a worst-case scenario in that, in many instances, the subsoil permeability will be
less than 1x10-8 m/s. For example, if the permeability is 1x10-9 m/s, the Qu/s would be 4
l/s. This also illustrates that if there is a ‘small’ and/or sensitive stream nearby, a
possible solution is to ensure that the permeability is low.

Where the nearby stream is relatively small and the stream flows are not known, it is
possible to undertake a rapid calculation of the approximate average flow in the
stream, assuming that the stream is not in a catchment underlain by a karstified
limestone aquifer (where bypassing via underground conduits can occur), using the
following equation:

Q l/s = A x R x 0.5 x 0.032 where:

A = catchment area (km2)
R = average annual rainfall (mm)
0.5 = factor converting rainfall to effective rainfall
0.032 = conversion factor to l/s

The use of these equations provides a screening approach to enable an initial

assessment of whether ammonium-N in groundwater beneath the ponds might be an
issue. Rather than considering the resulting answer as pass/fail, it should be used as a
guide as to whether a more detailed assessment is needed.

97
 APPENDIX C

SITE ASSESSMENT FORM

To avoid any accidental damage, a trial hole assessment or percolation test should not
be undertaken in areas, which are at or adjacent to significant sites (e.g. NHAs, SACs,
SPAs, and/or Archaeological etc.), without prior advice from The Department of
Environment, Heritage and Local Government, or the relevant Local Authority.

1.0 GENERAL DETAILS

APPLICANT
NAME:

ADDRESS

SITE LOCATION AND TOWNLAND:

TELEPHONE FAX NO:

FAX NO: E-MAIL:
NO:

Remarks following Preliminary Consultation

98

Estimated Preliminary ICW Area Other Remarks

2.0 DESK STUDY

2.1 TOPOGRAPHICAL DETAILS

GRID
REFERENCE

MAPS
FAX NO:
1:50000 1:10,000 1:2500

Preliminary Assessment of Topography

2.2 CLIMATE

Rainfall mm Evaporation Wind Direction

2.3 SURFACE WATER

Surface Water Features 1 Comment

Name:
Catchment Area (Ha)

Mean Flow Estimate 99

Available Dilution

Water Quality “Q”

Water Quality: Other

 2.4 GROUNDWATER

Source of Water
Mains Private GGroup
(Tick as Appropriate)
Aquifer Category and Description
Is there a Groundwater Protection
Scheme ?)
Vulnerability Class
Extreme High Moderate Low
(Tick as Appropriate)
Topsoil Type
Subsoil Type and Thickness”
Groundwater Response
(Refer to Appendix A)
Incidence of Karst, describe
(Show location on Map)
Public Supply Boreholes
(Show location on Map, and
indicate distance from proposed
ICW Site)
Domestic Boreholes
(Show location on Map, and indi-
cate distance from proposed ICW
Site)

2.5 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

Presence of Significant Sites

(archaeological, natural):

100 2.6 DRAINAGE

Land Drainage
- Maps

- Local Knowledge
(Including Soil Types)
2.7 UTILITIES

Needs Further
UTILITIES Knowledge Safety
investigation
Power Lines
– above ground
– below ground
Gas mains:
Sewerage:
Water Mains:”

2.8 OVERALL DESK STUDY ASSESSMENT

Comments arising from Desk Study Assessment

(Integrate the information above in order to comment on: the potential suitability of
the site, potential targets at risk, and/or any potential site restrictions)

3.0 VISUAL ASSESSMENT

3.1.1 ON-SITE HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Type of water-vectored Ammonium-N

Volume
pollution concentration

3.2 VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF RECEPTORS

101
3.2.1 Topography / Landscape Position

General Comments:
Flat
Ground Slope Steep (>1:5) Shallow (1:5 -1:20)
(<1:20)
Difference in Level between source of influent and
Proposed base of ICW 1st Pond
 3.2.2 Surface Water

General Description of
Proposed Receiving Water

Channel Width

Channel Depth

Water Depth

Evidence of Higher Water Levels

Estimate of Flow

Other Surface Water Features

3.2.3 Groundwater

Give Descriptions of the Following:

Rock Outcrops

Karst Features

Springs

Wells
Subsoil Cuttings/Exposures

3.2.4 Utilities

Description of other utilities not

102 identified in Desk Study

Verification of Desk Study

Findings
3.2.5 Heritage

Description of Flora

Description of Cultural Heritage

3.2.6 Human

Existing Land Use

Distance in m. to Nearest House

(where relevant)

Distance in m. to Nearest School

(where relevant)
Distance in m. to Nearest
Gathering Place (e.g. Church,
Community Centre - where
relevant)
Site Boundaries: (distance in m.
to nearest)

Road: (distance in m.)

Evidence of Prevailing Climatic

Conditions (particularly wind)

3.2.7 Drainage Systems

Drainage Systems:

3.2.8 Interpreting Results of Visual Assessment 103

(Integrate the information above in order to comment on:

• The potential suitability of the site for an ICW,
• Potential targets at risk,
• The location of the proposed ICW system within the site).
 3.3 TRIAL HOLE
The Trial Hole should be excavated to a minimum depth of 2m below the base of the
proposed wetland.
Trial Depth of Date and Date and
Hole Trial Time of Time of
No Hole (m): Excavation: Examination
Depth from Ground Surface to Bedrock
(m) (if present):
Depth from Ground Surface to Water
Table (m) (if present):
Depth and Description of Topsoil

Soil/Subsoil Texture &

Density/
Classification Preferential
Compactness Colour
(Include Plasticity/ Flowpaths
Dilatancy Results)
0.2m
0.4m
0.6m
0.8m
1.0m
1.2m
1.4m
1.6m
1.8m
2.0m
2.2m
2.4m
2.6m
2.8m
3.0m
104 3.2m
3.4m
3.6m
3.8m
4.0m
Depth of Water Ingress: Rock Type (if present):
3.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TESTS (BS 1377)

Trial Hole No. and Depth

PSDT Test Number % Clay Content
of Test Location

1
2
3
4
5

EVALUATION of Trial Hole and PSDT Results:

(Include discussion here of significance of results)

Sketch of site showing

• measurement to Trial Hole and PSDT locations,
• wells and direction of groundwater flow (if known),
• adjacent houses, watercourses, significant sites and other relevant features.
• North point should always be included.

[A copy of the site layout drawing should be used if available]

4.0 CONCLUSION OF SITE CHARACTERISATION

(Integrate the information from the desk study and on-site assessment (i.e. visual as-
sessment, trial hole and percolation tests) above and conclude whether it is feasible
to construct An ICW)

Is a Permeability of 1 x 10-8m/s achievable?

How? What specific works are required?
Is the assimilative capacity available for sur-
face water discharge?
Are there any specific features to avoid? 105
Are there any specific features to include?

How? What specific works are required?

Other:
 5.0 Site Assessor Details

Signed:

Address:

Qualifications/Experience:

Date of Report:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

106
APPENDIX D

SOIL ANALYSIS GUIDE

(After BS 5930)

Particle Sizes as defined in BS5930:1999

Boulder >200 mm Larger than a soccer ball

Smaller than a soccer

Cobble 60-200 mm ball, but larger than a
tennis ball
Smaller than a tennis
Gravel 2-60 mm ball, but larger than
match heads
Smaller than a match
Sand 0.06-2 mm head, but larger than
flour
Smaller than flour (not
Silt 0.002-0.06 mm
visible to the naked eye)
Not visible to the naked
Clay <0.002 mm
eye.

A: Examine Boulders & Cobbles

Test adapted from the British Standards Institution BS 5930:1999 Code of Practice for
Site Investigations (1999).

• Using a hammer, trowel, or pick, clean off a portion of the trial pit wall.
• Examine whether the quantity of boulders/cobbles is dominant over finer
material. This will usually be easily done by eye. If unsure, separate
boulders/cobbles from finer material in two sample bags and compare weights 107
by hand.

B & C: Preparation of Sample and Apparent Cohesion Test

Test taken from the British Standards Institution BS 5930:1999 Code of Practice for Site
Investigations (1999).
 − Collect a hand-sized representative sample from the cleaned-off portion of the
trial pit wall.
− Remove particles larger than 2 mm, as far as possible.
− Crush clumps of subsoil and break down the structure of the sample.
− Slowly add water (preferably as a fine spray), mixing and moulding the sample
until it is the consistency of putty; it should be pliable but not sticky and
shouldn’t leave a film of material on your hands. Can the sample be made
pliable at the appropriate moisture content?
− If it can, squeeze the sample in your fist - does it stick together?

D: Thread Test
Test adapted from a combination of the American Society of Testing and Materials
Designation Standard practice for description and identification of soils (visual-manual
procedure) (1984), and the British Standards Institution BS 5930:1999 Code of Practice
for Site Investigations (1999).

• Ensure the sample is of the consistency of putty. This is very important! Add extra
water or sample to moisten or dry the sample.
• Check that no particles greater than 1 or 2 mm occur in the prepared sample.
• Gently roll a thread 3mm in diameter across the width of the palm of your hand.
Remove excess material.
• If a thread can be rolled, break it and try to re-roll without adding additional
water.
• Repeat until the thread can no longer be rolled without breaking.
• Record the total number of threads that were rolled and re-rolled.
• Repeat the test at least twice per sample. Water can be added between each test
repetition, to return the sample to the consistency of putty.

E: Ribbon Test
Test adapted from the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service Soil Survey Agricultural Handbook 18. (1993).

• Ensure the sample is of the consistency of putty. This is very important! Add extra
water or sample to moisten or dry the sample.
108
• Check that no particles greater than 1 or 2 mm occur.
• Form your moist sample into a large roll in your hand, approximately the width
of your thumb.
• Hold your hand and arm parallel with the ground. Using your thumb, press the
sample over your index finger to form a uniform ribbon about thumb-width and
0.5cm thick. Let this ribbon hang over your index finger and continue to extrude
 the ribbon between thumb and index finger until it breaks. Be careful not to
press your thumb through the ribbon.
• Measure the total length of the formed ribbon when it breaks (i.e. from tip of
thumb to end of ribbon).
• Repeat this test at least 3 times per sample to obtain an average ribbon value.
Water can be added between each repetition, to return the sample to the
consistency of putty.

F: Dilatancy Test
Test taken from British Standards Institution BS 5930:1999 Code of Practice for Site
Investigations (1999).

• Wet the sample such that it is slightly more wet (and softer) than for a thread
test, but not so wet that free water is visible at the surface.
• Spread the sample in the palm of one hand, such that no free water is visible at
the surface.
• Using the other hand, jar the sample 5 times by slapping the heel of your hand
or the ball of your thumb. Take note of whether water rises to the surface or not,
and how quickly it does so.
• Squeeze the sample, again noting if the water disappears or not, and how
quickly.
• Dilatant samples will show clear and rapid emergence of a sheen of water at the
surface during shaking, and clear and rapid disappearance from the surface
during squeezing. Non dilatant samples will show no discernible sheen.
• Decide whether your sample has dilatancy. Beginners often find it quite difficult
to determine the presence of a sheen, unless it is very obvious. It will become
easier once samples with clear dilatancy are observed.

BS5930:1999 Criteria for describing density/compactness (fine subsoils)

Term Field Test
Uncompact Easily moulded or crushed in fingers
2-60 mmCan be moulded or crushed by strong finger
Compact
pressure
Very soft Finger easily pushed up to 25mm 109
Soft Finger pushed up to 10mm
Firm Thumb makes impression easily
Stiff Can be indented slightly by thumb
Very stiff Can be indented by thumb nail
Hard Can be scratched by thumb nail
 BS5930:1999 Criteria for describing discontinuities
Term Mean spacing (mm)
Very widely >2000

Widely 2000-600

Medium 600-200
Closely 200-60
Very closely 60-20
Extremely closely <20
Fissured Breaks into blocks along unpolished discontinuities
Sheared Breaks into blocks along polished discontinuities

110
Appendix E

Minimum Licence Controls for ICW Systems

• The quantity and quality of waste water entering the ICW system. The licence
should specify the maximum load input to the ICW, e.g. population equivalent
for municipal waste water ICWs, sources of soiled water for farmyard ICWs, etc.

• The nature, composition, rate, volume and period during which a discharge may
or may not be made should be specified based on the effect of the discharge on
the receiving water and the design, construction and location of the discharge
outlet.

• Emission Limit Values

Emission limit values on the final effluent discharge to surface water from the
ICW shall be determined on a case-by-case basis and shall be subject to the
assimilative capacity of the receiving waters. The European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 272 of
2009, have established stricter ambient standards that those which previously
applied. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently preparing guidance
on assimilative capacity for receiving waters, based on achieving compliance
with these regulations. This guidance will be made available to the public.

• Monitoring Requirements
Typical parameters to be monitored in the waste water entering the ICW and in
the discharge from the final pond of ICW (amendments may be justified
depending on the quantity and quality of waste water entering the ICW system):

Parameter
Flow
pH
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand 111

Suspended Solids
Nitrates (as N)
Ammonium (as N)
Total Phosphorus
Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus
 APPENDIX F

PRELIMINARY HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR

INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

This Preliminary Health and Safety Plan has been prepared in accordance with current
H&S Regulations

1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.

1.1 Client
Insert farmer/client name here

1.2 Project Supervisor (Design Stage)

This must be a recognised appropriately qualified person

1.3 Project Description

The works consist of the following elements:

Complete as appropriate

as detailed on the Contract Drawings and/or as described in the

Specification and/or the Bill of Quantities.

1.4 Timescale for Completion of Construction.

The timescale for construction is -- weeks.

Intended Contract
Commencement Date *

Intended Contract
112 Completion Date *

*Note: The intended commencement and completion dates advised

above are provisional, pending confirmation by the Project Supervisor
(Construction Stage) that they are practicable.
 1.5 Site Location

The primary site is located at …………………. as outlined on the site

location map.

1.6 Drawings/Specifications
The following drawings accompany this preliminary Health and Safety
plan. These should be read in conjunction with this plan.

Insert drawing numbers here

The following specifications accompany this Health and Safety plan.

Insert title of any specification e.g. Guidance Document for Design and
Construction of ICW systems

2. PARTICULAR RISKS.
The following is the non-exhaustive list of particular risks to the health and
safety of persons as set out in Schedule 2 of SI 138 of 1995, together with the
opinion of the Project Supervisor for Design Stage on what elements of the
works may fall within each risk category. It should be noted that many of the
risks on the project may arise out of working methods which are at the
discretion of the Contractor and as such cannot be determined by the Project
Supervisor for Design Stage.

2.1 Works which puts persons at work at risk of burial under earthfalls,
engulfment in swampland or falling from a height, where the risk is
particularly aggravated by the nature of the work or processes used or
by the environment at the place of work or site.

2.1.1 Burial Under Earthfalls,

It is unlikely that deep excavations will be required for ICW systems, but 113
include if envisaged

2.1.2 Engulfment in Swampland,

It is envisaged that this would be unlikely, but include if envisaged as a
possible hazard
 2.1.3 Falling from a Height,
It is envisaged that this would be unlikely, but include if envisaged as a
possible hazard

2.2 Work which puts persons at risk from chemical or biological substances
constituting a particular danger to the safety and health of such persons
or involving a legal requirements for health monitoring.

2.2.1 Materials to be used in works e.g.: asbestos, toxic paints, solvents,

adhesives, mould oil, sealants, insulation materials, toxic dust, etc.

Very unlikely – Insert NO

2.3 Work with ionising radiation requiring the designation of controlled or

supervised areas as defined in Article 20 of Directive 80/36/Euratom
such as: radioactive lightning conductors, radioactive smoke detectors,
other disused radioactive materials or plant, radioactive installations.

None Envisaged.

2.4 Work near high voltage power lines.

2.4.1 Overhead electric wires.

Describe any wires identified in site assessment

2.4.2 External / Underground electric wires.

Describe any wires identified in site assessment

2.5 Work exposing persons at work to the risk of drowning

It is highly likely that there may be work close to a watercourse. If so this
must be identified

2.6 Work on wells, underground earth work and tunnels

It is envisaged that this would be unlikely, but include if envisaged as a
114
possible hazard

2.7 Work carried out by divers at work having a system of air supply.
None Envisaged
 2.8 Work carried out in a caisson with a compressed air atmosphere.
None Envisaged

2.9 Work involving the use of explosives

It is envisaged that this would be unlikely, but include if envisaged as a
possible hazard

2.10 Work involving the assembly or dismantling of heavy prefabricated

components for example: heavy steel structural frame elements, heavy
precast concrete frame elements or heavy prefabricated plant items.

None Envisaged

3. OTHER WORK ACTIVITIES.

Include anything here not dealt with by above questions.

4. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESTRICTIONS

4.1 Site Possession

All working hours are to be agreed in consultation with the Works
Supervisor.

4.2 Restrictions on Access

Particular care is required to protect members of the public and motorists
during work operations. Warning signs and/or Protective barriers and
cones lights etc, must be provided to secure excavations etc. The
Contractor shall order, arrange, and carry out his works in accordance
with this restriction. This limitation shall be reflected in the Contractor’s
tender programme and in any later works programmes submitted in
accordance with the Contract. The Contractor shall fully provide in his
tender for any costs which may arise as a result of this restriction.

4.3 Restrictions on Working Hours

Include as desired, or as deemed by planning permission.
115
4.4 Surrounding Land Use
In general this will be Agricultural
 4.5 Continuing Liaison
In the event of unforeseen eventualities arising during the project
affecting the contract period or other resources not addressed in this
plan the following procedure shall be utilised:- It shall be the
responsibility of the contractor to notify the Project Supervisors for the
design and construction stages (who may be one and the same person) of
the changes.

The information contained in this preliminary Health and Safety Plan has
been prepared prior to the commencement of the work on site. It does
not take account of any matters or information which may come to light
after that time.

Signed: .......................................................................................................
for and on behalf of the Project Supervisor (Design Stage)

Date: .......................................................................................................

116
APPENDIX G

Is there sufficient area available?

YES NO

Is the site located downhill from the farmyard? Consider locating ICW to an alternative site

NO YES

Assess possibility of using Is there sufficient depth of suitable soils on site to provide
pumps or alternative site a soil liner of 1m with permeability of 1x10-8m/s?

YES NO

Will the high water table be at a

Locate alternative site or assess the use of a liner
sufficient depth from the base of the
or the possibility of importing suitable soils
ICW?

NO YES

Locate ICW to an alternative site or at Is there a suitable surface water body to

appropriate level above water table receive the final discharge?

YES NO

Are there any field drains or springs on Check availability of sufficient land for
the site? diffuse discharge through a woodland?

YES NO

Can they be diverted? If no, locate Is there sufficient distance between ICW
alternative site and any nearby wells and dwellings?

YES NO

Will there be any negative impaction on the local

Relocate ICW
ecology, architecture or archaeological features? 117

YES NO

Proceed with
Relocate ICW
ICW design
 Glossary

Adsorption: the binding of molecules or particles to a surface

Adaptive Management: A systematic process for continually improving management

policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of previously employed policies
and practices.

Anaerobic: occurring in the absence of molecular oxygen, for example, anaerobic

respiration.

Anoxic: without molecular oxygen

Attenuation: the control of the flow of water to a water course or drainage system

Biodiversity: a term used to describe all of nature's variety

Biofilm: an aggregate of microorganisms in which cells adhere to each other and/or to

a surface

Bio-geochemical: term used to describe the the cycle whereby molecules move
through water, land and air.

Biomass: the mass of living microbes, plants, or animals present per unit area at any
given time.

Decomposition: the breakdown of litter or of dead plant or animal material into

smaller molecules or particles.

Denitrification: conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas.

Detritus: partly decomposed plant or animal litter with its associated microorganisms.
118
Discharge: the volume of water flow per unit time; can refer water leaving a wetland
including that to surface or ground.

Ecosystem: An ecological community together with its environment functioning as a

unit
Emergent plant: a plant which grows in water but which pierces the surface so that it is
partially in air

Eutrophic: nutrient rich.

Evapotranspiration: the combination of evaporation from water surfaces and

transpiration from vegetation.

Exogenous: an action or object coming from the outside of a system

Flux: the flow or movement of material from one compartment to another in an

ecosystem.

Groundwater: means all water which is below the surface of the ground in the
saturation zone and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.

Habitat: an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by any particular species

of animal, plant or other type of organism

Heterotroph: an organism that uses organic carbon for growth by consuming other
organisms

Humic substances: the end product of decayed matter usually containing quantities of
trace minerals.

Hydric soil: soil that is saturated or flooded long enough during the growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.

Hydrology: Study of the distribution and movement of water.

Hydrophyte: a plant growing in soils that are saturated or flooded long enough during
the growing season that the soils become anoxic.

Landfill leachate: liquid that drains from a solid waste landfill

119
Landscape: gross features of the land surface, including slope, aspect, topography, land
use, etc.

Litter: dead plant or animal material.

 Macrophytes: aquatic plants or hydrophytes large enough to see without a
microscope, includes some algae, mosses, liverworts, ferns and angiosperms.

Micro-organism: A microorganism or microbe is an organism that is so small that it is

invisible to the naked eye.

Mitigation: avoiding, minimizing, rectifying or compensating for wetland losses.

Necromass: the mass of litter or dead plant and animal material per unit area at a given
time.

Nitrification: conversion of organic nitrogen and ammonium to nitrate.

Nitrogen fixation: conversion of nitrogen gas to ammonium.

Nutrient cycling: the movement of nutrients among various components of an

ecosystem.

Organic soils: soils composed predominantly of decomposing plant litter.

Oxidation: a chemical reaction in which the oxidation state of a chemical is increased

because of the loss of electrons.

Pathway: conduits and interconnected interstitial (pore) soil spaces along which water
moves.

Phosphorus capture: the extraction of phosphorus from influent water for use in growth
of vegetation

Photosynthesis: conversion of carbon dioxide and water into sugars and oxygen by
plants using energy form the sun.

Redox: the potential difference, usually expressed in milli-volts, between a platinum

electrode and a reference electrode in a solution. It is a measurement of reducing
120
conditions or electron pressure (availability) in a solution.

Reduction: a chemical reaction in which the oxidation state of a chemical is lowered

by the addition of electrons.

Restoration ecology: any activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an

ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability
Saturated soils: soils in which all pore spaces are full of water and are thus anaerobic,
but which may or not have standing water on the surface.

Subsoil: the term used to describe soils underlying the topsoil layer

Substrate: the surface or medium on which an organism grows or is attached

Terrestrial: land based

Transitional: the zone marking the interface between land and water

Treatment wetlands: wetlands constructed to remove nutrients from the effluent of

wastewater plants or from polluted agricultural or urban run-off.

Vector: agent of transport, water transported chemicals, microorganisms, suspended

solids; requires a pathway.

Water quality: the physical, chemical and biological properties of water. Water quality
is usually judged from a human-use perspective and given regulatory status.

Water table: the upper surface of a zone of saturation.

Wetland: an ecosystem that is constantly or recurrently shallowly flooded or whose soil

is constantly or recurrently saturated at or near the surface. Common diagnostic
features of wetlands are hydric soils hydrophytic vegetation.

121
122