WETLANDS, Vol. 21, No. 2, June 2001, pp.

167–178
䉷 2001, The Society of Wetland Scientists

HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

Jeffrey G. Arnold1, Peter M. Allen2, and David S. Morgan3

1
USDA-ARS
808 East Blackland Road
Temple, Texas, USA 76502

2
Geology Department
Baylor University
Waco, Texas, USA 76798

Halff Associates
3

8616 NW Plaza Drive

Dallas, Texas, USA 75225

Abstract: The Trinity River Mitigation Bank was proposed to develop and use a mature, contiguous, diverse
riparian corridor along the West Fork of the Trinity River near Dallas, Texas, USA. In the proposed wetland
design, water would be diverted from Walker Creek as necessary to maintain wetland function. Therefore,
assessment of the magnitude and continuity of the flow from Walker Creek was paramount to successful
wetland operation. The Soil and Water Assessment (SWAT) model was used to assess whether the sustained
flow (storm flow and base flow) from the Walker Creek Basin could maintain the proposed bottomland
wetland ecosystem. For this study, SWAT was modified to allow ponded water within the prescribed wetland
to interact with the soil profile and the shallow aquifer. The water budget was prepared for the wetland
based on a three-step process. First, data required to run the model on Walker Creek, including soils,
topographic, land-use, and daily weather data were assembled. Next, data required to validate the model
were obtained. Since stream flow was not available at the proposed site, flow from a nearby watershed with
similar soils, land use and topography were used. In the final step, the model was run for 14 years and
compared to the measured water balance at the nearby watershed. The model results indicate that the wetland
should be at or above 85 percent capacity over 60 percent of the time. The wetland did not dry up during
the entire simulated time period (14 years) and reached 40 percent capacity less than one percent of the time
during the simulation period. The advantages of the continuous simulation approach used in this study include
(1) validation of wetland function (hydroperiod, soil water storage, plant water uptake) over a range of
climatic conditions and (2) the ability to assess the long-term impact of land-use and management changes.

Key Words: watershed model, base flow filter, water balance, hydroperiod

INTRODUCTION acteristics of wetlands are usually described through

Construction of wetlands has only recently been rec-
ognized as a viable method of ecological restoration
in treating wastewater, storm water, acid mine drain-
age, or agricultural runoff (Hammer 1989, Kadlec and
Knight 1996). There are a growing number of docu-
ments, books, and articles describing conditions nec-
essary for successful construction of wetlands. Ele-
ments common to such a design are site selection cri-
teria, hydrologic analysis, water source and quality,
plant material selection, soil and geologic conditions,
buffer zone placement, and maintenance procedures
(Kusler and Kentula 1996). Of these elements, hy-
drology is one of the primary factors in controlling
wetland functions (Hammer 1989, Owen 1995, U.S.
Army Corps Engineers 1997). The hydrologic char-
preparation and analysis of a water budget. Water bud-
gets provide the framework from which to investigate
the linkages and fluxes of all types of materials be-
tween the hydrologic, biochemical, and ecological sys-
tems of the wetland and its relationship to the sur-
rounding terrain (Dexler et al. 1999). Unfortunately,
there are few water budgets that have been completed
specifically for wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
This is attributed to the need for long-term monitoring,
difficulty in estimating certain hydrologic components,
and the laborious nature of data collection (Dexler et
al. 1999). In addition, because of the complex nature
of the wetland/watershed relationship, there is still a
great deal of uncertainty over the hydrologic budgets
and the hydrologic functions of different types of wet-

167
168
lands (Carter 1986, Owen 1995). Koob et al. (1999)
cites several problems with current methodologies,
which include oversimplification and extrapolation of
limited amounts of data to predict design flows into
wetlands. Dexler et al. (1999), in a detailed study of
a small peatland, concluded that there was a wide mar-
gin of error in all components of the water budget,
with the exception of precipitation. In the same study,
error in other similar water budgets of lakes and wet-
lands were compared, and estimates ranged from 5 to
10% for precipitation, 20 to 40% for evapotranspira-
tion, from 5 to 60% for surface runoff, and from 25
to 100% for ground-water flow. In addition to these
problems, very few of the water budgets have been
done for extended periods of time (through several
wet/dry cycles and perhaps through drought periods).
Skaggs et al. (1991) illustrates problems with moni-
toring even for periods of up to 3–5 years. He states
that in Wilmington, North Carolina, there are instances
in the 40 years of record that the water table may not
meet the criteria for 3–4 years. If the monitoring was
initiated during such a period, wetland function would
not have been properly assessed.
Due to the problems associated with monitoring and
the continued need for such budgets in predicting the
viability of a constructed wetland, other methods have
been proposed to predict components of the budget for
constructed wetland design. There seem to be three
general approaches used (Koob et al. 1999): (1) single
event models, (2) stochastic models involving one pa-
rameter, and (3) complete water-budget models. Single
event models use rainfall of a given duration, frequen-
cy, and amount, coupled with site soils and land-use
conditions to predict runoff. Such estimates of runoff
are then used with general design criteria to construct
the wetlands. For example, Schueler (1992) advocate
that wetland volume should be based on hydraulic re-
tention time and the runoff volume from the 90%
storm. Pierce (1992) detailed use of standard meth-
odologies for assessing such event-based predictions
as well as averages of different components of the wa-
ter budget.
The second approach is forwarded by Koob et al.
(1999) in which they propose a stochastic framework
to examine the probability of extended dry periods and
daily seepage and evapotranspiration losses in order to
give some level of assurance to maintaining a specified
wetland water volume. This method strives to provide
the planner with some level of acceptable risk to as-
sociate with design.
The final method involves use of models that at-
tempt to simulate all or the majority of the components
of the water budget. These models have been growing
rapidly based on the decreasing costs of computer
memory, increased computational speed, as well as the
WETLANDS, Volume 21, No. 2, 2001
compilation and availability of regional data bases
from which to run and calibrate the models. Water-
budget models often used in evaluating wetlands in-
clude DRAINMOD (Skaggs 1984), FLATWOODS
(Sun et al. 1998), a Wetlands Dynamic Water Budget
Model (Walton et al. 1996), and a Soil Water Balance
Model (Bidlake and Boetcher 1996). This paper de-
scribes the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool)
model (Arnold et al. 1998) for use in preliminary de-
sign of constructed wetlands. The structure and testing
of the model is illustrated, and a case study of using
the model for a proposed constructed wetland is pre-
sented.
PROJECT: CASE STUDY
The Trinity River Mitigation Bank was proposed to
develop and use a mature, contiguous, diverse riparian
corridor along the West Fork of the Trinity River as a
Mitigation Bank for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
authorized wetland impacts (Federal Register 1995).
Wetland banking allows developers to purchase credits
at large regional wetland ‘‘banks’’ rather than creating
smaller less efficient ‘‘pocket’’ wetlands. This pro-
posed project encompasses four tracts totaling approx-
imately 560 ha in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas,
USA (Figure 1). The site consists of a unique array of
riparian habitats, sloughs, deep-water ponds, bottom-
land forests, and upland forests and grasslands. The
site is located on the edge of the Cross Timbers/Black-
land Prairies vegetation zones of Texas. Precipitation
averages 865 mm per year. The proposed 560 ha bank
is composed of approximately 30 ha of jurisdictional
Wetlands/Waters of the United States and 102 ha of
active gravel mining pits and depressions.
A water-budget model was prepared for the pro-
posed wetland site. In the proposed wetland design,
water would be diverted from Walker Creek as nec-
essary to maintain wetland function. Therefore, as-
sessment of the magnitude and continuity of the flow
from Walker Creek was paramount to successful wet-
land operation. The SWAT model was used to assess
whether the sustained flow (storm flow and base flow)
from the Walker Creek Basin could maintain the pro-
posed bottomland wetland ecosystem. The proposed
wetlands were to have a combined surface area of
15.4 ha. The average depth of the wetlands was 0.46
m, as calculated from topographic maps. The site lies
within the computed 100-year floodplain of the Trin-
ity River.
Walker Creek, which flows along the east side of
the proposed wetlands, drains 51.8 km2 of urbanized
uplands. The basin is not monitored by a U.S. Geo-
logical Survey gaging station. The basin lies almost
totally within the outcropping area of Cretaceous
Arnold et al., HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Figure 1. Location of Walker Creek watershed and the proposed wetlands. Dark shaded areas are deep wetlands (⬎0.5m)
and light shaded areas are shallow wetlands (⬍0.5m).
Woodbine Sand, a minor aquifer consisting of inter-
bedded sands and shale. The main channel length of
the basin is 16.1 km, and the channel slope is about
0.0039 m/m. The soils consist of 14% B Hydrologic
Group Bastil Series and about 86% D Hydrologic
Group Navo, Crosstel, and Radar Series soils (USDA
1977). The dominant land use in the basin is residen-
tial. Since measured flow is not available on Walker
Creek, Big Bear Creek basin, directly adjacent to the
169
north of Walker Creek basin, was chosen as a com-
parison basin. Big Bear Creek (U.S. Geological Survey
Stream Gage Station Number 08049550) has been
monitored from 1966 to 1979. This basin lies within
the same geological formation and contains the same
soils, land use, topography, and climate as Walker
Creek basin. Big Bear Creek basin has a slightly larger
drainage area of 76.7 km2, a similar slope of 0.0032
m/m, and a main channel length of 23.8 km.
170
MODELING TECHNIQUES
The SWAT model was used in this study to simulate
stream flow from Walker Creek. Water is diverted
from this watershed in an attempt to generate a fluc-
tuating hydroperiod that is consistent with bottomland
sites. The SWAT model was calibrated using a base
flow filter described below. The base flow filter was
used to assess the timing and magnitude of base flow
from the daily stream flow records at Big Bear Creek.
This is important to more adequately model low flow
periods, which are dominated by base flow. A wetland
sub-model was developed to allow interaction between
the soil and shallow aquifer under the wetland.
Base Flow Filter
Model calibration relies on analysis of gauged wa-
tershed data. While many models simply calibrate to
total daily stream flow, the SWAT model can be cal-
ibrated to both surface runoff and ground-water (base)
flow. This is important to adequately assess the im-
pacts of the hydrologic system due to land-use changes
and Best Management Practices (BMPs) scenarios.
Numerous analytical techniques have been developed
to separate base flow from total stream flow (McCuen
1989). Surface flow is that portion of the flow derived
from overland storm flow. Base flow is that portion of
the flow derived from ground-water flow or flow out
of the soils and rocks of the area. Comparison of the
filter derived ground-water volume with rainfall allows
estimates of the recharge to the ground-water system
as well as ratios of storm flow to ground-water or base
flow. The digital filter technique (Nathan and Mc-
Mahan 1990) was used to determine base flow in this
study was originally used in signal analysis and pro-
cessing. Although the digital filter technique has no
true physical basis, it is objective and reproducible.
The method has been compared to manual separation
techniques by numerous investigators (Rutledge and
Daniel 1994, Arnold et al. 1995, Mau and Winter
1997). Arnold et al. (1999) compared the technique to
measured field estimates of base flow in the midwest
and eastern U.S. and found excellent agreement.
Hydrologic Model
SWAT is a complex, conceptual model with spa-
tially explicit parameterization (Figure 2). It is a con-
tinuous time model that operates on a daily time step.
The objective in model development was to predict the
impact of management on water, sediment, and agri-
cultural chemical yields in ungauged basins. To satisfy
this objective, the model is (1) physically based (as
calibration is not possible on ungauged basins), (2)
WETLANDS, Volume 21, No. 2, 2001
based on readily available inputs, (3) computationally
efficient to operate on large watersheds, in a reason-
able time, and (4) capable of continuous simulation
over long time periods necessary for computing the
effects of management changes. Major model com-
ponents include weather, hydrology, soil temperature,
plant growth, nutrients, pesticides, and land manage-
ment. A complete description of the model compo-
nents is found in Arnold et al. (1998), and a depiction
of the hydrology/water balance is given in Figure 2.
The watershed is divided into subwatersheds with
unique soil/land-use characteristics or hydrologic re-
sponse units (HRU). The water balance of each hy-
drologic response unit (HRU) in the watershed is rep-
resented by four storage volumes: snow, soil profile
(0–2m), shallow aquifer (typically 2–20m) and deep
aquifer (⬎20m). The soil profile can be subdivided
into multiple layers. Soil water processes include in-
filtration, evaporation, plant uptake, lateral flow, and
percolation to lower layers. Percolation from the bot-
tom of the soil profile recharges the shallow aquifer.
A recession constant (Arnold and Allen 1995) derived
from daily stream flow records is used to lag flow from
the aquifer to the stream. Other shallow aquifer com-
ponents include evaporation, pumping withdrawals,
and seepage to the deep aquifer. Irrigation of lawns is
simulated in urban areas using an automated irrigation
algorithm. When soil water reached a user-specified
(in this study 50 mm) deficit below field capacity, soil
water is restored to field capacity. Direct runoff from
the irrigation is not simulated (runoff is precipitation
driven); however, runoff will increase during rainfall
events following irrigation due to higher soil water
content (Arnold et al. 1998).
Flow, sediment, and non-point-source loadings from
each HRU in a subwatershed are summed, and the
resulting loads are routed through channels, ponds, and
reservoirs to the watershed outlet. The hydrologic
components of the model have been validated for nu-
merous watersheds (Table 1), and a comprehensive
validation of stream flow was performed for the entire
conterminous United States (Arnold et al. 1999).
To realistically simulate wetlands, SWAT was mod-
ified to allow ponded water within the prescribed wet-
land to interact with the soil profile and the shallow
aquifer. The wetland is described with the same inputs
as other HRU—weather, topography, soils, shallow
aquifer, and land management. For wetlands, land-
management inputs consist of stipulating a growing
season and type of vegetation. These parameters, in
turn, control the amount of water uptake from the soil
under the wetland. Additional inputs include maxi-
mum and initial water storage, maximum surface area,
and drain flow rate (to simulate an overflow drain or
tile outlet in agricultural fields).
Arnold et al., HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Figure 2. SWAT Hydrology Model Flowchart for the Walker Creek and the proposed wetlands.
There are two possible cases that can occur when
simulating a wetland: ponded water and no ponded
water. If the wetland is dry (no ponded water), soil
water processes and plant growth are simulated as de-
scribed in Arnold et al. (1998). Water movement for
the ‘‘no ponded water’’ case can be tracked in Figure
1 starting with precipitation on the watershed. In this
case, surface runoff is zero. When water is ponded on
171
the surface of the wetland, a daily water balance is
maintained with the equation:
䉭Vw ⫽ I⫺et⫺sp⫺rf (1)
where 䉭Vw is the change in wetland water volume, I
is inflow, et is evapotranspiration, sp is seepage into
the soil, and rf is rainfall on the wetland, with all units
in cubic meters. Inflow is diverted from Walker Creek
172 WETLANDS, Volume 21, No. 2, 2001

Table 1. Selected SWAT validation sites and components validated.

Water
Drainage Yield/ Sur- GW Plant
Area Stream- Soil face Base Soil GW Re- Bio-
Location Reference (km2) flow Water Runoff Flow ET ET charge mass
1. Middle Bosque River,
Texas Arnold et al. (1993) 471 X X X X
2. Coshocton, OH Arnold and Williams (1985) lysimeter X
3. Bushland, TX Arnold and Williams (1985) field plot X X
4. Riesel, TX Savabi et al. (1989) 1.3 X X X
Sonora, TX Savabi et al. (1989) 4.1 X X
5. Seco Creek, TX Srinivasan and Arnold (1994) 114 X
6. Neches River Basin, TX King et al. (1999) 25,032 X
7. Colorado River Basin, TX King et al. (1999) 40,407 X
8. Lower Colorado, TX Rosenthal et al. (1995) 8,927 X
9. White Rock Lake, TX Arnold and Williams (1987) 257 X
10. North Carolina Jacobsen et al. (1995) 4.6 X X
11. Goose Creek, IL Arnold and Allen (1996) 246 X X X X X X X
12. Hadley Creek, IL Arnold and Allen (1996) 122 X X X X X X X
13. Panther Creek, IL Arnold and Allen (1996) 188 X X X X X X X
14. Goodwin Creek
Watershed, MS Bingner et al. (1996) 21.3 X
15. Watersheds in:
OK, OH, GA, ID, MS, VT,
AZ Arnold and Williams (1987) 9.0–538 X
16. Bushland, TX; Logan, UT;
Temple, TX Arnold and Stockle (1990) field plot X

on days when Vw drops below the maximum value.
Evapotranspiration is calculated with the equation:
et ⫽ 10. * etco * sa * eo
where etco is an evapotranspiration coefficient (0.6),
sa is surface area in ha, and eo is potential evapotrans-
piration in mm. The 10 multiplier in Equation 2 con-
verts units from ha-mm to m3. Potential evapotrans-
piration is computed using the Penman-Monteith equa-
tion (Monteith 1965), and the value of etco (0.6) was
taken from the Handbook of Hydrology (Shuttleworth
1992). When the water table rises into the soil profile
(saturated conditions), seepage from the wetland into
the soil is set to zero. When the water table falls below
the soil profile, unsaturated flow through the soil layers
occurs according the soil water routing method de-
scribed in Arnold et al. (1998). Surface area of the
wetland below capacity is estimated as a non-linear
function of storage.
The version of SWAT used in this study does not
simulate interactions between rivers and regional water
tables beneath the proposed wetland. In this case
study, the assumption of no ground-water inflow to the
wetland was justified due to the extremely low per-
meability of the clayey flood-plain materials (USDA
1977). Although the standard version of SWAT (Ar-
nold et al. 1998) has limited ground-water-interaction
capabilities, SWAT has been linked to MODFLOW
(Perkins and Sophocleus 1999) and, with additional
inputs, is capable of simulating wetland and ground-
(2)
water interactions. The proposed wetland bank lies
within the 100-year flood plain of the West Fork of
the Trinity River and, while not simulated in this
study, water derived from periodic flooding of the
Trinity River can be input to the system.
METHODOLOGY
The water budget was prepared for the wetland us-
ing the three main steps described below. A detailed
chart of all processes used in preparing the water bud-
get is shown in Figure 3.
Assemble Data Required to Run Model
Drainage area, channel slopes, and channel lengths
were derived from the USGS 7.5 Minute Hurst Quad-
rangle. Soils and land use were delineated for the basin
using the Tarrant County Soil Survey and air photo-
graphs of the watershed. The watershed was subdivid-
ed to account for differences in soils and land use.
Daily rainfall from the Arlington rain gauge (National
Weather Service—10 km southeast of the proposed
wetland) for the period of 1966 to 1979 was used to
Arnold et al., HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS 173

Figure 3. Flowchart of Wetland Assessment Method.

run the model. While the model is capable of gener- balance of the watershed (Table 2). Surface runoff was
ating local rainfall, the model runs used actual rainfall separated from base flow using the previously de-
to more accurately verify the results of the model out- scribed digital filter technique on daily stream flow.
put against the water budget derived from the gauged Realistic simulation of base flow is critical for hydro-
data at Big Bear Creek. Daily temperature, radiation, logic design of wetlands during droughts. Total evapo-
wind speed, and humidity were generated from month- transpiration (ET) was determined as the difference be-
ly statistics that are readily available. tween precipitation and stream flow (neglecting deep
aquifer recharge).
Assemble Data Required to Validate Model
As is common in practice, measured stream-flow Run and Validate Model
data were not available at the proposed wetland site.
After the soil, land-use, and watershed characteris-
Big Bear Creek, as noted, has been monitored from
tics of Walker Creek were put into the model, it was
1966 to 1979. This site is comparable in drainage area,
run for the period of record (1966–1979) to assess the
soils, and geology to the Walker Creek site. Daily
impact of climatic variability on wetland hydrology at
stream flow records from USGS gauge 08049550 on
the project site. A decade or more is usually advocated
Big Bear Creek were obtained to estimate the water
in such model runs so that both the wet and dry pe-
riods can be adequately assessed. Without measured
Table 2. Water budget for Big Bear Creek from U.S.G.S. Gage data on Walker Creek, we assumed that the water bal-
Records. Water balance—average annual (1966–1979). ance and stream flow were similar to that derived from
the Big Bear Creek gauge analysis (Table 2). While
Component Amount Source all input parameters are physically based and the mod-
Precipitation 869 mm National Weather Service (Daily) el does not require calibration, there is always some
Stream Flow 78 mm USGS Gage 08049550 (Daily) uncertainty in model inputs, and measurement errors
Surface Runoff 69 mm Base Flow Filter (88% surface can occur. Therefore, after initial model runs, minor
runoff) changes were made to the available soil water capacity
Base Flow 9 mm Base Flow Filter (12% base to calibrate the water balance of the Walker Creek sim-
flow) ulation to that of Big Bear Creek gauge analysis. The
Total ET 791 mm (Precip ⫺ Flow)
changes made to the available soil water capacity were
174
Figure 4. Average Annual Water Balance of Walker Creek Watershed and the proposed wetland simulated by the SWAT
model.
within general uncertainty ranges shown in the Tarrant
County Soil Survey (USDA 1977).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The water budget prepared for Big Bear Creek for
the period of 1966–1979 is shown in Table 2. Record-
ed stream flow averages about 8.9 percent of precipi-
tation. The regional average is 15 percent of precipi-
tation (Gebert et al. 1987). In this basin, storm (sur-
face) flow contributes 88 percent of total flow and
WETLANDS, Volume 21, No. 2, 2001
ground-water flow about 12 percent of total flow. Pre-
cipitation minus stream flow is often used to calculate
loss due to evaporation and transpiration or ET. In Big
Bear Creek, ET averages 91 percent of rainfall.
The SWAT simulated water budget for the Walker
Branch site is shown in Figure 4. SWAT allows as-
sessment of each component of the hydrologic budget.
For the same time period and rainfall, Walker Creek
shows results similar to the gauged basin (Big Bear
Creek). ET is 89 percent of the rainfall. Total stream
flow is about 11 percent of rainfall. Of this total, sur-
Arnold et al., HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Figure 5. Modeled monthly flow of Walker Branch from
1966–1978. Flow is in mm over the watershed. (The wetland
volume is approximately 1.3 mm.)
Figure 6. Wetland hydroperiod—daily wetland volume simulated by the SWAT model from 1966 to 1977.
175
face runoff accounts for 89 percent of flow and
ground-water about 11 percent. Water yield from the
Walker Branch watershed is therefore derived predom-
inantly from surface runoff, with less water from base
flow. This is important in estimating retention char-
acteristics in the proposed wetland and in assessing the
overall water quality of the influent to the wetland.
Base flow typically displays higher water quality. The
combined yield of Walker Creek and rainfall is esti-
mated to be 1611 mm per year. Of this, 66 percent is
lost to ET, 37 percent is lost from pond- surface evap-
oration, and 29 percent infiltrates into the wetland soil
zone. Most of the infiltrated water (93 percent) is taken
up by wetland plants. This leaves about 2 percent of
the total water from the wetland to recharge the shal-
176
Figure 7. Frequency Diagram of Daily SWAT simulated Wetland Volume from 1966 to 1977.
low ground-water system. This water eventually
moves toward the Trinity River and emerges as base
flow.
Simulated flow for the twelve-year time period was
routed to the wetland site and allowed to fill the wet-
land volume (Figure 4). The maximum wetland vol-
ume used in this calculation was 70,000 cubic meters.
Water in the wetland was allowed to seep into the soil
and evaporate using equation 2. Monthly simulated
stream flow from Walker Creek is shown in Figure 5.
Monthly flow is indicated in mm over the entire wa-
tershed, and approximately 1.3 mm are required to fill
the proposed wetland site (from zero storage).
The hydroperiod of the wetland is illustrated in Fig-
ure 6a and Figure 6b for the twelve-year period. The
graphs depict a winter maximum water level with a
late summer minimum. This trend reflects the predom-
inant rainfall pattern in the area. The decline during
the summer is more gradual and due to both a lack of
rainfall during the summer, increased consumptive use
by plants, and increased surface evaporation off the
ponded wetland surface. The rapid rise in the late fall
is consistent with lower ET and increased frequency
of frontal storms.
Figure 7 indicates that the wetland is about 93 per-
cent full for 35 percent of the simulated 12-year time
period and 85 percent full about 57 percent of the time.
The lowest the wetland reaches is about 14 percent
full during 1975 (Figure 6b). This level occurs less
than 5 percent of the time. The mean storage volume
is approximately 50–55,000 cubic meters.
Figure 8 show seasonal trends in major components
of the water budget for the wetland during the cali-
WETLANDS, Volume 21, No. 2, 2001
bration period. Seepage maximum predominates dur-
ing periods of high water, which correspond to periods
of high runoff. Evaporation is highest during the sum-
mer months.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The water budget of the proposed wetland was de-
rived and calibrated. The results indicate that the wet-
land should be at or above 85 percent capacity over
60 percent of the time. The wetland did not dry up
during the entire modeled time period (14 years) and
reached 40 percent capacity less than one percent of
the modeled time period. The majority of water to the
wetland will be derived from storm flow from Walker
Creek, principally from residential areas. Analysis re-
vealed that simulated wetland stream flows can be cal-
ibrated to local gauged watershed data for more real-
istic estimates of the local hydrologic budget. Advan-
tages of the modeled wetland response using the cal-
ibrated SWAT model includes validation of wetland
function over long-term weather conditions.
A model that accurately simulates the water budget
for over a decade increases confidence that the sys-
tem’s hydrology is understood (Skaggs et al. 1991).
Modeling is also a useful approach in studying inter-
action of one or more hydrologic processes often nec-
essary in choosing between alternative management
scenarios. In addition, such simulated events can give
a more realistic description of influent to a storm-wa-
ter-treatment wetland than do time-averaged flow
models, which can predict only average flow rate and
average concentrations (Werner and Kadlec 2000).
Arnold et al., HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Figure 8a. Daily seepage simulated by the SWAT model into the soil under the wetland in cubic meters from 1966 to 1978.
Figure 8b. Daily evaporation simulated by the SWAT model from the wetland in cubic meters from 1966 to 1978.
This study illustrates an application of a simulation
model for assessing the water budget for a constructed
wetland. While in situ monitoring is always a preferred
method of assessing wetland function, its expense and
lack of long-term record make its usefulness in design
problematic. Further refinements of the SWAT model
are possible in situations where stream-aquifer inter-
actions are important. SWAT has been linked to
MODFLOW (Perkins and Sophocleus 1999). Similar-
ly, more localized analysis within a wetland is provid-
ed by Restrepo et al. (1998), which simulates three-
dimensional wetland flow from a subroutine linked to
MODFLOW. Therefore, if properly calibrated, well-
tested models such as SWAT can provide realistic first
order simulation of potential wetland function integral
to wetland design and maintenance. New models can
then be used to refine designs should the need exist.
177
LITERATURE CITED
Arnold, J. G. and J. R. Williams. 1985. Evapotranspiration in a basin
scale hydrologic model. p. 405–413. In Advances in Evapotrans-
piration, Proceedings of the National Conference on Advances in
Evapotranspiration. American Society of Agricultural Engineers
Pub. 14–85.
Arnold, J. G., P. M. Allen, R. S. Muttiah, and G. Bernhardt. 1995.
Automated base flow separation and recession analysis techniques.
Groundwater 33:1010–1018.
Arnold, J. G., R. Srinivassan, R. S. Muttiah, and J. R. Williams.
1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: mod-
el development. Journal of American Water Resources Associa-
tion 34:73–89.
Arnold, J. G. and P. M. Allen. 1999. Automated methods for esti-
mating baseflow and groundwater recharge from stream flow re-
cords. Journal of American Water Resources Association 35:411–
424.
Arnold, J. G., R. Srinivasan, R. S. Muttiah, P. M. Allen, and C.
Walker. 1999. Continental scale simulation of the hydrologic bal-
ance. Journal of American Water Resources Association 35:1037–
1052.
178
Bidlake, W. R. and P. F. Boetcher. 1996. Simulation of the soil
water balance of an undeveloped prairie in West Central Florida.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2472.
Carter, V. 1986. An overview of hydrologic concerns related to wet-
lands in the United States. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:364–
374.
Dexler, J. Z., B. L. Bedford, A. T. DeGactano, and D. I. Siegel.
1999. Quantification of the water budget and nutrient loading in
a small peatland. Journal of American Water Resources Associ-
ation 35:753–769.
Federal Register. 1995. Federal guidance for the establishment, use,
and operation of mitigation banks. November 28, 1995, 60(228):
58605–58614.
Gebert, W. A., D. J. Graczyk, and W. R. Krug. 1987. Average an-
nual runoff in the United States 1951–1980. U. S. Geological Sur-
vey Hydrologic Investigations. Atlas HA⫺ 710.
Hammer, D. A. 1989. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treat-
ment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, USA.
Kadlec, R. H. and R. L. Knight. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC.
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Koob, T., M. E. Barbe, and W. E. Hathorn. 1999. Hydrologic design
consideration of constructed wetlands for urban stormwater run-
off. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35:
323–331.
Kusler, J. A. and H. E. Kentula (eds.). 1996. Wetland Restoration
and Creation- the Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington,
DC, USA.
Mau, D. P. and T. C. Winter. 1997. Estimating groundwater recharge
from stream flow hydrographs for a small mountain watershed in
a temperate humid climate, New Hampshire, USA. Groundwater
35:291–304.
McCuen, R. H. 1989. Hydrologic Analysis and Design. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
McMahon, M. A. and R. G. Mein. 1986. River and reservoir yield.
Water Resources Publication, Littleton, CO, USA.
Mitsch, W. T. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, NY, USA.
Monteith, J. L. 1965. Evaporation and environment. Symposia of
the Society for Experimental Biology 19:205–234.
Nathan, R. J. and T. A. McMahon. 1990. Evaluation of automated
WETLANDS, Volume 21, No. 2, 2001
techniques for baseflow and recession analysis. Water Resources
Research 26:1465–1473.
Owen, C. 1995. Water budget and flow patterns in an urban wetland.
Journal of Hydrology 169:171–187.
Perkins, S. P. and M. Sophocleus. 1999. Development of a compre-
hensive watershed model applied to study stream yield under
drought conditions. Groundwater 37:418–426.
Pierce, G. I. 1992. Planning hydrology for constructed wetlands.
Wetland Training Institute, West Clarksville, NY, USA.
Restrepo, J. I., A. M. Montoya, and J. Obeysekera. 1998. A wetland
simulation module for the MODFLOW ground water model.
Groundwater 36:764–770.
Rutledge, A. and C. C. Daniel. 1994. Testing an automated method
to estimate groundwater recharge from streamflow records.
Groundwater 32:180–189.
Schueler, T. 1992. Design of stormwater wetland systems: guide-
lines for creating diverse and effective stormwater wetland sys-
tems in the mid Atlantic region. Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, Washington, DC, USA.
Shuttleworth, W. J. 1992. Chapter 4. Evaporation. p. 4.1–4.53. In
Handbook of Hydrology. Maidment, D. A. (ed.) McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, NY, USA.
Skaggs, R. W. 1984. DRAINMOD—A water management model
for shallow water table soils-user’s guide. North Carolina State
University, Raliegh, NC, USA.
Skaggs, R. W., J. W. Gilliam, and R. O. Evans. 1991. A computer
simulation study of Pocosin hydrology. Wetlands 11:399–416.
Sun, G., H. Riekerk, and N. B. Comerford. 1998. Modeling the
forest hydrology of wetland-upland ecosystems in Florida. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association 34:827–841.
USDA—Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil survey of Tarrant
County, Texas. USDA-SCS in cooperation with Texas Agricul-
tural Experiment Station. Temple, TX, USA.
Walton, R., R. S. Chapman, and J. E. Lewis. 1996. Development
and application of the wetlands dynamic water budget model.
Wetlands 16:347–357.
Werner, T. M. and R. H. Kadlec. 2000. Stochastic simulation of
partially-mixed, event driven treatment wetlands. Ecological En-
gineering 14:223–267.
Manuscript received 13 June 2000; revisions received 5 October
2000 and 18 December 2000; accepted 5 January 2001.