United States
            iiyyirorimental Protection
            •Agency
       Region 4
       345 Cqurtland Street, NE
       Atlanta, GA 30365
EPA 904/9-86 142
October 1986
vvEPA
             of a Saltwater
Marsh Ecosystem for the
Management of Seafood
   Processing Wastewater
                   POINT AUX PINS
      SANDY  BAY
                                  PORTERSVILLE

                                     BAY
                    MOBILE
                                     BAYOU

                                     LA BATRE J MOBILE
                                            BAY
                                     GULF OF MEXICO

-------
      Utilization of a Saltwater Marsh Ecosystem for the
         Management of Seafood Processing Wastewater
                        October, 1986
                         Prepared by

        United States Environmental Protection Agency
                 Region IV - Atlanta, Georgia

           Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium
                   Dauphin Island, Alabama

        Alabama Department of Environmental Management
                     Montgomery, Alabama

                     Taxonomic Associates
                       Mobile, Alabama


This report presents the results of a cooperative study that
examined the potential for using a saltwater wetland to manage
seafood processing wastewater.  An irregularly flooded black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) marsh located at Point aux
Pins in coastal Alabama was selected for the study.  From
June 1984 through June 1985 the marsh was intensively studied
before, during, and after construction and operation of a
small pilot facility that distributed screened seafood processing
wastewater at various loading rates to controlled areas of
the marsh.

The study determined that the application of seafood processing
wastewater to the marsh affected a number of the marsh's water
quality characteristics in direct relation to the wastewater
loading rate.  However, monitoring of the marsh flora and
fauna showed virtually no impact at any of the experimental
loading rates.  As a result of this study a number of design
and loading criteria are suggested for any future projects
involving wastewater discharges to saltwater wetlands.

This report contains all data, analyses and conclusions
resulting from this study.  Comments or inquiries should be
forwarded to :
                         Robert Lord
               Environmental Assessment Branch
                       US EPA Region IV
                   345 Courtland Street NE
                   Atlanta, Georgia  30365
                        (404) 347-3776
                                                    June 25, 1987
Jack E. Ravan           
-------
  Utilization of a Saltwater Marsh Ecosystem
         for the Management of Seafood
            Processing Wastewater
                  Prepared by
 United States Environmental  Protection Agency
            Region IV - Atlanta, GA
Alabama Department of Environmental  Management
              Montgomery, Alabama
   Marine Environmental  Sciences Consortium
            Dauphin Island, Alabama
             Taxonomic Associates
                Mobile, Alabama

-------
                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     The pilot project  reported in  this  document was  built with the
generous support of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM).   Additional support was rendered by the ADEM  Water Quality Lab,
Montgomery,  Alabama, through analysis of water and  sediment samples.   ADEM
personnel  from  Montgomery  and the Mobile Field Operations Office assisted
in transportation of samples.

     The Alabama  Marine  Environmental  Sciences Consortium provided
technical and  support personnel as  well  as  participating in project
management.

     Inquiries regarding  information in this report should be made to
Robert Lord, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street,  Atlanta, Georgia, 30365.

-------
                                     ABSTRACT


      Over 640,000 gallons of screened seafood processing wastewater were applied
to an irregularly flooded  Juncus  roemerianus  saltmarsh,   located in southwest
Alabama, over a four month period (August - December) in 1984.  Hydraulic loading
rates ranging from 1.33 cm/week to 3.56 cm/week did not result  in measurable runoff
from the system during periods of low tide and no rainfall due to high evaporation
rates.  Significant elevations in levels of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, ammonium ion
and Biochemical Oxygen Demand were detected in surface waters of experimental plots
with elevations most evident in plots receiving the heaviest waste load.  Signif-
icant microbial activity was indicated by increased mineralization/transformation
of nitrogen species on the plot surfaces.  About 37  percent of  the nitrogen applied
to the most heavily loaded plots was assimilated each day, assuming the conditions
of no tidal innundation and no rainfall were met.     Little or no penetration of
wastewater into the groundwater was  noted. However, nitrogen was slightly elevated
in surficial sediments (0-5cm).   The canal adjacent to the study marsh showed no
water quality impacts from the project.   Biological monitoring within experimental
and control plots, and the adjacent canal demonstrated significant seasonal vari-
ation but no impact on plant growth,  plant productivity,  marsh epifauna,  or on
canal benthic and natant communities due to the waste discharge. Total abundance of
marsh infauna was slightly higher in the treated plots than in the control plots.
The study  indicated a  low impact loading  level  for this  type  of wastewater to be
about 2.0 cm per day during the growing season  along  the  northern Gulf coast area.
                                         11

-------
                            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
     The management of seafood processing  wastewater  is  a problem of the
seafood industry  throughout the nation,  but is  particularly acute for Gulf
of Mexico shrimp  processing plants.  Large amounts  of water are required in
the  processing  of the  peeled and  deveined  product,   resulting  in  a
tremendous volume of wastewater.  In many areas, this wastewater is simply
discharged into coastal  waters with little or no treatment.   The impacts
associated with the loading of  these high oxygen demanding  wastes into gulf
coast  receiving  waters  are  compounded  by  the  poor  tidal   flushing
characteristic  of the  region.

     This study  was conducted to  determine the feasibility of using an
irregularly flooded June us saltmarsh as  a seafood wastewater management
system.   The spreading of seafood wastewaters would serve as a "living
filter" for the organic wastes, serve  as  a  fertilizer for  marsh plants and
contribute a nutrient  source to the detrita.1/bacterial food web upon which
estuarine productivity is  dependent.


Character!zation  of_ Shrimp Prpjressijig^  Wastewater j_n_ Al abama

     Because of the problems experienced in the Bayou La Batre area, the
Alabama Water Improvement Commission (now  the  Alabama Department of
Environmental  -Management),  the City  of  Bayou La Batre and the  waste
processors themselves  initiated several  studies addressing the quantity and
quality of wastes in the area.   Most of  these  addressed the feasibility of
discharging the wastes into Portersville Bay,  directly  south of the city
and the costs associated with the collection and outfall  system.

     A study conducted by Polyengineering  (1979) addressed the quality of
seafood processing wastewaters  during the summer of 1979.  The results of
that study showed that the average seafood wastewater had a 5 day BOD of
617 mg/1 and total suspended  solids  (TSS) of 163 mg/1.   These values are
less than  half of  the  averages calculated from data collected for shrimp
processing plants located on  the  Mississippi Gulf Coast by Gulf Coast
Laboratory investigators (Perry 1984).  The averages for the Mississippi
facilities were 1,612  mg/1 BOD  (50 Ib./lOOO Ib.) and  509 mg/1  for TSS (38.5
Ib./lOOO  Ib.).   During the 1978-79 period,  11  industrial shrimp peelers, in
Bayou  La  Batre,,/!abama, averaging  about 16,000 gallons  per  day (GPD)
peeler, produced'an average daily flow of 180,000 GPD.


Study Rationale and Design

     The effectiveness of saltwater wetlands  in the treatment of waste has
been examined for sewage  sludge (Teal  and Valiela 1973;  Nichols  1983;  and
others) and menhaden plant effluent  (Meo 1974).  This study assesses the
effectiveness and  impact of using land application on a Juncus roemerianus
marsh  as  an efficient low cost management system for screened  seafood
processing wastewater.   The spreading of wastewater by spray irrigation
would provide a "living filter" for  organic wastes,  serve  as fertilizer for
marsh plants and  contribute to  the estuarine food web.

-------
     A pilot irrigation system  was  constructed within a  six acre portion of
a Juneus roemerianus marsh in coastal Alabama.  Twelve study plots,  90  feet
x 90 feet  (8,100 sq.  ft.) were established as  three control plots and three
replicate plots each  receiving  3.56, 1.82 and 1.33  cm  of wastewater per
five consecutive days each week.   Wastewater  was applied by overhead spray
heads,  loading rates controlled  by  computerized timers  and  valves.
Approximately 640,000 gallons of  waste were applied August-December, 1984.

     Study plots were monitored for predischarge conditions (June-July,
1984), during test discharge (August-December, 1984) and following test
discharge  (January-June, 1985).


Water Quality Parameters

     Hydrologic  investigations  showed that no runoff was  detectable from
the plots  at any  of the hydraulic  loading  rates  during  periods of no
rainfall  and  no tidal  inundation.   Little  penetration of the wastewaters
into the groundwater was noted during  the  study.  Wastewaters  applied to
the  system remained on the  plots  until   they either  were  lost to
evapotranspiration or flushed off during a  high  tidal event or through
rainfall.

     Discharge of seafood processing wastewater  onto  the  surface of the
marsh resulted  in  elevations of  levels of  several  nitrogen species (Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen  and  ammonium ion) and Biochemical  Oxygen Demand (BOD) in
the surface waters of  the plots.   Impact  of the wastes was most evident on
the plots  receiving  the heaviest  waste  loads of 3.56  cm  per week.

     The loading  also  resulted in the elevation of nitrogen  in  the
surficial  sediments (0-5 cm)  which remained somewhat elevated after the
discharge  of wastes  had  ceased.  The findings, along with the persistence
of high chlorophyll a_ levels  and  increases in  nitrite-nitrate levels in the
waters on the plots during post discharge, indicated that the surficial
sediments  retain much of the materials loaded and release these materials
slowly  after  continued cycling  and  mineralization.   Little  or no
penetration into  the groundwater was  noted for  any  of the parameters
measured.

     The canal  adjacent  to the marsh receiving the  wastes  showed  no water
quality  impacts  from  the  project for the parameters measured.   No
significant elevations  were  noted  in nutrients, chlorophyll £ or BOD  that
could be attributed  to the waste  loadings.

     Based on  the water quality  of the experimental  plots during the
discharge  period,  an optimal  loading  level  of  1.82  cm per  week is
recommended.  The  3.56 cm per week  loading level  resulted  in the disruption
of the normal nutrient cycling observed for the control  plots  and exceeded
the apparent capacity of the  marsh to rapidly  assimilate the wastes.

Biological  Parameters
  •        " —•                                               \

     No significant differences in  plant species composition, growth
parameters or productivity were detected  between sprayed plots and control
plots.  Only  expected  seasonal  variability was demonstrated.   Mean values
                                  IV

-------
for  stem density (650 m-2), diameter (3.5  mm)  and height  (88 cm)  were
within the  range of values  for similar Gulf Coast Juncus marshes.  Mean
aboveground biomass production (2,177 gm-2) was higher than reported in
previous studies but  did not differ significantly between study plots.

     Increased nutrient loads to the marsh had no  measureable enhancement
effect on plants present.   The long term  impact of residual  nitrogen in the
shallow sediments, subsequent nutrient  transformations and  applications
over greater than four months,  or at other times of the year,  cannot be
predicted from this study.

     Application of the  wastewater resulted in no  significant changes in
faunal  communities of  the  adjacent canal but resulted  in  slightly elevated
infaunal abundance in the treated marsh plots.  Marsh infauna  abundance
patterns over the study period are similar to literature reports, with a
spring-summer increase and a late summer - early  winter  decline in species
abundance.   The seasonal  changes in  species composition and  abundance
principally reflect natural population cycles of the component species.
The  strong dominance of oligochaetes  and Capitella capitata  is  unique to
this study  and may explain the dynamics observed.


Design Criteria  for Land Application of  Wastewaters

     Several  key scientific and engineering design/operation considerations
mentioned  in the EPA Saltwater Wetlands  for  Wastewater Management
Environmental Assessment were addressed in this study.  The key factors a'nd
the conclusion reached in  this  study were:

     Erosion.   Erosion  was  not  a problem on the  saltmarsh under  the
conditions  studied.

     Nutrients.   Cycling  of nitrogen,  an  element usually  limiting
productivity in  saltmarsh  systems,  was  enhanced on the  marsh as a result of
the loading.

     Hydraulic Loading.  Hydraulic  loads of up  to 3.56 cm/week produced no
discernable  runoff during  periods of no  rainfall and no tidal  inundation.

     Nutrient Loading.   Maximum  nitrogen  loading levels based on  the
results of  this  study  would  be 0.73 grams/square  meter-day (4.72  Ibs/acre-
day).

     Biochemical  Oxygen   Demand  Loading.   Maximum  BOD loading  of 3.1
grams/square meter-day (20.1 Ibs/acre-day) would  be  recommended based on
the study results.

     Assimilation  Rate for Nitrogen.  Approximately  37  percent of the total
nitrogen applied to the plots was removed through  microbial mineralization.

     Discharge Schedule.   Intermittent  discharge of wastes during the  week
is recommended with periods  of no  discharge to allow equilibration  of  the
system.   No  discharge  should be allowed during periods of high tides (when
marsh is inundated) or during and immediately following large rainfall
events.

-------
     Biota.   Application of wastewater at the rates and season of the study
resulted in slightly  increased abundances of marsh  infauna on treated
plots.  Species diversity  was  not affected.

Study Limitations

      This study of the effectiveness and impacts of spray irrigation of  seafood
wastewater on an irregularly flooded Juncus marsh has the following limitatio,ns.

     1.   Application took place during  the  period August  -  December.   The
peak  shrimp season in Alabama is June - November, also the peak  of  the
Juncus  growing  season.   Therefore, (a) short-term cumulative loading  was
less than would  be expected if this methodology were  implemented over  the
entire  shrimping  season;  (b) biotic impacts  may  be  different at different
times of the year; (c)  biotic  impacts may  be different with  longer periods
of loading,  especially  freshwater  impacts,  and  (d) the effectiveness  of  the
marsh in assimilating the  wastewater may be  different at different times of
the year and with longer duration applications.

     2.   Larger  shrimp processing facilities import raw  materials  and
process products year-round.   In actual  practice,  application of  wastewater
to marshes may be continuous but at different monthly rates,  over each  12-
month calendar year.   The study did  not test the  effectiveness  or impacts
of such an application  regime.

     3.   The study did not address the' long-term  (multiple  years) impacts
or effectiveness of marsh  application.
                                     VI

-------
                            LIST OF  PREPARERS
              United States Environmental Protection Agency

                     Robert Howard,  Project Officer
                     Ronald Mikulak,  Project Monitor
                      Robert Lord, Project Monitor
                Marine Environmental  Sciences Consortium

                     Judy Stout,  Project Coordinator
                         Mike Dardeau,  Biologist
                    Charlie Lutz, Technical Assistant
                       Taxonomic Associates,  Inc.

               El don C. Blancher, Environmental Scientist



             Alabama Department of_ Environmental Management

                        Sonya S. Massey,  Engineer
                Joe L.  Marsh, Environmental Lab Services
                               DISCLAIMER

     The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report is
for  illustration  purposes and does  not constitute  endorsement  or
recommendation for use by the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.
                                  vn

-------
                                 CONTENTS

                                                                          PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	    i

ABSTRACT	   11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	  HI

LIST OF PREPARERS	  vii

CONTENTS	 vl 11

LIST OF TABLES	    x

LIST OF FIGURES	  x1H

1.0.  INTRODUCTION	 1-1

      1.1.  STUDY OBJECTIVES	 1-4

2.0.  MATERIALS AND METHODS	 2-1

      2.1.  STUDY SITE	 2-1
            Pilot Facility Layout	 2-1
      2.2.  WATER QUALITY	 2-4
      2.3.  HYDROLOGY	 2-6
      2.4.  SEDIMENTS	 2-7
      2.5.  FLORA	 2-7
      2.6.  FAUNA	 2-8

3.0.  RESULTS	 3-1

      3.1.  WATER QUALITY	 3-1
            Wastewater	 3-1
            Surface Water-Experimental Plots	 3-3
            Groundwater	 3-10
            Canal Water	 3-13
      3.2.  5EDIHENT577	 3-18
      3.3.  FLORA	 3-21
            Growth	 3-21
            Standing Crop	 3-21
      3.4.  FAUNA...	 3-26
            Marsh Fauna	 3-26
            Canal Fauna	 3-37

4.0.  DISCUSSION	 4-1

      4.1.  WATER QUALITY	 4-1
            Experimental Plots	 4-1
            Groundwater and Se'diments	 4-13
            Canal WateFs	 4-15
      4.2.  FLORA	 4-17
      4.3.  FAUNA	 4-20
                                   vm

-------
                                                                          PAGE

5.0.  PILOT FACILITY OPERATION	 5-1

     5.1.  GENERAL SYSTEMS APPROACH	 5-1
     5.2.  HYDROLOGY	 5-2
     5.3.  WATER QUALITY	 5-11
           Conservative Species Model	 5-11
           Non-conservative Species Model	 5-14

6.0.  DESIGN DISCHARGE CRITERIA	 6-1

           Costs Associated with the Land Application of
           Seafood Wastewaters	 6-3

7.0.  CONCLUSIONS.	 7-1

      7.1.  WATER QUALITY	 7-1
      7.2.  BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS	 7-1
      7.3.  FACILITY OPERATION	 7-2
      7.4.  RECOMMENDATIONS	 7-2

8.0.  REFERENCES	 8-1


APPENDIX A - Quality Assurance/Quality Control	 A-l

APPENDIX B - Study Data	 B-l

APPENDIX C - Hydrologic - Salinity Models	 C-l

APPENDIX D - Pilot Facility Design	 D-l
                                   IX

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES


                                                                          PAGE

Table  1.  Parameters measured in water samples	 2-5

Table  2.  Methods of preservation and analysis for Water Quality
           samples	 2-5

Table  3.  Monitoring regime by parameter and study phase	 2-9

Table  4.  Estimated seafood processing flows (GPD) based on
           Bayou La Batre STP flow records for 1978-1979	 3-2

Table  5.  Average quality of effluent discharged by various
           seafood plants during August 1979 in Bayou La Batre	 3-2

Table  6.  Descriptive statistics on the wastewater chemical
           data.  Al 1 parameters reported in mg/1	 3-3

Table  7.  Means of physico-chemical parameters measured on the
           plots  for  the  pre-discharge,   discharge  and  post
           discharge periods	 3-5

Table  8.  Mean values for nutrients (mg/1) sampled from the
           various  loading  plots during the  pre-discharge  and
           discharge period	 3-6

Table  9.  Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 day BOD) on the
           experimental plots during the pre-discharge, discharge
           and post discharge periods.  All concentrations are in
           mg/1	 3-8

Table 10.  Summary of Chlorophyll a^ Data during the three study
           periods.  All concentrations are expressed in mg/m3....	 3-9

Table 11.  Mean Concentration of nutrients from various depths on
           the experimental plots	 3-11

Table 12.  Means  of physico-chemical parameters measured in  the
           canal adjacent to the plot site	 3-14

Table 13.  Mean concentration of various nutrient constituents in
           the   canal   adjacent  to  the  sample   site.    All
           concentrations are in mg/1	 3-15

Table 14.  Five  Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand  (BOD5)  mg/1  from
           the canal waters during the study	 3-17

Table 15.  Chlorophyll a Values  in the Canal during the pre-
           discharge, discharge  and post discharge periods.
           Concentrations are expressed in mg/M3	 3-17

-------
List of Tables Continued.
                                                                          PAGE
Table 16.  Sediment Total Organic Carbon (TOO, Total Kjeldahl
           Nitrogen (TKN) and Total Phosphate (TP) from the pre-
           discharge, discharge and post discharge samplings	 3-19
Table 17.  Mean  Eh values (in millivolts) from the sample  plots
           during the pre-discharge, discharge and post discharge
           periods	 3-19
Table 18.  Comparison of sediment texture before and after
           discharge, treatments pooled by depth	 3-20
Table 19.  Pre-discharge,  discharge and post discharge live stem
           density by application	 3-22
Table 20.  Pre-discharge and discharge aboveground plant  biomass
           by appl ication	 3-24
Table 21.  Post discharge aboveground plant biomass by application
           rate	 3-25
Table 22.  Pre-discharge  and discharge belowground plant biomass
           by appl ication rate	 3-28
Table 23.  Post discharge beJowground plant biomass by application
           rate	 3-28
Table 24.  Pre-discharge marsh epifauna abundance by application rate.... 3-29
Table 25.  Discharge marsh epifaunal abundance by application rate	 3-30
Table 26.  Post discharge marsh epifaunal abundance by application rate.. 3-31
Table 27.  Pre-discharge marsh infaunal abundance	 3-33
Table 28.  Discharge marsh infaunal abundance	 3-35
Table 29.  Post discharge  marsh infaunal abundance	 3-39
Table 30.  Pre-discharge benthic faunal abundance from canal grab
           sampl es	 3-43
Table 31.  Discharge  benthic  faunal abundance from  canal  grab
           sampl es	 3-44
Table 32.  Post  discharge  benthic faunal abundance  from  canal
           grab samples	 3-45
Table 33.  Canal  faunal abundance collected in lift nets	 3-46
Table 34.  Canal  faunal abundance collected in gill nets	 3-47
                                   xi

-------
List of Tables Continued.
                                                                          PAGE
Table 35.  Rainfall and evaporation data for stations in the proximity...  5-5
Table 36.  Precipitation volumes collected at Point aux Pins	  5-5
Table 37.  Monthly averages of the daily tidal  amplitudes (centimeters)
           for the period June through December 1984	  5-6
Table 38.  Results of the Dye study performed on the experimental
           plots	  5-7
Table 39.  Mean well heights recorded during water quality samplings	  5-7
Table 40.  Estimated non-land capital costs associated with wetland
           wastewater di sposal	  6-3
                                   XII

-------
                               LIST  OF  FIGURES


                                                                           PAGE
 Figure  1.  Mean monthly  flows  for Bayou  La  Batre  sewage
           treatment  plant  1978-1979	  1-2

 Figure  2.  Location of study site	  2-2

 Figure  3.  Site layout	  2-3

 Figure  4.  Stem height and  diameter	  3-23

 Figure  5.  Belowground standing crop	  3-27

 Figure  6.  Total marsh infaunal abundance	  3-38

 Figure  7.  Mean salinity on the experimental plots during the
           pi 1 ot study	  4-1

 Figure  8.  Mean TON on the  experimental  plots during the pilot
           study	  4-3

 Figure  9.  Mean ammonium ion concentrations on the experimental
           plots during  the pilot study	  4-4

 Figure  10. Mean nitrite-nitrate levels on the experimental plots
           during the study period	  4-5

 Figure  11. Nitrogen species in the  surface waters on the
           experimental plots  during the discharge period	  4-5

 Figure  12. Temporal variations in Total  Kjeldahl Nitrogen
           concentration  for  the control and full loading  plots
           for the entire study period	  4-6

 Figure  13. Temporal variations in ammonium  ion concentration for
           the control and full loading  plots for the entire
           study period	  4-7

 Figure  14. Mean nitrite-nitrate on experimental  plots during the
           study period	  4-9

 Figure  15. Mean Total  Organic Carbon (TOO  on the experimental
           plots during the pilot study	  4-10

Figure  16. Mean biochemical  oxygen demand on the plots during the
           pilot study	  4-12

Figure  17. N:P ratios  during the pre-discharge and discharge
           periods	  4-12

Figure  18. Total  organic  carbon in sampling wells during the pre-
           discharge period	  4-13
                                   xm

-------
List of Figures Continued.
                                                                          PAGE

Figure 19. Total nitrogen in sampling wells during the pre-
           discharge period	 4-14

Figure 20. Ammonium ion in the sampling wells during the
           discharge period	 4-14

Figure 21. Mean nitrite-nitrate levels in the canal during the
           pi 1 ot study	 4-16

Figure 22. Live stem densities	 4-18

Figure 23. Aboveground biomass	 4-19

Figure 24. Monthly abundance of dominant marsh infaunal species	 4-21

Figure 25. Abundance of major canal benthos at Stations 1, 2
           and 3	 4-23

Figure 26. Systems diagram of the simplified hydrologic model used in this
           study	 5-3

Figure 27. Representative tidal records from the canal on 13-14 July
           1985	 5-6

Figure 28. Representative continuous well height records for the 10,
           20 and 30 centimeter sampling wells	 5-8

Figure 29. Results of the steady state simulation of the hydrologic
           model	 5-10

Figure 30. Systems diagram of the simplified salinity model used in
           thi s study	 5-12

Figure 31. Results of the steady-state simulation for salinity on the
           control and fully loaded plots	 5-13

Figure 32. Concept!onal model of the nitrogen cycle in a salt marsh
           system. (Goose!ink e^t al_. 1979)	 5-15

Figure 33. Simplified conceptual model of nitrogen for this study	 5-17

Figure 34. Time course of nitrogen species on a plot receiving the
           maximum hydraulic loading level (3.56 cm/week) during the
           week of 6 October 1985 through 10 October 1985	 5-19

Figure 35. Simulation of the nitrogen species model for a fully
           loaded experimental plot	 5-20

Figure 36. Relationship between hydrologic loading and biochemical
           oxygen demand for the saltmarsh system receiving screened
           seafood process waters	 6-1
                                    xiv

-------
                           1.0.   INTRODUCTION

     The disposal  of  seafood processing wastewaters is a problem  that
 is  evident  in the  seafood  industry  throughout  the  nation,  but  is
 particularly acute  for Gulf of Mexico  shrimp  processing plants.   In Bayou
 La Batre, Alabama,  where approximately 75% of the residents are engaged in
 the seafood  industry, seven  large shrimp processing plants are located.
 These modern facilities require high volumes of water to wash, peel and
 devein shrimp.  One peeler will  average 40 to 60 gallons  per minute (GPM)
 and a  plant's peeler can account  for more  than 50% of the  facility's
 wastewaters  (USEPA 1974).   In  many other areas  of the  country, these
 wastewaters are simply discharged into coastal waters with little or no
 treatment.   The impacts  associated with the loading of these high oxygen-
 demanding  wastes  into Gulf Coast receiving waters are compounded by the
 poor tidal  flushing characteristic of the  region.

     Bayou La Batre  is consistently  ranked among the  nations  top  ten
 fishing ports.  Seafood landings  there were valued at  33 million dollars in
 1981.  It is believed that these landings support a  $188 million seafood
 industry in  Mobile County alone.   Shrimp landings, approximately  15.8
 million pounds in  1981,  comprise the bulk of the seafood landings in Bayou
 La Batre.   This  figure does not include products  trucked in  for processing.

     The large concentration of shrimp processing plants has exacerbated
 the city's wastewater treatment problems.   Before 1978, wastewater from the
 seafood processing plants was  discharged directly into the bayou which  runs
 through the city.  Since these discharges were in violation of the Alabama
 Water Improvement Commision's (now the Alabama Department of Environmental
 Management, ADEM)  regulations, the seafood processors were given  notice to
 connect to  the  city's sewage  treatment plant.

     The small 1-MGD activated  sludge  treatment facility  operated  by  the
 city was originally designed to handle domestic wastewater and some seafood
 wastewater.  However,  since the completion of  the treatment facility there
 have been  major problems with  the  system due  to the volume of  seafood
 processing  wastewater.  The plant was designed for the seafood industry as
 it existed in  1970.   Subsequent growth of the seafood  industry  was
 unanticipated and  the volume of seafood wastewater has surpassed  the
 capacity of  the system  (Figure 1).    Thus,  since  1978,  the plant  has
 experienced  severe operational problems  and   has  failed to  meet  its
 discharge requirements.   Since  the  outfall for this plant is located in
 Portersville  Bay   off of the   Mississippi  Sound,    the discharge  of
 insufficiently treated wastewater has closed some of  the productive oyster
 grounds  in  the state.

     Due to continued violations  of NPDES permit  limits caused primarily by
 the excessive loadings  from the seafood  wastewaters, the city was  forced to
 place a moratorium on the further expansion  of the processing  industry.
 The result of this moratorium  has been a virtual  halt in the growth of  this
 industry in the  city.

     In  addition to the above  problems, the rate  schedule of $0.60 per  1000
 gallons charged to the  processors  for waste treatment   is placing  an
economic hardship on the processors.  One large  shrimp processor  indicated
                                  1-1

-------
       1.2-
      i.o-
    o
    O 0.8 H
      0.6-
      0.4-
ESTIMATED SEAFOOD
WASTE FLOWS
          10  II   12   |
                             MONTH
Figure 1.  Mean monthly flows for the Bayou La Batre sewage
treatment plant for the year 1978-79.  The bars indicate the
standard error on either side of the mean.
                             1-2

-------
that his  wastewater treatment bill  is exceeding the mortgage payment on his
modern plant.

     A similar situation exists in Gulf Shores, Alabama, where screened
seafood wastewaters  are  directly discharged from the fishing  boats  in the
Inter-coastal waterway. This practice has contributed to water quality
problems in that receiving water body and is now coming under increased
scrutiny of the state regulatory  agencies.   Pressure from local public
opinion and state and federal agencies has at least halted the spread of
this  method of  waste  disposal.   It is  anticipated that  the  seafood
processors  in  this  portion of  the state will  also be forced  to  more
adequately  treat  their wastes before discharge as the processors  in  Bayou
La Batre  have  done.

     The  effectiveness of saltwater wetlands in treatment of waste has been
tested for  sewage sludge  (Teal and  Valiela 1973;  Valiela  et al  1973;
Hardisky et al 1983; and Nichols 1983).  A pilot project in an enclosed
marsh in  Dulac, Louisiana, using effluent from a menhaden processing plant,
indicated that  overland  flow is a valuable means for providing  secondary
and, in some cases,  tertiary treatment of high-load organic waste water
(Meo 1974).

     This study examines the  effectiveness  and impacts of  using  land
application on  a Juncus roemerianus marsh  as an efficient,  low  cost
management system for screened seafood processing  wastewater.     A  pilot
facility  was constructed to  spray-irrigate screened seafood wastewater on  a
high  salt  marsh.   Data collected over  the course of  pilot facility
operation was  used to evaluate the assimilation potential,  environmental
impact and applicability of  this method of discharge at both the test site
and other sites where the disposal of seafood wastewaters  is of concern.

     The  spreading of screened shrimp processing wastes by irrigation  would
provide a "living filter" for organic wastes, serve as a fertilizer for
marsh  plants and contribute to a limited  extent to  the detrital/bacteria
food web  upon which  estuarine productivity  is  dependent.  This approach, if
implemented,  could provide the  city's  seafood processors  with a  more
economical  way  to treat their seafood wastewaters and ultimately  allow the
processors  to disconnect from the city's sewerage system.

     Salt marsh systems of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico are dominated by
irregularly  flooded Juncus roemerianus.  Seafood based communities  are most
frequently adjacent to or near  coastal salt  marshes. It was, therefore,
decided  that  application  of  wastewaters to  a Juncus marsh  would be
appropriate.

     The  application of wastewater to land areas is  predicated on  the fact
that some infiltration of the wastes into the  soil  will occur.  If  the land
that receives the waste  stream  is inundated,  little  if any infiltration of
wastewaters can occur.   The  Juncus marsh systems selected are irregularly
flooded by  the  lunar tidal amplitude,  and event-related wind driven tides.
Evaporation  during long  periods  of exposure leaves  surface sediments  well
above the water  table and tidally  saturated soils.
                                  1-3

-------
1.1.  STUDY OBJECTIVES

     The objectives of the study of pilot facility operations  included:

     1.   Ecological  considerations of the impact of wastewater discharge  on
biota,  water quality  and  hydrology  of  the  marsh system and adjacent water
bodies.

     2.   Engineering considerations of the effectiveness of a Juncus marsh
in providing treatment of screened seafood  processing wastewater.

     3.   Evaluation of the basic facility design and operational regime  of
the pilot discharge method.
                                    1-4

-------
                        2.0. MATERIALS  AND METHODS
  2.1.  STUDY SITE
      The  study  was  conducted on Point aux Pins, approximately 4.5 miles
  (7.5 km)  southwest of the city of Bayou la Batre in  Mobile county, Alabama.
  The  project site is  shown in  Figure 2.

      Point aux  Pins  is  a peninsula extending approximately  1.2  miles  (2.0
  km)  into  Mississippi Sound and  forming the western shore of Portersville
  Bay.   The Marine  Environmental  Sciences Consortium and the University of
  Alabama own the southern  portion  of  the  peninsula including  that  land
  designated for project use.   The project site was located about midway
  along  the eastern edge of Point aux Pins on about 20 acres (50 ha) of  land
  bordering Portersville  Bay.

      The  study site  was  located within  a salt marsh  dominated by the black
  needle rush,  Juncus roemerianus (Vittor & Stout  1975) .  Other species
  present include Spartina  a!term'flora, S. patens and Distich!is spicata,
  usually found as co-dominants of typical  saltwater  marshes of the northern
  Gulf coast.   These  latter species  are uncommon in the designated study
  plots  which are essentially monotypic stands of Juncus.

      The  marsh  is flooded irregularly by storm tides and during periods of
  strong southerly winds.  Low tidal amplitude (0.3-0.5m) of normal lunar
  tides  does  not flood the marsh surface daily.  A canal has been dredged
  immediately south of the study area.   At the dead end of this  canal  two
  tidal  creeks  enter  which drain  the adjacent marsh and salt flats.  These
  creeks provide for tidal  flushing  with the adjacent Portersville Bay.   The
  upland margins  of the marsh provide an interface for  the regular inflow of
  freshwaters from natural  drainage patterns.

      The  area selected for experimental testing was a remote area, well
  away from any residential, business and recreational areas.   The specific
  site selected  for  testing is  located near  the northern border of  that
  property and  is isolated from the rest of the property by a canal  to the
  south.   The  area above  the canal  was selected because of its drainage
  characteristics and because it is relatively isolated from  the more
  pristine  areas located  further south on the peninsula.

  Pilot Facility Layout

      Approximately six acres of land were used for the pilot study.   Twelve
  - 90X90   foot  plots,  enclosing 8100  square  feet  (753 sq.   m.),  were
  established in the  Juncus saltmarsh.   A schematic of the experimental
  layout including control  areas is shown  in Figure 3.  The  array  was
  designed  to minimize any apparent  differences in  vegetation or substrate
  character between the test sites.  The  design  included  3-replicate plots
  each for the  control  areas,   and  the experimental  treatments.    The
  experimental  plots  included 3 levels of  waste  loading (3-replicates  each)
  to determine optimal loading  rates  (3.56  cm,  1.82 cm and 1.33 cm  per 5  day
  application  period)?   All  plots were located along an elevation isocline
  and  type  of treatment was selected by using a random number table. This


throughout this  report these loading rates are  referred to as  "full", "half",
 and  "quarter" respectively.          £-

-------
                                 STUDY
                                  PLOTS
SANDY  BAY
                    POINT AUX  PINS
                                         PORTERSVILLE

                                             BAY
MOBILEj
                                             BAYOU
                                             LA BATRE
                                                V
                                              GULF OF MEXICO
  Figure 2.  Location of study site.
                            2-2

-------
   JUNCUS
^XJ

12
3.56cm
II
3.56cm
10
coti
9
1.33cm
8
1.82cm
7
l.33cm
6
J.Sficm
5
CON
4
|-fl9rm
UQ£Cm
3
1 82rm

2
1 QOrm

1
PAW

^X^^t*
^^2
                                                             <
                                                             o
                                            *TIDE  GAGE
Figure 3.  Site layout indicating loading rates and control

          plots  (CON) and canal sample locations.
                         2-3

-------
type of randomized block design maximized the probability of obtaining
statistically  significant results from  the experiment  and allow for
variation due to undetected environmental  gradients.


2.2.   WATER QUALITY

     Water quality monitoring  was conducted to establish levels of selected
parameters in test site surface waters and groundwaters  and  in the adjacent
canal.  Table 1 shows the parameters measured  during the study.  Water
quality samples  were taken biweekly  prior to discharge  initiation and
during the discharge period.  Samples were taken monthly from February thru
June.

     All  samples  were collected  by  MESC  personnel and transported  on  the
day of collection either to  the Mobile  ADEM office, or  to the Dauphin
Island Sea Lab.   Samples  were  transported to the ADEM  lab in Montgomery for
nutrient analysis.  Methods of sample preservation are given in Table 2.

     Five water samples were taken  from the canal on  each sample date -  at
the confluence of the tidal creek  (1 sample), in mid-canal  (surface and
bottom) and at the mouth of  the canal (surface and bottom).  Water was
analysed for  nutrients, TOC, TSS,  BOD  and chlorophyl1-a.   Field
measurements were made of water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and
pH.

     Marsh  surface water was  sampled from  standing ponds within the radius
to be sprayed during the treatment phase  of the study.   One sample was
taken  from each  plot  and analysed  for nutrients,  TOC, BOD, TSS  and
chlorophyll-a.   Field  measurements of  surface water temperature,  pH,
salinity and dissolved oxygen  were made in each  plot.

     A 20 cm deep well  in each  plot was utilized on each  date  and  the
second well  alternated  between  the  10 cm and 30 cm wells, beginning with
the deep well  in June.   Standing  water was pumped from the wells  and
discarded.  After a period of recharge,  water was pumped from wells and
analyzed for nutrients, TOC and BOD.  Field measurements of pH  were made
within each  well  with a  Beckman Monitor II  field unit and salinity with an
AO refractometer.

     An Isco model  1680  automated sampler was utilized to  collect samples
over  several irrigation cycles to determine the changes  in well  water
quality. Events  were sampled for 2-6  days  at 6  hour intervals for  the  10,
20 and 30 cm wells on a rotating basis.

     Samples of wastewater were taken from  the discharge pipeline three
times  each week  during  the discharge  phase.  Wastewater was  analyzed  for
TOC, TSS, BOD and nutrients.

     All chemical analyses of water samples followed the methodology of
Standard Methods  for  the Examination of Waters and Wastes (APHA,AWWA 1980),
or Environmental  Protection Agency  methodology  (U.S.EPA 1973,1979) as
indicated in Table 2.   Sediment  sample  analysis followed the methods of
the  U.S. EPA and Corps of Engineers Technical  Committee  on Criteria for
Dredge  and Fill  Material  (U.S.EPA/COE  1981).


                                   2-4

-------
Table 1.   Parameters measured In water samples.
                                           Treatment Plots
Parameter
Surface Water
Groundwater
Canal
Wastewater
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Total Susp. Solids(TSS)
Salinity
Biochemical Oxygen Dmd
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen (TON)
Nitrate (N03)
Nitrite (N02)
Ammonium (NH4)
Total Phosphate (TP)
Ortho-Phosphate (P04)
X
X
X
X
X
(BOD) X
(TKN) X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total Organic Carbon (TOO X
Chlorophyll a (funct.)
Table 2. Methods
samples.

Parameter
Temperature
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Susp. Sol.
Salinity
Biochemical Ox. Dmd
Total Kjeldahl Nitr
Organic Nitrogen
Ni trate
Nitrite
Ammonia
Total Phosphate
Ortho-phosphate
Total Org. Carbon
Chlorophyll a
X
of preservation and

Method of
Preservation
in situ
HJ^ situ
in situ
chiTTed
in situ
. chiTTed'
H?S04 & chilled
N/A
H2S04 & chilled
HoSOj & chilled
H2S04 & chilled
H2S04 & chilled
H2S04 & chilled
sulfuric acid
chilled/dark


X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
analysis for Water

Analytical
Method
Thermistor
Electrode
Electrode
Gravimetric
Electrode
Incubation
phenate proc.
TKN-NH4
Cd-reduction
Cd-reduction
phenate
molybdate
molybdate
TOC analyzer
Spectrophoto.

































Quality


Ref.
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3



X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X




















                                   2-5

-------
     Details on the analytical  methodology are included  in  the  Quality
Assurance/Quality Control  report, Appendix 1 of this document.

     Simple  descriptive statistics  (Mean, Range, Standard Deviation) of the
data were performed with the Symphony software package.  All  statistics
were calculated on  the  basis of deleting all  missing values, hence n, the
number of observations, changes  due  to  missing or invalid data.   Data were
designated invalid  as  determined by the quality  control-quality assurance
procedure described  in Part III of this report.  When data were at the
limits of detection of  their respective analytical procedure, a  value of 80
percent of the  detection limit was  assigned for  that constituent.   If the
mean value of the constituent was  below the detection limit, the number
reported then was the detection limit.  This procedure then  allowed for
data to be included in the  statistics that were at or near the detection
limit but did not allow values below  the detection limit to  be reported
directly as  valid  data.

     The BMDP  statistical  software  package  running  on  an   IBM-XT was
utilized for all analytical  statistics.  Multiway analysis  of variance for
repeated measures and unequal cell  sizes  was performed on all water quality
data utilizing  the program BMDP-2V.   Analysis of the BOD data to obtain the
rate constants  was performed with program BMDP-3R, nonlinear regression.

     Samples of wastewater were  taken three  times weekly from discharge
pipes at the study site.  Samples were removed from the irrigation  flow as
wastewater was being applied to the plots.  Parameters  measured in the
wastewater are  indicated in  Table 1.
2.3.  HYDROLOGY

     A water level  recorder  was  installed near the end of the  intake canal
to the south of the test site (Figure 3.).  Levels measured here provide
information on tidal activity and the frequency  and  duration  of  test site
inundation.

     Three test wells,  one each at 10, 20 and 30  cm deep  measured from the
surface,  were installed in each of the plots  to monitor water  table levels
within the marsh.   The  wells  were fashioned  from  2-inch PVC pipe and fitted
with a screw top  coupling to  prevent contamination and false readings from
precipitation.  The bottom  was covered with  several   layers of nylon mesh
(.505 mm) to prevent large  particles from entering  the  well.  The wells
were  installed by  digging a  hole slightly larger than the  pipe,  inserting
the pipe in the ground  and backfilling first  with sand, then clay and then
the excavated sediments.

     Well heights were  continuously measured  in selected wells  to  determine
the  immediate hydrologic response at the sites.   An   ISCO model  1570 flow
meter was utilized to measure the  well heights.   The meter was moved
between the 10,  20  and  30 cm wells  to determine  the hydrologic response at
each of these levels.

     Rainfall  data were obtained for  the  Mobile,  Fairhope and Coden,
Alabama Weather Stations.   Evaporation pan data were  obtained for the


                                   2-6

-------
Fairhope, Alabama Station.  A bulk precipitation collector was installed at
the site to collect integrated precipitation data for comparison with
published reports.

     Dye studies were performed in both the marsh and adjacent canal to
determine  flushing characteristics  of  the  system  and  the initial dilution
values.  Rhodomine WT dye was used and delivered either by the discharge
sprinkler system for the marsh studies or by slug dose at  the head of the
canal.  Dye concentration was  determined by fluorometry using a Turner
model  fluorometer.
2.4.   SEDIMENTS

     At the initiation of  sampling (June, 1984) and again in November
sediment samples  were  taken  in triplicate in  each  plot  by  inserting a 3.5
cm diameter core  to  a  depth of 20 cm.   These cores were subsequently split
into  subsamples  0-5 cm, 5-10 cm and 10-20 cm.   Sediment texture  was
determined utilizing standard methods.

     Two additional sediment cores were taken monthly  from each plot.
Similar  depth segments  from the  two replicates were  pooled and  the
sediments analysed for TOC and nutrients.
2.5.  FLORA

     The plant communities of the  marsh are important as  primary producers
and sediment binders.   Alteration of species  composition,  production
capability  or species abundance will not only impact the marsh ecosystem
but the adjacent estuary as well.   To  determine  the effects of wastewater
application  upon the plants, dominant species were monitored for growth and
productivity similarities between  treatments.

     Two 0.25 m^ clip samples of  aboveground  growth were removed at the
sediment surface from  each of the 12 plots on a monthly schedule.   Live
stem  height and diameter were measured for 20  randomly selected stems.
Density of  living stems  was determined by counting all  stems in  a sample
that were green  for more than 1/2 their length.  Material  was separated by
species, where necessary, and into living and dead components.  Live and
dead material was bagged, dried at 110 °C  and weighed to determine  standing
crop biomass.

     A core 47.78 cm^ was removed to a  depth  of 20 cm from each  clipped
area.  Each core was divided  into 0-5, 5-10 and  10-20 cm segments in the
field.   Cores were washed over  a 0.5 mm  mesh  screen and  all material
retained was preserved in  Rose  Bengal/70X  isopropyl   alcohol.   Plant
material was sorted from fauna,  and dried at  110 °C.   Total  standing crop
biomass of  belowground  plant tissues was  determined for each  depth segment
by weighing dried material.
                                  2-7

-------
2.6.   FAUNA

     To  monitor infaunal community composition,  fauna were removed from
three depths in each  of two replicate cores taken for belowground plant
biomass from  each  study plot.   Organisms were identified and counted.
Samples  were taken each month with the exception of September,  1984.

     All macroepifauna were identified and counted in each  0.25 m2 clipped
area (2  per plot) monthly.  Representative epifauna were  retained as  a
voucher collection.

     Samples of  creek and canal  fauna were collected  coincident with times
for marsh fauna during pre-discharge and bimonthly  during discharge and
postdischarge.   Three  benthic stations were sampled;  one at  the confluence
of the creek and canal, one in mid-canal  and one at the mouth of the  canal.
Three replicate samples  (approximately 0.225 tn2)  were taken  at each
station.  Samples  were washed  over a 0.5 mm screen, stained  with Rose
Benqal  and preserved  in 70% isopropyl  alcohol.  Organisms were  identified
and counted.

     On  each sample date, 3 - 1 m2 drop nets (0.3 cm mesh) were placed on
the canal  bottom in the  same  regions as the benthic samples.   Nets were
deployed at the beginning of the sample day and removed at the end  by rapid
vertical  lifting.  Organisms were preserved in 70% isopropyl  alcohol,
identified and counted.

     At  the  initiation of each  sampling  date a gill  net  was  located  across
the  canal  at  its  mid-point.   Organisms caught  were  preserved in 70%
isopropyl  at the end of each date.  Species were identified and inumerated.

     A summary of parameters  monitored and ferquency of sampling during
each study phase is provided in Table 3.
                                  2-8

-------
Table 3.  Monitoring regime by parameter1 and study phase.
Parameter/Month
Marsh Biota
Canal Fauna
Sediments:
Fauna
TOC
Nutrients
^Surface Water
1Groundwater
^anal Water
^astewater
/ 	 1 QQA 	 / /_
Pre- Discharge
JJASONDJ
/ 	 Month! v

X X


/— -______Ri wpolf 1 v------- 	 -/
/________Ri wp&lf 1 v — 	 	 /
/ — 3 per week--/
	 1 QQC 	 /
Post Discharge
F M A M J




/ 	 Monthly 	 /
/ 	 Monthly 	 /
/ 	 Monthly 	 /
 See Table 1 for details of analyses performed on each sample.
                                    2-9

-------

-------
                             3.0.  RESULTS
3.1.   WATER QUALITY

     Wastewater

     Because of the  problems experienced in the Bayou La Batre area, the
Alabama  Water Improvement  Commission  (now  the Alabama Department of
Environmental  Management),  the City of  Bayou La Batre and the  waste
processors themselves initiated several studies addressing the quantity and
quality  of wastes  in  the area.  Most of these addressed the  feasibility of
discharging  the  wastes  into  Portersville Bay,  directly south of  the city
and the  costs associated with the collection and  outfall system.

     The  volume of the seafood processing wastewater entering the city's
sewage treatment  plant (STP) can be roughly calculated by taking the STP
total flow records and subtracting out the base flow entering the plant
during periods  when  industrial discharges are negligible (during odd hours
out of season).   Table 4  presents the estimated daily flows from all
processors in  1978-79.  During  that period,  11 industrial  shrimp peelers
were  known to  be  in operation.    Dividing the  means of the table by 11
gives an  average daily flow (GPD) per shrimp peeler.

     A study  conducted  by  Polyengineering (1979)  addressed the quality of
seafood  processing wastewaters during the summer of 1979.  The results of
that study are summarized in Table 5 and  show  that the average  seafood
wastewater has a five  day  BOD of 617 mg/1 and total  suspended solids (TSS)
of 163 mg/1.  These values are less than half of the averages calculated
from data collected for shrimp processing plants  located on the Mississippi
Gulf  Coast  by Gulf Coast Laboratory investigators  (Perry 1984).   The
averages for the Mississippi facilities were 1,612 mg/1 BOD (50 Ib./lOOO
Ib.)  and  509 mg/1  for TSS (38.5 Ib./lOOO  lb.).

     The wastes utilized for the study were taken from a single  seafood
processor located in Bayou  La Batre, Alabama.   The wastes  included all
process  waters  (de-icer,  peelers  and floor drains)  which  were  screened
through a fine mesh screen (SWECO).  They  were  pumped from a collection
tank  in  the afternoon and placed in a 9000 gallon tank for transport to the
site  early the next morning.

     Total  Organic Carbon (TOO  in the wastewaters  was highly variable
ranging from 18.0  mg/1  to  10,005.0 mg/1 (up to 1 percent organic carbon).
Mean TOC in  the wastewaters  was 751.6 mg/1  (Table 6).

     Nitrogen parameters were high in the wastewaters applied to the  marsh.
Total  Kjeldahl  Nitrogen  in the wastewaters   ranged from 12.8  mg/1  to  554.0
mg/1  during  the discharge period.   The mean TKN  for  wastewaters was  201.9
mg/1.   No consistent  trend was noted  over  the sampling period that would
indicate a seasonal trend in the waste  stream.  Ammonium  ion showed a
variability  similar  to  the other parameters sampled ranging  from 9.6 mg/1
to 206.0 mg/1.   Mean  ammonium ion  levels  were 89.01 indicating that almost
half  of  the  nitrogen delivered was in this  form.   Combined nitrite-nitrate
                                 3-1

-------
Table 4.   Estimated seafood processing flows (GPD)  based on Bayou La Batre
STP  flow records for 1978-1979.    Mean discharge per peeler calculated  by
dividing the total  flow by the number of peelers in  operation (11).
  MONTH
MEAN FLOW
  TOTAL FLOWS
ALL PROCESSORS
   178,000
MEAN DISCHARGE
  PER PEELER
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Negligible
Negligible
230,000
Negligible
250,000
150,000
Negligible
Negligible
510,000
306,000
490,000
300,000


20,900

22,700
13,600


46,300
27,800
35,400
27,300
   16,200
Table 5.   Average quality of effluent discharged by various seafood plants
during August 1979* in Bayou La Batre.



Quality Foods, Inc.
Sea Pearl Seafood, Inc.
Fi Shermans Seafood
Seafood Haven
Flow Weighted Average


BOD5
599
839
588
522
616.7


pH
6.9
7.1
7.5
7.3
7.02

SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
164
179
163
93
163.3
AVERAGE
FLOW
(MGD)
.383
.047
.047
.082
.014
 *Data from Polyengineering,  1979.
                                    3-2

-------
    Table  6.   Descriptive statistics on the wastewater chemical
    data.  All parameters  reported in mg/1.
    Parameter
Mean    Maximum   Minimum   Std. Dev.
Ammoni urn
Nitrate-Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Organic Carbon
Total Phosphate
Ortho-Phosphate
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
89.01
0.04
201.9
751.5
18.9
11.67
863.3
206.00
0.40
554.0
10005.0
100.0
27.2
2323:5
9.60
0.02
12.8
18.0
2.76
0.84
166.67
52.3
0.07
118.9
1573.4
15.4
5.59
372.5
levels  were generally  low in the wastewaters ranging  from 0.02 mg/1  (the
detection  level)  to 0.4  mg/1.  The  mean N02-N03  level was  0.04  mg/1
(Table  6).  Generally,  the higher nitrate-nitrite levels  were  found in the
more dilute wastewater loads.   In the deliveries with high TKN  and ammonium
levels, N02-N03 levels  were at  or below the detection limits.

     Total  Phosphate levels were  quite variable in the  wastewaters  ranging
from 2.76 mg/1 to  100.0 mg/1.   The  mean total  phosphate level was  18.9
mg/1.   Ortho-phosphate levels  paralleled the  total  phosphate  ranging from
0.84 mg/1 to 27.1  mg/1.   The overall mean value of ortho-phosphate was
11.67 indicating that over half of the phosphate delivered  was in this
highly  labile form  (Table  6).  Much of the labile  phosphate could have come
from detergents used to clean certain areas in the plant.

     Biochemical oxygen demand was  quite  high in the  wastewaters  ranging
from 166.67 mg/1  to a  maximum recorded value of 2325.5 mg/1.  This high
value borders on the limits of  the methodology of the  test  in our study
since in  several  samples of wastewater the  demand exceeded the  available
oxygen in the  highest  dilution bottle  rendering  the  test  values
questionable on the upper limits in these cases.  It  is possible that
higher  BOD  values could have existed.  The mean BOD in  the  wastewaters was
862.2 mg/1  (Table 6).

     Surface Water -_ Experimental Plots

     Mean pre-discharge surface water temperature on  the 12 plots  ranged
from 30.6 deg. C. to 36.5 deg. C. for the sampling dates from   20 June 1984
to 18 July 1984.  No data  was recorded for surface temperature on 6 June
1984 due  to dry conditions on the plots.   An  overall mean  temperature for
the period  was  32.7  deg C  (Table 7).

     During discharge, temperatures  ranged  slightly  lower  for the fall
period ranging from 8.0  deg.  C. to  40.0  deg. C.  No  significant trends
across plots  were noted.   During the post  discharge period  mean
temperatures went lower still,  a  function of inclusion of the winter months
in these  statistics.
                                 3-3

-------
     Mean  salinities for the pre-discharge period ranged from 18.2  ppt.  to
20.5  ppt. over the 12  experimental  plots  (Table 7). An overall mean of 19.4
ppt.  was observed. Individual plot  salinities showed  little variation  on a
particular day and varied more  over time.

     During  the discharge period salinities  ranged from  2.0 ppt.  to 30 ppt.
on the individual plots with the lowest occuring on the full  loading  plots.
Mean values for the different  loadings ranged from 14.3 ppt. on the full
loading plots  to  21.0 ppt.  on the control  plots.

     Salinities during  the post discharge period were less variable than
the discharge period and exhibited a small  range in terms of the overall
mean between plots (Table 7).   The mean value for  this period (19.0 deg.
C.) was similar to  the pre-discharge conditions.

     Pre-discharge  dissolved oxygen  was  low in the  surface  waters of the
experimental  plots with the mean values ranging from 2.28 mg/1 to 3.15
mg/1.  Mean oxygen  for the  pre-discharge sampling  period  was  2.64 mg/1.
Individual  dissolved oxygen values ranged  from 0.8  mg/1 to 5.2 mg/1  for
the  sampling  period with  no   consistent pattern discernible   across the
plots.   The  lowest  readings were  taken early morning on 19  July  1984 when
the previous  day's sampling regime was interrupted due to  a  thunder  storm.
All other  samplings were taken  from  mid-morning to mid-afternoon.   This
indicates  a pattern of diurnal  changes in oxygen concentration on the
plots.

     Dissolved  oxygen  values on  the  plots  varied  widely during  the
discharge  period.  The overall  range went from  0.0 mg/1  on  the full loading
plots  to 19.0  mg/1  on  the  quarter  loading plots.   The  range  on the control
plots  was from 2.0 mg/1  to 15.0 mg/1.  Mean value for the  various loading
levels ranged from  a  high of 8.0 mg/1 on the control  plots  down to a  low of
5.7 mg/1 on the  full  loading plots.  On many occasions,  the  experimentally
loaded plots exhibited  dissolved  oxygen values of 200+ percent  of
saturation.

     The dissolved  oxygen levels for the post discharge period on the plots
were less variable  with  the means varying by  slightly  over  1 mg/1 between
the  plots (Table  7).   The values  were near saturation levels usually
reflecting monthly  changes  in temperature and salinity.

     Mean  pH ranged from  6.23 to  6.56  for the pre-discharge  samplings.
Overall mean  pH  for  the  plots was 6.43.   A  similar  constancy  was noted
for  pH during the discharge and post discharge periods with the mean pH
ranging from  6.4 -  6.5 and  6.0   - 6.3 respectively, across all plots.

     Analysis of Variance detected significant differences  for temperature
between the  different  periods of  the study reflecting  the temporal
variation  in this parameter.  No other  significant differences were
detectable at the  0.05  probability level for either temporal  or between
plots  for any of the  other  physicochemical parameters.
                                  3-4

-------
    Table   7.   Means  of  physico-chemical  parameters measured   on   the
    plots  for  the  pre-discharge,  discharge and  post discharge  periods.
Temperature
(°C)
Salinity
(ppt. )
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1 )
PH
    Pre-Discharge
    Discharge
                   Control
                   Quarter
                   Half
                   Full
                   Control
                   Quarter
                   Half
                   Full
34.4
34.4
32.3
35.6
25.2
24.8
25.1
25.1
19.9
20.3
18.3
21.7
21.0
20.0
19.1
14.3
2.4
2.0
2.7
3.0
8.0
7.0
6.4
5.7
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.5
    Post Discharge
Control
Quarter
Half
Full
23.4
22.2
24.1
23.4
19.3
17.6
20.3
18.8
7.5
6.8
6.2
7.4
6.0
6.3
6.8
6.3
     During the pre-discharge period Total  Organic Carbon (TOO  ranged from
7.3 mg/1  to 73.6 mg/1  throughout the plots  (Table 8).    The mean value  for
each  of   the designated loading groups (Control,  Full,  Half and  Quarter
loading)  ranged over a considerably smaller concentration,  from 23.1  mg/1
to  25.4   mg/1   (Table 8).   This indicates  that there  were  no  significant
differences in  concentration for this constituent  across the plots  during
the pre-discharge period.

     During the discharge period, mean TOC  ranged from 18.90 in the control
plots  to 60.49 in the full  loading plots.   The range  reflects the  various
loading  levels applied to the plots and appears to be directly  correlated
to wasteload.

     During  the  post  discharge  period,   TOC levels  accross  all  plots
averaged   lower  than during either the pre- or during  discharge  periods.
The means ranged from a low of 13.6 mg/1 to a high of  22.3 mg/1  across  the
various experimentally loaded plots (Table  8).
                                   3-5

-------
   Table 8. Mean  values for nutrients (mg/1)  sampled from the various
   loading plots  during the pre-discharge and discharge period.
                            NH4
                  N03
        TKN
TOC   TP   P04
   Pre-discharge
   Discharge
                  Control
                  Quarter
                  Half
                  Full
Control
Quarter
Half
Full
    Post Discharge
                           0.42
                           3.17
                           4.04
                           9.38
                 0.052    3.13   25.4
                 0.059    3.76   23.1
                 0.082    2.81   24.6
                 0.057    7.78   24.6
0.043    3.81  18.90
0.096    8.62  23.81
0.071   11.10  34.02
0.057   29.52  60.49
                     0.53
                     2.14
                     1.56
                     0.71
      0.24  0.211
      0.44  0.849
      0.78  0.679
      2.52  1.927
Control
Quarter
Half
Full
0.
0.
0.
0.
21
22
41
80
0
0
0
0
.083
.099
.119
.204
1
0
1
2
.08
.85
.38
.37
16
13
13
22
.8
.6
.75
.31
0.
0.
0.
0.
104
085
175
181
0.087
0.052
0.157
0.264
     The  pre-discharge  mean value for  Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) showed
a  range of concentrations from 2.8 to 7.8 mg/1 across   the   groupings
(Table 8).  Individual  samples ranged  from the detection limit (<1.0) to
28.8 mg/1.    Most  of the variation  in the  data was  attributed   to
variability  in  the nature   of   the   sample,   brought  about by  the
difficulty  of obtaining  a "clean"  sample in  the  extremely   shallow
surface waters (sometimes  < 1 cm  in  depth).

     During  the  discharge period,  mean  TKN values went from 3.8 mg/1  in the
control plot to 8.62 mg/1  on the quarter  loading plots, 11.11 mg/1 on the
half loading plots and  29.52 mg/1 on the  full  loading plots.   These  levels
were indicative  of and  appeared highly  correlated to the loading levels the
plots  received.

     The TKN levels  of  the post discharge period fell  below those observed
during the pre-discharge  period  with means across  the plots  ranging from
0.85 mg/1  to 2.37 mg/1,  a trend similar to that seen  with TOC.   This
finding is indicative of the seasonal changes  in TKN naturally occurring on
the plots and demonstrates the rapidity with  which  the TKN levels returned
to  background levels.

     Pre-discharge ammonium  levels at  the  plots  were always below the
limits of detection for  that analytical  procedure.    Ammonium during
discharge showed markedly elevated values in all plots with mean levels
ranging from 1.19 mg/1 on the control  plots to  15.89 mg/1 on the full
loading  plots (Table 8).    These  differences  were  reflective  of  the waste
loading levels received during the test period.   Immediately following  the
                                  3-6

-------
discharge period, ammonium levels fell  to near the pre-discharge conditions
and hovered slightly above the detection levels  with the means for the
post discharge  period ranging from 0.21 mg/1 to 0.80  mg/1.

     Mean  nitrite-nitrate levels   on  each  plot group for  the pre-
discharge  period were  low,   ranging from 0.052 mg/1 to 0.082 mg/1  (Table
8).   Individual samples ranged from the detection limit  (0.04mg/l)  to  0.17
mg/1.

     For the discharge period  mean nitrite-nitrate levels ranged from right
above the detection limit on the control plots (0.048 mg/1) to a high of
0.173 mg/1 on  the quarter loading plots.  The half and full loading plots
had intermediate mean values of 0.136 mg/1 and 0.050  mg/1 respectively.

     Post discharge levels of nitrite-nitrate  ranged slightly higher still
from 0.083 mg/1 on the control  plots  to 0.204 mg/1  on  the full  loading
plots.  The means for this period reflected the  loading levels which the
plot recieved  during the discharge period.

     Concentrations  for  pre-discharge Total   Phosphorus  (TP)  on the
surface  plots  was variable ranging from 0.015  to 5.0 mg/1  in the individual
samples.  Mean values  were   slightly   less   variable  ranging from 0.53
mg/1  to  2.14  mg/1   (Table 8).   As  with  TOC  and  TKN   sampling,
difficulties in  obtaining good  surface   water samples probably attributed
to the variability observed  in   the Total Phosphorus  values.

     Total Phosphorus  was  highly variable during the discharge period as
well.  Mean values across the different loading levels  went from  0.24 mg/1
to 2.52  mg/1 with  the highest levels occuring in the full  loading  plots.
A similar variability was also noted  during the post  discharge  period.

     Ortho-phosphate was not analyzed during the pre-discharge but showed a
trend similar  to total phosphate on the various plots  during the  waste
discharge  period.  Ortho-phosphate ranged from 0.211 mg/1 on  the control
plots to 1.927 mg/1 on the  full  loading plots.   During  post discharge
ortho-phosphate also paralleled the behaviour of Total Phosphate  on the
plots.

     Analysis of variance on  the various nutrient species showed
significant date (temporal)  differences for all parameters except TOC.
Ortho-phosphate also exhibited a  significant  date/plot  interaction.   Plot
differences were  not  detectable in an overall  ANOVA but were  highly
significant for NH4, TKN and TOC during the discharge period  and for N03
for the  post discharge period.

     Pre-discharge Biochemical  Oxygen Demand  (BODc)  for the test plot
surface  and groundwaters  (wells)  are   presented  in  Table  9.    Values
for the  three   sampling dates ranged  from 0.2  to over 37 mg/1 with most of
the  values (80 percent)  falling  between 1 and 12 mg/1.  As expected,
highest BOD5 levels were generally  found  in  the surface  waters on  the
plots,   reflecting the  presence  of   degradable    biogenic   materials at
the sediment  surface. No significant trend  between  test plots were noted
during the  pre-discharge period.
                                 3-7

-------
   Table   9.     Biochemical  Oxygen  Demand   (5
   experimental   plots during the pre-discharge,
   discharge periods.  All concentrations  are  in
                        day  BOD)  on   the
                        discharge and  post
                       mg/1.
    Depth/Period
Control   Quarter    Half
                 Full
                 Meai
   Pre-discharge

   Surface
   10 cm well
   20 cm well
   30 cm well
   5
   4
   5
   7
 7
 8
 4
 7
 3
 3
 4
13
 5
 3
 7
 5
 4
 3
    Discharge

    Surface
    10 cm well
    20 cm well
    30 cm wel1

    Post Discharge

    Surface
    10 cm well
    20 cm well
    30 cm well

    Mean
  14
  10
  10
  11
  11
  10
  13
  10
19
14
16
12
11
10
16
10
20
18
15
11
12
10
13
14

 8
78
16
17
11
13
12
14
15

13
33
15
15
11
12
11
14
12
     Mean BODg  for the discharge  period shows  elevated levels  on  the
surface of the plots receiving the  wastewaters.  The mean of the control
plots was within the range  of  pre-discharge values but had a broader range
during the  discharge period, from 3.4 mg/1 to 70.0  mg/1.  The ranges  on the
quarter and  half  loading  plots,  1.8 to 71.0  and 5.4  to 71.0 mg/1
respectively,  were similar on the control but the  means were  slightly
higher,  17.5 and 18.4 mg/1  respectively.  BOD5 had the widest range  on the
full loading plots (0.40 to 400.0 mg/1) and had a mean value of 78.2 mg/1.

     During the  post discharge period mean  BODg ranged  10 to 16  mg/1
across all plots and depths (Table  9).  The variability across plots and
depths for this  period was similar to the pre-discharge period  although the
mean values were generally  slightly higher.

     Significant temporal (date)  differences existed for BOD when  tested by
analysis  of variance (ANOVA).  BOD levels on  the surface of  the fully
loaded plots  were significantly higher than the other  plots.

     Chlorophyll a_ values  for the test plot surface  waters on  the three
pre-discharge  sampling dates for which data were available ranged from 2.67
to 191.35 mg/m3 with a mean of 64.85 mg/m3 (Table 10). Chlorophyll  £ also
                                  3-8

-------
    Table  10.   Summary of Chlorophyll a. Data during the three  study
    periods.  All  concentrations  are  expressed in mg/m3.
       Station
      CONCENTRATION

 Mean     Win.        Max.
      Pre-discharge

         Control
         Quarter
         Half
         Full
 59.3
 74.3
 51.8
 64.3
32.0
32.9
 2.67
24.9
106.8
 98.
191.3
107.7
    Discharge

         Control
         Quarter
         Half
         Full

    Post discharge
 52.6
141.3
115.3
161.5
 5.34
 0.0
 0.0
 2.67
237.6
899.8
379.1
688.8
Control
Quarter
Half
Full
82.05
37.73
201.46
208.44
4.5
0
4.5
9.1
567.3
99.85
794.3
830.6
exhibited a high degree of variability  (standard deviation of 46.53 mg/m3).
This variability  results  from the non-uniform method of collection as well
as the heterogeneity  of the  specific  sites sampled.

     During the discharge period chlorophyll  £ levels exhibited even more
variability ranging from 0.0 mg/m3 to 899.8 mg/m3  (Table 10).  Mean values
also exhibited a wide fluctuation  going from  27.2 mg/1 to 218.9 mg/1.  Mean
chlorophyll  a for the  various  loadings ranged from 52.58 mg/m3 on the
control  plot To 161.47  on  the full loading plots.

     Post discharge  chlorophyll  a  remained  high on the half  and fully
loaded plots where the means for this period exceeded the discharge levels
(Table 10).

     Testing  the  chlorophyll a_ by  ANOVA showed no detectable differences
between  either loading  plot  or  period,  presumably  due  to  the high
variability exhibited by this parameter.
                                  3-9

-------
     Groundwater

     Mean  groundwater  salinity during the pre-discharge ranged from  26.0
ppt.   to 32.4 ppt.   in the sampling wells with the highest value  recorded
from  the deepest (30 cm) wells.   Overall means for  the individual  depths
during  the pre-discharge sampling were 26.1  ppt.,  26.9  ppt.   and    32.4
ppt. in  the  10, 20 and 30 cm wells respectively.

     During the discharge period,  mean salinities  ranged from 21.6 ppt  to
30.1  ppt.   The general trend across the plots was to exhibit the  highest
values  in  the deepest (30 cm) wells.   In the surface wells (10  cm),   a
trend  of decreasing salinities was noted with increase in  loading  level.
During  the  post discharge  period this trend disappeared  and  the   wells
behaved in the same manner observed for the pre-discharge period.

     Mean pH varied from 6.08 to 6.67 in the various depths during the pre-
discharge period.  A trend of increasing pH with depth of sampling well was
noted  in  the overall means .  During the discharge period mean pH  ranged
from 6.11 to 6.32 with no noticeable trends across  either depth or  loading
level.   Post discharge  mean  pH ranged from 6.10  to 6.5,  again  with  no
noticable trend in either treatment plot or date.

     Mean  Total  Organic Carbon in the wells during  pre-discharge  ranged
from  24.9  mg/1  to  84.7 mg/1 with the highest values  occurring  in  the
deepest   (30 cm) sampling wells {Table 11).   Difference between depths was
greater   than  difference  between  plots  designated  for   the   various
experimental  loading levels.   The greatest difference in TOC during  pre-
discharge  was between the 20 cm and 30 cm wells where the mean values were
38.7 mg/1 and 64.7 mg/1, respectively.

     During discharge TOC ranged slightly higher in the wells going from  a
low of 37.38 mg/1 to a high of  91.6 mg/1.    No noticable trend with either
depth or  loading level was noted during this period.

     Post discharge  TOC  seemed  to exhibit a reversed trend  during  this
period with the highest values  occurring  in the shallowest wells.

     Mean  TKN values ranged from 1.8 mg/1  in  the  deep  (30 cm) wells   to  a
high of 9.7 mg/1 in  the  shallowest well  (10 cm).   As with TOC levels,  the
greatest  difference  was seen  between 20 and  30 cm depths and   differences
between plots were  less  pronounced  (see Table  11).

     During the  discharge period,  mean TKN ranged from  1.93 mg/1  in the 30
cm  control  wells  to a  high of 13.03 mg/1  in  the  quarter  loading,  20  cm
wells.    TKN  values were all  slightly elevated  in the  plots that  received
the wastewaters  but no  consistent trend was apparent.

     The  same trend was  noted  for the  post  discharge  period where  the  mean
values   ranged   from  1.94  mg/1  to  4.06  mg/1,  slightly  lower  than the
discharge period.
                                    3-10

-------
Table  11.   Mean  Concentration of nutrients from various  depths  on  the
experimental plots.
Loading Depth TOC


P
R
E
D
I
S
C
H
R
G
E



D
I
S
H
A
R
G
E




P
0
S
T
D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E
Control
Quarter
Half
Full

Control
Quarter
Half
Full

Control
Quarter
Half
Full
Control
Quarter
Full
Half

Control
Quarter
Full
Half

Control
Quarter
Full
Half
Control
Quarter
Half
Full
Control
Quarter
Half
Full

Control
Quarter
Half
Full
10 31.7
24.9
33.5
34.6

20 37.9
45.1
35.3
36.6

30 33.9
69.5
70.7
84.7
10 91.16
42.82
46.32
85.62

20 49.88
52.25
37.38
83.18

30 40.20
41.08
55.78
53.90
10 100.2
82.6
79.0
140.0
20 75.2
60.9
36.2
77.9

30 74.4
36.5
38.1
85.4
TKN
6.58
5.45
4.43
4.45

4.65
4.45
4.48
6.95

2.56
1.80
2.40
2.50
6.79
13.03
4.82
7.67

3.86
8.39
5.34
9.97

1.93
4.00
4.27
6.03
2.88
1.94
2.93
3.55
3.35
3.49
2.21
5.11

2.62
3.02
2.80
4.06
NH4
0.56
1.23
0.51
0.45

1.50
1.45
0.73
0.80

0.76
1.48
1.90
1.10
0.50
1.11
1.25
3.19

0.81
2.42
2.00
4.26

0.183
1.922
1.22
1.36
0.78
0.95
1.01
1.28
1.32
1.90
0.73
2.80

0.35
1.06
0.39
1.49
N02-N03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06

0.09
0.07
0.17
0.06

0.11
0.14
0.17
0.12
0.05
0.07
0.27
0.06

0.12
0.14
0.13
0.13

0.01
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.22
0.08
0.18
0.22
0.26
0.12
0.24

0.15
0.13
0.19
0.09
TP
1.35
1.50
1.03
0.64

1.52
0.93
0.71
1.04

0.70
0.88
0.71
2.15
3.54
2.75
2.27
1.46

1.47
1.64
1.06
1.05

0.61
0.56
0.63
0.89
0.97
1.01
1.57
0.88
0.79
0.87
0.37
1.22

0.58
0.38
0.62
1.22
P04
_
-
-
-

_
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
2.54
2.53
1.20
0.60

1.32
0.66
1.51
0.48

3.28
2.00
0.52
0.93
1.07
1.05
1.64
0.88
0.78
0.75
0.33
0.87

0.44
0.38
0.56
0.82
                                   3-11

-------
     Mean ammonium levels   ranged from  0.45  mg/1  to 1.90 mg/1  in  the
various  plots sampled during pre-discharge  (Table 11).  A slight increasing
trend was  noted in the means in the deeper wells but given the variability
observed for  this parameter  it  is not  known  whether this  trend  is
significant.

     The range  of  ammonium levels  during  the discharge period went from
0.183 mg/1  in the  30 cm control wells to a high of 4.27 mg/1  in  the full
loading  20 cm wells.  In general,  there was a trend of increasing  ammonium
levels in the  plots receiving  the wastewater  loadings,  especially  in  the
shallower wells (10 and 20 cm).

     Post discharge ammonium  displayed a  behavior' more  similar    to  the
pre-discharge period but ranged slightly  higher,  especially in the  wells on
the plots that had recieved the heaviest  wasteloads.  No apparent depth
trend was notable  for this parameter during post discharge.

     Pre-discharge  mean  nitrite-nitrate  levels also increased slightly in
the deeper wells from 0.055 mg/1 in the  10 cm wells to 0.137 in the 30 cm
wells (Table 11).  The individual  means   within  the various plots  ran from
0.047 mg/1  to 0.170 mg/1.  As with  some of the other parameters  above,
variability  between  plots was less than variability  between  depths
indicating  that the trend in depth is a real phenomenon.

     During the discharge  period,  nitrite-nitrate levels were highest in
the intermediate  depth wells  (20 cm) for all  loading levels.  The highest
mean value was  found  in the half loading, 10 cm  depth plots and the lowest
at the 30 cm control  plot.

     Post discharge exhibited a similar trend  with the mid  depth wells
ranging  slightly higher than the other depths.

     The pre-discharge range of mean total  phosphate  values  ran from a low
of 0.64  mg/1 to a  high of 2.15 mg/1   (Table 11).    There was  no consistent
trend observed  in  the means across  either  depth  or loading  group for this
parameter.

     During the discharge period, mean Total  Phosphate also varied widely
between the plots  and depths,  ranging from 0.616 mg/1  to  3.54  mg/1.  There
was a consistent trend of decreasing Total  Phosphate levels with increasing
depth for all   loading plots.   Curiously,  the highest mean Total  Phosphate
levels was found in the control plots.

     In general,  post discharge levels ranged slightly lower  than  the
discharge  period  and showed  no obvious trends with respect to plot or
depth.

     Ortho-phosphate levels varied most  closely  with the Total  Phosphate
values over both plots and depths during  the discharge period.  However the
numbers  were quite variable  as attested by the values of  ortho-phosphate
being higher than the Total Phosphate levels in the deeper wells.   Post
discharge levels behaved  similarly.
                                  3-12

-------
     Canal Water

     Mean Physico-chemical  parameters  for the  canal  adjacent  to  the
discharge  site are presented  in  Table  12.   Mean temperatures in the canal
waters during  pre-discharge ranged  from 26.2 deg. C. on 5 June 1984  to  32.4
deg.  C. on 20  June  1984.   The overall  mean temperature for the  pre-
discharge period was  29.8 deg. C., typical of the mid summer months in
Alabama  coastal  waters.  Monthly temperatures  for the various  canal
stations during the  discharge period ranged from  29.0 deg. C. to 11.0 deg.
C., respectively from 15 August 1984 through  8 December,  1985,  reflecting
the  trend of  fall  cooling throughout  the period.  An  overall mean
temperature   of  23.6 deg. C. was observed during the discharge period.
Lowest  temperatures were during  the  post discharge  period when  the
temperature fell to 7.0 deg. C.  The usual  seasonal  warming  trend  was
observed  for the remainder  of  the  project.  Overall  mean for the  post
discharge  period was 18.98  deg.  C.

     Mean salinity  for the pre-discharge period was 20.7 ppt. and ranged
from  16.0 ppt. on 20 June 1984 to a high of 24.4 on 18  July 1984.   No
consistent trend was noted in salinity, either with depth  within the canal
or in distance from the mouth of  canal,  indicating a relatively well
flushed system.  During the discharge period, salinity  ranged from 18.0
ppt.  to  28.0 ppt., more  typical of the late  summer-fall regimen.  The mean
salinity for this period was 22.3  ppt.  Salinity during the post discharge
period averaged slightly lower at 18.8  ppt reflective  of the increased
river discharge during the  late  winter-spring season.

     The pre-discharge  means for   dissolved oxygen  in the canal  ranged
from  5.4 mg/1  on 20 June  1984  to 7.8 mg/1  on 6  June 1984.   The overall
mean  for  this constituent was 6.65  mg/1.  A slight  trend  of   oxygen
concentration decreasing   with  increasing depth was  noted on several
occasions, but with  the exception  of the 6 June  1984 was never greater
than  0.5 mg/1.   On 6  June,  a  difference of  0.6 mg/1 was noted  at station 3
and a differences of  1.6  mg/1 was  noted at station 2.

     During the discharge period dissolved oxygen ranged slightly higher in
the canal with readings of 4.4 mg/1. to  10.9 mg/1.  Mean values for the
various stations showed little  variability in dissolved oxygen  with  a range
of only 0.5 mg/1  from  7.2 to 7.7 mg/1.  Overall mean for  this period  was
7.5 mg/1  for all  stations.

     During post discharge  no notable trends in dissolved  oxygen were
observed.  Overall  mean values ranged slightly  higher  for  the  surface
stations (7.6 mg/1 to 8.8 mg/1)  compared to  the bottom stations (7.0 mg/1
to 7.4 mg/1)
                                 3-13

-------
Table  12.   Means  of physico-chemical  parameters measured  in
adjacent to the plot site.
the  canal


Parameter
Station

IS 2S 3S 2B

Overall
3B Mean
Pre-Discharge

Temperature(deg.C.)     29.5     29.8    30.6      29.8      30.4     29.8
Salinity(ppt.)          21.0     20.3    20.5      20.8      20.8     20.7
Dissolved oxygen(mg/1)   7.0      6.8     6.9       6.0       6.8     6.5
pH                       7.6      7.6     7.5       7.6       7.4     7.4


Discharge

Temperature (deg. C.)   23.3     23.2     23.3     23.4      24.8     23.6
Salinity  (ppt)         22.3     22.0     22.1     21.9      23.0     22.3
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)  7.5      7.5      7.2      7.7       7.5     7.5
pH                       6.6      6.6      6.7      6.7       6.6     6.6
Post Discharge
Temperature (deg.C.)
Salinity
Dissolved
PH
(ppt)
Oxygen (mg/1 )

19.4
18.8
8.6
6.6
18.
18.
7.
6.
66
6
6
5
19
18
8
6
.2
.5
.8
.5
18.
19.
7.
6.
66
3
4
5
19.
19.
7.
6.
08
2
0
5
18.9
18.8
7.8
6.5
     During the study dissolved oxygen trends  reflected typical seasonal
trends in  response to changes  in salinity and temperature.

     Mean  pH  was  variable  throughout the pre-discharge  sampling   period
ranging from  6.81 on 18 July 1984 to 8.16 on 20 June 1984.  The  overall  mean
pH  was  calculated at 7.46   for the  pre-sampling  period from  all  stations
and  depth  combinations.   During the  discharge  period pH ranged between 6.0
and  7.4 with  a  mean  value of  6.6.   Post discharge  pH was  also not  notable
ranging from  6.0  to  7.2 through the period with  an  overall mean of  6.5.

     Analysis by ANOVA of  the physico-chemical data  showed significant
differences between  the pre-discharge, discharge and post discharge  periods
for  temperature and  dissolved  oxygen  in  the  canal.   These  differences  were
attributable  to seasonal  trends  in these parameters.

     Pre-discharge Total Organic Carbon ranged from  a minimum of  4.1  mg/1
to  a maximum of  16.5 mg/1  in  canal waters. The  means for  this constituent
in  the surface  waters  ranged slightly higher in  the  surface samples (10.0-
10.17 mg/1)   compared  to   the   samples   taken  from the deeper  portions of
the canal  (8.8-8.9 mg/1)  (Table 13).
                                   3-14

-------
Table  13.   Mean concentration of various nutrient constituents   in
the  canal  adjacent to the sample site.   All  concentrations  are  in
mg/1.
       Station   NH4    N02-N03    TKN
                          TOC
                           TP
                        P04
                     Pre-discharge Period
       IS
       2S
       2B
       3S
       3B
       IS
       2S
       2B
       3S
       3B
        0.06
        0.08
        0.09
        0.06
        0.10
           1.1
           1.1
           1.3
           1.7
           1.25
                       Discharge Period
0.17
0.11
0.20
0.13
0.14
0.04
0.19
0.18
0.22
0.13
0.46
0.63
1.38
0.39
1.02
      10.0
      10.21
       8.9
      10.11
       8.8
3.99
5.20
4.67
5.11
6.33
         0.08
         0.37
         0.15
         0.06
         0.08
0.05
0.04
0.16
0.02
0.14
                       Post Discharge Period
0.099
0.034
0.160
0.037
0.078
IS
2S
2B
3S
3B
0.23
0.32
0.17
0.37
0.21
0.049
0.101
0.063
0.057
0.116
0.78
0.71
0.95
0.73
0.80
6.36
7.92
8.80
6.81
8.61
0.07
0.08
0.22
0.10
0.11
0.033
0.038
0.322
0.036
0.020
     During  the  discharge period,  TOC  ranged lower than for the pre-
discharge period with the mean values falling between 3.99 mg/1  to 6.33
mg/1.  With the exception of station IS, TOC values were slightly higher  in
the surface  samples.  Total Organic carbon in the post discharge period
ranged slightly higher from 6.36 mg/1  to 8.61  mg/1.

     Pre-discharge total Kjeldahl  nitrogen (TKN) was  relatively  constant
in the  canals ranging from  the detection   limits of the ADEM laboratory
(0.4  mg/1)  to a maximum of  2.8  mg/1.    Mean  values of TKN were between 1.10
and  1.70  illustrating the  low  variability observed in the canal  data.
For  the discharge period mean TKN  ranged  from 0.39 to 1.38 in the canal
stations  with the  higher values occurring  in the deeper samples from
stations  2 and 3.   Post  discharge TKN was  lower still with the period
average ranging from 0.73  mg/1  to  0.80 mg/1  in the  canals.

     Ammonium ion  was at the  detection limit (<1.0  mg/1 for first two
samplings; <0.1 thereafter) for all  samples taken  from  the  canal  during
the pre-discharge period.    During discharge mean ammonium ion levels
across the stations ranged from 0.11 mg/1  to 0.20  mg/1  and ranged higher
during the post discharge  period  (0.16 mg/1 to 0.37  mg/1).
                                  3-15

-------
     Combined nitrite-nitrate pre-discharge  levels  ranged from  the
detection   limit  (0.04 mg/1)  to 0.24  mg/1   in the  deeper   stations  of the
canal.  Slightly  higher means were   observed  for the  deeper stations
(0.088-0.099mg/l) relative  to  the surface   water stations  (0.063-0.079
mg/1).  Nitrite-nitrate ranged slightly  higher during discharge than the
pre-discharge  period  from 0.04 mg/1  to  0.22  mg/1.  The highest values were
observed at station 3S  near  the mouth of the canal  leading to  Portersville
Bay.   Post  ischarge  nitrite-nitrate fell  slightly  at most stations (0.049
mg/1  to 0.116)

     Mean Total  Phosphate ranged  from 0.06 mg/1   to 0.36 mg/1 in canal
waters for the pre-discharge period and ranged  from  0.02  mg/1  to 0.16 mg/1
during  discharge. Post discharge values exhibited a similar variability
going from 0.07 mg/1  to  0.22  mg/1.   Highest levels were mostly observed in
the  bottom samples.

     Ortho-phosphate was not measured during  the  pre-discharge  period.
During the discharge  period  mean  P04  ranged  from  0.034 mg/1 to  0.160 mg/1
and  from  0.020  to 0.038 during post  discharge  No notable  trends were
evident for this  variable which exhibited  a wide range of  variation.

     Analysis of  variance (ANOVA)  for the nutrients in the canals showed
significant differences between  the pre-discharge, discharge  and  post
discharge periods for ammonium ion (NH4) and total  organic carbon (TOO.
No significant differences were detected between stations  for any  parameter
tested.

     Little variability  was  shown  by  pre-discharge  BOD values  determined
for  the canal waters  (Table  14).  Values  for   samples  taken  during the
three   pre-discharge surveys  ranged  from  3.6  to  6.4    mg/1 with  an
average  value of 5.0 mg/1.  No trends relating to  station or depth were
noted.  BOD values  increased  slightly  over  the course  of  the baseline
sampling program.

     During the discharge period,  mean BOD5 was  slightly lower ranging from
2.6  to 2.9  mg/1 across the stations.  The  overall range ran from  2.1 to 9.2
mg/1  showing slightly higher variations during this  period.  Post discharge
6005 means increased  slightly  ranging from 3.3 mg/1  to 4.4 mg/1  and ranged
from 2.1 mg/1 to 7.8  mg/1.

     Results of ANOVA testing  on  the  BOD5  data from the canals showed  that
there were no significant  differences between testing  periods (dates),
stations or depths.

     Pre-discharge chlorophyll £ levels in canal waters averaged 20.9 mg/m3
and  ranged from  1.78 to 34.71 mg/m3 (Table  15).  While no notable trends
were seen  in  chlorophyll distribution,  the highest surface water levels  on
each date were noted  at the  rear of the canal.

     Chlorophyll  a_ exhibited similar trends during  the  during  the discharge
period  ranging from 4.45 mg/m3 to 32.9 mg/m3  across the canal stations  with
no apparent trends as to station  or depth. The  mean  values ranged slightly
lower for the stations displaying values  between 13.65 mg/m3 to 17.31
mg/m3.
                                  3-16

-------
Table 14.  Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) mg/1 from the
canal waters during the study.

PRE-DISCHARGE




DISCHARGE




POST DISCHARGE




Station
IS
2S
2B
3S
3B
IS
2S
2B
3S
3B
IS
2S
2B
3S
3B
Mean
5.0
5.0
5.4
5.4
4.6
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.6
3.4
3.3
4.4
3.4
4.3
Min
4.0
4.3
3.1
3.6
4.1
2.0
2.5
2.1
2.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.7
Max
6.1
5.7
6.2
6.4
4.9
7.8
7.8
8.6
9.2
7.4
5.5
5.0
5.4
7.4
7.2
Table  15.   Chlorophyll  £  Values in the Canal during  the  pre-
discharge,  discharge and post discharge  periods.  Concentrations
are expressed in mg/M3
STATION

IS
2S
2B
3S
3B

IS
2S
2B
3S
3B

IS
2S
2B
3S
3B
Mean
PRE
27.0
15.4
25.5
19.6
17.2
D
17.3
14.2
16.0
13.7
14.2
POST
15.9
14.3
28.8
13.0
16.3
Mi nimum
-DISCHARGE
4.6
1.8
17.7
9.8
10.7
ISCHARGE
6.2
5.3
4.5
5.3
6.2
DISCHARGE
7.6
6.0
10.5
4.5
7.3
M a x i m u n

34.7
24.0
32.0
29.4
24.0

32.9
29.4
32.0
27.6
20.5

30.3
27.3
81.7
22.6
52.9
Standard
Deviation

_
_
-
_
-

9.7
8.4
8.4
6.9
5.4

8.7
7.9
22.8
5.7
15.1
                              3-17

-------
3.2.   SEDIMENTS

     Mean  TOC for  the  top  5  cm of  sediments  in  the pre-discharge
experimental  plots are represented in  Table  16.   Individual  samples among
the plots ranged between 26 mg/g to 71  mg/g for the pre-di scharge period
with the mean values for the  different  loading  plots ranging from  39.0 to
56.0  mg/g.  Overall mean for TOC at the  5 cm level was 49.65  mg/g.

     During the discharge period  mean  TOC ranged slightly  higher in  all the
experimental  plots and ranged from 69.3  mg/g to a high of  91.88 mg/g in the
full loading plots.  The highest recorded  TOC  values were  from the full
loading plots  where  individual values  ranged as high as 132.0 mg/g

     TOC levels in  the  post  discharge surficial  sediments returned to
levels similar to  those  found  during the pre-discharge period.  The range
during post discharge of mean TOC is from 34.7 mg/g to 39.6 mg/g.

     Pre-discharge  Mean TKN  for the various sediments  sampled from the
different plots are presented in  Table 16.  Mean values  for TKN ranged from
2,160 to 12,933 ug/g  across plots and depth.  Lowest mean TKN values were
noted in the deepest (20 cm) depth cores where mean TKN was  4,095 ug/g
compared to 9,773  and 10,311 ug/g for the 5  and  10 cm cores respectively.

     Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ranged from 11,468 ug/g in  the half loading
plots to 15,893 mg/g in the full loading plots.  The control and quarter
loading plots  had  intermediate  values  of 12,502  and  12,322  mg/g
respectively.

     Post discharge  sediment  TKN remained  near the discharge levels with
the means ranging  from  12,412 ug/g to 13,422 mg/g.

     Mean Total  Phosphate (TP) in the sediments ranged from  the  detection
limit (  < 100 ug/g as P) to 365 ug/g across  various plots and depth during
the pre-discharge  sampling  (Table 16).   The  overall mean  value was  highest
in the uppermost cores where Total Phosphate measured 246  ug/g.

     During discharge the mean Total  Phosphate values ranged  from  362 ug/g
to 520 mg/g with no clear trend as to loading.  Post discharge TP means
showed little variation  ranging from 260 ug/g to 296 mg/g.

     During pre-di scharge the  mean  Eh for  sediments  measured at both the
surface (0 mm) and at a depth of 50 mm  was  quite  variable (Table 17).  The
range in means for the sediment surface  was  from -35  mv to +280 mv  with no
consistent trends  noted.  The means for  the  50 mm  samples ranged  from -116
to +240 mv.

     During the discharge period, Eh  values were generally  lower than
during the pre-discharge period.   Mean Eh values ranged from -8 mv  to -172
mv at the sediment surface  (0.0 mm)  and  went from -120 mv  to  -307 mv at the
50 mm  depth.  There was a consistent trend  of decreasing  Eh with  increase
in loading level.
                                  3-18

-------
Table  16.   Sediment  Total Organic Carbon  (TOO,  Total   Kjeldahl
Nitrogen  (TKN)  and  Total  Phosphate (TP) from  the  pre-discharge,
discharge and post discharge samplings.
Parameter
Depth   Control
Quarter
Half
Full
Pre-Discharge
TOC (mg/g)
TKN (ug/g)


TP (ug/g)


Discharge
TOC (mg/g)
TKN (ug/g)
TP (ug/g)
Post Discharge
TOC (mg/g)
TKN (ug/g)
TP (ug/g)

5
5
10
20
5
10
20

5
5
5

5
5
5

45.6
7,310
12,933
3,853
184
206
<100

69.3
12,502
408

34.7
12,986
296

54.0
11,850
9,570
3,658
312
<100
<100

54.0
12,322
394

39.6
13,422
273

39.0
8,130
8,520
2,160
123
312
<100

39.0
11,468
362

39.5
12,412
290

56.0
11,803
10,223
6,710
365
180
<100

91.9
15,893
520

37.2
12,903
260
Table   17.   Mean Eh values (in millivolts) from the  sample  plots
during the pre-discharge, discharge and post discharge periods.
Sediment
Depth
0 mm



50 mm



Loading
Level
Control
Quarter
Half
Full
Control
Quarter
Half
Full
Pre-
Discharge
+92
+188
+92
+97
+67
+47
+46
+7
Discharge

-49
-44
-56
-162
-171
-189
-232
-300
Post
Discharge
-4
-20
-29
-28
-151
-169
-171
-204
                                   3-19

-------
     During the post discharge period, Eh values  at the Omm and  50 mm
depths ranged higher than the discharge period but did not get as high as
during the  pre-discharge period.  A consistent  trend of  decreasing Eh with
increased loading level  remained evident on the  plots.

     Sediment texture  data,  pre-discharge and following discharge, are
summarized  in Table 18.   Analysis  of  variance  on  paired plots and depths,
before and  after wastewater  application indicated,  no  change in sediment
texture (a  = 0.01).  Significant changes over depth  were  detected with
decreasing  percentage mud  ( <62.5  microns) at  10 cnu and 20 cm.   Mean
percentage mud for each depth was 75.5, 65.6 and  43.8 for 0-5 cm, 5-10 cm
and 10-20 cm portions respectively.
Table  18.   Comparison  of  sediment  texture before and  after  discharge,
treatments  pooled by depth.
DEPTH/
SAMPLE PERIOD
% MUD
RANGE
% MUD
X
SE1 2BETWEEN SAMPLE
x PERIOD ANOVA
5 cm

Pre-discharge

Post discharge

5cm mean  (n  = 60)
39.3 - 95.3

55.0 - 90.8
77.0

74.0

75.5
 2.73

 2.94

 2.84
 NS
10 cm

Pre-discharge       39.3

Post discharge      39.2

10 cm mean  (n = 60)
       89

       87.9
68.6

63.1

65.6
3.22

3.17

3.20
NS
20 cm

Pre-discharge       20.9

Post discharge      25.8

20 cm mean (n =  60)
       73.4

       81.4
41.4

46.3

43.8
2.55

3.07

2.81
NS
 SE = Standard Error of the Mean.
^Significant at 0.01.
NS = Not Significant.
                                  3-20

-------
3.3.  FLORA

     All sample plots were covered by an essentially monospecific community
of black needlerush, Juncus roemerianus.  Occassional rare individiual
plants  of Spartina alterni flora and Distich!is  spicata were collected,  but
plant species  composition did  not  change  within  the study plots.
Therefore, all results  are reported for Juncus roemerianus only.

     Growth

     Variability in live  stem densities  between plots were greater than
differences between loading  rates  and  between sampling periods  (Table 19).
No significant load effect on production and  survival of live  stems was
detected, with the exception of the half-loaded (2.5 cm) plots in August.
Mean live stem  density  within the  half load plots  was 812 nr2,  higher than
control  and other treatments (Table 19).

     Plot stem  densities  ranged from  374 nr2 (May/Full)  to 916 m~2
(Dec./Half).  Overall  densities  averaged 650  live  stems per m2  for the
study period.   Maximum  monthly densities occurred  in December (x  = 805 nr2)
and were lowest at  the end of the study in  June,  1985 (x =  503  m-2).
Densities were  significantly lower in  June,  1985, than starting densities
in June, 1984.

     Changes  in height and diameter of  live plant  stems  could not be
correlated with different  loading rate applications, but reflected the
typical growth  pattern for Juncus in all treatments.  Both height and
diameter increased through the summer  (Figure 4).

     Mean diameter of  live stems  remained  relatively constant through fall
and declined throughput the  winter and  spring to return in June,  1985, to a
period  of apparent increasing growth.   Mean diameter  ranged from 0.30 cm
(May, 1985) to 0.42 cm  (August,  1985).

     Mean stem  height  reached maximum  in  September at  115 cm and declined
slowly through the fall and winter to a minimum of 67 cm in March.  Stem
height frequency distribution was essentially normal though positively
shifting through October.  However, the  distribution became bimodal in
November, perhaps due to a late-summer, early-fall secondary growth period.
As larger, older leaves became senescent the curve  returned to a normal  but
had a negatively skewed distribution  in  March as the new growing season
began.

     Standing Crop

     To determine any  differences  in plant  productivity  between
applications mean standing crop  per month per application  rate were
compared to the  control and to each other.  Aboveground standing crop was
not statistically different between  applications, with two exceptions
(Tables 20  and 21).  In December, standing crop of Juncus in  the  half-
loaded  plots was greater than control  and  quarter-1oaded standing crop was
greater  than control in January.   Mean  aboveground standing crop was lowest
in March  (1.8  Kg  m~2) just as  the growing  season  began.   Peak mean
aboveground standing crop  was 2.7 kg nr2 in July.
                                 3-21

-------
       Table 19.  Pre-discharge, discharge and post discharge live stem density  by  application.
ro
ro
PERIOD:
APPLICATION
RATE MONTH:

Control
Full
Half
Quarter
ANOVA 1 on Applications
Pre-discharge
6-84

550
a58.8
728
93.8
655
56.9
719
57.2
NS
7-84

631
48.5
672
67.2
728
87.9
779
96
NS
8-84

515
52.8
431
19.4
812
111.9
601
75.4
**
9-84

633
15.9
620
42.1
583
43.4
654
82.8
NS
Discharge
10-84
Mean
632
72.9
665
70.4
765
75.7
605
155
NS
11-84
Stem Density
515
30.5
731
111.8
533
24
771
164
NS
12-84
(nf2)
677
45.3
812
94.5
916
119.8
814
158
NS
1-85

627
a75
802
52
876
106
707
72
NS
2-85

672
72
703
56
655
53
744
63
NS
Post Discharge
3-85

541
74
575
95
648
98
583
45
NS
4-85

745
37
706
103
615
112
693
120
NS
5-85

595
122
374
26
625
110
691
102
NS
6-85

555
128
404
88
484
114
567
122
NS
        * Significant at 0.05
       ** Significant at 0.01
        a Standard Error of the Mean (n = 6)
       NS Not significant

-------
    120
     10
    100
.2>CVJ
S
     90
     80
     70
     60
                               Month
0.50
0.40 A f
     li
0.30
                                                               J
      Figure 4.  Stem height and diameter.
                                3-23

-------
Table  20.   Pre-discharge  and  discharge  aboveground  plant  biomass  by
application rate.
PERIOD:
APPLIC.
RATE MONTH:
Pre-discharge
6-84
7-84
8-84
Di
9-84
Mean Aboveground Biomass
Control
Full
Half
Quarter
ANOVA 1 on Applications
1.9
.2ia
2.6
.24
2.4
.23
2.6
.19
NS
2.4
.28
2.8
.17
2.7
.21
2.7
.32
NS
2.0
.09
1.8
.16
2.1
.17
2.1
.18
NS
2.3
.17
2.1
.11
2.0
.23
2.1
.25
NS
scharge
10-84
11-84
12-84
(kg m-2)
2.4
.16
2.2
.29
2.2
.15
2.3
.16
NS
2.4
.25
2.2
.31
2.3
.26
2.0
.23
NS
2.2
.19
1.9
.17
2.7
.16
2.5
.22
*
 * Significant at 0.05
** Significant at 0.01
 a Standard Error of the Mean (n = 6)
                                   3-24

-------
Table 21.  Post discharge aboveground plant biomass by application rate.



                                        BIOMASS (Kg/m2)

APPLICATION RATE        1-85     2-85     3-85     4-85     5-85     6-85
Control

Full

Half

Quarter

ANOVA
2.0
a.10
1.8
.13
1.8
.18
2.3
.12
*
2.0
.25
1.7
.13
1.6
.11
2.0
.16
NS
1.9
.14
1.8
.15
2.1
.11
1.8
.17
NS
2.3
.27
2.1
.25
1.8
.23
2.2
.36
NS
2.1
.16
1.8
.22
1.9
.12
2.1
.16
NS
2.4
.26
2.7
.11
2.4
.30
2.7
.28
NS
 *Significant at 0.05
**Significant at 0.01
NS = Not significant
a = Standard error of the mean, n = 6
                                   3-25

-------
     Standing crop  of  roots  and  rhizomes  was quite  variable and  no
significant  differences  could be detected.   Biomass fluctuated over  time,
with generally low standing crop through  the  late  fall  and  winter months
(November through March) gradually increasing through the spring and summer
to a peak  value  in September (Figure 5).  Overall mean belowground biomass
was 5.1  kg m-2 with a range of 4.35-6.6 kg m-2 (Tables 22 and 23).

     Depth distribution  of belowground standing  crop was  unequal in the 20
cm core.  Approximately 60% of  the biomass was found in the upper  10  cm
equally distributed  in the 0-5 cm and 5-10 cm segments.  Only 30% of the
total  biomass  was located in the  lower 10 centimeters  (10-20  cm deep).
3.4.  FAUNA

     Marsh  Fauna

     Seven  species of epifauna were  found in  the  marsh  study plots.
Epifauna  samples  were strongly  dominated by  the molluscs,  Melampus
bidentatus  and Guekensia demissa (Tables 24,  25, 26).  Other species listed
are  rare  in the community,  though the snails  Littorina  irrorata and
Neritinia  usnea were more  frequently  found than the crabs  and marsh clams.
Abundance  of dominant  species  and total  epifaunal  abundance increased from
June, 1984, through  August.  Abundance declined  through  the fall  (October-
December)  to an  almost absence of epifauna from January, 1985,  through
April.  Guekensia  demissa.  a  non-motile bivalve, was the only epifaunal
species frequently  enountered in the winter and early spring.   This species
suffered considerable  mortality during the winter.  Abundant damaged shells
on the surface  may  indicate increased  predation during this period when the
marsh surface is usually above tidal  inundation.  Patterns  in  population
change  were consistent across all  plots  and could  not be related to
experimental manipulations.   Epifaunal abundance was increasing in late
spring into June,  1985,  when population size  was greater in all  plots than
in June, 1984.

      Pre-discharge infaunal abundance is presented in  Table 27.  Infauna
were  dominated by  the  polychaete Capitella  capitata and three oligochaete
species.   A total  of 18 taxa of infauna were  identified.   Abundance of
individuals and number of  taxa was greatest  in  the  upper 5 centimeters of
the sediment.  With the exception of oligochaete A and Namalycastic abiuma,
significant declines in abundance and species richness  were observed  in the
5-10  cm and  10-20 cm  depths of the sediment.  No  differences  were  apparent
among plots.

      Twenty-nine infaunal  taxa were identified  during the discharge  phase.
Dominance remained in the three  oligochaetes  and C. capitata  with an
increased  contribution by N^ abiuma.   As noted  in the  epifauna,  abundance
declined during the discharge  phase, but with no  notable differences  among
application rates (Table 28).
                                  3-26

-------
        7.0-

        6.5-


        6.0-

        5.5-
  g 5  4.0-J
     o.
  UJ
  00
        3.0
  LOAD RATE
	 CONTROL
	 FULL
	HALF
	 QUARTER
           J   J


  PRFniSOHARGF  I
       A   S
        1984
N
D

II
F   M    A   M    J
   1985
Figure  5.  Belowground standing crop.

                               3-27

-------
Table  22.   Pre-discharge  and  discharge  belowground  plant  biomass  by
application rate.
PERIOD:
APPLIC.
RATE MONTH:
Pre-discharge
6-84
7-84
8-84
Mean Belowground
Control
Full
Half
Quarter
ANOVA 1 on Applications
5.0
a. 45
5.8
.56
5.6
.39
6.2
.49
NS
4.4
.61
5.1
.52
4.7
.58
5.6
.50
NS
5.5
.53
6.4
.44
5.5
.29
5.7
.19
NS
Di
9-84
scharge
10-84
Biomass (kg
6.7
.60
7.7
.74
6.1
.60
6.0
.41
NS
5.5
.37
4.8
.47
4.8
.39
4.7
.23
NS
11-84
m-2)
5.0
.22
4.2
.31
4.3
.47
3.9
.33
NS
12-84

4.3
.16
5.5
.38
4.9
.61
4.4
.38
NS
 * Significant at 0.05
** Significant at 0.01
 a Standard Error of the Mean (n = 6)

Table 23.  Post discharge belowground  plant biomass by application rate.
BIOMASS (Kg/m2)
APPLICATION RATE
Control
Full

Half

Quarter

Sig. ANOVA
*Signif icant at 0.05
**Significant at 0.01

1-85
4.6
a.16
5.3
.72
6.2
1.32
5.2
.42
NS


2-85
5.1
.67
4.0
.39
ND

4.5
.43
NS
NS
a
ND
3-85
4.3
.61
4.6
.53
4.6
.47
3.9
.44
NS
= not signi
= Standard
= no data
4-85
5.4
.70
5.3
.56
4.1
.22
5.0
.80
NS
ficant
error of

5-85
4.8
.51
5.0
.41
5.1
.63
4.9
.45
NS
the mean

6-85
5.3
.57
5.6
.21
5.1
.38
4.8
.55
NS
, n = 6

                                   3-28

-------
Table 24.   Pre-discharge marsh epifauna abundance by application rate
               MONTH-                      JUNE                            JULY
    APPLICATION RATE-       CONTROL  QUARTER  HALF  FULL     CONTROL  QUARTER  HALF  FULL
TAXA (LPIL)
Melampus bidentatus
Guekensia demi ssa
Neritina usnea
Uca sp.

23
0
0
1

15
1
0
0

18
0
2
1

7
0
0
2

26
1
0
1

40
9
1
2

3
4
0
1

4
1
1
0
TOTAL                         24       21      16     9        28       52
                                              3-29

-------
Table 25.  Discharge marsh epifaunal abundance by application rate.
MONTH-
APPLICATION RATE-
TAXA (LPIL)
Melampus bidentatus
Guekensia demissa
Littorina irrorata
Neritina usnea
Polymesoda carol ini ana
Uca sp.
Sesarma ret leu la turn
TOTAL
CONTROL

17
5
0
0
0
0
0
22
AUGUST
QUARTER HALF

42
7
0
0
1
0
0
50

54
6
1
0
0
0
0
61
FULL

22
5
0
0
0
0
0
27
CONTROL

3
13
0
1
0
0
1
18
OCTOBER
QUARTER HALF

5
2
0
0
0
1
0
8

1
29
0
0
0
0
0
30
FULL

2
3
2
0
0
0
0
7
CONTROL

0
13
0
0
0
1
0
14
DECEMBER
QUARTER HALF

0
7
0
0
0
0
0
7

0
12
3
2
0
0
0
17
FULL

1
2
2
0
2
0
0
2

-------
                Table 26.  Post discharge marsh epifaunal  abundance by application rate.
CO
MONTH:
APPLICATION RATE:
TAXA (LPIL)
Melampus bidentatus
Guekensia demissa
Littorina irrorata
Neritina usnea
Polymesoda carol ini ana
yea sp.
Sesarma reticulatum
JANUARY
CONTROL QUARTER HALF

0
11
1
0
0
0
0

0
4
1
0
1
0
0

0
3
2
0
0
0
0
FULL

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
FEBRUARY
CONTROL QUARTER HALF

0
1
1
0
0
0
0

0
2
2
0
0
0
0

0
7
1
0
1
0
0
FULL

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
MARCH
CONTROL QUARTER

0
6
0
0
1
0
0

0
1
0
1
0
0
0
HALF

0
5-
1
0
1
0
0
FULL

0
5
0
0
0
0
0
                 TOTAL                         12

-------
            Table  26.   Concluded.
00
l\5
MONTH-
APPUCATION RATE-
TAXA (LPIL)
Melampus bidentatus
Guekensia demissa
Littorina irrorata
Neritina usnea
Polymesoda carol iniana
Uca sp.
Sesarma reticulatum
APRIL
CONTROL QUARTER HALF FULL
0
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
28
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
1
0
0
MAY
CONTROL QUARTER HALF FULL
18
8
1
1
0
0
0
31
2
0
1
0
0
0
30
4
0
0
0
0
0
44
1
0
2
0
0
0
JUNE
CONTROL QUARTER HALF FULL
23
18
0
2
0
0
0
29
23
2
1
0
1
0
16
13
3
10
0
0
0
13
6
0
0
0
0
0
             TOTAL                       12       31      2     7        28       34      34     47        43       56     42    19

-------
Table 27.   Pre-discharge  marsh  infaunal  abundance replicates combined.
CONTROL
MONTH JUN JUL JUN JUL JUN JUL
DEPTH 05 05 10 10 20 20
Capitella capitata 97 63 6 144
Oligochaeta sp. C 14 39 23 20 2
Oligochaeta sp. B 815111
Hobsonia florida 19
Gammarus mucronatus 6 1
Cyrenoida floridana 82 2
Oligochaeta sp. A 7 64 15 44 47 13
Sabellidae 13
Melita sp. 6
Me lamp us bidentatus
Namalycastis abiuma 92 43
Neanthes succinea
Insecta 2 1
Polymesoda carol ini ana
Uca sp.
Ostracoda
Oligochaeta
Guekensia demissa 1
JUN JUL
05 05
50 78
5 18
12 12
3
3 2
2 15
1 57
2
1
4
1 4
1
QUARTER
JUN JUL JUN JUL
10 10 20 20
2 3 34
13 4 1 1
22 7 10 1
20 9 97 6
1
2 1
                                               3-33

-------
Table 27.   Concluded.
MONTH
DEPTH
Capitella capitata
Oligochaeta sp. C
Oligochaeta sp. B
Hobsonia florida
Gammarus mucronatus
Cyrenoida floridana
Oligochaeta sp. A
Sabellidae
Melita sp.
Melampus bidentatus
Namalycastis abiuma
Neanthes succinea
Insecta
Polymesoda carol ini ana
Uca sp.
Ostracoda
Oligochaeta
Guekensia demissa
JUN
05
103
12
10
19
9
13
9
1
1
1
HALF
JUL JUN JUL JUN JUL
05 10 10 20 20
91 9 1 2
15 18 7 12 2
25 3 1 5
20
1
3
54 8 20 19 4
1
9 1
2
2 1
FULL
JUN JUL JUN JUL JUN JUL
05 05 10 10 20 20
53 90 66 16
31 12 26 4 11
76 6 10 4
17 24 11
16 2
3 3
7 41 10 18 54 1
4
4
11123
2
1
1
                                         3-34

-------
            Table  28.   Discharge marsh infaunal  abundance.
CO
 i
CO
ui
MONTH
DEPTH
TAXA (LPIL)
Capitella capitata
Oljgochaeta sp. B
Ollgpchaeta sp. C
NamalycastTs abiuma
OTigochaeta sp. A
Ampnaretidae
Hobsom'a florida
Cyrenolda fToridana
Gammarus mucronatus
Melita sp.
Eteone heteropoda
Glyptotendipes barbi pes
Dicrotendlpes barbi pes
Neanthes succinea
Streblospio benedi cti
Mediomastus ambiseta
Ostracoda
Guekensia demissa
Orchestia sp.
Pelecypoda
Insecta
Tabam'dae
Chironomidae
Chrysops sp.
Pal pomyi a complex"
Tabanus sp.
Uca sp.
Eunice sp.
Nereidae

AUG
05

13
9

7
15
4
4
1

2




2














OCT
05

23
16
2

3

1


4


1



4








1


CONTROL
DEC AU6 OCT DEC AUG OCT DEC
05 10 10 10 20 20 20

25 2211
4 2
7124 22
23 21
434 1
4 1
3 1
1

1



2













1


AUG
05

32
20
2
3
27
1
13

1
3

3











1




QUARTER
OCT DEC AUG OCT DEC AUG OCT DEC
05 05 10 10 10 20 20 20

9 22 12 1 1
9 1
89133 1
1
6 1 10 4 1 4
2
6 3
4 2 1
1


2 1




1
1




1







-------
           Table 28.  Concluded.
CO
 i
co
CTi
MONTH
DEPTH
TAXA (LPIL)
Capi tel 1 a capitata
Ollgochae'ta sp. B
Ollgochaeta sp. C
NamalycastTs abiuma
Ollqochaeta sp. A
Ampharetldae
Hobsonia florida
Cyrenoi da floridana
Gammarus mucronatus
Melita sp.
Eteone heteropoda
Glyptotendlpes ba'rbipes
Dicrotendlpes barblpes
Xeanthes succi nea
Streblospio benedicti
Medlomastus ambiseta
Ostracoda
Guekensla demissa
Orchestia sp.
Pel ecypofla
Insecta
Tabanidae
Chironomidae
Chrysops sp.
Pal pony la complex"
Tabanus sp.
Uca sp.
Eunice sp.
Nereidae

AUG
05

29
5
12
3
28
3
13
1

2







1











OCI
05

17
9
2

1

2
1

3






1

1

1


1

1


HALF
DEC AU6 OCT DEC AUG OCT DEC
05 10 10 10 20 20 20

33 2 1
13 6 1
3156
1 1 2
46221 1
2 1
3
1 1
1 1

1












1


1

1

AUG OCT
05 05

23 15
20 4
5 7
4 1
10 17
3 1
9
1
2





3




1



1

1



DEC AUG OCT
05 10 10

38
16 14 1
222
15
873
2

1 1
2 2


1


2






1


1 1
1



FULL
DEC AUG OCT DEC
10 20 20 20

7
2
422
2 1 2
2 22


















1





-------
     A more diverse community of thirty-three taxa was delineated from
post discharge samples  (Jan.-June, 1985).   This probably represents the
majority of potential  community components,  as  this period comprised the
largest number of samples, but  added only three  new  rare  taxa to the
community.   Total  abundance increased  significantly on the plots  receiving
1.82 cm of wastewater relative to the control  plots,  due primarily to
increases  in populations of the  annelids, Capitella capitata, Oligochaete A
and Hobsonia florida (Figure 6" and  Table 29),

     Canal  Fauna

     Polychaete  worms  dominated the  predischarge canal  benthic community
(Table 30).  Most  abundant taxa,  of the, 16 identified, were  Mediomastus
ambiseta, Streblospio benedicti, Heteromastus  fil iformis and  Sigambra
bassi.Abundance of individuals  and number of taxa was greatest at the
shallow Station 3  near the  mouth of the canal.   The  benthic community was
depauperate at Station 1, the deepest portion of the canal, comprised of
only 4 taxa with a maximum  species abundance of 13 individuals. Other than
polychaetes  only  the  bivalve  Macoma  sp. and rare individual  Rhynchocoela
were collected.

     Streblospio  benedicti and NL_ ambiseta  were  most  abundant in the
discharge  benthos (Table 31).   Of 25  taxa  identified, only these  two
occurred in significant numbers.  The abundance of S. benedicti  remained
high through December, but M.  ambiseta  declined significantly after August.
Station 3  supported the greatest diversity of benthic organisms as seen in
the pre-discharge period.   Additional  bivalve species, crustaceans  and fish
were added  to  the  benthic community, especially during December.

     Abundance  of  benthic organisms remained high through February of the
post discharge study.   Species  richness increased with 33 taxa  collected.
Numbers of individuals became more evenly distributed between stations in
February but declined at Station  3 in April and June.  Total population
abundance  was lowest in April and June  (Table 32).   This decline  is
directly  related to  a  decline  in  Streblospio  benedicti.   Community
composition in June,  1985, was very  similar to that in June,  1984.  No
dramatic  changes in  species  relative abundances or  overall  benthic
community  structure were detected during the study.

     Table  33  presents species  abundance data for canal  fauna  collected in
lift nets.   Collections  were  dominated by crustaceans  including grass
shrimp  (Palaemonetes pugio) and  two  penaeids  (Penaeus aztecus and F\_
setiferusli   Crustaceans declined significantly in December and  February
when fish were most abundant in the collection.   Only  four individuals were
collected  in  June,  1985,  the most  depauperate  of  all  collections.
Palaemonetes  pugio dominated the samples in summer and winter and were
replaced by Penaeus setiferus as dominant in August.

     Fish  were  rarely  taken  in  lift nets and were only  abundant  in
collections made in December and February.   Most abundant species  in these
months were resident marsh  species including Fundulus spp. and Cyprinidon
yariegatus who were probably forced into the deeper waters of the canal
because of  dry conditions on the marsh  surface.
                                 3-37

-------
     Gill  nets,  as expected,  were dominated by larger fish species.   Only
three invertebrates were collected  in  gill  nets and only incidentally.
Total  numbers of individuals per sample were small ranging from a low of 5
in February to a high of 37 in December,  again due to an emigration,  of
marsh fish  into the canal  (Table 31).   A  total  of  19  species  of fish and
invertebrates and a  total of  only  148 individuals were collected over the
sampling year.
~ 11,500-,


jr 9,500-

CM

 £ 7,500-

Q
f= 5,500J
           3,500
                                                            10.85810,577
                                                       8.835
                5,793
                     5,252
                          2,169
                                1351^,558.442,'.603 fl
            1,500 .                         	
                 JUN  JUL  AUG  OCT  DEC  JAN FEB  MAR  APR  MAY  JUN
        LJ                 1984                        1985
        2   PREDISCHARGEHI—DISCHARGE—II	POSTDISCHARGE-
                                  SAMPLE  PERIOD
            Figure 6.  Total marsh infaunal  abundance.
                                     3-38

-------
               Table 29.  Post discharge marsh infaunal abundance.
co
 i
oo
MONTH:
DEPTH (CM):
TAXA (LPIL)
Capitella capitata
Hobsom'a florida
Oligochaeta sp. A
Oligochaeta sp. B
Ampnaretidae
Cyrenoida floridana
Gammarus mucronatus
Oligochaeta sp. C
NamalycastTs abiuma
Glyptotendipes barbi pes
Palpomyia "complex"
Tabanidae
Callinectes sapidus
Capitellidae
Melampus bidentatus
Oligochaeta
Ostracoda
Pelecypoda
Guekensia demissa
Eteone heteropoda
Polydora cornuta
Streblospio benedicti
Gastropoda
Sabellidae
Dicrotendipes barbi pes
Insecta
Uca sp.
Unidentified larvae
Corophium louisianum
Tabanus sp.
Nereidae
Hydrpbiidae
MeTita sp.
TOTAL

JAN
05
9
6
1
4
2
4
2
1
1
30

FEE MAR
05 05
10 2
13 10
3 3
1 2
1 5
3 2
1
1
1
1
1
34 26

APR
05
188
85
10
55
3
35
19
36
2
3
3
1
1
441

MAY
05
160
38
12
82
5
7
8
3
8
2
2
1
2
26
356

JUN JAN
05 10
228
36
23 2
50
2 1
1
47
13 1
5
1
1
4
2
1
2
13
427 6
CONTROL
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JAN FEE MAR APR MAY JUN
10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20
1318 2
1 1 1
736 5
1814 3 1
1
211 1
2 4 6 10 11 1 1
1 2
2 2 1
1 1
1
1
2 9 22 13 32 0 1 2 20 5 4

-------
Table 29.   Continued.
QUARTER
MONTH:
DEPTH (CM):
TAXA (LPIL)
Capitella capita ta
Hobsonia florida
Oligochaeta sp. A
Oligochaeta sp. B
Ampnaretidae
Cyrenoida floridana
Gammarus mucronatus
qiigpchaeta sp. C
Namalycas'tTs abiuma
Glyptotendipes barbi pes
Palpomyia "complex"
Tabanidae
Callinectes sapidus
Capitellidae
Melampus bidentatus
01 i gochaeta
Ostracoda
Pel ecypoda
Guekensia demissa
Eteone heteropoda
Polydora cornuta
Streblospio benedicti
Gastropoda
Sabellidae
Dicrotendipes barbi pes
Insecta
Uca sp.
Unidentified larvae
Corophium louisianum
Tabanus sp.
Nereidae
Hydrobiidae
Melita sp.
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR
05 05 05 05
12 17 36 126
6 9 11 90
4 6 3 21
33 14
1
2446
2 1 5 13
5 31 4
1 5 5
1 2
1 2
1 1
1
3
2
36 43 96 ?8Q
MAY
05
135
80
8
71
9
12
25
3
9
1
1
26
3
2
W
JUN JAN FEB MAR
05 10 10 10
249 3 24 1
17
58 1
30
6
1 1
15
4 3 1
8
1
1
2
7
51
d^d 1 90. 1Q
APR MAY JUN JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20
613 1 1
1 1
14 23 1 2 12
1 10 8 14
4 142
11 11 1 25
1 1 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JUN
20
1
1
2
                                                                                                         11    27

-------
             Table  29.  Continued.
CO
i
MONTH:
DEPTH (CM):
TAXA (LPIL)
Capitella capitata
Hobsonia fieri da
Oligochaeta sp. A
Oligochaeta sp. B
Ampnaretidae
Cyrenoida floridana
Gairanarus mucronatus
Oligpchaeta sp. C
NamalycastTs abiuma
Glyptotendipes barbi pes
Palpomyia "complex"
Tabanidae
Callinectes sapidus
Capitellidae
Melampus bidentatus
Oligochaeta
Ostracoda
Pelecypoda
Guekensia demissa
Eteone heteropoda
Polydora cornuta
Streblosplo benedicti
Gastropoda
Sabellidae
Dicrotendipes barbi pes
Insecta
Uca sp.
Unidentified larvae
Corophium louisianum
Tabanus sp.
Nereidae
Hydrobiidae
Melita sp.
Hargeria rapax
Chi ronomi dae
TOTAL

JAN
05
37
16
6
7
8
2
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
89

FEB MAR
05 05
46 33
49 66
6 2
3 4
5 4
9 17
7
1 1
1
1
1
128 128

APR
05
117
65
42
25
5
16
27
5
8
1
1
1
313

MAY
05
339
90
13
75
9
5
18
3
13
1
2
1
143
1
1
10
1
725

JUN JAN FEB
05 10 10
122 2 10
12 1
99 3
32
1
1
116 4
1 1 4
6
4
4
1
1
2
50
2
2
454 12 15
HALF
MAR APR MAY JUN JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20
1 1 66
1 1 2
21 11 71 2 1 523
2 29 24 28
1 2 2
13 11 22 10 7 2
1 1
2 2 1
1
0 41 56 118 4 1 2 27 23 5

-------
              Table 29.  Concluded.
oo
 i
-Pa
ro
FULL
MONTH:
DEPTH (CM):
TAXA (LPIL)
Capitella capitata
Hobsonia florida
Oligochaeta sp. A
Ollgochaeta sp. B
Ampnaretidae
Cyrenoida floridana
Gamtnarus mucronatus
Oligochaeta sp. C
Namalycastis abiuma
Glyptotendipes barbi pes
Palpomyia "complex"
Tabanidae
Callinectes sapidus
Capitellidae
Melampus bldentatus
Oligochaeta
Ostracoda
Pelecypoda
Guekensia demissa
Eteone heteropoda
Polydora cornuta
Streblospio benedlcti
Gastropoda
Sabellldae
Dicrotendipes barbi pes
Insecta
Uca sp.
Unidentified larvae
Corophium louisianum
Tabanus sp.
Nereldae
Hydrobiidae
Melita sp.
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomidae
Orchestia sp.
TOTAL
JAN
05
47
7
10
3
2
4
3
1
5
3
1
86
FEE MAR APR
05 05 05
18 39 125
10 9
2 . 2 60
3 9 136
3 6 1
1 2 2
10
7 4
1 1 12
4
3
1
28 76 367
MAY
05
150
10
35
98
3
8
11
4
16
1
2
1
5
26
370
JUN JAN
05 10
144 2
65 1
95
2
24
6
1
6
1
2 1
9
354 5
FEB MAR
10 10
13 1
2
1
1
1
13 6
APR
10
10
1
17
23
1
3
1
3
1
1
61
MAY JUN JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20
1 2
24 23 4
5 42 2
2 3
10 5 1
3 1 4
3 7 2
1
1
1
6
47 84 0 7 0 7 7 1

-------
Table 30.  Pre-Discharge benthic faunal abundance from canal grab samples.
MONTH: JUNE
STATION: 2Sta. Sta.
1 2
TAXA (LPIL)
Rynchocoel a
Leitoscoloplos fragilis
Cossura soyeri 1
Streblospio benedicti
Capitella capitata
Mediomastus ambiseta 3 27
Heteromastus filiforrm's 3
Parandalia americana
Sigambra bassi 2
Laeoneris culveri
Gom'adidae (LPIL)
Diopatra cuprea
Pectinaria regal is
Mel inna maculata
Hobsonia florida
Macoma sp. (LPIL) 11
ABUNDANCE
JULY
Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta.
3123
1 1
2 1
41 13 217 53
10 4
92 151 204
23 2 28
1
24 1 4 3
4
5
1
1
1
1
8 11 7
TOTAL
44   198
14
389
1.  Total of three replicates at each station.
2.  See Figure 2 for station locations.
314
                                      3-43

-------
Table 31.  Discharge benthic faunal abundance from canal grab samples.
MONTH: AUGUST
STATION: 2Sta. Sta.
1 2
TAXA (LPIL)
Rynchocoela
Leltoscoloplos fragi'lls
Cossura delta 1
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti 44 81
Capitella capitata
Mediomastus amblseta 1 14
Heteromastus filiformis
Parandalia americana 1
Sigambra bassi 3
S. tentaculata
flesionidae (LPIL)
Laeoneris culveri
Glycinde solitaria
Neanthes succlnea
Goniadldae (LPIL)
Diqpatra cuprea
Podarkeopsis levi f usci na
Hobsonla f lor Ida
Nereidae (LPIL)
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Macoma sp. (LPIL) 2
Rangia cuneata
Ampelisca abdita
Cerapus benthophilus
Clibanarius vittatus
Callinectes sp.
Call Inectes sapidus
AmphipocTTLPIL)
Gobionellus hastatus
Gobidae
TOTAL 47 100

Sta.
3
9
5
315
4
235
9
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
590
ABUNDANCE
OCTOBER
Sta. Sta. Sta.
1 2 3
1 8
1 2
1
117 83 3
1
4 70
7
1 2
20
9
2
1
2
117 90 128
NOVEMBER
Sta. Sta.
1 2
1
4
126 54
2
1
1
1
1
1
127 65

Sta.
3
5
4
4
57
1
193
5
2
3
2
1
5
2
1
1
286
DECEMBER
Sta. Sta.
1 2

Sta.
3
1 4
5
1
252
308 176 97
1 1
4 125
5 2
2 6
4 9
1 3 2
2
1
1
1 1
1
1
316 198 260
1. Total of three replicates at each station.
2. See Figure 1 1. A. 2 for station locations.

-------
                 Table 32. Post-discharge benthic fauna!  abundance  from canal  grab samples.
                                                                                1
                                                                                 ABUNDANCE
                          MONTH:
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
APRIL
JUNE
in
STATION:
TAXA (LPIL)
Rynchocoela
Oligochaeta A.
Oligochaeta C.
Lei toscoTopI os fragilis
Cossura delta
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streplpspio benedicti
Capitella capi tata
Mediomastus amblseta
Heteromastus filiformi s
Eteone heteropoda
Glycinde sol i tar i a
Podarkeppsl s levifuscina
Paramphl home sp. B.
Glycera sp. (LPIL)
Ampharetidae (LPIL)
Sigambra sp. (LPIL)
Si gambra bassi
Parandalia americana
Hesionldae (LPIL)
Laeoneris culveri
Neanthes succinea
Gonladldae (LPIL)
Dippatra cuprea
Hobsonia florlda
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Macoma sp. (LPIL)
Rangla cuneata
Chirononridae (LPIL )
Grandidierella bonnierdides
Edotea montosa
Paracaprella pusi 11 a
Ampellsca abdlta
TOTAL
1. Total of three replicates
2. See Figure 2 for station
2Sta. Sta. Sta.
123
1 1 12
1
18
4
3 7 10
47 183 196
34
140
2
2 3
2 6
1
1
2
5
1
11
2
190
5
54 197 450
at each station.
locations.
Sta. Sta.
1 2
1 4
1
8
271 170
4
8 22
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
282 214

Sta.
3
6
5
3
97
16
112
2
3
4
7
1
2
1
10
1
1
1
6
278

Sta. Sta. Sta.
1 2 3
1
1 1
3 21
1 6 2
61 99 19
7 3
6 66 9
69
4
1
7
2 1
1
1
2
68 184 142

Sta. Sta. Sta.
1 2 3
9
1 1
1 2 1
24 50 39
1
1 44 146
25
1
2 2
5
1
1
1
6
26 99 239


-------
 Table  33.   Canal  faunal  abundance collected in lift nets.
YEAR: 1984
PERIOD: PRE DISCHARGE
MONTH: JUNE JULY AUG. OCT. DEC.
SPECIES
LIFT NETS (3)
Fish:
Anchoa mitchelli 2
Fundulus sinvilis 4
Fundulus grandis 71
Fundulus jenkinsi 1
Cypn'ngdon vanegatus 45
Poecilia lati pinna 2
Sygnathus floridae 1
Mugil cephal us
Lagodon rhomboi de s
Bairdiella chrysura 6 14
Cynoscion nebulosus 1
Cynoscion arenarius 1 1
Leiostomus xanthurus 5
Gobionellus boleosoma 1
Symphurus plagiusa 1
Monocanthus hispiflus 1
TOTAL 67 4 6 125
INVERTEBRATES
Penaeus setiferus 48 100 19
Penaeus aztecus 10 1
Pal aemonetes pugio 81 148 6 11 8
Probopyrus pandalicola
Aegathoa oculata 1
Callinectes sapidus 1 11
Clibanarius vittatus 1 11
juv. xantmdae
1985
POST
JAN. FEB. APR. JUNE TOTAL
2
2 6
25 96
1
1 46
2
1
3 3
3 3
11
1
2
7 1 13
1 2
1
1
0 35 7 1 191
167
32 16
251 83 3014 3602
28 28
1
1 2 6
1 4
1 1
TOTAL
92
199
107
32
251
85   3047
3825

-------
                  Table 34.   Canal  faunal  abundance collected  in  gill  nets.
CO
YEAR: 1984
PERIOD: PRE- DISCHARGE
MONTH: JUNE JULY AUG. OCT. DEC.
SPECIES
GILL NET (3)
Fish:
Elops saurus 1
Brevoortia patronus 2 52
Dorosoma petenense 12
Arius fell's 1
Strongylura marina 1
Fundulus similis 1 4
Fundulus grandis 1 21
Mugil cephalus 2 137
Prionotus tribulus 1
Oligqplites saurus 1
Bairdiella chrysura
Cynoscion nebulosus
Cynoscion arenarius 52 32
Leiostomus xanthurus 1 42
Sciaenops oscellata
Micropogom'us undulatus 144 1
TOTAL 24 8 20 6 37
Invertebrates:
Penaeus setiferus 2
Callinectes sapidus 2 4
Lolliguncula brevis 1

1985
POST
JAN. FEB. APR. JUNE
3 1
8212
3231
T
1
2 3
2 1
2
1 2
12 4 13 12
\
1 1 1
TOTAL
1
13
12
1
1
18
31
14
1
1
1
5
12
10
2
13
136
2
9
1
                  TOTAL
0      2
12

-------
                            4.0.   DISCUSSION
4.1.   WATER QUALITY

     Experimental Plots

     During  pre-discharge sampling,  the  surface water  of  the experimental
plots exhibited  conditions  characteristic  of  tidal  marsh  areas.   Elevated
salinities were  noted due to the shallowness of  the water  (when it existed)
and intense evaporation.  Depressed dissolved  oxygen  (   4.0 mg/1) values
were  frequently observed, also  characteristic of an area with a large
amount  of  biogenic activity, high salinities  and  high  temperatures.
Observations  of supersaturated  conditions were also  observed in areas of
intense  algal  productivity.

     Salinities recorded     during  the discharge period were  not
significantly  different from the pre-discharge or post  discharge values
(Figure 7). A  slight decrease  in  the salinities on the full loading plots
was observed,  due to  the effect of the  hydrologic loading of low  salinity
waters  on  those particular plots.  During  the post discharge period,
patterns in salinities were similar to those found during  pre-discharge.
 Q.
 Q_
 c
•r—

 to
                     Salinity on Experimental Plots

                                Ail Periods
                                                          I
             Cont           Quart


            f\. ] Pro-Discharge
                                     Hoif
Full
                                 Loading Level
                                   1K77 Discharge
                      Post-Discharge

Figure  7.  Mean salinity on the experimental plots during the
          pilot study.

                              4-1

-------
     Mean disolved oxygen during discharge showed a trend of decreasing
levels  concomitant  with  the  level  of  loading  delivered  to  the  respective
loading plot.  However the difference was not statistically significant
according to ANOVA.  It is worthy to  note that although many individual
readings  indicated periodic anoxic conditions,  the mean dissolved oxygen on
these plots was 5.7 mg/1.  This is above the usual  5 mg/1 level that is
usually thought of  as  the minimum level  acceptable by most regulatory
agencies.  One  must  also keep in mind that all of the readings  were  taken
in the  day;  if  measurements were taken during  early morning and   night,  a
much Ibwer average may have resulted.

     Therefore, it  is  important that the range of  dissolved oxygen be
considered  rather  than  the mean.   The dissolved  oxygen  levels  were
indicative  of  a hyper-eutrophic situation with mid-afternoon readings
showing supersaturation levels and those earlier in the  day  sometimes
showing anoxic  conditions.
       -tJ,
     Nutrients  in the surface waters on the plots during pre-discharge were
also elevated compared  with what one would  encounter in most estuarine
waters, again attributed to the  effects of evaporative concentration and to
some extent the abundance of sedimentary materials.  This is consistent
with other  studies  that have  shown an abundance of mineral and organic
nutrients in marsh  surface  waters (Bender and Correl 1974)  There  was a
consistency  across the plots  designated to receive the various loadings.for
TKN,  TOC  and TP.   Overall nitrogen to phosphorus  ratio  (4.00) was  indica-
tive of marginal nitrogen limitation in the surface waters on  the plots.

     Nitrogen parameters (TKN,  N02-N03 and NH4)  were  impacted the most on
the surface  of  the plots.   Total Kjeldahl  Nitrogen was significantly higher
during the discharge period and showed  highly significant differences
between the  various  loading  plots  (Figure 8).   The increase  in  TKN paral-
leled the  loading levels that each plot received.  Ammonium ion (Figure  9)
also exhibited  highly significant differences  ( alpha    0.001) between the
pre-discharge,  discharge and post discharge  periods  when tested by  ANOVA
and significant differences between  plots. As with TKN, ammonium levels
reflected  the level  of waste loadings  with the  highest values observed dn
the full  loading plots.   Nitrite-nitrate  levels did not exhibit statisti-
cally significant differences between  plots but  showed an elevation on the
discharge  plots during the post discharge period (Figure 10).

     During  the discharge period,  total nitrogen on the plots, as indicated
by total  bar in Figure 11,  went  from less  than 4 mg/1  to  a high  of 29.52  in
the full  loading plots.   Much of the difference between the plots can be
attributed to the increased ammonium ion  levels.  Recalling  that the nitro-
gen species  in the wastes were approximately 50 percent ammonium ion and  50
percent Total  Organic  Nitrogen, the increase  is directly attributable  to
the experimental  loading levels.

     Figures 12  and 13 illustrate the  temporal variations in TKN and
ammonium  ion,  respectively,  for the full loading and control plots.  Some
cross-over  between the plots  is indicated,  but most sampling indicated
that  it  was  an infrequent event.   Of note,  is  the  rapid  return to
background levels  of these parameters following the  end of the discharge
period.
                                   4-2

-------
                                TON  on the  Experimental  Plots
                21
                20 -
                19 -
                18 -
                17 -
                16 -
                15 -
                14 -
                13 -
                12 -
                11 -
                10 -
                 9 -
                 8 -
                 7 -
                 6 -
                 5
                 4
                 3
                 2 -
                 1 -
                 0

                        Cent
                          Quart
Half
Full
                 	                        Loading Level
                 {5T1 Pro-Discharge               V/ A Discharge
                           k*^J Post—Discharge

      Figure 8.   Mean  TON on the experimental  plots during the pilot  study.

                             Ammonium  ion  on Experimental Plots
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -

I
... \// A. VM mr— // J
^ N.N1 1 «

\
^^ 	


^S
Cont Quart Half Full
         Pre-dischar
                                Post-Discharge
                                             Loading Level
                                               Y/ A Discharge
Figure 9.
Meanjammonium ion concentrations on  the experimental  plots
during the  pilot study.
                                        4-3

-------
                             N02-N03 on the Experimental  Plots
  o
                                                       X
                                Post-Discharge
                                       Quart            Half

                                            Loading Level
                                                   Discharge
Full
Figure 10.  Mean  nitrite-nitrate levels  on the experimental  plots  during
            the study period.
                                   4-4

-------
       30
                      Nitrogen on  the Experimental Plots
                                     Discharge
       28 -
       26 -
       24 -
       22 -
       20 -
       18 -
       16 -
       14 -
       12 -
       10 -
        8 -
        6 -
        4 -
        2  H
        0
 Cent

IViTON
                              Quart
                          E23NH4
    Half
N02-N03
 i
Full
Figure 11.  Nitrogen species  in  the surface waters on the experimental
            plots during  the  discharge period.
                                  4.5

-------
                                    Nitrogen  - Control Plots
0i
%-*
c
o
I
o
o
                   0.00
                      Jun~84
                                                                         Ju!-85
                                  Nitrogen -  Full Loading Plots
 o
 1
 •E
 c
 o
 o
                  50.00
                  45.00 -
                   0.00
                      Jun-84
                                                                         Ju!-85
  Figure  12.   Temporal variations  in  total  kjeldahl nitrogen  concentration for
               the control and full  loading plots for the  entire study period.
                                      4-6

-------
                                    Nitrogen —  Control Plots
 0
 ••§
 
 I
 2
 +>
 c
 o
 o
 0
 o
                   0.00
                      Jun—84
                                                                        Jul-85
                                        NH4
Figure 13.
Temporal variations  in  ammonium ion concentration for the control
and full loading plots  for the entire study period.
                                      4-7

-------
    Nitrite-nitrate-N levels in the wastes were generally at the limits of
detection  in  the wastewater stream  (0.04  mg/1).  However,  on  the  quarter and
half-loading  plots during discharge  , nitrite-nitrate levels more than

tripled their background levels (Figure 14).  While the increase was not
statistically  significant at the 0.05  level, it did indicate a significant
biological activity was occurring  on the quarter and half loading  plots.
The increase  in the nitrite-nitrate levels  indicated that significant
nitrification,  the conversion  of ammonium to nitrite-nitrate  by  microbial
action,  was taking place on these plots.

     Al so worthy of note are the low level s (about 0.04 mg/1) of nitrite-
nitrate observed on the full  loading plots during discharge.  Since the
nitrification  process only occurs under aerobic  conditions,  low  levels  of
NO£-N03-N  indicate  that on the full  loading plots,  nitrification was
suppressed, presumably due to the high reducing conditions  brought about  by
the high oxygen demand of the   carbonaceous portion  of BOD.

     In contrast  to  the  above  observations,  nitrite-nitrate  was
significantly  higher during the  post discharge  period.   This indicates  that
much of the highly reduced nitrogen bearing materials (NH4 and TKN) were
being oxidized to N02-N03 by nitrifying microorganisms.

     The findings discussed  above illustrate  the fate of  the nitrogen
bearing wastes applied to the  experimental  system.   Nitrogen rich wastes,
high in ammonia and organic nitrogen, were rapidly  oxidized on the surface
of the quarter and half  loaded plots.   This oxidation was  somewhat  slower
on the full loading  plots,  presumably due to the high oxygen demand of the
carbonaceous  portion of the wastes.   There  is some indication that some  of
the reduced nitrogen (ammonium) was taken up by  the microflora on the  plot
surface and was slowly released by mineralization of the organic materials
to  nitrate-nitrate long  after the discharge had  stopped.   This would
account for the "memory" of the  system  in  terms of  the  release of nitrite-
nitrate nitrogen  in  the  months  following  the  discharge.  Presumably,  some
of  the  ammonium was lost due  to  volitization of  this compound  in  the
circumneutral pH of  the marsh environment.

     Total  Organic Carbon (TOO was  not significantly  different between the
pre-discharge, discharge and  post discharge periods  or between loading
levels.   Highest TOC values were observed on the full  loading plots during
the discharge period  (Figure  15).  The  mean  concentration of TOC on the
plots during this time reflected the level  of loading applied.  During post
discharge,  TOC averaged less than the pre-discharge period.  This reduction
could be due to the  demand of the  nitrifiers  for carbon substrate in the
nitrification process.

     Biochemical  oxygen demand , ranging  from 3 mg/1  to 13 mg/1 was
relatively high compared to most natural  waters  (usually  in  the range  of
0.5-3 mg/1)  during  pre-discharge  due  to the large amount  of  naturally
occurring biogenic material present with the corresponding large microbial
populations in the marsh  surface waters.   The  inclusion of  detrital
materials derived  from  the  sediments  may  have contributed to the somewhat
higher  readings.
                                    4-8

-------
        0.3
       0.28 -
       0.26 -
       0.24 -
       0.22 -
        0.2 -
       0.18 -
       0.16 -
       O.H -
       0.12 -
        0.1 -
       0.08 -
       0.06
       0.04 -
       0.02 -
          0
                        Nitrogen on the  Experimental  Plots
                                         Discharge
                 Cont
Quart
      Loading Level
N02-N03
 r
Half
Full
Figure  14.   Mean  nitrite-nitrate on experimental  plots during the
             study  period.
                                  4-9

-------
                 TOC  on the Experimental Plots
80
 70  -
60  -
50  -
40  -
20  -
10  -

        Cont


IX J Pre-Discho
                Post—Discharge
Quart            Half

     Loading Level
            Discharge
Full
Figure  15.   Mean Total Organic Carbon  (TOC)  on the experimental
             plots during  the polot study.
                            4-10

-------
     Biochemical  Oxygen  Demand  (BOD) showed significantly  elevated  levels
during the  discharge period  directly attributable to  experimentally
increased BOD loadings (Figure 16).   Levels on the  half and full loading
plots were only slightly elevated (19 - 20 mg/1 BOD) while levels  on the
fully loaded plots  showed marked elevation  (78 mg/1)  indicating that the
capacity of the system  to  readily oxidize  the wastes  may  have been
exceeded.  It should be emphasized that  these average  values represent
condition after  initial  mixing  and  dilution with the receiving waters on
the surface  of  the experimental plots.   It should be noted that this value
occurred  after initial dilution  with the receiving waters had occurred.

     Post discharge  BOD  levels averaged  slightly  higher than the pre-
discharge levels (3-13mg/1 for pre-discharge versus  11-13  mg/1 for  post
discharge means) but below  that of the discharge period.  It is unclear
whether the  higher BOD was due to seasonal  differences between  the pre- and
post discharge levels or a result of the waste loading.

     Chlorophyll ^values during pre-discharge were quite  variable and were
in the range of  eutrophic to hypereutrophic conditions (eutrophic  mean of
10 ng/m3; hyoereutrophic   mean of 25 mg/m3; Gakstetter et_ al.  1975.).
Many of the  high readings were  no doubt the result of concentration  due to
evaporation  of  the  surface  waters as  well  as interference  from plant
materials  from the  sediment which frequently contaminated the  water
samples, an unavoidable result due to the very shallow nature  of the
surface  water.   However,  much  of the  chlorophyll  £ was  due to both
phytoplankton in the  shallow surface waters of the  marsh as well as from
the inclusion in the samples  of periphytic  or epipsammic materials.

     Chlorophyll £  levels  on  the  plot surface showed a similar high
variability  during the discharge period.   This  was  due to  the  variability
introduced to this parameter by the sampling as well as  the inherent high
variability  with  this   parameter.   The observed  high  values  on  the
experimental  plots  reflected  the  increased  loading from the  waste
application.  The high levels during the  post discharge period indicate
that the  nutrients applied on  the marsh system remained,  to some  extent at
least,  on the  surface of the  plots tied  up in the  microbiota,  especially
the algae.  This "memory"  of the system  for chlorophyll £ points  to some of
the  "assimilative capacity"  of the  system.  This  suggests  that  the
nutrients assimilated by the surface flora remain  in the system and are
recycled  for some time before  released in a more refractory form.

     The  Nitrogen to  Phosphorus  (N:P) Ratio on  the plots showed  increases
at all loading  levels during the discharge  period except for the full
loading plots  (Figure 17).   The  intermediate loading plots  showed the
greatest  increase, going  from  less  than 2.0 to greater  than 20.0 and 14.0,
respectively, for the quarter and half  loading levels.  This change would
indicate  that at these two plots, conditions went from a nitrogen limited
situation to near limiting  conditions due to lack  of phosphorus.   This
nitrogen  enrichment can be directly attributed  to the waste loadings  on the
marsh.  The enrichment  however appears  not to be the only cause of the
shift since  it  was  also  observed at the control plots.   Possible seas.onal
shifts  in the ratio may be the ultimate causative factor.
                                   4-11

-------
                       BOD on  the Experimental Plots

                                    All Periods
70 -
60 -
50 -
_i
cT 40 -
s
30 -
20 -
10 -

\
s

^
1


^
I
Cortt
l\ [ Pre-Discharge

2
s


\

*

^

1 !
Quart Half
Loading Level
1773 Discharge

^


s
I
Full
                       Post-Discharge

Figure 16. Mean  biochemical oxygen demand on  the plots during the
           •pilot  studv.
study.

   N:P ratios  on the Plots

     Pre—discharge and Discharge
          Cent
      Quart
     |\ ] Pre—Discharge
                               Loodin
                                          Half
                   el
                  [ Discharge
  Figure  17.  N:P  ratios during the pre-discharge and discharge
              periods.
                                4-12

-------
     Groundwater and Sediments

     Pre-discharge  water quality  in the  sampling wells  continued to
illustrate  the  trend of  increasing concentration in most  parameters
measured.  Total organic  carbon was elevated compared to the surface  waters
and this  trend continued  with increasing well depth  (Figure nnx
                                              18).
     Total  nitrogen was elevated  in the shallowest wells but had a trend  of
decreasing  concentration in the deepest wells  (Figure 19).   This  trend  is
most apparent in  comparing  the inorganic  and organic nitrogen  forms  in the
wells  (Figure  20).    Total organic nitrogen  (and  thus total nitrogen)
decreases  as one moves  deeper in the  wells and  the inorganic forms,
ammonium and nitrite-nitrate tend to increase.   The reduction  in total
nitrogen  is due,  most  probably, to denitrification in the deeper sediments
and the increase of the inorganic forms because of decreased biological
utilization of these forms in the  deeper  sediments.

     Total  Phosphorus in the wells was of a comparable level  to  those  of
the surface of  the  plots.  No consistent  trend was noted with depth  in the
wells  for  this parameter.  However the  range was  such to indicate that
comparable  levels existed in  all  wells.

     Ratios of Nitrogen to Phosphorus in the 10 and 20 cm wells were  at
levels indicative  of  slight  nitrogen  limitation (5.62  and 5.02
respectively).  Nitrogen limitation was  indicated by the overall N:P  ratio
of 2.2  in the deepest wells.
           100
 o

 i
90 -


80 -


70


60


50


40


30


20


10 -
                  Pre-
                   i
                 Control
Quarter
I
Half
 T
Full
                                 	  Loading Level
                                 L3ZJTOC

         Figure 18.   Total organic carbon  in sampling wells
                     during the pre-discharge period.
                                   4-13

-------
MO/L
                                                                        Concentration (mg/Q
                                                                                                                       a>
                                  ro
                                  o
o

£'
3

5'
(-+•

                                          0
                                           z

                                           Ol
                                             o
                                                    o
                                                    o
                                    b
                                    o
                                                                              o
                                                                                       o
pi
b
o
p>
b
o
                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                    -o  —I
                                                                                                                    fl>  O
                                                                                     O
                                                                                     (O
                                                                                                                      ua
                                                                                                                       (O
                                                                                                                       o>

                                                                                                                       -a
                                                                                                                       -s
                                                                                                                       rt)
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                       Q.
                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                                       Ol
                                                                                                                       -s
                                                                                                                       n>

-------
     During the discharge  period, trends in water quality parameters inthe
wells were consistent with the  findings during the pre-discharge period  as
well  as with  the  conditions in the  overlying waters.   Total Phosphorus and
Total Organic  Carbon both  had significant  depth  differences  but  no
significant difference between either plot or periods.  Ammonium ion showed
significant differences  for plots,  period and depth and had a significant
plot-date  interaction  term.  Ammonium ion levels increased  significantly  in
the loaded plots  at both the 10 and 20 cm levels indicating at least  some
movement  of  these constituents  into this zone  (Figure 20).  No other
parameters showed any  significant  differences between pre-discharge,
discharge  or post discharge  periods, or between  loading level  or depth.

     Concentration of  most constituents  in the pre-discharge sediments  were
at levels several orders of magnitude  greater than in the water samples.
Trends with sediment depth were generally consistent with those observed  in
the well samples.   For  example,  Total  Kjeldahl Nitrogen  in  the  sediments
showed a variable trend across the plots, but within the range expected due
to sampling and analytical  variation.  The trend of decreasing nitrogen  in
the deepest sediment samples was consistent  with the results of well  water
sampling.

     Surficial  sediments (5 cm) showed slight increases  in  all measured
parameters during  the discharge period.  The highest levels  were  noted  in
the most heavily  loaded plots.  It is indicative of a buildup of all  of
these parameters in  the  top layers of the sediments.  During the  post
discharge period,  levels  of TOC and phosphate had  returned to near the
levels observed during  the pre-discharge  period.  TKN remained elevated
when  compared  to pre-discharge and averaged slightly higher than the
discharge  period.  This  elevation in the post  discharge  sediments  is
attributed to sampling artifact.

   Canal  Water

     Water quality  in the canal adjacent to the  test  area was good during
the pre-discharge period,  exhibiting little evidence  of  degraded
conditions.  No significant stratification was noted in the  shallow canal
in any physico-chemical  parameter.  Dissolved oxygen was  at, or  near,
saturation in the canal at least during the sampling days.   In  spite  of
these observations, a fish kill was noted  during  the  pre-discharge period
early in the sampling program.  This  indicates  that, at least for  some
brief periods, conditions stressful  to common estuarine fishes  do occur.
It is notable that most  of the fishes involved were Atlantic menhaden
(Brevoortia patronas),  a fish very susceptible to, and intolerant of any
stressful conditions.  Mean chlorophyll  a levels were in the eutrophic
range and may also indicate the conditions  in the finger canal  are not
representative of typical estuarine open waters.

     No significant trends were noted during the pre-discharge period  in
the nutrient data  from the canals.  Inorganic nitrogen  forms,  ammonium and
nitrite-nitrate  were at, or below the detection  limits  during  the  pre-
discharge period. Ammonium was below the detection limits  of the  ADEM
laboratory during this  period. Nitrite-nitrate values   (0.06-0.10 mg/1)
ranged near values found  in other southeastern estuarine canals 0.01-0.08
(Hicks and Cavinder 1978)  (Figure  21).  Total Kjeldahl nitrogen  (1.1-1.7
mg/1)  and Total   Phosphorus (0.08-0.37) were  both  at levels  commonly

                                  4-15

-------
  I
  §
  0
  o
0.22


 0.2 -


0.18 -


0.16 -


0.14 -


0.12 -


 0.1 -


0.08 -


0.06


0.04 -


0.02 -


  0
                   \
                      m
                      m
                       1S
                L\ I Pne-Dischorge

?\
s\
S/ v\
^
                   25
                              Post-Discharge

            i
           28

          Station
                                 Discharge
^
 r^
3B
 Figure 21.  Mean  nitrite-nitrate  levels in the canal  during the pilot
            study.
observed  in  similar canal  systems (Hicks  and  Cavinder  1978).   Nitrogen to
Phosphorus  ratios in  the canal  were not  indicative  of any  nutrient
limitation.

     Biochemical  Oxygen  Demand during pre-discharge  were in  the range of
values determined for Alabama estuarine canals in a previous study  (1-10
mg/1; Vittor 1980).   Chlorophyll £ values  were indicative of  moderate
algal  production and in the range  observed in mildly eutrophic waters  ( <20
mg/m3).

     During  the  discharge  period,  the physico-chemical  parameters measured
were more indicative  of  fall conditions with  lower temperatures and higher
salinities  recorded at all  stations.  Dissolved oxygen was  also higher
reflecting the response of  this parameter to the changes in temperature  and
the resulting change  in  saturation capacity.

     The pH  levels were lower for the discharge  period than  during   the
pre-discharge  period which is the opposite one would expect in light of
increasing  salinities.  Further, if pH  was impacted by an  increase in
primary production,  the  values expected would be higher due to the shift in
carbonate equilibria.  Thus no satisfactory  explanation can be offered  for
the  differences  in  pH other than  the  possibility  of  differences in
instrument behaviour  between the  two  periods and the stabilizing  effect of
more  observations available for the discharge period.
                                   4-16

-------
     Nutrient  levels  at the canal stations showed  no  significant
differences between stations for  any parameter  when  tested by ANOVA.  Two
parameters, TOC  and  ammonium ion  showed significant differences between
pre-discharge and discharge periods.   Total Organic Carbon (TOC)  decreased
during the  discharge  period  below  levels  found in the canals  before
discharge.  Ammonium  ion  levels also showed a significant decrease  during
the discharge period.  Both of these decreases reflected more  a response to
the seasonal fluctuations  rather than a response to the project.

     Nitrite-nitrate levels  in  the canal doubled  at some  of the canal
stations  during discharge  but  the  difference was not significant  according
to ANOVA  (Figure 21).    During  post discharge   nitrite-nitrate levels
returned  to near the pre-discharge  levels.   Possible  reasons for not
detecting a significant  difference are the  wide variations seen  in the
nitrite-nitrate  data as  well as  the  disparity in the number of samples
between the pre-discharge and discharge periods.  Assuming there was no
direct short-circuiting of the  wastes  from  the plots  to the canals,
nitrite-nitrate levels  would be the first to  increase  if  an  impact  to the
canals was occurring as a  result of  the discharge in  the marsh.

     If nitrite-nitrate levels had increased to  a  biologically significant
level (even if  not  detectable statistically),  the response  in the canal
would  be  a rise in the  chlorophyll  a^ levels.  However, chlorophyll a_
actually  decreased  slightly in the canals during the discharge period but
the decrease was not statistically  significant.    The slight decrease is
most likely a seasonal  response of the system.

     Biochemical  Oxygen Demand levels in the canals were not significantly
different  between stations or between  pre-discharge, discharge and post
discharge  periods in canal waters.

     Based on the above observations, no detectable changes occurred, in
the chemistry of the canal adjacent to the marsh  during any period that was
directly  attributable to the application of waste to  the marsh system.


4.2.  FLORA

     No significant  differences in  plant species composition,  growth
parameters or productivity were detected  between loaded and control  plots.

     Juncus  roemerianus is tolerant of a  wide range of salinities and the
slight alterations in sediment interstitial salinity appear to have  had no
effect on the competitive  advantage of this species.  Krucynski, et al
(1978) found decreasing  height  of  Juncus in  marsh  zones  with  higher
salinities.  Mean height of Juncus during our study (88 cm) was the same as
found in  the upper marsh  in northwest Florida (Kruczynski, et al  1978) and
similar to the mean  value  of 84.5 cm found by  Stout (1978)  in the study
marsh under natural conditions.
                                  4-17

-------
CO
                                                                               LOAD RATE
                                                                               H CONTROL
                                                                               8 FULL
                                                                               • HALF
                                                                               mQUARTER
   JUN    JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC
                  1984
PREDISCHARGEHI	DISCHARGE	Ih
                                                             JAN   FEB   MAR   APR  MAY    JUN
                                                                         1985
                                                            	 POSTDISCHARGE	
          Figure 22.  Live stem densities.

-------
     Stem  diameters showed only slight seasonal variation with no apparent
increase in robustness due to fertilization  effect of the wastewater
application.  Applications of ammonium  nitate fertilizer  to a similar
Juncus  marsh (de la Cruz,  et al 1981)  resulted in both increases in height
and  diameter  of  Juncus  stems  in  fertilized plots  (Stout personal
observation).    However,  mean stem diameter during conduct of our pilot
study  was  3.5  mm compared  to unaltered marshes  in Florida (3.6 mm)
(Kruczynski, et al 1978).

     Between  plot differences in live stem density were  greater than
between loading  effects.   Stem density  is  quite  variable due  to the
rhizomatous  growth pattern  of Juncus.  Stems have been shown to persist for
from 8 months  to  4  years (Eleuterius  and Caldwell 1981) and this may
contribute to the variability in densities seen.   A slight decrease  in
density was evident in late spring early summer and an increase  in late
fall  coincident with new  growh periods  (Figure 22).   Mean  live density  of
650 m~2 was intermediate between the low marsh in Florida (885 m~2) and
previous Alabama density of 553  m~2  (Kruczynski, et al 1978; Stout 1978,
respectively).

     Results of water quality analyses for nutrients in the surface waters,
wells and sediments indicated only slight significant increases in nitrogen
species in the upper 5 cm of  sediment  and to  20 cm  in the wells.  It  is
probable that the increases in  nutrient availability to the  plants were not
sufficient to increase plant productivity or growth.  Mean aboveground
standing  biomass was  2,177  gm~2 for  the  study  period,  higher  than
previously  measured (1,449 gm~2) for  the same marsh  (Stout 1978) and
approximately  twice  values found  in Florida (973 gm~2)  (Kruczynski, et  al
1978).   There were,  however,  no significant application  rate  related
differences and only  seasonal variability  in standing crop were detected
(Figure 23).
      O)
            2.5-
      2?
      CD £  2.0-1
      QH
      Z^  I.5H
      o Q
      LU o>
      > *  0.5H
      GD
                  LOAD RATE
 — FULL
— HALF
	 QUARTER
         J    J


PREDISCHARGE I
 A   S   0
  1984
	DISCHARGE
                                    N
   F   M   A
      1985
•POSTDISCHARGE
                                            M
                               SAMPLE  PERIOD
  Figure 23.  Aboveground biomass.
                                  4-19

-------
     Similarly, belowground  standing crop was unaffected by wastewater
application.   Previously reported values  for  Alabama (4,558  gm-2) and
Florida Juncus  (4,573  -  5,140 gm-2)  were comparable to the mean belowground
standing biomass of Juncus in  the study marsh (5,100 gm-2).

     De la Cruz, et al  (1981)  applied ammonium  nitrate (34% N) at  rates of
136 g m-2 to Juncus marshes in Mississippi  and Alabama.   Fertilization
resulted  in an increase in productivity of 59% in Alabama population and
85% in Mississippi  marshes.  However,  there is  no  evidence  of enhancement
of either plant growth or plant productivity due to nutrient enrichment
consequent to  the application  of seafood wastewater  for  the period of the
study.  Inversely,  there is  also nothing in  the  data to indicate that
increasing organic  loading  and  anaerobic conditions were damaging to the
plant community.


4.3.   FAUNA

     Little information is  available on variability  in  abundance of marsh
macroinvertebrates (Kneib 1984).  Even less is known about the fauna of
high  Juncus marshes.  Humphrey (1979)  deals only with macrofauna which are
predominantly epifauna.  Subrahmanyam et  al (1978) and Subrahmanyam and
Coultas  (1980)  provide  the  most  comprehensive  assessment  of Juncus
macroepifauna  and infauna.   However, much of their analyses combine the two
habitats.   In  addition,  they utilized a 1.0 mm mesh  screen for sample
sorting.  Smaller macroinvertebrates (< 1.0 mm) were  thus omitted from
their data.

     Epifauna  of the study site  are depauperate,  particularly in  numbers of
individuals, when compared to other studies.  The most frequent species
(Melampus  bidentatus and Geukensia  demissa) are  common elsewhere in Juncus
marshes,  but  their abundance is greatly diminished in the study marsh.
Littorina  irrorata,  a  dominant in Florida marshes  (Subrahmanyam et al
1976), i s  rare in al 1  test plots.

     The Point  aux Pins narsh is only  flooded on infrequent high tides and
covered with standing water for 2-4 days after  heaviest  rains.   The marsh
sediment surface is exposed most of the  time and frequently so dry  that the
sediments  crack.  This presents a suite of  environmental  conditions which
are quite  stressful to the macroinvertebrates.   In  fact,  most motile forms
were  absent from the  study  area during  lowest  fall  and winter  tide
conditions.  The hydraulic loads of wastewater  were apparently  inadequate
to reverse this situation,  since there  was no  significant  differences in
species  or abundance  between  treatments  or between treatments  and
controls).

     The strong  dominance  of  the infaunal community by Capitella  capitata
is further evidence of the stressful nature  of the marsh environment^ThTs"
physiologically  "tough" species  is  often   abundant  in   stressful
environments.  Co-dominant taxa (Hobsonia florida,  Cyrenoida  florida and
Oligochaetes)  are reported in  other studies as  important infaunal species
(Ivester 1978; Cammen et al 1974).  The significant  seasonal variability in
abundance  of marsh  infauna, increased in spring and lowest in  summer,  is
consistent with previous studies (Cammen 1979;  Kneib  and  Stiven 1982;  and
Kneib 1984) (Figure 24).


                                  4-20

-------
ro
  4000 J


  3500-
                                Capitella cap/fata
                                Hobsonia florida
                                Cyrenoida floridana
                           ------- Oligochaetes
                                                            /x   \/
                                                            '   v-
                                                             ,.
                                                           /\  / \
< 1000-
UJ
                       T	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
                 JUN  JUL  AUG  OCT  DEC  JAN  FEB  MAR  APR  MAY  JUN
                           1984                          1985
           PREDISCHARGE h- DISCHARGE -H I	POSTDISCHARGE	1
                                   SAMPLE  PERIOD
            Figure 24.  Monthly abundance of dominant marsh infaunal species.

-------
     Canal  benthos demonstrated between station differences  in abundance of
dominant species, with  lowest  densities  typical  of  Station  1  (Figure  25).
This was the  deepest  station  and  frequently  had  lower oxygen  levels than
either Station 2  or the  shallow Station 3.  Station 1 was also the greatest
distance from tidal exchange with the estuary.  Higher  DO conditions during
the winter months and wind  mixing  during winter  frontal  passes appear to
have improved benthic  conditions  at Station 1.  A significant  increase in
Streblospio benedicti  at this  station  during  the  winter contributed to an
increased density of benthic organisms during this period.  McBee and Brehm
(1979) and Sikora et  al (1981) have  seen similar  increases  in  overall
abundance in  Gulf of Mexico estuaries during cooler months.

     Natant species collected by lift  nets  and  gill  nets were  in  such  low
densities  that analysis  is difficult.   Trends  in  species presence  and
absence,   and abundance  noted  may  be  readily explained  by  species
reproductive  cycles and  recruitment patterns of larvae  and juveniles.

     Thus,  the fauna!  communities  of both marsh and  canal  further support
the  findings within  the plant  population.   Seasonal variability  was
demonstrated,  but effects of wastewater discharge  were  minor.
                                   4-22

-------
                   0
                   0
                ABUNDANCE
              ro      OJ      .&      01
              O      O      O      O
              o      o      o      o
ro
in
3
O.
a»

o
o
-s
o
Cu
cr
ro
3
          c_
          C
          c_
          C
          m
          no
          o
          m
          o
 o
 3
 ro

 fa
 3
 ex
           Tl
           m
           DO
        to
        oo
        01
           c_
           d
           •z.
                                    w to w

                                    £ §. °
                                    5" 5 o'
y///////////tffi&
              CO
                                   II II II II II


                                   Q i5* 
-------
                      5.0.  PILOT FACILITY OPERATION
     During  the  1984  study year,  the  Point aux  Pins Seafood Wastewater
 Pilot  Facility was in operation from  mid-August through early December.
 Over this period of time,  about 640,000 gallons of wastewater were applied
 to  the study area; approximately  8,000 gallons per day,  five days  each
 week.

     Based  on the  volume of wastewater distributed  and the  relative
 application rates  for each  experimental plot  the  following  hydraulic
 loading rates have been calculated.
                             Observed Hydraulic Loading  Rate

     Experiment               cm /  week           GPD /  acre
Full Loading
Half Loading
Quarter Loading
3.56
1.82
1.33
5,440
2,780
2,025
     The differences  between the original  design loading rates  of 5.0
cm/wk,  2.5 cm/wk, and 1.25 cm/wk and those observed primarily reflects the
change in the pilot facility  operation schedule  from the original  7-day per
week  design to the actual 5-day week  due to  the costs for hauling  the
wastes.

     The relative  application rates  achieved by the pilot facility  for the
three experiments closely  approximated  those designed.   The design  ratios
of 4.0:2.0:1.0:0 compare well  with the  observed ratios of  4.0:2.0:1.5:0, as
determined through the dye study (described below) for  the full loading,
half loading, quarter loading, and control  plots.

5.1.   GENERAL SYSTEMS APPROACH

     For the purposes  of this  study, a  general  systems approach was  taken
for the development of the mass-balance models which were  utilized to
characterize the   hydraulic and chemical behaviour of the marsh waste
management system.  The models  also allow for  the  objective estimation
of parameters  that were not measured  during the study.  This approach
involves  identifying the major driving variables  for  the system,
identifying the major storages to be modelled and makes certain simplifying
assumptions about the system under consideration  such  that  the data
requirements and the cost of  modelling are reasonable.

     The simplifying assumptions start at the level  of deciding whether  one
wishes  the model to  be:  (1) general,   (2) precise or   (3)  realistic.
Optimization for one of the above necessarily reduces the ability of the
model to satisfy the other objectives.  For the purpose  of this study, it
was desired that the model  be precise and realistic and, in general, ignore
applicability to the general  case.
                                 5-1

-------
     The purpose  of  the  models  for this  study  are  generally to predict the
mass dynamics of various storages in the system.   No attempt was  made to
couple the individual components (for instance  the  rate of nitrification to
pH and salinity) into a  more comprehensive ecosystem  model.  This in itself
is a limitation in  its applicability  both  for other areas  as  well as the
same area under different  regimes  (such as seasonal).

     The following is a list of simplifying assumptions that apply to the
mass-balance models  developed for this report:

    1.  Storages for most of the models developed  will  represent a single
storage of the constituent that represents its concentration (mass/volume)
in the surface waters of the plots.

    2.  All natural  inputs to the  systems will be combined into a single
inflow.   The  waste  input will  be considered  as a separate inflow to the
system.

    3.   All  models will  assume  steady state conditions and will be  designed
to predict the average  resultant  steady-state  concentration based on
difference in loadings.

    4.   Most systems will  be represented to have a  single outflow that will
serve for all  sinks  to the system.   Sedimentation will also be included as
will uptake by macrophytes and  benthic algae.

    5.   Groundwater  flow will be considered to  be  small  for  all models.

    6.   All  models will  simulate periods  with no  rainfall  or tidal
flooding.

5.2.  HYDROLOGY

     The hydrologic  budget to a  tidal marsh comprises the  sum of  the inputs
to the  system,  including  precipitation,  tidal  influx,  surface runoff and
groundwater flows and the outflows from  the  system from tides  and  effluent
streams  and channels.  Expressed in  terms of an equation we  have:

               S = ( P  - ET )A  + Vi  +  Vo  + G
     where
               S = change  in storage
               P = precipitation on  marsh surface
              ET = evapo-transpiration
               A = area  of plot
              Vi  = sum of the inputs (influent channels  and  tidal)
              Vo = sum of  the outputs (channels and tidal)
               G = net groundwater  flux.

     This equation  can be combined and normalized such that on  an area!
basis the equation in  its  differential form becomes:

dS/dt = Sum  of  Inputs -  Sum  of Outputs +-  Groundwater  Flux
                                   5-2

-------
     This is the simplest form of the equation that can be utilized for
estimating the  dynamic  water balance for the system.  For the case of the
experimental  plots, a slightly finer resolution for the  inputs  needs to be
defined since we are artificially loading the system with  wastewaters.
Hence, the input needs  to be divided into inputs from natural sources (I)
and the wastewater  source (W).

     Further, since we  are trying  to resolve whether the  discharged waters
are infiltrating  the groundwater system,  we  need to include  an  additional
storage (G) in  our equations.  This simplified hydrodynamic system then
becomes a system  of two storages and two inputs and two outputs as depicted
in Figure 26.   The  system of equations  to be modelled then  becomes:

                 dSl/dt = I(s) + W(s) -  0(s)  - G
                 dGl/dt = Kg) + W(g) -  o(g)
                Simplifigd  Hydrologic
Figure  26.   Systems   diagram of  the simplified hydrologic  model  used  in
this study.  SI  indicates the surface storage compartment and Gl represents
Groudwater storage.
                                 5-3

-------
     Rainfall and evaporation  data  reported by the weather service  during
the study  are presented  in  Table 35. Table  36  presents precipitation
volume data  from the on-site bulk precipitation collector.

     Data from  the Coden and Dauphin  Island  stations more closely
paralleled the volume collected at the site.  For instance, from the  period
June 7, 1986 to July 19, 1986  the volume  collected at Point aux Pins was
twice  that observed for Mobile, Al. The monthly  data indicated it more
closely represented conditions at Point  aux Pins.  Since on-site volume
data are an underestimate of  actual precipitation due to the  filling and
overflowing of the bulk collector,   rainfall  data for the Coden  and  Dauphin
Island stations were averaged  for modelling  purposes.

     Tidal  data for the sampling  periods  indicated  diurnal  tides with
amplitudes ranging from approximately 15 cm to 93 cm.  A representative
tidal record is presented  in Figure 27. Some variation due to local wind
conditions was  observed,  especially  during  periods when intense
thunderstorms were prevalent in  the area.     The available mean tidal
amplitudes were averaged for each month resulting in the values reported  in
Table 37. Overall  mean  tidal amplitude recorded was 47.08  cm.

     Some surface water flow  was indicated by the  dye studies performed  on
the experimental plots (Table  38).  The dye was  applied  during  a high  tide
when the marsh was  flooded and the  dye  concentrations were followed  during
a falling tide. Within two hours following application, evidence  of dye
movement out of the plot system was noted  near the edge of the marsh and
the drainage  slough.   No cross contamination between plots was  noted but
drainage of the plots was facilitated by the sampling  footpaths  in the
marsh.  The  results, however,  were  highly variable with  some of the plots
retaining their dye concentration for over 2 hours following  discharge.

     Height of the  groundwater levels recorded during the sampling days are
presented  in  Table  39.   Generally,  little change  was  noted  in the
groundwater levels based on  the average  height recorded from the  wells.
The greatest change noted was  in the 10 cm level wells.

     Well heights continuously measured over several days corroborated the
results  of the discrete  measurements above.  For instance,  during the
periods 27 July - 29 July,  1984 a  maximum change  in well height of 1.0  cm
was noted in the 30 cm wells (Figure 28).  A similar pattern of constancy
in height was also noted in the 20  cm  wells.  Recharge of the wells was
also extremely slow, as indicated during the  recharge of the 20 cm well
after sampling  .
                                 5-4

-------
Table  35.  Rainfall  and evaporation data for  stations in the
proximity of the pilot project.  All units are in centimeters.

Dates
1984
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1985
January
* missi

Mobile

5.26
5.99
38.58
1.88
15.72
4.24
5.38

12.85
ng data.

Rainfall
Coden Dauphin Island

2.48
32.33
44.53
1.88
9.82
6.91
*

*


3.68
-
41.99
1.23
10.82
5.92
*

*

Evaporation
Fairhope

18.87
16.96
15.24
15.62
11.55
7.92
*

*

Table 36.   Precipitation volumes  collected at Point aux  Pins.
                               Volume
                                 (ml)
Centimeters
    1984
6/7 -
-
-
-
-
-
8/18 -
-
-
-
-
-
™
7/5
7/13
7/19
8/6
8/15
8/29
9/13
9/26
10/10
10/24
11/7
11/26
12/6
3700 (F)
3250
3450
6800 (F)
2750
3700 (F)
100
500
NONE
650
3750
650
3850 (F)
7.30
6.41
6.81
13.42
5.42
7.30
0.19
0.98
0.00
1.20
7.30
1.20
7.60
         (F) indicates  vessel was full  when  sampled and
             represents a minimum rainfall  volume.
                                 5-5

-------
CD
h— I
LU
 O  OJ
 i— i  OJ
 LU
 o:
           6  -
           5  -
           3  -
           2  -
                                  ~T

                                   8
  12


 Hour
            -7—

            16
20
Figure 27.  Representative tidal records  from the  canal  on 13-14 July 1985.
Time 0 for this record was at 0900.
Table  37.   Monthly  averages  of   the   daily   tidal   amplitudes
(centimeters) for the period June through December 1984.
Mean Amplitude
(cm)
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
51.21
36.21
32.73
28.34
42.06
65.84
73.15
             Mean
47.08 cm.
                                    5-6

-------
Table 38.   Results of the Dye study performed on  the experimental plots.*



Tapwater Reference
Wastewater w/ Dye
Control
Quarter
Half
Full
Edge of Marsh
Near Slough
Confluence of
Slough
Mean Fluorescence
Pre-discharge

0.0002
0.2532
-
-
-
0.0003
-

-


Immediately
Following
Discharge
_
-
0.0002
0.0180
0.0240
0.0450
-

-


2 Hours
After
Discharge
_
-
0.0002
0.0140
0.0220
-
0.0067

0.0019

* Expressed  as Flourescent Units.
Table 39.   Mean well  heights  recorded during  water quality
samplings.  Height from bottom of well  tubes.  All well tubes were
placed with tops  1  meter from the marsh surface.
Well depth (cm)
10
20
30
Pre-discharge
16.7*
26.9
31.6
Discharge
17.02
21.86
32.89
Both
17.00
21.91
32.86
*16.7 cm above the bottom  of the  well tube or 6.7  cm above the
 marsh surface.
                                  5-7

-------
                                                                       10 cm
                                                                        20  cm
                                                                        30 cm
                        i i i i i i i i iii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
Figure 28. Representative continuous well  height records for the 10  20 and
30  centimeter  sampling wells.   Since only one water level  recorder  was
available,  the  data  were  taken on different days as  indicated  on  the
charts.  The arrows noted  "D" represent approximate time of discharge.
                                   5-8

-------
     For much of the pre-discharge period,  little water was present on the
surface of the experimental plots.    Only during periods of extremely high
tides  or  intensive rainfall was there significant standing water  in  the
marsh.

     During  the discharge period,  the plot surfaces were more  frequently
flooded.  This was the result of higher tidal  amplitudes during this period
as well as a decrease in evapo-transpiration.   Also,  the wetter conditions
on  the plots loaded with wastewaters is a direct result of  the  hydraulic
loadings  imposed by the experiment.   The monthly hydraulic loading on the
full loading plots (approximately 18.0 cm/month) doubled and in some  cases
quadrupled the amount of water available from precipitation.

     Little penetration of water was noted into the groundwater.  Data from
the  20  and  30  cm wells consistently indicated that  these  layers  were
relatively stagnant at the resolution of the measuring  apparatus.   During
pre-discharge  it was noted that the more variable well  heights observed in
the  10 cm wells indicated some movement of waters into this  layer.   Well
observations  during  the discharge period with the  continuous  monitoring
device  indicated  that on the fully loaded plots some movement  of  waters
into  the groundwater aquifer was occurring at least on some of  the  plots
(Figure 28).   The continuous well sampling on the half loaded plots showed
that  this  loading level was having little impact on the  groundwaters  on
these plots.  This stagnation has been noted by a recent researcher working
in salt marsh systems (Dacey and Howes 1984).

     All  of  the preceding information was integrated to develop  a  water
balance  for the experimental plots and then used to drive the hydrodynamic
model.   The results of the steady state simulation under conditions of  no
rainfall  and  no  tidal   inundation are presented  in  Figure   29.    The
simulation  of  surface water on the plots under average pre-discharge  and
discharge conditions indicated saturated soil  conditions with about 1 cm of
water existing on the plots.   Simulation of the hydrologic condition of  a
plot  receiving  the full wastewater loading (0.51 cm/day) showed  slightly
higher water levels with the steady state around 1.5 cm.

     These  results  indicated  that even under prolonged  periods  of  dry
spells,  the  fully loaded plots would have some water on the  surface  for
most of the time.
                                   5-9

-------
                                   Hydrologlo Simulation
                                        •Tlmo (Doy>)
                                        Groundvratw
                     1  -
                       0    2


                       	 CONTROL
         —1	1	1	1	1
          10    12    u
 Tlrm (Doyi)
FUU. LOADING
Figure  29.  Results of the  Steady state  simulation  of  the  hydrologic model.
The  upper  graph illustrates the surface  and groundwater conditions and  the
lower   graph  contrasts  the  differences between a fully loaded  plot   (0.51
cm/day)  and a control plot.
                                     5-10

-------
 5.3.  WATER  QUALITY

     Water   quality  parameters were monitored on  the  experimental  system  in
 order   to  determine   the   ultimate   fate  of  the wastes   applied  to  the
 saltmarsh.    By  following  these  "tracers"  as they pass  through  the  system,
 the  efficiency  of   the   system can  be estimated and  the   impact  to  the
 chemical and biological systems  of the marsh can  be more fully  assessed.

     The  chemical parameters were divided into two   classes,   conservative
 substances   and  non-conservative substances.   Conservative substances  are
 defined as   those materials which do not  react physically,  chemically   or
 biochemically as they  pass  through the system.    They are used  primarily  to
 determine the physical dilution  of the wastes applied to the system.   The
 only  conservative   parameter measured during this study  was   salinity,  a
 measure of   the  total  salts in the water.   In contrast are   the  non-
 conservative substances  which  are  those  materials  that undergo  some
 reaction  or transformation within the system of  interest.   In most waste
 studies this includes the  biogenic elements and  their  associated  compounds
 including the various  species of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.


     Conservative Species Model

     As mentioned  above,  the  only conservative (ie.  does   not  undergo
 transformation)  substance considered for  this study  is salinity which will
 be  used  to  investigate and verify the hydraulic nature   of   the  loading
 plots.

     The  systems  diagram  of the simplified salinity  model   utilized   to
 determine steady-state conditions on the plots are presented in Figure  30.
 Salinity  is  represented  as  a single storage with  two  inflows  and  one
 outflow.   The  storage volume represented is that of an  individual  plot.
 This  model  was coupled with the hydro!ogic model  to  determine  the dilution
 factor  attributed to the waste  loading.    By coupling it  directly  to  the
 hydrologic  model it provides a  check on the adequacy of the water  balance
 calculated previously.   A listing of the FORTRAN program used to  simulate
 the model  is presented in Appendix C.

     Sampling on the plots had demonstrated that mean salinities during the
 pre-discharge  period and on the control  plots during the discharge  period
 ranged  from 18 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt) .   On the plots receiving the
 full   loading  of  wastewaters the salinity fell   to  about  14  ppt.   The
 simulation of salinity agreed with the above findings and showed the system
approaching  steady  state  under control  conditions at about  22  ppt  and
around  14 ppt under full  loading (Figure 31).
                                   5-11

-------
                SimplifiGd Salinity
Figure  30.  Systems diagram  of the simplified Salinity model  used in  this
Study.   The symbols represent Tidal  (T) and Wastewater inputs (W) and  the
main  storage (Salin).
                                5-12

-------
a
a

                      of Sa/rnffy
                   (Days)

                   LOADED
 31  D

 - '"'""»««-'"*"-""......,»„„„,„
             5-13

-------
     Non-Conservative Species Models.

     Three  non-conservative  species   were investigated  for  this   study:
Total  Organic  Carbon;  Nitrogen,   including the  three  components   Total
Organic  Nitrogen,   Ammonium  ion   and  Nitrite-nitrate;    and  Phosphorus
including Total  and ortho-phosphorus.   Each of these biologically important
elements  undergo  major  transformations in  saltmarsh  systems.   It  was
expected  that  the cycling of these materials would exhibit major  changes
resulting from the wastewater discharge.

     Total  Organic Carbon (TOO  was a major constituent in the  wastewater
flow averaging 751.5 mg/1.  This  collection of compounds contributed great-
ly to the carbonaceous portion of the  Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) noted
in the surface waters of the plots  which  averaged as high  as 78 mg/1  on the
full loading plots.   However, analysis of the water quality data presented
in  Part I of this report showed  that  no  consistent trend  was  evident  for
this component of the wastewater  and differences  across time were insigni-
ficant due to the high variability.   The labile portion of these compounds
were rapidly metabolized by microorganisms on the plot surfaces.

     The  levels  of TOC on the plots  during the period of waste  discharge
directly  reflected  the hydraulic  loading level and behaved  more  like  a
conservative  substance on the plots.    The levels observed were at  levels
one  would  predict based on simple dilution alone.    Since this  was  the
case, no further modelling for this constituent was performed.

     A similar situation existed  for phosphorus compounds  on the surface of
the  plots.   High levels of total  and ortho-phosphorus were present in the
wastes (means were 18.9mg/l and 11.7 mg/1, respectively) but no significant
trends  could be noted on the plots either across loading levels or   time.
Thus like TOC, no further effort  was put into the modelling efforts.

      Nichols  (1983)  stated that numerous wastewater application  studies
have shown that wastewater phosphorus  did not move far in the soils but was
rapidly  absorbed  near  the surface and he reported  that  with  continued
application,   phosphorus  removal   declined.    The  decline  was  due  to
presumably the saturation of the  physical and chemical sites for adsorption
and reaction.   Once saturated, the excess nutrients would simply be washed
off.

     Since  both carbon and phosphorus compounds were well above the levels
normally  considered  limiting in saltmarshes it is likely the  system  was
saturated.   This  then  resulted  in   the  observed  behaviour  of   these
constituents   which  closely  followed  the  hydrologic  regimen  of   the
experimental system.

     Because  nitrogen  exists in so many  forms   (nitrogen  gas,  nitrite,
nitrate,  ammonia, nitrogen oxides and organic nitrogen) it usualy exhibits
an  extremely complex  cycle in a saltmarsh system  (Figure 32).   The major
sink  for  nitrogen  in  this  cycle  is  to  the  atmosphere  through  the
denitrification of nitrate which  occurs under anaerobic conditions.  It has
been  demonstrated  that  the  denitrification rate  is  dependent  on  the
availability  of  carbon  substrate (Reddy et,  al.  1984).  Nichols  (1983)
reported  that  up to 90 percent of nitrate is removed within  a  few  days
either by denitrification or some other microbial  immobilization.


                                   5-14

-------
                                                              Detritus-
                                                              microbial
                                                              complex
                                                               •f6J
    Ammonia

soil        Minera»
Figure  32.   Conceptual Model  of the Nitrogen  Cycle in a Saltmarsh   System.
(Gosselink et al.  1979).
                                     5-15

-------
     The  rate of nitrification is dependent on  both the  levels  of ammonium
and dissolved oxygen.   The process is carried out under aerobic   conditions
by  Nitrobacter  and  Nitrosomonas.     The  ammonification    process,    the
conversion  of organic nitrogen compounds to ammonium,  is  performed  by  a
number of aerobic and  anaerobic microbes.

     Nitrogen has been shown to be the most frequently  limiting  nutrient in
saltmarsh systems (Gosselink et alI.  1979).  This fact coupled with the high
potential for transformation of nitrogen within  saltmarshes as  illustrated
above,  indicates that large amounts of nitrogen may be absorbed.  This has
been  shown  by  several  investigations which were  summarized  by  Nichols
(1983).

     For  the  purposes of this study,  a simplified conceptual   model  of
nitrogen  was developed (Figure 33).   Storages  were represented for  total
organic nitrogen (TON), ammonia nitrogen (NH4) and combined nitrite-nitrate
nitrogen  (N03).   The inputs were divided in two sources,   natural  sources
and wastewater loadings and the sinks (outputs leaving  the  system) were all
combined to a single flow.

     Wastewater  loadings  provided  large amounts of  ammonium   and  total
organic  nitrogen to the system as reflected in  the average  concentrations
in the parameters during the period of waste discharge  (Figure 11,  Chapter
3).   As  with  all  parameters studied,  the level of   loading   each  plot
received  determined the resulting level of these parameters on   the  plot.
Total  organic  nitrogen exceeded ammonium levels in the  wastewaters  which
were  loaded on the system (TON:NH4 =1.26).   On the plots  receiving  the
maximum  level of loading,  average ammonium levels were  greater than total
organic  nitrogen (TON:NH4 = .93).   This change in the ratio of these  two
species  indicates  that the ammonification process was  occurring  on  the
plots  receiving  the  wastewaters.    On the basis of the  average  ratios,
approximately   20-25   percent  of  the  organic  nitrogen   discharged  was
converted  to  the more labile ammonium ion in the surface   waters  of  the
plots on a very rapid  basis.
                                   5-16

-------
                         Simplified  Nitrogen  Model
Figure  33.   Simplified Conceptual Model of Nitrogen for this  study.   Tl
indicates natural sources of Nitrogen and Wl indicates Wastewater Sources.
                               5-17

-------
     Mean nitrite-nitrate levels on the plots during loading also indicated
intense microbial  activity on the plot surface waters (Figure  14,   Chapter
3).   On  the  plots receiving the lowest  loading  rates,   nitrite-nitrate
averages  4  times (0.17 mg/1 verses 0.04 mg/1)  the level  observed in   the
raw  wastewater.    On the fully loaded plots,  however,   the mean  nitrite-
nitrate level was  the same as the wastewaters (0.04 mg/1).   This  difference
in  the  pattern   of  the  activity  illustrates  the  inhibition  of   the
nitrification process due to high ammonia levels and lower  dissolved oxygen
levels.   This  has  several implications in the utilization  of   saltmarsh
systems as wastewater renovators.   The first of these is that, presumably,
at  the  highest   level  of loading utilized,  the carbonaceous  portion  of
oxygen demand depressed oxygen enough to inhibit the nitrification  process
thereby  limiting   the loss of this substrate through  the   denitrification
process.   Secondly,  the inability of the heavily loaded system to keep up
with the oxidation of ammonium would allow this material  to be flushed  into
adjacent waters and exert an oxygen demand there.   Finally, the buildup of
ammonium  in the  marsh could present many invertebrates and fishes  with  a
toxic environment within which they could not survive.

     A  further illustration of the intensity of the nitrogen cycle in   the
loaded  marsh  is  presented in a time course of the major nitrogen  species
over  several  days  (Figure  34).   The record  was  obtained  when  tidal
amplitudes  were  not sufficient to inundate the marsh and followed  a   dry
spell.   The automated sampler was initiated on a Sunday afternoon, over 48
hours  after  the last spraying  (Friday) and remained  in  operation  until
Thursday.  The record also includes a light rainfall (black arrow on Figure
34) which occurred sometime before sampling on Wednesday.

     Initially,  nitrite-nitrate levels were very high (1.2 mg/1) but  fell
precipitously after dark.  The reduction in nitrite-nitrate could be due to
denitrification   coupled with the cessation of nitrite-nitrate  production
resulting  from  anaerobic  conditions in the heavily loaded  marsh  waters
during the night.   On Monday morning there is a sharp rise in total organic
nitrogen and ammonium on the plots in response to the discharge.  A decline
in TON is noted,   presumably due to ammonification.   Ammonium levels  rise
and  level  out at about 4.0 mg/1.   The leveling could possibly be due  to
volitilization,   uptake  by  benthic  algae  and  macrophytes,   and   the
nitrification  process  during daylight hours  (note small peak in  nitrite-
nitrate).   A  similar  scene  is repeated on the  following  day  until  a
dilution of the surface waters ocurred due to an approximate 1.8 centimeter
rainfall  event.    Following the rainfall,  nitrite-nitrate levels increase
due to the influx of oxygen  rich rainwater and runoff.
                                   5-18

-------
                                    Nitrogen on the Surface Plots
                                         800
                                                  800
                                                            800
                                           TIME
Figure 34.  Time course  of  nitrogen species on a plot receiving  the  Maximum
Hydraulic  Loading  Level  (3.56 cm/week) during the week of 6 October  1985
through  10  October   1985.    Open  arrows  indicate  approximate  time  of
wastewater  irrigation   and   the  black  arrow  indicate  the    approximate
occurrence  of a 1.8 cm  rain  event.   No tidal flooding occurred during the
time of record.
                                    5-19

-------
     Based on the above data,  a computer model  of nitrogen was constructed
to  simulate the steady state conditions for the loaded plots.    The  model
was  simulated using transfer rate coefficients  derived from the continuous
record  discussed above and resulted in a reasonable approximation  of  the
average conditions on the surface of the plots.  The listing of  the computer
program  used and the transfer rate coefficients utilized are presented  in
Appendix 3.   Figure 35 presents the simulation  of the fully loaded plot.

     Based  on  the  modeling results,  the previous approximation  of  the
ammonification  of  20-25 percent per day of the TON is  reasonable  (final
transfer  rate coefficient for ammonification was 0.20 per day).   Using  a
moderate transfer rate coefficient for nitrification (KS(9) = 0.10)  forced
the transfer rates for the loss of ammonium and  nitrate through other means
to  high  levels  and indicated that about 50 percent of the ammonium  was
assimilated  and  95  percent of the  available   nitrite-nitrate  could  be
assimilated on a daily basis.
                                  Simulation  of Nitrogen
Figure  35.   Simulation of the Nitrogen Species Model for a  fully  Loaded
Experimental Plot.
                                   5-20

-------
                       6.0.  DESIGN  DISCHARGE CRITERIA
       A primary consideration in  determining the appropriate  loading rate
  for a salt  marsh  is the ability of the system  to retain the hydrologic load
  for sufficient time  to allow all the material  transformations to take
  place.    Due  to the  strength  of  seafood  wastewaters  and the  low
  permeability  of salt marsh  soils,  hydraulic loading  rates  for this type of
  waste will  need to be relatively  low.  Based on the  modelling results from
  data determined during  this  study, the maximum  hydraulic loading rate of
  3.56 cm/week (5,400 GPD/acre) used did not result in any runoff from the
  high marsh  system.  It  should be emphasized that the major assumption here
  is  that  the  marsh  is not  frequently inundated by tides.   Obviously,
  additional  loading  from rainfall   could result in runoff  at  this  (or any)
  hydraulic loading  rate.

       The  relationship  between  the hydraulic loading and resulting mean
  concentration of  organic  materials  on the plots  (represented as five day
  BOD) is presented in Figure 36.   The "break-point" or major  inflection
  point for the curve occurs between the half loading and full  loading  level.
  This indicates that the "safe" loading level for Juncus marshes in Alabama
  would be somewhere near 2.0  cm/week of  screened shrimp processing wastes of
  similar characteristics.  This level of hydraulic  loading would  result in a
  BOD load of 3.096  grams per square meter-day  (20.1  Ibs BOD/acre-day)
             so
             70 -
T3
a

a
c
a
o
o
.o
5
             60 -
50 -
             40 -i
             30 -
             20 -
              10
                                  Hydraulic Loading (cm/w«ek)


 Figure 36.  Relationship  between  Hydrologic loading and Biochemical  Oxygen
 Demand for the Saltmarsh  System receiving Screened Seafood Process Waters.
                                   6-1

-------
     The  hydraulic loading rate of 2.0 cm/week  is  also justifiable based on
the results of the nitrogen modelling  efforts  described previously.  The
behaviour of the marsh system at  the  higher loading rate  indicates that the
marsh system could experience problems due to extended periods of anaerobic
conditions 'resulting in a loss  in overall  efficiency of the system and
possible  ecological implications.

     The  total  nitrogen loading rate  for  the recommended hydraulic loading
rate of 2.0 cm/week  would be approximately 0.73 grams of total nitrogen as
N per square meter-day or 4.72 Ibs N/acre-day.

     The  modelling results  indicated that under the high loading  rate,
about 37.0  percent  of the total  nitrogen loaded  would be assimilated each
day (25 percent of the TON and 50 percent of the  NH4).  This assimilation
rate is low compared  to  studies involving experimental systems reviewed by
Nichols  (1983).  However,  if the loading rate  in this study were  to be
applied  for a  full year,  an annual  loading  rate of 183 grams  per square
meter per year  would  result.  This is three times  the loading level  of the
most  heavily   loaded experimental  system  reported by Nichols (1983).
Increased efficiency would probably result from operating the system at the
lower recommended rate of 2.0 cm/week rate.

     The  efficiency of a  saltmarsh system to assimilate a wastewater load
is also  dependent on  the  frequency and duration of the  loading schedule as
well as the season in which the  wastewaters are applied.  In this study,
the practice of spray irrigating the wastes in a  short period of time each
day for only five days out of the week resulted a  system behaviour that was
similar  to a  batch  sequencing  reactor.  This  resulted in  a  series of
dramatic  dynamics in  terms of microbial activity  as demonstrated in Figure
34 in the previous section.  More than likely this had a  positive effect  on
system efficiency in  that it was allowed to "rest" for  some  time between
loadings.

     In Coastal Alabama,  the most efficient time for  spray  irrigating a
saltmarsh would be in the summer and  fall of the  year.  Not only would the
increased temperature result in more rapid microbial  degredation of the
wastes but it  would correspond with the growing season  of the plants.
Additional advantages during  this  time would  be  higher  evapotranspiration
allowing for higher  hydrologic  loads and lower  average tidal amplitudes
which would increase the time between tidal  flushing of the  system.

     As  mentioned previously,  due to the strength of seafood wastewaters
and  the  low permeability of salt marsh soils,  hydraulic  loading rates for
this type of waste will   need to  be relatively low.   Correspondingly, the
area  required  for  application  may be  considerable.   A  1 MGD  seafood
wastewater treatment facility  would require an application area of 330
acres to accomodate  a loading rate of 2.00 cm/wk.  While this may not  pose a
problem  in areas with extensive coastal marshes,   in areas  where  appropriate
sites  are limited   it  may prove necessary to  increase  the  degree  of
pretreatment in  order to  achieve higher  hydraulic loading  rates.    Given
this limitation, this method of disposal  is probably not practical for
areas where there are large  concentrations of  seafood processors.  However,
for a smaller  processor located adjacent to a  coastal saltmarsh it is a
practical option.
                                  6-2

-------
     Consider a coastal  seafood processor with  one  shrimp peeler who
operates on a seasonal basis.  Assume that the average daily volume of
wastewater produced  is  about  27,000 GPD when operating at capacity,  based
on the data presented in Chapter 4.   At the recommended loading rate of 2.0
cm/week  a saltmarsh with an  area of 46  acres  would  be  adequate to
accomodate  these loads  with  a  reasonable margin of  safety  for the
environment.

     Costs Associated with the Land-Application of_ Seafood Wastewaters

     Costs of both facility construction and  facility operation  for a
seafood waste system utilizing screening and land application should be
considerably less than the cost of conventional treatment.

     Non-land costs associated with  land-application systems would be
expected  to  vary greatly.  EPA (1984)  provided estimates  for  the  non-land
costs  of  constructing and operating various  components of  a  wetland
treatment  facility.   Utilizing some of  those figures  (based  on 1984
dollars), an  estimate of the  cost of construction of a 1 MGD and  a 30,000
GPD system were prepared (Table 40).  Maintenance costs for each system
would be about $21,750 per year for the 1 MGD system and about $8,000 per
year for  the 30,000 GPD system.
Table 40.  Estimated  non-land capital costs associated  with
wetland wastewater disposal.
          Cost Element                    1 MGD     30,000 GPD


        Pumping Station & Force Main       42,000       11,200

        Piping in wet soils (1000 ft)      11,000        3,700

        Distribution system (Aluminum)    170,000       27,000


                  TOTALS                 220,000       41,000
                                6-3

-------
                            7.0.  CONCLUSIONS
 7.1.  WATER QUALITY
     Discharge of  seafood processing wastewater onto the surface  of  a
Juncus saltmarsh  resulted  in the elevation  of levels  of several  nitrogen
species (Total  Kjeldahl Nitrogen and ammonium ion) and Biochemical  Oxygen
Demand (BOD) in the  surface waters of the  plots.   Impact of the  wastes was
most evident on the marsh  receiving the heaviest waste loads of  3.56  cm per
week.

     The loading  also resulted in  the- elevation  of nitrogen  in the
surficial sediments (0-5 cm)  which  remained somewhat elevated after the
discharge of waste  had  ceased.  These  findings, along with the persistence
of high chlorophyll  £ levels  and  increases in nitrite-nitrate levels  in the
water  on the plots during post  discharge,  indicated that the surficial
sediments  retain  much  of the materials loaded and release  these materials
slowly after continued  cycling  and  mineralization.   Little  or no
penetration into the  groundwater was  noted for any  of  the  parameters
measured.

     The canal  adjacent to the marsh receiving the waste showed no water
quality impacts from the project.   No  significant elevations were  noted in
nutrients,  chlorophyll a_ or BOD that could  be  attributed to the  waste
loadings.

     Based  on  the  water quality  of  the experimental  plots during the
discharge  period,   an  optimal  loading  level   of  2.0 cm per  week is
recommended.  The 3.56 cm per week loading level  resulted in the disruption
of the normal nutrient cycling observed for  the control  plots and  exceeded
the apparent capacity of the  marsh  to rapidly assimilate the waste.

7.2  BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS

     No differences in  plant species composition, growth parameters or
productivity  were detected between sprayed  plots and control  plots.   Only
expected seasonal  variability was demonstrated.   Mean values for stem
density (650 m-2),  diameter  (3.5 mm)  and height (88 cm) were within the
range of values for similar  gulf coast  Juncus marshes.   Mean  aboveground
biomass production (2,177 gm~2) was higher than reported  in previous
studies but  did not differ  significantly between  study plots.

     Increased nutrient loads to  the marsh  had no measureable enhancement
effect on plants present.  The long  term  impact of residual  nitrogen  in the
shallow sediments, subsequent nutrient transformations and applications
over greater than four months, or at other times of the year, cannot be
predicted from  this study.

     Application of the wastewater resulted in few significant  changes in
fauna! communities of the  marsh or the  adjacent canal.   Significant
seasonal changes in species composition were similar between plots and
reflected population dynamics and cycles  of  the component species.   During
the post-discharge period total  abundance increased significantly  on the
plots receiving 1.82 cm  of  wastewater  relative to  the   control  plots, due


                                  7-1

-------
primarily to  population increases  of  the annelids.   Marsh infauna abundance
patterns  over the study period were similar to reports in the literature
with a spring-summer increase and a late  summer-early  winter decline  in
species abundance.  Few  reports  are available, however, for the  faunal
group and the strong dominance of  Capitella capitata is somewhat unique  to
this study and may explain the dynamics observed.
7.3.   FACILITY OPERATION

     Based on the operation of the pilot facility  during this study the
following  conclusions can be  made:

     The application of screened seafood wastewater at a loading rate of
1.82 cm/week  was  the optimal  level  observed during the project.  This level
of loading did not  produce  any  appreciable runoff during periods of no
rainfall and  no tidal  inundation.

     About 37 percent  of the  nitrogen applied to the Juncus saltmarsh was
assimilated per day of operation.

     The  spray  irrigation  of seafood  process  waters  is  a potential
alternative  for  wastewater management for single processors along the
northern Gulf of  Mexico  coastal region.


7.4.   RECOMMENDATIONS

     The following recommendations  are made for further  study.

     1.   Laboratory  studies  of  the  nitrogen  cycle to  determine  more
accurately the assimilation  of nitrogen and specifically  the  rates of
ammom'fication, nitrification and  denitrification.

     2.  Development  of  more sophisticated models of the  nutrient cycling
and hydraulic response  of the marsh.

     3.  Long-term (multiple-year)  impacts of wastewater application on the
marsh system,  effectiveness of system assimilation  and biological impacts.

     4.  Biological  impacts  of application of  wastewater during other
seasons.
                                   7-2

-------
                            REFERENCES CITED
APHA, AWWA 1980.   Standard methods for the examination of water  and wastes.
     14th Edition.  Amer. Water Works,  Asso., Water Poll. Control  Fed.

Bender,  M.  E.  and D.  L. Correl.  1974.   The  use  of  wetlands as  nutrient
     removal systems.   Chesapeake Res.  Consortium.  Publ. No.  29.

Cammen,  L.  M.  1979.   The macro-infauna of a North Carolina  salt marsh.
     Amer.  Midi.  Nat.  102(2):244-253.

Dacy, J.  W. H.  and B.  L. Howes.  1984.  Water uptake by roots  controls
     water table  movement and sediment  oxidation  in  short Spartina marsh.
     Science 224:487-489.

de la Cruz, A.  A.,  C.  T. Hackney and J.  P. Stout.  1981.  Aboveground net
     primary  productivity  of three  gulf coast marsh  macrophytes  in
     artificially  fertilized plots,   pp.  437-445.   ln_  B. J. Neil son and L.
     E.  Cronin  eds.  Estuaries and nutrients.  Humana  Press, Clifton, N. J.

Eleuterius, L. N. and  J. D. Caldwell  1981.  Growth kinetics and longevity
     of  the salt  marsh rush Juncus roemerianus.  Gulf Res.  Rept. 7(1):   27-
     34.	

Gakstetter, J.  M.,  M. 0. Allum, and J. M. Omernik.   1975.  Lake eutrophica-
     tion:   Results from the  national  eutrophication Survey.    Eutrophica-
     tion Research  Lab.  U.S.  EPA,  Corvallis, Ore.

Gosselink,  J. G., C. L.  Cordes  and J.  W. Parsons.  1979.  An  ecological
     characterization study  of the Chenier Plain  coastal  ecosystem of
     Louisiana and Texas.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  FWS/OBS-78/9
     thrugh  78/11.  3 Vols.

Hardisky, A. M.,  R. M. Smart and V.  Klemas.  1983.   Growth response and
     spectral characteristics  of a short Spartina alterm'flora  salt  marsh
     irregited with freshwater and sewage effluent.   Remote  Sensing of
     Envir.  13:  57-67.

Hicks, D.  B.  and  Cavinder,  T.  R.  1975.   Finger  fill  canal  studies:
     Florida and  North Carolina.   U.S.  EPA Surveillance  and  Analysis
     Division, Athens,  GA 427 pp.

Humphrey, W. D. 1979.  Diversity, distribution and relative abundance of
     benthic fauna  in  a Mississippi  tidal marsh.   Ph.D. Dissertation,  Miss.
     St. Univ.,  Mississippi State. 93 p.

Ivester,  M. S.  1978.  Fauna! dynamics,  p. Ill  1-36 _IN_  L. R.  Brown, A. A.
     de  la  Cruz,  M.  S.  Ivester  and  J. P. Stout.   Evaluation of  the
     ecological  role and techniques for the management of tidal  marshes on
     the  Mississippi  and Alabama gulf coast.  Miss.-Ala. Sea  Grant Publ.
     No.   MASGP-78-044.
                                  8-1

-------
Kneib,  R.  T.  1984.  Patterns of invertebrate distribution and abundance  in
     the intertidal salt marsh:  Causes and questions.  Estuaries 7(4A):
     392-412.

Kneib, R. T. and A. E. Stiven.  1978.  Growth, reproduction and feeding of
     Fundulus heteroclitus  (L.) on  a  North Carolina salt marsh.  J. Exp.
     Mar.  Blol. Ecol. 31:   T21-140.

McBee, J.  T. and W. T. Brehm.  1979.  Macrobenthos of Simmons Bayou and  an
     adjoining  residential  canal.  Gulf Res. Repts.  6(3):  211-216.

Meo, M.  1974.  Land treatment of menhaden waste water by overland  flow.  M.
     S.  thesis, Dept. of Mar. Sci.,  La. St. Univ.  Baton  Rouge.

Meo,  M., J. W. Day, Jr. and T.  B. Ford, November 1975.  Overland Flow  in
     the Louisiana Coastal  Zone.   Center  for Wetland Resources,  L.S.U.,
     Baton  Rouge,  LA.

Nichols,  D. S. 1983.  Capacity of natural  wetlands to remove nutrients from
     wastewater.  Jour. Water Poll.  Control Fed. 55(5):  495-505.

Perry,  A.   1984.  Personal  communication.

Sikora, W., J. Sikora, and A. Prior.  1981.  Environmental effects  of
     hydraulic dredging for clam shells in Lake  Ponchartrain, Louisiana.
     La.  St. Univ.  Publ.  No. LSU-CEL-81-18. 140 p.

Stout, J. P. 1978.   An analysis  of  annual  growth and productivity  of
     Juncus roemerianus Scheele and  Spartina alterm'flora Loisel in coastal
     Alabama.   Ph.D. Thesis,  Univ. of  Ala., Tuscaloosa.  95 p.

Stout,  J.  P.  1984.   Irregularly flooded Juncus roemerianus marshes  of the
     northeastern  Gulf of Mexico:   A community profile.   U.S.  Fish and
     Wildlife  Serv., Publ.  No.  FWS/OBS-84/.  In Press.

Subrahmanyam, C.  B., W. L. Kruczynski, and S. H.  Drake  1976.    Studies  on
     the animal communities in two north Florida salt marshes.  Part II.
     Macroinvertebrate  communities.   Bull.  Mar.  Sci. 26(20):   172-195.

Subrahmanyam, C.  B.,  and  C. L. Coultas,   1980.    Studies  on the  animal
     communities  in two north  Florida salt marshes.  Part III.  Seasonal
     fluctuations of fish and macroinvertebrates.  Bull. Mar. Sci. 30(4):
     790-818.

Teal, J.  M.  and I. Valiela.  1973.   The  salt marsh as a living filter.
     Mar.  Tech. Soc., Jour. 7:19-21.

U.S. EPA,  1973.  Biological field and  laboratory methods for measuring the
     quality  of surface waters and effluent.  EPA-670/4-73-001.

U.S. EPA,  1974.   EPA   development document  for  effluent limitations
     guidelines and new source performance  standards for the  catfish,  crab,
     shrimp  and tuna segment of the  seafood industry.  EPA-0440/l-74-020-a.
                                   8-2

-------
U.S.  EPA,  1979.  Methods for chemical  analysis of water and wastes.   EPA-
     600/4-79-020.

U.S.  EPA,  1984.    Saltwater wetlands  for wastewater management:
     Environmental  Assessment,  EPA 904/10-84  128.

Valiela, I., J. M.  Teal  and  W. J.  Sass.  1973.   Nutrient retention in salt
     marsh  plots experimentally fertilized with  sewage sludge. Est.  Coast
     Mar. Sci. 1:261-269.

Vittor, B.  A. 1980.  Relationships between residential canal  design and
     estuarine habitat quality.  Report to the Alabama  Coastal  Area  Board,
     Daphne, AL.  50 pp.

Vittor, B.  A. and J.  P. Stout.  1975.   Delineation of ecological  critical
     areas in the Alabama  coastal zone.   Dauphin Island Sea Lab,  Spec.
     Rept.  75-002 and Atlas  Appendix.   32 p.
                                  8-3

-------
            APPENDIX A





Quality Assurance - Quality Control
            A-l

-------
A.I.   Introduction.

     The purpose of any field collection effort is to  provide essential
information on the system under investigation  such that the questions asked
by the  study are sufficiently  answered.   This  requires that  samples
collected  for analysis and other  data  provided by the field study  must be
safely  returned to  the laboratory.   Once in  the  laboratory,  the
transcription of the field data and the chemical and biological  analysis of
the samples must be performed accurately and completely.   Subsequent coding
of the  data  for statistical analysis and the  final  reporting  of  that
information must  also be done with precision.

     It  is the  purpose  of the  quality assurance   - quality  control (QAQC)
program that the above objectives are  met.  For the Utilization  of a
Saltwater Marsh  Ecosystem  for  the  Management  of Seafood  Processing
Wastewaters project, the coordination of the multi-disciplinary  team,  with
scientists from the Marine  Environmental  Sciences Consortium (MESC),
Alabama Department of  Environmental Management (ADEM) and  Taxonomic
Associates,  Inc.  (TAI)  required that  the  transfer  of samples  and
information  be performed in an efficient  manner.   The QAQC plan  was
implemented to  monitor and maintain that efficiency.


A.2.   Statistical Approach to Sampling.

     The outcome of any technical investigation  is  limited  by  its initial
design.  In experimental studies,  such as the subject of this  report,   the
statistical design selected at the beginning  of the project will determine
the resolution of the analyses ultimately performed on the data.   Some
knowledge of the  variability of each of the parameters studied must be
known in order  to  select the  appropriate  sampling frequency  and the proper
number of replicates.

        The entire sampling regime  for the current project  was based on a
statistical design to test the hypothesis that there are no differences
between experimental  plots  at different waste loading rates and control
plots (Ho  = 0, null hypotheis) .  The experimental plot layout followed a
randomized block design with replication.  Additional  replication within
each plot  was performed for  those parameters  (eg. BOD, macroinvertebrates)
with known high variability  in  sampling  and  analysis.    No  stratification
between the plots was assumed to exist.   This design allowed  for natural
inter-site (experimental plot)  variability to be controlled  for maximum
resolution with  the minimal amount of  sampling.
A.3.  Sample  Collection.

        The primary objective of sample collection was  to insure that field
sampling obtained a reasonable representation of existing  environmental
conditions.   Sampling sites in the adjacent canal  as well as within each of
the experimental  plots were selected  using randomized methods wherever
possible.

        Sampling  was  performed by  experienced field staff  acquainted with
the sampling  gear and conditions within the local  environment.


                               A-2

-------
        All  samples  were collected in pre-labeled  (numbered) containers  to
ensure  all  field samples were  collected or  at least  collection was
attempted.  A variety of field sheets prepared  and utilized to: 1.   track
the samples from the collection point to  the Marine Environmental  Sciences
Consortium's (MESC) laboratory; 2. record field measurements taken with
instrumentation; and 3. other collection notes.  See Figures 1  and 2 for
examples of the field  collection sheets.


A.4.   Sample Preservation.

        Field samples  were given appropriate treatment, either cold ( 4 deg
C.)  storage  or  chemical  fixation  (Acid fixation),  for preservation  during
shipment and storage prior to  analysis.   Table A-l lists the  preservation
methods utilized for various parameters.


A.5.  Transfer  of samples.

        Samples for biological  parameters,  Chlorophyll  a^ and  BOD were
returned directly to the MESC  laboratory on the day of sampling by  those
individuals who performed the laboratory analyses.  Since the chain of
custody  for  these  samples  was  direct, no special  forms  were  prepared for
these  internal  transfers.

    Samples collected for chemical analysis were transferred by car  to the
Mobile  Alabama ADEM  office  for transfer  to  the  main  laboratory  in
Montgomery,  Alabama.   Effective transfer  to the  Montgomery  lab was
accomplished within  24 hours of collection.  Samples  that were  transferred
to the Alabama  Department  of Environmental Management's (ADEM) laboratory
were tracked using the standardized custody form utilized by the agency
(Figure A-3).
                              A-3

-------
                            CANAL DATA
DATE






STATION
          /
                        IS
                                23
                                         28
                                                 33.
   !£MP-
                               /3.0
                                                       5
   i6k.
   DQ_




   PH
Ii/!QD BQI NQ_



CHL A BQI NQ__



ADEM BQI NO	
                                COf
02.
                                       0/3
                                                        /io
     DROP NETS:
     GILL NET:
Figure A-l.  Field sampling sheet #1.
                               A-4

-------
SAMPLE DA'TE: •
                                  	5~"1£~IT  ~?
                                       1     j
 HIE	\
 gUR/WIiB__
                                                      _._ '_
EEEUUEN1
FLOWS
TEMPt
                 3o
                                        39.5
                                   5k
5ALI
            al
                                  21
00 J
                 X
                       X
             l.S
                        6.5
                                                         &V-
PHl
           &.$
14.'
                                         6,5
                       tf.6
                                                               4. .5
fS/BOD NOl
Tjj5\t>23
 _
                         W.O
                                                    20/2. 20//la
                                   20 /T2.
                                                         22//0

                                                         Ui5
                                                     iQ///
                                                                        /7-S2B5
SSL:
                      X
        32^
                                                 -25
                                       J^ ^/ 35 ^ ^
                                                                             At
PHi
   8fc.3
                                           tf
                                                 fe.J'
                             6.5
800. NO:
           V
                       X
01'
         *6«55CH$X^Y
WJ'flK
                                           02^
                                                                  S3)
ADEM
           w/
                    *

                                     _____ 6 _____ 7 _____ B _____ 9 ____ o ____ 11 ____ 12_.
 EPTHS:
 £? I FAUNA:
                                         •**
 Figure A-2.  Field sampling sheet #2.
                                 A-5

-------
Table A-l.  Methods of preservation and analysis.
Parameter
Temperature
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Susp. Sol.
Salinity
Biochemical Ox. Dmd.
Total Kjeldahl Nitr.
Organic Nitrogen
Ni trate
Nitrite
Ammoni a
Total Phosphate
Ortho-phosphate
Total Org. Carbon
Chlorophyll a
Method of
Preservation
in situ
Tn situ
Th~ situ
ch~iTTed~
in situ
chlTTed"
HoSO* & chilled
C N/A
HoS04 4 chilled
HoSOj 4 chilled
HpS04 & chilled
HoS04 4 chilled
HgSOa 4 chilled
sulfuric acid
chilled/dark
Analytical
Method
Thermistor
Electrode
Electrode
Gravimetric
Electrode
Incubation
phenate proc.
TKN-NH4
Cd-reduction
Cd-reduction
phenate
molybdate
molybdate
TOC analyzer
Spectrophoto.
Ref.
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
                                 A-6

-------
                                                                                . Wtt-
                                             STATE OF ALABAMA
                                    DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRDNMENTAL MANAGEMENT
                                            MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA
    LABORATORY:
                               Montgomery
                                                     (  )  Mobile
                                                            C ) B i rmi ngham
    Sample Type:   Potable Water [  ]   l.andfi'l  Leachate     [  ]   Toxic  Extraction  [  ]   Composite     [  _.
                  Surface Water [  ]   Hazardous Wastesite   [  ]   Ignitability      [  ]   Grab          [  "
                  Soil/Sediment [  ]   Groundwater           [><1   Corrosivity       [  ]   Container  P   [  ]
                  Wastewater    [  ]   Waste (Special Handling)  f  ]   Reactivity        [  ]             G   [  '

    Source        Sea-food  Wastes Project, Shrimp Plant  Wastes and  Waters

    Location      Bayou  La Batre,  Al.
(  )  Discharge  from      EPft Sea-food  Waste Project       to
                             (Point Source)

            	Mgc;r  Cjampl a .»   
-------
A.6.   Analytical Laboratory Methods


     The  Alabama  Department  of  Environmental Management  (ADEM) chemistry
laboratory  is  the state operated laboratory responsible  for certifying all
water and air quality laboratories in the state of Alabama.  As such the
lab follows  all  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency procedures and
guidelines pertaining to sample handling,  preparation and  subsequent
analysis.

     All  chemical analyses of water samples followed the methodology of
Standard  Methods for the Examination of Waters and Wastes (APHA.AWWA  1980),
or Environmental Protection Agency  methodology (U.S.EPA  1973,1979) as
indicated in Table A-l.    Sediment sample analysis followed the methods of
the U.S.  EPA and  Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on criteria for
dredge and  fill  material  (U.S.EPA/COE  1981).

     All  laboratory procedures for both the ADEM laboratory as well as the
MESC laboratory utilized  QAQC procedures  given in "Handbook for Analytical
Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories"  (U.  S.  Environmental
Protection  Agency  1979).


A.7.   Data  Handling and Reporting.

     All  quantitative  data underwent a vigorous QAQC procedure  which
insures that  the  data undergo proper analysis and are prepared in a  final
form for interpretation and storage in a data storage facility.  An outline
of the QAQC procedure  performed  beginning  with the analysts reporting  form,
through  entry onto an automated system and subsequent data management
report, including statistics,  are presented in Figure A-4.   Several control
points occur  in the procedure  to qualify  the data before entry into the
subsequent modules.   Preliminary  statistical reports  of  the  data are
utilized  (both tabular  (Table A-2)  and graphical  methods  (Figure A-5) to
check the data for completeness  and to  screen out questionable information.
Statistics utilized include the arithmetic  mean, the range (minimum and
maximum) and standard deviation.  These  procedures  are used to detect
outliers  in the data.

     Simple descriptive statistics  (Mean, Range,  Standard Deviation)  of the
data   were performed  with the  Symphony (T.M.)  software package. All
statistics were  calculated on  the basis of  deleting all missing values,
hence  n, the  number of observations, changes  due  to  missing or invalid
data.  When  data were at  the  limits of  detection of their respective
analytical procedure, a  value  of  80  percent of the detection limit was
assigned for  that constituent.  If the mean value of the constituent was
below the  detection  limit, the number  reported then  was the detection
limit.   This procedure  then  allowed for  data  to  be included  in the
statistics that  were at or near the detection  limit but did not allow
values below the detection limit to be  reported directly as valid data.
Listings of all final water quality  data  for  surface,  and groundwaters are
presented in   Appendix  B  along with  the descriptive statistics utilized in
the  QAQC process.
                               A-8

-------
Visual
Check
    No
     No
              Field  Sheets
                         yes
                Descriptive
                 Statistics
                         yes
                                 Audit by
                                f— Data
                                 Manager
           Sample  and
         Tracking  Sheets
                                                ADEM-MESC
                                             Analytical Labs
             Tracking Forms
                 and
              Reports	
           Analytical Statistics
                   and
                Reports
_Audit  By
"investigators
                      Visual
                      Check
Figure A-4.  Outline of the QAQC procedure.
                           A-9

-------
     The  BMDP  statistical  software  package  running on  an IBM-XT was
utilized for all analytical statistics.  Multiway analysis  of  variance  for
repeated measures and unequal  cell sizes was performed on  all  water quality
data utilizing the program BMDP-2V.   Analysis of the BOD data to  obtain
the rate   constants k   was  performed with program BMDP-3R,  nonlinear
regression.
  Table A-2.  Example of tabular information  for QAQC  purposes.
    Well Data - Stats by Depth
     FULL
       6
      11
      12
 Mean
 2.07
 0.10
 5.79
91.74
 1.12
 1.19
Min.
0.02
0.01
0.20
1.61
0.03
0.42
 Max.
  8.20
  0.60
 12.00
250.00
  3.85
  3.20
Std Dev
 2.U7
 0.12
 3.07
65.37
 0.70
 0.59
Count
30 NH3
30 N03
30 TKN
30 TOC
30 TP
24 P04
Depth
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10

    I
    I
    o
    o
  0.17  -T

  0.16  -

  0.15  -

  0.14  -

  0.13  -

  0.12  -

  0.11  -

  0.10  -

  0.09  -

  0.08  -

  0.07  -

  0.06  -

  0.05  -

  0.04  -

  0.03  -
                             Surface water data - N02-N03

                                       Pro-discharge _    tyti'^
                                                    \   ,
                         5678

                           Plot Number
                                                       10  11
                                                               12
Figure A-5.   Sample  of gaphical output  utilized  for  QAQC screening.
                                A-10

-------
                  APPENDIX B





QAQC Data Listings for Water Quality Parameters
                     B-l

-------
Table B-l.   Plot surface water:   Nutrients.





                           Station = 1
Date
20-Jun-84
19-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.400
0.100
0.400
0.300
0.100
0.300
0.200
0.050
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.300
0.273
0.050
0.800
0.189
N02-N03
0.100
0.035
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.080
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.040
0.046
0.010.
0.120
0.035
TKN
1.20
4.90
4.20
1.60
0.40
1.00
1.20
0.20
0.20
1.00
2.40
0.80
1.80
1.61
0.200
4.900
1.397
TOC
21.70
7.30
24.70
13.70
18.10
10.00
9.60
10.90
18.20
15.90
13.10
4.80
14.70
14.05
4.800
24.700
5.461
TP
0.320
1.700
0.200
0.290
0.080
0.000
0.080
0.110
0.060
0.070
0.150
0.060
0.210
0.28
0.060
1.700
0.437
P04
0.000
0.000
0.300
0.320
0.060
0.030
0.010
0.040
0.060
0.110
0.070
0.110
0.090
0.11
0.010
0.320
0.099
                  13        13        13        13        12        11
                                  B-2

-------
Table B-2.  Plot surface water:  Nutrients.
                           Station = 2
Date
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
19-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
M1n.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.800
0.100
2.000
8.000
2.500
2.300
0.200
4.300
0.050
0.500
0.100
0.200
0.100
0.100
0.200
1.391
0.050
8.000
2.073
N02-N03
0.060
0.120
0.035
0.020
0.010
0.120
0.020
0.200
0.020
0.040
0.010
0.020
0.120
0.120
0.100
0.060
0.067
0.010
0.200
0.054
TKN
5.60
1.50
4.90
4.00
9.50
4.90
3.90
1.00
13.60
0.20
0.50
0.20
0.50
1.60
0.40
2.60
3.43
0.200
13.600
3.629
TOC
23.90
38.20
7.30
15.90
18.90
18.00
21.30
13.00
24.00
16.50
11.10
22.50
8.80
11.20
5.20
32.40
18.01
5.200
38.200
8.684
TP
0.490
13.200
1.700
0.230
0.780
0.670
0.180
0.030
0.420
0.120
0.630
0.090
0.050
0.010
0.150
0.090
1.18
0.010
13.200
3.132
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.350
0.700
0.670
. 0.170
0.210
0.390
0.210
0.540
0.010
0.070
0.010
0.010
0.090
0.26
0.010
0.700
0.237
                  16
16
16
16
16
13
                                   B-3

-------
Table B-3.  Plot surface water:  Nutrients.





                           Station = 3
Date
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
19-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.800
0.300
16.400
0.600
10.400
3.000
7.400
0.700
23.200
4.400
1.400
0.400
0.400
0.200
0.200
0.800
4.200
0.200
23.200
6.434
N02-N03
0.120
0.120
0.035
0.020
0.020
0.260
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.020
0.120
0.080
0.020
0.120
0.120
0.073
0.020
0.260
0.063
TKN
2.80
0.80
4.00
22.50
1.70
12.00
3.60
10.00
0.40
36.80
12.80
1.40
0.20
2.20
2.20
1.00
2.20
6.86
0.200
36.800
9.476
TOC
43.00
20.30
8.50
50.90
9.90
20.80
9.10
30.60
8.00
109.00
27.10
10.10
17.90
41.60
9.70
4.60
13.20
25.55
4.600
109.000
24.853
TP
1.600
0.015
0.800
0.580
0.140
0.800
0.400
0.690
0.010
1.710
1.200
0.230
0.400
0.110
0.090
0.050
0.240
0.53
0.010
1.710
0.523
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.640
0.200
0.700
0.170
0.740
0.150
1.690
0.660
0.160
0.140
0.230
0.050
0.100
0.120
0.41
0.050
1.690
0.430
                  17       17       17       17       17       14
                                   B-4

-------
Table B-4.  Plot surface water:   Nutrients.
                           Station = 4
Date
20-Jun-84
19-Jul-84
29-Aug-84
26-Sep-84
26-Nov-84
03-Jan-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
N
NH4
0.800
0.080
2.900
1.300
1.900
0.400
0.100
0.900
1.047
0.080
2.900
0.905
8
N02-N03
0.080
0.035
0.010
0.020
0.040
0.120
0.240
0.280
0.103
0.010
0.280
0.097
8
TKN
3.10
2.00
6.00
1.30
10.00
4.00
0.60
2.80
3.72
0.600
10.000
2.839
8
TOC
31.00
12.00
25.70
20.40
34.60
20.50
5.70
10.70
20.07
5.700
34.600
9.500
8
TP
5.000
0.200
2.480
0.170
0.430
0.250
0.180
0.210
1.12
0.170
5.000
1.643
8
P04
0.000
0.000
1.700
0.150
0.240
0.240
0.050
0.120
0.42
0.050
1.700
0.578
6
                                   B-5

-------
Table B-5.  Plot surface water:  Nutrients.





                           Station = 5
Date
2Q-Jun-84
19-Jul~84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
07-Nov-84
26-NOV-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.200
0,100
0.200
0.300
0.200
16.000
0.050
0.400
0.300
0.500
0.100
0.200
0.400
1.411
0.050
16.000
4.051
N02-N03
0.080
0.035
0.020
0.020
0.140
0.025
0.180
0.040
0.010
0.100
0.040
0.020
0.260
0.060
0.074
0.010
0.260
0.071
TKN
3.60
4.00
2.50
1.60
2.80
0.40
28.00
0.40
1.20
0.30
0.50
1.80
0.20
2.00
3.52
0.200
28.000
6.894
TOC
28.90
11.00
15.50
12.70
5.80
19.30
99.00
10.80
14.30
15.50
14.60
5.30
5.30
17.70
19.69
5.300
99.000
22.803
TP
0.540
0.600
0.240
0.290
0.160
0.050
1.770
0.020
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.010
0.170
0.170
0.30
0.010
1.770
0.445
P04
0.000
0.000
0.300
0.280
0.230
0.040
1.770
0.020
0.010
0.080
0.100
0.020
0.030
0.160
0.25
0.010
1.770
0.468
                  14       14       14       14       14       12
                                   B-6

-------
Table B-6.  Plot surface water:  Nutrients.





                           Station = 6
Date
20-Jun-84
19-Ju1-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-NOV-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.

N
NH4
0.800
0.100
22.500
0.300
48.500
27.600
1.500
47.000
12.100
4.000
0.400
0.400
0.100
0.100
0.400
11.053
0.100
48.500
16.658

15
N02-N03
0.060
0.035
0.020
0.020
0.060
0.020
0.140
0.080
0.020
0.020
0.040
1.360
0.100
0.160
0.140
0.152
0.020
1.360
' 0.326
1
15
TKN
4.80
28.80
34.50
2.10
70.00
36.60
3.20
80.00
60.00
4.00
0.20
5.20
3.20
0.60
3.00
22.41
0.200
80.000
26.863

15
TOC
58.00
18.00
91.60
22.60
99.40
108.00
10.00
130.00
108.00
10.40
31.00
27.70
26.40
5.80
14.70
50.77
5.800
130.000
42.357

15
TP
0.970
2.500
1.000
3.300
4.040
2.750
0.160
6.600
3.800
0.460
0.150
0.110
0.140
0.120
0.280
1.76
0.110
6.600
1.914

15
P04
0.000
0.000
1.180
3.500
2.600
1.950
0.350
6.000
3.100
0.380
0.060
0.230
0.130
0.160
0.160
1.52
0.060
6.000
1.755

13
                                  B-7

-------
Table B-7.  Plot surface water:   Nutrients.





                           Station = 7
Date
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
19-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.800
0.080
15.200
18.400
17.500
4.500
0.100
2.500
0.300
0.100
0.400
0.300
0.100
0.300
4.092
0.080
18.400
6.598
N02-N03
0.060
0.100
0.035
0.020
0.010
0.160
0.020
0.080
0.040
0.020
0.060
0.500
0.080
0.160
0.020
0.091
0.010
0.500
0.119
TKN
2.80
3.50
10.80
19.60
50.00
21.60
8.80
10.00
16.40
0.40
0.50
1.20
2.00
0.40
2.40
10.03
0.400
50.000
12.748
TOC
43.20
25.10
11.00
75.50
60.90
58.00
35.90
33.00
30.00
6.50
19.70
16.70
5.50
5.30
13.70
29.33
5.300
75.500
21.161
TP
0.880
0.300
1.700
0.860
1.230
1.700
0.400
0.160
0.610
0.610
0.100
0.070
0.090
0.150
0.110
0.60
0.070
1.700
0.549
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.070
1.050
1.640
0.360
0.360
0.410
0.070
0.050
0.100
0.030
0.010
0.100
0.44
0.010
1.640
0.508
                  15       15       15       15       15       12
                                   B-8

-------
Table B-8.  Plot surface water:   Nutrients.
                           Station = 8
Date
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.800
0.200
0.700
3.700
26.000
0.900
0.300
3.100
0.900
0.400
0.500
0.400
0.100
0.400
0.600
2.487
0.100
26.000
6.149
N02-N03
0.060
0.170
0.035
0.020
0.010
0.040
0.020
0.080
0.080
0.600
0.010
0.020
0.160
0.060
0.120
0.080
0.098
0.010
0.600
0.138
TKN
5.60
2.60
1.60
4.40
6.20
38.00
1.60
1.60
45.60
3.80
2.40
0.80
1.40
3.60
0.80
1.20
7.57
0.800
45.600
13.102
TOC
48.10
23.20
11.00
17.90
25.20
63.00
9.40
8.00
125.00
18.00
57.80
19.10
20.60
13.60
10.90
14.00
30.30
8.000
125.000
29.516
TP
3.200
1.490
0.200
0.100
0.610
2.020
0.250
0.080
3.450
0.270
0.140
0.070
0.070
0.200
0.170
0.230
0.78
0.070
3.450
1.099
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.580
1.600
0.200
0.270
3.300
0.140
0.140
0.070
0.110
0.220
0.190
0.400
0.57
0.070
3.300
0.879
                  16
16
16
16
16
13
                                  B-9

-------
Table B-9.  Plot surface water:   Nutrients.





                           Station = 9
Date
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-NOV-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.800
0.080
0.100
0.100
0.500
0.300
0.300
1.100
1.700
0.400
0.100
0.200
0.100
0.200
0.800
0.300
0.463
0.080
1.700
0.432
N02-N03
0.050
0.035
0.035
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.020
0.580
0.660
0.040
0.010
0.040
0.020
0.040
0.160
0.040
0.040
0.111
0.010
0.660
0.189
TKN
2.10
0.80
1.90
2.10
2.60
4.80
11.20
0.30
1.40
11.20
0.20
0.20
0.50
1.40
74.00
1.00
1.60
6.90
0.200
74.000
17.095
TOC
19.20
30.20
10.00
8.40
9.80
12.20
18.60
11.00
9.00
31.60
8.60
16.40
11.40
11.60
22.40
6.30
8.80
14.44
6.300
31.600
7.371
TP
0.060
0.740
0.200
0.080
0.140
0.180
0.010
0.020
0.270
0.720
0.070
0.120
0.040
0.020
0.110
0.100
0.070
0.17
0.010
0.740
0.214
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.090
0.170
0.190
0.040
0.010
0.350
0.460
0.030
0.030
0.070
0.010
0.070
0.110
0.060
0.12
0.010
0.460
0.129
                  17       17       17       17       17       14
                                   B-10

-------
Table B-10.   Plot surface water:   Nutrients.





                           Station = 10
Date
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
lS-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
M1n.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.800
0.100
0.100
0.200
0.100
0.700
0.500
3.600
0.100
0.050
0.300
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.510
0.050
3.600
0.867
N02-N03
0.040
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.010
0.100
0.020
0.040
0.100
0.010
0.080
0.120
0.040
0.040
0.120
0.054
0.010
0.120
0.037
TKN
6.00
1.00
1.20
1.20
4.20
2.50
5.60
0.20
14.00
0.20
0.20
1.20
3.40
0.60
2.80
2.95
0.200
14.000
3.480
TOC
73.60
20.40
15.00
12.50
12.20
10.40
14.50
6.00
38.10
11.10
19.60
17.50
25.40
8.00
64.90
23.28
6.000
73.600
19.621
TP
0.160
0.090
0.300
0.080
0.220
0.070
0.010
0.020
0.750
0.020
0.100
0.040
0.220
0.040
0.170
0.15
0.010
0.750
0.180
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.180
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.050
0.540
0.010
0.010
0.070
0.170
0.100
0.130
0.11
0.010
0.540
0.143
                  15        15        15       15       15       12
                                  B-ll

-------
Table B-ll.  Plot surface water:   Nutrients.





                           Station =11
Date
20-Jun-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
26-NOV-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
N
NH4
0.800
0.080
10.500
37.400
27.000
37.600
1.600
4.100
1.500
0.500
0.500
0.200
0.300
7.600
9.263
0.080
37.600
13.446
14
N02-N03
0.060
0.035
0.020
0.010
0.180
0.020
0.070
0.060
0.040
0.140
0.240
0.100
0.200
0.060
0.088
0.010
0.240
0.071
14
TKN
3.80
6.90
16.80
70.00
28.00
39.20
2.80
11.60
1.80
0.60
0.00
2.80
1.40
12.60
15.25
0.600
70.000
19.324
13
TOC
23.80
17.90
44.10
102.00
116.00
136.00
20.00
24.40
8.60
25.40
10.20
12.00
35.40
80.90
46.91
8.600
136.000
41.528
14
TP
0.320
0.410
0.520
4.360
3.750
4.000
0.550
0.980
0.220
0.450
0.640
0.090
0.080
0.590
1.21
0.080
4.360
1.496
14
P04
0.000
0.000
0.560
4.400
3.250
2.200
0.540
0.880
0.140
0.300
0.720
1.100
0.120
0.360
1.21
0.120
4.400
1.305
12
                                   B-12

-------
Table B-12.  Plot surface water:   Nutrients.
                           Station = 12
Date
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
03-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
N
NH4
0.800
0.800
0.100
0.100
0.200
38.000
0.900
6.400
0.600
51.000
0.500
0.400
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.200
0.800
5.947
0.100
51.000
14.325
17
N02-N03
0.080
0.100
0.035
0.020
0.010
0.040
0.040
0.100
0.120
0.160
0.040
0.010
0.080
0.020
0.080
0.240
0.140
0.077
0.010
0.240
0.060
17
TKN
3.80
0.80
5.60
15.70
2.00
62.00
3.20
40.00
1.60
94.00
0.40
1.60
0.50
3.20
1.80
1.20
3.00
14.14
0.400
94.000
25.687
17
TOC
14.10
22.90
17.50
25.00
0.00
84.40
14.80
33.00
19.00
152.00
10.60
21.50
23.80
37.30
7.30
27.40
25.00
33.47
7.300
152.000
34.985
16
TP
0.030
0.200
0.600
0.780
0.870
5.200
4.700
3.600
0.020
6.400
0.090
0.680
0.070
0.080
0.030
0.210
0.130
1.39
0.020
6.400
2.063
17
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.700
3.200
0.600
2.600
0.270
6.400
0.090
0.360
0.050
0.210
0.040
0.150
0.170
1.13
0.040
6.400
1.736
14
Table B-13.  Surface water nutrients:   Overall  Means
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
3.608
0.050
51.000
9.057
0.086
0.010
1.360
0.136
8.41
0.200
94.000
16.152
27.36
4.600
152.000
28.259
0.78
0.010
13.200
1.543
0.56
0.010
6.400
1.035
                 177
177
176
176
176
146
                                   B-13

-------
Table B-14.   Statistical summaries for surface  water nutrient
data, all  months,  across each loading strata.
Mean
0.826388
0.052222
2.952777
19.22777
0.256285
0.169655
Mean
2.135952
0.093095
7.480952
21.47619
0.716428
0.605454
Mean
3.330857
0.076142
7.4
29.16
0.841571
0.541851
Mean
9.6795
0.097125
19.31025
45.24871
1.6405
1.487575
Min
0.05
0.01
0.2
5.3
0.01
0.01
Min
0.05
0.01
0.2
5.5
0.01
0.01
Min
0.08
0.01
0.2
8
0.01
0.05
Min
0.08
0.01
0.2
7.3
0.02
0.05
Max
16
0.18
28
99
1.77
1.77
Max
18.4
0.66
74
75.5
1.77
10
Max
26
0.6
45.6
125
5
3.3
Max
51
1.36
94
152
6.6
6.4
Std_Dev
2.631446
0.042889
4.945283
17.79688
0.401526
0.327934
Std_Dev
4.413585
0.143543
13.58874
15.20413
2.004038
1.699673
Std_Dev
6.170494
0.105228
10.99859
26.05074
1.136210
0.721490
Std_Dev
15.81989
0.208683
25.88567
41.99125
1.939398
1.698296
Count
36
36
36
36
35
29
Count
42
42
42
42
42
33
Count
35
35
35
35
35
27
Count
40
40
39
39
40
33
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Loading
Control





Loading
Quarter





Loading
Half





Loading
Full





                                  B-14

-------
Table B-15.   Statistical  summaries for surface  water nutrient
data, pre-discharge, across each loading strata.
Mean
0.557142
0.052142
3.128571
25.41428
0.53
Mean
0.562222
0.058888
3.766666
23.12222
2.141111
Mean
0.5725
0.081875
2.8125
24.6375
1.563125
Mean
0.5725
0.497142
0.057857
7.785714
24.6
0.718571
Min
0.1
0.035
1
7.3
0.09
Min
0.08
0.01
0.8
7.3
0.01
Min
0.08
0.035
0.8
8.5
0.015
Min
0.08
0.08
0.035
0.8
14.1
0.03
Max
0.8
0.1
6
73.6
1.7
Max
0.8
0.12
10.8
43.2
1.7
Max
0.8
0.17
5.6
48.1
5
Max
0.8
0.8
0.1
28.8
58
2.5
Std_Dev
0.292072
0.024619
1.864490
20.76160
0.507289
Std_Dev
0.336312
0.029418
2.892903
11.87871
3.950478
Std_pev
0.298820
0.047099
1.391435
13.94246
1.627630
Std_Dev
0.298820
0.349763
0.023430
8.755802
13.98059
0.778999
Count
7
7
7
7
7
Count
9
9
9
9
9 TP
Count
8
8
8
8
8
Count
8
7
7
7
7
7
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC

Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
Parameter
NH3
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
Loading
Control




Loading
Quarter




Loading
Half




Loading
Half
Full




                                 B-15

-------
Table B-16.   Statistical  summaries for nutrient surface water
data, discharge, across each loading strata.
Mean
1.639285
0.053214
4.564285
20.01428
0.293076
0.242142
Mean
3.785294
0.124705
10.08235
24.80588
0.449411
0.434705
Mean
5.66875
0.085
11.9625
33.9875
0.919375
0.780625
Mean
19.01666
0.066111
33.70555
70.01176
3.065
2.368333
Min
0.05
0.01
0.2
5.8
0.01
0.01
Min
0.05
0.01
0.2
9
0.01
0.01
Min
0.3
0.01
0.4
8
0.01
0.14
Min
0.2
0.01
0.4
10
0.02
0.14
Max
16
0.18
28
99
1.77
1.77
Max
18.4
0.66
50
60.9
1.77
1.64
Max
26
0.6
45.6
125
3.45
3.3
Max
51
0.18
94
152
6.6
6.4
Std_Dev
4.076508
0.052358
7.365518
23.20618
0.467569
0.450954
Std_Dev
5.564323
0.188776
11.58864
15.01671
0.450639
0.392265
Std_Dev
7.627804
0.145129
14.15873
34.21077
0.968145
0.849988
Std_Dev
19.16400
0.051869
31.14932
50.14756
2.079717
1.860442
Count
14
14
14
14
13
14
Count
17
17
17
17
17
17
Count
16
16
16
16
16
16
Count
18
18
18
17
18
18
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Loading
Control





Loading
Quarter





Loading
Half





Loading
Full





                                  B-16

-------
Table B-17.   Statistical  summaries for surface  water nutrient
data, post discharge, across each loading  strata.
Mean
0.211111
0.070555
1.155555
16.48888
0.097222
0.076111
Mean
0.252631
0.085263
4.821052
12.84736
0.141052
0.077368
Mean
0.48
0.104
1.78
18
0.176
0.156
Mean
0.983333
0.176111
2.747058
23.93333
0.251666
0.268888
Min
0.05
0.01
0.2
4.8
0.01
0.01
Min
0.1
0.01
0.2
5.2
0.01
0.01
Min
0.1
0.01
0.2
4.6
0.05
0.05
Min
0.1
0.01
0.2
5.8
0.03
0.05
Max
0.5
0.26
3.4
64.9
0.22
0.17
Max
0.8
0.5
74
32.4
0.22
0.54
Max
1.4
0.28
4
57.8
0.4
0.4
Max
7.6
1.36
12.6
80.9
0.68
1.1
Std_Dev
0.131820
0.059017
0.972523
12.87084
0.065473
0.048549
Std_Dev
0.175824
0.108500
16.32246
7.088490
0.168300
0.114010
Std_Dev
0.329039
0.076146
1.071986
13.61244
0.088979
0.087772
Std_Dev
1.834923
0.295468
2.800024
16.81074
0.207799
0.255905
Count
18
18
18
18
18
18
Count
19
19
19
19
19
19
Count
15
15
15
15
15
15
Count
18
18
17
18
18
18
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Loading
Control





Loading
Quarter





Loading
Half





Loading
Full





                                 B-17

-------
Table B-18.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 1.
DATE
06-Jun-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
26-NOV-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TEMP
34
27
39
27.5
27
28
20
10
_
19
13
29.5
36
SALINITY
18
14
14
15
24
26
30
22
8
15
14
22
27
Diss02
3.0
1.7
7.4
5.6
5.4
7.7
9.2
13.2
_
10.4
10.2
0
6.3
PH
6.1
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.4
6.6
6.5
6.7
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.5
6.3
                                   B-18

-------
Table B-19.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface  waters - Plot 2.
DATE
06-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-NOV-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
TEMP
38
37
33
34
30
27
28
26.5
20
19
9
-
16
12
26
31
SALINITY Diss02 pH
20
18
25
14
12
26
26
26
20
29
18
8
11
10
21
32
3.1
2.2
1.6
2.0
3.9
3.5
4.0
3.9
10.2
6.3
10.2
_
7.1
9.5
6.2
3.1
6.1
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.2
6.2
5.5
6.1
6.4
6.9
6.4
7.1
7.0
6.1
6.4
                                  B-19

-------
Table B-20.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 3.
DATE STAT
06-Jun-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
TEMP
39
34
40
28.5
26
26
23
26.5
20
22
8
_
17
9
26
35.5
SALINITY Diss02 pH
18
24
10
10
12
26
5
14
7
29
28
8
15
7
22
33
4.6
2.1
2.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
6.9
10.4
3.4
9.8
_
6.4
9.2
8.4
4.5
6.4
6.6
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.4
7.2
6.2
6.3
6.1
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.0
6.8
5.8
                                   B-20

-------
Table B-21.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 4.
      DATE      STAT     TEMP    SALINITY Diss02   pH
DATE
06-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
TEMP
36
34
34
35
35
29
28
25
24
16
19
10
_
19
10
27
33
SALINITY Diss02 pH
20
20
25
10
12
10
24
5
23
5
28
20
8
11
8
22
32
1.4
2.9
3.7
9.8
12.4
0.8
7.0
3.3
1.8
12.5
7.5
11.4
_
9.2
11.1
6.1
4.4
5.9
6.2
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.1
7.4
6.5
6.1
5.9
7.2
6.4
6.5
7.1
6.5
6.2
                                  B-21

-------
Table B-22.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 5.
DATE
06-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TEMP
34
36
27
32
29
31
27
30
22
20
12
_
18
12
30
34
SALINITY
20
22
13
15
15
24
24
25
20
28
18
10
15
10
20
28
Diss02
2.5
2.0
0.3
2.5
1.7
6.9
2.6
11.7
17.0
9.6
19.0
-
11.7
10.2
0
3.8
PH
5.8
6.7
6.4
6.6
6.2
6.2
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.5
6.1
7.4
6.7
6.8
6.2
                                   B-22

-------
Table B-23.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 6.
DATE
06-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
TEMP
37
36
25
35
29
31.5
27
30
28.5
17.5
20
12
_
19
13
29
34
SALINITY Diss02
20
20
10
10
15
18
25
24
24
10
25
20
10
11
12
20
36
4.5
5.2
0.8
1.5
7.6
5.9
4.5
12.0
5.2
7.5
3.4
9.5
_
7.2
10.5
0
2.9
pH
7.1
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.8
6.4
5.8
6.6
6.3
7.5
7.5
6.9
6.2
                                  B-23

-------
Table B-24.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 7.
DATE
06-Jun-84
07-Jul-84
29-Aug-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-NOV-84
26-NOV-84
02-Jan-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
TEMP
31
26
31
28
30
20
22
_
30
35.5
SALINITY
22
12
14
23
25
12
30
16
18
30
Diss02
2.0
1.0
6.2
4.1
4.9
12.7
10.3
_
2.8
2.4
PH
6.7
6.3
6.4
6.2
5.8
6.6
6.3
6.2
6.5
6.2
                                   B-24

-------
Table B-25.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 8.
DATE
06-Jun-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-NOV-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
TEMP
39
33
39
32
31
28
26
20
22
12
_
18
14
29
33.5
SALINITY
20
24
15
15
22
22
26
10
30
20
4
13
10
22
28
Diss02
1.6
3.3
11.8
9.8
15.0
7.5
6.5
9.8
9.9
12.5
_
7.4
8.2
8.5
5.9
pH
6.0
6.6
6.4
6.5
7.0
6.3
6.8
6.4
6.4
6.7
6.3
7.2
0.0
6.8
6.4
                                  B-25

-------
Table B-26.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 9.
DATE
06-Jun-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-NOV-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
TEMP
40
32
34
30
36
30
27
29
19
21
10
_
21
20
29
34
SALINITY
20
25
10
15
9
16
2
14
8
15
18
6
15
12
22
27
Diss02
4.6
2.0
1.4
4.5
0.6
4.3
6.2
15.0
10.5
4.0
8.0
_
11.8
10.9
5.8
7.0
pH
6.3
6.5
6.7
6.4
6.7
6.3
7.4
6.7
6.5
5.8
6.6
6.5
8
6.8
6.5
6.2
                                   B-26

-------
Table B-27.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 10.
DATE
06-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
07 -J ul -84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
TEMP
38
36
34
35
30
26
27
28
21
20
9
_
16
14
28
33
SALINITY
20
20
25
10
10
20
25
25
15
25
18
5
9
10
22
30
Diss02
3.5
1.6
2.4
8.4
2.0
0.6
5.8
9.3
8.7
3.8
9.9
-
7.0
12.2
8.4
3.8
PH
6.1
6.6
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.1
6.4
6.1
6.6
6.2
6.7
6.3
6.8
6.8
6.5
6.0
                                   B-27

-------
Table B-28.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 11.
DATE
06-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
07-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
TEMP
37
36
30
33
28
30
28
26
16
20
10
_
16
9
29
33
SALINITY
18
20
24
12
15
11
26
28
10
26
18
8
14
12
20
30
Diss02
4.3
1.6
2.0
3.9
2.3
5.5
5.8
3.2
6.5
7.5
11.2
-
7.7
11.2
6.5
4.8
PH
6.1
6.5
6.3
6.8
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.5
6.5
7.2
6.7
6.4
7.5
7.5
6.6
6.2
                                    B-28

-------
Table B-29.   Physico-chemical  parameters in surface waters - Plot 12.
DATE
06-Jun-84
05-Ju1-84
07-Ju1-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
STAT
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
TEMP
36
36
33
35
28
30
27
24
16
22
12
_
15
10
27
27
31
SALINITY
20
18
25
14
12
25
22
26
18
25
20
8
11
10
14
22
30
Diss02
2.8
2.0
1.2
5.5
5.2
5.8
5.0
2.9
4.4
7.8
12.4
_
7.1
11.7
6.7
9.0
4.2
PH
6.1
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
6.4
6.2
6.6
6.4
8.2
6.9
6.5
6.4
6.9
                                  B-29

-------
Table B-30.  Canal nutrients:  Station 1 -  Surface.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-NOV-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Mln.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.080
0.800
0.800
0.080
0.100
0.200
0.100
0.050
0.050
0.500
0.050
0.100
0.400
0.050
0.500
0.100
0.400
0.200
0.100
0.245
0.050
0.800
0.242
N02-N03
0.100
0.080
0.035
0.035
0.020
0.010
0.260
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.040
0.040
0.080
0.160
2.600
0.189
0.010
2.600
0.572
TKN
2.00
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.10
1.00
1.00
2.40
0.10
0.50
0.20
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.50
1.80
0.20
0.80
1.40
0.81
0.10
2.40
0.66
TOC
6.90
12.40
9.70
11.00
3.30
2.40
5.00
8.20
3.50
14.00
5.00
10.40
8.10
11.10
13.20
8.80
7.10
4.60
4.50
7.85
2.40
14.00
3.46
TP
0.180
0.050
0.015
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.080
0.080
0.020
0.030
0.070
0.050
0.070
0.090
0.040
0.010
0.050
0.070
0.100
0.057
0.010
0.180
0.041
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.080
0.030
0.010
0.030
0.700
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.050
0.030
0.040
0.110
0.040
0.078
0.010
0.700
0.169
                  19       19       19       19       18       15
                                    B-30

-------
Table B-31.  Canal nutrients:  Station 2 - Surface.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Win.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.300
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.050
0.400
0.200
0.500
0.100
0.200
0.100
0.900
0.100
0.290
0.050
0.900
0.292
N02-N03
0.180
0.040
0.060
0.035
0.020
0.020
0.080
0.050
0.020
0.260
1.200
0.020
0.010
0.040
0.260
0.040
0.080
0.120
0.100
0.040
0.134
0.010
1.200
0.255
TKN
0.80
1.20
0.80
1.60
0.80
1.30
2.30
0.40
0.10
0.20
0.20
2.00
0.40
0.40
0.50
1.40
0.40
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.89
0.10
2.30
0.59
TOC
7.60
15.90
6.80
10.40
2.30
2.10
5.60
9.70
4.50
5.00
3.00
17.80
4.80
13.30
9.30
7.90
9.10
5.90
4.90
10.40
7.81
2.10
17.80
4.17
TP
0.210
0.050
1.200
0.015
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.070
0.060
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.060
1.050
0.040
0.010
0.120
0.160
0.080
0.090
0.171
0.010
1.200
0.322
P04
0.000
0.000
o.coo
0.000
0.010
0.090
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.050
0.080
0.010
0.020
0.550
0.060
0.010
0.050
0.010
0.110
0.020
0.070
0.010
0.550
0.128
                  20       20       20       20       20       16
                                   B-31

-------
Table B-32.   Canal  nutrients:  Station  2B  -  Bottom.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Win.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.080
0.800
0.800
0.080
0.100
0.400
0.100
0.050
0.200
0.500
0.050
0.100
0.300
0.100
0.200
0.100
0.100
0.400
0.100
0.100
0.233
0.050
0.800
0.227
N02-N03
0.220
0.040
0.060
0.035
0.020
0.020
0.120
0.020
0.080
0.020
1.320
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.120
0.020
0.080
0.020
0.060
0.080
0.120
0.020
1.320
0.280
TKN
0.80
2.00
0.80
0.40
0.40
1.60
1.30
0.80
0.20
0.50
0.20
7.20
0.20
0.10
0.50
1.60
0.20
1.20
0.60
1.60
1.11
0.10
7.20
1.50
TOC
8.80
12.00
7.00
7.80
3.00
2.30
4.30
7.40
10.70
9.00
2.00
8.50
8.90
11.20
6.70
3.00
6.70
5.80
5.60
6.30
6.85
2.00
12.00
2.83
TP
0.310
0.040
0.220
0.030
0.010
0.880
0.090
0.300
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.050
0.040
0.070
0.010
0.080
0.200
0.860
0.120
0.170
0.010
0.880
0.250
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.920
0.170
0.350
0.030
0.030
0.100
0.010
0.010
0.030
0.070
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.830
0.040
0.172
0.010
0.920
0.278
                  20       20       20       20        20        16
                                   B-32

-------
Table B-33.  Canal nutrients:  Station 3 - Surface.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
M1n.
Max.
Std. Dev.
NH4
0.080
0.800
0.800
0.080
0.100
0.100
0.200
0.050
0.050
0.500
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.300
0.500
0.200
0.500
0.100
0.800
0.100
0.273
0.050
0.800
0.267
N02-N03
0.100
0.040
0.080
0.035
0.020
0.020
0.100
0.020
0.040
0.020
1.720
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.120
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.100
0.060
0.129
0.010
1.720
0.367
TKN
0.80
2.80
0.80
2.40
0.20
1.10
1.00
0.40
0.20
0.50
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.50
2.40
0.20
1.00
1.30
1.00
0.90
0.20
2.80
0.76
TOC
9.30
15.90
9.90
5.20
2.90
3.90
4.60
3.10
8.20
12.00
4.00
13.50
9.80
10.00
8.70
5.40
8.80
4.70
4.50
8.80
7.66
2.90
15.90
3.55
TP
0.170
0.020
0.040
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.210
0.090
0.160
0.052
0.010
0.210
0.057
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.030
0.140
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.010
0.050
0.010
0.110
0.040
0.038
0.010
0.140
0.035
                  20       20       20       20        20        16
                                   B-33

-------
Table B-34.  Canal nutrients:  Station 38 - Bottom.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
07-Nov-84
26-NOV-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
OS-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
N
NH4
0.080
0.800
0.800
0.080
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.200
0.050
0.500
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.200
0.500
0.100
0.200
0.100
0.200
0.200
0.225
0.050
0.800
0.228
20
N02-N03
0.240
0.080
0.040
0.035
0.020
0.020
0.120
0.020
0.040
0.020
0.900
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.040
0.280
0.020
0.114
0.010
0.900
0.195
20
TKN
0.80
1.20
0.80
2.20
0.60
1.60
0.40
1.20
0.10
0.50
2.20
2.20
0.40
0.50
0.50
1.60
0.80
2.00
0.70
1.20
1.07
0.10
2.20
0.66
20
TOC
6.80
16.50
7.80
4.10
6.10
3.30
2.10
5.10
8.70
10.60
3.00
11.30
9.80
8.30
7.90
11.90
12.10
4.80
3.90
11.10
7.76
2.10
16.50
3.69
20
TP
0.230
0.050
0.015
0.035
0.010
0.050
0.070
0.860
0.080
0.070
0.010
0.070
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.100
0.100
0.190
0.160
0.090
0.113
0.010
0.860
0.181
20
P04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.080
0.010
0.030
0.020
0.080
0.070
0.010
0.030
0.010
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.070
0.010
0.040
0.039
0.010
0.080
0.026
16
                                   B-34

-------
Table B-35.  Canal physical-chemical  data:   Station  1  -  Surface.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
ll-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Win.
Max.
Std. Dev.
Temperature
26.00
31.00
31.00
30.00
29.00
28.00
27.50
27.00
24.00
26.00
18.00
19.00
11.00
17.00
14.00
9.00
22.00
17.50
25.50
28.50
23.050
9.000
31.000
6.553
Salinity
18.00
17.00
24.00
25.00
20.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
24.00
24.00
23.00
26.00
21.00
14.00
20.00
15.00
11.00
22.00
20.00
25.00
20.600
11.000
26.000
3.878
Diss02
8.10
6.70
6.40
6.60
7.00
5.30
6.20
6.40
7.40
6.90
9.30
8.40
10.90
10.30
6.80
9.50
12.20
8.10
10.40
5.10
7.900
5.100
12.200
1.907
PH
7.900
8.600
6.900
6.900
6.500
6.300
7.200
6.800
6.700
6.000
6.600
6.500
6.600
6.300
6.500
6.800
6.800
6.400
6.500
6.800




                  20                20       20
                                   B-35

-------
Table B-36.   Canal  physical-chemical  data:   Station 2 - Surface.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
ll-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Win.
Max.
Std. Dev.
Temperature
26.00
32.00
32.00
29.00
29.00
28.50
27.00
27.00
24.00
25.50
17.00
20.00
11.00
17.00
13.00
7.00
22.00
16.50
25.50
28.00
22.850
7.000
32.000
6.955
Salinity
17.00
16.00
24.00
24.00
20.00
18.00
21.00
21.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
26.00
20.00
15.00
20.00
15.00
11.00
22.00
20.00
24.00
20.300
11.000
26.000
3.848
Diss02
8.30
6.20
6.30
6.30
7.00
5.30
6.90
6.70
7.00
7.00
9.60
7.60
10.20
11.50
7.20
9.10
12.80
9.00
10.40
5.60
8.000
5.300
12.800
1.994
PH
8.000
8.300
7.200
7.000
6.600
6.200
7.300
6.700
6.600
6.300
6.600
6.300
6.500
6.500
6.500
6.800
6.500
6.400
6.200
6.400




                  20                20       20
                                   B-36

-------
Table B-37.  Canal physical-chemical  data:  Station 2 - Bottom.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
24-Oct-84
ll-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
Temperature
26.00
32.00
32.00
29.00
29.00
28.50
27.50
27.00
26.00
18.00
19.50
11.00
16.00
13.00
7.00
22.00
16.50
25.00
28.50
22.816
7.000
32.000
7.188
Salinity
18.00
16.00
25.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
20.00
22.00
24.00
23.00
26.00
20.00
14.00
20.00
15.00
15.00
22.00
20.00
24.00
20.526
14.000
26.000
3.485
Diss02
6.70
4.60
6.00
6.60
5.80
4.40
6.50
6.00
6.70
9.60
7.80
10.60
10.60
6.90
9.80
12.50
9.00
9.30
5.10
7.605
4.400
12.500
2.223
PH
8.100
8.700
6.800
6.700
6.500
6.500
7.400
6.700
6.500
6.700
6.500
6.600
6.600
6.400
6.700
6.400
6.500
6.400
6.500




                  19                19       19
                                   B-37

-------
Table B-38.   Canal  physical-chemical data:  Station 3 - Surface.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
ll-Nov-84
26-Nov-84
06-Dec-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
Temperature
26.50
35.00
32.00
29.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.50
24.00
25.50
17.00
21.00
12.50
15.00
13.50
9.00
22.00
17.00
25.00
29.00
23.175
9.000
35.000
6.880
Salinity
18.00
15.00
24.00
25.00
21.00
18.00
20.00
21.00
26.00
24.00
24.00
25.00
18.00
14.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
22.00
20.00
24.00
20.200
10.000
26.000
4.202
Diss02
8.40
6.10
6.80
6.40
6.90
6.80
7.30
7.20
6.80
7.60
9.20
8.90
8.90
10.70
8.80
8.20
12.30
9.20
9.30
5.30
8.055
5.300
12.300
1.628
pH
8.100
8.000
7.100
6.800
6.500
6.100
7.300
6.400
6.500
6.000
6.600
6.300
6.300
6.900
6.800
6.800
6.500
6.500
6.400
6.400




                  20                20       20
                                   B-38

-------
Table B-39.  Canal physical-chemical  data:  Station 3  - Bottom.
Date
06-Jun-84
20-Jun-84
05-Jul-84
18-Jul-84
15-Aug-84
29-Aug-84
12-Sep-84
26-Sep-84
10-Oct-84
24-Oct-84
ll-Nov-84
26-l\lov-84
02-Jan-85
31-Jan-85
13-Feb-85
13-Mar-85
10-Apr-85
08-May-85
05-Jun-85
Means
Min.
Max.
Std. Dev.
Temperature
26.50
35.00
31.00
29.00
29.00
28.50
27.00
26.50
25.00
25.50
17.00
20.00
15.00
13.50
9.00
21.00
17.00
25.00
29.00
23.658
9.000
35.000
6.602
Salinity
20.00
15.00
24.00
24.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
22.00
26.00
24.00
24.00
28.00
14.00
21.00
16.00
12.00
22.00
20.00
24.00
20.842
12.000
28.000
4.082
Diss02
7.70
6.10
6.70
6.50
6.30
5.30
7.40
8.80
6.90
8.00
8.90
8.40
10.50
7.50
6.60
12.60
9.20
10.00
6.10
7.868
5.300
12.600
1.767
pH
8.100
8.000
6.900
6.700
6.300
6.400
7.300
6.600
6.600
6.500
6.600
6.200
6.800
6.800
6.800
6.400
6.500
6.600
6.400




                  19                19       19
                                   B-39

-------
Table B-40.  Statistics for well  data; all  plots combined,  depth in cm.
ALL PLOTS Mean
1.22
0.11
5.94
70.61
1.75
1.73
Mean
1.81
0.16
5.2-9
54.17
1.22
1.03
Mean
1.07
0.12
3.46
53.88
0.88
0.84
Min
0.02
0.01
0.20
1.61
0.03
0.15
Min
0.05
0.01
0.10
18.00
0.01
0.02
Min
0.00
0.01
0.20
13.30
0.01
0.03
Max
8.20
3.14
100.00
262.00
13.50
9.20
Max
11.10
1.96
43.00
214.00
13.50
6.40
Max
4.30
1.24
12.40
272.00
11.50
7.20
Std_Dev
1.47
0.31
9.97
51.54
1.95
1.67
Std_Dev
1.73
0.27
4.47
29.20
1.59
0.99
Std_Dev
1.06
0.17
2.22
35.62
1.43
1.23
Count
111
110
110
110
110
87
Count
175
171
168
170
165
136
Count
82
81
71
75
71
65
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Depth
10
10
10
10
10
10
Depth
20
20
20
20
20
20
Depth
30
30
30
30
30
30
                                   B-40

-------
Table B-41.   Statistics for well  data.
depth in cm.
Control plots (Plots 1,  5  and  10)  by
CONTROL Mean
0.59
0.06
5.61
82.97
2.28
2.39
Mean
1.14
0.16
3.83
58.75
1.35
1.18
Mean
0.49
0.11
2.76
53.79
0.61
1.07
Min
0.10
0.01
0.40
22.00
0.20
0.35
Min
0.05
0.01
0.20
20.90
0.01
0.18
Min
0.00
0.01
0.60
19.40
0.01
0.12
Max
1.60
0.16
16.00
169.00
10.60
8.50
Max
5.70
1.68
8.70
214.00
10.60
5.75
Max
1.30
0.38
6.80
272.00
2.04
7.20
Std_Dev
0.34
0.05
3.67
40.68
2.35
2.19
Std_Dev
0.99
0.26
1.78
36.20
1.41
1.12
Std_Dev
0.40
0.10
1.64
59.87
0.59
1.89
Count
25
25
24
25
25
20
Count
46
46
45
45
46
37
Count
17
17
14
15
15
12
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Depth
10
10
10
10
10
10
Depth
20
20
20
20
20
20
Depth
30
30
30
30
30
30
                                   B-41

-------
Table B-42.  Statistics for well data.
and 9), by depth  in cm.
Quarter plots combined (Plots 2, 7
QUARTER Mean
2 1.05
7 0.12
9 8.44
53.36
1.87
1.69
Mean
2.03
0.20
5.96
52.45
1.27
1.18
Mean
1.49
0.11
3.23
45.26
1.05
0.82
Min
0.05
0.01
0.20
15.40
0.27
0.23
Min
0.40
0.01
0.20
22.. 50
0.01
0.12
Min.
0.05
0.01
0.20
21.70
0.03
0.03
Max
3.80
0.74
100.00
150.00
13.50
9.20
Max
3.80
1.96
43.00
98.90
13.50
2.90
Max
4.20
0.54
6.40
96.60
11.50
6.80
Std_Dev
0.91
0.16
19.31
36.58
2.57
1.93
Std_Dev
0.89
0.33
6.02
21.04
0.90
0.67
Std Dev
1.4T
0.13
1.78
20.75
2.38
1.47
Count
26
25
26
25
25
20
Count
48
47
47
47
42
38
Count
24
23
20
22
21
19
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameters
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Depth
10
10
10
10
10
10
Depth
20
20
20
20
20
20
Depth
30
30
30
30
30
30
                                 B-42

-------
Table B-43.  Statistics for well data.
and 8),  by depth in  cm.
Half plots combined, (Plots 3, 4
HALF Mean
1.03
0.17
4.18
53.56
1.81
1.75
Mean
1.34
0.14
4.07
36.63
1.07
0.79
Mean
0.88
0.15
3.40
48.65
0.63
0.64
Min
0.10
0.01
1.40
25.20
0.09
0.15
Min
0.05
0.01
0.10
18.00
0.01
0.02
Min
0.10
0.01
0.40
13.30
0.04
0.11
Max
7.30
3.14
20.50
262.00
6.40
6.40
Max
7.70
0.78
20.50
77.50
6.40
6.40
Max
3.00
1.24
12.40
116.00
1.90
1.67
Std_Dev
1.33
0.55
3.48
43.11
1.63
1.46
Std Dev
1.59
0.17
3.57
13.80
2.31
1.22
Std Dev
0.83
0.26
2.72
23.14
0.47
0.44
Count
30
30
30
30
30
23
Count
43
42
42
42
42
35
Count
23
23
23
23
23
21
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Depth
10
10
10
10
10
10
Parameter Depth
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
Parameter
NH3
N03
TKN
TOC
TP
P04
20
20
20
20
20
20
Depth
30
30
30
30
30
30
                                B-43

-------
Table B-44.   Statistics for well data.
depth in cm.
Full plots (Plots 6, 11 and 12), by
FULL Mean
2.07
0.10
5.79
91.74
1.12
1.19
Mean
2.89
0.15
7.80
71.13
1.16
0.92
Mean
1.32
0.10
4.57
74.63
1.40
0.99
Min
0.02
0.01
0.20
1.61
0.03
0.42
Min
0.20
0.01
0.20
18.00
0.01
0.07
Min
0.40
0.02
1.20
33.00
0.23
0.17
Max
8.20
0.60
12.00
250.00
3.85
3.20
Max
11.10
1.22
16.80
133.00
3.85
3.40
Max
4.30
0.20
8.80
130.00
3.12
2.65
Std_Dev
2.07
0.12
3.07
65.37
0.70
0.59
Std Dev
2.6U
0.28
4.14
30.19
1.38
0.72
Std Dev
0.89
0.06
1.97
26.96
0.88
0.79
Count
30
30
30
30
30
24
Count
38
36
34
36
35
26
Count
18
18
14
15
12
13
Parameter Depth
NH3 10
N03 10
TKN 10
TOC 10
TP 10
P04 10
Parameter Depth
NH3 20
N03 20
TKN 20
TOC 20
TP 20
P04 20
Parameter Depth
NH3 30
N03 30
TKN 30
TOC 30
TP 30
P04 30
                                    B-44

-------
         APPENDIX C



Hydro!ogic - Salinity Models
           C-l

-------
  Listing 1.  FORTRAN listing of the Coupled Hydro!ogic-Salinity
           models.
C
C   SIMDAT Mode!
C
C    Created by Eldon C. Blancher II
C               Taxonomic Associates Inc.
C
C       A FORTRAN model useful  in simulating the behaviour of
C       chemical  species in Aquatic Systems.
C
C          Version 1.0  20 December 1985
C
C       The model here utilizes a Fourth Order Runge-Kutta
C       solution to the system of differential equations.
C
C       Developed in Microsoft FORTRAN Ver 3.31
C
Q*****************************
C
C    Hydrodynamic - Salinity Model
C
Q*****************************
      COMMON /BLK1/ B(3,3), W(4), DQ(4), DS(4), DG(4), A(3)
      DIMENSION KS(25)
      REAL*8 B,W,DS,A,DG,DQ
      REAL*8 XN,TF,DT,S,SS,Q,QS,KS,G,GS
C
C     Initialize I/O Units
C
      OPEN (5,FILE='SIMDAT.OuT',STATUS='NEW')
      OPEN (6,FILE='KSHYD.DAT',STATUS='OLD')
C
C   Prompt  Time Limits from User
C
    1 WRITE (V(A^)1)1  Enter End Time  : '
      Read (*,3) TF
    3 Format (D10.0)
      N = 5
      DT = 0.0200DO
C
C      Print out Time Step
C
      Write (*,4) DT
    4 Format (5X,1  Delta T = ',F12.6)
C
C    Initial Conditions
C
      T = 0.0
      S = 18.0
      Q = 6.0
                                   C-2

-------
      G = 1.0
      XN = N
      FLOW1 = 1
      WASTE = 1
C
C    Be sure to place all specific K's for
C    equation here or Include Them in a BLOCK DATA
C    Subprogram
C
C     Dimensioned for 25 Coefficients. Change Dimension or
C       Common accordingly
C
      DO 12 N=l,10
      READ (6,'(D10.7)') KS(N)
   12 CONTINUE
    5 SAL = S/Q
      Write (*,6) T, Q, G, SAL
      WRITE (5,6) T, Q, G, SAL
    6 Format (1X,F5.1,3X,4F12.7)
      IF(T.GE.TF) GO TO 1
      DO 7 1=1, N                                                %
C
C  Enter Differential Equations For System Here
C
      DQ(1) = DT*(KS(1)*FLOW1+KS(2)*WASTE-KS(3)*Q+KS(6)*(G-Q))
      DG(1) = DT*(KS(4)*FLOW1+KS(5)*WASTE-KS(7)*G+KS(6)*(Q-G))
      DS(1) = DT*(KS(8)*FLOW1+KS(9)*WASTE-KS(10)*Q)
      DO 8 J=l,3
C
C   Initialize Segment here for each equation
C
      QS = Q
      GS = G
      SS = S
      DO 9 K=1,J
C
C    Apply Runge-Kutta Equations Here
C
      QS = QS+B(J,K)*Q
      GS = GS+B(J,K)*G
    9 SS = SS+B(J,K)*S
C
C    Calculate Next Derivative
C
      DQ(J+1)  = DT*(KS(1)*FLOW1+KS(2)*WASTE-KS(3)*QS+KS(6)*(GS-QS))
      DG(J+1)  = DT*(KS(4)*FLOW1+KS(5)*WASTE-KS(7)*GS+KS(6)*(QS-GS))
    8 DS(J+1)  = DT*(KS(8)*FLOW1+KS(9)*WASTE-KS(10)*QS)
      DO 10 J  = 1,4
C
C     Calculate Endpoint derivative
C
                                   C-3

-------
      Q = Q+W(J)*DQ(J)
      G = G+W(J)*DG(J)
   10 S = S+W(J)*DS(J)
    7 Continue
      T = T+XN*DT
      GO TO 5
      STOP
      END
C
C     BLOCK DATA SUBPROGRAM
C
C        RUNGE-KUTTA Coefficients
C
C
C    Coefficients used are those of Ralston
C     as per Lafarra, 1973 Computer methods for Science and Engineering
C
C
      BLOCK DATA
      COMMON /BLK1/ B(3,3), W(4), DS(4), DG(4), DQ(4),  A(3)
      REAL*8  B,W,DS,A,DG,DQ
      DATA B/0.4000000000,0.2969776100,0.2181004000,0.00000,
     $0.1587596400,-3.0509651600,0.000000,0.000000,3.83286476DO/
      DATA W/0.1747602800,-0.55148066DO,1.2055356000,0.17118478DO/
      DATA A/0.4000000DO,0.45573725DO,1.00000000DO/
      END
     Coefficients for Simulation
                 KS(1) = 0.01
                 KS(2) = 0.51
                 KS(3) = 0.55
                 KS(4) = 1.00
                 KS(5) = 0.001
                 KS(6) = 1.01
                 KS(7) = 0.1
                 KS(8) = 0.1
                 KS(9) = 0.01
                 KS(10)= 0.001
                                   C-4

-------
          Listing 2.  Nitrogen Species Model
C
C   SIMDAT Model
C
C    Created by El don C. Blancher II
C               Taxonomic Associates Inc.
C
C       A FORTRAN model useful in simulating the behaviour of
C       chemical species in Aquatic Systems.
C
C          Version 1.0  20 December 1985
C
C       The model here utilizes a Fourth Order Runge-Kutta
C       solution to the system of differential equations.
C
C       Developed in Microsoft FORTRAN Ver 3.31
C
Q*****************************
C
C    Nitrogen Species Model
C      TON - NH4 - N03
C
Q*****************************
      COMMON /BLK1/ B(3,3), W(4), DTON(4), DNH4(4), DN03(4), A(3)
      DIMENSION KS(25)
      REAL*8 B,W,A,DTON,DNH4,DN03
      REAL*8 XN,TF,DT,TON,TONS,KS,XNH4,XNH4S,XN03,XN03S
C
C     Initialize I/O Units
C
      OPEN (5,FILE='SIMDAT.OUT1,STATUS='NEW1)
      OPEN (6,FILE='KS.DAT',STATUS='OLD')
C
C   Prompt  Time Limits from User
C
    1 WRITE (V(A%)')'  Enter End Time : '
      Read (*,3) TF
    3 Format (D10.0)
      N = 5
      DT = 0.0200DO
C
C      Print out Time Step
C
      Write (*,4) DT
    4 Format (5X,1  Delta T = '.F12.6)
C
C    Initial  Conditions
C
                                   C-5

-------
      T = 0.0
      TON = 2.0
      XNH4 =2.0
      XN03 =0.05
      XN = N
      FLOW1 = 1
      WASTE = 1
C
C    Be sure to place all specific K's for
C    equation here or Include Them in a BLOCK DATA
C    Subprogram or Read them in from a file.
C
C     Dimensioned for 25 Coefficients. Change Dimension or
C       Common accordingly
C
      DO 2 L=l,12
      READ (6,'(D10.5)') KS(L)
    2 CONTINUE
    5 Write (*,6) T, TON, XNH4, XN03
      WRITE (5,6) T, TON, XNH4, XN03
    6 Format (1X,F5.1,3X,3F12'.7)
      IF(T.GE.TF) GO TO 1
      DO 7 1=1, N
C
C  Enter Differential Equations For System Here
C   Calculate First Derivative
C
      DTON(l) = DT*(KS(1)*FLOW1+KS(2)*WASTE+KS{3)*TON-KS(8)*TON)
      DNH4(1) = DT*(KS(4)*FLOW1+KS(5)*WASTE+KS(8)*TON-KS(9)*XNH4-
     $KS(10)*XNH4)
      DN03U) = DT*(KS(6)*FLOW1+KS(7)*WASTE+KS(9)*XNH4-KS(11)*
     $XN03)
      DO 8 J=l,3
C
C   Initialize Segment here for each equation
C
      TONS = TON
      XNH4S = XNH4
      XN03S = XN03
      DO 9 K=1,J
C
C    Apply Runge-Kutta Equations Here
C
      TONS = TONS+B(J,K)*TON
      XNH4S = XNH4S+B(J,K)*XNH4
    9 XN03S = XN03S+B(J,K)*XN03
C
C    Calculate Next Derivative
C
                                   C-6

-------
      DTON(J+1) = DT*(KS(1)*FLOW1+KS(2)*WASTE+KS(3)*TONS-KS(8)*TONS)
      DNH4(J+1) = DT*(KS(4)*FLOW1+KS(5)*WASTE+KS(8)*TONS-KS{9)*XNH4S-
     $KS(10)*XN03S)
    8 DN03(J+1) = DT*(KS(6)*FLOW1+KS(7)*WASTE+KS(9)*XNH4S-KS(11)*
     $XN03S)
      DO 10 J = 1,4
C
C     Calculate Endpoint
C
      TON = TON+W(J)*DTON(J)
      XNH4 = XNH4+W(J)*DNH4(J)
   10 XN03 = XN03+W(J)*DN03(J)
    7 Continue
      T = T+XN*DT
      GO TO 5
      STOP
      END
C
C     BLOCK DATA SUBPROGRAM
C
C        RUNGE-KUTTA Coefficients
C
C
C    Coefficients used are those of Ralston
C     as per Lafarra, 1973 Computer methods for Science and Engineering
C
C
      BLOCK DATA
      COMMON /BLK1/ B(3,3), W(4), DTON(4), DNH4(4), DN03(4), A(3)
      REAL*8  B,W,A,DTON,DNH4,DN03
      DATA B/0.4000000000,0.2969776100,0.2181004000,0.00000,
     $0.1587596400,-3.0509651600,0.000000,0.000000,3.83286476007
      DATA W/0.17476028DO,-0.5514806600,1.2055356000,0.17118478DO/
      DATA A/0.400000000,0.45573725DO,1.OOOOOOOODO/
      END
                                   C-7

-------
Simulation Coefficients for Nitrogen species model.
          KS(1) = 0.01
          KS(2) = 0.57
          KS(3) = 0.01
          KS(4) = 0.01
          KS(5) = 0.44
          KS(6) = 0.00001
          KS(7) = 0.00002
          KS(8) = 0.20
          KS(9) = 0.10
          KS(10)= 0.50
          KS(11)= 0.95
          KS(12)= 0.001
                         C-8

-------
     APPENDIX D





Pilot Facility Design
        D-l

-------
D.I.   Pilot Facility.

M_a_stew_ater 1j3_ading_s_ -_ Quantity  and_ Quality

     In order  to properly  design  a  treatment  system  for  wastewaters  from
seafood processors,  some knowledge of the quantity and  quality of the
wastes is necessary.  Since accurate flow data from the processors  were
unavailable, some assumptions about the flows had to be made.   Effluent
flow data from  the existing Bayou La Batre treatment plant were obtained
for  the  period October 1978 to September  1979.   Monthly  means  were
calculated and  peak  flows  above  an  assumed  background of 0.6-0.7  MGD  were
isolated (residential  background  obtained using Sunday  flows).  These
results are  presented in Figure 1 (Main Report).

     Wastewater flows  to the treatment facility for the period  October 1978
through August  1979 show that  the plant's  design capacity was  exceeded for
four of the  eleven months on a volumetric basis alone.   Peak  flows occur
during the months of May through September,  when the bulk of processing
occurs.  Recently,  during the summer  of 1981, when  shrimp  processing plants
were operating  at peak capacity, daily flows at the 1-MGD a  treatment plant
exceeded 3-MGD.  Most of the excessive loading is attributed to the seafood
processors.

     Effluent  quality  of several  Bayou  La  Batre seafood processing plants
was  assesed by  Polyengineering  Inc. (1979)  and are  presented in Table 4
(Main Report).   These data indicate  that BOD  loading was also  in excess of
treatment plant design  averaging  616 mg/1  during a 5 day  sampling period
in August  1984.  The  Environmental  Protection Agency  found  that the
treatment plants effluent  BOD  and suspended solids were averaging 69  mg-1
and  223  mg-1    respectively.  These values  were well  in  excess of the
Environmental  Protection Agency's  NPDES permit limitations.


Experimental  Plot Layout

     Approximately  six acres of land were utilized for the  pilot plant.
Twelve -  90X90 foot plots enclosing 8100  square feet (753  sq. m.)  were
established  on the Juncus  saltmarsh adjacent  to Portersville  Bay  on Point
aux  Pins.   A schematic  of the experimental  layout including control areas
was  shown previously in Figure 3 (Main  Report).  The  array  was designed to
minimize any apparent differences  in vegetation or substrate  character
between the  test^sites.  The design  included 3-replicate  plots  each  for the
control areas,   and the experimental plots respectively.  The  experimental
plots  included three  levels of waste  loading  (3-replicates  each) to
determine optimal  loading  rates.   All plots  were located  along a  elevation
isocline and type  of treatment was selected by using a random number table.
This type of  randomized  block  design   maximized  the  probability of
obtaining statistically  significant results from the experiment and allowed
for  variation due  to undetected environmental  gradients.
                                  D-2

-------
Wastewater Sources. Treatment and Transportation

     Screened seafood  wastewaters were obtained from  a  single seafood
processor (Deep Sea Food, Bayou La Batre) and transported on  every weekday
by a 9000 gallon tank truck to the site.  The transportation contractor was
obtained by competeitive bid  and  furnished sufficient backup facilities  in
the event of breakdown.  Wastes were screened at the processor's site  by
fine mesh  stainless  steel  screen (SWECO) prior to transportation  to the
site.   Wastes were further screened between the truck and discharge pump
on-site.
D.2.   Engineering details of the Pilot Facility.

Distribution  System

     The distribution  system  consisted  of  two  centrifugal pumps  (type "c")
and associated Poly-Vinyl  Chloride  (PVC) pipes  and  associated  valves  (see
Table 4-1).   One  pump  serviced the  wastewater  stream for the  full  loading
plots and the  other delivered wastewater to  the  half and full loading
plots.   The experimental plots were supplied with  their respective loadings
by regulating the flow from  each pump  utilizing  gate valves  and pressure
gauges.   Wastewaters were  delivered to the  site utilizing agricultural  type
sprinklers.   Detailed piping schematic  of  the  distribution system  is
presented in  Figure  D-l.

     All piping  was laid on  the surface  of  the marsh  and secured with
reinforcing  rod stakes to  prevent  movement of  the pipes but limiting  the
amount of impact to  the marsh due to the facility.


Treatment Plots

     Each of  the  12  experimental plots  were treated as separate hydrologic
units (Figure 3, Main Report).   Wastewaters were delivered to the center of
each  plot using agricultural type sprinklers that  delivered the wastes in a
circle  of 50' diameter.   This  insured  adequate  distribution  of  the
materials while limiting the  amount of cross contamination of the plots due
to wind.  The integrity of the system in  terms of  cross circulation  and
loading  rates  was verified by  a dye study.

     Three sampling wells, located within the radius  of the irrigation
sprayer,  were installed to sample the  quality of subsurface  waters  on  each
plot. The depths sampled included 10, 20  and  30  centimeters (3.9 in., 7.9
in.  and  11.8  in.  respectively).  Measurement of water table  elevations  and
recharge times  also  aided  in  the hydraulic  modelling and the evaluation  of
the treatment process.  Sample wells  were constructed  of inch-and-a-half
PVC pipe fitted with a plankton mesh filter.   Each well  was  installed  with
clay  grouting to  prevent vertical  migration along  the sides of the wells.
                                  D-3

-------
Table D-l.  Materials list.
Item
Description
Sprinkler
Pipe




Gate valves

Pressure Gauges

Pressure regulator

Water Flow meter

200 mesh filters

Pumps
   Rainbird model  30EWA
   Nozzle = 11/64"
   Operating pressure = 50 psi
   Maximum diameter (no wind) = 100 ft
   Flow rate = 6.05 GPM

   1-1/4 PVC (160 psi rated)

   1-1/2 PVC mainlines


   1-1/2 in.

   0-100 psi

   20 gpm capacity

   1 in. nominal size. flow= 20 gpm

   AMIAD model 39-11

   Model Cl-1/4 TPLS, Berkeley
   Full diameter 2 HP = 5 15/16 in.

    Pump operating conditions

   Case 1. 18.2 gpm @ 144 ft.
   Case 2.  9.1 gpm & 144 ft.
                                   D-4

-------
                                       Pressure Gauge
                                       0-LOO psi
                                                      t 55 psi discharge
                                                      'Pressure Regulator
                                              o-p—Df
                                               20 gpm
                                               Flow Meter
                           0-100 psi
                           Pressure Gauge
                          0-100 psi
                          Pressure Gauge
                                                     Gate Valve
                                          -IS
                                        —l/i in.  PVC
                                                                             "Valva
                                                                           'overflow
                                              (See above for details) —
Figure D-l.   Detailed schematic  of piping layout.
                                        D-5

-------
Vlastewater Loading and Discharge Frequency.

     Approximately 8,950 gallons (33.9 cubic meters) of screened  seafood
wastewaters were required  for pilot plant operation  on a daily basis,  five
days each week.  On the  morning of each  work day, Deep  Sea Foods, Inc.
collected   the required wastewater in a  10,000  gallon  tank truck  for
transport  to the pilot facility.  At the  site, the wastewaters were sprayed
onto the marsh  directly from the tank  truck.

    Table D-2 presents the amount  of materials loading  for each of  the
experimental plots.  All loading values were  calculated assuming waste
characteristics are as those described in the report by Polyengineering
(1978).

Operations  and  Maintenence

     Operation  of the pilot facility commenced  in August 1984 and continued
through December,  1984.   Daily operations consisted of pump and valve
checkout, cleaning any necessary filters  and  the discharge of the waste
materials.   An  onsite inspector was available during all operational steps
of the waste discharge.

     Routine maintenance  of the pumps, valves, sprinklers and plots  was
performed along with  periodic inspections  of the pilot facility  test plots.
Any problems were noted and promptly remedied.
Table D-2.   Materials Loading for the  Pilot Facility.
Plot
Full load
Half load
No load*
Concentrations
(mg/1 )
BOD TSS
617 163
308 81
3 2
Loadings
(g/d)
BOD TSS
23.2 6.17
11.6 3.05
0.1 0.07
 *  Assumed present in  dilution waters.
           
-------