inited States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington DC 20460
Water
Technical Support Document
for the Regulation Promulgated
Pursuant to Section 301  (h)
of the Clean Water Act of 1977

-------
                                   CONTENTS

                                                                           Page

Figures	iii

Acknowledgement	iv

I    Introduction 	 	  1

II   Physical Assessment  	  4

     A.   Initial Dilution  	  4
     B.   Ocean Discharge	16
     C.   Saline Estuarine Discharge  	 21

III  Water Quality	27

     A.   Biochemical Oxygen Demand	28
     B.   pH	'.	33
     C.   Suspended Solids	34
     D.   General	35

IV   Marine Biological Assessment	37

     A.   Introduction	37
     B.   Definition of a Balanced, Indigenous Population (BIP)  	 38
     C.   Demonstration of a Balanced, Indigenous Population  	 39

          1.   Surveys at Reference Sites 	 40
          2.   Surveys Immediately Beyond
               the Zone of Initial Dilution	41
          3.   Surveys Within the Zone of Initial Dilution	42

               i    Ocean and Saline Estuarine Outfalls 	 42
               ii   Additional Requirments for
                    Saline Estuarine Outfalls 	 43

     D.   Discharge into Stressed Waters ..... 	 44
     S.   Predictions of Biological Conditions
               Near Improved Outfalls	45
     F.   Biological Conditions Summary  	 45
     G.   The Biological Questionnaire	49

V    Monitoring Program	 60

-------
     A.   General   .  .  .	60
     B.   Biological Monitoring	61
     C.   Water Quality Monitoring	65

Bibliography  	  68
                                        11

-------
                                    FIGURES
                                                                           Page

Number

     1.   Waste field generated by a simple ocean outfall  ....  	   6

     2.   Relative efficiency of dilution in flow regimes
          associated with municipal outfalls	29
                                        111

-------
                                            JUN
                                ACKNOWLEDCSMEM1





     This document was prepared by technical and scientific staff of




the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Office of Research and



Development, with assistance from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric




Administration (NQAA) .  Overall guidance was provided by the Office of



Water Program Operations, EPA.
                                        IV

-------
                            I.     INTRODUCTION

     The Federal Water Pollution Control Act  (RvPCA) Amendments of 1972

mandated certain uniform treatment standards for point source discharges.

Regarding publicly owned treatment works  (PCTWs), one important provision

was that effluent limitations based on secondary treatment were to be

achieved by July 1, 1977.  Due to continued inquiry regarding the scientific

basis for this provision of the Act as it applies to those POTWs discharging

into marine waters, Congress, through the Clean Water Act of 1977,

amended the FWPCA of 1972 to allow such PCTWs to apply for a modified

permit to discharge effluent with less-than-secondary treatment.  The

final regulation pertaining to the granting of a modification was

in June, 1979 and specified:  (1) minimum threshold criteria that must

be met to apply for a modification; and (2)  the technical requirements

for the application.  In order to be granted the modification, the

burden of proof rested with the municipality to demonstrate that eight

specific criteria could be met.  Section 301(h) of the Act specifies

those criteria:

     The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, may issue a
permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of subsection
 (b)(1)(B) of this section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant
in an existing discharge from a publicly owned treatment works into
marine waters, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that:

      (1)  there is an applicable water quality standard specific to the
          pollutant for which the modification is requested, which has
          been identified under section 304(a)(6) of this Act;

      (2)  such modified requirements will not interfere with the attainment
          or maintenance of that water quality which assures protection
          of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of
          a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and
          wildlife, and allows recreational activities, in and on the
          water;

-------
     (3)   the applicant has established a system for monitoring the
          inpact of such discharge on a representative sample of aquatic
          biota, to the extent practicable;

     (4)   such modified requirements will not result in any additional
          requirements on any other point or nonpoint source;

     (5)   all applicable pretreatment requirements for sources introducing
          waste into such treatment works will be enforced;

     (6)   to the extent practicable, the applicant has established a
          schedule of activities designed to eliminate the entrance of
          toxic pollutants from nonindustrial sources into such treatment
          works;

     (7)   there will be no new or substantially increased discharges
          from the point of the pollutant to which the modification
          applies above that volume of discharge specified in the permit;

     (8)   any funds available to the owner of such treatment works under
          Title II of this Act will be used to achieve the degree of
          effluent reduction required by section 20Kb) and  (g)(2)(A) or
          to carry out the requirements of this subsection.

               For the purposes of this subsection the phrase "the
          discharge of any pollutant into marine waters" refers to a
          discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea or the
          waters of the contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine waters
          where there is strong tidal movement and other hydrological
          and geological characteristics which the Administrator determines
          necessary to allow compliance with paragraph (2) of this
          subsection and section 101(a)(2) of the Act.

     The purpose of this Technical Support Document is.:   (1) to provide

further explanation and guidance on the technical requirements of the

regulation; and (2) to provide the rationale for these requirements.

Accordingly, it is divided into sections that address the key technical

points of the regulation relating to protection of the marine enviroatient.

Parts of the regulation relating to the character of the municipal wastes,

treatment plant technology and timetables of performance are not discussed

in this document.

     The section 301(h) regulation as published, set forth various general

and particular aspects regarding conditions which must be met by POIWs to

permit oceanic and/or saline estuarine discharges of less-than-secondarily

treated municipal wastes.  The discharge is accomplished through a submerged

-------
outfall terminating in a single opening or multiport diffuser to differen-



tiate it from ocean "dumping," which is covered under a different part of



the Federal Regulations.



     Emphasis is placed on probable impacts of the discharge on water



quality standards and the balanced, indigenous population which would



occur in the absence of the effluent.



     Under definitions and constraints given in the regulation, technical



support discussions are presented.  These discussions provide methodological



guidance and documented explanations of the language in the regulation



and the technical requirements of the Application Format.



     Sections relate to:  (1) Calculation of the zone of initial dilution,



which is relevant to requirements for water quality standards and the



balanced, indigenous population;  (2) physical oceanographic procedures,



data requirements, and conditions to be met; (3) water quality criteria



as related to the traditional pollutant parameters of municipal wastes



and to toxic pollutants associated with the traditional pollutants; and



(4) biological assessment. A final section discusses the requirements of



a monitoring program which must be implemented by applicants that receive



a modified permit.  The monitoring section discusses data requirements,



methods and interpretations which should be considered in addition to



discussions in previous sections of the Technical Support Document.



     The sections of the Technical Support Document are labeled and



identified to conform with the subsections of the Application Format.

-------
                           II.  PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT







Subsection A.  Initial Dilution








                   Physical Characteristics of the Discharge



     Criteria;  (i)  The applicant's outfall and diffuser must be well de-



signed, using accepted designs of outfall and diffuser systems, to provide



appropriate initial dilution, dispersion and transport of wastewater, consid-



ering the volume of the discharge and site-specific physical and environmental



conditions;




   (ii)   The initial dilution achieved by the applicant's discharge, as



          calculated in Part B, question 1-4, of the Application Format, tsust be



          sufficient to meet all applicable State water quality standards at



          and beyond the boundary of the zone of initial dilution;



   (iii)  Dilution water roust be supplied to that zone where entraimrent



          takes place in an amount equal to the wastewater flow tines the



          dilution factor for a very high percentage of time, as calculated in



          Part B, question 1-4, of the Application Format.



   (iv)   Following initial dilution, the partially diluted wastewater field



          and particulates must be transported and dispersed so as not to



          adversely affect water use areas (including recreational and fishing



          areas) and areas of particular biological sensitivity.



     Concepts:  Until relatively recently, wastewater discharges to marine



waters had been made through open pipes discharging either directly to surface

-------
waters or to subsurface waters near the seabed.  Around 1960 it was realized




that better engineering practices applied to the mode of discharge would allow



for improved water quality and better protection of both public health and



marine biological resources.  This is exemplified by the ocean outfall dif-



fuser system which discharges an effluent through a perforated pipe section  (a



diffuser) placed at seme depth in the water column, typically on the seabed



some distance from shore  (Figure 1).  To ensure the physical stability of the



system to extreme wave and current conditions, a portion of the pipe extending



to the diffuser is usually buried in the nearshore zone and protected by rock



ballast.



     Depending upon the physical characteristics of the effluent and the



ambient marine waters, the port spacing, port diameter and configuration,



velocity and angle of discharge, and depth of discharge can usually be se-



lected so as to achieve a certain degree of dilution of the effluent in a rela-



tively short period of time.  Currently accepted designs of outfalls and



diffusers are those that utilize state-of-the-art engineering judgment in



selecting those variables so as to protect the ambient environment and public



health.  Such engineering judgment coupled with physical and biological ocean-



ographic data also accounts for proper site selection, and ensures the sound-



ness of the outfall/diffuser system under circumstances such as large waves,



strong currents and earthquakes.  Currently accepted practice incorporating the



same principles admits of the use of single pipe discharges rather than multiple



ports under conditions that might exist at certain sites in the coastal zone.



     Municipal wastewater discharged into the ocean through submerged outfalls



creates a buoyant plume that rises quickly toward the surface, entraining



significant amounts of ambient saline water.  The momentum of the discharged fluid



and the buoyancy of the essentially fresh water characteristic of the waste rela-

-------
                                                                    PYCNOCLINE
                                                                      REGION
                                                                   -~ DRIFT	 —
                                                                      FIELD-
                                                                PART1CULAT5S
                                                              { WHICH SETTLE OUT OF
                                                                  DRIFT FIELD )
    EFFLUENT LEAVING
      DIFFUSER PORTS
£&$M£3^£%
                                                   ENTRAPMENT OF
                                                   DILUTION WATER
                   SEABED
 '^.•a ;l- = •
o^-v- or *> -~
s^o:^v,;*x° °'o^o^^':
                           0^»
^
                                                               Af^
                                                               *. r- ^> a
                                  FIGURE 1
                           ?^'
                           » 0 a '
          WASTE FIELD GENERATED BY SIMPLE OCEAN OUTFALL

-------
tive to sea water are responsible for mixing, although in soire circumstances



ambient currents and turbulence also contribute to initial dilution.



     One consequence of the entrainrrent process is that the density of the



rising plume becomes greater and approaches that of the ambient waters along



its trajectory.  If a sufficient ambient vertical density gradient or a strat-



ification zone  (like a pycnocline) is present, the plume can spread horizon-



tally at a level of neutral buoyancy below the sea surface.  If a sufficient



density gradient is not present the diluted wastewater plume reaches and flews



horizontally at the surface.



     "Initial dilution" is -the flux-averaged dilution achieved during the



above-noted period when dilution is primarily a result of plume entrainment.



Initial dilution is thus about 1.8 times the canterline dilution.  It is



characterized by a time scale on the order of minutes.  With proper design,



outfalls can achieve dilution values of about 100 to 1 before the plume begins



a transition from essentially vertical flow to an essentially horizontal flew



dominated by ambient oceanographic conditions.  Conditions relative to flow



and water quality in this passive, drift flow region, will be discussed



below.



     For the purpose of this regulation, "dilution" is defined as the ratio of



the total volume of a sample (ambient water plus wastewater) to the volume of



wastewater in that sample.  A dilution of 100 to 1 therefore is a mixture



composed of 99 parts of ambient water and 1 part of wastewater.  In other works



in this field, dilution may be defined somewhat differently; however, the



difference decreases as values increase, and above 100 there is essentially



no difference.



     The magnitude and direction of currents relative to the orientation of



the diffuser can have a marked effect on the amount of initial dilution and

-------
the shape of the plume.  One effect of currents is to bend the plume trajec-




tory towards the horizontal, thus increasing the trajectory length, and pro-



moting larger dilutions.  Roberts  (1977) investigating the effects of ocean



currents on the rrixing of an effluent discharged from a long diffuser oriented



at different angles to the current, found that above a threshold value the



dilution was larger than a discharge in the absence of currents.



     When ports in a multiple port diffuser system are placed sufficiently



close together, the buoyant plurres issuing from each port eventually merge,



resulting in changes in the geometry and rate of dilution in the plumes.  A



number of mathematical models have been developed that can be adapted to



estimate the amount of initial dilution that can be expected for ocean outfall/



diffuser systems  (Abraham, 1963, 1971; Baumgartner et al., 1970; Baumgartner



etal., 1971; Briggs, 1969; Brooks, 1973; Cederwall, 1971; Davis, 1975; Davis



et al., 1978; Fan, 1967; Hirst, 1971a, 1971b; Kannberg et al., 1976; Koh et



al., 1970; Morton, 1959; Morton et al., 1956; Priestly et al., 1955; Sotil,



1971; Rouse et al., 1952; Teeter et al., 1979; Winiarski et al., 1976).



     Rationale;  To evaluate the water quality impacts of municipal ocean



discharges from a regulatory standpoint, it is important to have a certain



consistency in the computational process.  Therefore, of the methods cited



above, it is reconmended that the methods described by Teeter et al.,  (1979) be



used.  These methods include three models:  PLUME, OUTPIiM, and DKHPLM.  PLUI-E



is a model by Baumgartner et al.,  (1971) that simulates a solitary plume in a



stagnant environment of arbitrary stratification.  COTPIM  (Winiarski et al.,



1978) models a solitary plume in a stagnant or flowing environment of arbi-



trary stratification.  Designed for application to flowing, stratified en-



vironments, DKHPIM by Davis  (1975) describes the behavior of solitary plumes

-------
that are allowed to merge with identical adjacent plumes in order to simulate



a relatively close port spacing of a multi-port diffuser.



     EPA recognizes that there is no single model or set of models which is



universally recognized as appropriate for making the computations required by



the 301(h) regulation.  In recommending the use of a particular model, EPA does



not suggest that results using other models would not be considered by EPA.



Rather, the purpose is to: (1) provide applicants with a method for computing



initial dilution which they could be assured would be approved by EPA;  (2)



establish a standard reference by which other models could be evaluated; and



(3) simplify and expedite EPA's decision-making, since the Agency would not



have to evaluate plume models, as well as the results of those models, in



 eviewing applications.



     Applicants are not required to use these methods; if they use other



methods, however, they must furnish in their application a detailed descrip-



tion of the methods employed and demonstrate that the results are in general



agreement with the results obtained through EPA's recommended methods.



     Other methods may include in situ observations.  However, if in situ



observations are used, the applicant must demonstrate that they represent the



critical dilutions called for in question 1-4  (not merely a typical dilution)



immediately following initial dilution questions  (1-4 and 1-5 of the applica-



tion) .



     In order to calculate initial dilution, applicants will need to list



characteristics of the discharge, and physical environmental conditions at the



discharge site.  A diagram or verbal description of the port orientation and



arrangement with respect to the seabed and to other ports will be used by EPA



to assess the adequacy of the calculations and the adequacy of the design.  As



a check on the assumption of equally distributed flow, the design flow of each

-------
port is requested, as unequal flow way influence the actual dilution achieved.




The applicant is not required to calculate the initial dilution for each port



but only for that segment of the diffuser with the highest flow rate per unit




diffuser length.  This information is requested in question 1-1.



     Question 1-2 requests waste flow data.  The value exceeded 2 to 3 hours



per day on a day when the total flew was average for the critical periods



identified in question 1-3  (or the average of the values exceeded 2 to 3 hours



per day over the critical periods), should be used.  Historical data for at least 2



years should be included in this analysis.  Also requested are flows for the



critical periods adjusted for projected changes in waste flow rate over the



life of the permit.  EPA has requested flows which will rarely be exceeded.



The reason for this is that the amount of initial dilution is a function of



the flow rate, and EPA desires a conservative estimate.  It is EPA's opinion



that predicted initial dilutions based on the flews requested, will actually



be exceeded most of the time.  While the actual percentage of time that this



will occur is impossible to determine, the technical judgment of EPA's staff



familiar with both plume calculations and treatment plant performance is that



it is likely to be in a range greater than 90 percent of the time.



     In question 1-3 EPA asks the applicants to supply data on ocean density



in the vicinity of the discharge.  Since initial dilution calculations can be



strongly dependent on the vertical gradient of density relative to the density



of the wastewater, EPA requires data on conditions believed to be critical



with respect to water uses  (for example, certain times of the year) or which



generally result in the lowest dilution values.  A set of conditions has been



provided in the question which describes the conditions EPA believes to be




important.
                                        10

-------
     For periods when the vertical density gradient is non-linear, the worst-



case stratification may be difficult to estimate.  Some guidance is given in



Teeter et al., (1979).  Applicants will need to evaluate a substantial amount



of data from both the discharge site and nearby areas having similar environ-



mental conditions before selecting a worst-case density profile.  The dilution



values conputed in this manner should provide a reasonable indication of



whether there is a water quality regime which is likely to be compatible with



the protection of marine life, recreational interests and public water sup-



plies during "worst-case" environmental conditions.



     The initial dilution calculation can be so sensitive to ambient water



density that EPA asks the applicant to report data to a high level of precision.



     Question 1-4 requires data for currents in order to compute conservative



estimates of dilution.  Since currents affect the initial dilution achieved by



a discharge, the Agency believes it is reasonable to allow a modest amount of



current (the lowest ten percentile) in predicting initial dilution, without



sacrificing a conservative estimate.



     The effect of factoring-in currents at the lowest ten percentile on



initial dilution calculations will generally be fairly small.  For a site with



persistent, strong currents, for example, allowing currents at the lowest ten



percentile could double the initial dilution values calculated using zero



current; in cases where the lowest ten percentile is in fact zero, it obviously



will have no effect.  Most values will lie somewhere between these tavo ex-




tremes.
                                   11

-------
     Data from current measuring instruments with finite thresholds are biased.




It therefore becomes difficult to distinguish low values (which may be about



0.05 ra/sec)  from zeroes with these data.  In estimating environmental condi-



tions, a more reliable estimation can be made at the lowest ten percentile of



occurrences.  To increase the reliability of worst-case estimates, data should



be evaluated not only from the discharge site but from nearby coastal areas of



a similar environmental setting.  Given the sensitivity of dilution to environ-



mental conditions and the ranges of these conditions, the evaluation of data



and selection of model input conditions are critical to the proper evaluation



of water quality impacts from municipal ocean discharges.




     A great deal of discussion has centered on the point of whether or not a



uniform minimum acceptable value of initial dilution (like 50 or 100) should



be established by EPA as a way to achieve the environmental results sought in



this regulation.  In a survey of major municipal ocean outfalls EPA found that



compared to the 1972 California Ocean Plan, initial dilution values ranging



from less than 10 to more than 500 would be required for the average waste.



Due to the variability of wastes and the variability of State standards, it is



not possible to specify a single value which will assure compliance with the



national range of State marine standards.  Furthermore, there is no scientific



motivation to suggest that such a single value should exist in order to provide



protection of marine water uses.  The most that can be said is that it seems



to be well within economic and technical constraints to design outfalls to



achieve dilution ratios of about 100 to 1.



     Similarly, although a great deal of consideration was given to establish-



ing a minimum depth for the successful applicant's outfall, no single value for
                                        12

-------
depth* can be specified.  While it is clear that increased depth will enhance

initial dilution - all other things being equal - it is also clear that deep

basins and deep coastal inlets may not possess the necessary oceanographic

features conducive to effective net transport.  Some areas of the continental

shelf at about 30 meters ray produce better overall results than other coastal

areas about 200 meters deep.  Consequently there is no requirement for a

minimum depth.

     The successful applicants must be in a location that provides a sufficient

flow of coastal water to the region of the diffuser.  This is to assure that

the initial dilution factor calculated is actually achieved in practice.

Question 1-9 of the Application Format asks the applicant to demonstrate this.

Because the diffuser will act as a pump and effectively era-; dilution water

into the dilution region even in the absence of currents, the main concern is

with the fate of the drift flow following initial dilution.  Unless ambient

currents carry the drift flow away from the diffuser zone, there may be a

build-up of pollutants and a subsequent impairment of initial dilution, conse-

quently, State water quality standards may be violated!or adverse effects on

recreational and other uses may result.

     It is recognized that periods of poor circulation may occur for a short

time during any day and perhaps for longer times on an occasional day during a

month.  EPA expects the applicant to evaluate this situation with a view to

basing their initial dilution calculations on the time when the combination of

low currents and high water quality requirements produce the most demanding

initial dilution requirements.  If it is possible for the applicant to deter-
      Since water quality protection and water use protection  is a multi-para-
      meter problem,  as  is  initial dilution,  it  is unreasonable to suggest  that
      the ultimate  solution could be tied  to  a single value of any one parameter,
      Distance  from shore is another such  parameter which has  been considered
      in this context.

                                        13

-------
mine the individual ten percsntile values for the factors in the  initial



dilution calculation, it is likely that the joint occurrence of these  factors



will be much less than ten percent of the time.  In this way EPA  believes  it



has asked the applicant to meet water quality standards as much of  the time  as



is reasonably possible.



     After initial dilution, the concentration of waste constituents  (Cf)  is a



function of the average dilution achieved  (Sa) and their concentration in  the



ambient  (Ca) and the effluent  (Ce):



                              Cf = Ca 4-  (Ce-Ca)/Sa



If the effluent has been adequately treated and disposed of in an environmen-



tally appropriate area, Cf values  for pollutants in the effluent  should



be at or below water quality standards.  The zone of initial dilution  must



be computed in order for the applicant to answer question 1-10.



     The zone surrounding the discharge site geometrically bounding the criti-



cal initia*! dilutions is termed the zone of initial dilution  (ZID)  to  distin-



guish it from other rabcing zone definitions.  It is a concentration isopleth.



The ZID describes an area in which inhabitants, including the benthos,  may be



chronically exposed to concentrations of pollutants in excess of  water quality



standards or at least to concentrations greater than those predicted for the



critical conditions described above.  The ZID does not attempt to describe the



area bounding the entire mixing process for all conditions, or the  area im-



pacted by the sedimentation of settleable material.



     The purpose for defining a zone around the discharge point is  to  distin-



guish biological impacts caused by exposure of organisms to concentrations



higher than Cf from those impacts caused by the reconcentration of  pollutants



by physical/ chemical, and biological means.  The former is unavoidable without
                                14

-------
predilution or additional treatment of the waste to meet water quality stan-



dards.  The latter indicates that dilution alone is not sufficient to amelio-



rate the environmental and ecological impacts of the discharge, and that addi-



tional treatment, relocation of the discharge, or influent source control may



be necessary.



     The ZID can be specified by analyzing predicted results for a range of



conditions.  However, it can be more simply specified using the maximum height



of rise predicted for the critical conditions as a radial distance measured



horizontally from the outfall diffuser or port.  This distance will often



equal the depth of water at the discharge site.  During periods of higher



currents, the plume trajectory will be more horizontal and initial dilutions



higher than predicted for the critical conditions.  The dilution achieved over



that portion of the trajectory within the ZID, however, should be approximately



equal to the initial dilution predicted  for the critical conditions.  In most



cases the size of the zone will not be affected by considering currents at the



lowest ten percentile.



     The state-of-the-art of ocean outfall design has -developed in response to



a need for improved performance in open  coastal situations, and generally has



proved effective in deep water.  While large cooling water discharge needs



have spurred advances in the state-of-the-art for relatively shallower waters



and less open waters  (like bays and estuaries) it is still not as evident that



the above discussion on initial dilution can be applied without reservation



for all saline estuarine situations.  Accordingly, EPA expects applicants



who discharge to saline estuarine waters to demonstrate that the methods



they choose are indeed applicable to their situation.
                                   15

-------
Subsection B - Ocean Discharge



     It is necessary to generalize requirements so that they need not be



specified for each individual shelf and water mass condition.  Otherwise, it



would be necessary to write specifications for the middle Atlantic Bight,



Southern California Bight, Gulf of Alaska, etc., and subintervals of each of



these.  This is because conditions can change, both in the physical character-



istics and overall ecosystem setting, within miles.  It is the intent of this



subsection to specify minimum requirements of the physical oceancgraphic



aspects of modification applications.  The information below is also designed



to assist in the calculation of initial dilution and provide information



helpful in the biological assessment.



     Discharges to coastal embayments which receive fresh water inflow, such



as portions of the Northeastern United States, and embayments which do not



receive streamflow, such as San Diego Bay, are to be considered as estuarine



areas in terms of. the definitions given, when it is questionable as to whether



a given system is coastal or estuarine, the estuarine classification should be



chosen whether or not the Hansen and Rattray  (1966) classification scheme applies.



The choice is made, therefore, for a conservative classification.



     No specific references to particular types of oceanographic sampling



equipment or methods are made.  The choice will depend on the facilities,



personnel, capability and budget of the applicant.  However, many instances



will occur when there are few options available.  For instance, rapid sampling



of current speed over extended periods of time will usually call for internally



recording current meters.  It should be understood that calibration procedures



and results, data processing methods, etc., will be required as part of the



application although not specifically cited in this subsection.  The purpose
                                        16

-------
of this requirement is a standard one in that complete evaluation of results



cannot be made unless the reviewer knows what instruments and data processing



methods were used.








Question l-12a.



     The application of any recommendation about a local system is a unique



one because one needs detailed knowledge of the system.  This cannot be ob-



tained without an understanding of the circulation in the vicinity of an



outfall and the mixing, dilution and transport of the effluent.  An evaluation



of the transport of material in route to the biota is required, hence, a



considerable body of knowledge is required concerning the physical oceano-



graphic aspects of waste dispersal as well as the more complex biological and



chemical considerations.



     The regulation requires vertical profiles of temperature  (T), salinity



(S5, density and current speed and direction "representative of seasonal



conditions".  What constitutes "representative conditions" can, of course, be



argued, but the intent should be clear; i.e., prevailing current conditions,



depth of pycnocline, etc.




     If the equipment is available and calibration procedures are in order,



vertical profiles are as easy to obtain as those obtained through classical



oceanographic methods.  However data processing can be quite involved.



     An allowance is made for those facilities which cannot provide for con-



tinuous methods.  Care must be taken to sufficiently characterize the water



column throughout and to adequately determine pycnocline depth and any other



discontinuities or current shifts.
                                        17

-------
     Minimum station spacing requires sampling inshore, offshore, and in the



immediate vicinity of and bracketing the diffuser.  Distances involved will




depend on length of the pipeline, diffuser section, bottom topography and



variability of local environmental conditions.  The intent of this paragraph



is to provide a three-dimensional representation relative to the physical



oceanographic character of the system.  Conclusions should be drawn from



direct and inferred current measurements as to the fats of material in the far



field and as to plume dynamics.



     Currents can be generated or maintained by tide-topographic effects,



thermohaline differences, direct and indirect wind stress.  Generally, currents




parallel bottom topography in nearshore regions, but onshore surface drift of



material can occur perpendicular to bottom depth contours.  In order to provide



a means for substituting shore wind measurements for water current measurements,



certain conditions must be net relating to the correlation of the records on a



seasonal basis.



     Used in conjunction with current meter data, spectral analysis and squared



coherence of the two records can be used to forecast coastal currents from



wind records if coherence can be shown to apply for seasonal records.  Statis-



tical packages for these analyses exist at most computing centers.  For a



discussion relating to theory and interpretation see, for example, Bendat et



al.,  (1966).  Correlation of wind records with observed currents over a long



enough period may provide a reliable predictor which might later prove a



suitable substitute for direct current measurements.  The degree to which this



is true will depend on the depth over the diffuser, bottom topog-



raphy, thermohaline currents, etc.  If airport or other records are used to



represent historical data, it must be demonstrated that they are representative



of the wind velocity field over the diffuser section.
                                   18

-------
     In order to minimize current meter measurements, it will be sufficient to


demonstrate a seasonal relationship between wind and current.  Current measure-


ments will, however, be required; a record length of 30 days is recommended.


Drogue data, seabed drifters and drift cards are useful as support information.


They should be used in conjunction with profiling and/or anchored current


meters.  Depths of installation of current meters will depend on the sites.


Instruments should be used that itiinimize surface wave action; ease of data


processing suggests averaging over short time periods and recording on magnetic


tape.


     Predicted transport of material at all depths of the water column in the


far field should also be given on a seasonal basis.  If sufficient current


meter data are not at hand, the predictions will be made on the basis of


inferred currents from drogues, by hydrographic data, sea bed drifters, etc.


If historical data exists, it should be examined to assure that it is representa-

              t
tive of the outfall situation  (if not taken for the outfall study itself).


For instance, geostrophic current calculations may or may not be too close


ashore to provide reasonable conclusions of the flux of material past the


outfall.  If continuous current meter data are available at the outfall, it


should be presented in the form of statistical averages, examined for onshore,


offshore and along-shore components, and other statistical properties.  Conclu-


sions should be drawn relevant to the dispersion of the effluent discharge.




Question l-12b.


     The station spacing discussed above refers to physical oceanographic


parameters.  However, more detail will be required, like tighter station


spacing, for monitoring around the diffuser for material emanating from the


outfall in order to determine fluxes and/or gradients of certain parameters.
                                        19

-------
     Depending on applicable water quality standards and itionitoring requirements,




the following measurements should be made:  light transmittance or turbidity,



DO, pH, BOD and suspended particulates.  For the purpose of this regulation,



DO is considered a surrogate for BOD, and light transmittance or turbidity are



considered surrogates for suspended solids and may be substituted where appro-



priate.  If calibration procedures are sufficient and concentrations allow,



beam transmittance or light scattering may provide continuous profiles of



suspended material.  Difficulties encountered with in situ optical ireasurements



such as wavelength dependence must be accounted for.  For a discussion of



these problems see Austin (1973).



     If suspended solids concentrations are too low to be reflected in light



transmission and scattering measurements or too high to be correlated, then



discrete samples should be taken and the appropriate measurement made in the



laboratory.  For a discussion of calibration procedures, see Callaway et al.,



(1976).



     Continuous profiles of DO are possible to obtain but require corrections



for temperature and salinity and are not usually regarded as accurate without



careful and continuous monitoring and calibration.  However, it does bypass



the need for discrete sampling of water for long-term BOD measurement which



measurement may not be particularly useful in the presence of naturally low



DO due to upwelling.  In any event, the following DO conditions must be



accounted for:



          1.   Natural upwelling event



          2.   BOD of the effluent



          3.   Entrainment



          4.   Benthic oxygen demand
                                  20

-------
Question l-12c.



     The outflow from estuaries may impact coastal areas in the vicinity of




ocean discharges.  The applicant should be in a position to estimate and docu-



ment the emission rate from estuaries and analyze the effect.








Subsection C.  Saline Estuarine Discharge



     Saline estuarine discharges refer to those waste discharges to, for



example, coastal plain, barrier island and fjord estuaries.  Much of the



scientific literature on estuaries concern coastal plain estuaries, such as



the Chesapeake Bay system.  Some references applicable to this subsection are:



Officer  (1976), Dyer  (1973) and Thomann  (1972).  For a discussion of fjord



systems see Winter (1977).



     Although waste discharges in estuaries are logistically easier to monitor,



control and evaluate than coastal discharges, estuaries are rnore susceptible



to environmental change because of the limited amount of water for dilution,



the diverse biotic conmunity, and topographic boundary constraints.  Occasional



flushing of the estuary may be complete within the water column, but a periodic



incorporation of materials to and from the sediments is of concern.








Question l-13a.



     Seasonal classification of the estuary in the vicinity of the discharge



must be documented, preferably by the scheme devised by Hansen and Rattray



 (1966).  If the Hansen and Rattray scheme is used, velocity and salinity data



shall  be presented in order to estimate pollutant flux past the outfall.  Resi-



dence  tines of material in the vicinity of the outfall and in the estuary



itself should be provided.  If the Hansen-Rattray scheme is not used  (for






                                         21

-------
example, if the estuary is classified on the basis of "well-mixed," "partially-



mixed," method of Pritchard  (1952)) , data shall be presented to support the



classification.  The same calculations discussed above will be presented.



     Estuaries with a salinity stratification parameter  (oS/So) less than one



and circulation parameter (u /Uf)  greater than approximately one hundred will



normally be suitable for limited amounts of effluent disposal.  Estuaries



with a stratification parameter greater than one and a circulation para-



meter less than ten, however, are not likely to have flushing characteristics




amenable to short pollutant residence times  (See Hansen and Rattray, 1966



for symbol definition).



     If deep estuaries, like fjords, are being considered, calculation of



residence times throughout the water column must be given.  Methods of deriving



these estimates and their effect on relative pollution distribution must be



made with reference to the seasonal variation of plume configuration, such as



plume equilibrium position.



     Imposition of a classification scheme provides information on the fate of



the effluent depending on its location within the estuary and water column.



Although wind was not shown as being very important by Hansen and Rattray,



recent work  (Wang et al., 1978) suggests that both local and non-local wind



forcing can be very important in the mixing process and the dynamics within



the estuary.



     Since an estuary can change classification  (that is, proceed through a



succession of completely mixed to stratified categories), it is necessary to



attempt to classify the estuary as a function, primarily, of runoff.  Since



the mixing afforded by tidal fluctuations is roughly proportional to the



square of tidal range, tidal heights must also be considered.
                                    22

-------
Question l-13b.



     In conjunction with l-13a, the freshwater budget is required to provide



estimates of the freshwater velocity, like non-tidal velocity, at the point of



evaluation.  Other uses of the freshwater budget relate to calculations of



flushing rates which require knowledge of tidal prisms, or as input to numerical



models which are discussed below.  Generally, streams are gauged sufficiently



above tidal effect to estimate freshwater inflow.  Other estimates of runoff



contributions below the gauging station are required.



     If gauged stream data are not available for runoff estimates, the irethcd



of estimating flow must be provided with a discussion of assumptions, estimates



of errors and potential effect of errors.








Question l-13c.



     Historical records of wind, tide height and tidal currents will be synthe-



sized and a correlation made with dispersion of surface and subsurface pollu-



tants.  Particular attention should be given to prevailing wind speed and



direction, especially the onshore-offshore component  (as it affects the shore-



ward movement of surface materials), and the incidence of such events.  Where



possible, corrections to times of occurrence, elevations, speeds and direc-



tions should be referenced to NOAA current and tide table stations.








Question l-13d.



     Bottom topography data are usually reliable for most areas but in scne



estuaries a considerable amount of change can be induced by scour, storms, and



sediment deposition.  If charts are used to provide input data to numerical



models they should be evaluated for applicability.
                                         23

-------
Question l-13e.



     A variety of oceanographic scales exist, both spatially and temporally,




which need to be considered in the evaluation of a modification request.  These



range from seasonal effects to time scales on the order of seconds when measur-




ing currents, for instance.  Space scales vary from the micrometer range for



suspended particles to consideration of basin geometry on the order of kilo-



meters .



     Sill depth and the flushing rate of fjords have scales of tens of meters



and periods of days or weeks, respectively.  Currents which occur behind sills



and below the sill depth may not be measurable over an integration period of



minutes or hours.  Locating outfalls in such areas is not recommended because



of a lack of measurable flushing currents.



     Although emphasis has been placed on the diffuser locale, the entire



excursion zone likely to be swept through on an ebb or flood tide - a zone



likely to contain measurable quantities of effluent - needs to be considered.



In general, this zone will be a function of current speed and direction,



estuary topography, wind and runoff.  If not readily evaluated theoretically,



drouge releases and other simple devices may be used to determine the zone



limits.








Question 1-13f.



     Numerical model use is not an absolute requirement.  However, if used in



this application, verified documented models must be presented,  such as those



employed on the Delaware estuary  (see, Thomann, 1972).  Tuning and verifi-



cation procedures must be carefully spelled out; theoretical assumptions



and consequences of simplifications need to be given.  Numerical proce-
                                   24

-------
cures employed are to be given with estimates of the magnitude of numerical



dispersion, if any.  For a discussion of estuarine modeling see Ward et al.,



(1971).



     Test runs over a set of seasonal data are to be compared with field data



and the methods used to assure verification listed.








Question l-13g.



     Hydraulic models may be used by the applicant but certain requirements



are necessary to assure that the results will be accepted by the reviewing



agency.  Since most hydraulic models of estuaries employ Froude scaling, and



because secondary circulation features of estuaries are not faithfully dupli-



cated, conclusions as to dispersion of material are not readily acceptable.



Large scale circulation features and eddies, however, appear to be capable of



replication.  Moreover, these features axe not always shown in numerical



models if non-linear terms are neglected or other simplifications made.  For a



discussion, see, Ward et al., (1971).



     In deeper estuaries, subsurface features appear in the model which are



not apparent in routine oceanographic surveys.  If these features are verified



in the feedback process between model and field study, the model holds one



more advantage over most mathematical models employed to date; the results may



be used as evidence for the application if desired.  As in the numerical



model approach, careful attention must be given to documentation, methods



explored, assumptions, limitations, and verification.  The restrictions



on documentation and testing are no less stringent than in the numerical



approach.
                                   25

-------
Question l-13h.



     Question 1-13h deals with one of the more difficult aspects of the



estuarine discharge requirements.  In some cases, it will not be possible to




address the requirement with a great deal of confidence as to its outcome.



This is because of a combination of events:   (1) lack of theoretical and



practical knowledge of the mechanics involved in deposition-erosion processes;



(2) difficulty in obtaining field verification samples;  (3) multiplicity of



processes acting; and (4) the varying nature of the discharged suspended



material itself.  Not least is accounting for material already deposited and



attempting to account for material deposited from the data of the application.



     Notwithstanding these obstacles, the applicant shall make estimates of



deposition based on laboratory findings on average settling velocities.  These



estimates will be bolstered, where feasible, by sediment collecting devices




installed in an array designed to sample various transport pathways occurring



over a number of tidal cycles.  Mathematical models of these processes will be



acceptable if complete information is given  (in addition to the requirerrents



listed in l-12g) on physical properties of the material assured deposited



and/or suspended.
                                        26

-------
                              in.  WATER QUALITY



          Parameters Associated with Secondary Treatment Modification








     The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 required POTWs



to install secondary treatment and required EPA to define secondary treatment.



Based primarily on the traditional parameters used to judge performance of



conventional biological treatment of wastewater following primary sedimentation,



EPA included performance standards for biochemical oxygen demand  (BOD) and



suspended solids (SS) in its definition of secondary treatment.  Because of



the impact industrial wastes may have on the character of municipal wastes,



EPA also included pH as a parameter of secondary treatment.  The 301(h)



modified permit for marine discharges authorized by the 1977 amendments



was restricted to these parameters.  Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Part 3 of the



Application Format deal with data requirements to assure that State water



quality standards are met following initial dilution.  EPA recognizes that



if an applicant is successful in acquiring a modified permit, the effluent



concentration of BOD, SS, and pH may exceed the Federal secondary treatment



limits for these parameters.  Rationale is presented for application



requirements relating to prevention of adverse impacts caused by increased



BOD, SS, and pH and for the surrogate parameters which may be applicable



beyond the zone of initial dilution, even though water quality standards



may be exceeded up to the boundary of the zone.



     Finally, discussion is included relating to pollutants other than the



traditional pollutants which may be incidentally discharged along with the
                                   27

-------
traditional pollutants.  Of primary concern are metals and persistent organic




chemicals associated with suspended solids.  For the purpose of this regulation



the applicant should use analytical methods prescribed in Guidelines



Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants as published in



41 FR 52780, December 1, 1976 and codified in 40 CFR Part 136, for the



traditional pollutants.








A.   BOD:




     BOD is an important parameter because it is directly related to the



oxygen resource of the receiving water.  Reduction of DO due to BCD may



not present a problem in some well flushed coastal environments; however,



this conclusion is by no means generalized and applicants must docu-



ment the effect of the discharge on the CO levels in the receiving waters.  At



this time, no State, to which this regulation applies, has a receiving



water standard for BOD.  Therefore, for the purpose of this regulation, DO



is an entirely appropriate receiving water surrogate since it is fundamentally



related to BOD.  The standardised 5-day measurement of BOD is of historical



significance and hence lias achieved a note of standardization, but it



was derived from consideration of travel times of rivers.  There is no



direct relationship of the 5-day measurement to marine situations.  In



marine settings there are several time scales of concern, and because time is



linked to distance  (through current speed and dispersive factors), it is neces-



sary to evaluate the importance of BOD in the marine environment in terms of



physically meaningful phenomena associated with outfalls (Figure 2).



     If the applicant believes that the receiving water conditions justify



determination of BOD at a temperature other than 20°C, the standard BOD deter-



mination should be made and then, after determining the reaction rate velocity,



appropriate corrections can be made to reflect the BOD conditions at those



temperatures considered applicable.






                                        28

-------
100
                         FIGURE 2
   RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF DILUTION IN FLOW REGIMES
        ASSOCIATED WITH MUNICIPAL OUTFALLS
0.1-
             NITIAL DILUTION (PLUME) IN DEEP WATER
      (TYPICAL VALUES USED)
      1.0     10
  TIME (MINUTES)
100
1000
              100     1000    10000
               DISTANCE (METERS)
                                                 RANGE OF
                                               DRIFT FLOWS
                          29

-------
     Municipal wastewater discharged into ocean water through submerged out-



falls creates a buoyant plutre that rises quickly toward the surface, entraining



significant airounts of ambient water.  Dilutions on the order of  100 to 1  are



achieved within travel distances on the order of about 30 meters  and tiine



orders of about 100 seconds.  The BOD exerted on the oxygen resource in this



time period will be significantly less than the measured 5-day 300.  The



appropriate quantity in tenns of standard methods of analysis will be the



immediate dissolved oxygen demand (ICOD), representing chemical oxidation,



and very fast biochendcal reactions, in a 15 minute reaction/measura'nent period.



Although 15 minutes is longer than the expected travel (or residence) time in



the plune, it will provide a conservative estimate of initial oxygen demand and



is a convenient time period for laboratory analyses.  It is important that



representative effluent samples be held anaerobically prior to analyses for



a period of time equal to the travel time through the outfall piping system



to adequately reflect increased oxygen debt.  Questions 2-3 through 2-5 relate



to this consideration.  Even though Standard Methods  (APHA, 14th  Ed. 1975)



calls for distilled dilution water in the IDDD test, EPA believes it is



reasonable and proper to require applicants to use sea water for  the test



in this regulation  (Ewight Ballinger, EPA-EMSL, Cincinnati, Ohio; personal



cornmunication 1978).  Questions 2-6 through 2-11 require the applicant to



use data from the initial dilution calculations along with the BOD calculations



to determine if the applicable standards are met at the boundary  of the ZID.



     Once initial mixing is accomplished the waste field gradually undergoes



transition from essentially vertical travel to essentially horizontal travel



 (Figure 1).  In this transition zone, very little technical information is



recorded regarding travel  (residence) time and dilution rates.  These factors,
                                    30

-------
as well as the physical shape, are highly dependent on ambient currents and



turbulence.  The transition zone is considered to retain diluted wastes for a



few minutes to, at most, several hours.  The amount of dilution achieved in



this zone, for purposes of the analysis required to answer Question 2-12, is



considered negligible.  The applicant must shew that the applicable DO stan-



dards and/or BOD standards will be met at all times and at any place in and



beyond the transition zone when, because of horizontal currents, this zone



extends beyond the zone of initial dilution.  The 5-day or 20-day BOD, or any



other tine period of reaction, may be used as appropriate for this analysis.



For example, a 5-day BOD would suffice even though a residence time of 2 hours



may be expected, because it would result in a conservative estimate of oxygen



demand.  The transition zone may be submerged.  Therefore, to be conservative,



the reduction of oxygen demand by atmospheric reaeration should be considered



negligible in this analysis.



     Following transition, the waste field drifts with the currents and is



slowly mixed with ambient water due to turbulence.  Generally, these waste



fields can be identified and traced for periods ranging from hours to days



before pollutants - or added tracers - decay or become diluted to levels



difficult to distinguish from background.  The degree of dilution may be on



the order of ten times initial dilution in this time period while the decay of



pollutants is strongly material dependent.  Each applicant must show that the



BOD (again, measured at the appropriate time scale)  will not reduce the oxygen



resource in this segment of the flow regime to a level below the DO criterion



in the water quality standards.  Since the drift flew may remain submerged, it



is necessary from a conservative viewpoint to neglect atmospheric reaeration.



In cases where the general circulation pattern in the region of the outfall is
                                   31

-------
especially sluggish, time scales of 2 days to several weeks may need to be

considered with respect to oxygen demanding materials which otherwise would

have been removed by conventional secondary treafcnsnt.

     Unless prescribed by other water quality criteria  (to be evaluated subse-

quently) suspended solids which are allowed to be discharged, pursuant to this

regulation, in quantities greater than otherwise would be released, may settle

to the sea bed in the vicinity of the discharge.  The oxygen demand of the

accumulated sediments must be evaluated to determine if the DO standard is

violated in the ambient water near the sea bed.  Recognizing that oxygen

demand of sediments is an integrated result of highly complex rats processes,

both physical and biochemical, an analysis representing a critical situation

is required.  The critical case is envisioned as involving abrupt resuspension

of solids accumulated over a 3 month period and subsequent satisfaction of

oxygen demand within 24 hours by the oxygen content of a layer of water two

meters deep, adjacent to the sea bed.  The ambient DO level and the DO

standard for the critical time of year should be used for this

analysis.  The oxygen demand of suspended solids per unit mass of

dry material may be determined analytically by total oxidation (an

overestimation of BOD) or experimentally.*  The mass of material

accumulated on the sea bed and the areal extent of accumulation can

be computed according to a procedure to be described in a subsequent

section on suspended solids.  The oxygen consumed must not deplete

the ambient level below the DO standard.  The case described here is

intended as a guide to answer questions 2-13 and 2-14 and is quite
     For example, the experiitvental determination could be conducted by placing
     particulate matter on a simulated sea bed, aging for 3 months, and suspend-
     ing the sediment for 24 hours in sufficient seawater to measure oxygen
     depletion.  The applicant may elect to use some other method such as Chen
     et al.,  (1975) in responding to questions 2-13 and 2-14.

                                   32

-------
arbitrary:  the applicant is expected to describe, in an appropriate




appendix to his application, any other situation which is more critical



with respect to benthic oxygen demand and the State DO standards, and



the method employed to answer these questions.








B.   pH_:



     The acidity  (or alkalinity) of partially treated municipal savage may



influence the pH of marine receiving waters, although in many cases the  influ-



ence rray be small.  Since pH is an important parameter of environmental  quality



with respect to health of marine organisms, the environmental pH caused  by




less-than-secondary discharges must be assessed.



     Applicants may show data from field measurements in the plume, but  must



show laboratory pH measurements from experimental dilutions of effluent  with



representative ambient sea water.  The dilutions to be employed should repre-



sent the range of initial dilutions computed for currently representative, as



well as expected, flow rates.  The data should show the pH immediately after



mixing and at sufficient time intervals after mixing in order to be able



to evaluate the delayed effects, if any.  The applicable pH criterion



in the water quality standards must not be violated at any time after initial



mixing.



     The measurement of pH is routine in laboratory practice and unfortunately



is frequently considered trivial.  EPA expects applicants to supply pH data



based on good laboratory practice.  For example, in providing time series data



for wastewater mixtures with seawater, care must be taken to avoid the intro-



duction of air during stirring, since this tends to give erroneously lav pH




values.
                                  33

-------
C.   Suspended Solids:

     Suspended solids discharged with partially treated wastes

into the marine environment are a cause for concern because of direct effects

of the solids on water quality and because pesticides and toxic materials can

be associated with the particulates.  Following initial mixing, applicable

water quality standards for suspended solids must not be exceeded.

     Particulates, per se, may interfere with light penetration due to both

light scattering and absorbanoa.  In sane cases ivfiere an extensive field and

laboratory data base exists, it may be possible to establish a correlation

between interference with light penetration and gravimetric or volumetric

measurements of suspended solids concentration.  Absent this base, the

applicant will be required to show with direct evidence that suspended

material will not violate applicable water quality standards for turbidity,

light transmission, light penetration, or reduction in photic zone,

whichever apply.

     If applicable water quality standards limit settleable solids, the appli-

cant must experimentally determine the amount of settleable solids after

appropriate initial mixing and a period of quiescent settling.  The mass of

settleable material may be reported per unit volume of discharge or per unit

volume of receiving water, whichever relates most directly to the applicable

standards.

     Water quality standards may limit the actual areal deposition* rate of

settleable solids as a way to protect benthic communities from significantly

altered sedimentary materials.  In any event, in response to question 4-8, an

assessment needs to be provided in order to estimate the impact of deposited

materials on oxygen levels.  Sedimentation rates in nature are strongly cepen-
*    As dintinguished  from a limit on the concentration of settleable solids
     in the water column.
                                   34

-------
dent on physical factors which vary quite widely.  It would be difficult to




devise an average situation adequately representing ecological concerns and it



would be extremely burdensoire to conduct a large number of analyses represent-



ing all possible cases.  Partly for these reasons, the applicant is required



to conduct two assessments:  1) an estimate of the areal extent and rate of sea-



bed accumulation of sewage solids; and 2) an estimate of the long term fate of



this sedimentary material.



     In addition to meeting State water quality standards at the boundary of



the ZID, it is important to insure that the material will not have a deleter-



ious effect beyond the ZID such as accumulation and periodic resuspension in



those geological features that tend to be filled in by the sedimentation



process.



     Other critical evaluations, with respect to increased suspended solids



discharge, which the applicant must make, include accumulation of pesticides



and toxic materials and their possible transfer into marine food webs leading



to man and the impact of these materials on the structure and function of



biological communities in the receiving environment  (Part B sections VI and



VII of the Application Format and the final regulation section 125.63, ?tonitor-



ing Program).








D.   General;



     Portions of the regulation deal with protection of public water



supplies, recreational uses, and balanced, indigenous populations in response



to the requirement of the law to attain and maintain "... that water quality



which assures protection..." of these uses.  No specific requirements are



listed in the "water quality" section of the application relative to these



requirements  (other than BOD, pH, and suspended solids).  Rather, these con-
                                   35

-------
siderations are for the most part included in terms of biological impacts

resulting from a variety of associated water quality alterations.  For example,

biostimulatory effects nay be related to water quality standards for nitrogen

and less-than-secondary effluent may result in modified forms of nitrogen, if

not increased amounts, compared to secondary effluent.  The absence of data

requirements for nitrogen (or any other water quality constituent) in the

Application Format should not be interpreted by the applicant as license to

disregard consideration of associated impacts when completing the biological

questionnaire and designing the monitoring program.

     Neither the physical oceanographic section nor the water quality section

of the Application Format deal specifically with chlorine residuals, coliforms,

•floatables  (including oil and grease)*, although a fev questions relating to

wind transport, shellfish closures, and coliforms in suspended solids should

serve to remind applicants to consider these and other questions pertinent to

the discharge of less-than-secondary effluent.  A related question, for example,

involves possible different environmental iirpacts due to differences in the

types of chlorinated organic compounds in effluents associated with the chlori-

nation of wastewater from different treatment processes, such as, secondary

vs. less-than-secondary treatment.
     Even when vertical density stratification is sufficient to form a sub-
     merged drift field, oils and other  floatables will rise to the surface
     where they may travel in directions opposed to the general drift flow.

                                   36

-------
                       IV.  MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT


A.   Introduction

     The Administrator can issue a 301(h) modified discharge permit if,

among other things, the applicant can demonstrate that the "modified

requirements will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of that

water quality which assures —protection and propagation of a balanced,

indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife ..."  (section 301(h)(2))

In formulating this regulation, EPA concluded that the term  "population"

should not be restricted in this case  to the usual description of members

of a single species, but should apply  instead to all ecological communities.

Similarly, the terms "shellfish, fish, and wildlife" were defined to

include any biological ccnrnunities that might be adversely affected by a

wastewater discharge.
          <•
     With respect to marine biological analyses, the final section 301(h)

regulation requires the applicant to complete a biological questionnaire and

submit a biological conditions summary which supports -the response to the

questionnaire.  The principal objective of the biological questionnaire and

biological conditions surtmary is to determine the biological impact of the

applicant's discharge.  The Agency recognizes that the data requirements for

this assessment may vary with the nature of the receiving waters and the

quality and quantity of the discharge.

     The purpose of this section of the Technical Support Document is to

explain the rationale for the biological requirements of the regulation and to

provide guidance for completing the section 301(h) application.  The following
                                      37

-------
topics are addressed here:   (1) definition of a balanced, indigenous popula-



tion; (2) demonstration of a balanced, indigenous population at reference



site(s), and at sites adjacent to the outfall;  (3) additional requirements  for



saline estuarine outfalls; (4) discharges into stressed waters;  (5) predic-



tions of biological conditions near iitproved outfalls;  (6) biological condi-



tions sunmary; and  (7) the biological questionnaire.








B.   Definition of a Balanced, Indigenous Population   (SIP)



     The concept "balanced, indigenous population" rreans those ecological



conmunities which (1) exhibit characteristics similar  to those of nearby,



healthy communities existing under comparable but unpolluted environmental



conditions, or (2) might reasonably be expected to become re-established in



the polluted water body segment from adjacent waters if sources of pollution



were removed.  Balanced, indigenous populations occur  in unpolluted waters.



The second part of the definition concerning the re-establishment of communi-



ties is included because of its pertinence to proposed improved discharges  and



to discharges into waters that are stressed by sources of pollution other than



the applicant's outfall.




     The community characteristics that might be examined in an evaluation  of



a balanced, indigenous population include, but are not limited to:  species



composition; abundance, dominance and diversity; spatial/temporal distribu-



tion; growth and reproduction of populations; disease  frequency; trophic



structure and productivity patterns; presence of opportunistic species; bioac-




cumulation of toxic materials; and the occurrence of mass mortalities.
                               38

-------
C.   Demonstration of a Balanced,Indigenous Population



     The first step in an applicant's BIP demonstration is to define the "in-



digenous population" and establish the natural variability of the "balanced



population."  SPA determined that these are observable characteristics of



natural connunities existing in the absence of human disturbance.  This con-



cept led to the comparative strategy found throughout the section 301(h)



regulation.  The BIP test for any biological parameter of concern is whether



or not it falls within the range of natural variability found in comparable,



but unpolluted habitats.  Thus, the section 301(h) applicant must make a



comparison of biological conditions at a reference  (control) site and in the



areas beyond the zone of initial dilution.  The applicant must also survey



conditions within the ZID.  Certain ecological perturbations, such as the des-



truction of coral reefs/ kelp beds, etc., are not permissible within the



ZID.  Some biological alterations such as moderate increases in the density



of opportunistic species can occur but the applicant must demonstrate the



absence of extreme biological perturbations within the ZID  (see part 3(i) below)



     To justify a section 301(h) modification, the applicant must also show



that biological conditions immediately beyond the ZID fall within the natural



range of variation observed at the reference site(s).  This statement is made



in the context of adverse ecological effects.  Section 301(h) modifications



will not be denied if applicants can demonstrate that ecological differences



from the reference site reflect beneficial effects on balanced, indigenous



populations.  EPA recognizes that direct comparisons for BIP demonstration may



not be possible in the cases of proposed improved outfalls and discharges into



stressed waters.  These cases require predictions about biological conditions



that will develop near new or improved outfalls or predictions about biologi-
                                        39

-------
cal conditions that would occur in the absence of pollution and if pollution



from sources external to the POTW increases or decreases.



     During the public hearings on EPA's proposed regulation, several com-



menters suggested that it was possible to rrake biological predictions with



sufficient accuracy to rreet the section 301(h) criteria.  The final regulation



therefore contain provisions for such predictions.  However, EPA agrees with



other catmenters that predictive biological analyses are generally very diffi-



cult.  The Agency cannot provide applicants with specific guidance for these



predictions.







     1.   Surveys at Reference Sites



     The reference sites should be selected on the basis of the physical and



chemical characteristics which would be expected to occur at the discharge



site in the absence of pollution.  Those characteristics might include teroer-



ature, salinity, depth, substrata composition and hydrographic regime.  Addi-



tional reference sites are required for distinctive habitats of limited dis-



tribution, like coral reefs, spawning grounds, seagrass and kelp beds.



     The reference sites should not be subjected to ecologically significant



sources of pollution.  Ideally they should be totally unpolluted, but it rray



be impossible to locate a comparable site that has not been perturbed or



contaminated to some extent by man's activities.  The level of contamination



at the reference site should not be sufficient to cause alterations in natural



population or ccrrmunity characteristics.  Different reference sites are neces-



sary for assessment of each of the biological communities that may be impacted



by the applicant's discharge.  For example, a suitable reference site for the



sedimentary benthos might not be acceptable for demersal fishes.  Demersal



fishes are mobile and a suitable reference site must preclude the possibility
                                   40

-------
that specimens collected as controls could have recently inhabited the immedi-




ate vicinity of the discharge.



     EPA recognizes the difficulty of locating suitable reference sites for



field investigations of marine pollution.  The Agency does not expect appli-



cants to demonstrate that the biological conditions near the zone of initial



dilution are identical to those at the reference site(s).  Natural variations



occur in the structure and function of balanced, indigenous populations.  Thus,



the range of variability of biological conditions imrediately beyond the ZID



can be compared to the range of natural variability of the control site.








     2.   Surveys Immediately Beyond the ZID



     In all cases biological assessments should be made immediately beyond the



boundary of the ZID.  Additional biological surveys are necessary where cur-



rents or other factors result in an accumulation of sewage coirpDnents away



from the boundary of the ZID.  The survey design must allow detection of



substantial variation in environmental conditions when this occurs near the



ZID.  If distinctive habitats of limited distribution are likely to be exposed



to the applicant's discharge, additional sampling must be conducted at both



the exposed habitat and at appropriate reference sites.



     For each kind of biological community  (like benthos, fishes, plankton,



etc.) a variety of natural assemblages may exist in the general vicinity of



the applicant's discharge.  For example, natural benthic assemblages dominated



by deposit feeders are distinctly different frcm those dominated by suspension



feeders.  Both could be considered "balanced, indigenous populations" in the



context of the section 301(h) regulation.  In the demonstration of a BIP,



applicants have the flexibility to choose any reference assemblage which



                              41

-------
occurs naturally anywhere in the biogeographic zone in which the applicant's



discharge is located.








     3.   Surveys Within the ZID



          i.   Ocean and Saline Estuarine Outfalls



          Applicants must assess biological conditions within the ZID.  The



Agency has determined that certain major environmental perturbations are not



permissible within the ZID.  These include, but are not limited to, the de-



struction of distinctive habitats of limited distribution  (like coral reefs,



nursery and spawning grounds, and shellfish, grass and kelp beds); the pres-



ence of disease epicenters (fin rot, liver hematoma, lesions on fish and



shellfish, or other pathogenic micro-organisms which present potential hazards



to human health); occurrence of mass mortalities; occurrence of phytoplankton



blooms that result in serious oxygen depletion in the water column causing the



death of fish, shellfish or other marine organisms, or resulting in the accu-



mulation of toxics in commercially harvestable fish and shellfish.



     In contrast, sore limited environmental perturbations may be permissible



within the ZID.  For example, deposition of the settleable components of



oceanic discharges might result in substantial changes in the structure of



benthic communities.  This might be acceptable in some cases.  Alterations



in the benthos or sediment characteristics might result in changes in the



density of fishes within the zone because fishes will avoid or be



attracted to the zone.  This might be acceptable unless benthic organisms or



fishes in the zone acquire abnormally high body burdens of toxic materials



 (see Biological tonitoring section of the ftonitoring Program of this report).
                                   42

-------
          ii.  Additional Requirements for Saline Estuarine Outfalls



          Estuaries are highly productive spawning and nursery grounds of many



fish species.  These semi-enclosed bodies of water are subject to finite



limitations on water exchange and dilution.  Due to their abundant harvest and



limited exchange and dilution, estuaries have both a high fisheries resource



value and a high vulnerability to impact from PCTWs waste discharges.



Consequently, the Agency finds it necessary to limit the amount of man-induced



perturbation acceptable within the ZID for of estuarine discharges to a level



below that acceptable in ocean waters.  Thus, applicants with discharges into



saline estuarine water must demonstrate that both the area within the



ZID and the estuarine system as a whole are minimally impacted.  To do this,



three conditions must be met in addition to those discussed in section



IV(C)(3) (i), above.  First, proof must be provided that the health,



structure, and function of the benthic community inside and outside of



the zone of* initial dilution are essentially the same as control sites.



Second, it must be shown that the area occupied by the ZID does not



inhibit or block migratory pathways or extend over a substantial portion



of the estuary. As part of this showing, the location and biological



significance of the ZID in the estuary must be delineated and the percent



of the total estuary and of distinctive habitats of limited distribution



within the estuary occupied by the zone must be calculated.  Third, the



applicant must show that there is no accumulation of toxic substances



(heavy metals and synthetic organics) in the sediments and biota within



the ZID to levels that would cause adverse biological effects  (see



Biological Monitoring section of the Monitoring Program of this report).
                                   43

-------
D.   Dischargesinto Stressed Waters



     If a balanced, indigenous population does not exist in the vicinity of an



outfall because of pollution from sources other than the applicant's dis-



charge, section 125.61(f) of the section 301(h) regulation requires the appli-



cant to demonstrate that its discharge dees not or will not contribute to, or



perpetuate stressed biological conditions.  Such applications may be approved



if, in addition to all other requirements, the following three conditions are



met:



     1.   The applicant must document the differences between the biological



conditions that currently exist in the general vicinity of his outfall and the



balanced, indigenous population that would occur there in the absence of all



human disturbances.  This assessment of the degree of ecological alterations



can be accomplished by comparisons of environmental conditions near the out-



fall with historic data collected in the same area, and by spatial comparisons



on a larger geographic scale that includes comparable, but unpolluted habi-



tats.  The applicant also must assess temporal trends that would indicate



whether the degree of ecological alteration is increasing or decreasing.



     2.   The applicant must demonstrate that his discharge is not contribut-



ing to the present biological alterations associated with the stressed waters



outside of the ZID.  This involves all of the section 301(h) biological as-



sessments that would be required of a discharge into unstressed waters.  The



difference is that the biota within and immediately beyond the ZID



must be compared with the biota existing at stressed, rather than unpolluted



reference sites.  In this comparison applicants may have to consider spatial



gradients in the degree of stress from other sources like whether the



degree of stress at the discharge site is equal, greater or less than



that at the reference site.
                                 44

-------
     3.   The applicant must demonstrate that his discharge will not contrib-



ute to the further degradation of the biota if the level of pollution from



other sources increases, and will not retard the recovery of the biota if the



level of pollution from other sources decreases.  This demonstration requires



a prediction of biological responses to future pollution levels.








E.   Predictions of Biological Conditions Near Improved Outfalls



     Section 125.Site) of the section 301(h) regulation requires applicants




who proposed discharge improvements to deiTDnstrate that the improvements will



relieve adverse impacts attributable to their existing discharge.



     This demonstration might be accomplished by comparing conditions at the



outfall location with conditions near other outfalls which are comparable to



the proposed improved discharge.  Assuming that there is a basic similarity in



the quality and quantity of the discharges that are to be compared, and in the



indigenous biota of the receiving environment, such a comparison may be suf-



ficient to predict protection of a BIP.  Applicants who plan to relocate



their outfalls must describe present biological conditions at both the proposed



and current outfall sites and predict future biological conditions at the



proposed site.








F.   Biological Conditions Summary



     The biological conditions summary must contain the technical information



necessary to support the answers to the biological questionnaire.  The minimum



requirements for this summary are identified in section 125.61(c) of the



regulation.  Emphasis is on seven community types:  demersal and pelagic



fishes, macrofaunal benthos, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macroalgae, and



intertidal assemblages.  An extensive analysis of each of these communities
                                   45

-------
will not always be required.  It is the applicant's responsibility to provide



a rationale for the selection of communities to be examined in greater detail.



     The macrofaunal benthos often will provide an appropriate assemblage for



indicating the impact of an outfall.  Benthic animals tend to be relatively



long-lived, permanent residents of particular habitats.  They are sensitive to



changes in both sediment and bottom water quality and reflect the inpact of



chronic environmental stresses.



     Other cortnunities must be evaluated when there is reason to believe they



may be adversely affected by the applicant's discharge.  For example, where



fishes or invertebrates of either commercial or recreational significance



occur, a study of the pelagic or demersal biota nay be required.  Intertidal



communities should be examined for the impact of nearshore discharges of



effluents which may reach the shore.  This regulation identifies "distinctive



habitats of limited distribution" as requiring special attention.  These



include kelp and seagrass beds, coral reefs, subtidal and intertidal rock



outcroppings in areas where they are not cannon, mollusc beds, and any



other habitat that might be particularly sensitive.



     The transitory nature of planktonic communities makes it difficult to



define quantitatively their relationship to wastewater effluents.  However,



some outfalls and particularly those into saline estuarine waters, have the



potential for modifying patterns of primary and secondary planktonic produc-



tivity which could have large scale ecosystem effects and affect carmercial



and recreational fisheries.  In such cases a thorough analysis of this possi-



bility should be conducted.



     Numerous biological parameters may be pertinent to the biological assess-




ment.  The spatial distributions of distinctive habitats and of commercial or



recreational fishery species must always be described.  Structural character-



                                   46

-------
istics of the camunities present (multispecies assemblages)  generally provide



good evidence of the impact of outfall effluents, if any.  These include



species composition and abundance, as indicated by either the density of



biomass or of individual species, richness of species, dominance, or spatial



stratification particularly along depth contours.  The distribution of indicator



species known to be particularly tolerant or sensitive to environmental



perturbations should be emphasized.  Changes in size frequencies, reproductive



condition or incidence of disease and the bioaccumulation of toxic substances in



individuals in populations should be reported.  Historic occurrences of rrass



mortalities, anoxic conditions, or toxic phytoplankton blooms must be described.



Alterations in community structure and population dynamics should be interpreted



in relation to the functional characteristics of the marine ecosystem including



changes in dominant trophic levels, productivity at primary and higher levels,



and especially the yield of commercial and recreational fisheries.



     The exiient of documentation in the biological conditions summary should



reflect the quality and quantity of the effluent and the sensitivity of the



receiving environment.  Data requirements will be lowest for small treatment



plants which do not service industrial waste sources and whose discharges into



ocean water does not impinge upon distinctive habitats of limited distribu-



tion.  Affidavits of fisheries biologists, marine ecologists, oceanographers,



or other experts who have studied the biota in the vicinity of the outfall may



provide significant support to such applications.  The most technical documen-



tation will be required of POTWs with large discharges containing industrial



wastes particularly if they propose an improved outfall into stressed, saline



estuarine waters.  Data of such applicants should be site-specific and quanti-



tative.  A reviav of the pertinent literature and the testimony of experts is
                                     47

-------
suggested to substantiate assessments and predictions of biological condi-



tions.



     EPA has not made a quantitative distinction between small and large



discharges on the basis of an arbitrary daily flow rate.  The section 301(h)



biological criteria are the same for all applicants regardless of size.  As



noted above, smaller dischargers may have to present less information to meet



the criteria, but the distinction between small and large dischargers with



respect to data requirements is a matter of degree rather than kind.



     The biological conditions surmiary should be organized to correspond with



the questionnaire.  The section for each question must synthesize all relevant



data.  Lists of raw data or reprints of scientific publications will not



suffice.



     EPA will evaluate the quality of the biological assessments including the



adequacy of sampling designs, statistical analyses and species identifica-



tions.  For example, acceptance of a null hypothesis concerning a lack of



biological differences between control and discharge sites could result from



inadequate sample replication or sample size as well as from a real absence of



such differences.  Sampling guidelines for demersal, benthic, planktonic, and



intertidal marine ccmmunities are available from EPA (Meams et al., 1978;



Swartz, 1978; Jacobs et al., 1978; Stofan et al., 1978; Conor et al., 1978),



though other methods may be acceptable.  Boesch (1977)  reviewed a variety of



techniques for examining spatial heterogeneity in species composition, dens-



ity, and diversity.  These publications are suggested only as a guide to the



kind of quantitative biological analyses expected from major PCTWFs.  EPA will



not make specific requirements on the sampling designs, statistical analyses,



etc., but the Agency will evaluate the adequacy of the design selected by the
                                   48

-------
applicant.  Applicants should provide only those analyses which are warranted



in individual cases, but must provide a rationale for the design and extent of



their biological assessment.








G.   The Biological Questionna.i	re



     EPA will evaluate the protection and propagation of balanced, indigenous



populations on the basis of the biological questionnaire and the biological



conditions summary.  The biological questionnaire emphasizes those impacts



most likely to reflect unacceptable biological conditions.  The thirteen



questions are qualitative in nature, requiring "yes" or "no" answers based on



the biological conditions summary.  The questions, an explanation of their



pertinence to section 301(h) decisions, and a discussion of how EPA will



evaluate the answers follows:



     7-1  Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge may have



          caused or will cause interference with the protection and propaga-



          tion of a balanced, indigenous population of marine life characteris-



          tic of the biogeographic zone in which the outfall is located?



     7-2  Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge may have



          caused or will cause biological contnunities within the zone of



          initial dilution to be different from those that would naturally



          occur in the absence of the outfall?



     7-3  Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge may have



          caused or will cause differences in the structure and function of



          biological contnunities  (vertical and horizontal stratification,



          species composition, abundance, diversity, productivity, trophic



          structure, etc.)  beyond the zone of initial dilution from those



                                        49

-------
          characteristic of the biogeographic zone in which the outfall is



          located?



     These three questions are to be answered in relation to the spatial



comparison of the structural and functional assessments required in the bio-



logical conditions summary.  The scientific literature contains many descrip-



tions of substantial biological alterations which have resulted from the



impact of sewage effluents (Anger, 1975; Carlisle, 1969; Grigg et al., 1970;



Littler et al., 1975; Mahoney et al., 1973; McNulty, 1961, 1970; Murray et



al., 1974; Smith et al., 1973; Smith et al., 1976; Tsai, 1975; Turner et al.,



1966; Wood et al., 1975; Young, 1964}.  The purpose of these questions is to



determine whether unacceptable impacts have or may extend beyond the ZID.



Applications for a section 301(h) modification may be denied if there is



evidence of degradation in pelagic, demersal, benthic, planktonic, or intertidal



communities.



     The scppe of these three questions is very broad.  They address biologi-



cal conditions at the ecosystem level and require an assessment of communities



with respect to their ability to continue to function in the presence of



stresses resulting from sewage discharges.  It is not EPA's intention to



require exhaustive research on every aspect of the structure and function of



marine coitrnunities.  EPA expects that applicants will limit their biological



analyses to those parameters that are warranted by the characteristics of the



discharge and the receiving environment.



     It is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that if a SIP does not



occur within the ZID of a discharge into ocean waters that this biological



change within the ZID does not extend beyond the boundary of the ZID (section



IV(C)(3)(i), above).  It is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that a BIP



                                        50

-------
exists within the ZID of a discharge into saline estuarine waters  (section



IV(C)(3)(ii), above).



     Additional information is required concerning the potential impact of



discharges into saline estuarine waters on ecological conditions within the



ZID.  As part of the response to question 7-2, applicants who propose a dis-



charge into saline estuarine waters must compare benthic populations within



and beyond the ZID and determine the extent of interference of the discharge



on migratory pathways within the ZID.  Benthic organise tend to be permanent



residents of estuaries and are sensitive to changes in both sediirent and bottom



water quality and, therefore, reflect the impact of chronic environmental



stresses.  Anadronous and catadronous fishes are examples of tenporary resi-



dents of estuaries.  The passage of such species through estuaries is essen-



tial to the completion of their life cycles.  Applicants .tiust demonstrate that



conditions within or beyond the ZID do not block or interfere with migratory



pathways.  For example, the effects of residual chlorine on fish inhabiting or



passing through the ZID must be assessed (Middaugh et al., 1977a,b).



     Applicants discharging into saline estuarine water'must also meet addi-



tional restrictions on bioaccumulation of toxics within the ZID (see question



7-8) .



     7-4  Is there reason to believe the applicant's discharge may have caused or



          will cause increases in the abundance of any marine plant or animal



          organism (especially nuisance or toxic species of phytoplankton



          whose blooms cause adverse ecological effects)  within or beyond the



          zone of initial dilution beyond that characteristic of the biogeo-



          graphic zone in which the outfall is located?



     7-5  Is there reason to believe the applicant's discharge may have caused or



          will cause domination of marine cornnunities within or bevond the zone of
                                   51

-------
          initial dilution by pollution resistant species  (e.g., slime forming



          algae or bacteria; fouling, boring, nuisance, or opportunistic



          species of finfish, invertebrates, etc.)?



     Questions 7-4 and 7-5 address the occurrence of pollution resistant



organisms including indicator species which often increase in abundance in



disrupted marine environments.  The dominance of such organisms usually coin-



cides with changes in natural assemblages, such as decreases in species rich-



ness.  For example, capitellid polychaetes have been shown to dominate benthic



communities in the vicinity of wastewatsr outfalls (Anger, 1975; Word et al.,



1977),  Question 7-4 emphasizes the dominance of such species because although



they may occur, they are rarely abundant under natural, unstressed conditions.



As discussed above, applicants should compare species composition between



reference site(s) and site(s) located just beyond the ZID.  A section 301(h)



modification may be denied if the latter sites are dominated by pollution



resistant taxa.



     The stimulation of certain species by sewage effluents may result in



destruction of marine habitats.  Taylor (1978), for example, has obtained seme



evidence for an enhancement of boring sponges on coral reefs near se/ra.ge



outfalls.  The stimulation of the green algae, Dictyosphaeria cabernpsa, by



sewage effluents can result in the smothering of coral heads and a consequent



alteration in reef fish populations  (Smith et al., 1973; Johannes, 1975) .



Discharges which result in increased abundances of species which cause habitat



destruction may not be granted a section 301(h) modified permit.



     Phytoplankton blooms that result in serious oxygen depletion or the



production of toxic materials are known to occur under natural environmental



conditions.  However, Tsai  (1975), Doig et al.,  (1974), Dunstan et al., (1971)



and others indicate that the nutrients and vitamins contained in sewage



                                        52

-------
effluents may stimulate such blooms.  All applications must document historic



occurrences of blooms which resulted in adverse impacts in the vicinity of



their outfall.



     7-6  Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge may have



          caused or will cause a deleterious effect on distinctive habitats of



          limited distribution such as kelp beds and coral reefs either within



          or beyond the zone of initial dilution?



     Distinctive habitats of limited distribution include those segments of



the marine environment whose protection is of special concern because of their



ecological significance or direct value to man.  These include, but are not



limited to, coral reefs, kelp beds, sea grass meadows, intertidal or subtidal



rock outcroppings, other sites of concentrated productive fisheries and all



areas officially recognized as marine or estuarine sanctuaries.  Such distinc-



tive habitats may be relatively abundant in the region of an applicant's



outfall.  If such habitats are potentially affected by the applicant's dis-



charge an assessment of the biological impact is required.



     The scientific literature indicates that many of the distinctive habitats



may be particularly sensitive to outfall discharges.  Johannes  (1975) identi-



fied several mechanisms through which sewage effluents have disrupted coral



reefs.  These include turbidity, elevated phosphate content of the water,



anaerobic sediment conditions, and the stimulation of the growth of algae mats



which suffocate coral.  Zieman  (1975) reviewed several instances in which



sewage wastes have caused or contributed to the disappearance of sea grass



beds.  Murray et al., (1974) found that one of the most obvious effects of a



sewage discharge on the intertidal zone was a great reduction in the normal



overstory provided by brown algae and the spermatophytes.  Carlisle  (1969) and



others have suggested that kelp may not be able to survive in areas affected




                                        53

-------
by particulatss from sewage outfalls.  Meams et al.,  (1977) examined the



relationship between sewage effluents and the disappearance and recovery of



kelp beds in the waters off Southern California.  They concluded that recent



improvements in effluent quality including reductions in suspended solids and



DDT concentrations may have had a beneficial effect on kelp recovery.



     All applicants must document the present spatial distribution of distinc-



tive habitats that might be affected by outfall effluents.  Special attention



should also be given to historic distribution patterns using best available



data.  The impact, if any, of sewage discharges on these patterns should be



described in relation to the structure and function of the affected habitat.



A section 301(h) modification may be denied if it is reasonable to conclude



that the discharge may have contributed to a detrimental effect on such habi-



tats.



     7-7  Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge tray have



          caused or will cause within or beyond the  zone of initial dilution,



          an increased incidence of disease in marine organisms?



     Many studies have suggested a relationship between the incidence of



disease in marine organisms and the effects of sewage effluents.  These dis-



eases include exophthalmia in spotfin croakers, Roncador stearnsil, and white



seabass, Cynoscion nobilis; lip papilloma in white croakers, Genyonemus linea-



tus; and discoloration in halibut, Paralichthys califomucus  (Young, 1964);



fin erosion in fishes of the New York Bight (Mahoney et al., 1973); and fin



erosion in Dover sole, Microstcnvos pacificus  (Mearns et al., 1974; McDermott-



Ehrlich et al., 1977).



     It is unreasonable to expect applicants to provide information about the



incidence of every disease in all marine species.  However/ as a minimum, each



applicant should address the occurrence of diseases in the benthic or demersal
                                        54

-------
connunity with an emphasis on fishes of cormercial or recreational signifi-



cance.  The biological conditions summary should contain an analysis of the



frequency of occurrence of external disease symptoms in derrersal species.



Such symptoms include fin or exoskeletal erosion, tumors, lesions, discolora-



tions, exophthalmia, hemorrhages, spinal or other structural abnormalities,



and heavy ectoparasite infestations.



     A statistical comparison should be trade for disease frequencies at the



outfall site and at an appropriate control area.  Because derrersal species are



highly mobile, selection of control areas for disease comparisons should



preclude the possibility of frequent mixing of individuals.  Applications



normally will be rejected if there is a statistically significant increase in



the frequency of disease in the vicinity of the outfall.



     7-8  Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge may have



          caused or will cause an abnormal body burden of any toxic rraterial in



          marine organisms collected within or beyond the zone of initial



          dilution?



     Bioaccumulation of chlorinated hydrocarbons and trace metals has been



reported in marine organisms collected near sewage outfalls off Southern



California.  Affected species included the Dover sole, microstomus pacificus;



rock crab, Cancer anthonyi; mussel, Mytilus californianus; and rock scallop,



Hinites multirugosus (Southern California Coastal Water Resources Project,



1500 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo, California, annual reports).  In a



field experiment, Young et al.,  (1976)  placed uncontaminated mussels on the



seabed near a major outfall.  After thirteen weeks the mussels had accumulated



DDT and PCBs above control concentrations by factors of 200 and 60 respec-



tively.



                                   55

-------
     Increased body burdens of toxic materials in marine organisms exposed to



sewage effluents may adversely impact the affected species and contaminate



marine food webs, which lead ultimately to man.  An applicant for a section



301(h) modified permit must address this problem if there is evidence, from



field surveys or effluent concentrations  (present or historical), that the



outfall area may be contaminated with any toxic substance.



     In the case of an oceanic discharge, bioaccumulation within the ZID would



constitute an unacceptable impact if it resulted in the contamination of



commercial or recreational fisheries, or if it caused adverse ecological



impacts beyond the ZID.  In the case of a saline estuarine discharge, appli-



cants must also demonstrate that bioaccumulation does not cause adverse eco-



logical impacts within the ZID  (see section P7(C)(3)(ii), above).



     7-9  Is there reason to believe the applicant's discharge may have caused



          or will cause adverse effects on commercial or recreational



          fisheries within or beyond the zone of initial dilution?



     Tsai (1975) reviewed the literature on the specific effects of sewage



effluents and cited many examples in which fisheries have been adversely



affected or destroyed by sewage pollution.  Protection of these resources is



one of the primary objectives of the section 301(h) regulation.



     Applicants must indicate the presence and distribution of fishery stocks,



 (molluscan, epibenthic crustacean, demersal and pelagic fisheries) in the



outfall area.  If significant recreational or coranercial fishing effort is



present, the effects of the outfall must be analyzed in relation to the market



acceptability of the catch and the condition of fishery populations.  The



analysis of the market acceptability of the catch should consider the bioac-



cumulation of toxicants, presence of human pathogens, and the appearance and



quality of the catch, like size, discolorations, disease symptoms, and other



                                    56

-------
aesthetic considerations.  The impact of the discharge on the local fishery



should be examined in relation to catch records, changes in size frequency,



attraction of fishes or invertebrates to the outfall, the distribution of



fishing, breeding and spawning grounds, migratory pathways, closure of fishing



grounds, and any other factors that might affect fishery productivity.



     7-10 Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge may have



          caused or will cause mass mortality of fishes or invertebrates due to



          atypical growth of marine algae, anoxia or other conditions within



          or beyond the zone of initial dilution?



     Tsai (1975) cited numerous reports of mass fish kills or other destruc-



tion of fisheries by DO deficiency in estuarine and coastal water due to



decomposition of organic matter in sewage, or decomposition of algae after



massive blooms.  Clearly, such kills are unacceptable and if they have or may



continue to occur in the vicinity of an outfall, a section 301(h) modified



permit may be denied.



     7-11 Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge may have



          caused or will cause adverse ecological impacts either within



          or beyond the zone of initial dilution other than those addressed



          in the preceding questions?  If so, please explain.



     The previous questions do not identify all of the potential detrimental



impacts that an outfall discharge might have on marine ecosystems.  Unique



conditions at individual outfalls may require additional biological assess-



ments.  The purpose of question 7-11 is to ask the applicant to consider



whether such assessments are necessary.  If further study is warranted the



applicant must include appropriate ecological analyses in the biological



conditions summary.



                                   57

-------
     The following question must be answered by applicants who propose a



discharge into stressed waters.



     7-12 Is there reason to believe that the applicant's discharge has con-



          tributed to or will perpetuate adverse ecological alterations




          resulting from other sources of pollution?



     The claim of discharge into stressed waters does not relieve the appli-



cant from his responsibility to demonstrate that his discharge allcws for



protection of a SIP.  In this case, the 31? demonstration requires both direct



comparison and predictions of further ecological conditions if pollution from



other sources increases, remains the sane or decreases.



     In answering this question, the applicant must describe the extent of



ecological alterations due to other pollution sources affecting environmental



conditions in the vicinity of the applicant's discharge and determine whether



his discharge has in any way contributed to, or perpetuated such alterations.



The applicant must also predict the effects his discharge will have on the



further degradation or recovery of ecological conditions if the level of



pollution from other sources increases, remains the same or decreases.



     The following question must be answered only by applicants who propose to



improve their discharge in order to quality for a section 301 (h) modified permit.



     7-13 Will the proposed improvement eliminate adverse ecological impacts



          attributable to the applicant's existing discharge?



     In answering this question the applicant must describe the nature and



degree of ecological alterations due to the existing discharge and demonstrate



that the proposed improvement will eliminate adverse ecological alterations.



If the proposed improvement includes relocation of the outfall, the applicant



must describe ecological conditions at both the old and ne^ outfall sites.



The surveys at the old site are necessary because the comparison of conditions



                                   58

-------
at the two sites is a key point in the applicant's demonstration of protection




of a BIP at the new site.
                                   59

-------
                            V.  MONITORING PROGRAM







A.   General



     A monitoring program must be implemented by those POIWs that are granted



a modified permit under section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act of 1977.  This



program must be implemented upon issuance of a section 301 (h) nxxiified permit



and, according to the Act, must ironitor the impact of the applicant's



discharge on a representative sample of aquatic biota, to the ex-tent practicable.




     EPA's interpretation of the monitoring requirement calls for:



          a biological monitoring program;



          a program for monitoring compliance with State water quality stand-



          ards; and




          a toxics control monitoring program.



     Furthermore, it is expected that the design of the monitoring programs



will reflect an understanding of the flow and characteristics of the appli-




cant's discharge, the nature and variability of the receiving waters and their



associated ecosystems, and the potential impacts that might ensue.  As such,



monitoring programs for small discharges to well-flushed waters need not be as



elaborate as for large discharges to waters characterized by relatively less



dispersive energy.  The discretion has been left to the applicant assuming he



is most familiar with a particular situation; however, it is fully expected



that the monitoring program for higher risk situations will be more extensive.



High risk situations include the presence of industrial wastes, discharges to
                                   60

-------
stressed waters or to critical habitats such as spawning or nursery areas, and



the presence of migratory pathways or highly productive fisheries.



     It is the responsibility of the applicant to design a monitoring system



that is compatible with its unique situation and is based upon statistical



principles.  The sampling locations and frequencies must be chosen to



discern important changes with a low probability of either false negatives



(deciding there is not a problem where, in fact, there is) or false positives



(deciding there is a problem where, in fact, there is not).  The monitoring



program must include a description of quality control activities.







B.   Biological Monitoring



     As noted in the regulation, the biological monitoring program shall



provide data adequate to evaluate the impact of the applicant's discharge on



the indigenous marine biota; specifically, the program should provide an



indication of the continued presence of a balanced, indigenous population.  As



such, it should continue to substantiate the claims made in the application.



It should also be responsive to the basis for application, meeting the monitor-



ing requirements for a current discharge or an improved discharge, as follows



(from the regulation) :



     1.   A current discharge:  The biological monitoring program shall be



          designed to demonstrate that the discharge currently complies and



          will continue to comply throughout the term of the modified permit



          with the requirements of section 125.61(c)(1).



     2.   An improved discharge other than outfall relocation:  The biological



          monitoring program shall be designed to collect baseline data on the



          current impact of the discharge, to monitor the impact of the dis-
                                     61

-------
charge as improvements are completed, and, upon completion of all



improvements, to demonstrate that the discharge complies with the



requirements of section 125.61(c)(1).



     3.   An improved discharge involving outfall relocation:  The biological



          monitoring shall be conducted at the relocation site and at the



          current discharge site until that discharge ceases.  The biological



          monitoring program at the current discharge site must be designed to



          measure the impact of the discharge as the toxics control program is



          implertented and any upgrading of treatment is completed.  The bio-



          logical monitoring program at the relocation site shall be designed



          to collect baseline data for a minimum of one year, to monitor the



          impact of the discharge as improvements other than outfall relocation



          are completed, and, upon completion of all improvements, demonstrate



          that the discharge complies with the requirements of section 125.61



          (c) (1).



     The minimum requirement of the biological monitoring program is a struc-



tural analysis of benthic macro faunal assemblages both'within and iitrnadiateiy



beyond the ZID and at an appropriate reference site.  It is particularly



important that the monitoring design be adequate to indicate any spatial or



temporal changes in these comtunities that might be attributable to the dis-



charge; it is thus of equal importance for the sake of ccnparison that natural



spatial and temporal variabilities be defined.  Natural spatial variabilities



should have been defined in the application.  The structural analysis should



include several measures such as species composition, abundance  (number/unit



area), trophic position and biomass  (weight/unit area) of dominant organisms,



dominance and species diversity.  While the most appropriate description of
                                   62

-------
community structure may vary between ccntnunities and habitats, the structural



concept is discussed by the Food and Agricultural Organization  (1976), Copeland



et ai., (1971), and Saunders  (1968).



     Holme et al., (1971) and Swartz (1978) reviewed sampling and analytical



techniques for the macrobenthos.  If the applicant's monitoring program in-



cludes other cottnunities, the following reviews should also be consulted:



phyroplankton  (Stofan et al., 1978), zooplankton  (Jacobs et al., 1978), demersal



fishes (M2ams et al., 1978), and intertidal assemblages  (Gorov et al., 1979).



Field and laboratory methods of Weber  (1973) are also recommended.



     The applicant may consider it particularly advantageous to continue



monitoring at an abandoned site as an aid  to evaluation of the inerits of his



case when the 5 year term of the 301(h) modified permit is Hearing completion.



     Under the biological monitoring requirement, the regulation also calls



for periodic assessments of the condition  of coimercial and recreational



fisheries likely to be affected by the discharge.  It is intended that such



assessments be within the resources of the applicant, however, they must



reflect an understanding of the potential  impacts that may arise  (like closure



of fishing areas, substantial changes in fishing effort, and reductions in



harvest or acceptability of catch).  Unacceptability of fishery resources



might result from aesthetic factors such as a preponderance of small fish,



abnormal coloring, or fish diseases; or from contamination due to human patho-



gens, pollutants, or toxic planktonic species.



     Where the chemical analysis conducted under the toxics control program,



or subsequent chemical analyses conducted  under toxics control monitoring,



identifies any toxic pollutants or pesticides in the applicant's discharge,
                                   63

-------
the monitoring program shall also include an assessment of the accumulation of



identified toxicants in the biota and in the sediments.  Where analysis of the



sediments indicates the existence of elevated or increasing levels of such



toxicants, then the biological monitoring program shall be designed to detect



the impact of the identified substances and their bioaccumulation within, at a



minimum, the macrofaunal benthos.



     To determine whether identified toxic pollutants have the potential for



accumulating within the food chain, and to check the efficiency of the toxics



control program, it is required that the monitoring program include the chemi-



cal analysis of identified toxicants or pesticides bioaccumulated by caged



bivalve molluscs placed both within and immediately beyond the ZID and at



appropriate reference site(s).  Bivalve molluscs such as the 'lytilus edulis



are well known concentrators of synthetic and other organic chemicals, heavy



metals, and radionuclides; they rapidly assimilate such contaminants and



slowly release them upon exposure to cleaner waters  (Goldberg 1975, 1978;



Young et. al., 1976).  Time scales involved for uptake and release are on the



order of weeks.  Such caged studies should use at least one species of a



filter feeding bivalve mollusc, preferably mussels or oysters.  Furthermore,



all indicator species should be of carmen origin and screened for levels and



variabilities of toxic residues prior to immersion.  Test organisms should be



placed near the seabed and at appropriate depths in the water column that are



reflective of current and water characteristics of the immediate receiving



waters and of the most likely dispersive path of the discharge  (see Young et



al., 1976).



     If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of EPA that it is



not practicable to place caged animals within the receiving environment, then
                                   64

-------
a suitable alternative should be proposed that satisfies the objectives of




this element of the monitoring program.  This might include laboratory flow-



through systems utilizing bivalve molluscs or chemical analysis of species



collected from the field that are representative of identified critical path-



ways for contaminants.



     The bioaccumulation studies must examine those toxic pollutants found in



the effluent which are most likely to accumulate in organisms.  Suggested



analytical procedures for such studies are found in Goldberg  (1976), Edwards



(1973), Wolfe (1977), Young et al.,  (1976) and EPA/Corps of Engineers  (1977).



Other data to be collected at the end of the iranersion period should include



mortality, growth in shell length, and grossly abnormal appearance (such as



gaping of valves, external lesions, discoloration).



     To re-emphasize, the bioaccumulation studies have two primary objectives:



(1) to monitor the potential for transfer of toxic pollutants and pesticides



into and through the food chain; and  (2) to monitor the effectiveness of the



toxics control program.








C.   Water Quality 'tonitoring



     The water quality monitoring program shall provide data adequate to



evaluate the applicant's compliance with applicable State water quality stan-



dards, taking into account critical environmental periods  (like runoff, spawn-



ing periods for fish and shellfish, and unusual oceanographic and meteoro-



logical events) and variability of the discharge anticipated during the term



of the modified permit.  A secondary objective of water quality monitoring is



to gather information necessary to gauge the impacts on the marine environment.



The primary use of this information is to ensure that no water quality-related



                                     65

-------
degradation occurs around the discharge site as a result of the issuance of



a 301(h) modified permit and to enable timely corrective measures to be



taken should degradation occur.



     The water quality monitoring program should be sufficient to determine



compliance with State water quality standards at and beyond the ZID.  In



situ measurements of such variables are probably the most convenient and



desirable where they can be made.  State standards may specify certain proce-



dures, and EPA-recommended methods should be considered.  At any rate, tech-



niques must be accepted by EPA and, where appropriate, follow those specified



in the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and



Waste Water" by the American Public Health Association.  Any method that



deviates from accepted standard methods should be discussed from the standpoint



of advantages, efficiency and intercomparison with standard methods.



     The applicant must demonstrate how the sampling program takes into account



the variable location of the waste water drift flow as it crosses the boundary



of the ZID.



     Time of sarcpling in estuaries is critical to an understanding of the



transport of pollutants relative to the outfall location, in order to minimize



the effects of currents on a given sampling period.  Slack tide sampling



should be attempted at all times.  NQAA tide tables may be used if allowance



is made for interpolation or extrapolation of tide table values at different



locations than the outfall.  Care must be exercised in station-keeping



relative to the ZID and field records on ship drift, meteorological conditions,



and runoff conditions prevailing at the time of monitoring.
                                  66

-------
Toxics Control Monitoring



     A toxics control monitoring program is required to monitor the effective-



ness of the toxics control program that is to be implemented under section



125.64 of the 301(h) regulation.  This part of the monitoring program must



provide data on the chemical composition of the applicant's discharge and



its variability in time.  In addition to checking the effectiveness of the



applicant's toxic control program, these data should be used to:  (13 assist



the implementation of the toxics control program; and (2) guide the biological



monitoring efforts.



     At a minimum the toxics control monitoring program shall provide for a



chemical analysis of representative wet and dry weather discharges,  average



discharges, and unusual conditions related to intermittent discharges from



particular industries.  Statistical design is of particular importance espe-



cially if one is to detect the occurrence of unusual conditions, necessitating



a somewhat random element of the sampling design.  Such principles are



discussed by Berthouex et al.,  (1975).



     The toxics control monitoring should also comprise sampling and chemical



analysis of both the influent and effluent, the influent being a better indica-



tor of the effectiveness of the toxics control program and the effluent indi-



cating what is actually discharged to receiving waters.
                                        67

-------
                                 Bibliography



Abraham, G.  1963.  Jet diffusion in stagnant ambient fluid.  Delft Hydraulics




     Publication No. 29, Delft, Netherlands.



Abraham, G.  1971.  The flow of round buoyant jets issuing vertically into



     ambient fluid flowing in a horizontal direction.  Delft Hydraulics Publi-



     cation No. 81, Delft, Netherlands.



American Public Health Association, 1975.  Standard Methods for the Examina-



     tion of Water and Wastewater, 14th edition.



Anger, K.  1975.  On the influence of savage pollution on inshore benthic



     conmunities in the south of Kiel Bay.  Part 2. Quantitative studies on



     catrounity structure.  Helgolander wiss.  J'teeresunters 27:408-438.



Austin, R. W.  1973.  Problems in measuring turbidity as a water quality



     parameter.  In:  Proc. Sem. Msth. for l-tanit. Mar. Env.  EPA Env. J.Jonit.



     Series EPA-600/4-74-004, pp. 23-54.



Baumgartner, D. J. and D. S. Trent,  1970.  Ocean outfall design:  Part I.



     Literature review and theoretical development.  U.S. Dept. of Int.,



     Federal Water Quality Adm.   (NTIS No. PB-203 749).



Baumgartner, D. J., D. S. Trent, and K. V. Byram, 1971.  User's guide and



     documentation for outfall plume model.  U.S. Environmental Protection



     Agency, Pac. N.W. Water Lab.  Working Paper No. 80.  Corvallis, Oregon.



      (NTIS No. PB 204-577/BA) .



Bendat, J. S. and A. G. Piersol,  1966.  Measurement and analysis of random




     data.  John Wiley and Sons, New York, 390 pp.
                                   68

-------
Berthouex, P. M. and W. G. Hunter, 1975.  Treatment plant monitoring pro-



     grams:  A preliminary analysis.  J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 48(8):



     2143-2156.



Boesch, D. F.  1977.  Application of numerical classification in ecological



     investigations of water pollution.  U.S. Environ. ?rot. Ag. Ecol. Pas.



     Ser. EPA-600/3-77-033.  114 pp.



Briggs, G. A.  1969.  Plume rise.  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge



     Tennessee.   (OTIS No. TID-25075).



Brooks, N. H.  1973.  Dispersion in hydrologic and coastal environments,



     EPA-660/3-73-010.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Corvallis,



     Oregon.



Callaway, R. J., A. M. Teeter, D. W. Browne and G. R. Ditsworth.  1976.



     Preliminary analysis of the dispersion of sewage sludge discharged from



     vessels to Ne// York bight Waters.  Amer. Soc. Limn. Ocean. Spec. Symp.



     Vol. 2, pp. 199-211.



Carlisle, J. G., Jr.  1969.  Results of a six-year trawl study in an area of



     heavy waste discharge:  Santa Monica Bay, California.  Calif. Fish Game



     55:26-46.



Cederwall, K.  1971.  Buoyant slot jets into stagnant or flowing environment.



     Cal. Inst. of Tech., Keck Lab.  Report No. KH-R-25.  Pasadena, Calif-



     ornia.



Chen, C. W., D. J. Smith, J. D. Jackson and J. D. Hendrick.  1975.  Organic



     sediment model for wastewater outfall.  Proceedings of the Symposium on



     Modeling Techniques, San Francisco, ASCE, September, 1975.



Copeland, B. J., and T. J. Bechtel.  1971.  Species diversity and water qual-



     ity in Galveston Bay, Texas.  Water, Air and Soil Pollution 1:89-105.
                                        69

-------
Davis, L.R.  1975.  Analysis of multiple cell mechanical draft cooling towers.




     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Environ. Res. Lab.



     EPA-660/3-75-039.  Corvallis, Oregon.



Davis, L. R. and M. A. Shirazi.  1978.  A review of thermal plume modeling.



     Keynote address.  In:  Proceedings of the Sixth International Heat Trans-



     fer Conf., ASME, Aug. 6-11, 1978, Toronto, Canada.



Doig, M. I. and D, F. Martin.  1974.  The response of Gymnodinium breve to



     municipal waste materials.  Mar. Biol. 24:223-228.



Dunstan, W. M. and D. W. Menzel.  1971.  Continuous cultures of natural popu-




     lations of phytcplankton in diluted, treated savage effluent.  Limnol.



     and Oceanog. 16:623-632.



Dyer, K. R.  1973.  Estuaries:  A physical introduction.  John Wiley: London.



Edwards, C. A.  (ed.).  1973.  Environmental Pollution by Pesticides.  Plenum



     Press, N.Y.  543 pp.




Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers.  1977.  Ecological evalua-



     tion of proposed discharge of dredged material into ocean waters.  U.S.



     Army Waterways Expt. Station, Vicksburg, Miss.



Fan, L. H.  1967.  Turbulent buoyant jets into stratified and flowing ambient



     fluids.  Cal. Inst. Tech., Keck Hydraulics Lab., Rep. No. KH-R-15.



     Pasadena, California.



Food and Agricultural Organization.  1976.  Indices for measuring responses of



     aquatic ecological systems to various human influences, FAQ Tech. Paper




     151.



Goldberg, E. D.   1975.  The mussel watch—A first step in global marine moni-



     toring.  Marine Pollution Bulletin, 6(7).  July 1975.



Goldberg, E. D.  (ed.).  1976.  Strategies for marine pollution monitoring.



     Wiley Interscience Publ., N.Y.  310 p.
                                     70

-------
Conor, J. J. and P. F. Kemp.  1978.  Procedures for quantitative ecological



     assessments in intertidal environments.  U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency Ecol.



     Res. Ser. EPA-6QO/3-78-087.  104 pp.



Grigg, R. W. and R. W. Kiwala.  1970.  Some ecological effects of discharged



     wastes on marine life.  Calif. Fish Game 56:145-155.



Hansen, D. V. and M. Rattray, Jr.  1966.  New dimensions in estuary classifi-



     cation.  Limn. Ocean. 11:319-326.



Hirst, E. A.  1971a.  Analysis of round, turbulent, buoyant jets discharged



     into flowing stratified ambients.  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak



     Ridge Nat. Lab., Rep. ORNL-4685.  Oak Ridge, Tennessee.



Hirst, E. A.  1971b.  Analysis of buoyant jets within the zone of flow estab-



     lishment.  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Rep. N.



     ORNL-TM-3470.  Oak Ridge, Tennessee.



Holme, N. A. and A. D. Mclntyre.  1971.  Methods for the study of marine



     benthos.  IBP Handbook £16.  Blakwell Scientific Publ., Oxford.  334 p.



Home, R. A.  1969.  Marine chemistry.  John Wiley and Sons, Inc.



Jacobs, F. and G. C. Grant.  1978.  Guidelines for zooplankton sampling in



     quantitative baseline and monitoring programs.  U.S. Environ. Prot.



     Agency Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-78-026.  52 p.



Johannes, R. E.  1975.  Pollution and degradation of coral reef communities.



     In Wood, E. J. F. and R. E. Johannes (ed.), Trophical Marine Pollution,



     p. 13-51.  Elsevier Oceanography Series No. 12, Amsterdam.



Kanneberg, L. D. and L. R. Davis.  1976.  An experimental/analytical investi-



     gation of deep submerged multiple buoyant jets.  U.S. Environmental



     Protection Agency, Corvallis, Environ.  Res. Lab.  EPA-600/3-76-001,



     Corvallis, Oregon.
                                  71

-------
Koh, R. C. and L. N. Fan.  1970.  Mathematical models for the prediction of



     tenperature distribution resulting from the discharge of heated water in



     large bodies of water.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Poll.



     Cont. Res. Series Rep. 1613 ODWO/70.



Littler, M. M. and S. N. Murray.  1975.  Impact of sewage on the distribution,



     abundance and community structure of rocky intertidal macrcorganisms.



     Mar. Biol. 30:277-291.



Mahoney, J. B., F. H. Midlige, and D. G. Deuel.  1973.  A fin rot disease of



     marine and euryhaline fishes in the New York Bight.  Trans. Amer. Fish.



     Sec. 102:596-605.



McDermDtt-Ehrlich, D. J., et al.  1977.  Chlorinated hydrocarbons in Dover



     sole, Microstcmus pacificus:  Local migrations and fin erosion.  Fish.



     Bull. 75:513-517.




McNulty, J. K.  1970.  Effects of abatement of domestic sewage pollution on



     the benthos, volumes of zooplankton, and the fouling organisms of Bis-



     cayne Bay, Florida.  Studies in Trop. Oceanog. No. 9 Coral Gables, FL.



Mearns, A. J. and M. J. Allen.   1978.  Use of small otter trawls in coastal



     biological surveys.  Environ. Prot. Agency Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-78-083.



     34 p.



Meams, A. J., D. A. Hanan, and  L. Harris.  1977.  Recovery of kelp forest of



     Palos Verdes.  In So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj:99-108.  Annual Report



     1977.  El Segundo, Calif.



Mearns, A. J. and M. Sherwood.   1974.  Environmental aspects of fin erosion



     and tumors in southern California Dover sole.  Trans. Amer. Fish. Sec.



     103:799-810.
                                     72

-------
Middaugh, D. P., J. A. Couch and A. M. Crane.  1977a.  Response of early life




     history stages of the striped bass, Morone sanatilis, to chlorination.



     dies. Sci. 18:141-153.



Middaugh, D. P., A. M. Crane and J. A. Couch.  1977b.  Toxicity of chlorine to



     juvenile spot, Leiostomus xanthurus.  Water. Res. 11:1089-1096.



Morton, B. R., G. I. Taylor and J. S. Turner.  1956.  Turbulent gravitational



     convection from maintained and instantaneous sources.  Proc. of the Royal




     Soc. of London, Vol. A234, pp. 1-23.



Morton, B. R.  1959.  Forced plumes.  J. of Fluid .Mechanics 5:151-163.



Murray, S. N. and M. M. Littler.  1974.  Biological features of intertidal



     communities near the U.S. Navy sewage outfall, Wilson Cove, San Clements,



     California.  NUC-TP396 (Naval Undersea Center, San Diego, Calif.).



National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering.  1974.  Water



     quality criteria, 1972.  U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,



     D.C.



Officer, C. B.  1976.  Physical oceanography of estuaries  (and associated



     coastal waters).  J. Wiley and Sons, New York.  465 pps.



Pritchard, D. W.  1952.  Estuarine Hydrography.  Adv. Geoph. 1:243-280.



Priestley, C. H. B. and F. K. Ball.  1955.  Continuous convection from an



     isolated source of heat.  Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteor. Sec.,



     Vol. 81:144-157.



Roberts, P. J. W.  1977.  Dispersion of Buoyant Waste Water Discharged from



     Outfall Diffusers of Finite Length.  Cal. Inst. of Tech., Keck Lab.



     Report No. KH-R-35.  Pasadena, California.



Rouse, H., C. S. Yih and W. G. Humphreys.  1952.  Gravitational convection



     from a boundary source.  Tellus 4:201-210.
                                      73

-------
Saunders, H. L.  1968.  Marine benthic diversity:  A comparative study, Ameri-




     can Naturalist 102(925):243-282.



Smith, R. W. and C. S. Greene.  1976.  Biological communities near submarine



     outfall.  Journ. Wat. Poll. Contr. Fed. 48:1894-1912.



Smith, S. V., K. E. Chave, and D. T. 0. Kam.  1973.  Atlas of Kaneohe Bay:  A



     reef ecosystem under stress.  UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TR-72-01   (Univ. of Hawaii,



     Honolulu, Hawaii).



Sotil, C. A.  1971.  Computer program for slot buoyant jets into stratified



     ambient environments.  Cal. Inst. of Tech., Keck Lab. Tech. r-Semo 71-2.



     Pasadena, California.



Stofan, P. E. and G. C. Grant.  1978.  Phytoplankton sampling in quantitative



     baseline and monitoring programs.  U.S. Environ. Prot. Ag. Scol. Res.



     Ser. EPA-600/3-77-033.  83 p.



Stunm, W. and J. T. Morgan.  1970.  Aquatic chemistry.  John Wiley and Sons,



     Inc.




Swartz, R. C.  1978.  Techniques for sampling and analyzing the marine macro-



     benthos.  U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-78-030.



     26 p.



Taylor, D. L.  1978.  Invertebrate biology, coral reef ecology and coral



     metabolism.  In_ S.E. Fla. Ocean Outfall Study Interim Progress Report



     Nov. 1976-Jan.  1978.   (Univ. of Miami, Coral Gables, FL).



Teeter, A. M. and D. J. Baumgartner.  1979.  Predictions of initial dilution



     for municipal ocean discharges.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,



     Corvallis Environmental Res. Lab. Pub. No.043, Corvallis, Oregon.



Thomann, R. V.  1972.  Systems analysis and water quality management.  Env.




     Res. and Applic., Inc., New York, 286 pp.
                                      74

-------
Tsai, C.  1975.  Effects of sewage treatment plant effluents on fish:  A



     Review* of the Literature.  Univ. of Md. Ctr. for Environ, and Estuarine




     Studies Contrib. No. 637.   (Also CPC Publ. No. 36).



Turner, C. H., E. E. Ebert and R. R. Given.  1966.  The marine environment in



     the vicinity of the Orange County sanitation district's ocean outfall.



     Calif. Fish Gams 52:28-48.




U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1974.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of



     Water and Wastes.  EPA-625/6-74-003.



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1976.  Quality criteria for water, July



          1976.  USEPA, Washington, D.C.



Wang, D. P. and A. J. Elliott.   1978.  Non-tidal variability in the Chesapeake



     Bay and Potomac River:  Evidence for non-local forcing.  J. Phy. Ocean.



     8(2):225-282.



Ward, G. H. and W. H. Epsey  (ed.).  1971.  Estuarine modeling:  An assessment.



     EPA =16070, DZV 02/71.  Washington, D.C.



Weber, C. I.  (ed.).  1973.  Biological field and laboratory methods for meas-



     uring the quality of surface waters and effluents..  EPA Envir. lion. Ser.



     670/4-73-001.



Winiarski, L. D. and W. E. Frick.  1976.  Cooling tower plume model.  U.S.



     Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Environ. Res. Lab.  EPA-600/



     3-76-100.  Corvallis, Oregon.



Winiarski, L. D. and W. E. Frick.  1978.  Methods of improving plume models.



     Presentation at Cooling Tower Environ.—1978, Univ. of Maryland, College



     Park, Maryland.



Winter, D. F.  1977.  Studies of circulation and primary production in deep



     inlet environments.  EPA Ecol. Res. Ser. 600/3-77-049.  100 pp.



                                        75

-------
Wolfe, D. A.  (ed.}.  1977.  Fate and effects of petroleum hydrocarbons in




     marine ecosystems and organisms.  Pergainon Press, N.Y.  478 p.



Wood, E. J., Jr., and R. E. Johannes.  1975.  Tropical marine pollution.



     Elsevier Oceanograph Series No. 12, Amsterdam.



Word, J. Q., B. L. iWers, and A. J. Meams.  1977.  Animals that are indica-



     tors of marine pollution.  In So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj. 199-206.




     Annual Report 1977.  El Segundo, Calif.



Young, D. R., T. C. Heesen, and D. J. McDermott.  1976.  An Offshore biononi-



     toring system for chlorinated hydrocarbons.  .Mar. Poll. Bull.  7:156-159.



Young, P. H.  1964.  Some effects of sewer effluent on marine life.  Calif.



     Fish Gam, 50:33-41.



Zieman, J. C.  1975.  Tropical sea grass ecosystems and pollution.  In Wood,



     E. J., Jr., and R. E. Johannes  (ed.).  Tropical Marine Pollution:63-74.



     Elsevier Oceanograph Ser. No. 12, Amsterdam.
                                       76

-------