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
------- |