[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Alk EA ENGINEERING, "V,& SCIENCE, AND A -- TECHNOLOGY INC. I I EA Report BTC81A FINAL BALTIMORE COUNTY WATER DEPENDENT FACILITY PLAN/ Prepared for Baltimore County, Maryland Office of Planning and Zoning County Courts Building 401 Bosley Avenue Towson, Maryland 21204 Prepared by EA, Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 15 Loveton Circle Sparks, Maryland March 1988 Property of CSC Library CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR WATER DEPENDENT FACILITIES 2.1 Approach 2.2 Project Review Steps 2.3 Expanded Outline 3. PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING EVALUATION 3.1 Screening Factors 3.2 Aquatic Concerns 3.3 Terrestrial Concerns 3.4 Informational Requirements for Applicant Submittal 4. DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.1 Water Quality Concerns 4.2 Best Management Practices 4.3 Rating System 5. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS 5.1 Summary 5.2 Agency Responsibilities and Guidelines 5.2.1 Federal Agencies 5.2.2 State Agencies 6. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX A: MARYLAND RECEIVING WATER STANDARDS APPENDIX B: FEDERAL SURFACE WATER QUALITY APPENDIX C: EPA ANALYTICAL METHODS APPENDIX D: FLUSHING RATES AND STEADY STATE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX E: SIMPLE ONE DEMENSIONAL KINEMATIC MODEL RESULTS FOR THE BUSH RIVER AND ROMNEY CREEK 1. INTRODUCTION The 1984 session of the Maryland State Legislature enacted the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law in recognition that land uses near the water's edge have important water quality and halSitat consequences. This landmark legislation designated the Criteria Area, required interim findings, established a Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, and mandated the Commission to promulgate Criteria that would guide tidewater jurisdica- tions in the development of local Critical Area Plans. The Criteria, with minor amendments, were adopted as regulations under COMAR 14.15.01 through 14.15.09 in 1986. Section 14.15.03 requires that local jurisdictions develop a process for approving new or expanded water-dependent facilities within the Critical Area. Water-dependent facilities are defined as those structures or works associated with industrial, maritime, recreational, educational or fisheries activities that require location at or near the water's edge. Water-dependent activities, by definition, cannot exist outside the Buffer and are dependent on the water owing to the intrinsic nature of their operations. This report presents Baltimore County's response to the local plan requirements for water-dependent facilities. It provides a comprehensive and integrated decision-making system for the review of water-dependent facility construction within the County. The plan includes an objective review process, integrates state and federal regulatory guidelines appli- cable to water-related development activity and recommends elements of"an implementation program. Development pressure along Baltimore County's shoreline has been very intense. One method to assess the intensity of development along the shoreline is to review Army Corps of Engineer's (ACOE) activity under their Section 10/404 permit authority. A survey of over 7,000 Corps permits granted in the Chesapeake Bay region between 1773 and 1979 provides valuable insights into the nature of water-related development activity in Baltimore County (Eberhart and Dolan, 1979). The Baltimore District granted 577 permits in Baltimore County during that six-year period which translates to a density index of 3.22 permits per mile of shoreline, second only to Anne Arundel County. Most other jurisdications showed a range of permit activity between .5 and 2.0 permits per mile of shoreline. The high density of projects approved along Baltimore County's waterways is especially significant when one considers that most development activities occurred in Middle River and Back River. An earlier study on the development pressures along the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline stated that Anne Arundel, Talbot, and Baltimore Counties were under the greatest pressure for alterations of their shorelines. Between them they accounted for 55.2 percent of the total number of 1983 Maryland Corps applications (Eberhart 1974). Clearly, the need is present to implement a water-dependent facility plan for Baltimore County which will ensure that future activities will minimize the individual and cumulative impacts on water quality and the remaining natural habitat in the Criti cal Area. This report is intended to provide a planning tool to County staff responsible for the review of applications for new or expanded water- dependent Facilities. It may, however, also provide guidance to devel- opers on the initial selection and evaluation of potential sites for water-dependent uses. The proper selection of a site is clearly one of most important aspects of developing a water-dependent facility in an environmentally sound manner. 1-2 2. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR WATER-DEPENDENT FACILITIES 2.1 APPROACH One of the major objectives of this report is to delineate a review process for water-dependent facilities which is objective and one which permits a thorough evaluation of the major community planning and envi- ronmental issues. Section 2.2 describes, in an expanded outline format, the basic steps involved in evaluating a specific proposal for a water- dependent facility. It incorporates the many definitions, conditions, conservation and performance requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Criteria that are applicable to water-dependent facilities. By proceeding through the decision matrix steps, I through VI, the reviewer is able to determine: whether this review process applies to the proposed activity; the class of water-dependent facility proposed; whether the activity is permitted, regulated, or prohibited, and, identifies condi- tions and conservation requirements that apply to the proposed activity. Once the requirements have been identified, Section 3.0 describes a preliminary evaluation process that is used to determine the sites overall suitability for a proposed water-dependent facility. The Water-Dependent Facilities Review Process is structured to facilitate two levels of review: a preliminary site screening evaluation; and, a detailed environmental assessment. The first level of review identifies the major community planning issues and environmental concerns associated with the proposed activity and is consistent with the level of detail necessary for the County to determine it's position at the special exception hearing. The detailed environmental assessment would follow special exception approval and provides sufficient information for the County to prepare a findings of fact for the County Review Group (CRG). In instances where a special exception is not required for a particular use, the two-tier system is still useful in identifying issues and evaluating solutions or mitigation. The preliminary evaluation is a means to screen out proposals which will generate unacceptable impacts to the natural resources or water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. Many of the factors listed in the preliminary site screening evaluation reflect permit issues considered in the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) permitting process. Others reflect issues of special concern to Baltimore County or to the State of Maryland and represent unique problems associated with the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, the preliminary evaluation flags those issues which are suitable for resolution or mitigation during the second level of review. This approach assumes that not every environmental impact can be resolved or mitigated and, we believe, provides a realistic perspective on the complex of local, state and federal regulations which affect permitting decisions for water-dependent facilities. In order for the County to make a findings of fact required by the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law, requires an intensive review of environmental baseline data, site plan 2-1 and Proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs). Without a two-phased review, these requirements place a significant financial burden on the applicant who has little idea whether his proposal will be approved. The preliminary evaluation can inform applicants early in the review process that it is highly unlikely that his or her project will receive local approval or that the applicant has some assurance that the additional expense of time and funds will lead to an approvable project. The key step in the preliminary evaluation requires the reviewer to determine the intensity of impact of the proposed project in twelve environmental issue areas. The reviewer must then choose, in most cases, between three levels of impact: unacceptable; moderate/undetermined; or minimal/resource not present. Where feasible, definable parameters for determining severity of impact are incorporated into the review process. The information required of the applicant for the preliminary evaluation includes the applicant's response to these twelve environmental issue areas, in addition to the conceptual site plan, existing conditions map and a regional context map. The applicant is required to submit an environmental assessment report describing the plant and wildlife habitats identified on the existing conditions map and incorporating the analysis of potential environmental impacts to the na-tural resources and water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. A complete list of information required at the first level review can be found in Table XX. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 describe aquatic and terrestrial concerns associated with water-related development activity, identifies informational sources and clarifies the ecological inventory requirements listed in Table XX. The natural features information should include a description of the existing conditions for both the upland portion of the site and the adjacent aquatic system. In order for this two-stage review process to be effective, requires the bulk of the natural features inventory to be compiled during the first level review. A site investigation which includes identification of dominant plant species and verification of any potential rare and endangered species is mandatory. The second level of review is a more detailed environmental assessment of the major issues that have been flagged at the first level of review. Projects reaching the second level of review are generally assumed to be viable projects unless particular environmental impacts or a combination of factors are found to be unresolvable through best management practices or mitigation. The Phase II review builds on the environmental baseline data that was provided during the preliminary evaluation. In instances where the environmental impact could not be adequately addressed during the preliminary evaluation more detailed field information may be required. Stormwater management practices provide an example of the differences in the type of information required during the first and second levels of review. During the preliminary site evaluation, the requirements for stormwater management are conceptual. The applicant must show the 2-2 proposed location for he slormwa,er management facility, must determine whether infiltration is appropriate, or whether a retention/detention structures will be utilized. Information required for the second level of review would include: projected non-point source loadings; final engineering specifications; sediment control practices. The key step in the detailed environmental assessment involves the application of an objective and consistent rating system to each proposal that comes before the County Review Group. The rating system addresses the cumulative impacts of a water-related project on the environment by assigning points to the entire set of natural resources of concern to Baltimore County. Much of the review conducted for the County Review Group is technical in nature and involves an evaluation of the engineering alternatives to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the construction and operation of water-dependent facilities. Section 4.2 describes BMPs for upland and water-related development activities. The rating system also attempts to address the cumulative impacts of additional water-dependent facilities by assigning a weighted factor for poor existing water quality and a similarly weighted factor for poor flushing characteristics in the adjacent estuarine subarea. The latter acknowledges the importance of flushing characteristics in concentrating pollutants from a number of water-related development activities. Currently there are 78 marinas, boat yards, or yacht clubs located along Baltimore County's waterways. These facilities alone contain over 5,000 boat slips. Many of the water-dependent applications that Baltimore County will receive will be for expansion of existing facilities. This is especially true when one considers the restrictions on new water- dependent facilities in the Resource Conservation Area. For significant expansions of'water-dependent facilities, the tvo-level review described herein is certainly applicable, however, the County may wish to abbreviate the review process for minor expansion proposals. 2.2 PROJECT REVIEW STEPS I. Is proposed activity located within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area? II. Determine if activity proposed is water dependent. III. Determine type of water-dependent facility. IV. Locate proposed site, determine Critical Area designation. Is the proposed activity permitted, regulated or prohibited by Critical Area designations? 2-3 V. Evaluate whether water-dependent Critical Area requirements have been met. A. Community Piers B. Marinas C. Industrial/Port-Related D. Waterfront Recreation E. All Water-Dependent Facilities VI. Additional upland requirements determined by Critical Areas designation. A. Intensely Developed Area. B. Limited Developed Area. C. Resource Conservation Area. VII. Preliminary Site Screening Evaluation A. Environmental Issues B. Community Planning Issues VIII. Detailed Environmental Assessment 2.3 EXPANDED OUTLINE I. Is proposed activity located within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area? If affirmative - proceed to II If not - activity does not fall under this review process. II. Determine if activity proposed is Water-Dependent. Does the proposed activity require location at or near the shoreline? If the proposed activity can exist outside the Buffer and is not dependent on the water intrinsically than it is not a water dependent facility and is not permitted in the Buffer. If activity is water dependent - proceed to III. If activity is not water dependent - it is prohibited in the Buffer unless Buffer exemption pursued (see COMAR 14.15.09) 2-4 Determine Type of Water Dependent Facility. A. Private Piers Is activity an individual pier, privately owned or maintained by riparian landowner and not part of subdivision providing community piers. If activity is individual pier - than exempt from water-dependent facilities approval process. If activity is not a individual pier - continue to B. B. Community Piers The definition of community piers and other related non- commercial boat docking and storage facilities requires that the facility be under community ownership by residents of a record plat subdivision. Community piers would include boat docking facilities associated with condominium, apartment and other multiple-family dwelling units. Yacht clubs, although sometimes structured to benefit members, will generally fall under C. If community pier - proceed to IV. If not community pier - continue to C. C. Marinas, or Other Commercial Maritime Facilities. Marinas, by Criteria definition, refer to any facility for the moring, berthing, storing of watercraft excluding community piers. Boat building, repair and storage facilities would also be included in this class of water-dependent facilities. If activity proposed is a marina or related maritime facility-proceed to IV. If not - continue to D. D. Industrial and Port-Related Water-Dependent Facilities. Ports, according to Criteria definition, refers specifically to areas established or designated by Baltimore County or the state to promote water-borne commerce, excluding fisheries activities. Any industrial land use activity requiring water access or use such as intake/outfall structures would fall under this category. 2-5 If activity industrial or port-related - proceed to IV. If not - continue to E. E. Waterfront Recreation or Education. The operative determinant for this category is the term public. Includes public beaches, publicly-owned boat launching and docking facilities, fishing piers, and, waterfront passive recreational uses. If activity is a public waterfront use - proceed to IV. If not, continue to F. F. Water-Dependent Research Facilities. Includes County, State and federal research agencies or private educational institutions. If activity is a research facility, the criteria allows activities in the buffer under all three categories (RCA, LDA, IDA). Only requirement is that non-water-dependent structures associated with research activities be located, to the extent possible, outside of the buffer. If not - continue to G. G. Fisheries Related Activities. Commercial water-dependent fisheries facilities would fall into this class and include, fish off-loading docks, crab shedding structures, shellfish culture operations. These fisheries activities may be permitted in the buffer in all three categories (RCA, LDA, IDA). Land and water areas with high aquacultural potential are recommended for protection from water quality degradation by adjacent land and water uses. IV. Locate proposed water dependent facility and determine Critical Area designation. Determine whether the activity is permitted as of right, regulated or prohibited by Chesapeake Bay critical area requirements (see Table 2-1). If activity proposed is prohibited in the Critical Areas designation determined for the site, does the applicant wish: 2-6 TABLE 2-1 LOCATIONAL REQUIRMENTS FOR WATER-DEPENDENT FACILITIES Type of Facility RCA LDA IDA Private Piers P P P Community Piers (a) (new and expanded) C C C New Marinas and Other Commercial X C C Maritime Facilities Expanded Marinas and Maritime Facilities C(b) C C Industrial and Port-Related Facilities(c) X X C (new, expanded or redeveloped) Public Beaches and Other Water-Oriented C C P Recreation Areas (new) Research Areas (new) (d) P P P Fisheries Facilities P P P Key P = proposed activity permitted as-of-right C = allowed if conservation requirements can be met X = Prohibited in specific Critical Area designation (a) Subject to limitations on slip density. (b) Permitted in RCA only if net improvement in water quality can be achieved (c) Non-water d;pendent activities may be allowed in the Buffer only in shoreline areas exempted from the the Buffer requirement. (d) Provided that non-water dependent features are located outside of Buffer. 1. Amend application so that it is in conformance with the Critical Area designation (for example changing site plan from commercial marina to a community pier which may be permitted in RCA). 2. Request change of Critical Area designation which may allow proposed use (if growth allocation permits). If activity is permitted providing specific conditions or conservation requirements are met - proceed to next section. V. Evaluate whether the water-dependent Critical Area requirements have been met. A. Community pier and non-commercial marina (new or expanded facility). 1. Facility may not offer food, fuel, or other goods and services or sale. 2. Sanitary facilities must be shown. 3. Community piers must be part of an existing or proposed riparian subdivision. 4. Disturbance to the Buffer is restricted to the minimum necessary to provide a single point of access to the water dependent facility.* 5. Applicants for riparian subdivisions are strongly urged to utilize community piers for residents over the option of private piers. Incentives should be utilized by the County to discourage private piers. If the applicant proposes community piers - no individual piers would be allowed. 6. The number of slips, piers or moring buoys shown on the site plan cannot exceed the lesser of the following two means of determining the number of slips allowed; 1. One It is important to note that the Buffer is a "floating buffer" and includes areas adjacent to the minimum 1001 Buffer which contain hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and significant habitats. In addition, if step slopes are present in the Buffer, then the Buffer shall be increased 4 feet for each 1% increase in slope greater than 15% or to the top of slope, whichever is greater. For facilities proposed in the RCA designation, the Buffer shall be increased to 300 feet for non-water-dependent facilities. 2-7 slip for each 50 feet of shoreline in the subdivision in the Intense and Limited Development Areas and one slip for each 300 feet of shoreline in the subdivision in the Resource Conservation Area; or 2. Density of slips, piers or moring buoys to platted lots or dwellings within the subdivision in the Critical Area according to the followed 'schedule: Platted Lots or Dwellings in the Critical Area Slips and Morings 1 to 15 One for each lot 16 to 40 15 or 75%, whichever is greater 41 to 100 30 or 50%, whichever is greater 101 to 300 50 or 25%, whichever is greater Over 300 75 or 15%, whichever is greater 7. Are non-water-dependent improvements, insofar as possible, located outside the buffer? Is there any justification for a waiver from the buffer requirements? B. Marinas and Maritime Facilities. 1. Expansion of existing marinas within Resource Conservation Areas can only be allowed if they can show a 10% reduction in pollutant loadings from the marina site. 2. Applications for new marinas must show a means for minimizing the discharge of bottom-wash waters into tidal waters. C. Industrial and Port-Related Water-Dependent Facilities. 1. Each new, expanded, or redeveloped industrial application will be unique and no set of guidelines could be expected to cover the range of potential uses and impacts. Each application will have to be evaluated on the basis of general design criteria found in COMAR 14-15-09 (Habitat Protection requirements) and Section E, described below. D. Public recreational or educational facilities may be located in the Buffer provided that: 1. Adequate sanitary facilities exist; 2. Service facilities, to the extent possible located outside the buffer; 3. Permeable surfaces to the extent practical, if no degradation of groundwater would result; 2-8 4. Disturbance to natural vegetation is minimized; 5. Areas for passive recreation such as nature study, and hunting and trapping and for education, may be permitted in the Buffer within Resource Conservation areas, if service facilities for these uses are located outside of the Buffer. E. All applications for water-dependent facilities must show:. 1. That they are water-dependent. 2. That the project meets a recognized private right or public need; 3. That, insofar as possible, non-water-dependent structures or operations associated with water-dependent projects or activities are located outside the Buffer; 4. That adverse effects on water quality, and fish, plant, and wildlife habitat are minimized. This finding will be based on the following factors: a. That the activities will not significantly alter existing water circulation patterns or salinity regimes; b. That the water body upon which these activities ar4 proposed has adequate flushing characteristics in the area; c. That disturbance to wetlands, submerged aquatic plant beds, or other areas of important aquatic habitats will be minimized; d. Mitigation of pollutant loadings from: upland surface runoff; sewage discharge from landslide or boating activity; bottom-wash and maintenance operations; e. Activities proposed not adversely impact shellfish beds; f. The timing and method of dredging cause the least disturbance to water quality and natural habitat; g. The activities proposed minimize interference with prevailing pattern of littoral drift; h. The activities proposed will not generate a volume of dredged spoils that cannot be handled in an environ- mentally sound manner. Of special concern here is 2-9 whether the location of the proposed facility will require extensive maintenance dredging over the life of the facility and, if so, the applicant should include a long-term plan for the disposal of periodic maintenance dredge spoil. Dredge spoil should not be placed within habitat protection areas or within the minimum 100 foot buffer except under the following conditions: when backfill has been permitted as a shoreline erosion control measure; when dredged spoil is used in an approved vegetative shore erosion project; when placed in an existing or previously approved spoil disposal area. The determination as to whether each application meets policy objectives described above will be made both at first level review and in some circumstances at second lev.el review when more detailed information is needed. For Preliminary Site Screening Evaluation - See Section VII For Detailed Environmental Assessment - See Section VIII VI. Additional upland requirements determined by Critical Areas designation (RCA, LDA, IDA). Site plan review of a water dependent facility must, in additidn to evaluating the requirements above, address the upland aspects of the Critical Area requirements which vary according to the sites, designation as Intensely Developed (COMAR 14.15.02.03), Limited Development (.04) and Resource Conservation Areas (0.5). For some water-dependent facility applications such as a community pier, these concerns will most likely be addressed as part of the Critical Areas review for the associated residential development- and, hence, can be omitted from this review. However, in the example of a commercial marina application, Critical Area Criteria applicable to landside impacts may play an important role in the approval process. This is particularly true for the area of the site outside the Buffer. The following policies and requirements for evaluating landside impacts are not meant to be comprehensive but do address the major concerns that may arise during site plan review of landside activity related to a water-dependent facility applications. A. Intensely Developed Areas. 1. Conserve, to the extent possible, plant and wildlife habitat. Development or redevelopment is subject to habitat protection area criteria (COMAR 14.15.09). 2-10 2. For redevelopment, reduce pollutant loadings by at least 10% below the level of pollution on the site prior to redevelopment, or seek offsets. 3. For new development, reduce pollutant loadings from predevelopment levels by 10%. 4. Where feasible, promote public access to the shoreline. 5. Minimize removal of forest and woodland vegetation. B. Limited Development Areas. 1. Maintain, to the extent practical, existing areas of natural habitat. 2. Maintain the ecological integrity of surface hydrologic features on the site. 3. Incorporate a wildlife corridor system into the site plan which provides continuity of existing wildlife and plant habitats with offsite habitats. 4. If the site has forested areas or developed woodlands and the plan proposes clearing these forests, the following requirements apply: a. Only 20% of the woodland can be cleared. Restricti've covenants are required to protect the remaining woodland. b. The applicant may clear up to 30% of the forested lands, however, he must replace any forest greater than 20% at 1.5 times the surface acreage disturbed. Alternative provisions may include fees-in-lieu. 5. If no forest exist on the site, 15% of the land area shall be aforested. 6. Impervious areas cannot exceed 15% of the site. 7. Development is precluded on slopes greater than 15%, unless the slopes are actively eroding and the development is the only effective way to improve this stability of the slope. 8. Protect Habitat Protection Areas described in COMAR 14.15.09. 2-11 C. Resource Conservation Areas 1. Expansion or new development is subject to habitat protection criteria (COMAR 14.15.09). 2. Overall acreage of forest and woodland in the RCA may not decrease. Applicants must show how areas of cleared forest can be replaced on or offsite or contribute offset payment. 3. Conservation requirements for LDA shall apply to any development activity permitted in RCA. VII. Preliminary Site Screening Evaluation A. Environmental Issues In order for the County to make a findings of fact that the proposed use will minimize adverse effects on water quality and natural resources, a two-level review is proposed. This step represents the first level review and reflects most of the environmental policy objectives described previously in Step V-E. Some of these objectives can be better evaluated- during the second level of review, because more detailed information will be available i.e., the timing and method of dredging and mitigation of upland pollutant loadings. This first level review will generally correspond to the special exception phase of the development review process. 1. Reviewer must evaluate the adequacy of information provided by applicant for first level review (see Table 3.4). 2. Determine the intensity of impact for the 12 environ- mental factors listed below. The Preliminary Site Screening Evaluation procedure is more fully described in Section 3.0. Submerged aquatic vegetation Tidal wetlands Shellfish ueds Rare, threatened, or endangered species Spawning/nursery areas for anadromous fish Shallow water habitat Dredging requirements Filling Dredge spoil disposal Navigation issues Flushing characteristics Existing water quality conditions 2-12 B. Community Planning Issues The special exception hearing before the Hearing Commissioner is the proper forum for addressing community planning issues. The issues which should be addressed at this stage of development review include: Availability of public water and sewer. Present zoning and land use. Proximity to population. Public access to marina and water. Long-term plan for site (identify potential conflicts concerning future expansion of marina) Proximity to existing marinas. Aesthetics of area. Offsite traffic impacts. Historical/archeological sites. Local opinion. Relationship of marina to adjacent land uses. Secondary impacts of marina development. VIII. Detailed Environmental Assessment Subsequent to conceptual approval of the special exception for a water-dependent facility, the applicant will be informed of any additional information requirements needed for the detailed environmental assessment. Issues flagged during the preliminary evaluation may require additional fieldwork or research. One additional requirement might be for a flushing dye study, requested because the desktop calculations used in the preliminary evaluation were not conclusive enough to predict the severity of impact under moderate flushing conditions. Depending on the type of water-dependent facility proposed, the second level of review may also require: engineering specifications for stormwater management and sediment control structures, grading plan; design specifications for bottom wash facility; the Best Management Practices. Section 4.0 describes the informational requirements and methods for conducting the detailed environmental assessment. Apply rating system described in Section 4.3. The maximum number of points is 100 and higher scores represent an increasing severity of impact to natural resources and water quality. Scores less than 50 are considered to have an acceptable level of impact. Scores ranging from 50 to 70, inclusive, must reduce predevelop- ment loadings by 20 percent. This can be accomplished onsite or, if not feasible, offsite yet within the drainage basin of the estuarine subarea. Scores of 75 or greater are considered unacceptable and will be denied. Very few proposals are anti- cipated to receive scores requiring denial at the CRG stage of review. 2-13 3. PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING EVALUATION The types of facilities and land use activities applicable to the water-dependent review process are potentially quite diverse and may range from a passive waterfront recreational park to commercial marinas and may also include more intensive industrial operations such as off-loading facilities or intake-outfall structures. Table 3-1 illustrates the diversity and frequency of ACOE permit activity in the Chesapeake Bay Region from 1973 to 1979. The majority of permit applications in Baltimore County will be for commercial marinas or community piers associated with upland residential development. A full service marina may provide a wide array of services and incorporate a number of separate facilities in the site plan. For example, water-related facilities may include a boat launching ramp, a crane travel lift or marine railway and a fueling pier. Land-related facilities may include a restaurant, convenience store, camping area, or marina supply store to name a few. Table 3-2 illustrates the range of marina services and facilities that may be included in a conceptual site plan. The major environmental impacts associated with the siting and design of marinas are loss of habitat from dredging and construction of shoreline structures, and the effects of stormwater runoff and boat discharges on water quality. Marinas require safe, protected moorings for boats and so are generally located in calm water on protected shorelines. These sheltered areas, however, also often support habitat for wetlands and - submerged aquatic vegetation. Thus, marina construction often leads to habitat loss or alteration. These calm, sheltered areas may have poor flushing characteristics which tend to concentrate pollutants from upland and water-related sources. In general, the most appropriate marina site would be one that requires as little modification to the nearby environs as possible. The types of activities associated with marina construction and operation can lead to multiple environmental impacts to water quality and to the ecology system. The range of environmental impact consider- ations is illustrated in Table 3-3. The proper siting of a commercial marina is certainly the single most important aspect of developing a marina in an environmentally sound manner. From the developer's perspective, a properly sited marina will reduce construction and operating costs and will likely receive the quickest approval by regulators. Table 3.4 lists the desirable and undesirable site characteristics of marina siting. The tables referenced above are included in the report to provide review staff who may be unfamiliar with the range of water-related facilities and the nature of their environmental impacts. Section 3.1 presents the preliminary site screening evaluation procedure which requires the reviewer to determine the severity of impact to natural resources and water quality considerations. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 expand on the aquatic and terrestrial concerns related to shoreline developments and identifies 3-1 TABLE 3-1 PERMIT ACTIVITY BY STRUCTURE/ALTERATION TYPE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY, 1973-1979 Structure/ Total Number of Total Number of Structure/ Alteration Type Permits Granted Alternations Approved Pile 2,988 20,686 Pier 3,933 6,040 Bulkhead 1,869 1,962 Fill 1,848 1,848 Buoy 433 1,810 Jetty or Groin 472 1,698 Riprap 822 1,005 Dredging (New) 888 888 Spoil Disposal 610 610 Dolphin 68 406 Building 236 251 Boat Ramp 206 210 Discharge Pipe 105 169 Maintenance Dredging 115 115 Aerial Crossing 61 109 Bridge 89 89 Pipeline 65 75 Channelization 71 71 Submerged Cable 53 69 Crab Impoundment 38 38 Marine Railroad 25 34 Intake Pipe 20 32 Dam 17 17 Fence 14 14 Tunnel 5 10 Intake Structure 5 5 Artificial Reef 3 3 Wave Gauge 1 1 Duck Blind 1 1 New Structure Subtotals 15,061 38,266 Repair Activities 628 672 Temporary Structures 89 TOTALS 15,778 39,037 Source: Eberhart 1980. TABLE 3-2 MARINA SERVICES AND FACILITIES Water Related Land Related MARINA SERVICES Boat launching Boat sales Mooring service Boat repairs Water taxi service Marina supply sales Transient boat service General supply sales Waste collection Trailer storage Fueling Parking Boat towing Overnight accomodations Fire and rescue services Food service Navigation and weather information Concessions Utility service Recreational services MARINA FACILITIES Open and covered mooring Boat building and repair Boat launch ramp Boat dry storage Marine railway 'Trailer storage Crane lift Restaurant Drydock Motel Fueling pier Picnic areas Sanitary pump--out facility Convenience store Anchorage areas Boat washing Marine service station Parking Entrance and exit channels Swimming pool Swimming area Camping Water skiing course Beach area Basin flushing system Club room Storm and wave protection Marine supply store Public toilets and showers Recreational facilities Bait shop Seafood sales Source: EPA 1985. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS WATER QUALITY -ECOLOGICAL OTHERA d, IMPACT SOURCE 'A 41 CONSIDERATIONS 40" Dredging 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 01010 010101 S, D Spoil Disposal 0 & 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S, C Filling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S, C Grading & Clearing 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Hydrological Modification 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Structures 0 0 10 16 0 D Point Wastewater Discharge *16 * D, C Non-point Source Runoff 0 0 0 0 0 0 '010 *1* o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, D Boat Operation 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 E Boat Discharge 0 0 6 0 0 E spills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boat Maintenance 0 0 0 -0 Litter E Noise 0, E KEY S = Environmentally sound marina Site Selection D = Design of Marina with Environmenta Considerations C = Environmenta:ly Guided Marina Construction Techniques, BMP's 0 = Proper operation and maintenance of marina Systems and Boats E = Enforcement of Rules and Regulations and Education of Marina Users in the Environmental Impacts of Their Actions TABLE 3-3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, SOURCES AND PRIMARY SOLUTIONS (EPA, 1985) TABLE 3-4 MARINA SITING CHARACTERISTICS Desirable Site Characteristics' Easy access to open water, population centers, utilities, public sewer and water lines Accessible from existing roads and waterways On sheltered waters providing adequate storm protection with deep waters close to shore Near existing state of federally maintained channels Near currently permitted public areas for disposal of dredged material High tidal range or flow and high flushing rates, such as near the mouths of estuaries or tidal creeks, near inlets or on convex shorelines Compatibility with existing land and water uses Away from shellfish beds used for harvesting for human consumption Undesirable Site Characteristics Shallow water habitat present (<31 in depth) or with inadequate water or land area for intended use, requiring extensive dredging or filling Low tidal range or flow and low flushing rates, such as dead-end channels or canals or the upper reaches of tidal creeks In a location with poor water quality, marginally meeting of failing to meet state water quality standards Near specially designated fish or wildlife protection areas or near shellfish beds or submerged aquatic vegetation beds. Location where rare, threatened, endangered or otherwise designated unique or outstanding aquatic or terrestrial species or habitats are found In an area of recognized historic, archaeological or scenic value Source: EPA 1985. pertinent informational sources and requirements. Section 3.4 lists the informational requirements required for the ecological inventory and assessment of the site. 3.1 PRELIMINARY SITE SCREENING EVALUATION FACTORS Natural Resource Impacts 1. Submerged aquatic vegetation 2. Tidal wetlands 3. Shellfish beds 4. Rare, threatened, or endangered species 5. Spawning/nursery areas for anadromous fish 6. Shallow water habitat Physical Alterati ons 7. Dredging requirements 8. Fillin g issues 9. Dredged material disposal 10. Navigation issues Water Quality mpacts 11. Flushing characteristics 12. Existing water quality conditions Natural Resource Impacts 1. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) The dramatic decline of SAV throughout the Chesapeake Bay estuary over the past two decades places a high priority on protecting existing SAV beds. State and federal permitting agencies will, in most cases deny an application which will lead to the destruction of an existing SAV bed. An application having direct impacts to SAV beds is considered to have a fatal flaw. 3-2 Severity of Impact a. Unacceptable Any application which involves the dredging, filling or physical removal of an existing SAV bed, as identified by the most current DNR SAV quad-sheet maps or field investigations, is considered an unacceptable level of impact. b. Significant If review of baseline data and field evaluation required for the preliminary evaluation reveals potential SAV habitat, a more detailed evaluation should be conducted for second level review. c. SAV Habitat not Present Loss of existing SAV within the limits of construction shall not be an issue at CRG review. 2. Tidal Wetlands Tidal wetlands have long been recognized as an important natural resource in the Chesapeake Bay. The Maryland Wetlands Act of 1972 severely limits the destruction or physical alteration of tidal wetlands. Tidal marshes can be classified into three wetland types (Queen, 1979). An embayed marsh is one which occupies a drowned stream valley as it enters the estuarine system. Extensive marshes cover large areas projecting into an estuary or river. For the purposes of this exercise, extensive marshes are greater than 100 ft in width. A fringe marsh runs in a band parallel to shore and is less than 100 ft in width. Severity of Impact a. Unacceptable Any proposed site which has extensive or embayed marshes within the limits of construction is considered to have an unacceptable level of impact. b. Moderate Fringe marshes have less value as a transporter of detritus and most likely have maximum value as a buffer to wave erosion of the fastland. Any proposal having fringe marshes within the limits of construction should be "flagged" for more detailed evaluation of mitigation alternatives at the second level of review. 3-3 c. Resource not present Tidal wetlands are not an issue at CRG review. 3. Shellfish Beds Significant permitting issues may arise from potential impacts to shellfish resources. These impacts are considered as part of the Section 10/Section 404 permit review process and in state permitting programs (EPA 1985). Although bacterial contamination is the major concern, siltation and turbidity also have the potential to impede shellfish growth. Marina developments are restricted from viable shellfish beds and adjacent areas in Maryland based upon the size of marina and survival time of coliform bacterial. These requirements will not generally, if at all, apply to Baltimore County project reviews owing to the historical loss of shellfish beds in the mid-bay region. However, more stringent water quality requirements may be applied in Class II waters. Severity of Impact a. Significant Viable shellfish beds located in or adjacent to construction limits. Marinas that have less than 50, 51 to 100, and greater than 100 slips may not be located closer than 660,' 1320 and 2640 ft, respectively, to shellfish beds. b. Moderate Projects proposed in Class II water should be flagged for consideration of water quality restrictions related to protecting potential shellfish habitat. c. Resource not present Shellfish beds are not an issue at CRG review. 4. Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species The presence of a federally or state rare/endangered species on a particular site is not necessarily a fatal flaw. The screening procedure focuses on whether the proposed use will either directly or indirectly affect the species and its habitat requirements. At the preliminary evaluation stage, the applicant must show that a FWS determination has been requested and an onsite survey for potential/observed presence of rare or endangered species has been conducted. Hence, the presence of a 3-4 federal or state designated rare or endangered species is poten- tially a fatal flaw only when the proposed land use activities adversely affect the species or its habitat requirements. Severity of Impact a. Unacceptable The presence of a rare, threatened or endangered species listed by FWS or under the Maryland Nongame and Endangered Species regulations must be documented at the first level review. In addition, an assessment must be made of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the development proposal to the listed species. If the applicant cannot show that the species and its habitat can be protected to the greatest extent possible, then the proposed water-dependent facility is considered to have an unacceptable level of impact. b. Moderate Any species of fish, wildlife or plants designated by the secretary of DNR as species in need of conservation, threatened or endangered, should be identified. The assess- ment of state rare or endangered species should be conducted prior to first level review, and should include the potential for rare and endangered vacular plants of Maryland (Natural Heritage A and B ranked species) and Maryland's federal candidate endangered plants. The presence of, or potential for, these species within the project boundaries will require a more extensive evaluation of the species, habitat require- ments at CRG review. Vhere appropriate, the CRG review should address the designation of habitat protection areas, conservation easements, or cooperative agreements between property owner and public agencies. c. Resource not present: Rare, threatened or endangered species are not an issue at CRG review. 5. Spawning and/or Nursery Areas for Important Anadromous Fish The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Criteria requires that local jurisdictions adopt the following policies with regard to anadromous fish: protect the instream and streambank habitat of anadromous fish propagation waters and provide for the unobstructed movement of spawning and larval forms of anadromous fish in streams. Propagation refers specifically to spawning which occurs at the interface of t-idal/freshwater in the uppermost reaches of estuaries. Spawning areas for anadromous 3-5 fish have been designated by DNR. Nursery areas are generally synonymous with shallow water habitat and are dealt with in the next section. Severity of Impact a. Unacceptable Any proposal for a water-dependent facility which generates adverse impacts on anadromous fish spawning areas is con- sidered an unacceptable level of impact. The physical and chemical water quality impacts associated with marinas located in an anadromous fish spawning area would have a high probability of reducing spawning success and fry survival. b. Moderate Community piers located in anadromous fish spawning areas may have less of an impact than the corresponding number of indi- vidual piers. The location of a community pier can be selected to minimize the amount of dredging and disturbance to the instream and streambank habitat. The identification of current or historical anadromous fish spawning within the construction limits or adjacent to the site would not lead to a negative recommendation at first level review for community piers. However the timing and methods of construction will need to be carefully evaluated at CRG review. In all cases, every means to minimize the volume and area coverage of dredging should be undertaken. c. Resource not present Anadromous fish spawning/nursery areas are not an issue at CRG review. 6. Shallow Water Habitat Water depths of less than four feet are generally considered to be shallow water habitat. These areas are considered valuable fish nursery and potential SAV habitat. Shallow water areas also provide valuable edge habitat for wading birds and small mammals. Sites with little topographic relief along the shoreline are an indication that shallow water habitat may be located offshore. Mudflats and sandflats are characteristic shallow water habitats. 3-6 Severity of Impact a. Significant Area coverage less than For dredging projects 3 feet depth from 200 to 1,999 cubic yards greater than 50% between 2,000 and 19,999 cy greater than 40% greater than 20,000 cy greater than 30% b. Minimal If the percent of shallow water habitat within the dredging disturbance limits is less than listed above, the site is considered to have minimal impact to shallow water habitat. Physical Alterations 7. Dredging Dredging activities may impact water quality, aquatic and wetland resources by altering water circulation patterns, increasing @ turbidity and siltation, decreasing dissolved oxygen, releasing nutrients or other pollutants from sediments and increasing erosion or shoaling rates (EPA 1985). County review of marina applications must consider both the dredging in the marina basin and any associated dredging to gain access to a navigable channel. Areas with high shoaling and sedimentation rates should be avoided owing to the periodic maintenance dredging required. Marina sites proposed on long, winding channels or with shallow bottom characteristics should be avoided. The degree of impacts associated with dredging activities will depend on existing,water quality, habitat quality, and the aquatic resources present, adjacent land use patterns, and the manner in which dredging and disposal is conducted. Section 4.4, Best Management Practices, describes practices applicable to dredging. Severity of Impact a. Significant Dredging does not represent a fatal flaw at first level review. The types and scales of water-dependent facility applications which may come before the County for review precludes selecting a threshold volume. The significance of dredging is its potential to adversely impact the natural resources described above. The applicant must, at a minimum, provide estimates of the volume of dredge spoil and delineate the area extent of dredging. Marina sites proposed in an 3-7 upper estuary near the river influx or near a tidal nodal point, will require a more detailed evaluation. Sedimenta- tion will be greater because velocity decreases at these two points and a large percentage of the suspended particles will settle out. Marinas located in these areas may require extensive maintenance dredging. Available records should be reviewed to determine historic sedimentation rates. Nearby marinas could be contacted to get an understanding of maintenance dredging requirements. If maintenance dredging has been identified as a significant issue during first level review, the applicant should provide an assessment of future maintenance dredging requirements. b. Moderate Applications falling into this class are determined qualita- tively; however, they will generally range from 2,000 cy to 20,000 cy. Considerations during second level review revolve around the methods and timing of dredging work and the area extent of shallow water habitat dredged. c. Minimal Preferred marina sites would be those requiring little or no dredging. Such sites include those located on existing channels or upland areas located adjacent to deep water (6-8 ft). 8. Filling Filling activities often cause temporary impacts to nearby aquatic habitat resources through increased siltation and turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen, or release of pollutants from fill material. More important, however, is the modification or loss of shallow water habitat or wetlands. A Section 404 permit, administered by ACOE, which has jurisdiction over discharges of dredged or fill material, and a Section 401 water quality certification, are required for filling activities in navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands. As is most often the case, if filling is associated with dredging or other construction activities, a Section 10 permit is also required. Filling of open water or shallow water areas is generally considered unacceptable by state and federal regulatory agencies. Exceptions include lack of any viable alternative, and instances when fill is necessary to resolve an existing shoreline erosion problem. 3-8 Severity of Impact a. Significant This screening factor is 'included in this preliminary ?valuation to flag potential state and federal permitting issues. In most cases, filling of open water, shallow water, or wetlands is not permitted. The applicant should be notified as early as possible in the review process of this permitting issue. b. Minimal/no filling proposed Filling associated with shoreline erosion control structures is not considered a significant impact. 9. Dredged Material Disposal With regard to disposal of dredged material, a preferred marina site would be located near a currently permitted upland disposal site. Adequate disposal areas for initial and maintenance dredging should be secured and designated for the life of the project (EPA 1985). Early consultation with the District Engineer, Baltimore ACOE, is advised. Clean dredged material may be suitable for beach nourishment or non-structural shoreline erosion control, where appropriate. Innovative uses for dredged material should be encouraged and should be viewed as a positive factor in the development review process. Theoretically, a safe disposal site can be found either onsite or offsite for every dredging project. If no appropriate location exists onsite, dredged material can be transported to an existing permitted site. The decision on whether dredge spoil can be accommodated from a particular dredging project is primarily economic. The cost of disposal of dredged material may or may not be justified by the expected return from the development proposed. Severity of Impact a. Significant Significant development review issues include: Volume of initial dredging greater than 2,000 cy No means of disposing dredged material is identified in project proposal. The proposed disposal site is located within the Buffer, including habitat protection areas as defined in COMAR 14.15.09 unless material is utilized in erosion control or habitat enhancement effort. 3-9 There is documented evidence that the dredged material may be contaminated by heavy metals, pesticides, or other potentially hazardous organic compounds. Preliminary evaluation of sedimentation and shoaling rates indicates that maintenance dredging will be an important consideration in sizing the dredge spoil area. overboard disposal is proposed. Any significant issues raised during the preliminary site screening evaluation will require detailed assessment prior to CRG review. b. Minimal Instances where a detailed assessment and second level review is not required include: Disposal of dredged material in a currently permitted disposal site. There is minimal volume of dredge spoil in upland location onsite (less than 2,000 cubic yards). Dredge spoil site is located outside of Buffer or spoils are incorporated into shoreline erosion control program. No dredging is proposed. 10. Navigation Issues The inclusion of navigation issues in the preliminary site screening evaluation serves to identify, early in development review process, potential state and federal permitting issues. Construction or placement of any structure in navigable waters requires a Section 10 permit from ACOE. If marina development requires placing structures closer than 30 m (100 ft) to a federally-maintained channel or basin, the permit application may be denied or require design modi- fications before approval, if the structure is determined to pose a hazard to safe navigation. ACOE guidelines will not allow pier and platform structures to encroach further than one-third of the distance to the opposite shoreline. Severity of Impact Significant: If the proposed water-dependent facility infringes on any state or federal channel, appropriate agencies should be 3-10 contacted. In general, design modifications can remove navigation obstructions as a potential permitting issue. No Impact: No infringement on a federal, state, or Maryland Port Authority channel is proposed. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS 11. Flushing Characteristics The flushing characteristics of the site have been identified as a key factor in determining overall suitability from an environmental perspective. Pollutants enter marina waters by discharges from marine sanitation devices, hull antifoulants, and bilges. In addition upland land use activities may contribute to pollutant loadings in the marina basin via surface runoff. The potential for water quality problems is higher in the upper reaches of estuaries or tidal creeks which are characterized by low tidal range or low net flow. Preferred sites are those on open water or near the mouth of an estuary. For open water sites, convex shorelines are preferable to concave shorelines (EPA 1985). Various design strategies can be utilized to maximize natural circulation to reduce sedimentation and maximize dispersion of pollutants. Some of these options are identified in the Section 4.2 Best Management Practices. Severity of Impact Unacceptable: Prior to the special exception hearing, the applicant is required to develop the flushing model described in Appendix 6.2.3. Assumptions made in calculating residence time need to be clearly stated. Flushing times estimated to be five days or longer are considered unacceptable. The inherent limitations of these models, however, argue for the opport- unity of proceeding to in-situ dye studies in an effort to more accurately determine the flushing characteristics. The applicant should be made fully-aware that if more detailed field studies confirm the desk top model, the application will be denied at CRG review. 3-11 Moderate/Undetermined: Marina sites with flushing times of 3 or 4'days will require a dye study to more accurately determine flushing character- istics. Also, in those instances, where no estimate of return flow or freshwater inflow can be reasonably made, instream data will be required. Minimal: If the flushing model indicates a flushing time of less than three days, the site is considered to have adequate flushing and no additional assessment is required for CRG review. 12. Existing Water Quality The existing water quality of the water body at the site of the proposed water-dependent facility is considered to be a key factor in determining the overall environmental suit- ability of the project. Since water-dependent facilities are expected to have some impact upon the quality of the receiving waters, the applicant will be required to determine the existing water quality at the proposed site. The County, however, may waive any water quality monitoring requirements if their determination indicates little or no water quality impacts are anticipated. In addition, the applicant will be required to estimate the expected impacts the project wilL have upon the site and the methods by which such impacts will be minimized. Existing water quality may be determined from existing data if such data are current and if there are sufficient samples and appropriate variables with which to define the site. In most cases, however, the applicant will be required to obtain original data according to the procedures and analytical methodologies defined in Appendix C. A minimum of five samples must be taken, one every three weeks between June and October. Following completion of the analysis, the results shall be averaged and compared 1) to Maryland receiving water standards and 2) to the Nielson Classification scheme. Following comparison to these two, the applicant must define the expected impacts to water quality which may be expected from the project. This is a two step approach, and involves 1) calculation of flushing rates and 2) calculations of expected steady state conditions following completion of the proposed project. 3-12 Severity of Impact Unacceptable/Poor Water Quality: If water quality data indicate that the water body fails to meet State Water Quality Standards and if the results of total nitrogen and total phosphorous testing indicate that the Neilson index is less than 6, then the applicant will be required to complete detailed analyses of stormwater loadings, run the Steady State Model, and define appropriate stormwater management strategies. If the results of these efforts indicate that there will be a net improvement in water quality related to project loadings following project completion, then the applicant may proceed. If such improvement cannot be shown to be achievable, the project will be considered unacceptable. Moderate/Fair Water Quality: If the water quality data indicate that the water body presently does not meet state water quality standards, but if the Neilson index is less than 6, then the applicant must calculate the expected post-construction, managed stormwater loadings and show that a net reduction in overall loadings will result from the project. Minimal/Good Water Quality: The applicant must show that the existing water quality meets the state water quality standards and the Nielson index is less than 6. If these criteria are met, then the applicant must show that the project will not result in significant degradation and that appropriate stormwater management plans will result in the minimization of impacts. 3-13 Ili Ali in M M M =I M M @ M M M M M M M @ = SECTION 3.2 AQUATIC CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER-DEPENDEUT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issue Description_ Review Process Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) a. Existing SAV SAV is currently considered a Category The results of a survey based on DNR wetland I resource by the Fish and wildlife maps, aerial photographs from Baltimore Service (FWS) and, as such, is highly County National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps protected under policies set forth and a field examination characterizing the in NEPA and the Fish and Wildlife community should be provided . The presence Coordination Act. According to FWS of SAV in the vicinity of the site and/or policy, no loss of existing SAV habitat evidence of SAV on the shore should be noted. is permitted. The area of habitat to be directly impacted by the planned development should be shown. b. Potential SAV habitat Any low energy shallow water area A qualitative examination of substrate characterized by fine substrate composition with a description of its conditions may have the potential to suitability for SAV colonization should be support SAV. The FWS has considered required. This evaluation should include all shallow water habitat as a Category wave energy, proximity to existing SAV 2 resource. According to FWS policy, beds, etc. Photo interpretation using no net loss of in-kind habitat will be a historical series of aerials available permitted. from Baltimore County may indicate the potential of SAV habitat. Shallow Water Habitat In addition to the SAV issue, shallow An accurate estimate (based on field survey or water habitat is viewed as a nursery bathometric chart) of the amount of dredging area for fish, a valuable edge habitat required (volume and area) in shallow water for wading birds and small mammals, as habitat (0 feet deep) and the availability well as providing innumerable other and location of a suitable site for mitigation benefits. The FWS policy requires no (conversion of upland to shallow water net loss of this habitat type. In habitat - not shoreline habitat) are minimum developments requiring extensive requirements. Every effort to reduce the dredging, the no net loss, requirement amount of dredging required for the plan may present a fatal flaw problem since should be discussed. an attempt at mitigation may require filling deeper state waters, which is generally not permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The potential to mako shallow water habitat from an upland area may be considered a feasible mitigation for dredged shallow water habitat. SECTION 3.2 AQUATIC CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER-DEPENDENT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issue Description Review Process Wetlands a. Tidal Wetlands Tidal wetlands are protected by the Results of a survey based on DNR wetland maps, State of Maryland and the ACOE. As NWI wetland maps, aerial photographs from a result of the long-term, cumulative Baltimore County, Areas of Critical State loss of tidal wetlands in Marylanl, any Concern and a site visit characterizing project requiring tidal wetland impact the community type and quality should be is seriously flawed. Prior to permit presented. The area and extent of direct denial however, the County may wish impact to the tidal wetland should also to examine the quality and quantity of be noted. The presence and location of a the affected wetland in light of tidal suitable mitigation site could be indicated wetlands creation technology. It is if the developer is willing to mitigate. not inadvisable to require an improve- ment in quality and an increase in quantity of wetland as part of the negotiation process, i.e., a developer could replace a one acre partially degraded marsh with a larger wetland designed with habitat value in mind. In most cases, mitigation will only be considered for fringe marshes. b. Non-tidal Wetlands Non-tidal wetlands are the subject of Results of a survey based on NWI maps, increased protection form the ACOE, Baltimore County Soil Survey and field State, and County. For this reason, examination characterizing the community development requiring alteration of type and quality should be presented. The these wetlands should be discouraged. extent and area to be directly impacted In some cases, however, non-tidal by the development and a potential site wetlands can be improved upon by miti- for wetland creation/mitigation should be gation techniques. The County may identified. wish to review a particular wetland prior to rejecting an application or initiating the mitigation negotiation process. M M = = M M M M M MM M M M M SECTION 3.2 AQUII.TIC CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER-DEPENDENT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issue Description Review Process Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals a. Federal Level Protection The documented presence of a rare, The minimum acceptable effort includes a Under Endangered Species threatened or endangered species listed letter from the FWS identifying species and Act of 1973 by the FWS on the property is an issue habitats of concern in the study area in of great concern. The FWS requires conjunction with a survey specifically that the planned development have no addressing the potential/observed presence of detrimental effect on the species and the identified species/habitats identified in habitat of concern. This is not to the FWS letter. In addition, when present, say that the presence of a species of potential impacts from the developmentust concern is a fatal flaw in and of itself. be discussed and a mechanism to ensure the However, if the species is in an area protection of the critical species habitat to be filled, dredged or otherwise should be identified. altered, then a fatal flaw situation exists . b. State Level Protection The group of species protected under Developers should request letters from the Under Maryland Nongame and the legislation is largely a subset Maryland Forest, Park and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act of species on the federal list with and the Maryland Natural Heritage Program several additional species of local identifying any species or habitats of concern. The presence of a species concern in the study area. The letters, listed on the Maryland Nongame and in conjunction with a survey specifically Endangered Species List presents a addressing the potential/observed presence situation similar to a federally of the identified species/habitats identified listed species occurrence. A DNR in the letters, should be included in the sponsored bill is before the 1987 report. In addition, when present, potential State Legislature which is enacted impacts resulting from the development must would greatly expand the number of be discussed. species, especially plants, protected by the Nongame and Endangered Species regulations. C. Species in Need of The level of protection afforded these Conservation species is not clear in the Critical Area Criteria. This larger collection of species of state concern is the product of the Maryland Natural Heritage Program. Within the large set of species of concern, several subcodes designate the degree and extent of the species existence in Maryland. SECTION 3.2 AQUATIC CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER-DEPENDENT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Information Requirtd for Issue Description Review Process Spawning/Nursery Areas Generally, any shallow water habitat The results of a review of the DNR database could be considered as a spawning identifying the presence of the nearest and/or nursery area. specifically, spawning/nursery area in conjunction with this category may only apply to those a discussion of the direct impact of the areas identified by DNR and contained development on the identified area should in the Aquatic Resources Areas Handbook be provided by the applicant. or other data base. Marina placement in designated spawning areas should be strongly discouraged. Due to the nature of inventory surveys (age and scale of mapping) an area identified as a spawning or nursery area may never have been or may no longer be a spawning or nursery area. once designated as a spawning or nursery area, however, the burden of demonstrating that the area is not a spawning or nursery area should be on the developer and subject to DNR review. Shellfish Beds The presence of shellfish beds in areas Class II waterbodies are the only waterbodies to be dredged is of concern because of with harvestable shellfish beds. The results habitat loss. A commercial shellfish of a review of the DNR database identifying bad in the vicinity of the marina may the presence of the nearest shellfish beds have to be closed to fishing as a result relative to the location of the development, of its proximity to the development a discussion of the direct impact of the and increased loadings of certain development on the identified area, and the constituents (microbial, antifouling type of shellfish bad (commercial, species, compounds, hydrocarbons, etc.). etc.) should be provided. Few, if any, viable shellfish beds occur in Baltimore County waterways, however, stricter water quality standards will apply in Class II waterbodies. Use by Populations of Geese, Ducks, and Wading Birds on the decline as a result of habitat Discussion of the potential use of the area loss, populations of migratory ducks, by waterfowl (based on field observation and geese and wading birds may be protected DNR information) and the potential direct by federal law as items of interstate impact to the resource resulting from the commerce. Although marina development development should be presented. A list of may reduce habitat for some of these the particular species known or suspected species, other species appear able to to use the area should also be provided with coexist in marina areas (mallards). species of particular state concern identified For this reason, the presence of as such (e.g., black rail, black duck). migratory waterfowl should not be Special emphasis should be given to habitat viewed as sufficient cause'for permit, suitable for rookeries. denial. SECTION 3.2 INQUATIC CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER-DEPENDENT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issue Description Review Process Aquatic Vertebrates and Invertebrates While the dredging of an area will A discussion of the habitat present in terms alter benthic habitat and invertebrate of invertebrate and vertebrate use should be communities, the resulting altered presented. Presence or evidence of turtles, habitat and marina pilings will be snakes, etc. should be noted. colonized by other invertebrates. Some concern for the susceptibility of certain invertebrate groups to antifouling compounds should be considered as a detriment of the project. Aquatic vertebrates (fish, turtles, snakes, etc.) will also undergo habitat loss and/or alteration as a result of dredging and marina construction. Substrate Conditions Substrate size composition ranges Provide a qualitative description of the from coarse (cobble and gravel) substrate composition (muck, sandy silt, to fine (sand, silt and clay). gravelly sand, etc.) for the waterfront Generally, the coarser substrates portion of the property. Discuss are indicative of an area with limitations on dredge spoil disposal a net loss of material while the resulting from the composition of the finer substrates occur in areas with material drains or dries rapidly, fine a net accretion of material. other material cannot be piled deeper than environmental site characteristics 3 foot if it is expected to dry). which are related to these different substrate conditions are flushing rate, tidal/wave energy levels, and countless others. Generally, an area with a coarser substrate will present fewer environmental problems to marina development than will a finer substrate. Existing Water Depth The existing depth is related to the The results of a depth survey normalized to amount of dredging necessary to permit mean high and low water for the entire shore- marina development. other concerns line of the property should be presented. with shallow water areas are discussed elsewhere. Deeper water areas are more easily developed into marinas (all other factors being equal). SECTION 3.2 AQUATIC CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER-DEPENDENT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issue Description Review Process Wave Action Wave action is important from several A discussion of fetch from the waterward perspectives. From the view of compass directions coupled with shoreline environmental degradation, an area depth characteristics addressing the with greater wave action will have relative wave action in the project area coarser sediments and a greater flushing are the minimum requirements. rate. From the boat owners perspective, an area with greater wave action presents more trouble for docking and a higher probability of damage to the boats. From the marina owner/engineers point of view, bulkheading, shoreline stabilization and construction are more difficult and expensive. Tidal Range Tidal range is another environmental Present the mean and spring tidal ranges variable which is important. From the for the area based on information contained perspective of environmental degradation, in NA Tide Tables. some assumptions will a large tidal range increases the rate usually be necessary (reference station used, of the flushing and reduces the build etc.) and these assumptions should be stated. up of fine materials and contaminants. Flushing Potential Tidal range and freshwater discharge For detailed information on identifying are the two major components of the flushing characteristics see Section XX. flushing in tidal estuarine areas. Clearly, an embayment of a tidal water body is predominantly influenced by tidal flushing, while a riverine tidal water body has the additional freshwater discharge component to consider. The basin shape and size greatly influences the volume of tidal waters entering the system as well as the exchange rate. A poorly mixed system could have a large tidal influx but a lower than expected (based on volume calculations) true exchange rate because of the poor mixing with the flood tide waters and the proportionately larger retention of the original waters. For this reason a detailed dye study is often necessary to accurately estimate flushing rate. In a well mixed system this scenario would be unlikely to occur. A high flushing rate is desirable.because it removes materials from a waterbody' and increases the assimilative capacity of the system. IMMM = = mmm mmm mmmm@ @ SECTION 3.3 DRAFT TERRESTRIAL CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER DEPENDENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issues Description Review P rocess Soil Types Certain soils have been identified as The results of an examination of the soil hydric and likely to support wetland types and their location relative to planned plants. Where these soils are identified upland development (including SWR facilities) it is necessary to perform a wetlands should be presented. The presence of soils survey. In addition, certain soils are listed by Baltimore County as either hydric identified by the SCS as prone to erosion. or secondary hydric soils should be noted. This characteristic should also be con- A table providing the permeability and sidered in light of the upland portion capability of soils onsite should be included. of the marina development. Permeability All this information is available in the rates are an important feature for success County Soil Survey. of some stormwater infiltration plans. Habitat Quality Xlthough not specifically addressed in As a part of the required environmental the Critical Areas legislation, habitat inventory of the site, observations on quality (as a result of disturbance or habitat quality should be reported. The poor management) may be considered a more presence of trash/debris, large diameter appropriate candidate for development than trees, etc. should be noted. Habitat an area of higher habitat quality, every- quality is a relative issue, however, so thing else being equal. in this way, the the presence/absence and extent of anthro- better habitat remains protected while pogenic influence should be stressed. environmentally compatible growth is permitted. Plant Communities The type of plant community present at a The description of habitat contained in site is closely tied with habitat quality. the environmental inventory should be of A more mature woodland is currently valued sufficient detail to permit an assessment because of their relatively low stormwater of the existing plant communities: The area nutrient loadings to the Bay and its covered by each different community type tributaries. In addition to this attribute, should be estimated. a woodland producing mast (nuts/acorns) provides a valuable food for wildlife. Contrasted with a stand of tulip poplar or sweet gum, a stand of oak, hickory or cherry provides a greater variety of function and should be preferentially protected, all else being equal. Similarly, an older stand of trees indicates an area which has had a longer time for intricate patterns of use to develop, as compared to a 15-to- 15-year old second growth woodland. & @ I . I IIN I IN = = M M = = = = = = SECTION 3.3 DRAFT TERRESTRIAL CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER DEPENDENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issues Description Review P rocess Animals Expected and Observed An analysis of the habitats present can The report should present a list of be used to make a list of animals expected animals which may occur on the site based to use the habitat. Presumably, a greater on the different types of habitat present. animal use (number of species) expected for Footnotes indicating species or species a habitat, the more valuable the habitat. sign (e.g., pellets, tracks) observed Certain animals are present in all but should be included. the most degraded of habitats, however. So unless a unique or valuable animal uses the area in question, this category should not be overemphasized. Rare and Endangered Plants and See Section in "Aquatic Concerns" See Section in "Aquatic Concerns" Animals Unique and/or Valuable Habitat An area may be of such a development A detailed environmental inventory should Types history that the resulting habitat is note the presence of unusual habitat and/or unique for the portion of the state in plant assembly. which it occurs. Similarly, a particular set of environmental conditions may exist at a site which give rise to an unusual community of plants and animals (e.g., limestone outcrop). often microhabitats of this type are considered valuable and worthy of protection. Since the occurrence of these habitats is rare, great emphasis should be given to their protection. Surface Waters Rivers, streams, and ponded water are The identification and classification protected by an assortment of County, of the stream should be provided in the State, and Federal regulations. These environmental inventory. Other character- regulations generally require little or istics which may be requested by the County no impact to the surface water body. In are the fish species and relative numbers addition, the presence of surface waters present, invertebrate species present and is usually an indication of the presence their relative abundance, and a chemical of wetlands. Neither of these features analysis of water quality. are fatal flaws, but the presence of sur- face waters will require a more detailed examination of potential impacts. Non-tidal Wetlands See Section in "Aquatic Concerns" See Section in "Aquatic Concerns" SECTION 3.3 DRAFT TERRESTRIAL CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER DEPENDENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issues Description Review P rocess Floodplain Area construction in floodplain areas is The location of the 100-year flood- restricted by NEPA and E011988. All plains should be shown relative to the federal agencies must ensure floodplains limits of disturbance from development. are being managed according to the goals 0f avoiding short and long-term impacts, to promote preservation of floodplains, and where possible, restore floodplains to their natural and beneficial values/ functions. County floodplain regulations may restrict development potential. Alterations within the 100-year flood- plain may require a waterway construc- tion permit. Presence/Absence of Disturbance The development of an undisturbed tract See "Habitat Quality" discussion in this of land should be discouraged while the section. rehabilitation of a disturbed area should be viewed as a form of mitigation for a project with other minor impacts. steep Slopes The critical Area Criteria contains Discussions of the development's use of specific conservation requirements the area of steep slope (total area of affording protection of steep slopes. steep slope and area to be used by the development), The minimum 1001 buffer must be expanded soil types and erosive potential, existing to include contiguous areas of slope conditions (photographs) as well as any greater than 15% by the following mitigative plan proposed to reduce concern formula (4 feet for each 1% increase in for past, present, and future erosion should slope greater than 15% or to the top of be required. Slope map with minimum slope slope, whichever is greater). Generally, classes of: 0-15%; 15-25%; greater than 25%. outside of the buffer slopes greater than 15% must be left undisturbed unless the area is actively eroding and the proposed development would improve the stability of the slope. Essential road and utili- ties may cross areas of steep slopes. = M = = M = on = M an M M = = M M SECTION 3.3 DRAFT TERRESTRIAL CONCERNS RELATED TO WATER DEPENDENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT Information Required for Issues Description Review P rocess Areas of Severe Erosion Areas of existing severe erosion should be A drawing illustrating the location of the rehabilitated as part of the development problem area(s) relative to the planned process. The rehabilitation concept should development with a discussion of a plan be required to address the likelihood of to reduce/eliminate the severe erosion (or its long-term success. Improvement of other problem) as well as quantitative and severe erosion problems aides the devel- qualitative estimates of the benefits to be opment in attaining the goals of an realized from the plan (e.g., stormwater environmentally compatible development loadings, habitat quality). as set forth in the critical Area Legislation. Actively eroding areas should receive priority attention in attaining the 10% net improvement in stormwater loadings. 3.4 INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICANT SUBMITTAL Mapped Information 1. Regional Context Map Presented at an appropriate scale to incorporate the following features: Parcel boundaries Drainage basin which includes entire parcel Regional road system providing access to site Adjacent significant natural resources within 1,3201 (1.4 mile) of project construction limits (SAV beds, tidal wetlands, shellfish beds, rare or endangered species, spawning/nursery areas) 2. Existing Condition Map(s) For larger and more complex sites, a series of ecological inventory maps at the same scale is recommended. Natural Features Comments Soil types Topography Include bathymetric data Slope Slope classes 0-15%, 15-25%, greater 25% Non-tidal wetlands Surface hydrologic features Drainage subareas Location of critical species sitings Major plant communities Aquatic resources 3o Conceptual Site Plan Limits of upland, shoreline, and waterway construction Footprints of upland and waterway structures and/or improvements Proposed SWM facilities Habitat Protection Areas as defined in COMAR 14.15.09 Floating Buffer (1001 minimum and contiguous sensitive areas) Site Evaluation Report At a minimum, the supporting documentation shall include: The applicant's response to the 12 preliminary site screening evaluation factors Description of plant communities identified on project site 3-14 Description of adjacent estuarine system including exis ting and potential SAV habitat, bottom characteristics, condition of shoreline, spawning/nursery areas Observed and expected species lists Evaluation of soil development constraints (drainage, erodibility, potential foundation, and road problems) Wildlife habitat value of existing site conditions Evaluation of storm water management approaches 'A 3-15 4. DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.1 WATER QUALITY Th6 single area which receives the greatest attention in the permitting review process is the impact of water dependent facilities upon water quality of adjacent estuarine ecosystem. Under the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas legislation, water quality impacts must be minimized in the development and operation of water dependent facilities. Facility impacts with respect to water quality can be divided into two basic components: 1. in-vater and operational impacts, 2. upland water quality impacts related to non-point source loading and stormwater runoff. As part of the guidelines for Baltimore County's water dependent facilities program, the applicant must show the impacts which would be expected from the construction and operation of the proposed project and the applicant must further show the reductions in pollutant loadings achieved through best management practices and stormwater management facilities. In order for the review process to be conducted effectively, the applicant must provide information either from existing sources or through original studies on the existing water quality of the water body adjacent to the proposed activity. The list of proposed or suggested parameters that must be provided is given in Table 4-1. This list was developed, utilizing information from both EPA, and EPA. The information provided in the Chesapeake Bay Program (EPA, 1982) indicates that for the upper bay the most critical problems relate to nutrient enrichment. Since the stresses which have resulted in reduction in biological activity in the upper bay are related primarily to phosphorus, this pollutant would be viewed as the keystone pollutant for identifying both impacts and minimization of loadings. The other parameters, however, allow for an assessment of the relative stress of the existing water body under predevelopment conditions. Average values for total nitrogen and total phosphorous are used in a general model to define the relative trophic condition of the adjacent water body. This approach has been developed by Neilson (1981) and reviewed by D'Elia in the Chesapeake Bay Program Summary Report (EPA, 1982). This approach allows the comparison of total nitrogen and total phosphorus to a simple scale of 0 10, given in Table 4-2. This scale is used in conjunction with Table 4-3 to define the relative conditions of the water body. In utilizing Neilson's classification scheme, values must be obtained for total nitrogen which is defined as the sum of TKN, NH 3-N and NO2INO 3f and the calculation of Total Phosphorus. Using these two values for in-situ average summer conditions, a numerical value can be obtained from the scale given in Table 4-2. This value is then located in Table 4-3 where, under the marine aquatic life column, the acceptability or unaccepta- bility of the existing water body can be estimated. While this is 4-1 [Nil we aw M No so AM 00 ON, am an No 10$ M am ON w TABLE 4-1 PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS REQUIRED FOR WATER DEPENDENT FACILITIES PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW Sample Holding Bottle Size Time Method Detection Type Preservative (ml) (at 4 C) Number Limit ORGANICS Chlorophyll a Plastic None 500 30 days (a) APHA 1002G 1 Vg/L BOD Plastic None 500 48 hours EPA 405.1 1 mg/L COD Plastic 0.5 ml H 2so 4 500 28 days EPA 410.4 10 mg/L TOC Plastic 0.5 ml H 2so 4 500 28 days EPA 415.1 0.3 mg/L Phenols Glass 1 ml H 3 PO4 250 28 days EPA 420.2 0.05 mg/L METALS Copper Plastic 1 ml HNO 3 500 6 months EPA 220.2 0.002 mg/L (b) Lead Plastic 1 ml HNO 3 500 6 months EPA 239.2 0.002 mg/L (b) NONMETALS TKN Plastic 0.5 ml H 2so 4 500 28 days EPA 351.2 0.2 mg/L NH 3-N Plastic 0.5 ml H 2so 4 500 28 days EPA 350.1 0.1 mg/L Nitrate-nitrite Plastic 0.5 ml H 2so 4 500 28 days EPA 353.2 0.1 mg/L Total phosphorus Plastic 0.5 ml H 2so 4 500 28 days EPA 365.4 0.1 mg/L Orthophosphorus Plastic None 500 48 hours EPA 365.1 0.01 mg/L (a) -if-ter filtration; filters must be kept frozen in dessicators. (b) Using furnace method--Atomic Absorbtion spectrometry. (c) Mean probable number. mom so No M MW= NW,MM TABLE 4-1 (Cont.) Sample Holding Bottle Size Time Method Detection Type Preservative (ml) (at 4 C) Number Limit PLASTIC Total nonfilterable Plastic None 500 7 days EPA 160.2 5 mg/L (based residue on 100-ml sample size) BACTERIOLOGICAL Total coliforms Plastic Sterile 125 6 hours APHA 908A 0 MPN(c) Fecal coliforms Plastic Sterile 125 6 hours APHA 908C 0 MPN(c) Fecal streptococci Plastic Sterile 125 6 hours APHA 910A 0 MPN(c) TABLE 4-2 CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT IN ESTUARIES (FROM NEILSON 1981) Level of Nutrient Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Enrichment (mg/L) (mg/L) 0 0.003 0.0004 1 0.010 0.001 2 0.032 0.004 3 0.100 0.014 4 0.320 0.044 5 1.000 0.140 6 3.200 0.440 7 10.000 1.400 8 32.000 4.400 9 100.000 13-800 10 320.000 44.000 Source: EPA 1983. I JIM In =0 On =0 = On @ am so On On On an an M TABLE 4-3 NEILSON'S (1981) CHART SHOWING IMPACTS OF NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT ON WATER USES Level of Freshwater marine Recreation Nutrient Public Drinking Livestock Aquatic Aquatic and Commercial Enrichment Water Supply Drinking irrigation Life Life Aesthetics Industry Shipping 0 A A Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable C (oligotrophic) Acceptable C A 1 (oligotrophic) Acceptable C C C Minor Purification E E C 2 Required Increased (mesotrophic) P Nutrient Problems Problems arise Infrequent P E Levels Arise Infrequently Episodes T Could Periodically or due to when T P 3 More Enhance Local not Extensive A Usefulness conditions Acceptable A T Treatment Needed B (eutrophic) B A 4 Marginally L Acceptable (mesotrophic) Frequent L B Marginally Episodes E Acceptable when E L 5 not Marginally Algae Generally (eutrophic) Acceptable E Acceptable May Acceptable Marginally Algae and Clog But Acceptable May 6 Sometimes Intake Algae Clog not Pipes Could Intake Acceptable clog Pipes Pipes and 7 Pumps Generally and not Marginally There Acceptable Generally Problems Acceptable Could be Not Not May 8 Nitrate Acceptable Acceptable Arise Not Build-up Acceptable in Not Hydrogen Ground Acceptable Sulfide 9 Water for some Not Purposes Acceptable 10 Source: EPA 1983. admittedly a simplistic system, in relative terms, it provides a first cut at determining those conditions against which impacts can be compared. A second component which is important for additional comparison and definition of existing conditions is chlorophyll a. As noted in the Chesapeake Bay Studies by D'Elia (EPA, 1982) nutrient enrichment problems were found in low salinity areas (less than 8 to 12 PPT), where chlor- ophyll a concentrations were equal to or greater than 60 micrograms per liter. In general, preenrichment concentrations of chlorophyll a would be expected to be less than 30 micrograms per liter. Values between 30 and 60 micrograms per liter in summer would indicate moderate enrichment, while concentrations in excess of 60 micrograms per liter would indicate high enrichment. These ranges of values would be applicable to Baltimore County waters. A combination of the chlorophyll a concentrations and the Neilson Index utilizing total nitrogen and total phosphorus form the basis for definition of relative water quality and stress within the water body adjacent to any given proposed water dependent facility. In addition to the nutrients recommended for analyses, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand and trace metals are also recommended. Also fecal coliform bacteria and fecal streptococal bacteria are also recommended so as to define the presence of human sewage impacts which are common in many areas of Baltimore County waters. The following variables are recommended to accompany every permit application: Chlorophyll a Biochemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Total kjeldahl nitrogen Ammonia nitrogen Nitrate/nitrite/nitrogen Total Phosphorus Orthophosphorus Total Suspended Solids Fecal coliform bacteria Fecal streptococal bacteria As a first step comparison, it will be necessary to determine whether or not the data indicate a failure to meet existing surface water criteria. This will give an initial overview beyond the Neilson comparison of the relative conditions of the water body. Table 4-4 gives the State of Maryland receiving water quality criteria for estuarine waters as applicable to Baltimore County. The complete statement of the receiving water quality standards is given in Appendix A. Appendix B gives the federal surface water criteria which would be applicable to estuarine waters in Baltimore County. While there are many compounds which are listed in the federal criteria, this information is primarily included for future reference. The coliform concentrations can be compared with the State of Maryland Surface Water Quality Standards for total and fecal 4-2 TABLE 4-4 STATE OF MARYLAND, RECEIVING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR ESTUARINE WATERS IN BALTIMORE COUNTY (SEE APPENDIX A FOR COMPLETE MARYLAND RECEIVING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS) Toxic Materials Criteria - Applicable to all State Waters Aldrin-Dieldrin 0.003 microgram/liter Benzidine 0.1 DDT 0.001 Endrin 0.004 PCB 0.001 Toxaphene 0.005 CLASS I - Recreational Waters Fecal Coliform Not to exceed 200 mpn/100 ml 5 sample average - 30 day period Dissolved Oxygen > 5.0 mg/liter Temperature < 90F (32C) outside mixing zone 'Fhermal barriers may not be established pH > 6.5; < 8.5 Turbidity May not exceed levels detrimental to aquatic life. < 150 ntu at any time < 50 ntu monthly average CLASS II - Shellfish Harvesting Waters Fecal Coliform Not to exceed 14 mpn/100 ml Dissolved Oxygen > 5.0 mg/liter Temperature < 90F (32C) outside mixing zone fhermal barriers may not be established pH > 6.5; < 8.5 Turbidity May not exceed levels detrimental to aquatic life. < 150 ntu at any time 50 ntu monthly average coliform. Total streptococal bacteria are not included in the state standards but their presence is a direct indication that the coliform are human in origin. Appendix C provides a statement of the procedures for collecting water samples for original data and the EPA approved methodologies required for analyzing these variables. Constituent Modeling The final step in comparing the proposed facility to existing water quality conditions and for defining relative impacts is to combine the results of the water quality data and the flushing studies and to compare these to expected pollutant loadings which may be attributable both to operations and upland runoff conditions following completion of the project. It should be remembered that this is relatively simplistic approach and is intended to be used as a guideline with which to judge the relative impacts of the application. The parameters which would be most effective in predicting the relative impacts and indicating the effectiveness of best management practices and stormwater runoff control are as follows: A - Inwater Pollutant Additions Copper Lead Fecal coliform Biochemical Oxygen Demand B - Stormwater Loadings Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Biochemical Oxygen Demand Lead Zinc and Sediment as expressed by Total Suspended Solids For the first order estimations, phosphorus alone may be used as a keystone pollutant. For the in-water calculations, it is possible to utilize existing information and models developed and included in EPA, 1985 to define maximum expected steady state conditions for Copper, BOD, and coliform. The approach would be to assume the worst case conditions and make the calculations necessary to predict the additional loadings from operations for copper, lead, BOD and fecal coliform. These can then be applied to the flushing and steady state models given in Appendix D to define the relative impacts. 4-3 4.2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ACTIVITY: BOAT MAINTENANCE Information Required for BMP Impact BMP Review Process Discharge of toxic chemicals Measures which reduce the potential Description of inwater structures, such as copper or tin based for discharge of toxic chemicals into materials and preservations. antifoulant paints or battery marina waters include: acids may impact aquatic fauna. Describe dry dock facility in Use of antifouling paints terms of availability, i. a., The bottom paint used an boats restricted to boat hulls only; capacity and cost of use. is designed to reduce fouling piers and other in-water structures and, as such contains toxic should not be painted. Show structures or design features compounds. These compounds may of boat wahing facility whith include copper or tributyltin. Restriction of the number of boats prevent discharge of antifoulants, Data on the effects of chronic in-water with copper-base painted oil/grease and detergents to low level release of these hulls marina waters. These include compounds is larking (EVA drainage and filtration systems 1985) . Antifoulant compounds Encouragement to use dry dock which may be incorporated in the enter marina waters white boats facilities which may minimize overall storm water management are docked and as a result of exposure times of marina waters plant. washing the hull. In addition, to antifoulants. marine organisms are also Describe of boat maintenance affected by detergents from Systems designed to retain and facilities indication storage boat washing. Detergents, dispose of paint flakes and fine locations of paint, solvent and including oil dispersants, particles from hull cleaning and other pottential toxicants and be divided into two categories repainting should be included among methods insuring proper storage water-based compounds, which boat maintenance facilities. and disposal of toxicants and are highly toxic to fish and emptied toxicant containers. shellfish but not to All previously opened containers, crustaceans, and solvent-based of miscellaneous chemicals, boat Online pland for increasing compounds for which the reverse paints, and paint vehicles should boater awareness of potential is true. Other potential be stored in designated facilities. release of toxicants to marina maintainance involve discharge waste chemicals should be disposed water and penalties for of chemicals due to improper offsite by contract with a private disreguard of marina rules storage or use, such as waste handling firm. concerning such. the water. No explosive chemicals should be stored onsite. Waste motor parts and old batteries should be disposed to closed containers before removal offsite. Painting of boats in-water should be prohibited. MM M MM BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ACTIVITY: CONTROL or STORMWATER RUNOFF (post-conatruction) information Required for Impact BMP Review Process Water quality Iin the marina Features which minimize stormwater Maps of the are proposed for basin and adjacent waters can discharge of pollutants act to contral development must indicate: be impacted by pollutantn in runoff velocity and volume, and retain stormwater runoff. These pollutants before those waters enter 1. Post-construction drainage pollutants include sediments the Bay system. These features patterns, especially of runoff nutrients, salts, petroleum inc I tide coming off of nonvegetated hydrocarbons, metals, anti area lurban runoff). bacteria. of primary concern Use of retention and detention is the potential for increased basins to handle the first one inch 2. Type and pervious nature of turbidities due directly of rainfall, and effect the removal all surfaces on marina to suspended sediments and of a minimum of 10% percent of property. indirectly to increased algal pollutant loadings, especially growth. Sediment derived tur- sediments, total nitrogen, 3 .Design and location of bidity as wall an decreased biochemical oxygen demand total detention/retention systems. light penetration due to algal phosphorous, lead, and zinc. blooms can affect the growth of 4. Post-construction vegetation SAV. Ot-her suspended or dis- Use of bulkheads as runoff patterns. solved pollutants may be accu- filtering devices by directing mulated in fish and shellfish runoff through porous surface to De5cription of stormwater affecting the health of those bulkheads lined with filter cloth. manaqmont plant must include: organisms and the organisms which consume them. Use of porous surfaces (crushed I .Estimates of pro-and post stone, shell) wherever possible, construction loadings of major particularly in parking lots pollutants (sediment, N.P. lead and zinc, and biological Direction of runoff from impervious oxygen demand in marina surfaces to porous surfaces to waters) with all assumptions improve infiltration capacity. of controlling conditions detailed. Minimal clearing of vegetation onsite 2. Mixing and flushing rates in marina waters. Retention and creation of vegeta- tive buffers (especially wetlands) 3. Total acreage of major land onsite between potential sources cover types and infiltration of pollutants and discharge areas. potentials. Location outfalls for extremely 'J. Maintainance schedule for high runoff levels to discharge stormwater management into waters with high flushing structures. rates (Boozer 1979). Conservative use of fertilizers onsite Use of non-phosphorous detergents for washing boats. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ACTIVITY: SITE LOCATION Information Required for impact BMP Review Process 1. Dredging, construction, and Plans and construction designs must Maps of the area proposed for increased boat traffic may list and locate aquatic resources development must show aquatic disturb aquatic resources potentially impacted and demonstrate resources within one mile by such as shellfish beds minimal impact (see Description of surface watter connection. These submerged aquatic vegeta- Aquatic Concerns with Water Dependent resources must include (but are tion, and fish nurseries. Facility Development). not limited to: shellfish beds, SAV, and wetlands. 2. The activities listdc Section 10 permit must be obtained above may interfere with from COE indicating the nature and Maps and construction plans which navigation. extent of interference with a indicate locations of navigated navigable waterway. waterways and potential 3. May interfere with interference and expected length circulation or salinity 404 Permit must be obtained for all of time involved for construction regimes. dredging and dredged material of marina. disposal. Information required for 404 permits: 1. Evaluation of economic, social environmental costs vs benefit. 2. Extent of private and public need. 3. Desirability of alternate locations 4. Effects on wetlands. 5. Impacts on navigation. 6. Effects on flood control. 7. compliance with applicable effluent and water quality standards and management practices. 8. Interference with adjacent properties or water resource projects. 9. Consistancy with state, regionaal or local land use classification. 10. Compliance with Coastal Zone management programs. 11. Enhancement, preservation or rehabilitation. 12. Cumulative impacts. REST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ACTINITY: DREDGING (Initial Conatritction and Periodic Maintenance) information Required for - Impact BMP Review Process Dredging temporarily degrades water qitality impacts may be avoided Maps of areas proposed for water quality onsite and in or minimized by (Maloney et al. 1980a; dredging must indicate: the direction of waterflow by Ervin at al. 1980; Badnarz 1983): increasing turbidity through Planning dredged channels that 1. Depths and contours of basin, the resuspension of the bottom follow the course of natural channel(s) and adjacent waters sediments. These resuspended channels within a 1/2 mile radius sediments can affect filter before and after development. feeding organisms such as Building slips for boats with deep shellfish by reducing feeding drafts in naturally deep water 2. Location of dredged area and rates, suffocate organisms by depth of material removed. clogging gills, reduce primary Exteek,ling piers and docks as far as productivity by reducing light possible into naturally deep water 3. Location and design of penetration, and bury benthic turbidity control structures. organisms through siltation. Providing upland storage for Resuspended bottom sediments amaller boats and using boat lifts Conceptual plans must include can contain trace metals, toxic to transport them to the water. description of: substances, nutrients, and organic debris that can be Dredling Method 1. Dredging schedule indicating released into the water column. no interference with fish Resulting water quality prob- Wbon dredging is required, water spawing season (15 March - I lems can include lowered dis- quality impacts due to increased June). solved oxygen concentrations ttirbiflily may be reduced by: and promotion of algal blooms Choice of dredging method 2. Method and equipment used for dredging. (ire of silt screens or similar ,:.)ntainment methods. 3. Design features of turbidity control structures. Othet Mitigative measures 4. 13est use of naturally deep Other mitigative measures for dredging waters. impa'ts inclildp: Dre(1,3ing during colder months when DO levels are higher (cold water has a greater capacity for DO than does warm water) would help mitigate dredging-related Do and BOD problems. Time of year restrictions generally do not permit dredging between 15 March and I June. Dredging dead-end (Venetian) finger canals can be sloped, as opponed to being at right angles with the bottom, to reduce stagnant, low Do pocket areas. Sloped 4anks can be stabilized with rip-rap to prevent erosion Water circulation can be ensured by using properly designed culverts, pilings, and bridge spans, and by using discontinuous mounds for open water discharge. ACTIVITY: DREDGE SPOIL PLACEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES information Required for impact BMP Review Process Dredged material may be din- Mitigative measures for dredged Conceptual plans must detail: posed of in open water, wet- material disposal include: lands, or upland sites. open Productive use of suitable dredged 1. Location and design of water disposal is seldom a vij- material for beach replenishment, disposal site. ble option for marine projecti construction, sanitary landfill, and disposal on wetlands is and agricultural soil Improvements 2 . Treatment for removal of unacceptable because of envi- Confining discharges to the pollutants before discharge of ronmental reasons. Environ- smallest practicable deposition supernatent liquid. mental solutions for potential zone to protect'adjacent substrates disposal problems were compiled Dedicating permanent upland 3. Use of spoil after dewatoring. from NKFS (1983), Van Dolah disposal sites as part of the et al. (1979), Wright (1978), marina specifications would help Johnston (1981), and Reimol,J et al. (1978). Maryland eliminate future problems related regulations currently so to disposal of maintenance dredging! severely restrict any open material. These permanent sites waters disposal that only can be sites that have been pre- upland disposal is allowed. viously used or represent an environmentally satisfactory alternative The carrying capacity at existing disposal areas could be increased by raising the height of contain- merit embankments Disposing of toxic and organic materials in impervious containment basins (settling of contaminated suspended particles may be enhanced by the addition of a cationic poly- electrolyte with further treatment using sand filters and activated charcoal before discharge). currently, only Hart and Miller Islands Disposal site will accept significantly contaminated dredged materials. When upland disposal is not possible and open water disposal is considered Upland retention or treatment of environmentally acceptable, measures runoff from the discharged material that can minimize problems or impacts to remove dissolved pollutants include: before they reach the aquatic environment (a simple treatment Usinq several sites to provide a such as ozonation or aeration can More even distribution of dredged be adequate for reduction of BOD material overburden and COD before the discharge of supernatant liquid from spoil areas Maintaining the same elevation as enters into receiving waters) marshes and other continguous areas Controlling erosion at diked areas to promote natural tidal flooding by shaping the 'dike and using and flushing stabilization measures, such as revegetation. Positioning outfalls Situating spoil islands on the to empty back into the dredged area windward side of the dredged Characterizing the sediments to channel. be dredged and considering the potential odor problems during the Using materials for approved tidal selection of the disposal site and wetland development. site preparation. I I = = = = M = = M = = M M = = = = ACTIVITY: BASIN DESIGN BEST mAnAaEmruT PRACTICES Information Required for IME!act BMP Review Process Basin and entrance channel Design features that promote flushing Maps of area proposed for design affect flushing and are: development must indicate pre--and sedimentation patterns. Basin depths that are not deeper post-development features such as: Adequate flushing of a marina than the open water or channels to is necessary for maintaining which the basin is connected and 1. Depth of basin, entrance the water quality of the marina never deeper than the marina access channel(s) and-adjacent waters basin and adjacent waterway. channel with 1/2 mile radius. Natural circulation near the Basin and channel depths that site should be maintained gradually increase toward open 2. Bottom contours of basin. whenever possible. Poorly water 3. Location flushed marinas can become and design of Two openings at opposite ends of mechanical flusing enhancement stagnant and permit the the marine to establish flow- structures and breakwaters. concentration of pollutants through currents from the marine facility and Single entrances that are centered boats . The settling arid in rectangular basins rather than 4 . Sedimentation patterns. accumulation of organic at one corner Description of pre-and material and fine sediments can result in decreased dissolved Basins with few vertical walls post-development conditions, must oxygen levels and shoaling and gently rounded corners or oval include. within the marina basin. shaped inadequate flushing and Even bottom contours, gently 1. Flushing potentials in basin subsequent stagnation may lead sloping toward the entrance with no and channel(s). to water quality dogra,lation, pockets or depressions affecting dissolved oxygen, Areas where tidal exchange may not 2 Estimates of sedimentation water temperature, arid adequately flush the marina, tide rates pollutant concentrations. gates or one-way valves may be used to enhance the flushing rate For harbor-locked marinas dredged from uplands, flushing may be induced by creating a tidal prism with the basis). The basin is flooded on incoming tide and the water flows out smaller diameter pipes on the ebb tide Entrance channels designed with openings as wide as possible and with increasing depth away from the marina basin promote flushing (Boozer 1979) Flushing may also be enhanced when. entrance channels are located in the direction of prevailing winds as wind-generated currents can facilitate circulation between the basin and the adjacent waterway. Placement of beeakwaters may impede shoaling in channels and basin, and help to maintain good flushing. REST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ACTIVITY: CONSTRUCTION IN WATER Information Required for Impact BMP Review Process A ditect water quality impact Impact on water quality may be Description of construction during construction of billk- minimized by use of pile-driving methods and type of equipment to heads, revetments, pilings ' rather than jetting. be used for building of in water piers, docks, and breakwaters structures. is a temporary increase in See Dredging for Turbidity Control turbidity. All structures may impede water and sediment movements. All structures should be designed Show structures on conceptual Mooring structures can impact and placed for minimal restriction plans with depths before and after water quality within the marina of water circulation or mixing indicated. basin through leaching of wood within the marina basin, and for preservatives. References Oil reduction of shoaling Describe types of structure and environmental solutions to materials to be used. potential impacts on shoreline Avoid solid structures structures include [)are at al. Give mean life expectancy of (1977), Chmura and Ross (1970) Elevate docks and piers as high as structures. Mulvihill at al. (1980), and possible, orient in north-south NMFS (1983). rather than east-west direction, and minimize structure width to allow for maximum sunlight penetration These impacts may be reduced by: Using alternative materials such as As above, and state type Of concrete-filled, steel-reinforced material and preservatives. PVC, plastics, or other non- conventional materials Using highly refined (grade one) creosote that contains less tar or alternative preservatives such as chromated copper arsenate (CCA salt) to minimize chemical leaching 1 110 I= MIN I min I= BEST MAVAGEMEN,r PRACTICES ACTIVITY: BOAT rUELING AND OPERATION, CONTROL OF PETROLEUM PRODUCT POLLUTION Information Required for Impact BMP Review Process Pollutants discharged to waters measures which prevent discharge of Conceptual plans must include: in association with tits fueling petroleum products to the aquatic and operation of boats include environment include: I. Location and construction of carbon monoxide, carbon Location and construction of fuel fuel storage tanks. dioxide, oil, gasoline, and storage tanks which minimize poten- 2. Location and design of fuel other hydrocarbons resulting tial of accidental puncture pumps. from combustion of fuels and Tanks should be EPA-spproved 3. Types of fuel distrubuted at lubricants, and lead. Data on and filled using approved safety marina. the impact of chronic low level equipment and procedures 4. Details of maintenance/shop discharges of the remaining Fuel pumps should be fitted with facilities at marina. pollutants an coastal organisms automatic shut-off of the feeder S. Desing of bilge disposal and ecosystems are lacking. line if the pump is knocked off system with emphasis on Most studies concerning the vertical alignment. control of petroleum products. effects of hydrocarbons on Fueling nozzles should be fittz;J 6. Marina personnel training marine fauna have been after with back-pressure shut-off valves. which covers prevention and major oil spills, where Lho cleanup of oil or fuel spills. amount of hydrocarbon pollut- Locking fuel fills should not be ants is considerably greater utilized, requiring the operator than would occur from outboard to manually hold the on-position exhausts. These studies during the fueling procedure. (included in Hart slid Fuller Filling of fuel tanks from 1979) showed that the areas of containers should be prohibited concern regarding oil pollution while boats are in marina. were direct lethal toxicity, Fueling should be supervised by sublethal disruption of physio- marina personnel who should be logical or behavioral responses trained to prevent and cleanup (of which extremely little is any fuel spills. known), persistence and accumu- only low-lead gas and diesel fuel lation of oil in invertebrates should be sold onsite. that is passed up the food web chain, destruction of habitat, Facilities for fueling of ramp- and damage to fishery resources launched boats before launching through tainted shellfish or would help prevent spills directly finfish meat (Moore and Dwyer into the water. 1974; Dawson 1979; William% and Discharge of oil and gas with bilge Duke 1979). outboard motor water should be controlled by use exhaust and bilge discharge of oil filtration devices on bilge lead to marine waters. Lead pumps or soil absorbant pads also enters the aquatic envi- (sponges) placed in the bilge and ronment in surface emissions, recovered prior to bilge water atmospheric fallout, and s,tr- discharge (Chmura and Ross 1978). face runoff. Almost all of the Maintenance services provided lead that is discharged eventu- by the marina may help improve ally reaches bottom sediments combustion efficiency of resident (Kuzminski and Mulcahy 1974). boats . Lead is very toxic to most Removal of engines to an upland plants and is moderately toxic shop for major maintenance and to mammals where it acts an a repair may also help reduce cumulative poison (Bowen 1966) . petroleum product losses to Fish are most sensitive to lead the water. among aquatic organisms (Mathis and Kevern 1975). Lead bio- accumulates and is passed throuqh the food web. BEST MANAUEMUNT PRACTICES ACTIVITY: CONTROL OF THASH information Required for Impact BMP Review Process Litter is a form of pollution measures which prevent loss of trash Plans should indicate loction and associated with increased to marina waters and upland facilities type of trash collecting boating activity that has include: facilties. an aesthetic as well as an ecological impact. During the Provision of equipment carts on all Plans for training of marina peak boating season, approx- piers for conveyance of refuse to personnel and enforcement of imately one-half to one cubic conveniently placed dumpsters. proper trash disposal should be yard of uncompacted garbage per outlined. day can be expected for every Strict enforcement by marina 100 boats in a marina 101sen personnel of proper disposal of and Burd 1982). Plastics are trash by boaters, with potential the chief concern. To date, fines for improper disposal. 15 percent of the world's 280 -species of sea birds are known to have ingested plastic (Wahle and Coleman 1983). Plastic has been found in the stomachs of four of the seven species of marine turtles, in at least eight species of fish, in mammals including dolphins, and manatees, .ind in invertebrates. Lost or Jiscarded fish netting, monoEilament line, plastic beverage yokes are materials that may lead to strangulation, drowning, or starvation. BEST MANAGEmcnT PRACTICES ACTIVITY: CONTROL OF SEWAGE DISCI .IARGES Information Required for impact amp Review Process Raw sewage from boats and fil- Marina features which reduce the Conceptual plans must detail: tered discharges from ineffoc- potential of sewage discharge include: 1. sewage holding and disposal tive upland septic systems may impact water quality and Newly constructed and renovated systems for onshore and aesthetics. Boat sewage can be marina facilities should be boat-pump facilities which are visually repulsive. increased connected to the municipal sewage connected to municipal nutrient loadings from sewage system for disposal of sewage from systems. may contribute to incroased boats and shore-based facilities. 2. Location and design of biological demand (DOD) in receiving waters (oCZM 1976). Ample and conveniently located pump-out facilities. The most serious effect of toilet facilities and showers discharging fresh fecal mate- should be provided onshore. 3. Location and design of onshore rial is the potential for toilet and shower facilities. introducing disease-catiqing Pump-out facilities for holding viruses and bacteria (Patho- 4. Training of marina personnel gens). Problems may occur if tanks and portable heads should be concerning the importance of boat sewage is released in the provided by the marina at the prevention of sewage pollution vicinity of shellfish (clam or fueling dock. in marina waters and oyster) beds or into enclosed Cost of pump-out service should be enforcement of marina rules waterways with limited fltish- included in slip rental fees and regarding unlawful discharges. ing. shellfish require clean provided on an unlimited basis. water to be microbiologically safe for human consumption, Marina stores should supply Coast regardless of whother they are Guard approved marine heads, marine eaten raw or partially cooked. sanitation devices, and related Fecal coliform bacteria, other supplies bacterial pathogens, and viruses found in water and Boaters should be notified of the sediments are concentratod prohibition against sewage dumping by shellfish, depending upon in marina waters, the pollution temperature, density of path- levels which result from dis- ogens, salinity, currents, charges, and the penalties imposed depth, water chemistry, and for violations, by posting promi- shellfish feeding activity nant signs at points of access to (Van Donsel and Goldreich 1971; piers and other frequented areas, Metcalf and Stilos 1968). Once and in conjunction with slip rental concentration of pathogens .has agreements. occurred, microorganisms will not necessarily be flushed at the same rate (Janssen 1974; Individuals leasing slip space Kelly and Arcisy 19511). Known should be held responsible for anteric pathogens associated sewage disposal violations by with faces-contaminated sliell- written contract agreements which fish include typhoid favor, specify: "Ifead discharge overboard dysentery, gastroantaritis, will result In voiding this con- and infectious hepatitis (NSSP tract immediately and expulsion 1965) from the marina with forfeiture of rental fees. Heads are to be pumped out without a per-service fee at marina as often as requested." mmm mmm MM M UEST MANA(1EMrn,r PRAcTICES ACTIVITY: PROTECTION oF SHORELINE Information Required for Impact OMP Review Process Modification of shoreline by Shorelines may be protected against Maps of area proposed for removal of wetland vegetation, erosion by employing: development must indicate pre and construction, and increased post development shoreline wave action due to boat wake Creation and protection and features such as: may encourage eronion at a maintenance of existing marshes. marina site. Loss of shoreline 1. Location, extent and quality area and degraded water quality Rip-rap stabilization of eroding of wetlands. may result. banks. Armor stone placed near high tide line. 2. Slopes of shoreline. Bulkhead and revetment stabiliza- 3. Mean high and mean low water tion of marina basin. Bulkheading lines. may be appropriate along shoreline if placed at or above MJ1W. 4. Bulkheads, revetments, rip-rap, and br6awaters. 5 mph speed limit enforcing a "No Wake" zone in marina basin 5. Depths of basin, channel and and entrance channel. all adjacent waters. Basin depth designs which minimize 6. Sedimentation patterns, turbidity due to prop wash and acretion and depletion. scour. 7. "No wake" zone in marina basin Designated slips for boats of and entrance channel. different drafts. 8. Areas of erodable soils. Breakwaters near entrance channel or marina mouth. outline measures of boater awareness and compliance with"no Wake' rules including description of penalties for non-compliance. 4.3 DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM The intent of the detailed environmental assessment is to provide suffi- cient information for the County Review Group (CRG) to prepare a findings of fact, required by the Critical Area Legislation. This second level of review builds on the environmental baseline data that was provided during the preliminary evaluation. Issues flagged during the preliminary evalu- ation may require more detailed field information. During the development of the water-dependent facilities review process, it became apparent that a means to address the cumulative impacts of numerous facilities in an estuarine subarea was essential to protect water quality and the natural resources of the Chesapeake Bay. The rating system attempts to address this concern by assigning weighted factors to these areas of the County's waterways where cumulative impacts of numerous water-dependent facilities would lead to water quality and habitat degradation. Estuarine subareas with poor flushing characteristics and poor water quality receive the most points. This weighting acknowledges the import- ance of flushing characteristics in concentrating pollutants from a number of water-related development activities. If a proposed facility receives enough points, the developer would be required to show an improvement in expected stormwater loadings above the ten percent rule. This additional requirement may be satisfied onsite or, in some cases, it may have to be provided offsite yet within this same watershed. Much of the review conducted by the CRG is technical in nature and wirl require the presentation of engineering plans and specifications for the construction and operation of the proposed water-dependent facility. Section 4.2 describes a range of BMPs for upland and water-related development activities. Estimations of point and non-point source loadings to the estuary must be included in the environmental assessment accompanying the site plan. County planning staff has the responsibility for assigning points to the thirteen rating categories. Most of the information should be available from the preliminary evaluation and additional assessment. It should be noted that because several of the rating factors require information that is not currently available on a county-wide basis, it is not possible to thoroughly evaluate the outcome of the rating system at this time. Numerous scenarios involving development, redevelopment, or expansion were evaluated according to the rating system proposed, however, there may need to be revisions to the rating system after it has been applied to a number of actual water-dependent facility applications. 4-4 RATING SYSTEM Natural Resources 1. Offsite Aquatic Resources. Includes: SAV beds, viable shellfish beds, extensive or embayed tidal wetlands greater than two acres, anadromous fish spawning area (as identified on current DNR aquatic resource maps). If the waterside construction limit is within 1320 feet of a designated aquatic resource area: Project receives 5 points 2. Shallow Water Habitat. This factor considers adverse impacts on potential SAV habitat, anadromous fish nursery area and other wildlife benefits of preserving shallow water habitat. a. dredging is estimated to produce less than 199 cubic yards (cy) of spoil 0 points b. 200 to 1,999 cy spoil: if greater than 50% of area extent of disturbance is shallow water habitat (less than 31 deep), project receives 10 points. c. 2,000 to 19,999 cy spoil: if greater than 40% of the area "of disturbance is shallow water habitat, project receives 10 points d. greater than 20,000 cy: if greater than 30% the area extent of disturbance is shallow water habitat, project receives 10 points. 3. Tidal Wetlands. Project requires mitigation for impacts to fringe tidal wetlands. Project receives 5 points 4. Rare and Endangered Species. The presence of any species designated by Baltimore County as a Critical species (includes Federal and State listed rare, threatened and endangered species, and those of local significance). Project receives 5 points 5. Habitat Protection Area. Calculate percentage of upland area of site identified on the existing conditions map to be Habitat Protection Area, as defined by Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Criteria. 4-5 a. less than 10% of site is designated as Habitat Protection Area: Project receives 0 points b. greater than 10% and less than 40%: Project receives 5 points c. greater than 40% of site: Project receive 10 points Physical Alteration 6. Proposal involves structures that would significantly alter natural littoral drift movement. Project receives 5 points 7. Proposal would alter salinity regime in vicinity of project site. Project receives 5 points 8. Proposal would significantly alter water circulation patterns in vicinity of project site. Project receives 5 points 9. Dredging. Proposal does not incorporate Best Available Technology for minimizing adverse impacts of dredging. Project receives 5 points 10. Dredged Material. Project site is located in an area where extensive and frequent maintenance dredging will be required. Project receives 5 points Water Ouality Impacts 11. Flushing Characteristics. If the application of the flushing model or an in-situ dye study reveals a flushing rate between two and four days: Project receives 15 points 12. Water Ouality. Existing baseline water quality data or required water quality sampling data provides the basis for classifying receiving tidal waters as poor, fair or good (see Section 4.1 and Appendices for methodology). a. poor water quality: project receives 15 points b. fair water quality: project receives 10 points c. good water quality; project receives 0 points 4-6 11. Sevage Disposal. If project proposes onsite sewage disposal. Project receives 5 points RATING SYSTEM CHECKLIST FACTOR WEIGHTING POINTS 1. Offsite Aquatic Resources 2X 10 2. Shallow Water Habitat 2X 10 3. Tidal Wetlands ix 5 4. Rare & Endangered Species ix 5 5. Habitat Protection Area a. less than 10% of site 0 b. greater than 10%, less than 40% ix 5 c. greater than 40% 2X 10 6. Littoral Drift ix 5 7. Salinity ix 5 8. Water Circulation ix 5 9. Dredging Impacts ix 5 10. Dredge Spoil ix 5 11. Flushing Characteristics 3X 15 12. Water Quality a. Good 0 b. Fair 2X 10 c. Poor 3X 15 13. Sewage Disposal ix 5 MAXIMUM TOTAL $CORE (lX=5) 100 Scores ranging from 50 to 70, inclusive, must reduce predevelopment pollutant loadings by 20%. Scores of 75 or greater are considered unacceptable and will be denied. 4-7 5. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS 5.1 SUMMARY A comprehensive discussion of all potentially applicable federal and state regulations would require many pages of analyses, and is not the goal of this section. Instead, an attempt has been made to distill a complex array of regulations into an orderly and understandable description of the permitting process. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the lead federal agency in the permitting of water-dependent facilities and their role includes coor- dination of input from the state and local agencies, special interest groups, and the general public. This permitting authority has been delegated to the Corps by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps to regulate discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States. Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act requires a Corps permit for the construction of dams or dikes and will not be a factor in most County water-dependent facility applications. Section 10, however, of the same Act authorizes Corps regulation of essentially all construction in, over and under navigable waters of the United States. Finally, the Corps is required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to ensure that per- mitted actions are compatible with the protection of federally listed endangered and threatened species. The Corps considers comments from a variety of federal, state and local agencies throughout the permitting process, and shares denial authority with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Corps has a memo- randum of cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for water-related permitting. In addition, the Corps seeks comments from other federal agencies which may include: the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Park Service. The Corps 404 permitting process also solicits comments, or may require prior permitting/licensing from: the Maryland Board of Public Works; Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Watershed Permits Division, Wetland Permits Division, Coastal Resources Division, and Tidal Fisheries Divi- sion; Maryland Office of Environmental Programs; Maryland Historical Trust; the Regional Planning Council; and Baltimore County. All comments from these agencies are given serious consideration before the granting or denial of the permit. Concurrently with the Corps permit application, it is also necessary to submit similar applications to the following two State agencies: the Maryland Office of Environmental Programs (OEP); and to the Wetlands Permits Division of DNR. All projects which have the potential to significantly impact coastal resources must also receive a determination of Coastal Zone Consistency from the Coastal Resources Division of DNR. Projects which involve dredging of state wetlands require a Wetlands License from the Maryland Board of Public Works. Finally, projects which 5-1 involve construction in state waters, specifically he Port of Baltimore, require a Construction Permit from the Maryland Port Administration. Water Quality Certification must be obtained from OEP (of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene) before the Corps will permit a water-dependent project. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the state water quality certification process to regulate activities which may result in discharge into navigable waters. OEP determines whether the discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards. This applies to discharges during construction and to those associated with the subsequent operation of the facility. OEP circulates the water quality certificate application to other state and federal agencies for comment before granting or denying the certificate. Dredging projects in wetlands require permit from either or both the Wetland Permits Division of DNR, Water Resources Administration, and Maryland Board of Public Works. Maryland DNR is.authorized by Titles 8 and 9 of the Natural Resources Article to regulate dredging and filling within tidal wetlands (state or private). Tidal wetlands below the mean tide line are state wetlands. Dredge and fill activities of state wetlands must be approved by the Maryland Board of Public Works. The Board derives its authority to license dredge and fill operations on State wetlands from Section 9-202 of Title 9. Both applications must demonstrate that the project has been developed to incur the least environmental impact to the wetlands. Corps permits are generally not issued until a Board license is issued if state wetlands are involved. Again, permit applications are circulated to several state and federal. agencies prior to granting or denying the permit. All projects which require construction, dredging and spoil disposal within the Port of Baltimore are regulated by the Maryland Port Administration (MPA). MPA derives its authority for issuance of construction permits from Title 6 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Applications for construction permits are circulated among the Corps, and DNR which cooperates with MPA under the direction of a Memorandum of Understanding. Table 5-1 provides a summary of state and federal regulatory authority and actions involving ACOE Section 10/404 permit applications. 5.2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AND GUIDELINES This section provides a synopsis of the responsibilities and guidelines of respective state and federal agencies who are involved with approving or commenting on water-related development activities. State and federal guidelines have been adapted from several sources; however, the primary sources are the Maryland Dredge and Fill Handbook (Coastal Resources Division, DNR, 1983) and the Coastal Marina Assessment Handbook (EPA, 1985). It is important to note that several of the agency guidelines incorporated into this section are informal policy guidance or draft guidelines and that in many instances state and federal regulatory decisions are made on the individual merits of the application. 5-2 TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS Agency Action Remarks Corps of Engineers Corps Permit Required for all dredging operations in Maryland coastal waters. Maryland Board of Public Wetlands License Required for all dredging projects involving state Works wetlands. Corps permit generally not issued until license is issued. Wetland Permits Division Wetlands Permit Required for all dredging projects in private Water Resources Administra- wetlands. tion DNR Coastal Resources Division Coastal Zone Consis- Required for all dredging projects. A positive Tidewater Administration tency Determination determination is a prerequisite for issuance of DNR a Corps permit. Office of Environmental Water Quality Required for all dredging projects. This certifica- Programs/Department of Certification tion is a prerequisite for issuance of a Corps permit. Health and Mental Hygiene Maryland Port Administra- Construction Permit Required for all port-related construction activity in tion/Dept. of Transportation state waters. Usually limited to Port of Baltimore. Environmental Protection Review and approval Required for all dredging projects. Agency comments U.S. Fish and Wildlife Review comments Required for all dredging projects. Service [DOI] National Marine Fisheries Review comments Required for all dredging projects. Service [DOC] U.S. Coast Guard Review and approval Required.only when a bridge or causeway is comments involved in the project. mmmmm@mwmm M M W TABLE 5-1 (Cont.) Agency Action Remarks National Park Service [DOI] Review comments Required only when National Park lands are involved or impacted. Tidal Fisheries Division Review comments Comments solicited by and submitted to Tidewater Administration Wetland Permits Division. DNR Watershed Permits Division Review comments Comments usually solicited by and submitted Water Resources Administra- through Wetland Permits Division tion/DNR Maryland Historical Trust Review comments Required on all projects. 5.2.1 Federal Agencies U.S-. Army Corps of Engineers A Corps permit is required to locate a structure; to fill, excavate, or discharge dredged or fill material in waters of the United States; or to transport dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Every activity may not require a separate individual permit application. Certain activities and work have been authorized by nation- wide permits and general permits. Nationwide permits have been issued for discharges of dredged or fill material into certain smaller or minor waters of the United States. Nationwide permits have also been issued for certain types of activities in all waters of the United States. These permits and their conditions are published in Section 330.4 and 330.5 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If any activity is covered by a nationwide permit and the applicable conditions will be met, there is no need to apply for an individual permit. In effect, activities authorized by the nationwide permits in the regulation are permitted in advance. No paperwork or delay is required. General permits are issued by the District Engineer. They are similar to the nationwide permits, but are limited to specified regions and may require some notification or reporting procedures. The District Engineer is authorized to determine those categories of activities in specified geographical regions that will cause only a minimal adverse environmeittal impact and to permit them with general permits. These will reduce delays by eliminating the need to process many individual applications. The overall process followed by the Corps in reviewing permit applica- tions, including marina development is shown on Figure 5.1. This diagram illustrates overall Corps responsibilities and decision points. The procedure shown would apply in general, to Corps reviews under any area of authority. Typically, when a Corps application form is utilized by an applicant, only one form is submitted for both Section 10 and 404 approval and adequate information for both reviews is required. This general process has been modified to some extent based on memoranda of agreement signed by the Corps and state permit agencies. The Corps, permit review process provides a clearinghouse for the collec- tion and review of comments from public agencies at all levels of govern- ment, private groups and individuals. It also brings together comments representing the entire range of social, economic and environmental factors affected by marina development. Following receipt of the permit application, the Corps undertakes a preliminary assessment to determine the type of environmental review required. This environmental review may range from a categorical exclu- sion to a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) procedure based upon the potential extent of adverse impact on the natural and man-made envi- ronment. A proposed activity is categorically excluded from further 5-3 APPLICATIONS FOR: EPA De ial U.S. Authority Dredge & Fill Public Notice Fish and Permit Iriteragency Wildlife Coordination Service Comments Required by National Law Marine F sheries Army Corps Service/NE of Engineers MD DNR astal Zone cr-lay Coastal Resources nsistancy the @A Di@n., TA termination Water 0 ality Water Certi ic tion OEP A P P Office of L Environmental Geological I Programs Survey C DHMH A @W-lollf- Public Hearing N Dredg -14@d-@ if Necessary T and/or Fill Project Aut rization T Advertisement Cc""' < Divn., TA - rc v ff- T As Secretary Tidal Hearing Report MD DNR mD ONR Fisheries and Wetlands wri., TA Recommendation/ Division Determination Watershed State Permits MO Board of Wetlands WRA Public Wo, ks License MPA Construction MPA Permit ristruction Permit MD DOT or --n-o- Por Authority Acl... 0 Flow chart of the fill/dredge permitting process in Maryland. State D,e@g, and or Fill Author zation Figure 5-1. Flow chart of the fill/dredge permitting process in Maryland. environmental review if the Corps finds that the project will have mini- mal or no individual or cumulative effect on environmental quality and that it will not cause an environmentally controversial change to existing environmental conditions. When a categorical exclusion is not made, the next step in the permit process is for public notice to be given. This notice goes out to all interested parties along with those agencies with a required review or regulatory role in the process. The finding of the preliminary assess- ment may be included as part of the public notice. A public hearing is held when it is determined necessary. This is based on review of comments from individuals, special interest groups, other Corps offices and public agencies. The permit application is then evalu- ated and the necessary environmental reviews, as determined in the preliminary assessment, are conducted. Following the completion of the environmental review, the permit decision is made and the permit is either issued or denied. Review Guidelines Impact Category ACOE Concerns Water Quality 1. Compliance with applicable effluent limitations, water quality standards and management practices during construction, operation and maintenance. Aquatic Resources 1. Potential direct and indirect loss of.or damage to fish resources. Terrestrial Resources 1. Potential direct and indirect loss of and damage to wildlife resources. Wetland Resources 1. Unnecessary alteration or destruction of wetlands will be discouraged as contrary to the public interest. 2. Determine whether the coast line or base 1-ine might be altered. Socioeconomic Resources 1. Probable impact of marina and associated activities on the public interest, including nearby properties. 2. Extent of public or private need. 3. Effect on the enhancement, preservation or development of historical, scenic and recreational values. Navigation Resources 1. Interference with public access to, or use of navigable waters. 2. Interference with a Federal project in navigable waters. 5-4 Aesthetic Resources 1. Impact on public interest with respect to scenic values and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Ground-water Resources 1. Potential impacts to wetland recharge areas and potable water supplies. U.S. Environmental Protection-Agen@g The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participates in the review of permit applications to conduct dredging operations as a review and commenting agency. In this capacity, EPA makes recommendations to the Corps on whether a proposed permit should be approved or denied. EPA's authority goes beyond that of the other review agencies because it has legal authority to deny a proposed permit for environmental reasons. In the event of a disagreement between EPA and the Corps on the issuance of a permit, EPA can challenge the Corps decision. Review Guidelines These criteria identify EPA guidelines for projects proposing discharge of dredged or fill material under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. No discharge of dredged or fill material is permitted: Where practicable alternatives with less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and no other significant adverse impacts exist; such alternatives include: - activities resulting in no discharge - alternative discharge locations If water quality standards would be violated If toxic effluent standards would be violated If the continued existence of endangered species would be violated Where requirements to protect marine sanctuaries would be violated Unless considerations of the economic impacts on navigations are overriding, where there are: - significant adverse effects on human health or welfare, municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife and special aquatic sites - significant adverse effects on aquatic life and other aquatic-dependent wildlife - significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability 5-5 The marina should be sited so that dredging of access channels is kept to a minimum. Access channels should not be dredged through submerged grass or shellfish beds The use of elevated boat lifts instead of dredged basins should be considered in areas where smaller boats are to be docked and deep water is accessible without dredging through sensitive habitats The entrance channel should be well marked and boaters should be required to stay within the designated channel to reduce the possibility of boat traffic tearing up nearby submerged grass beds or causing siltation problems The entrance to the marina should be at least 1,000 ft from shellfish harvesting areas to reduce the possibility of polluting or silting these areas. National Marine Fisheries Service The National Marine Fisheries Service is one of three federal agencies required by federal law to comment on ACOE Section 10/404 permit applications. The basic goal or purpose of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is to maintain a viable commercial and recreational marine fishery for the benefit of all present and future U.S. citizens. To . achieve this goal, the NMFS has established a variety of programs to deal with the different needs of managing these fisheries. One basic need is to improve management of the habitat on which marine fish depend for spawning, nursery, and feeding. To achieve this, the branch of the NMFS which is responsible for maintaining environmental integrity uses exis-t- ing legislation to ensure that all decisions regarding actions taken in the coastal zone give full consideration to potential effects on fish habitat. The Northeast Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service generally recommends permit denial for the following conditions: Filling of wetlands or open water to create fastland Bulkheads located channelward of the mean high water line, unless special circumstances require such placement @arinas located in or near productive shellfish beds or in areas where tidal circulation of water is minimal Dredging of marsh, shellfish, and sea grass beds Dead-end canals Dredging for fill or borrow material Structures, such as tide gates or dikes, which impede circulation of tidal water over wetlands. 5-7 significant adverse effects on recreational, aesthetic and economic values Specific procedures for making these determinations have been set forth in Subparts C through F of 40 CFR 230. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) participates in the review of permit applications to conduct dredging operations as a commenting agency. The FWS assesses the impacts on fish and wildlife of all water and related land resource development projects which are federally funded or are constructed under a federal permit or license. The FWS provides reports to federal construction or regulatory agencies and to permit applicants. Many of these projects occur in or affect wetland areas. Federal permits for water-related development are reviewed by the FWS to determine the existence of adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats, particularly in wetland areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will generally recommend permit denial under the following conditions: Projects which needlessly degrade or destroy wetlands Projects not designed to prevent or minimize significant fish, wildlife, and environmental damages Projects which do not utilize practicable, suitable, and available upland sites as alternatives to wetland areas Projects located on uplands which do not assure the protection of adjacent wetland areas. Projects not designed to use current technology Projects where applicant uses a "piecemeal" approach to obtaining permits. Review Guidelines Marinas with docks and piers that extend out from the shoreline far enough not to require dredging of the shallow shoreline would be preferable as a means of gaining access to deep water. These docks could either be floating or elevated on piles. The marina breakwater should either be a floating type or should allow for adequate circulation within the enclosure in other ways (e.g., leaving the bottom of the breakwater open, leaving openings every few inches along the breakwater, leaving the area near shore open) In areas where extending the dock into deep water is not possible, excavation of basins in uplands would be the next choice 5-6 Revi;w Guidelines General Considerations - In assessing the potential impacts of proposed projects, the NMFS is guided by the following seven considerations: The extent of precedent setting and existing or potential cumulative impacts of similar or other developments in the project area The extent to which the activity would directly affect the production of fishery resources (e.g., dredging, filling marshland, reduced access, etc.) The extent to which the activity would indirectly affect the production of fishery resources (e.g., alteration of circulation, salinity regimes, and detrital export) The extent of any adverse impact that can be avoided through p@oject modification or other safeguards (e.g., piers in lieu of channel dredging) The extent of alternative sites available to reduce unavoidable project impacts The extent to which the activity requires a waterfront location if dredging or filling wetlands is involved The extent to which mitigation is possible to offset unavoidable habitat losses associated with a water- dependent project that clearly is in the public interest. All marinas affect aquatic habitats to some degree, but adverse effects can be minimized with proper location and design. In addition to guidelines for bulkheads and seawalls, the following apply: Marinas should be located in areas where maximum physical advantages exist (e.g., where the least initial and maintenance dredging will be required) Design should be located at least 1,000 ft from shellfish harbesting areas, unless state regulations state otherwise Open dockage extending to deep water is a preferable alternative to the excavation of boat basins; where not possible, excavation of basins in uplands is generally preferred The turning basins and navigation channels should not be designed to create a sump that would result in long-term degradation of water quality. For example, the depth of the boat basin and access channel should not exceed that of the receiving body of water, and should not be located in areas of poor water circulation 5-8 The depth of the basin should not exceed the depth of light penetration through the water column. If greater depths are necessary for deeper draft boats, these boats should be docked near the entrance to the basin so that the basin depth could be reduced sloping upward from the receiving body of water The design should not disrupt currents or restrict the tidal flow. Often a flushing channel would be a beneficial addition to the design to provide another entrance for tidal waters Permanent spoil disposal sites should be set aside in non-wetland areas for use in initial construction and future maintenance dredging. The site should be designed to contain the material in such a manner so as to prevent dispersal into adjacent wetland areas. All effluent from the disposal area should be directed back into the basin being dredged and should be monitored to ensure that it meets all water quality standards At the entrance and within the basin, sloping riprap, gabions, or vegetation should be used as stabilization rather than vertical seawalls. Where bulkheads are essential, a shallow zone should be maintained against the bulkheads with not more than a 3:1 slope starting at least 10 ft from the bulkhead Sharp angles and turns that may collect debris or cause shoaling or flushing problems should be avoided within the basin Project proposals should include facilities for the proper handling of petroleum products, sewage, litter, and other refuse. Current federal regulations regarding holding tanks should be enforced For marinas dredged into upland sites, the basin should be dredged and the shoreline stabilized before the "plug" is removed connecting the basin with open water in order to reduce the detrimental effects or turbidity and siltation produced during excavation. In other areas, designs for the excavation projects should include protective measures such as silt curtains, diapers, or weirs Berms and swales should be made part of the marine design so that there is a gradual slope away from the edge of the basin. This will help prevent introduction of contaminants into adjacent open water and wetland areas All development near the marina should be on a central wastewater treatment facility as opposed to septic systems which could leach polluted ground water into the marina 5-9 Filling or dredging of vegetated wetlands for marine construction is unacceptable Marinas should not be sited in areas of known high siltation and shoaling rates Permanent spoil disposal sites should be set aside in non-wetland areas for use in initial construction and future maintenance dredging Marinas should be designed to ensure adequate flushing and should not create a sump; they should be no deeper than the parent body of water and aligned with prevailing summer winds to take advantage of wind-driven circulation When marinas are built in proximity to grassbeds, channel routes should be clearly marked to avoid damage to the grassbeds by propellers and propwash. Bulkheads are retaining structures used to protect adjacent shorelines from the action of currents or waves, or to make waterfront more accessible. A common practice has been to erect vertical seawalls in the water and then place fill material on the landward side of the structure. This technique has often been ineffective in terms of protection and is disruptive to marine productivity. To mitigate these environmental losses, the following criteria apply: Except under special circumstances such as severely eroding shorelines from a recent storm, structures should be aligned no further waterward than the existing shoreline (upland boundary) and constructed so the reflective wave energy does not destroy adjacent fishery habitat or wetlands Where possible, sloping (3:1) riprap, gabions, or vegetation should be used rather than vertical seawalls 5.2.2 State Agencies Wetlands Permits Division (DNR) The Wetland Permits Division of the Water Resources Administration is responsible for wetland resource management, monitoring of overboard dredge material deposition, and the management/information system supporting these efforts. Priorities include review and processing of wetland permits and approvals for dredging and filling privately-owned wetland licenses for dredging and filling in state wetlands; performing the administrative tasks associated with the above (i.e., wetland hearing, etc.); administering the State's effort regarding environmental monitoring of dredge spoil deposition projects with particular emphasis on research contracts and identification of funding associated with the monitoring. 5-10 Title 9, Wetlands and Riparian Rights, contains two sections which address the licensing and permitting of dredging operations. Section 202, License for Dredging or Filling of State Wetlands, specifies that a person may not dredge or fill on state wetlands without a license. Section 306, Permit to Conduct Activity not Permitted by Rules and Regulations, specifies that a person proposing to conduct dredge and fill operations on any private wetland must obtain a permit from the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. County reviewers should be cognizant of the fact that a Wetlands License may be required by the Wetland Permits Division for direct stormwater discharge to State tidal wetlands regardless of whether the project proposal involves any dredging or filling of wetlands. The determination of "direct discharge" is made on a case-by-case basis by the Wetlands Division. Review Guidelines The public policy of the State is to preserve wetlands while providing for the rights of the riparian land owner for access to navigable waters. Sections 9-202 and 9-306 describe procedures for obtaining state permission for making permanent changes to wetlands. The intent of the Act is carried out by the use of the following policy criteria in evaluating project plans: 1. In cases where reasonable access for a riparian property owner can be provided directly from fast land, such an alternative shall be taken as opposed to the creation of a channel through the vegetated wetlands or filling for access. 2. In those cases where access is to be provided to a Subdivision or other multi-home development or community, creation of one common access channel or pier is encouraged; thus, a centralized boating facility is preferable. In the case of isolated single family dwellings a pier from fast land to open water shall normally fulfill the right of reasonable riparian access. 3. The ownership of land bordering upon tidal waters does not carry with it the right to extend boat access inland by means of artificial channels. 4. Canals, channels, ponds or lagoons may not be excavated without the plans also being approved by the appropriate Soil Conservation District. The Soil Conservation District shall verify the existence of such permit prior to their approval of the Sediment Control Plan. Ponds or other excavations within 100 feet of an existing shoreline may not be approved by the Soil Conservation Districts without the written approval of the Water Resources Administration. 5-11 5. The authorization by the state for any person to dredge a navigation channel through wetlands should be coordinated to the maximum possible extent with the approval of such work by federal and local agencies. The owner of the land bounding on navigable or tidal waters is entitled to protect his shore against erosion as described in Title 9 of the Natural Resources Article. To ensure this right, the Water Resources Administration uses the following criteria to review proposed projects in carrying out the state policy to preserve the wetlands while allowing the exercise of the right of a riparian owner to protect his shore against erosion. 6. The construction of bulkheads or other shore protection measures shall include only such filling as necessary for effective use of such measures and shall generally be located at the mean high water line or no further channelward than needed for proper tie-back emplacement, or in cases of a steep bank or cliff, no further channelward than needed to obtain a stable slope. 7. Where shore protection is needed and a marsh exists in front of an applicant's land, the shore protection structure shall be placed behind the marsh or low profile protection (preferably riprap) placed channelward of the marsh so that normal tidal flow into the marsh will be maintained. 8. Bulkheads shall be constructed with adequate returns to fastland or connected to adjacent shore erosion control structures, as may be applicable. 9. Because of their possible detrimental effect, shoreline protective structures may not be approved or recommended for approval in the following cases, except where there is no alternative means to achieve a necessary public benefit whose need significantly outweighs the harm done by the proposed work: a. Marshland will be filled or otherwise destroyed. b. Surface drainage channels will be filled or occluded. c. Navigation will be adversely affected. d. Unique or rare and endangered flora or fauna will be affected. e. Important historical or archeological sites will be adversely affected. f. Private oyster leases or natural oyster bars in adjacent open water will be affected. 10. In those cases where the best public interest justified approval of the work, such projects involving the filling of Private or State wetlands including those involving 5-12 the creation of fast land, approval of such project may be considered if the following conditions are satisfied: a. The project cannot feasibly be undertaken on an adjacent or nearby fast land location. b. It is not feasible to provide the service the project is intended to provide by an alternative means not involving the filling of wetlands. c. The creation of fast land shall occur only in those areas adjoining existing fast lands. d. No significant ecologically productive submerged wetlands, such as major finfish and shellfish spawning and habitat areas, shall be destroyed. e. Fill utilized for the creation of fast land shall be obtained from a land-based source and not dredged from adjacent Private or State wetlands. f. The creation of fast land shall not obstruct navigational channels, adversely affect the public's use of the waters of the state including the public's right to navigation and fisheries, significantly affect major current patterns, or significantly alter the existing contour of the shoreline. g. In all projects involving the filling of State wetlands, compensation for fast land created in the public domain shall generally be provided to the State in an amount determined by the State Board of Public Works. 11. Title 9, Natural Resources Article, requires that in granting denying or limiting any permit, the Department of Natural Resources shall consider the effect of the proposed work with reference to the public health and welfare, marine fisheries, shellfisheries, wildlife, economic benefits, the protection of wildlife and property from flood, hurricane and other natural disasters, and the public policy set forth in Section 9-102 of that Article. In granting a permit or license, limitations or conditions may be imposed to carry out this public policy. Watershed Permits Division (DNR) The Watershed Permits Division reviews all plans and specifications sub- mitted with proposed dredge and fill projects, in particular those with dredge spoil disposal areas. The review focuses on sediment and erosion control plans as required for proposed land clearing, soil moving or construction activities associated with the dredge and fill operation. The project review entails verifying the design adequacy of the sediment control measures as well as the basic containment areas structures; ascertaining that all necessary measures have been identified and 5-13 specified; and that adequate standard details and specifications are incorporated into the construction documents. Recommendations may be made to correct any perceived deficiencies in the plans including the containment area size or configuration, dike size, construction methods, and outfall erosion protection. In addition, standard specifications for sediment and erosion control as well as innovative ideas proposed are checked for field efficiency. Coastal Resources Division (DNR) The Coastal Resources Division (CRD) has the responsibility to review and comment on all proposed projects that have the potential to significantly impact coastal resources. This primarily consists of Corps of Engineers and DNR (Water Resources Administration) permit applications, and feder- ally funded projects through the State Clearinghouse process. The Division's major responsibilities in this regard are to (1) provide data and information relevant to the project; and (2) determine the project's consistency with the objectives and policies of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program. For any project in which there is a federal action involved, the Division must issue a Federal Consistency determination to the appropriate federal agency. This requirement is mandated by the Federal Consistency clause of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 which states that any federal action in the coastal zone must be consistent to the extent practicable, with a State's approved Coastal Zone Management Program. Army Corps of Engineers Permits constitutes approximately 80 percent of the Federal Consistency review made by the State. The Department is notified of all Corps permits through the Public Notices issued by thl; regional office. There are two State approvals necessary before the Corps may issue a permit: (1) water quality certification from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; and (2) consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program from the Department of Natural Resources. In the review procedures described below, close coordination is maintained during the review with personnel handling the water quality certification. When a State permit/license is involved, water quality certification will not be issued until the Water Resources Administration has made a decision (in the case of a wetland permit) or recommended a decision to the State Board of Public Works (in the case of a wetlands license). Regardless of the review procedure, all projects for which the Corps of Engineers have not received comments, either verbal or written, from the Coastal Resources Division by the deadline date on the Public Notice are to be considered consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program assuming that: There are no major issues associated with the issuance of Water Quality Certification; There are no major issues resulting in the delay of issuance of a license and/or permit from the Water Resources Administration; and 5-14 The applicant has not revised the project plans such that the resultant impacts differ significantly from the plan(s) associated with the initial public notice. There are two review procedures dependent upon the nature of the proposed action. If dredging or filling is involved, a State license and/or permit is required from the Water Resources Administration. In these cases, the Coastal Resources Division has the responsibility to document to the Water Resources Administration any inconsistencies between a permit application and the Costal Zone Management Program. If the Coastal Resources Division does not submit comments on a permit application, it is assumed by the Water Resources Administration that the proposal is not inconsistent. In the case involving a State license and/or permit, the Federal Consistency determination is inherent in the permit decision. The second review procedure involves those Corps permit applications in which there is no dredging or filling involved. In these cases, the Coastal Resources Division becomes the lead agency in the Department of Natural Resources for the review. Upon consultation with all relevant agencies in the Department, comments are sent directly to the Corps. The comments include a consistency determination. Tidal Fisheries Division (DNR) The Tidal Fisheries Division participates in the review of permit appli- cations to conduct dredging operations as a State technical review and commenting agency. Responsibilities applicable to the dredge and fill permit process include: review of permit applications and environmentil impact assessment documents, preparation of position papers; providing technical information to other agencies. The agency responses to dredging issues are primarily concerned with the maintenance of aquatic biota populations. Review of proposed physical changes are examined for their ecological impacts according to theory, past experience, and pertinent literature. Evaluation of the possible effects of the proposed projects are made and forwarded to the appropriate lead agency. Review Guidelines 1. Dredging in shallow water, low salinity areas. These projects impact spawning grounds and nursery areas for finfish, such as to present hazards to their well being. This response is applied to dredging projects removing more than 500 cubic yards of material. The usually recommended no-dredging period for protection of spawning fish populations is March 1 through June 15. 2. Channel dredging in close proximity to natural oyster bars. If dredging is proposed within a charted oyster bar, it is recommended that dredging be restricted to the period October 1 to December 15. If dredging is proposed within 500 yards of natural oyster bars, the usually recommended dredging period is October 1 and December 15 and/or March 1 to May 31 of any year. The rational behind this 5-15 recommendation is that dredging operations should avoid the summer spawning and spat setting periods and the colder periods of reduced adult activity. 3. Dredging for bulkhead and fill projects. These project proposals usually receive a recommendation to limit bulkheading with accompany- ing dredged fill to the mean high water line. If allowed to project past the high water line these projects would convert shallow water habitat into fast land, thus degrading important habitat for aquatic organisms. 4. Dredging for bulkhead and fill projects on dead end canals. These proposals usually are recommended to be denied on the grounds that the project would further degrade the water quality and fishery habitat on an already ecologically stressed system. Dead end canals have generally poor circulation and relatively vertical banks. A suggested alternative to bulkheading and dredging in these cases is the placement of riprap on the banks and no fill allowed. 5. Dredging projects which would fill a marsh. These projects usually are recommended to be denied. TFDs position is that the marsh protects the general water quality of the receiving waters adjacent to the project from the effects of stormwater runoff and septic field seepage. Waste assimilative capacity of marshland is significant as is the marsh's contribution of detritus to the aquatic food chain. Office of Environmental Programs (DHMH) The Office of Environmental Programs of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene must by law evaluate all proposed dredging projects that may involve changes or alterations in all State waters (tidal land non-tidal) for the purpose of issuing or denying a Water Quality Certification. Under Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500; 86 Stat. 816, 33 USC 1411), any applicant for a federal permit to conduct an activity which may result in a discharge into navigable waters is required to obtain a certification from the State that the discharge will comply with the applicable water quality standards. The certification also pertains to the subsequent operation of the facility. In cases where the Crops of Engineers or U.S. Coast Guard has stated that a water quality certificate is required, the Office of Environmental Programs issues or denies the water quality certificate, or places certain conditions on the activity. Even in public notices that do not state that a water quality certificate is required, but it is felt that the construction or use of the facility will create a discharge to the waters of the State, the Office reviews the proposed activity and issues or denies the water quality certificate, providing appropriate recommendations to the Corps of Engineers to implement water quality protection measures. The Office may solicit comments from interested parties and may schedule a public hearing on the project. 5-16 Review Guidelines 1. Hydrological evaluation: All data which reflect current water quality standards should be evaluated. When a particular parameter is in violation or shows deterioration toward a violation of standards, additional requirements to prevent further degradation may be needed. 2. Hydraulic Dredging Impact Evaluation: Hydraulic dredging operations necessitate the provision of diked disposal areas from which dis- charges to waters of this State occur. Effluent quality is a function of the character of the sediments that have been removed and their treatment at the disposal facility. When sediments are known or suspected to be contaminated, additional treatment may be required to protect the receiving water quality. Anticipated dredging impact on aquatic resources shall be minimized, eliminated or mitigated. 3. Geological evaluation: In order to minimize the need for future maintenance dredging and its associated impacts, the site development plan and natural topography shall be evaluated. Measures to minimize or eliminate sediment transport to the marina basin may be required. 4. Toxics evaluation: The discharge of paints, solvents, fuels and other toxic materials to the waters of this State is not permitted by the Water Quality Certification. In order to prevent accidental discharges of these pollutants from occurring, marina operations and their proximity to the waterway shall be evaluated. 5-17 6. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Criteria requires an intensive envi- ronmental assessment for water-dependent facilities including flushing characteristics, circulation patterns, salinity, and water quality impacts. The baseline information needed to address these concerns is not currently available. Hence, the process described in this report requires the applicant to generate this information, and then evaluate the proposed development in light of these site-specific factors. It is recommended that the County undertake an opportunity/constraint analysis of the County's estuarine subareas with the objective of identifying areas which are suitable or unsuitable for various classes of water- dependent facilities. This analysis would require an assessment of current water quality, existing or potential aquatic resource habitat, a determination of flushing characteristics, and bathometic data. An overly mapping technique can be used to compile and evaluate the physical and natural resource information. The completion of this inventory would reduce the burden placed on the applicant and could lead to waterfront zoning classifications for various water-dependent facilities. At that point, the review process for water-related development activities could be greatly abbreviated. In the interim, it is recommended that the Water-Dependent Facility Plan be formally incorporated as one part of Baltimore County's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Plan. The current development regulations for each type of water-dependent facility needs to be evaluated in context of the review process proposed in this document. The development regulations should be amended so that all significant water-dependent facilities are handled administratively, as special exceptions. This will allow the two-level review process proposed herein to be applied to each water-dependent facility applica- tion. Specifically, marinas should not be permitted as-of-right in any zoning districts. As part of the larger Local Critical Area Plan, incentives and/or disin- centives need to be proposed for community piers. Wherever reasonable and feasible, private piers should be actively discouraged. Private piers, although not specifically addressed in COMAR 14-15.03, have a sig- nificant potential for cumulative impacts to water quality and aquatic resources. 6-1 I I 11 I I I I I I APPENDIX A 21.1" MARYLAND RECEIVING WATER STANDARDS I I 11 I 11 1. I A 44' S-736 801:1001 MARYLAND RECEIVING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 10 - Health'and Mental Hygiene, Subtitle 50 - Water Management, Chapter I - Water Pollution Control, Section .02; Adopted July 11, 1980; Amended June 6, 1983; December 19, 1983; November 8, 1984) A. Introduction. (i) Existing conditions; and (1) The surface water quality standards consist of two (ii) Water uses which will be made possible by antici- parts: pated improvements in water quality. (a) Designated uses of waters, and- (b) The actual uses of surface water are not limited to (b) Water quality criteria for the waters based upon those designated in this regulation. Any reasonable and designated uses. lawful use is permitted provided that the surface water (2) Sections B-I of this regulation: quality is not adversely affected by the use. (a) Define specific water use classes for the surface waters of this State, (c) Class 1: Water Contact Recreation. Aquatic Life, (b) Designate water quality criteria for each class; and Water Supply. This classification includes waters (c) Define the anti-degradation policy of this State; which are suitable for: (d) Define other policies which apply to water quality (i) Water contact sports; standards; and (ii) Play and leisure time activities where'individuals (e) Designate a water use class for all surface waters may come in direct contact with the surface water; of this State. (iii) The growth and propagation of fish (other than trout), other aquatic life, and wildlife; B. Water Uses and Classes. (iv) Public water supply; (1) Beneficial Water Uses. (v) Agricultural water supply; and The Department shall manage and regulate the waters (vi) Industrial water supply. of this State to protect the following beneficial water (d) Class 11: Shellfish Harvesting Waters. This classi- uses: fication includes waters where: (a) (text unchanged) (i) Shellfish are propagated, stored, or gathered for (b) Fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife; marketing purposes; and (c) Shellfish harvesting-, (ii) Actual or potential areas for the harvesting of (d) Public water supply; oysters, softshell clams, hardshell clams, and brackish (e) Agricultural water supply; and water clams. (f) Industrial water supply. (e) Class III: Natural Trout Waters. This classifica- (2) Basic Water Use. tion includes waters which have the potential for or are: (a) All waters of this State shall be protected for the (i) Suitable for the growth and propagation of trout: basic uses of water contact recreation, fish, other aquatic and life, wildlife, and water supply. (ii) Capable of supporting natural trout populations (b) These uses comprise Class 1. and their associated food organisms. (c) Criteria for Class I Waters shall apply to all (f). Clas& IV: Recreational Trout Waters. This classifi- waters of this State unless the designated classification cation includes cold or warm waters which have the imposes more restrictive criteria. potential for or are: (3) Specific Surface Water Use Classes. (a) General. Water use classes are established for the (i) Capable of holding or supporting adult trout for waters of this State. The concepts of suitability and put-and-take fishing; and capability for a water use as expressed in these classes (ii) Managed as a special fishery by periodic stocking include: and seasonable catching. 4-19-85 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington, D.C. 20037 233 801:1002 STATE WATER LAWS C. General Water Quality Criteria. (c) DDT - .001 micrograms/ liter; The waters of this State may not be polluted by: (d) Endrin - .004 micrograms/ liter; (1) Substances attributed to sewage, industrial waste, (e) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) - .001 or other waste that will settle to form sludge deposits micrograms/ liter; that: (f) Toxaphene - .005 micrograms/liter. (a) Are unsightly, putrescent, or odorous; and (3) Criteria for Class I Waters: Water Contact Recre- (b) Create a nuisance; or ation, Aquatic Life, and Water Supply. (c) Interfere directly or indirectly with water uses; (a) Bacteriological. There may not be any sources of (2) Any material including floating debris, oil grease, pathogenic or harmful organisms in sufficient quantities scum, sludge and other floating materials, attributable to constitute a public health hazard. A public health to sewage, industrial waste, or other waste in amounts hazard will be presumed: sufficient to: (i) If the fecal coliform density exceeds a log mean of (a) Be unsightly and create a nuisance; 200 per 100 ml, based on a minimum of not less than (b) Produce taste or odor; five samples taken over any 30-day period-, or (c) Change the existing color; (ii) If 10 percent of the total number of samples taken (d) Change other chemical or physical conditions in during any 30-day period exceed 400 per 100 ml; or the surface waters; (iii) Except when a sanitary survey approved by the (e) Create a nuisance; or Department of Health and Mental Hygiene discloses no (f) Interfere directly or indirectly with water uses; and significant health hazard. �D(3)(a)(i) and (ii) does not (3) High-temperature, toxic, corrosive or other delete- apply. rious substances attributable to sewage, industrial waste, (b) Dissolved Oxygen. The dissolved oxygen concen- or other waste in concentrations or combinations which: tration may not be less than 5.0 mg/liter at any time. (a) Interfere directly or indirectly with water uses; or (c) Temperature. (b) Are harmful to human, animal, plant, or aquatic (i) The maximum temperature outside the mixing life. zone determined in accordance with �F of this regulation or with Regulation .13 may not exceed 90 * F (32 * C) or the ambient temperature of the surface waters, whichev- D. Specific Water Quality Criteria. eris greater. (1) Applicability. (ii) A thermal barrier that adversely affects aquatic (a) The following surface water quality criteria are life may not be established. established for the classes indicated. These criteria shall (d) pH. Normal pH values may not be less than 6.5 or apply: greater than 8.5. (i) In freshwater streams and rivers during periods of (e) Turbidity. flow greater than or equal to the design stream flow; (i) Turbidity may not exceed levels detrimental to (ii) In tidal waters at all times; and aquatic life. (iii) Outside if any mixing zones which may be (ii) Turbidity in the surface water resulting from any designated by the Department. discharge may not exceed 150 units at any time or 50 (b) If the natural water quality of a stream segment is units as a monthly average. Units may be measured in not consistent with the criteria established for the stream Nephelometer Turbidity Units, Formazin Turbidity then: Units or Jackson Turbidity Units. (i) The natural conditions do not constitute a violation (4) Criteria for Class 11 Waters: Shellfish Harvesting. of the water quality standards; and (a) Bacteriological: There may not be any pathogenic (ii) The water quality to be maintaired and achieved or harmful organisms in sufficient quantities to consti- is not required to be substantially different from that tute a public health hazard in the use of waters for which would occur naturally. shellfish harvesting. A public health hazard will be (c) A discharge may not cause a violation of the presumed. specific water quality criteria. (i) If the most probable number (MPN) of fecal (2) Toxic Materials Criteria. Toxic materials criteria coliform organisms exceeds a median concentration of are established to protect freshwater aquatic life, 14 MPN per 100 ml; saltwater aquatic life or human health. The toxic materi- (ii) If more than 10 percent of samples taken exceed als listed below may not exceed these designated limits 43 MPN per 100 ml for a 5-tube decimal dilution test or in any waters of this State: 49 per 100 ml for a 3-tube decimal dilution test-, (a) Aldrin-Dieldrin - .003 micrograms/liter; (iii) Except when a sanitary survey approved by the (b) Benzidine - 0.1 micrograms/ liter; Department of Health and Mental Hygiene discloses no Environment Reporter 234 S-736 MARYLAND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 801:1003 significant health hazard. �D(4)(a)(i) and (ii) does not established for them. The quality of these waters shall be apply. maintained unless: (b) Dissolved oxygen same as Class I waters. (a) The Department determines a change is justifiable (c) Temperature - same as Class I waters. as a result of necessary economic or social development; (d) pH - same as Class I waters. and (e) Turbidity - same as Class I waters. (b) A change will not diminish uses made of, or (5) Bacteriological - same as Class I waters. presently possible, in these waters. (a) Bacteriological - same as Class I waters. (2) To accomplish the objective of maintaining exist- (b) Dissolved Oxygen. The dissolved oxygen concen- ing water quality, all new or increased sources of pollu- tration may not be less than 5.0 mg/liter at any time, tion are required to provide the degree of waste treat- with a minimum daily average of not less than 6.0 ment necessary to maintain these waters at this higher g/liter. quality. (c) Temperature. (3) The Department will discourage downgrading any (i) The maximum temperature outside the mixing stream from a water use class with more stringent zone determined in accordance with �F of this regulation criteria to one with less stringent criteria. or with Regulation .13 may not exceed 68 * F (20 * C) or (a) Downgrading may only be considered if: the ambient temperature of the surface water, whichever (i) The designated use is not attainable because of is -reater. natural causes; (ii) A thermal barrier that adversely affects aquatic (ii) The designated use is not attainable because of life may not be established. irretrievable man-induced conditions; or (d) pH - same as Class I waters. (iii) Substantial and widespread adverse social and (e) Turbidity - same as Class I waters. economic impacts will result from maintaining the desig- (f) Total Residual Chlorine (TRC). The use of chlo- nated use. rine or chlorine compounds is prohibited in the treat- (b) Before downgrading any stream, the Department ment of wastewaters discharged into the waters of this will provide public notice and opportunity for a public State desi'gnated as Class III unless: hearing on the proposed change. (i) The volume of treated sewage discharged from the (4) Water which does not meet the standards estab- sewage treatment facilities is less than I percent of the 7 lished for it shall be improved to meet the standards. day, 10 year low flow; or (ii) Matching federal funds are not available to con- F. Mixing Zone Policy. vert existing publicly owned treatment works from chlo- (1) Effluents may be mixed with surface waters in the rine to another disinfectant. mixing zone. (iii) When an exception occurs, the total residual (2) Effluents may not be treated in the mixing zone. chlorine shall be less than .002 mg/liter in the surface (3) Surface waters outside the mixing zones shall waters. meet the water quality standards for that particular (6) Criteria Tor Class IV Waters: Recreational Trout bcdy of water. Waters. (4) The Department may designate mixing zones (a) Bacteriological - same as Class I waters. subject to the following requirements: (b) Dissolved oxygen - same as Class I waters. (a) There shall be no interference with biological (c) Temperature. communities or populations of indiginous species to a (i) The maximum temperature outside the mixing degree which is damaging to the aquatic life or zone determined in accordance with �F of this regulation ecosystem; or with Regulation .13 may not exceed 75*F (23.9*C) (b) There shall be no diminishing of other legitimate or the ambient temperature of the surface water, which- beneficial uses; ever is greater. (c) Mixing zones may not form barriers to the migra- (ii) A thermal. barrier that adversely affects aquatic tory routes of aquatic life; life mav not be established. (d) Mixing zones shall be designated and located to (d) @H - same as Class I waters. protect surface waters and shallow water shoreline areas. (e) Turbidity - same as Class I waters. (e) The general water quality criteria set out in �C of (f) Total Residual Chlorine Total residual chlorine this regulation apply within the mixing zones. concentrations shall be less than .002 mg/liter in the (5) A mixing zone is not permitted for toxic materials surface waters. identified in �D(2) of this regulation. E. Anti-Degradation Policy. (6) Except for thermal mixing zones established by (1) Certain waters of this State possess an existing Regulation .13, mixing zones may not exceed the follow- quality which is better than the water quality standards ing maximum limits. 4-19-85 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., Washington, D.C. 20037 235 801:1004 STATE WATER LAWS (a) In freshwater streams and rivers, a mixing zone I. Classification of the Surface Waters of this width may not exceed one-third of the width of the State. surface water body. (1) All surface waters of this State shall be protected (b) In lakes, the combined area of all mixing zones for Class I use in water contact recreation, for fish, other may not exceed 10 percent of the lake surface area. aquatic life and wildlife. (c) In estuarine areas, the maximum cross-sectional (2) For interistate waters, these classifications apply area of the mixing zone may not exceed 10 percent of only to those waters within this State. the cross-sectional area of the surface water body. (3) A stream segment is a distinct portion of a sub- G. Intermittent Stream Policy. basin. (1) Discharges to intermittent streams are not permit- (4) If the stream segment limits are specified as ted when feasible alternatives are available. beginning at a specific point, streams terminating down- (2) Effluent limitations for discharges to specific in- stream of this point are not included in the same seg- termittent streams may be determined by the Depart- ment. For example "Deer Creek and all tributaries ment on a case-by-case basis. above Eden Mill Dam" does not include Little Deer (3) Effluent limitations may not be less stringent than: Creek. (a) The minimum national effluent guidelines estab- (5) Stream segments, listed below in �1(7) in tabular lished under the Federal Act; or form, shall be given additional protection required for: (b) Those levels necessary to maintain the water (a) Shellfish harvesting waters (Class If Waters); quality standards of downstream segments; or (b) Natural trout waters (Class III Waters; and (c) Those levels necessary to protect the biological (c) Recreational trout waters (Class IV Waters). community of the intermittent Stream. (6) For each sub-basin in �1(7), information is ar- (d) Those levels necessary to protect public health. ranged under the following headings: (a) Class - Refers to water classification; (b) Waters - exact name of stream segment or H. Review and Revision. segments; (1) Procedure. Under State law and �303(c) of the (c) MCGS - Most downstream point or line for each Federal Act, the Department shall review and revise its stream segment using the Maryland Coordinate Grid water quality standards as appropriate. Changes shall be System (East/North). transmitted to the EPA. (d) Limits - Written description of boundary of (2) Hearing Transcripts. Transcripts of public hear- stream segment established by MCGS. ings on proposed standards revisions shall be available (e) Any stream segment not listed in �1(7) is Class I for public inspection in the main office of the Depart- Water. ment. Transcripts shall be furnished to the EPA upon (7) Stream segment classification for each siib-basin request. are: . Most downstream point oi linefor the segment using the Maryland Co- ordinate Grid System (MCGS) (East North) (a) SUB-BASIN 02-12-02: LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class 11: None Class III: W Deer Creek and all tributaries 965/671 Above Eden Mill Dam 00 Basin Run and all tributaries 1040/667 (iii) Kellogg Branch and all tributaries 966/655.5 (iv) North Stirrup Run and all tributaries 969/650.2 (v) South Stirrup Run and all tributaries 968.3/649 (vi) Deep Run and all tributaries 1008-2/677.8 (vii) Gladden Branch and all tributaries 967/658 (viii) Rock Hollow Branch and all tributaries 958/663 (ix) Love Run and all tributaries 1046/678 Class IV: (x) Stone Run and all tributaries 1050.5/682.5 (i) Deer Creek and all tributaries 1040/649.3 From mouth to Eden Nlill Dam (ii) Octoraro Creek 1036.7/665 Mainstem only Environment Reporter 236 S-736 MARYLAND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 801:1005 (b) SUB-BASIN 02-12-01: COASTAL AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class 11: All portions of the territorial seas and estuarine portions of bays and tributaries except: (i) Bishopville Prong and tributaries 1321.7/216.4 Above confluence with St. Martins River (i i) Shingle Landing Prong and its tributaries 1323/214 Above confluence with St. Martins River at Piney I'stand (iii) Herring Creek and tributaries 1336.4/ 189.9 Above Route #50 (iv) Ocean City Harbor 1345/185.5 Above entrance to West Ocean City Class III: None Harbor Class IV: None (c) SUB-BASIN 02-13-02: POCOMOKE RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class II: All estuarine portions of tributaries except: (i) Manokin River and tributaries 1174/137.9 Above Route #363 (ii) Big Annemessex River and tributaries 1160/8/95.2 Above River Road (iii) Jenkins Creek From 1127/48 To Above mouth 1127.3/45.7 (iv) Fair Island Canal From 1177.6/51 To 1187.7/50.1 (v) Pocomoke River .1196/62 Above Maryland/ Virginia Line Class III: None Class IV: None (d) SUB-BASIN 02-13-03: NANTICOKE RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class 11: All estuarinj portions of tributaries except: (i) Blackwater River and tributaries From 1083.1/192 To Above mouth 1084.2/191.6 (ii) Transquaking R. and tributaries From 1085.2/196.3 To Above mouth 1088/197 (iii) Nanticoke River and tributaries From 1126/194 To Above line from Runaway I 128.21' 191.2 Pt. to Long Pt. (iv) Wicomico River and tributaries 1147.9/160.5 Above ferry crossing at White Haven (v) Monie Creek 1138.7/146.7 Above mouth Class III: None Class IV: None (e) SUB-BASIN 02-13-04: CHOPTANK RIVER AREA Class Waters AICGS Limits Class I I: All estuarine portions of tributaries except: (i) Choptank River and tributaries From 1099.3/308 To Above line from Bow Knee 1101/306.5 Pt. to Wright Wharf (ii) Tred Avon River and tributarics 1057.6 1'341.6 Above Easton Pt. Class III: None Class IV: None 4-19-85 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., Washington, D.C. 20037 237 801:1006 STATE WATER LAWS (0 SUB-BASIN 02-13-05: CHESTER RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class I I: All estuarine portions of tributaries except: (i) Chester River and tributaries 1066.5/502 Above Route #213 (i i) Corsica River 1060.4/448.4 Above Earl Cove (iii) Piney Creek From 1010.7/419.9 To Above Route #50 1012/418.8 (iv) Winchester Creek 1026.5/416.1 Above mouth (v) St. Michaels Harbor 1023/348.7 Class III: None Class IV: None (g) SUB-BASIN 02-13-06: ELK RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class 11: All estuarine portions of tributaries except: (i) Elk River and tributaries From 1112.8/617 To Above line from Bull 1114.8/613.9 Minnow Pt. to Courthouse Pt. (ii) Bohemia River and tributaries From 1108/603.7 To Above line from Rich 1109/600 Pt. to Baltery Pt. (iii) Sassafras River and tributaries 1088.6/561.5 Above Ordinary Pt. (iv) Stillpond Creek and tributaries (Still Pond) 1044/547 Above Kinnaird Pt. (v) Worton Creek From 1031.4/532 To Above mouth 1032.5/534.7 (vi) Fairlee Creek From 1023.6/524 To Above mouth 1026/527.5 (vii) Northeast R. From 1081.3/623.3 To Above mouth 1087.6/619.1 Class III: Principio Creek and all tributaries 1073/634.5 Class IV: None (h) SUB-BASI-N 02-13-07: BUSH RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class 11: All estuarine portions of tributaries except: (i) Bush River and tributaries From 1010.5/576 To Above line from Fairview Pt. 1014.1/574.1 to Chilbury Pt. 00 Rornnev Creek 1022.3 /5,67.5 Above Briar Pt. (iii) Swan Creek and tributaries From 1050/603.5 To Above mouth 1047.5/604.2 Class I I I: Bynum Run and all tributaries 1088.9/597.4 Class IV: Winters Run and tributaries 982.2/604.8 Above Atkisson Reservoir Environment Reporter 238 S-736 MARYLAND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 801:1007 (i) SUB-BASIN 02-13-08: GUNPOWDER RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class 11: All estuarine portions of tributaries except: (i) Gunpowder R. and all tributaries From 987/561.5 To Above line from Oliver 991.2/555,5 Pt. to Maxwell Pt. (ii) Middle River From 972/536.1 To Above line from Log Pt. Class 111: 970/532.5 to Turkey Pt. (i) Little Gunpowder Falls and all tributaries 976.8/578.8 Above B&O railroad bridge 3/4 mile south of Rt. 7 (Old Philadelphia Road) (ii) Gunpowder Falls and all tributaries 930.8/578.9 Above Loch Raven Dam (iii) Long Green Run and all tributaries 950/584 (iv) Sweathouse Branch and all tributaries 950/584 Class IV: Whitemarsh Run and all tributaries 964/564 0) SUB-BASIN 02-13-09: PATAPSCO RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class [L None Class I I I: (i) Brice Run and all tributaries 850/540 (ii) Piney Run and all tributaries 828/554 (iii) Jones Falls and all tributaries 897.7/565.6 Above Lake Roland (iv) Morgan Run and all tributaries 813.8/589.6 (v) Norris Run and all tributaries 835.1/592.6 (vi) Cooks Branch and all tributaries 836.2/584.4 (vii) Red Run and all tributaries 863/572.4 (viii) Keysers Run and all tributaries 833.8/596.8 (ix) Beaver Run and all tributaries 828.3/602.1 (x) Gwynns Falls and all tributaries 861.5/578.5 Above Reisterstown Road (xi) Gillis Falls and all tributaries 782/557 (xii) South Branch Patapsco River and all 782/557 Above Confluence with Class IV: tributaries Gillis falls (i) South Branch Patapsco River 833.4/552.2 Mainstem only (ii) North Branch Patapsco River 833.4/552.2 Mainstem only above Liberty Reservoir (iii) East Branch Patapsco River 830.1/620.3 Mainstem only (iv) West Branch Patapsco River 830.1/620.3 Mainstem only (v) Jones Falls 908/538.5 to From North Avenue to 901/563 Lake Roland Dam (vi) Herring Run and all tributaries 929.5/537 Above Interstate 95 (vii) Stony Run and ail tributaries 905/541 (viii) Dead Run and all tributaries 888/536.5 (ix) Stemmers Run and all tributaries 946/542.5 (k) SUB-BASIN 02-13-10: WEST CHESAPEAKE BAY AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class If: All estuarine portions of tributaries except: LE (i) Magothy River and tributaries 936.9/455 Above Henderson Pt. (ii) Severn River and tributaries 920.6/451 Above mouth of Forked Creek (iii) South River and tributaries [email protected] Above Porter Pt. (iv) Rockhold Creek and tributaries 925.7/315.8 Above Mason Beach Road (v) Tracys Creek 924.5/344.2 Above Route #256 Class III: Jabez Branch and all tributaries 905/455 Class IV: Severn Run and all tributaries 907.3/454.1 Above Route #3 4-19-85 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIR& INC.. Washington. D.C. 20037 239 801:1008 STATE WATER LAWS (1) SUB-BASIN 02-13-11: PATU@ENT RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class If: All estuarine portions of tributaries except: Patuxent River and tributaries 886.8/316.3 Above Ferry Landing Class III: Class IV: Patuxent River and tributaries 787.2/510.7 Above Triadelphia Reservoir Patuxent River and all tributaries 813.2/476.8 Between Rocky Gorge Reservoir and Triadelphia Reservoir, and including Triadelphia Reservoir Iml SUB-BASIN 12-14-01: LOWER POTOMAC RIVER AREA Class Waters VCGS Limits Class I L All estuarine portions of tributaries except: Potomac River and tributaries From 723.8/211.8 To Above line from 710.9/205.3 Smith Pt. to Simms Pt. Class III: None Class IV: None (n) SUB-BASIN 02-14-02: WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class H: None Class III: 0) Paint Branch and all tributaries 815.2/433.2 Above Capital Beltway, 1-495 (ii) Rock Creek and all tributaries 764/475 Above Muncaster Mill Road (iii) North Branch Rock Creek and all 771.5/468 Above Muncaster Mill Road Class IV: tributaries (i) Little Seneca Ck. and all tributaries 719/492.9 (i i) Rock Ck. and all tributaries From 769.2/451.1 to From Route #28 to 764/475 Muncaster Mill Road (iii) Northwest Branch and all tributaries 809/413 Above East-West Highway (Md. Rt. 410) (o) SUB-BASIN 02-14-03: MIDDLE POTOMAC AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class I I: None Class III: (i) Tuscarora Creek and all tributaries 694/592 (ii) Carroll Creek and all tributaries 678.5/579.5 Above Route #15 (iii) Rocky Fountain Run and all tributaries 681/546 (iv) Fishing Creek and all tributaries 689.2/609.2 (v) Hunting Creek and all tributaries 698.5/625.5 (vi) Owens Creek and all tributaries 705.9/635.9 (vii) Friends Creek and all tributaries 697.2/689.1 (viii) Catoctin Creek and all tributaries 640.6/589.8 Above Alternate Rt. 40 (ix) Little Bennett Creek and all tributaries 697/532 Above Md. Rt. 355 W Furnace Branch 6751/514 Class IV: (i) Monocacy River and tributaries except 671/506.7 Above Rt. 40 those desienated above as Class III, natural tr@ut waters (ii) Catocin Creek 640.6/538 Mainstem only, below Alternate Rt. 40. Environment Reporter 240 S-736 MARYLAND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 801:1009 (p) SUB-BASIN 02-14-05: UPPER POTOMAC RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class III: None Class III: (i) Town Creek tributaries 365/618.8 (ii) Beaver Ck. and all tributaries 599.9/620.3 in Antietam Creek Watershed (iii) Marsh Run and all tributaries 605.7/662.1 In Antietam Creek Watershed (iv) Little Antietam Creek and all tributaries 620/674 (v) Camp Spring Run and all tributaries 536/653 Class IV: (i) Town Creek 365/618.8 (ii) Fifteen -,Mile Creek and all tributaries 410.1/655 (iii) Sideling Hill Creek and all tributaries 424.5/660 (iv) Tonolowav Creek and all tributaries 474.8/679.8 (v) Licking (freek and all tributaries 504/663.5 (vi) Conococheaguc Creek and all tributaries 566.3/645.4 (vii) Antietam Creek and tributaries, except 589.1/577.8 those designated above as Class IH, natural trout waters (q) SUB-BASIN 02-14-10: NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class Il: None Class III: All Maryland tributaries to the North From 352.3/621.1 to Branch Potomac River except for: the MD-W.VA State Line (i) Those designated below as Class IV, recreational trout waters. (ii The mainstem of Georges Creek; and 222.8/607.4 Confluence of Georges Creek with North Branch (iii) Mill Run and its tributaries in 272.2/625.8 Confluence of Mill Run Allegany County with North Branch, (near Rawlings and Rawlings Heights) Class IV: (i) Wills Creek 303.3/655.5 Mainstem only (ii) Evitts Creek 310.2/656.8 Mainstern only (r) SUB-BASIN 05-02-02: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AREA Class Waters MCGS Limits Class 11: None Cla&s I I I: Youghiogheny River and all tributaries 126.8/696.2 joining the mainstern of the Youghiogheny River in Maryland South Branch, Casselman River 187.7/674.0 Confluence of North and South Branch Class IV: Casselman River 205.5/694.8 Mainstern only, conflu- ence of South Branch and North Branch to Pennsyl- vania line 4-19-85 PubliShed by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., WaShirgton, D.C. 20037 241 801:1010 STATE WATER LAWS (s) SUB-BASIN 02-05-03: CONEWEGO CREEK Class 11: None Class III: None Class IV: None (t) SUB-BASIN 02-13-19: CHESAPEAKE BAY (PROPER) Class Waters MCGS Linto; class [L Al I water!; of thp Chegapoake Bav Pr-per Frnin @he Susquehanna River rnouth to the Virizinia @tate iine. inc!uding: 'he tidal waterg ofthe Chosa -opake Bay hounded gerieraliv bv he shoreline of the Bay and'by **zero river -nile- lines of estuaries and tributaries to the Bav, is desizn1ted by tne Administration; and any per:pherai wnters desianated as part of the Chc5apeake Fla.% Proper by the Administration after con suitation with the Maryland Tidewater Administration and the Maryland Wildlife Administration Class III: None Class IV: None MARN'LAND WATERSHED DESIGNATIONS 0205-03 05-024)2 2 1445 0-2-12-02N 02-13-06 0.2 14-to 02-13-08 02 14-03 d .IA-6@ 02-13JJ9 02-13-11 o2-12,12 LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AREA N 144Y2 III.' I t-.Q 110COMOKE RIVERAREA i NANTR OKE RIVER AREA N (,@@nvr,\ K,111VER. REA V@TEFI I? VER AREA [3 *i MA RIVER AR+.A o-. BUS11 RIVERARFA [WIt R1\ FH ARF.A 1'\ 1,S( () RIVER .\ HFA F:ni* ( 11K.SAPEAKL BAN" \RKA i,.k*ruXENT RIVER @\KEA 02-1441 HMER 1101,0NI'v, RIVKRAREA U2-ji-04 WA@l I I NG 1'()N %i F: rimmi,irA N I? KA X111MI F. .R1\ .F.1i ,',.11,15 1,0111IMM, MVF11 WEA 02-14-10 N(A-111 IWANt 11 illil)NI V IM ER -WEA 1.7'.1r-l-w-, NOUG1110GIIENY IM'FR AREA 02-05-03 t6h.3Po.(i ( 10,'EK 1AKA 02-13-99 11 FS i IKA K F. BA Y ,@1'11 111AS1 X I 1F.S11; N vroit - %wi ii @,i vi) vi-*A)F@u.\ i. VEDERAL BA@1\ DF:S14;NA HIR F FAWRAL NIA-14M BASIN I)VSII;N R M Environment Reponw 242 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I FEDERAL SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA I 0 @i 3 -A 'A 10 A I i-I U.S. EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA SUMMARY. ISOURCE: U.S. EPA 1986) c u 1, A r 0 a 0 L C 401 H I L I IN 09/1. FIN urtm -I WASHINGTO". Dc 20460 . u . 0 1 D updat* 1.0 A 0 "ago "Won timing "A 1 :#1 C WEI 3131111 -arr IN A 01110 IIC ICU".. C"O". -2 'I . I cact). I C.. AND Irlem co"s.".., .. I N.pi.mb- 1006 v IT col it I& COMA CA I Tit Iwatfiflom OHLV C.L. ahTapanrzarft flaorww to c:0".10 egg Fit or vi.0 -1-11 solo p 9 ICNIUNIA ANK pg AND TRUMMATURN DEVICINDC" got DOCUNIXT 4S.DDO.uq mul, v 340. 1*0. 610. 36: &$11" C9 lob I/1,00 I'm ON" " H.P. ..It nryullLfft Ii I Dop I -j &A:IIU" r t I 1 .5,100. 03.100. -700. :11.93:1912 -3,soo. .4101n"q:: Fit v -AGO.- --;o- -34 CAM no 0 3 1 9.3 Wag %I . 0 CAPRON TTMAMU*109 v so ,;0. 0.4.9.. $.$4uq.. 3980 011 2.11112te 408.ug 01:02MAIRD P&P"THALOfts I 1 0 -1.600. -7.5 1 ..:00 Hra 11 0 it It. It. 7.9 1 lots rR 21 "11v 1118-3 0.03ug-4 cilinporok" -26.000. -1.240. 0.19.9.4 lotla To I CH1,06018 PROU'll, (Sig-a) 4.709 4.16.q 1010 I'm at I MI jmIgL- OmoNkiug- I-- - I 30.700. )too I'm I Cal 'D OF" ICIDES 13.4.3.-TP) Mal ch MPH HMO 00-1 ; I---- s Sir. - I MID 6:1* REHIL: IK1,1401, Isso to ftlrxl 11. 1,100. go. So. UJI 0.03.9 it (Ir I I V 1 1%. c"pull UPI a 310.4 .16.100. 170.mg 0. as" 1965 1,11 34 CQLQP At" 1074 AU DOCURM 2.6 2.0 j:Gs fm 30 I Do 1 1. 3. CIAN 1 00 -9 DDT 0.001 '.00 1 caol;nq-- 0.034ngi. .1:0 31 E_:I,n .qAE[ITEE I Ago it 6 ;3.4 0 B;rTWI. FIVIIIIA!IATE a., ::lot 'It., it 01611410111"11DIF11 Iuq- ..C.,..0.0,,..A. r.31 1-110,000. 1 .30.000. 1-11).008. 0.9409-- 143.wg-- )too ol", D Ory"Ll!"as v 1 1 .324.000. 0.03jus.- 1.6sug.. cifILIF)FWAR-1 v, A 5, H111"w-1 4,110- 1:20. It 2-4 ol I )a*. alcif v 0 -6,060. -344, !7;0 1 a F: 111pul" I , 3.11 0.001# 0.71 0.0019 0.671"g-4 *.along-- logo 111 )a 01 T"VL FKTUAtATZ bl! -mirROF I - - 11MVI ; ; I-- -- --- it DiNfliff * "fTHAIAT; F- L 'FRO 01"i "o"Ilit"r I'd let 011 DINI 7 amrmola I A 6MUMIM111- I - -1 of 0370. go IS I10-0-C fl.01. 3 4, 19.4us I'm 12,31.11, 6CDO1 lost to I , Its: If- 9-114ug- - ------ rx, bpi - 2 - F-111v Aq LOWTHAIATE 0 , I IL 3:80 1. so g"WIS IUAII 0.88 0.034 6.0041 to to 0 is 0. tal I I ;_4 I -, - - . I - -A, 1- L 9711, 1-bikill-9 2-1 1 1 1-- - F-. A 1,8410RANTHENF .409 CIS is -4:* 1 616. 94.ug logo Fall I ctn5i;; TCvTAL WSSOLVID 61 INk"ATIV9 STATCHMr gig Doctipmorr 0.01 1 TABLE 2-1. 1CONT.) -live to 11 10 MAIIO THEME a, M""Auzo, I I I 1 :0.01 vrrrkcnt,OR URRACHI-MOU1119119 -9.3 SO.'g.. V: .,..C..soIMrFADI.. 0.004, F 0 ACHMODCM,0112113,119 JUNDAMS) -.0 0.36 K 4 _AEL - All" .j;6, RAN& rTA 144 .A.&51011 Is 43.S,,q.. I OcIct,01191"t CANA I , I; v -1. M6XACWtjo:OCVCIDljCxAxg 79CHNIChl, 0.09 logo to ff-T 1 11 1- -- ISOPHOPONS V -13,900. 1 1 52 I :D-.wg 0.0!109 sees Vol Its RD ,a- NA CA rot 0.00269 it$$ we vu 1.4 coil 2.1 0.035 *.log 11176 Ike is ,-I-- t MIT"07CULD, 488." li6"OcN1A1Po:ZwzvM HA- Igo: I" "ApIff LAM -3.300 31.4" loo.ug a to Cl(t" 1.800.4 96.4 1.1 A:76 as Mg 4 a so.!!! I I's W-1 L Tooput"013 a 13 fs.eg.. so to a :11 IF 11111ROSO 0 i-V no q to I -;a x_,MARM,__ IV, ;F L illb GRIM ATDMW, ITIP9A KAIMIX as OXYGEN DISSOLVED 0 IWAAKWAIIII AND cowwhrth L'% in DOMMEN'T PARATH ou 0 0.04 Ostia@ I, to PINT c1l '00, rot t I Is -51. as-9 "::.a FS '"TA CHLOPOP112HOL OSS. 62.3 1 We 1111 56 I-L - _2L !---I "A -10.300. 1 3. 6 . ILL "IDSPHORUS gtx3aw PHTKALAT9 ZSURS 0940. -3.4 logo POLMICUAR AROMATIC IMPOCAM&ONS M.-Ing" 1:1 ".- Xq!@ -I - ::a NILVE a [email protected] . .r: t,4 .:.9 J", SOLIDS 111-SOLVED BALINITY 350. 1076 :o, +10AMUYILATAn2sta 00 10alpliry -1 _IH I I "WHO Mub 56 filivit- IrD MEN TEMPERATURE ISFcclas DEPMOLWI 4MIT"th $114 DOCUMENT 6OR 1 09,310 . I i::o" 12TRACHLORINATIM 2"AMCS 6 Vol 22"19111 1.2. , __jjjVj_Lj -_ r- ID Ormuz lug A 6450. 0.8,g.. 8.11sug.. 111RACWL'A03:OrMM1VN1Z1:9 I ss---ii.- - ;:v t IMLUUM do. v 0 all.soo. -S.000. 14.3" 434.ag Mo to JORAPH911 1 1.6 0.01) 0.87 0. 11"d. o.olhg-- 0.005.9 1660 to 37 cHw:OrTHkNt -- -4-31-.3 -00. INN I v 89 10101110 OtIHAHK 01 41 logo Me ICIILDROrTHVIJHI v 1 .4s,000. .21,900. .3.000. 80:67:9.. 1060 to Mchlop NO L *_2,#qq:vq_ 1__ -- - CHIJDROPW ENOL 1:411 1 132 low 1 0970. I.Iuq to a VINYL C311,DRIVE .0 11 11 4111c v 0 1 330.* 1 41. 1 1 56. 1 I I Ito 11RADNESS,DEPENDENT CMITINIA (IOoNq/L use4l rIDEPAL REGIS19k 6918161;.... INSUP rC INT DATA 10 alvabor C113T9111A. Ike QUALM CSITIAl 11 we :!clogroas VAWj PRE'StNTED 18 Tilt L.O.S.L. - tAMEST 0099MV90 rolt WATER. W, P9 nogars" 2FtNcr IZ 9L. (ItEDWOR) Itil@r KUKA HLAI.TH CRITERIA rook CARCINOGENS REPORTED poll 71U1rK Flag LEWIS. VAIMI "1161117FID is rut MAXIIAIN 30-6 MISK taveL. c(AtTkIll"kiff lzv%L P.Se, Val. chort 141 for Von ... I 1.10rustict" - I PI-64 .00 criterle d,w,to."to of datall*d &@&&Aea In mQuality Criterle for Nat.r t�66- tat rowulatury purp-S. A i i I i I I I I APPENDIX C a EPA ANALYTICAL METHODS I I m A I A A 7@ I WATER QUALITY SAMPLE COLLECTION Water quality analyses are necessary to accurately describe the current conditions in the waterbody. Sampling location may vary according to waterbody size and location, as well as whether the construction is new or an expansion of existing facilities. Locations must be approved prior to sampling.. In most cases, however, one sample at high tide and one at low tide in the immediate area of the facility is sufficient. Since aver- age water quality of the waterbody is needed, samples should be collected every three weeks over the four month period from June to September. A clean Van Dorn bottle is used to collect samples at the surface, middle-depth, and bottom of the water column were possible. Bottom samples are to be taken one foot from the bottom and care taken to avoid introducing any bottom sediment into the sampling device. Samples from each depth are composited and subsampled by parameter. Table 4-1 summarizes the parameters to be analyzed, preservative type, bottle size and type, sample size, and holding times for each parameter. All samples must be held on ice until returned to a laboratory for analysis. Values for pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity should be taken at sample collection. These are obtained using calibrated field instru- ments and measurements must be taken at the surface and at the bottom in areas less than six feet in depth and at the surface, mid-depth, and bottom for areas more than six feet in depth. Times of high and low tides, general weather conditions, wind direction and velocity, previous four day rainfall, and any outstanding observations that may effect sample integrity should be recorded on each sampling date and time. LEAD Method 239.2 (Atomic Absorption, furnace technique) STORET NO. Total 01051 Dissolved 01049 Suspended 01050 Optimum Concentration Range: 5-100 ugl I Detection Limit: I Ug/l Preparation of Standard Solution 1 . Stock solution: Prepare as described under "direct aspiration method-. 2. Lanthanum Nitrate Solution: Dissolve 58.64 Cr of ACS reaaent -rade La-,O-, in 100 ml conc. HN03 and dilute to 1000 ml with delonized distilled water. I ml = 50 mg La. 3. Working Lead Solution: Prepare dilutions of the stock lead solution to be used as calibration standards at the time of analysis. Each calibration standard should contain 0.5% (v/v) HN03. To each 100 ml of diluted standard add 10 ml of the lanthanurn nitrate solution. Sample Preser-vation I . For sample handling and preservation, see part 4.1 of the Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual. Sample Preparation 1 . Prepare as described under "direct aspiration method". Sample solutions for analysis should contain 0. 5 % (v/v) HN03. 2. To each 100 ml of prepared sample solution add 10 ml of the lanthanum nitrate solution. Instrument Parameters (General) 1. Drying Time and Temp: 30 sec- 125'C. 2. Ashing Time and Temp: 30 sec-500*C. 3. Atomizing Time and Temp: 10 sec-2700*C. 4. Purge Gas Atmosphere: Argon 5. Wavelength: 283.33 nm 6. Other operating parameters should be set as specified by the particular instrument manufacturer. Analysis Procedure 1. For the analysis procedure in the calculation see -Furnace Procedure", part 9.3 of the Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual. Approved for NPDES and SDWA Issued 1978 239.2-1 Notes I The above concentration values and instrument conditions are for a Perkin-Elmer HGA- 2 100, based on the use of a 20 ul injection, continuous flow purge gas and non-pyrolytic graphite. Smaller size furnace devices or those employing faster rates of atornization can be operated using lower atornization temperatures for shorter time periods than the above recommended settings. 2. The use of background correction is recommended. 3. Greater sensitivity can be achieved using the 217.0 nin line. but the optimum concentration ran2e is reduced. The use of a lead electrod--less discharge lamp at this lower wavelenzth has been found to be advantaaeous. Also a lower atornization temperature (2400*C) rrav be preferred. 4. To suppress sulfate interference (up to 1500 ppm) lanthanum is added as the nitrate to both samples and calibration standards. (Atomic Absorption Newsl etter Vol. 15, No. 3, p 7 1, May-June 1971 6.) 5. Since glassware contamination is a severe problem in lead analysis, all glassware should be cleaned immediately prior to use, and once cleaned, should not be open to the atmosphere except when necessary. 6. For every sample matrix analyzed, verification is necessary to determine that method of standard' addition is not required "see part 5.2.1 of the 'Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual). 7. For quality control requirements and optional recommendations for use in drinking water analyses, see part 10 of the Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual. 8. If method of standard addition is required, follow the procedure given earlier in part 8.5 of the Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual. 9. Data to be entered into STORET must be reported as ugl 1. Precision and Accuracy 1. In a single laboratory (EMSL), using Cincinnati, Ohio tap water spiked at concentrations of 25, 50, and 100 ug Pb/l, the standard deviations were �1.3, =1.6, and �3.7, respectively. Recoveries at these levels were 8 8 92 and 9 5 % respectively. 239.2-2 COPPER Method 220.2 (Atomic Absorption, furnace technique) STORET NO. 01042 Dissolved 01040 Suspended 01041 Optimum Concentration Range: 5-100 u-11 Detection Limit: I Ug/ I Preparation of Standard Solution 1. Stock solution: Prepare as described under "direct aspiration method". 2. Prepare dilutions of the stock solution to be used as calibration standards at the time of analysis. These solutions are also to be used for "standard additions". 3. The calibration standard should be diluted to contain 0.5% (v/v) HN03. Sample Preservation I . For sample handling and preservation, see part 4.1 of the Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual. Sample Preparation 1. Prepare as described under "direct aspiration method". Sample solutions for analysis should contain,0.5% (v/v) HN03- Instrument Parameters (General) 1. Drying Time and Temp: 30 sec- I 25'C. 2. Ashing Time and Temp: 30 sec- 90 O*C. 3. Atomizing Time and Temp: 10 sec-27WC. 4. Purge Gas Atmosphere: Argon 5. Wavelength: 324.7 nm 6. Other operating parameters should be set as specified by the particular instrument manufacturer. Analysis Procedure I . For the analysis procedure aand the calculation, see "Furnace Procedure" part 9.3 of the Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual. Notes 1. The above concentration values and instrument conditions are for a Perkin-Elmer HGA- 2100, based on the use of a 20 ul injection, continuous flow purge gas and non-pyrolytic Approved for NPDES Issued 1978 220.2-1 graphite. Smaller size furnace devices or those employing faster rates of atornization can be operated using lower atomization temperatures for shorter time periods than the above recommended settings. 2. Background correction may be required if the sample contains high dissolved solids. 3. Nitrogen may also be used as the purge gas. 4. For every sample matrix analyzed, verification is necessary to determine that method of standard addition is not required (see part 5.2.1 of the Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual). 5. If method of standard addition is required, follow the procedure given earlier in part 8.5 of the Atomic Absorption Methods section of this manual. 6. Data to be entered into STORET must be reported as ugl 1. Precision and Accuracy 1 Precision and accuracy data are not available at this time. 220.2-2 PHENOLICS, TOTAL RECOVERABLE -N.-lethod 420.2 (Colorimetric, Automated 4-AAP with Distillation) STORET NO. 32730 L Scope and Application 1.1 This method is applicable to the analysis of drinking, surface and saline waters, domestic and industrial wastes. 1.2 The method is capable of measuring phenolic materials from 2 to 500 u-11 in the aqueous phase using phenol as a standard. The working ranges are 2 to 200 ugll and 10 to 500 ug/l. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 This automated method -s based on the distillation of phenol and subsequent reaction of the distillate with alkaline ferricyanide and 4-aminoantipyrine to form a red complex which is measured at 505 or 520 nm. The same manifold is used with the AAI or AAII. 3. Sample Handling, and Preservation 3.1 Biological degradation is inhibited by the addition of I g/1 of copper sulfate to the sample and acidification to a pH of less than 4 with phosphoric acid. The sample should be kept at 4C and analyzed within 24 hours after collection. 4. Interference 4.1 Interferences from sulfur compounds are eliminated by acidifying the sample to a pH of less than 4.0 with H3PO, and aerating briefly by stirring and adding CuSO,. 4.2 Oxidizing agents such as chlorine, detected by the liberation of iodine upon acidihcation in the presence of potassium iodide, are removed immediately after sampling by the addition of an excess of ferrous ammonium sulfate (6.5). If chlorine is not removed, the phenolic compounds may be partially oxidized and the results may be low. 4.3 Background contamination from plastic tubing and sample containers is eliminated by filling the wash receptacle by siphon (using Kel-F tubing) and using glass tubes for the samples and standards. 5. Apparatus 5.1 Technicon AutoAnalyzer (I or 11) 5.1.1 Sampler equipped with continuous mixer. 5.1.2 Manifold. 5.1.3 Proportioning pump 11 or 111. 5.1.4 Heating bath with distillation coil. 5.1.5 Distillation head. 5.1.6 Colorimeter equipped with a 50 mrn flow cell and 505 or 520 nm filter. 5.1.7 Recorder. 6. Reagents 6.1 Distillation reagent: Add 100 m.1 of conc. phosphoric acid (85% H3POJ to goo Ml Of distilled water, cool and dilute to I liter. Issued 1974 FE 420.2-1 6.2 Buffered potassium ferricyanide: Dissolve 2.0 g potassium ferricyanide, 3.1 g boric acid and 3.75 g potassium chloride in 800 mi of distilled water. Adjust to pH of 10.3 with I N sodium hydroxide (6-3) and dilute to I liter. Add 0.5 mi of Brij-35. Prepare fresh weekly. 6.3 Sodium hydroxide (IN): Dissolve 40 g NaOH in 500 mi of distilled water, cool and dilute to I liter. 6.4 4-Aminoantipyrine: Dissolve 0.65 g of 4-aminoantipyrine in 800 mi of distilled water and dilute to I liter. Prepare fresh each day. 6.5 Ferrous ammonium sulfate: Dissolve 1. 1 g ferrous ammonium sulfate in 500 mi distilled water containing I mi H.SO, and dilute to I liter with freshly boiled and cooled distilled water. 6.6 Stock phenol: Dissolve 1.00 g phenol lin 500 mi of distilled water and dilute to 1000 mi. Add I g CuSO, and 0.5 mi cone. H3PO4 as preservative. 1.0 mi == 1.0 mg phenol. 6.7 Standard phenol solution A: Dilute 10.0 mi of stock phenol solution (6.6) to 1000 mi. 1 .0 mi = 0.0 1 ing phenol. 6. 8 Standard phenol solution B: Dilute 100.0 mi of standard phenol solution A (6.7) to 1000 mi with distilled water. 1.0 mi = 0.00 1 mg phenol. 6.9 Standard solution C: Dilute 100.0 mi of standard phenol solution B (6.8) to 1000 mi with distilled water. 1.0 mi = 0.000 1 mg phenol. 6.10 Using standard solution A, B or C prepare the following standards in 100 mi volumetnic flasks. Each standard should be preserved by adding 0. 1 o, CuSO, and 2 drops of cone. H3POI to 100-0 MI- mi of Standard Solution Conc. ugll Solution C 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Solution B 1.0 10.0 2.0 20.0 5.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Solution A 2 200 3 300 5 500 7. Procedure 7.1 Set up the manifold as shown in Figures I or 2. 7.2 Fill the wash receptacle by siphon. Use Kel-F tubing with a fast flow (I liter/hr). 7.3 Allow colorimeter and recorder to warm up for 30 minutes. Run a baseline with all reagents, feeding distilled water through the sample line. Use polyethylene tubing for 420.2-2 sample line. When new tubing is us ed, about 2 hours may be required to obtain a stable baseline. This two hour time period may be necessary to remove the residual phenol from the tubing. 7.4 Place appropriate phenol standards in sampler in order of decreasing concentration. Complete loading of sampler tray with unknown samples, using glass tubes. NOTE 1: If samples have not been preserved as instructed in (3 ). 1), add 0. 1 CuSO, and 2 drops of conc. H,,PO, to 100 ml of sample. 7.5 Switch sample line from distilled water to sampler and begin analysis. 8. Calculation 8.1 Prepare standard curve by plotting peak heights of standards against concentration values. Compute concentration of samples by comparing sample peak heights with standards. 9. Precision and Accuracy 9.1 In a single laboratory (EMSQ, using sewage samples at concentrations of 3.8, 15, 43 and 89 ug1l, the standard deviations were --0.5, --0.6, --0.6 and -- 1.0 ug1l, respectively. At concentrations of 73, 146, 299 and 447 ug/ I, the standard deviations were -- 1.0, 1.8, --4.2and �-5.3ug/l,respectivelv. 9.2 In a single laboratory (EMSQ, using sewage samples at concentrations of 5.3 and 82 ug1l, the recoveries were 78% and 98%. At concentrations of 168 and 489 ug1l, the recoveries were 97% and 98%, respectively. Bibliography 1. Technicon AutoAnalyzer II Methodology, Industrial Method No. 127-7 1 W, AAII. 2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition, p 574, Method 510 (1975). 3. Gales, M.E. and Booth, R.L., "Automated 4 AAP Phenolic Method", AWWA 68, 540 (1976). 420.2-3 04 aw@ ago To Wos)e MI /min SAMPL-ER RESAMPLE BLACK BLACK 0,32 AIR 0 WASTE TO PUMP 150 0000 G G 2.00 SAMPLE oc S.M. 0 dE 0 0.42 DISFILLING SOL. 49i: - HEATING BATH WITH 0 0 0.42 WASTE FROM DISTILLATION COIL STILL <- GRAY GRAY 1.0 RESAMPLE WASTE A-2 BLACK BLACK 0.32 AIR Y Y 1.2 RESAMPLE noon S. w 0 w 0.23 4AAP W 0.23 BUFFERED POTASSIUM FERR I CYANIDE ]GRAY GRAY 1,0 WASTE FROM F/C PROPORTIONING P UMP SAMPLE RATE 20/hr. 1:2 Kel-f rj 100 ACIDFLEX 505pm filers POLYETHYLENE mm Tubular f /c 6-a R COLORIMETER ECORDER FIGURE 1. PHENOL AUTO ANALYZER I To Waste x x SAMPLER MI /m1f) RESAMPLE IBLACK BLACK 0.32 AIR 0 0 4 00 WASTE TTPUMP G 2.00 SAMPLE 0 0 0 0.42 DISTILLING SOL. 0 0.42 WASTE FROM HEATING BATH WITH 0 DISTILLATION COIL STILL GRAY GRAY 1.0 RESAMPLE WASTE A-2 157-BOB9 BLACK BLACK 0.32 AIR Y Y 1.2 RESAMPLE P 0 w 0.23 4 AA LA 0 W 0-23 SUFFERED POTASSIUM FERR I CYANIDE GRAY GRAY ,,1.0 WASTE FROM F/C IF PROPORTIONING PUMP SAMPLE RATE 201hr. 1:2 Kel-f too ACIDF LEX POLYETHYLENE 505prn filters _@@Q mm Tubular f/c COLORIMETER RECORDER FIGURE 2. PHENOL AUTO ANALYZER 11 ORGANIC CARBON, TOTAL Method 415.1 (Combustion or Oxidation) STORET NO. Total 00680 Dissolved 00681 1 Scope and Application 1.1 This method includes the measurement of organic carbon in drinking, surface and saline waters. domestic and industrial wastes. Exclusions are noted under Definitions and Interferences. 1.2 The method is most applicable to measurement of organic carbon above 1 in-,/ 1. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 Organic carbon in a sample is converted to carbon dioxide (CO.) by catalytic combustion or wet chemical oxidation. The CO, formed can be measured directly by an infrared detector or converted to methane (CHJ and measured by a flame ionization detector. The amount of CO, or CH, is directly proportional to the concentration of carbonaceous material in the sample. 3. Definitions 3.1 The carbonaceous analyzer measures all of the carbon in a sample. Because of various properties of carbon-containing compounds in liquid samples, preliminary treatment of the sample prior to analysis dictates the definition of the carbon as it is measured. Forms of carbon that are measured by the method are: A) soluble, nonvolatile organic carbon; for instance, natural sugars. B) soluble, volatile organic carbon; for instance, mercaptans. Q insoluble, partially volatile carbon; for instance, oils. D) insoluble, particulate carbonaceous materials, for instance; cellulose Fibers. E) soluble or insoluble carbonaceous materials adsorbed or entrapped on insoluble inorganic suspended matter; for instance, oily matter adsorbed on silt particles. 3.2 The final usefulness of the carbon measurement is in assessing the potential oxygen- demanding load of organic material on a receiving stream. This statement applies whether the carbon measurement is made on a sewage plant effluent, industrial waste, or on water taken directly from the stream. In this light, carbonate and bicarbonate carbon are not a part of the oxygen demand in the stream and therefore should be discounted in the final calculation or removed prior to analysis. The manner of preliminary treatment of the sample and instrument settings defines the types of carbon which are measured. Instrument manufacturer's instructions should be followed. Approved for NPDES Issued 1971 Editorial revision 1974 415.1-1 4. Sample Handling and Preservation 4.1 Sampling and storage of samples in glass bottles is preferable. Sampling and storage in plastic bottles such as conventional polyethylene and cubitainers is permissible if it is established that the containers do not contribute contaminating organics to the samples. NOTE 1: A brief study performed in the EPA Laboratory indicated that distilled water stored in new, one quart cubitainers did not show any increase in organic carbon after two weeks exposure. 4.2 Because of the possibility of oxidation or bacterial decomposition of some. components of aqueous samples, the lapse of time between collection of samples and start of analysis should be kept to a 4nimum. Also, samples should be kept cool (4C) and protected from sunlight and atmospheric oxygen. 4.3 In instances where analysis cannot be performed within two hours (2 hours) from time of sampling, the sample is acidified (pH < 2) with HC1 or H,SO,. 5. Interferences 5.1 Carbonate and bicarbonate carbon represent an interference under the terms of this test and must be removed or accounted for in the final calculation. 5.7- This procedure is applicable only to homogeneous samples which can be injected into the apparatus reproducibly by means of a microliter type syringe or pipette. The openings of the syringe or pipette limit the maximum size of particles which may be included in the sample. 6. Apparatus 6.1 Apparatus for blending or homogenizing samples: Generally, a Waring-type blender is satisfactory. 6.2 Apparatus for total and dissolved organic carbon: 6.2.1 A number of companies manufacture systems for measuring carbonaceous material in liquid samples. Considerations should be made as to the types of samples to be analyzed, the expected concentration range, and forms of carbon to be measured. 6.2.2 No specific analyzer is recommended as superior. 7. Reagents 7.1 Distilled water used in preparation of standards and for dilution of samples should be ultra pure to reduce the carbon concentration of the blank. Carbon dioxide-free, double distilled water is recommended. Ion exchanged waters are not recommended because of the possibilities of contamination with organic materials from the resins. 7.2 Potassium hydrogen phthalate, stock solution, 1000 mg carbon/liter: Dissolve 0.2128 g of potassium hydrogen phthalate (Primary Standard Grade) in distilled water and dilute to 100.0 mi. NOTE 2: Sodium oxalate and acetic acid are not recommended as stock solutions. 7.3 Potassium hydrogen phthalate, standard solutions: Prepare standard solutions from the stock solution by dilution with distilled water. 7.4 Carbonate-bicarbonate, stock solution, 1000 mg carbon/liter: Weigh 0.3500 g of sodium bicarbonate and 0.4418 g of sodium carbonate and transfer both to the same 100 ml volumetric flask. Dissolve with distilled water. 415.1-2 7.5 Carbonate-bicarbonate, standard solution: Prepare a series of standards similar to step 7.3. NOTE 3: This standard is not required by some instruments. 7.6 Blank solution: Use the same distilled water (or similar quality water) used for the preparation of the standard solutions. 8. Procedure 8.1 Follow instrument manufacturer's instructions for calibration, procedure, and calculations. 8.2 For calibration of the instrument, it is recommended that a series of standards encompassing the expected concentration range of the samples be used. 9. Precision and Accuracy 9.1 Twenty-eight analysts in twenty-one laboratories analyzed distilled water solutions containing exact increments of oxidizable organic compounds, with the following results: Increment as Precision as Accuracy as TOC Standard Deviation Bias, Bias, mg/liter TOC, mg/liter % mg/liter 4.9 3.93 +15.27 +0.75 107 8.32 + 1.01 +1.08 (FWPCA Method Study 3, Demand Analyses) Bibliography 1. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 3 1, "Water", Standard D 2574-79, p 469 (1977-6). 2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition, p 532, Method 505, (1975). 415.1-3 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND Method 410.4 (Colorimetric, Automated; Manual) STORET NO. 00340 1. Scope and Application 1.1 This method covers the determination of COD in surface waters, domestic and industrial wastes. 1.2 The applicable range of the automated method is 3-900 mg/l and the range of the manual method is 20 to 900 mg/ 1. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 Sample, blanks and standards in sealed tubes are heated in an oven or block digestor in the presence of dichromate at 150*C. After two hours, the tubes are removed from the oven or digestor, cooled and measured spectrophotcmetrically at 600 nm. 3. Sample Handling and Preservation 3.1. Collect the samples in glass bottles if possible. Use of plastic containers is permissible if it is known that no organic contaminants are present in the containers. 3.2 Samples should be preserved with sulfuric acid to a pH < 2 and maintained at 4*C until analysis. 4. Interferences 4.1 Chlorides are quantitatively oxidized by dichromate and represent a positive interference. Mercuric sulfate is added to the digestion tubes to complex the chlorides. 5. Apparatus 5.1 Drying oven or block digestor, 150'C 5.2 Coming culture tubes, 16 x 100 mm or 25 x 150 mm with Teflon lined screw cap 5.3 Spectrophotometer or Technicon AutoAnalyzer 5.4 Muffle furnace, 500*C. 6. Reagents 6.1 Digestion solution: Add 10.2 g K,Cr,O.,, 167 ml conc. H,SO, and 33.3 g HgSO, to 500 ml of distilled water, cool and dilute to I liter. 6.2 Catalyst solution: Add 22 g A92SOI to a 4.09kg bottle of conc. H,SO.'. Stir until dissolved. 6.3 Sampler wash solution: Add 500 ml of conc H,SO, to 500 ml of distilled water. 6.4 Stock potassium acid phthalate: Dissolve 0.850 g in 800 ml of distilled water and dilute to I liter. I ml = I mg COD 6.4.1 Prepare a series of standard solutions that cover the expected sample concentrations by diluting appropriate volumes of the stock standard. 7. Procedure 7.1 Wash all culture tubes and screw caps with 20% H,SO, before their first use to prevent contamination. Trace contamination may be removed from the tubes by igniting them in a muffle oven at 5WC for I hour. Issued 1978 410.4-1 7.2, Automated 7.2.1 Add 2.5 ml of sample to the 16 x 100 mm tubes. 7.2.2 Add 1.5 ml of digestion solution (6. 1) and mix. 7.2.3 Add 3.5 ml of catalyst solution (6.2) carefully down the side of the culture tube. 7.2.4 Cap tightly and shake to mix layers. 7.2.5 Process standards and blanks exactly as the samples. 7.2.6 Place in oven or block digestor at 150*C for two hours. 7.2.7 Cool, and place standards in sampler in order of decreasing concentration. Complete filling sampler tray with unknown samples. 7.2.8 Measure color intensity on AutoAnalyzer at 600 nm. 7.3 Manual 7.3.1 The following procedure may be used if a larger sample is desired or a spectrophotometer is used in place of an AutoAnalyzer. 7.3.2 Add 10 ml of sample to 25 x 150 mm culture tube. 7.3.3 Add 6 ml of digestion solution (6. 1) and mix. 7.3.4 Add 14 ml of catalyst soiution (6.2) down the side of culture tube. 7.3.5 Cap tightly and shake to mix layers. 7.3.6 Place in oven or block digestor at 150'C for 2 hours. 7.3.7 Cool. allow any precipitate to settle and measure intensity in spectropholometer at 600 nm. Use only optically matched culture tubes or a single cell for spectro- 8. Calculation photometric measurement. 8.1 Prepare a standard curve by plotting peak height or.percent transmittance against known concentrations of standards. 8.2 Compute concentration of samples by comparing sample response *to standard curve. 9. Precision and Accuracy 9.1 Precision and accuracy data are not available at this time. Bibliography I . Jirka, A. M., and A J.'Carter, "Micro-Semi-Automated Analysis of Surface and Wastewaters for Chemical Oxv,-,en Demand." Anal. Chem. 47: 1397. (1975). 410.4-2 RESAMPLE 1-0 SAMPLER WASH RECEPTACLE GRN GRN 2 00 SAMI'll- WASH Bl-K BLK. 0 32 AIR 116 0246-01 BLUE BLUE 1 60 SAMPI F WASTE 10 ILJRNS 116 0489 01 13LUE BLUE 1 60 DIS-1111AD WAIER B L K BLK 0 32 A I R Bl(JE lil HE 1 60 Iff SAMPLE 116 04 92 01 LORIMETER RED RED 0 70 1 R () M I/C WASTE 600 NM 50 MM F/C co TO F/C PUMP GLASS FRANSMISSION RJBING TUBE PROPORTIONING PUMP FIGURE 1 C 0 D MANIFOLD AAl OR AA 11 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND Method 405.1 (5 Days, 20'C) STORET NO. 00310 I. Scope and Application 1.1 The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) test is used for determining the relative oxygen requirements of municipal and industrial wastewaters. Application of the test to or2anic waste discharaes allows calculation of the effect of the discharyes on the oxygen resources of the receivin- water. Data from BOD tests are used for the development of engineering criteria for the design of wastewater treatment plants. 1.2 The BOD test is an empirical bioassay-type procedure which measures the dissolved oxygen consumed by microbial life while assimilating and oxidizing the organic matter present. The standard test conditions include dark incubation at 20*C for a specified time period (often 5 days). The actual environmental conditions of temperature, biological population, water movement, sunlight, and oxygen concentration cannot be accurately reproduced in the laboratory. Results obtained must take into account the above factors when relating BOD results to stream oxygen demands. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 The sample of waste, or an appropriate d'lution, is Incubated for 5 days at 20'C in the dark. The reduction in dissolved oxygen concentration during the incubation period yields a measure of the biochemical oxygen demand. 3. Comments 3.1 Determination of dissolved oxygen in the BOD test may be made by use of either the Modified Winkler with Full-Bottle Technique or the Probe Method in this manual. 3.2 Additional information relating to oxygen demanding characteristics of wastewaters can be gained by applying the Total Organic Carbon and Chemical Oxygen Demand tests (also found in this manual). 3.3 The use of 60 ml incubation bottles in place of the usual 300 ml incubation bottles, in conjunction with the probe, is often convenient. 4. Precision and Accuracy 4.1 Eighty-six analysts in fifty-eight laboratories analyzed natural water samples plus an exact increment of biodegradable organic compounds. At a mean value of 2.1 and 175 mg/1 BOD, the standard deviation was =0.7and --26mg/l. respectively (EPA Method Research Study 3). 4.2 There is no acceptable procedure for determining the accuracy of the BOD test. Approved for NPDES Issued 1971 Editorial revision 1974 405.1-1 5. References 5.1 The procedure to be used for this determination is found in: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition, p 543, Method 507 (1975). 405.1-2 PHOSPHORUS, ALL FORMS Method 365.1 (Colorimetric, Automated, Ascorbic Acid) STORET NO. See Section 4 1. Scope and Application 1.1 These methods cover the determination of specified forms of phosphorus in drinking, surface and saline waters, domestic and industrial wastes. 1.2 The methods are based on reactions that are specific for the orthophosphate ion. Thus, depending on the prescribed pre-treatment of the sample, the various forms of phosphorus given in Figure 1 may be determined. These forms are defined in Section 4. 1.2.1 Except for in-depth and detailed studies, the most commonly measured forms are phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus, and orthophosphate and dissolved orthophosphate. Hydrolyzable' phosphorus is normally found only in sewage-type samples. Insoluble forms of phosphorus are deter-mined by calculation. 1.3 The methods are usable in the 0.001 to 1.0 mg P/ I range. Approximately 20-30 samples per hour can be analyzed. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 Ammonium molybdate and antimony potassium tartrate react in an acid medium with dilute solutions of phosphorus to form an antimony-phospho-molybdate complex. This complex is reduced to an intensely biue-colored complex by ascorbic acid. The color is proportional to the phosphorus concentration. 2.2 Only orthophosphate forms a blue color in this test. Polyphosphates (and somelorganic phosphorus compounds) may be converted to the orthophosphate form by manual sulfuric acid hydrolysis. Organic phosphorus compounds may be converted to the orthophosphate form by manual persulfate digestion"'. The deve'loped color is measured automatically on the AutoAnalyzer. 3. Sample Handling and Preservation 3.1 If benthic deposits are present in the area being sampled, great care should be taken not to include these deposits. 3.2 Sample containers may be of plastic material; such as cubitainers, or of Pyrex glass. 3.3 If the analysis cannot' be performed the same day of collection, the sample should be preserved by the addition of 2 ml conc. H,SO, per liter and refrigeration at 4*C. 4. Definitions and Storet Numbers 4.1 Total Phosphorus (P) - all of the phosphorus present in the sample regardless of form, as measured by the persulfate digestion procedure. (00665) 4. 1.1 Total Orthophosphate (P-ortho)-inorganic phosphorus [(PO,)-'] in the sample as measured by the direct coiorimetric analysis procedure. (70507) Approved for NPDES Issued 1971 Editorial revision 1974 and 1978 365.1-1 Total Sample (No Viltrati0n) solpill'. Di rect 4 Ile I-so I fat C, Col ori met ry Hydrolysis Di ges t i on t Co I o 1, 1 lilt, t rv Hydrolyzable orthophosphate 01-thophospil"Ite rill" sphor Filter (through 0.45 it membriffle filtcl*) a, @A 7 f i I trate Di rect It SO Persu I fatc 2 1 Co I o r i me t ry Hydrolysis 11 Digestion It Co I o 1, i Ine t IT CO I ())- i D) 0 t )'y F issolved Diss. Hydrolyzable Dissolved o',t) hophosphate r, 01-tilciphosphate. Phosphorus FIGURE 1. ANALYTICAL SCHEME FOR DIFFERENTIATION OF PHOSPHORUS FORMS 4. L2 Total Hvdrolyzable Phosphorus (P-hydro)-phosphorus in the sample as measured by the sulfuric acid hydrolysis procedure, and minus predetermined or-thophosp hates. This hydrolyzable phosphorus includes polyphosphates RP'O-)@, (PAJ-, etc.] plus some organic phosphorus. (00669) 4.1.3 Total Organic Phosphorus (P-org)-phosphorus (inorganic plus oxidizable organic) in the sample as measured by the persulfate digestion procedure, and minus hydrolyzable phosphorus and orthophosphate. (00670) 4.2 Dissolved Phosphorus (P-D) - all of the phosphorus present in the filtrate of a sample filtered through a phosphorus-free Filter of 0.45 micron pore size and measured by the persulfate digestion procedure. (00666) 4.11 Dissolved Orthophosphate (P-D,. ortho) - as measured by the direct colorimetric analysis procedure. (0067 1) 4.2.2 Dissolved Hydrolyzable Phosphorus (P-D, hydro) - as measured by the sulfuric acid hydrolysis procedure and minus predetermined dissolved orthophosphates. (00672) 4.2.3 Dissolved Organic Phosphorus (P-D, org) - as measured by the persulfate digestion procedure, and minus dissolved hydrolyzable phosphorus and orthophosphate. (00673) 4.3 The following forms, when sufficient amounts of phosphorus are present in the sample to warrant such consideration, may be calculated: 4.3.1 Insoluble Phosphorus (P-I)=(P)-(P-D). (00667) 4.3.1.1 Insoluble orthophosphate (P-1, ortho)=(P, ortho) - (P-D, ortho). (00674) 4.3.1.2 Insoluble Hydrolyzable Phosphorus (P-1, hydro) = (P, hydro) - (P- D, hydro). (00675) 4.3.1.3 Insoluble Organic Phosphorus (P-I, org) = (P, org) - (P-D, org). (00676) 4.4 All phosphorus forms shall be reported as P, mg/l, to the third place. 5. Interferences 5.1 No interference is caused by copper, iron, or silicate at concentrations many times greater than their reported concentration in sea water. However, high iron concentrations can cause precipitation of and subsequent loss of phosphorus. 5.2 The salt error for samples ranging from 5 to 20% salt content was found to be less than I %. 5.3 Arsenate is deter-mined similarly to phosphorus and should be considered when present in concentrations higher than phosphorus. However, at concentrations found in sea water, it does not interfere. 5.4 Sample turbidity must be removed by filtration prior to analysis for orthophosphate. Samples for total or total hydrolyzable phosphorus should be filtered only after digestion. Sample color that absorbs in the photometric range used for analysis will also interfere. 6. Apparatus 6.1 Technicon AutoAnalyzer consisting of- 365.1-3 6.1.1 Sampler. 6.1.2 Manifold (AAI) or Analytical Cartridge (AAII). 6.1.3 Proportioning pump. 6.1.4 Heating bath, 50'C. 6.1.5 Colorimeter equipped with 15 or 50 mm tubular flow cell. 6.1.6 650-660 or 880 nm Filter. 6.1.7 Recorder. 6.1.8 Digital printer for AAII (optional). 6.2 Hot plate or autoclave. 6.3 Acid-washed glassware: All glassware used in the determination should be washed with hot 1: 1 HC1 and rinsed w'th distilled water. The acid-washed alassware should be filled with distilled water and treated with all the reagents to remove the last traces of phosphorus that might be adsorbed on the glassware. Preferably, this glassware should be used only for the determination of phosphorus and after use it should be rinsed with distilled water and kept covered until needed again. If this is done, the treatment with 1: 1 HCI and reagents is only required occasionally. Commercial detergent should never be used. 7. Reagents 7.1 Sulfuric acid solution, 5N: Slowly add 70 ml of conc. H,SO, to approximately 400 ml of distilled water. Cool to room temperature and dilute to 500 ml with distilled water. 7.2 Antimony potassium tartrate solution: Weigh 0.3 g K(Sb0)C,H406'l/2H,0, dissolve in' 50 ml distilled water in 100 ml volumetric flask, dilute to volume. Store at 4*C in a dark, glass-stoppered bottle. 7.3 Ammonium molybdate solution: Dissolve 4 g (NH1)6M070,,-4H,0 in 100 ml distilled water. Store in a plastic bottle at 4*C. 7.4 Ascorbic acid, 0. 1 M: Dissolve 1. 8 g of ascorbic acid in 100 ml of distilled water. The solution is stable for about a week if prepared with water containing no more than trace amounts of heavy metals and stored at 4*C. 7.5 Combined reagent (AAI): Mix the above reagents in the following proportions for 100 ml of the mixed reagent: 50 ml of 5N H2SO4 (7.1), 5 ml of antimony potassium tartrate solution (7.2), 15 ml of ammonium molybdate solution (7.3), and 30 ml of ascorbic acid solution (7.4). Mix after addition of each reagent. All reagents must reach room temperature before they are mixed and must be mixed in the order given. If turbidity forms in the combined reagent, shake and let stand for a few minutes until the turbidity disappears before processing. This volume is sufficient for 4 hours operation. Since the stability of this solution is limited, it must be freshly prepared for each run. NOTE 1: A stable solution can be prepared by not includin the ascorbic acid in the 9 combined reagent. If this is done, the mixed reagent (molybdate, tartrate, and acid) is pumped through the distilled water line and the ascorbic acid solution (30 ml of 7.4 diluted to 100 ml with distilled water) through the original mixed reagent line. 7.6 Sulfuric acid solution, I I N: Slowly add 3 10 ml conc. H,SO, to 600 ml distilled water. When cool, dilute to I liter. 365.1-4 7.7 Ammonium persulfate. 7.8 Acid wash water: Add 40 mi of sulfuric acid solution (7.6) to I liter of distilled water and dilute to 2 liters. (Not to be used when only orthophosphate is being determined). 7.9 Phenolphthalein indicator solution (5 g/1): Dissolve 0.5 g of phenolphthalein in a solution of 50 mi of ethyl or isopropyl alcohol and 50 mi of distilled water. 7.10 Stock phosphorus solution: Dissolve 0.4393 g of pre-dried (105'C for I hour) KH,PO, in distilled water and dilute to 1000 mi. 1.0 mi = 0. 1 mg P. 7.11 Standard phosphorus solution: Dilute 100.0 mi of stock solution (7. 10) to 1000 mi with distilled water. 1.0 mi = 0.0 1 mg P. 7.12 Standard phosphorus solution: Dilute 100.0 mi of standard solution (7.11) to 1000 mi with distilled water. 1.0 mi = 0.00 1 mg P. 7.13 Prepare a series of standards by diluting suitable volumes of standard solutions (7.11) and (7.12) to 100.0 mi with distilled water. The following dilutions are suggested: mi of Standard Conc., Phosphorus Solution (7.12) mg P/1 0.0 0.00 2.0 0.02 5.0 0.05 10.0 0.10 mi of Standard Phosphorus Solution (7.11) mg P/1 2.0 0.20 5.0 0.50 8.0 0.80 Procedure 10.0 1.00 8.1 Phosphorus 8.1.1 Add I mi of sulfuric acid solution (7.6) to a 50 mi sample and/or standard in a 125 mi Erlenmeyer flask.. 8.1.2 Add 0.4 g of ammonium persulfate. 8.1.3 Boil gently on a pre-heated hot plate for approximately 30-40 minutes or until a final volume of about 10 mi is reached. Do not allow sample to go to dryness. Alternately, heat for 30 minutes in an autoclave at 12 I*C (15-20 psi). 8.1.4 Cool and dilute the sample to 50 mi. If sample is not clear at this point, filter. 8.1.5 Determine phosphorus as outlined in (8.3.2) with acid wash water (7.8) in wash tubes. 8.2 Hydrolyzable Phosphorus 8.2.1 Add I mi of sulfuric acid solution (7.6) to a 50 mi sample and/or standard in a 125 mi Erlenmeyer flask. 365.1-5 8.2.2 Boil gently on a pre-heated hot plate for 30-40 minutes or until a final volume of about 10 ml is reached. Do not allow sample to go to dryness. Alternatively, heat for 30 minutes in an autoclave at 12 1*C (15-20 psi). 8.2.3 Cool and dilute the sample to 50 ml. If sample is not clear at this point, filter. 8.2.4 Determine phosphorus as outlined in (8.3.2) with acid wash water (7.8) in wash tubes. 8.3 Orthophosphate 8.3.1 Add I drop of phenolphthalein indicator solution (7.9) to approximately 50 ml of sample. If a red color develops, add sulfuric acid solution (7.6) drop-wise to just dischanze the color. Acid samples must be neutralized with I N sodium hydroxide (40 c, NaOH/1). 8.3.21 Set up manifold as shown in Figure 2. AAI or Figure 3, AAII. 8.3.3 Allow both colorimeter and recorder to warm up for 30 minutes. Obtain a stable baseline with all rea2ents, feeding distilled water through the sample line. 8.3.4 For the AAI system, sample at a rate of 20/hr, I minute sample, 2 minute wash. For the AAII system, use a 30/hr, 2:1 cam, and a common wash. 8.3.5 Place standards in Sampler in order of decreasino, concentration. Complete filling of sampler tray with unknown samples. 8.3.6 Switch sample line from distilled water to Sampler and begin analysis. 9. Calculation 9.1 Prepare a standard curve by plotting peak heights of processed standards against known' concentrations. Compute concentrations of samples by comparing sample peak heights with standard curve. Any sample whose computed value is less than 5% of its immediate predecessor must be rerun. 10. Precision and Accuracy (AA1 system) 10.1 Six laboratories participating in an EPA Method Study, analyzed four natural water samples containing exact increments of orthophosphate, with the following results: Increment as Precision as Accuracy as Orthophosphate Standard Deviation Bias, Bias, mg P/liter mg P/liter % mg P/liter 0.04 0.019 +16.7 +0.007 0.04 0.014 - 8.3 -0.003 0.29 0.087 -15.5 -0.05 0.30 0.066 -12.8 -0.04 10.2 In a single laboratory (EMSL), using surface water samples at concentrations of 0.04, 0.19, 0.35, and 0.84 mg P/l, standard deviations were �0.005, �0.000, �0.003, and +0.000, respectively. 10.3 In a single laboratory (EMSL), using surface water samples at concentrations of 0.07 and 0.76 mg p/l, recoveries were 99% and 100%, respectively. 365.1-6 Bibliography 1. Murphy, J. and Riley, J., "A Modified Single Solution for the Determination of Phosphate in Natural Waters". Anal. Chim. Acta., 27, 31 (1962). 2. Gales, M., Jr., Julian, E., and Kroner, R., "Method for Quantitative Determination of Total Phosphorus in Water". Jour AWWA, 58, No. 10, 1363 (1966). 3. Lobring, L. B. and Booth, R. L., "Evaluation of the AutoAnalyzer 11: A Progress Report", Technicon International Symposium, June, 1972. New York, N.Y. 4. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 3 1, "Water", Standard D515-72, p 388 (1976). 5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14th Edition. p 624, Method 606, (197 5). 365.1-7 SM =SMALL MIXING COIL ml/min LMz LARGE MIXING COIL WASH WATER p B 2.9 WASH T TO SAMPLER p B 2.9 SAMPLE -0 SM SAMPLER 0" R R 0. 8 AIR 20/ hr. 2:1 LIVI "d y y 1.2 DISTILLED WATER -.4 0 0 0.4.2 MIXED REAGENT 500 WASTE G G 2.00 r 11G( - WASTE 00 HEATIN BATH PROPORTIONIN PUMP SM 00m ,-1 d GOLORIMETER RECORDER 50mm FLOW CELL 650-660 or 880nm FILTER FIGURE 2 PHOSPHORUS MANIFOLD AA I ml/mIn WASH WATER G G 2.0 WASH TO SAMPLER 0 0 0.42 SAMPLE 0 SAMPLER BLACK 0.32 AIR 301 hr BLACK 0.32 DISTILLED 0OO0_- WATER IF 0 W 0.23 MIXED REAGENT HEATING WASTE BATH W W 0.6 -4 WASTE 370 C PROPORTIONING PUMP RECORDER DIGITAL PRINTER WASTr-.4 COLORIMETER 5omrn FLOW CELL On 650-66 m or 880nm FILTER FIGURE 3 PHOSPHORUS IVIA@IFOLD A'A 11 RESIDUE, NON-FILTERABLE Method 160.2 (Gravimetric, Dried at 103-105*0 STORET NO. 00530 1. Scope and Application 1.1 This method is applicable to drinking, surface, and saline waters, domestic and industrial wastes. 1.2 The practical range of the determination is 4 mg/ I to 20,000 mg/ 1. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 A well-mixed sample is filtered through a glass fiber filter, and the residue retained on the filter is dried to constant weight at 103-105'C. 2.2 The filtrate from this method may be used for Residue, Filterable. 3. Definitions 3.1 Residue, non-filterable, is defined as those solids which are retained by a glass fiber filter and dried to constant weight at 103-105'C. 4. Sample Handling and Preservation 4.1 Non-representative particulates such as leaves, sticks, fish, and lumps of fecal matter should be excluded from the sample if it is determined that their inclusion is not desired in the final result. 4.2 Preservation of the sample is not practical; analysis should begin as soon as possible. Refrigeration or icing to 4*C, to minimize microbiological decomposition of solids, is recommended. 5. Interferences 5.1 Filtration apparatus, filter material, pre-washing, post-washing, and drying temperature are specified because these variables have been shown to affect the results. 5.2 Samples high in Filterable Residue (dissolved solids), such as saline waters, brines and some wastes, may be subject to a positive interference. Care must be taken in selecting the filtering apparatus so that washing of the filter and any dissolved solids in the Filter (7.5) minimizes this potential interference. 6. Apparatus 6.1 Glass fiber filter discs, without organic binder, such as Millipore AP-40, Reeves Angel 934-AH, Gelman type A/E, or equivalent. NOTE: Because of the physical nature of glass Fiber filters, the absolute pore size cannot be controlled or measured. Terms such as "pore size", collection efficiencies and effective retention are used to define this property in glass fiber filters. Values for these parameters vary for the filters listed above. 6.2 Filter support: filtering apparatus with reservoir and a coarse (40-60 microns) fritted disc as a filter support. Approved for NPDES Issued 1971 160.2-1 NOTE: Many funnel designs are available in glass or porcelain. Some of the most common are Hirsch or Buchner funnels. membrane Filter holders and Gooch crucibles. All are available with coarse fritted disc. 6.3 Suction flask. 6.4 Drying oven, 103-105'C. 6.5 Desiccator. 6.6 Analytical balance, capable of weighing to 0. 1 mg. 7. Procedure 7.1 Preparation of glass fiber filter disc: Place the -lass fiber filter on the membrane filter apparatus or insert into bottom of a suitable Gooch crucible with wrinkled surface up. While vacuum is applied, wash the disc with three successive 20 ml volumes of distilled water. Remove all traces of water by continuing to apply vacuum after water has passed through. Remove filter from membrane filter apparatus or both crucible and filter if Gooch crucible is used, and dry in an oven at 103-105'C for one hour. Remove to desiccator and store until needed. Repeat the drying cycle until a constant weight is obtained (weight loss is less than 0.5 mg). Weigh immediately before use. After weiolhing, handle the filter or crucible/filter with forceps or tongs only. 7.2 Selection of Sample Volume For a 4.7 cm diameter filter, filter 100 ml of sample. If weight of captured residue is less than 1.0 mg, the sample volume must be increased to provide at least 1.0 mg of residue. If. other filter diameters are used, start with a sample volume equal to 7 ml/cm ,of filter area and collect at least a weight of residue proportional to the 1.0 mg stated above. NOTE: If during filtration of this initial volume the filtration rate drops rapidly, or if filtration time exceeds 5 to 10 minutes, the following scheme is recommended: Use an ' unweighed glass fiber filter of choice affixed in the filter assembly. Add a known volume of sample to the filter funnel and record the time elapsed after selected volumes have passed through the filter. Twenty-five ml increments for timing are suggested. Continue to record the time and volume increments until fitration rate drops rapidly. Add additional sample if the filter funnel volume is inadequate to reach a reduced rate. Plot the observed time versus volume Filtered. Select the proper filtration volume as that just short of the time a significant change in filtration rate occurred. 7.3 Assemble the filtering apparatus and begin suction. Wet the filter with a small volume of distilled water to seat it against the fritted support. 7.4 Shake the sample vigorously and quantitatively transfer the predetermined sample volume selected in 7.2 to the filter using a graduated cylinder. Remove all traces of water by continuing to apply vacuum after sample has passed through. 7.5 With suction on, wash the graduated cylinder, filter, non-filterable residue and Filter funnel wall with three portions of distilled water allowing complete drainage between washing. Remove all traces of water by continuing to apply vacuum after water has passed through. NOTE: Total volume of wash water used should equal approximately 2 ml per cm2. For a 4.7 cm filter the total volume is 30 ml. 160.2-2 71.6 Carefully remove the filter from the filter support. Alternatively, remove crucible and filter from crucible adapter. Dry at least one hour at 103-105'C. Cool in a desiccator and weigh. Repeat the drying cycle until a constant weight is obtained (weight loss is less than 0.5 mg). 8. Calculations 8.1 Calculate non-filterable residue as follows: Non-filterable residue, mg/1 = (A - B)x 1.000 C where: A = weight of filter (or filter and crucible) + residue in mg B = weight of filter (or filter and crucible) in mg C = ml of sample filtered 9. Precision and Accuracy 9.1 Precision data are not available at this time. 9.2 Accuracy data on actual samples cannot be obtained. Bibliography 1. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 291, March 1977. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., 260 Madison Ave., NY. 160.2-3 PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL Method 365.4 (Colorimetric, Automated, Block Digestor AA ID STORET NO. 00665 1. Scope and Application 1.1 This method covers the determination of total phosphorus in drinking water, surface water and domestic and industrial wastes. The applicable range of this method is 0.01 to 20mgP/l. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 The sample is heated in the presence of sulfuric acid, KSO, and HgSO, for two and one half hours. The residue is cooled, diluted to 25 ml and placed on the AutoAnalyzer for phosphorus determination. 3. Sample Handling and Preservation 3.1 Sample containers may be of plastic material, such as a cubitainer, or of Pvrex glass. 3.2 If the analysis cannot be performed the day of collection, the sample should be preserved by the addition of 2 ml of conc. H,SO, per liter and refrigeration at 4*C. 4. Apparatus 4.1 Block Digestor BD-40 4.2 Technicon Method No. 327-74W for Phosphorus 5. Reagents 5.1 Mercuric sulfate: Dissolve 8 g red mercuric oxide (H-0) in 50 ml of 1:4 sulfuric acid (10 conc. H,SO,: 40 ml distilled water) and dilute to 100 ml with distilled water' 5.2 Digestion solution: (Sulfuric acid-mercuric sulfate-potassium sulfate solution): Dissolve 133 g of K,SO, in 600 ml of distilled water and 200 ml of conc. H,SO,. Add 25 ml of mercuric sulfate solution (5. 1) and dilute to I liter. 5.3 Sulfuric acid solution (0.72 N): Add ml of conc. sulfuric acid to 800 of distilled water, mix and dilute to I liter. 5.4 Molybdate/antimony solution: Dissolve 8 g of ammonium molybdate and 0.2 g of antimony potassium tartrate in about 800 ml of distilled water and dilute to I liter. 5.5 Ascorbic acid solution: Dissolve 60 g of ascorbic acid in about 600 ml of distilled water. Add 2 ml of acetone and dilute to I liter. 5.6 Diluent water: Dissolve 40 g of NaCl in about 600 ml of distilled water and dilute to I liter. 5.7 Sulfuric acid solution, 4%: Add 40 ml of conc. sulfuric acid to 800 ml of ammonia-free distilled water, cool and dilute to I liter. 6. Procedure Digestion 6.1 To 20 or 25 ml of sample, add 5 ml of digestion solution and mix. (Use a vortex mixer). 6.2 Add 44 Teflon boiling chips. Too many boiling chips will cause the sample to boil over. Issued 1974 365.4-1 6.3 With Block Digestor in manual mode set low and high temperature at 160*C and preheat unit to 160'C. Place tubes in digestor and switch to automatic mode. Set low temperature timer for I hour. Reset high temperature to 380*C and set timer for 2 1/2 hours. 6.4 Cool sample and dilute to 25 ml with distilled water. If TKN is determined the sample should be diluted with ammonia-free water. Colorimetric Analvsis 6.4.1 Check the level of all reagent containers to ensure an adequate supply. 6.4.2 Excluding the molybdate/antimony line, place all reagent lines in their respective containers, connect the sample probe to the Sampler 'IV and start the proportioning pump. 6.4. Flush the Sampler IV wash receptacle with about 25 ml of 417c sulfuric acid (5.7). 6.4.4 When reagents have been pumping for at least five minutes, place the molybdate/antimony line in its container and allow the system to equilibrate. 6.4.5 After a stable baseline has been obtained, start the sampler. 7. Calculations 7.1 Prepare a standard curve by plotting peak heights of processed standards agairist concentration values. Compute concentrations by comparing sample peak heights with the standard curve. 8. Precision and Accuracy 8.1 In a single laboratory (EMSL) using sewage sample containing total P at levels of 0.23. 1.33, and 2.0, the precision was =0.01, m0.04,and =0.06, respectively. 8.2 In a single laboratory (EMSL) using sewage samples of concentration 1.84 and 1.89, the recoveries were 95 and 98%, respectively. Bibliography 1. McDaniel, W.H., Hemphill, R.N. and Donaldson, W.T., "Automatic Determination of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Estuarine Water", Technicon Symposia, pp. 362-367, Vol. 1, 1967. 2. Gales, M.E. and Booth, R.L., "Evaluation of Organic Nitrogen Methods", EPA Office of Research and Monitoring, June, 1972. 3. Gales, M.E. and Booth, R.L., "Simultaneous and Automated Determination of Total Phosphorus and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen", Methods Development and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory, May, 1974. 4. Technicon "Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus BD-40 Digestion Procedure for Water", August, 1974. 5. Gales, M.E., and Booth, R.L., "Evaluation of the Technicon Block Digestor System for the Measurement of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus", EPA-600'1/4-78--015, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. 365.4-2 MI/min BIK BIK 10,32 AIR 10 TURNS WHT WHT 0.60 NaCI SOLUTION 116-0489-01 ORN ORN 0.42 SAMPLE BLK BLK 0.32 AIR 5 TURNS 37oC 10 TURNS 20 TURNS 157 -1327 3-03 157-13089 0000 F WHT WHT 0 60 ACID SOLUTION ORN YEL 0.16 RESAMPLE TO WASTE BLK BLK 0.32 MOLYBDATE-ANIIMONY BLK BILK 0.32 ASCORBIC ACID WASTE YEL YEL 1.2 WASTE TO PUMP TUBE COLORIMETER 660nm Somm F/C x I.Smrn ID FIGURE 1 PHOSPHORUS MANIFOLD AAll NITROGEN, NITRATE-NITRITE Method 353.2 (Colorimetric, Automated, Cadmium Reduction) STORET NO. Total 00630 1. Scope and Application 1.1 This method pertains to the determination of nitrite singly, or nitrite and nitrate combined in surface and saline waters. and domestic and industrial wastes. The applicable range of this method is 0.05 to 10.0 mg/1 nitrate-nitrite nitrogen. The range may be extended with sample dilution. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 '@A filtered sample is passed through a column containing granulated copper-cadmium to reduce nitrate to nitrite. The nitrite (that originally present plus reduced nitrate) is determined by diazotizing with sulfanilamide and coupling with N-(I-naphthyl)- ethylenediamine dihydrochloride to form a highly colored azo dye which is measured colorimetrically. Separate, rather than combined nitrate-nitrite, values are readily obtained by carrying out the procedure first with, and then without, the Cu-Cd reduction step. 3. Sample Handling and Preservation 3.1 Analysis should be made as soon as possible. If analysis can be made within 24 hours, the sample should be preserved by refrigeration at 4*C. When samples must be stored for more than 24 hours, they should be preserved with sulfuric acid (2 ml conc. I-12SO, per liter) and refrigeration. Caution: Samples for reduction column must not be preserved with mercuric chloride. 4. Interferences 4.1 Build up of suspended matter in the reduction column will restrict sample flow. Since nitrate-nitrogen is found in a soluble state, the sample may be pre-filtered. 4.2 Low results might be obtained for samples that contain high concentrations of iron, copper or other metals. EDTA is added to the samples to eliminate this interference. 4.3 Samples that contain large concentrations of oil and grease will coat the surface of the cadmium. This interference is eliminated by pre-extracting the sample with an organic solvent. 5. Apparatus 5.1 Technicon AutoAnalyzer (AA1 or AAII) consisting of the foilowing components: 5. 1.1 Sampler. 5.1.2 Manifold (AAI) or analytical cartridge (AAII). 5. 1.3 Proportioning Pump 5.1.4 Colorimeter equipped with a 15 mm or 50 mm tubular flow cell and 540 nm filters. 5.1.5 Recorder. Approved for NPDES and SDWA Issued 1971 Editorial revision 1974 and 1978 353.2-1 5.1.6 Digital printer for AAII (Optional). 6. Reagents Mr-9 ke_a@e^-@5 6.1 Granulated cadmium: 40-60 mesh (-E M Eab4aterie!i, Cat. 2001 Cadmium, Coarse Powder). 6.2 Copper-cadmium: The cadmium granules (new or used) are cleaned with dilute HCI (6.7) and copperized with 2% solution of copper sulfate (6.8) in the following manner: 6.2.1 Wash the cadmium with HCl (6.7) and rinse with distilled water. The color of the cadmium so treated should be silver. 6.2.2 Swirl 10 g cadmium in 100 ml portions of 20/r, solution of copper sulfate (6.8) for five minutes or until blue color partially fades. decant and repeat with fresh copper sulfate until a brown colloidal precipitate forms. 6.2.3 Wash the cadmium-copper with distilled water (at least 10 times) to remove all the precipitated copper. The color of the cadmium so treated should be black. 6.3 Preparation of reduction column AAL The reduction column is an 8 by 50 mm glass tube with the ends reduced in diameter to permit insertion into the system. Copper-cadmium granules (6.2) are placed in the column between glass wool plugs. The packed reduction column is placed in an up-flow 20' Incline to minimize channeling. See Figure 1. 6.4 Preparation of reduction column AAII: The reduction column is a U-shaped, 35 cm length, 2 mm I.D. -lass tube (Note 1). Fill the reduction column with distilled water to prevent entrapment of air bubbles during the filling operations. Transfer the copper- cadmium granules (6.2) to the reduction column and place a glass wool plug in each end. To prevent entrapment of air bubbles in the reduction column be sure that all pump tubes are filled with reagents before putting the column into the analytical system. NOTE 1: A 0.081 I.D. pump tube (purple) can be used in place of the 2 mrn glass tube. 6.5 Distilled water: Because of possible contamination, this should be prepared by passage through an ion exchange column comprised of a mixture of both strongl@ acidic-cation and strongly basic-anion exchange resins. The regeneration of the ion exchange column should be carried out according to the manufacturer's instructions. 6.6 Color reagent: To approximately 800 ml of distilled water, add, while stirring, 100 ml conc. phosphoric acid, 40 g sulfanilamide, and 2 g N-1-naphthylethylenediamine dihydrochloride. Stir until dissolved and dilute to I liter. Store in brown bottle and keep in the dark when not in use. This solution is stable for several months. 6.7 Dilute hydrochloric acid, 6N: Dilute 50 ml of conc. HCI to 100 ml with distilled water. 6.8 Copper sulfate solution, 2%: Dissolve 20 g of CuSO,-5H.0 in 500 ml of distilled water and dilute to I liter. 6.9 Wash solution: Use distilled water for unpreserved samples. For samples preserved with H,SO,, use 2 ml H,SO, per liter of wash water. 6.10 Ammonium chloride-EDTA solution: Dissolve 85 g of reagent grade ammonium chloride and 0. 1 g of disodium ethylenediamine tetracetate in 900 ml of distilled water. Adjust the pH to 8.5 with conc. ammonium hydroxide and dilute to I liter. Add 1/2 ml Brij-35 (available from Technicon Corporation). 353.2-2 INDENTATIONS FOR SUPPORTING CATALYST GLASS WOOL FLOW Cd-TURNINGS TILT COLUMN TO 200 POSTION FIGURE 1 COPPER CADMIUM REDUCTION COLUMN 11 1/2 ACTUAL SIZE) 353.2-3 6.11, Stock nitrate solution: Dissolve 7.218 g KN03 and dilute to I liter in a voiumetric flask with distilled water. Preserve with 2 mi of chloroform per liter. Solution is stable for 6 months. I mi = 1.0 mg NO.,-N. 6.12 Stock nitrite solution: Dissolve 6.072 KNO, in 500 mi of distilled water and dilute to I. liter in a volumetric flask. Preserve with 2 mi of chloroform and keep under refrigeration. 1.0 mi = 1.0 mg NO-N. 6.13 Standard nitrate solution: Dilute 10.0 mi of stock nitrate solution (6-11) to 1000 mi. 1 .0 mi = 0.0 1 mg NO--,-N. Preserve with 2 mi of chloroform per liter. Solution is stable for 6 months. 6.14 Standard nitrite solution: Dilute 10.0 mi of stock nitrite (6.12) solution to 1000 mi. 1 .0 mi = 0.01 mg NO-N. Solution is unstable: prepare as required. 6.15 Using standard nitrate solution (6.13), prepare the following standards in 100.0 mi volumetric flasks. At least one nitrite standard should be compared to a nitrate standard at the same concentration to verify the efficiency of the reduction column. Conc., mgNO-N or NO.,-N/I mi Standard Solution/100 mi 0.0 0 .0.05 0.5 0.10 1.0 0.20 2.0 0. 5 0 5.0 1.00 10.0 2.00 20.0 4.00 40.0 6.00 60.0 NOTE 2: When the samples to be analyzed are saline waters, Substitute Ocean Water (SOW) should be used for preparing the standards; otherwise, distilled water is used. A tabulation of SOW composition follows: NaCI 24.53 g1I MgCI, - 5.20 g1l Na,SO, - 4.09 g1l CaC12 - 1. 16 g/l KCI -- 0.70 g/I NaiiCO3 - 0.20 g1l KBr 0.10 g/l H3B03 - 0.03 g/l SrCl, - 0.03 g/l NaF 0.003 g/l 7. Procedure 7.1 If the pH of the sample is below 5 or above 9, adjust to between 5 and 9 with either conc. HCI or conc. NH,OFI. 7.2 Set up the manifold as shown in Figure 2 (AAI) or Figure 3 (AA 11). Note that reductant column should be in 20* incline position (AAI). Care should be taken not to introduce air into reduction column on the AAIL 7.3 Allow both colorimeter and recorder to warm up f6r 30 minutes. Obtain a stable baseline with all reagents, feeding distilled water through the sample line. NOTE 3: Condition column by running I mg/I standard for 10 minutes if a new reduction column is being used. Subsequently wash the column with reagents for 20 minutes. 353-2-4 7.4 Place appropriate nitrate and/or nitrite standards in sampler in order of decreasing concentration of nitrogen. Complete loading of sampler tray with unknown samples. 7.5 For the AAI system, sample at a rate of 30/hr, 1: 1. For the AAIL use a 40/hr, 4:1 cam and a common wash. 7.6 Switch sample line to sampler and start analysis. 8. Calculations 8.1 Prepare appropriate standard curve or curves derived from processing NO. and/or N03 standards through manifold. Compute concentration of samples by comparing sample peak heights with standard curve. 9. Precision and Accuracy 9.1 Three laboratories participating in an EPA Method Study, analyzed four natural water samples containing exact increments of inorganic nitrate, with the following results: Increment as Precision as Accuracv as Nitrate Nitrogen Standard Deviation Bias, Bias, mg N/liter mg N/liter % nig N/liter 0.29 0.012 + 5.75 +0.017 0.35 0.092 +18.10 +0.063 2.31 0.318 + 4.47 +0.103 2.48 0.176 - 2.69 -0.067 Bibliography 1. Fiore, J., and O'Brien, J. E., "Automation in Sanitary Chemistry - parts 1 & 2 Determination of Nitrates and Nitrites", Wastes Engineering 33, 128 & 238 (1962). 2. Armstrong, F. A., Steams, C. R., and Strickland, J. D., "The Measurement of Upwelling and Subsequent Biological Processes by Means of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer and Associated Equipment", Deep Sea Research 14, p 381-389 (1967). I Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 3 1, "Water", Standard D 12549 p 366 (1976). 4. Chemical Analyses for Water Quality Manual, Department of the Interior, FWPCA, R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center Training Program, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 (January, 1966). 5. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 3 1, "Water", Standard D 1141-75, Substitute Ocean Water, p 48 (1976). 353.2-5 r 000 (0(0:@, o-o`o"\, 0 o TO SAMPLE WASH 0 SAMPLER 2 MI/min RAI[: 30 PER HR. PS-3 0" 0.42 WASTE 000 HO BLUE B L-U-1 1.60 H20 C-3* MIXER R R 0.80 AIR G G 2.00 "20 0 0 0.42 COLOR REAGENT WASTE G 2.00 BLUE BLUE 1.60 SAMPLE Cd-Cu DO 1,20 8.5% NHACL F y Y DOUBLE MIXER NO COLUMN y y 1.20 AIR WASTE r-- PROPORTIONING PUMP COLORIMETER RECORDER 50mm TUBULAR f/c FROM C-3 TO SAMPLE LINE USE 54,Orrm FILTERS .030 x .048 POLYETHYLENE TUBING. SEE FIGURE 1, FOR DETAIL. COLUMN SHOULD BE IN 20' INCLINE POSITION RANGE EXPANDER 0 0(( 0 TO SAMPLE WASH RATE m I/min Cd-Cu NMM---'14 ILE MIXER NO COLUMN FIGURE 2. NITRATE NITRITE MANIFOLD AA-I Im m m mm m = m m WASTE TO 0.6 ml/min PUMP TUBE BLAGk 0.32 AIR A2 Y Y 1.2 -AMMONIUM CHLORIDE REDUGTIIN* BLACK 0.32 SAMPLE COLUM9_ 0 WASTE RECORDER BLACK 0.32 AIR SAMPLER 40/hr 000000 4:1 C=3 - WASTE TO I.0 BLACK 0.32 COLOR F-umr IUBE DIGITAL COLORIMETER REAGENT PRINTER 520nm FILTER W W 0.6 WASTE 15 mm FLOW CELL GREY 1.0 WASTE WASH WATER G G 2.0 WASH "d TO SAMPLER PROPORTIONING PUMP FIGURE 3 NITRATE-NITRiTE MANIFOLD AA 11 NITROGEN,. KJELDAHL, TOTAL -Method 351.2 (Colorimetric, Semi-Automated Block Digester, AAII) STORET NO. 00625 1. Scope and Application 1.1 This method covers the determination of total Kieldahl nitrogen in drinking and surface waters, domestic and industrial wastes. The procedure converts nitrogen components of bloiozical on*ain such as amino acids, proteins and peptides to ammonia. but may not convert the nitrogeneous compounds of some industrial wastes such as amines, nitro compounds., hydrazones, oximes, semicarbazones and some refractory tertiary amines. The applicable range of this method is 0. 1 to 20 mg/ I TKN. The range may be extended with sample dilution. 2. Summary of M-ethod 2.1 The sample is heated in the presence of sulfuric acid, K.SO, and HgSO, for two and one half hours. The residue is cooled, diluted to 25 ml and placed on the AutoAnalvzer for ammonia determination. This di ested sample may also be used for pho'sphorus 9 determination. 3. Definitions 3.1 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is defined as the sum of free-ammonia and organic nitrogen compounds which are converted to ammonium sulfate (NHJ2SO-1, under the conditions of digestion described below. 3.2 Organic Kjeldahl nitrogen is defined as the difference obtained by subtracting the free- ammonia value (Method 350.2, Nitrogen, Ammonia, this manual) from the total Kjeldahl nitrogen value. 4. Sample Handling and Preservation 4.1 Samples may be preserved by addition of 2 ml of conc H.SO, per liter and stored at 4*C. Even when preserved in this manner, conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonia may occur. Therefore, samples should be analyzed as soon as possible. 5. Apparatus 5.1 Block Digestor-40 5.2 Technicon Manifold for Ammonia (Figure 1) 5.3 Cheraware TFE (Teflon boiling stones), Markson Science, Inc., Box 767, Delmar, CA 92014) 6. Reagents 6.1 Mercuric Sulfate: Dissolve 8 g red mercuric oxide (HgO) in 50 ml of 1:4 sulfuric acid (10 ml conc H.SO,: 40 ml distilled water) and dilute to 100 ml with distilled water. 6.2 Digestion Solution: (Sulfuric acid-mercuric sulfate-potassium sulfate solution): Dissolve 133 g of K,SO, in 700 ml of distilled water and 200 ml of conc H.SO,. Add 25 ml of mercuric sulfate solution and dilute to I liter. Issued 1978 351.2-1 6J Sulfuric Acid Solution (4%): Add 40 ml of conc. sulfuric acid to 800 ml of ammonia free distilled water, cool and dilute to I liter. 6.4 Stock Sodium Hydroxide (20%): Dissolve 200 a of sodium hydroxide in 900 ml of ammonia-free distilled water and dilute to I liter. SOJIVM 6.5 Stock Sodium Potassium Tartrate Solution (20%): Dissolve 200 g,15potassium tartrate in about 800 ml of ammonia-free distilled water and dilute to I liter. 1 6.6 Stock Buffer Solution: Dissolve 134.0 of sodium phosphate, dibasic (Na,HPO,). in about 800 ml of ammonia free water. Add 20 a, of sodium hydroxide and dilute to I liter. 6.7 Working,, Buffer Solution: Combine the reagents in the stated order. add 250 ml of stock sodium potassium tartrate solution (6.5) to 200 ml of stock buffer solution (6.6) and mix. Add xx ml sodium hydroxide solution (6.4) and dilute to I liter. See concentration ranges, Table 1, for composition of working buffer. 6.8 Sodium Salicylate/Sodium Nitroprusside Solution: Dissolve 150 of sodium salicylate and 0.3 g of sodium nitroprusside in about 600 ml of ammonia free water and dilute to I liter. 6.9 Sodium Hypochlorite Solution: Dilute 6.0 ml sodium hypochlonite solution (clorox) to 100 ml with ammonia free distilled water. 6.10 Ammonium chloride, stock solution: Dissolve 3.819 g NH,Cl in distilled water and brin a to volume in a I liter volumetric flask. I ml = 1.0 mg NH3-N. 7. Procedure Digestion 7.1 To 20 or 25 ml of sample, add 5 ml of digestion solution (6.2) and mix (use a vortex mixer). 7.2 Add (4-8) Teflon boiling stones (5.3)). Too many boiling chips will cause the sample to boil over. 73 With Block Digestor in manual mode set low and high temperature at 160*C and preheat unit to 160*C. Place tubes in digestor -and switch to automatic mode. Set low temperature timer for I hour. Reset high temperature to 3 80*C and set timer for 2 1/2 hours. 7.4 Cool sample and dilute to 25 ml with ammonia free water. Colorimetric Analysis 7.5 Check the level of all reagent containers to ensure an adequate supply. 7.6 Excluding the salicylate line, place all reagent lines in their respective containers, connect the sample probe to the Sampler IV and start the proportioning pump. 7.7 Flush the Sampler IV wash receptacle with about 25 ml of 4.0,1-7r, sulfuric acid (6.3). 7.8 When reagents have been pumping for at least Five minutes, place the salicylate line in its respective container and allow the system to equilibrate. If a precipitate forms after the addition of salicylate, the pH is too low. Immediately stop the proportioning pump and flush the coils with water using a syringe. Before restarting the system. check the concentration of the sulfuric acid solutions and/or the working buffer solution. 351.2-2 TABLE I CONCENTRATION RANGES (NITROGEN) Fill %lock NaOll Dilution loops Approx. Range per liter Initial sample Resainple sid. cal. IIPM N working buffer No. Sample line Diluent line Resample line Dilucill line selling 1(m) solution 1 .80 (RED/RED) .80 (RED/RED) .32 (BI,K/131,K) .80 (RED/RED) 700 0-0.5 250 2 .80 (RED/RED) .80 (REIVRED) .32 OILKAILK) .80 (REIVRED) 100 0-1.5 250 3 .16 (ORN/YEL) .80 (REIVRED) .32 (111,K/111,K) .80 (RED/RED) M) 0- 1 120 4 .16 (ORN/YEL) .80 (RED/RED) .32 (Bl-K/BLK) .80 (REIVRED) 100 0-5 120 5 .16 (ORN/YEL) .80 (REIVRED) .16 (ORN/YEL) .80 (RED/RED) 700 0-2 80 6 .16 (ORN/YEI.) .80 (REIVRED) .16 (ORN/YEL) .80 (RI-WRED) 100 0-10 80 7.9 To prevent precipitation of sodium salicylate in the waste tray, which can clog the tray outlet, keep the nitrogen flowcell pump tube and the nitrogen Colorimeter "To Waste" tube separate from all other lines or keep tap water flowing in the waste tray. 7.10 After a stable baseline has been obtained start the Sampler. 8. Calculations 8.1 Prepare standard curve by plotting 7 peak heights of processed standards against concentration values. Compute concentrations by comparing sample peak heights with standard curve. 9. Precision and Accuracy 9.1 In a single laboratory (EMSL), using sewage samples of concentrations of 1.2, 2.6, and 1.7 mg N11, the precision was �0.07, +-0.03and �0.15, respectively. 9.2 In a single laboratory (EMSL), using sewage samples of concentrations of 4.7 and 8.74 mg NI 1, the recoveries were 99 and 99 %, respectively. Bibliography 1. McDaniel, W.H., Hemphill, R.N. and Donaldson, W.T., "Automatic Determination of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Estuarine Water", Technicon Symposia, pp. 362-367, Vol. 1, 1967. 2. Gales, M.E., and Booth, R.L., "Evaluation of Organic Nitrogen Methods", EPA Office or Research and Monitoring, June, 1972. 3. Gales, M.E. and Booth, R.L., "Simultaneous and Automated Determination of Total Phosphor-us and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen", Methods Development and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory, May, 1974. 4. Technicon "Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus BD-40 Digestion Procedure for Water", August, 1974. 5. Gales, M.E., and Booth, R.L., "Evaluation of the Block Digestion System for the Measurement of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus", EPA-600/4-78-015, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cinncinnati, Ohio. 351.2-4 ml/min GRY GRY 1.0 4% H2SO4 BLK BLK 0.32 AIR 10 TURNS TO PHOSPHORUS RED RED 0.80 DILUENT WATER SAMPLE LINE 116-0489-01 ORN YEL *SAMPLE PT2 116-BOOO 37 'C 157-11089 BLK BLK 0.32 AIR 5 TURNS 157-13273-03 10 TURNS 20 TURNS 0000 1100 1 0000 0000 RED RED 0.80 WORKING BUFFER tA "G" COIL ORN YEL *RESAMPLE I BLK BILK 10.32 SALICYLATE-NITROPRUSSIDE ORN YEL 0,16 HYPOCHLORITE WASTE GR@ GRY 1.0 WASTE *SEE CHART FOR RANGE SELECTION (Table j8) TO PUMP TUBE COLORIMETER 660nm 50mm F/C x I.5mm ID .FIGURE 1. AMAONIA MANIFOLD AAII To PH ENT WATER SAMPI PL E: NITROGEN, AMMONIA Method 350.1 (Colorimetric, Automated Phenate) STORET NO. Total 00610 Dissolved 00608 1. Scope and Application 1.1 This method covers the determination of ammonia in drinking, surface, and saline waters, domestic and industrial wastes in the range of 0.0 1 to 2.0 mg/ I NH3 as N. This range is for photometric measurements made at 630-660 nm in a 15 mm or 50 mm tubular flow cell. Higher concentrations can be determined by sample dilution. Approximately 20 to 60 samples per hour can be analyzed. 2. Summary of Method 2.1 Alkaline phenol and hypochlorite react with ammonia to form indophenol blue that is propoitional to the ammonia concentration. The blue color formed is intensified with sodium nitroprusside. 3. Sample Handling and Preservation 3.1 Preservation by addition of 2 nil conc. H.SO, per liter and refrigeration at 4@C. 4. Interferences 4.1 Calcium and magnesium ions may be present in concentration sufficient to cause precipitation problems during analysis. A 5% EDTA solution is used to prevent the precipitation of calcium and magnesium ions from river water and industrial waste. For sea water a sodium potassium tartrate solution is used. 4.2 Sample turbidity and color may interfere with this method. Turbidity must be removed by filtration prior to analysis. Sample color that absorbs in the photometric range used will also interfere. 5. Apparatus 5.1 Technicon AutoAnalyzer Unit (AAI or AAII) consisting of- 5.1.1 Sampler. 5.1.2 Manifold (AAI) or Analytical Cartridge (AAII). 5.1.3 Proportioning pump. 5.1.4 Heating bath with double delay coil (AAI). 5.1.5 Colorimeter equipped with 15 mm tubular flow cell and 630-660 nm filters. 5.1.6 Recorder. 5.1.7 Digital printer for AAII (optional). Approved for NPDES following preliminary distillation, Method 350.2. Issued 1974 Editorial revision 1978 350.1-1 6. Reagents 6.1 Distilled water: Special precaution must be taken to Insure that distilled water is free of ammonia. Such water is prepared by passage of distilled water through an ion exchange column comprised of a mixture of both strongly acidic cation and strongly basic anion exchange resins. The regeneration of the ion exchange column should be carried out according to the instruction of the manufacturer. NOTE 1: All solutions must be made usinz ammonia-free water. 6.2 Sulfuric acid 5N: Air scrubber solution. Carefully add 139 ml of conc. sulfuric acid to approximately 500 ml of ammonia-free distilled water. Cool to room temperature and dilute to I liter with ammonia-free distilled water. 6.3 Sodium phenolate: Using a I liter Erlenmever flask, dissolve 83 phenol in -500 ml of distilled water. In small increments. cautiously add with agitation, 32 g of NaOH. Periodically cool flask under water faucet. When cool, dilute to I liter with distilled water. 6.4 Sodium hypochlorite solution: Dilute 250 ml of a bleach solution containing 5.25% NaOCl (such as "Clorox") to 500 ml with distilled water. Available chlorine level should approximate 2 to 3%. Since "Clorox" is a proprietary product, its formulation is subject to change. The analyst must remain alert to detecting any variation in this product significant to its use in this procedure. Due to the instability of this product, storage over an extended period should be avoided. 6.5 Disodium ethylenediamine-tetraacetate (EDTA) (501o): Dissolve 50 a of EDTA (disodium salt) and approximately six pellets of NaOH in I liter of distilled water. NOTE 2: On salt water samples where EDTA solution does not prevent precipitation of cations, sodium potassium tartrate solution may be used to advantage. It is prepared as follows: 6.5.1 Sodium potassium tartrate solution: 10% NaKC,H,06-4H,O. To 900 ml of distilled water add 100 g sodium potassium tartrate. Add 2 pellets of NaOH and a few boiling chips, boil gently for 45 minutes. Cover, cool, and dilute to I liter with ammonia-free distilled water. Adjust pH to 5.2 �.05 with H,SO,. After allowing to settle overnight in a cool place, filter to remove precipitate. Then add 1/2 ml Brij- 35"" (available from Technicon Corporation) solution and store in stoppered bottle. 6.6 Sodium nitroprusside (0.05%): Dissolve 0.5 g of sodium nitroprusside in I liter of distilled water. 6.7 Stock solution: Dissolve 3.819 g of anhydrous ammonium chloride, NH,Cl, dried at 105'C, in distilled water, and dilute to 1000 ml. 1.0 ml = 1.0 mg NH.,-N. 6.8 Standard Solution A. Dilute 10.0 ml of stock solution (6.7) to 1000 ml with distilled water. 1.0 ml = 0.0 1 mg NH3-N. 6.9 Standard solution B: Dilute 10.0 ml of standard solution A (6.8) to 100.0 ml with distilled water. 1.0 ml = 0.001 mg NH3-N. 350.1-2 6. 10 Using standard solutions A and B, prepare the following standards in 100 ml volumetric flasks (prepare fresh daily): NH,-N, mg/l ml Standard Solution/100 ml Solution B 0.01 1.0 0.02 2.0 0.05 5.0 0.10 10.0 Solution A 0.20 2.0 0.50 5.0 0.80 8.0 1.00 10.0 1.50 15.0 2.00 20.0 NOTE 3: When saline water samples are ar-lyzed, Substitute Ocean Water (SOW) should be used for preparing the above standards used for the calibration curve; otherwise, distilled water is used. If SOW is used, subtract its blank background response from the standards before preparing the standard curve. Substitute Ocean Water (SOW) NaC1 24.53 gA NaHC03 0.20 g/l MgCl' 5.20 g1l KBr 0.10 ,,, / I Na,SO, 4.09 g/1 H,B03 0.03 -A Cad, 1. 16 g1l Sid, 0.03 g1l KCI 0.70 g/l NaF 0.003 g/l 7. Procedure . 7.1 Since the intensity of the color used to quantify the concentration is pH dependent, the acid concentration of the wash water and the standard ammonia solutions should approximate that of the samples. For example, if the samples have been preserved with 2 ml conc. H,SOjliter, the wash water and standards should also contain 2 ml conc. H,SO,/Iiter. 7.2 For a working range of 0.01 to 2.00 mg NH,-N/1 (AAD, set up the manifold as shown in Figure 1. For a working range of.01 to 1.0 mg NH3-N/1 (AAII), set up the manifold as shown in Figure 2. Higher concentrations may be accommodated by sample dilution. 7.3 Allow both colorimeter and recorder to warm up for 30 minutes. Obtain a stable baseline with all reagents, feeding distilled water through sample line. 7.4 For the AAI system, sample at a rate of 20/hr, 1: 1. For the AAII use a 60/hr 6:1 cam with a common wash. 350.1-3 7.5 Arrange ammonia standards in sampler in order of decreasing concentration of nitrogen. Complete loading of sampler tray with unknown samples. 7.6 Switch sample line from distilled water to sampler and begin analysis. 8. Calculations 8.1 Prepare appropriate standard curve derived from processing ammonia standards through manifold. Compute concentration of samples by comparing, sample peak heights with standard curve. 9. Precision and Accuracy 9.1 In a single laboratory (EMSL), using surface water samples at concentrations of 1.41, 0.77, 0.59 and 0.43 mc, NH,,-N/l, the standard deviation was =0.005. 9.2 In a single laboratory (EMSQ, using surface water samples at concentrations of 0. 16 and 1.44 mg NH3-N/1, recoveries were 107% and 99%, respectively. Bibliography I . Hiller, A., and Van Slyke, D., "Determination of Ammonia in Blood", J. Biol. Chem. 102, p 499(1933). 2. O'Connor, B., Dobbs, R., Villiers, B., and Dean, R., "Laboratory Distillation of Municipal Waste Effluents", JWPCF 39, R 25 (1967). 3. Fiore, J., and O'Brien, J. E., "Ammonia Determination by Automatic Analysis", Wastes Engineering 33, p 352 (1962). 4. A wetting agent recommended and supplied by the Technicon Corporation for use in AutoAnalyzers. 5. ASTM "Manual on Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water", 2nd Ed., 1966 printing, p 418. 6. Booth, R. L., and Lobring, L. B., "Evaluation of the AutoAnalyzer II: A Progress Report" in Advances in Automated Analysis: 1972 Technicon International Congress, Vol. 8, p 7-10, Mediad Incorporated, Tarrytown, N.Y., (1973). 7. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition, p 616, Method 604 (1975). 350.1-4 PROPORTIONING PUMP ml/min WASH WATER P B 2.9 WASH TO SAMPLER d4 G G 2.0 SAMPLE 0 SM=SMALL MIXING COIL Sm SAMPLER LM= LARGE MIXING COIL 0000 R R 0.8 EDTA 20/ hr. LM G G 2.0 AIRV W W 0.6 PHENOLATE W W 0.6 HYPOCHLORITE LA LM 00000000 m 0000 -4 R R0.6 NITROPRUSSIDE P PIF2.5 WASTE IWASTE HEATING BATH 370C Ji RECORDER -4- - 3K SCRUBBED THROUGH COLORIMETER 5N H 2so4 15mm FLOW CELL 650-660nm FILTER FIGURE 1 AMMONIA MANIFOLD AA I SAMPLER PROPORTIONI14G 60/ hr. PUMP mi/min. 6.1 WASH WATER G G 2.0 WASH TO SAMPLER 0 W 0.23 AIR* 0 Oc ")o 0 0 0.42 SAMPLE R R 0.8 E DTA 0 .0 0.42 PHENOLATE BLACK 0.32 HYPOCHLORITE ,0 0 0.42 NITROPRUSSIDE WASTE BLUE 1.6 WASTE HEATING BATH 500C RECORDER DIGITAL PRINTER SCRUBBED THROUGH COLORIMETER 5N H 50 mm FLOW CELL 2SO4 650-660nm FILTER FIGURE 2. AMMONIA MANIFOLD AA 11 1002 G. Chlorophyll Conduct work with chlorophyll extracts Chlorophyll is a common indicator of in subdued light to avoid degradation. Use Phytoplankton biomass. All green plants C opaque containers or wrap with aluminum contain chlorophyll a and. for planktonic foil. algae, it constitutes about I to 201o of the dry weight. Other pigments that occur in 1. Spectrophotometric Determination of plankton algae are chlorophyll b and c, Chlorophyll xanthophylls, and carotenes. The presence The pigments are extracted from the or absence of the various pigments is used, plankton concentrate with aqueous acetone among other features, to separate the major algal groups. and the optical density (absorbance) of the extract is determined with a spectropho- tometer. The ease with which the chloro- The determination of chlorophylls by the phylls are removed from the cells varies trichromatic method is of questionable considerably with different algae. To value."," It tends to overestimate chloro- achieve consistently the complete extrac- phyll a when no correction is made for the tion of the pigments, disrupt the cells me- presence of the degradation product, pheo- chanically with a tissue grinder. phytin a. Chlorophyll b and c values are Glass fiber filters are preferred for re- calculated from readings taken on the slope moving algae from water. The glass fibers of the chlorophyll a curve and are unrefi- assist in breaking the cells during grinding, able. For routine work in fresh water, de- larger volumes of water can be filtered, and termination of chlorophyll a and pheo- no precipitate forms after acidification. phytin a by spectrophotorrictry is the most Membrane filters may be used where these valuable technique. factors are irrelevant. Two methods for determining chloro- a Equipment and reagents: phyll a in phytoplankton are available, the 1) Spectrophotometer, with a narrow spectrophotometriC23.61-6' and fluoromet- band (pass) width (0-5 to 2.0 nm) because ric."-'-" Fluorometry is more sensitive the chlorophyll absorption peak is rela- than spectrophotometry, requires less sam- tively narrow. At a spectral band width of ple, and can be used for in-vivo measure- 20 nm the chlorophyll a concentration may ments. 67 be underestimated by as much as 40%. Pheophytin a, a common degradation 2) Cuvetres, with 1-, 4-, and 10-cm path product of chlorophyll a, can interfere with lengths. the determination of chlorophyll a because 3) Clinical centrifuge. it absorbs light and fluoresces in the sarne 4) Pipets, 0.1- and 5.0-mL. region of the spectrum as chlorophyll a 5) Tissue grinder.-* Successfully macer- and, if present, may cause errors in chlo- ating glass fiber filters in tissue grinders 151.61 rophyll a values. It can be measured with grinding tube and pestle of conical either by spectrophotometry or fluoroin- design may be difficult. Preferably use etry, but in fresh water fluorometric meas- round-bottom grinding tubes with a match- urement is unreliable. The fluorometric ing pestle having grooves in the TFE tip. method was developed for marine work 6) Centrifuge tubes, 15-mL graduated. (chlorophyll b is undetectable in the open screw-cap. ocean) and depends on the absence of chlo- 7) Filtration equipment, filters, glass fi- rophyll b, because after acidification the bert membrane (0-45-4m porosity, 47-mm fluorescence emission of pheophytin b is diam); vacuum pump; solvent-resistant dis- coincident with that of pheophytin a. When posable filter assembly, 1.0-ptm pore sizc:T measuring chlorophyll a measure also the 10-mL solvent-resistant syringe. concentration of pheophytin a. The ratio of chlorophyll a to pheophytin a serves as a good indicator of physiological condition of phytoplankton. When pheophytin a is 'Kontes Glass Co., Vineland. N.J. 08360: Glass/Fla- measured by spectrophotometrv, accurate grinder. Model No. 8855: Glass/TFE grinder, Model acidification is required to avoid interfer- 886"; or equivalent. +GF/C or GF/A 4.5 cm diam, or equivalent. ence from accessory pigments present in *Gelman Acrodisc or equivalent. some algae."" 8) Saturated magnesium carbonate so- length as chlorophyll a. Addition of acid lution: Add 1.0 g finely powdered MgCO, to chlorophyll a results in toss of the mag- to 100 mL distilled water. nesium atom, converting it to pheophytin 9) Aqueous acetone solution: Mix 90 parts a. Acidify carefully to a final molarity of acetone (reagent grade BP 56'C) with 10 not more than 3 x 10-'Af to prevent cer- parts saturated magnesium carbonate so- tain accessory pigments from changing to lution. absorb at the same wavelength as pheo- b. Extraction procedure: phytin a." When a solution of pure chlo- 1) Concentrate sample by centrifuging rophyll a is converted to pheophytin a by or filtering. Whole water samples can be acidification, the absorption-peak-ratio held up to 2 weeks in the dark at 4*C. Use (OD664/OD665) of 1.70 is used in cor- opaque bottles because even brief exposure recting the apparent chlorophyll a concen- to light during storage will alter chloro- tration for pheophytin a. phyll values. Samples on filters taken from Samples with an OD664 before/OD665 water having pH 7 or higher may be placed after acidification ratio (664b/665J of 1.70 in airtight plastic bags and stored frozen are considered to contain no pheophytin a for 3 weeks. Samples from acidic water and to be in excellent physiological con- must be processed promptly to prevent dition. Solutions of pure pheophytin show chlorophyll degradation. Use glassware no reduction in OD665 upon acidification and cuvettes that are clean and acid-free. and have a 664,/665, ratio of 1.0. Thus, 2) Place sample in a tissue grinder, cover mixtures of chlorophyll a and pheophytin with 2 to 3 mL 90% aqueous acetone so- a have absorption peak ratios ranging be- lution, and macerate at 500 rpm for I min. tween 1.0 and 1.7. These ratios are based Use TFE/glass grinder for a glass-fiber fil- on the use of 90% acetone as solvent. Using ter and glass/glass grinder for a membrane 100% acetone as solvent results in a chlo- filter. rophyll a before-to-after acidification ratio 3) Transfer sample to a screw-cap cen- of about 2.0.6' trifuge tube, rinse grinder with a few milli- 1) Equipment and reagents-In addition liters 90% aqueous acetone, and add the to those listed under a above, rinse to the extraction slurry. Adjust total Hydrochloric acid, HCI, 0. IN. volume to a constant level, 5 to 10 mL, 2) Spectrophotometric procedure- with 90% aqueous acetone. Use solvent Transfer 3 mL clarified extract to a 1-cm sparingly and avoid excessive dilution of cuvette and read optical density (OD) at pigments. Steep samples at least 2 h at 4*C 750 and 664 rim. Acidify extract in the in the dark. cuvette with 0. 1 mL 0. IN HCL Gently ag- 4) Clarify by filtering through a solvent- itate the acidified extract and read OD at resistant disposable filter (to minimize re- 750 and at 665 nrn, 90 s after acidification. tention of extract in fflter and filter holder, The volumes of extract and acid and the force I to 2 mL air through the filter after time after acidification are critical for ac- the extract), or by centrifuging in closed curate, consistent results. tubes for 20 min at 500 g. Decant clarified The OD664 before acidification should extract into a clean, calibrated, 15-mL, be between 0. 1 and 1.0. For very dilute screw-cap centrifuge tube and measure to- extracts use cuvettes having a longer path tal volume. Proceed as in c or d below. length. If a larger cell is used, add a pro- c. Determination of chlorophyll a in the portionately larger volume of acid. Correct presence of pheophytin a: Chlorophyll a OD obtained with larger cuvettes to I cm may be overestimated by including pheo- before making calculations. pigments that absorb near the same wave- Subtract the 750-nm OD value from the readings before (OD 664 nm) and after 647, and 630 nni to determine chlorophyll acidification (OD 665 mn). a, b, and c, respectively. The OD reading Using the corrected values calculate at 750 nm is a correction for turbidity. chlorophyll a and pheophytin a per cubic Subtract this reading from each of the pig- meter as follows: ment OD values of the other wavelengths Chlorophyll a, mg/m' before using them in the equations below. 26.7(664b - 665.) x V, Because the OD of the extract at 750 nni x L is very sensitive to changes in the acetone- to-water proportions, adhere closely to the Pheophytin a. mglm' 90 parts acetone:10 parts water (v/v) for- 26.7 [1.7 (665,) - 664b] x V, mula for pigment extraction. Turbidity can V, X L be removed easily by filtration through a where: disposable, solvent-resistant filter attached V@ = volume of extract, L, to a syringe or by centrifuging for 20 min V, = volume of sample, m', at 500 g. L = light path length or width of cu- Calculate the concentrations of chloro- vette, cm, and - phyll a, b, and c in the extract by inserting 664,, 665. = optical densities of 900/cacetone ex- the corrected optical densities in following tract before and after acidification, equations :61 pectively, The value 26e7s is the absorbance correction a) C. = 11.85(OD664) - 1.54(OD647) and equals A X K - 0.08(OD630) b) C, = 21.03(OD647) - 5.43(OD664) where: - 2.66(OD630) A = absorbance coefficient for chlorophyll a c) C, = 24.52(OD630) - 7.60(OD647) at 664 nm = 11.0, and - 1.67(OD664) K = ratio expressing correction for acidifi- cation, where: C., C,, and C, concentrations of chloro- ( 6'@4@, phyll a, b, and c. respec- L665.) tively, mg/L, and 664, 664b OD664, OD647, (L66:!5@) G66:!5@) and OD630 corrected optical densities (with a 1-cm. light path) at 1.7 2.43 the respective wavelengths. 1.7 - 70 @ d. Determination of chloropkvIl a, b, and After determining the concentration of c (trichromatic method): Spectrophotometric procedure - Trans- pigment in the extract, calculate the fer extract to a I-cm cuvette and measure amount of pigment per unit volume as fol- optical density (OD) at 750, 664, 647, and lows: 630 run. Choose a cell path length or di- lution to give an OD664 between 0. 1 and Chlorophyll a. mg/m' 1.0. C. x extract volume. L Use the optical density readings at 664, Volume of sample, M` 2. Fluorometric Determination of C., Chlorophyll a R, The fluorometric method for chlorophyll a is more sensitive than the spectropho- where: tometric method and thus smaller samples F, = calibration factor for sensitivity setting can be used. Calibrate the fluorometer S. spectrophotometrically with a sample from R, = fluorometer reading for sensitivity set- the same source to achieve acceptable re- ting S, and, sults. Optimum sensitivity for chlorophyll C@' = co.ricentration of chlorophyll a deter- mined spectrophotometrically, 4g/L. a extract measurements is obtained at an excitation wavelength of 430 nm and an emission wavelength of 663 nm. A method 2) Measure sample fluorescence at sen- for continuous measurement of chlorophyll sitivity settings that will provide a mid- a in vivo is available, but is reported to be scale reading. (Avoid using the I X window less efficient than the in-vitro method given because of quenching effects.) Convert flu- here, yielding about one-tenth as much flu- orescence readings to concentrations of orescence per unit weight as the same chlorophyH a by multiplying the readings amount in solution. Pheophytin a also can by the appropriate calibration factor. be determined fluorometrically.2' c. Determination of chlorophyll a in the a Equipment and reagents. In addition presence of pheophyrin a: This method is to those listed under la above, not applicable to freshwater samples. See Fluorometer,� equipped with a high-in- discussion under 1002G and Ic above. tensity F4T.5 blue lamp, photomultiplier 1) Equipment and reagents-In addition tube R-446 (red-sensitive), sliding window to those listed under 2a above, pure chlo- orifices I X, 3 X, 10 x, and 30 X, and filters rophyll @j (or a plankton chlorophyll ex- for light emission (CS-2-64) and excitation tract wit .h a Spectrophotometric before- (CS-5-60). A high-sensitivity door is pref- and-after acidification ratio of 1.70 con- erable. taining no chlorophyll b). b. Extraction procedure: Prepare sample 2) Fluorometric procedure- Calibrate as directed in lb above. 1) Calibrate fluorometer with a chloro- fluorometer as directed in I, 2bl). Deter- phyll solution of known concentration as mine extract fluorescence at each sensitiv- follows: Prepare chlorophyll extract and ity setting before and after acidification. analyze spectrophotometrically. Prepare Calculate calibration factors (F,) and be- serial dilutions of the extract to provide fore-and-after acidification fluorescence ra- concentrations of approximately 2, 6, 20, tio by dividing fluorescence reading and 60 @Lg chlorophyll a/L. Make fluoro- obtained before acidification by the reading metric readings for each solution at each obtained after acidification. Avoid readings sensitivity setting (sliding window orifice): on the I X scale and those outside the range I x, 3 x, 10 x, and 30 x. Using the values of 20 to 80 fluorometric units. obtained, derive calibration factors to con- 3) Calculations- Determine the "cor- vert fluorometric readings in each sensitiv- rected" chlorophyll a and pheophytin a in ity level to concentrations of chlorophyll sample extracts with the following equa- a, as follows: tions:" .A �Model I 11, Sequoia-Turner Corp., 755 Ravendaie Dr., IpPurified chlorophyll a. Sigma Chemical Company, St. Mountain View, Calif. or equivalent. Louis. Mo., or equivalent. Chlorophyll a. mg/m' = F, r (& R.) & = fluorescence of extract before acidifi- r - I cation, R. = fluorescence of extract after acidifica- Pheophytin a. mg/m' = F, (rR. &) tion, and r r = R,1R., as determined with pure chlo- where: rophyll a for the instrument. Redeter- F, conversion factor for sensitivity setting mine r if filters or light source are 5 (see 2b, above), changed. 908 A. Standard Total Coliform Multiple-Tube (MPN) Tests 1. Presumptive Phase Peptone . . . . . . . . . . .10.0 9 Lactose . . . . . . . . . . .10.0 9 Use lauryl tryptose broth in the pre- Oxgall ........... 20.0 9 sumptive portion of the multiple-tube test. Brilliant green ... . . . . . 0.0133 g Lactose broth may be used as an alternative Distilled water . . . . . . . I L medium provided that it has been dem- onstrated not to increase the frequency of pH should be 7.2 � 0.2 after steriliza- false positives nor mask coliforms; present tion. Before sterilization, dispense, in fer- in drinking water samples. mentation tubes with an inverted vial, a. Reagents and culture media: sufficient medium to cover inverted vial at 1) Lauryl tWtose broth: least partially after sterilization. 3) Lactose broth: Tryptose ............ 20.0 g Beef extract ........... 3.0 g Lactose ............. 5.0 g Peptone .............. 5.0 9 Dipotassium hydrogen Lactose .............. 5.0 g phosphate, K2HPO, 2.75 g Distilled water .......... I L Potassium dihydrogen phosphate, KH,.PO, 2.75 g Sodium chloride, NaCl . . . . 5.0 g pH should be 6.9 � 0.2 after steriliza- Sodium lauryl sulfate ..... 0.1 g non. Before sterilization, dispense in fer- Distilled water ......... I L mentation tubes of such dimensions that the liquid in the inoculated tube will cover pH should be 6.8 � 0.2 after steriliza- the inverted vial at least partially after ster- tion. The addition of 0.01 g/L bromcresol ilization. purple to presumptive medium is optional Make lactose broth of such strength that as a guide to determine acid productivity adding I 00-mL or 10-mL portions of sam- and growth (without gas formation) to be ple to medium will not reduce ingredient confirmed. Before sterilization, dispense, in concentrations below those of the standard medium. Prepare in accordance with Table fermentation tubes with an inverted vial, 908JI. sufficient medium to cover inverted vial at b. Procedure: least partially after sterilization. 1) Inoculate a series of presumptive- Make lauryl tryptose broth of such phase fermentation tubes with appropriate strenizth that adding 100-mL or 10-mL decimal quantities (multiples and submul- portions of sample to medium will not re- tiples of I mL) of sample. If 100-mL sample duce ingredient concentrations below those portions are used, prewarm culture bottles of the standard medium. Prepare in ac- to room temperature. After adding sample, cordance with Table 908:1. mix thoroughly. The portions of sample 2) Brilliant green lactose bile broth: used for inoculating lauryl tryptose broth TABLE 908:1. PREPARATION OF LAURYL TRYPTOSE BROTH Volume of Dehvdrated Laurvl Inoculum Amount of Medium @ Tr.yptose Broth mL Medium in Tube Inoculum Required mL mL g1L 1 10 or more I I or more 35.6 10 10 20 71.2 10 20 30 53.4 100 50 150 106.8 100 35 135 137.1 100 20 120 213.6 TABLE 9081L PREPARATION OF LAcroSE 13ROTH Amount of Volume of Dehydrated Lactose Inoculunt Medium in Tube Medium + Broth Required mL mL Inoculum 91L mL 1 10 or more I I or more 13.0 10 10 20 26.0 10 20 30 19.5 100 50 150 39.0 100 35 135 50.1 100 20 120 78.0 fermentation tubes will vary in size and c. Interpretation: Formation of gas in any number with the character of the water amount in the inverted tubes or vials within examined, but in general use decimal mul- 48 t 3 h constitutes a positive presumptive tiples of 1 mL. Select these in accordance reaction. with the discussion of the multiple-tube test 'Do not confuse the appearance of an air above. bubble in a clear tube with actual gas pro- In making dilutions and measuring di- duction. If gas is formed as a result of luted sample volumes, follow the precau- fermentation, the broth medium will be- tions given in Section 907A.2. Use Figure come cloudy. Active fermentation may be 907:1 as a guide to preparing dilutions. shown by the continued appearance of 2) Incubate inoculated fermentation small bubbles of gas throughout the me- tubes at 35 t 0.5*C. After 24 t 2 h shake dium outside the inner vial when the fer- each tube gently and examine it for gas mentation tube is shaken gently. production and, if no gas has formed and The absence of gas (and acid) formation been trapped in the inverted vial, reincu- at the end of 48 t 3 h of incubation con- bate and reexamine at the end of 48 t 3 stitutes a negative test for sewage effluent h. Record presence or absence of gas for- samples. Confirm presumptive tubes with mation (and acid if a pH indicator was heavy growth and no visible gas from incorporated in the medium) regardless of drinking and recreational waters in bril- amount at each examination of the tubes. liant green lactose bile broth to check for coliform suppression. An arbitrary limit of 24 h, submit to the confirmed phase only 48 h for observation- doubtless excludes the tubes of the highest dilution (smallest from consideration occasional members of sample inoculum) in which all tubes are the coliform group that form gas very positive and any positive tubes in still slowly. higher dilutions. Submit to the confirmed 2. Confirmed Phase phase all tubes in which gas is produced only after 48 h. a. Reagents and culture media.- See @j la above. Use brilliant green lactose bile broth 3. Completed Test fermentation tubes for the confirmed phase. Use the completed test on positive con- b. Procedure. Submit all primary fer- firmed tubes to establish definitively the mentation tubes showing any amount of presence of coliform bacteria and to pro- gas within 24 h of incubation to the con- vide quality-control data. Double confir- firmed phase. If active fermentation ap- mation into brilliant green lactose bile pears in the primary fermentation tube broth for total coliforms and EC broth for earlier than 24 h, transfer to the confirm atory medium, preferably without waiting fecal coliforms (see Section 908C below) for the full 24-h period to elapse. If addi- may be used. Consider positive EC broth tional primary fermentation tubes show gas elevated temperature (44.5*C) results as a production or heavy growth (for drinking positive completed test response. Parallel or recreational water samples) at the end positive brilliant green lactose bile broth of a 48-h incubation period, submit these cultures with negative EC broth cultures to the confirmed phase. indicate the presence of nonfecal coliforms Gently shake or rotate primary fermen- and must be submitted to the completed tation tube showing gas. With a sterile test procedure to obtain an MPN test value. metal loop 3 mm in diameter, transfer one a. Culture medium and reagents.- loopful of culture to a fermentation tube 1) Nutrient agar.- containing brilliant green lactose bile broth Peptone ............. 5.0 g or insert a sterile wooden applicator at least Beef extract .......... 3.0 g 2.5 cm into the culture, promptly remove, Agar .............. 15.0 g and plunge applicator to bottom of fer- Distilled water ......... I L mentation tube containing brilliant green pH should be 6.8 t 0.2 after steriliza- lactose bile broth. Remove and discard ap- tion. plicator. 2) Gram-stain reagents.- Incubate the inoculated brilliant green a) Ammonium oxalate-crvstal violet lactose bile broth tube for 48 t 3 h at 35 (Hucker's): Dissolve 2 g crvstal'violet (90% 0.51C. dve content) in 20 mL 95%' ethvl alcohol: Formation of gas in any amount in the inverted vial of the brilliant green lactose dissolve 0.8 g (NH,),C,O,.H,O in 80 mL bile broth fermentation tube at anv time distilled water; mix the two solutions and within 48 � 3 h constitutes a positive con- a2e for 24 h before use: filter through paper firmed phase. into a staining bottle. c. Alternative procedure.- Use this alter- b) Lugol's solution, Gram *s modification: native only for polluted water or waste- Grind I g iodine crystals and 2 g KI in a water known to produce positive results mortar. Add distilled water, a few milli- consistentlv. liters at a time, and grind thoroughly after If all presumptive tubes are positive in each addition until solution is complete. two or more consecutive dilutions within Rinse solution into an amber iflass bottle with the remaining water (using a total of air-cooled transfer needle to minimize the 300 mL). danger of transferring a mixed culture. c) Counrerstain: Dissolve 2.5 a safranin Incubate secondary broth tubes (lauryl dye in 100 mL 95% ethyl alcohol. Add 10 trypEose broth) at 35 @ 0.5'C for 24 = 2 mL to 100 mL distilled water. h; if gas is not produced within 24 -_ 2 h d) Acetone alcohok Mix equal volumes reincubate and examine again at 48 :t 3 of ethyl alcohol (9517/o) with acetone. h. Microscopically examine Gram-stained b. Procedure.- preparations from those 24-h nutrient agar 1) Streak one LES Endo agar (Section slant cultures corresponding to the second- 909A.2) plate from each tube of brilliant ary tubes that show gas. green lactose bile broth showing gas, as 3) Gram-stain technique-The Gram soon as possible after the observation of stain may be ornitted from the completed gas. Streak plates in a manner to insure test for potable water samples only because presence of some discrete colonies sepa- the occurrence of gram-positive bacteria rated by at least 0.5 cm. Observe the fol- and spore-forming organisms surviving this lowing precautions when streaking plates selective screening procedure are infre- to obtain a high proportion of successful quent in drinking water. isolations if coliform organisms are present: Various modifications of the Gram stain (a) Use an inoculating needle slightly exist. Use the following modification by curved at the tip; (b) tap and incline the Hucker for staining smears of pure culture; fermentation tube to avoid picking up any include a gram-positive and a gram-nega- membrane or scum on the needle; (c) insert tive culture as controls. end of needle into the liquid in the tube to Prepare separate light emulsions of the a depth of approximately 0.5 cm; and (d) test bacterial growth and positive and neg- streak plate with curved section of the ative control cultures on the same slide needle in contact with the agar to avoid a using drops of distilled water on the slide. scratched or tom surface. Air-dry and fix by passing slide through a Incubate plates (inverted) at 35 � 0.3*C flame and stain for I min with ammonium for 24 � 2 h. oxalate-crystal violet solution. Rinse slide 2) The colonies developing on LES Endo in tap water; apply Lugol's solution for I agar are defined as typical (nucleated, with min. or without metallic sheen); atypical Rinse the stained slide in tap water. De- (opaque, unnucleated, mucoid, pink after colorize for approximately 15 to 30 s with 24 h incubation), or negative (all others). acetone alcohol by holding slide between From each of these plates pick one or more the fingers and letting acetone flow across typical, well-isolated coliforin colonies or, the stained smear until no more stain is if no typical colonies are present, pick two removed. Do not over-decolorize. or more colonies considered most likely to Counterstain with safranin for 15 s, then consist of organisms of the coliform group, rinse with tap water, blot dry with bibulous and transfer growth from each isolate to a paper or air dry, and examine microscop- lauryl tryptose broth fermentation tube and ically. onto a nutrient agar slant. Cells that decolorize and accept the saf- Use a colony magnifying device to pro- ranin stain are pink and defined as gram- vide optimum magnification when colonies negative in reaction. Cells that do not de- are picked from the LES Endo agar plates. colorize but retain the crystal violet stain When transferring colonies, choose well- are deep blue and are defined as gram- isolated colonies and barely touch the sur- positive. Results are acceptable only when face of the colony with a flame-sterilized, controls have given proper reactions. c. interpretation: Formation of gas in the shaped bacteria from the agar culture con. secondary tube of lauryl tryptose broth stitute a positive result for the completed within 48 -� 3 h and demonstration of test. demonstrating the presence of a mem- grant-negative. nonspore-forming, rod- ber of the coliform -rout). 908 C. Fecal Coliform MPN Procedure Elevated-temperature tests for the sep- Do not use it for direct isolation of coli- aration of organisms of the coliform group forms from water because prior enrichment into those of fecal origin and those derived in a presumptive medium for optimum re- from nonfecal sources are available. Mod- covery of fecal coliforms is required. The ifications in technical procedures, stand- procedure using A- I broth is a single-step ardization of methods, and detailed studies method not requiring confirmation. of members of the coliform group found in The fecal coliform test (EC medium) is the feces of various warm-blooded animals applicable to investigations of stream poi- compared with those from other environ- lution, raw water sources, wastewater mental sources have established the value treatment systems, bathing waters, sea- of a fecal coliform determination. The test waters, and general water-quality monitor- can be performed by one of the multiple- ing. The procedure is not recommended as tubc procedures described here or by mem- a substitute for the coliform test in the brane filter methods as described in Section examination of potable waters, because no 909. The procedure using EC medium coliform bacteria of any kind should be yields adequate information about the tolerated in a treated water. The test using source of the coliform group (fecal or A- I medium is applicable to seawater and nonfecal) when used as a confirmatory test. treated wastewater. 1. Fecal Coliform Test (EC Medium) sidered a 'positive reaction indicating The fecal coliforin test differentiates be- coliforms of fecal origin. Failure to produce tween coliforms of fecal origin (intestines gas (growth sometimes occurs) constitutes of warm-blooded animals) and coliforms a negative reaction indicating a source from other sources. Use EC medium or. other than the intestinal tract of warm- for a more rapid test of the quality of shell- blooded animals. Calculate fecal coliform. fish waters, use A-1 medium in a direct densities as described in Section 908D. test. 2. Fecal Coliform Test (A-1 Medium) a. EC medium: a. A-1 broth: This medium may not be Tryptose or trypticase ..... 20.0 g available in dehydrated form and may re- Lactose ............. 5.0 g quire preparation from the basic ingredi- Bile salts mixture or ents. bile salts No. 3 ....... 1.5 g Dipotassium hydrogen Lactose ............. 5.0 g phosphate, K,HPO, 4.0 g Tryptone ............ 20.0 g Potassium dihydrogen Sodium chloride, NaCl .... 5.0 g phosphate, KH, PO, 1.5 g Salicin ............. 0.5 g Sodium chloride, NaCl .... 5.0 g Polyethylene glycol p Distilled water ......... I L isoocrylphenyl ether* .... 1.0 mL Distilled water ......... I L pH should be 6.9 t 0.2 after steriliza- tion. Before sterilization, dispense in fer- Heat to dissolve solid ingredients, add mentation tubes, each with an inverted vial, polyethylene glycol P isooctylphenyl ether, sufficient medium to cover the inverted vial and adjust to pH 6.9 � 0. 1. Before steri- at least partially after sterilization. lization dispense in fermentation tubes with b. Procedure: Make transfers from all an inverted vial sufficient medium to cover positive presumptive tubes and from 48-h the inverted vial at least partially after ster- negative tubes showing growth, from the ilization. Sterilize by autoclaving at 121*C total coliform MPN test to EC medium. for 10 min. Store in dark at room temper- Make this examination simultaneously ature for not longer than 7 d. Ignore for- with the confirmatory procedure using bril- mation of precipitate. liant green lactose bile broth. Use a sterile Make A-1 broth of such strength that metal loop with a minimum 3-mm. diam adding 10-mL sample portions to medium or a sterile wooden applicator to transfer will not reduce ingredient concentrations to EC medium. When making such trans- below those of the standard medium. For fers, first gently shake the presumptive tube 10-mL samples prepare double-strength or mix by rotating. Incubate inoculated medium. tubes in a water bath at 44.5 � 0.2*C for b. Procedure: Inoculate tubes of A-1 24 t 2 h. Place all EC tubes in the water broth as directed in Section 908A. I b 1). In- bath within 30 min after inoculation. Main. cubate for 3 h at 35 � 0.5*C. Transfer tubes rE tain a sufficient water depth in the water to a water bath at 44.5 � 0.2*C and in- bath incubator to immerse tubes to the up- cubate for an additional 21 � 2 h. per level of the medium. c. Interpretation: Gas production in a fer- c. Interpretation: Gas production in a fer- mentation tube within 24 h or less is a mentation tube within 24 h or less is con- positive reaction indicarinLy coliforms of fe- cal origin. Calculate fecal coliform. densi. ties as described in Section 908D. APPENDIX D FLUSHING RATES AND STEADY STATE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D D1. FLUSHING RATES AND STEADY STATE CALCULATIONS The Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas legislation requires that each county develope guidelines for permitting water dependent facilities. Under Section 14.15.03.04, local jurisdiction are required to develope plans which consider the following for all water dependent facilities: 1. Activities will not significantly affect or alter existing water circulation patterns or salinity regions. 2. The water bodies upon which these activities are planned are adequately flushed. It is not anticipated that most water dependent facilities will have a significant impact upon circulation or salinity patterns. In order to meet the requirements of Item #2, however, it will be necessary to define existing flushing rates accurately and to provide guidance regarding acceptable and unacceptable rates. This task is both complicated and difficult. To date, the most common method has been to rely upon existing information, generalized criteria and simplistic models. In general, the larger the water both in width and total exchange, the better the flushing rate. The following discussion wil.1 be restricted to tidal rivers and estuaries because the Critical Area legislation applies only to tidal conditions. A primary resource for information regarding this discussion is the Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook (EPA, 1985). There are two primary mechanisms by which water is exchanged in tidal rivers and estuaries. These are 1) tidal exchange and 2) fresh water input. The following formula is one approach to defining flushing rates in tidal waters. While such imperical formulal are relatively simplistic, they provide a first cut approach to defining flushing rates and can be used to determine the need for further study. The most important aspect of such models is the basis of the assumptions used in defining each parameter. Flushing and circulation are important physical characteristics of a water body that should be considered in facility review. Since site-specific information on flushing and circulation are usually not readily available during the site selection and design phase, simplistic mathematical models are utilized as a screening procedure. D-1 Semi-Enclosed Areas Flushing time for facilities within a semi-enclosed area can be estimated using simplified dilution calculations. The variables required for the estimation are: Average depth of the water body segment or marina at low and high tide following completion of dredging, based upon the representative tidal range for the area Volume of non-tidal freshwater inflow into the segmentor marina Surface area of the waterbody segmentor marina The percentage of discharged water returning to the basin on the following tidal cycle. Equation 1 represents the semi-enclosed case: TcLogD f Log -AL + bAR - ITc AH where: Tf Time of flushing (hours) Tc Tidal cycle, high tide to high tide (hours) A Surface @rea of the waterbody segment of the marina(m ) D Desired dilution factor R Range of tide (m) b Return flow factor (dimensionless expressed as a fraction) 3 I Non-tidal freshwater inflow (m /hours) L Average deth at low tide (m) H Average depth at high tide (m). 3 AL = Segment or marina low 3water volume (M AR = Tidal prism volume (m ) of segment or marina The parameter "b" is the percentage of the tidal prism ("ARII), in Equation 1) that was previously flushed from the water body on the outgoing tide and is expressed as a decimal fraction. It represents the fraction of the water which has moved out from the segment adjacent to the facility after the completion of one tidal cycle which flows back into the waterbody segment on the incoming tide. This portion of the water mass would not be considered as aiding flushing for water quality considerations. Non-tidal freshwater inflow from runoff or stream discharge into the estuary can be estimated using available data. Frequently, particularly in small subestuearies this number is small compared to tidal flushing. D-2 L If IIITcII is much less than IIAL + bAR," this component of the equation can be ignored and the simplified (Equation (2) is as follows: (2) TCLogD f Log _AL + bAR AH One assumption of Equations (1) and (2) is that the physical shape of the segment includes relatively vertical sides, particularly from the low to high water marks. If this is not the accepted case, Equation (3) is represented as the following: (2) TcLogD f Log VL + bVp VH where: Tfy T I b and D are as defined previously 3 VL = %lume of the segment at low tide (m VH = volume of the segment at high tide (m Vp = Volume of the segment tidal prism (V H VL). This simplified approach to estimating flushing incorporates the following assumptions: The tidal prism volume completely mixes with basin waters The pollutant concentration decreases with each tidal dilution but will never completely flush The segment basin is fairly uniform with relatively vertical sides (Equations 1 and 2) The influx of non-tidal freshwater serves to decrease the polluted volume without affecting the level of tide o The majority of flushing is due to tidal flow. The most difficult parameter to determine is the volume of IV'. This value may be determined with the greatest precision by dye tracer tests for the actual site, or it can be estimated based upon the circulation characteristics of the affected water bodies. Values of IIbII may be greater than 0.5 for slow circulating estuaries or less than 0.5 if freshwater inflow is high or receiving water circulation is fast. Without original field data, estimations must be made. For example, if ebb flow is at least 50 percent faster than flood flow, (as in tidal river conditions) flushing should be expected to be fair and a value for "b" would probably be less than 0.5. The value for ID" should be chosen depending upon the amount of flushing desired. If complete flushing is desired, a very low value of I'D" can be selected, such as 0.01. Since pollutant concentrations are steadily D-3 diluted by each tidal cycle, complete flushing will be approached asymptotically, so a reasonable cutoff value for dilution must be chosen. We have selected a 67% reduction or as a convention, and this represents .33 as a value for "D". In any case, the estimated flushing time for water bodies is an approximate value where these models are used. Many characteristics of the site, including location relative to other water bodies, ambient water quality, biological activity, total volume, proposed activity, and type and volume of any discharges, would also all affect the steady state concentrations of any given chemical constituent. For most cases a two to four day flushing time is satisfactory while longer flushing times may not be acceptable (Boozer, 1979). Evaluation of the buildup of particular toxic pollutants or the decrease in dissolved oxygen would be required to more adequately evaluate the flushing characteristics. Example The flushing example given here uses the flushing model discussed above. The equation used is equation no. 2 (4-5 of the Coastal Marinas Asessment Handbook). The area is upper Frog Mortar Creek in Middle River, Baltimore County, Maryland. The following additional assumptions were made in the example given: 1. The tidal prism volume assumes complete mixing within the creek waters and the proposed marina basin. This is based upon the determination through field assessments that the vertical distribution of conductivity is uniform. It is also possible to use dissolved oxygen or temperature, but salinity is the most commonly used variable in defining the presence or absence of complete mixing in shallow estuarine water bodies. 2. The flushing of the basin and the upper portion of Frog Mortar Creek is due to tidal flow only. 3. The factor for D (desired final dilution) was assigned a value of .33. This is the fraction of the original concentration remaining in the water column. This is based on the Corps of Engineers convention that the flushing rate be calculated based upon the amount of time required for 67% of a given conservative material to be removed due to tidal action or other components of the flushing model. 4. It is recommended that the value for "b" (fractional recirculation) be initially assigned a value of 0.5, and that additional model calculations to be run at 0.25 and 0.0. This is based upon studies 'A conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Institute and reported in Special Report no. 49 of the Chesapeake Bay Institute entitled: Simple One Dimensional Kinematic Model Results For The Bush River and Rumney Creek (Carter, H.H., 1976). Attached is a copy of this reference (Appendix E). As can be seen on page 21, for the Bush River in the fall of 1972, three sets of data were used to plot predicted and D-4 measured dye concentrations in the river. The value of .5 is recommended as the value for the portion of the tidal volume recirculated on each tidal cycle in order to use the model in a very conservative fashion. From the Figure 11 as depicted on page 21 of the CBI report, the best approximation of real field data (represented by the black dots) is actually the 0.0 assumption, i.e., that all water on any given tide cycle is completely exchanged and that none of the water from the previous tidal period is recirculated. It is, therefore, a conservative assumption that a significant fraction of water is recirculated on a tidal cycle and moves us somewhat further away from the real situation as defined by. dye concentrations. In view of the above information, the interpretation of the flushing model and the utilization of each of the parameters has been conservative and the predicted flushing times would be somewhat longer than might be expected. The use of 67% as a desired reduction in constituent concentration is a convention so that the model runs will be used and compared on the same basis. The use of .5 or half of the tidal volume being recirculated on a tidal cycle is a very- conservative estimate to assure that there is no under estimate of flushing time. The same information and assumptions are applied to the steady state model used to define concentrations of conservative materials in the water column over time. In this model, the same parameters as defined in the flushing model were used and the assumptions of .5 for b, and 0.33 for the value for D were used. Example: The flushing or exchange rate of water in upper Frog Mortar Creek was estimated in 1984 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (COE, 1984) to be about 8 tidal periods, or about 4 days. This period would be required to reduce a one-time pollutant load by 67 percent. By comparison, a comparable estimate for nearby Dark Head Cove was 6.6 days. Using the EPA (1985) flushing model reviewed above and assumptions developed by the U.S. COE (1979) regarding volume calculations, a comparison was made between existing and post-development f1shing periods. These calculations are summarized below. Flushing Comparision of A Proposed yacht basin, Before and After Construction, Using The EPA(1985) Flushing Model Model Tf Tc Log D (EPA 1985) AL +b AR Log AH D-5 Where: Tf time of flushing (hrs) to achieve a specified D Tc tidal cycle period 12.4 hours D desired final dilution = 0.33 (fraction of original concentration) AL area x low water depth = MLW volume pre 3 post 3 7 720 ft 1,633,520 ft AR area x tidal range = tidal volume pre 3 post 3 210,816 ft 416,256 ft AH area x high water depth = MHW volume pre 3 post 3 913,536 ft 2,049,776 ft b fractional recirculation (assumed) (= 0.50) Calculation: T -0.4815 f existing 12.4 x 702,720 + (0.5 x 210,816) Log 913,536 12.4 x -0.815 -0.05325 12.4 x 9.042 112.12 hours or 9.04 tidal cycles or 4.7 days D-6 Calculation: T -0.815 f new 12.4 x 1,633,520 + -0.5(416,256) Log 2,049,776 -0.815 12.4 x -0.0465 128.40 hours or 10.35 tidal cycles or 5.4 days These data indicate that Frog Mortar Creek in the vicinity of the pro- posed yacht basin is moderately flushed at the present time, relative to Dark Head Cove. The construction of the expanded marina would result in a slight increase in the average depth, thus reducing flushing (from 4.7 days to 5.4 days). The change represents a 14.5 percent increase in ex- change time required for a 67 percent dilution of the water in the creek. This increase is a little more than one tidal cycle. D2. STEADY STATE CALCULATIONS Toxic Substances The bottom paint used on boats is designed to reduce fouling and, as such, contains toxic compounds. Because the use of anti-fouling paints can not be avoided, on a practical basis, with boating and-marina use, it is evident that there are few available options to reduce the effects of such paints. EPA (1985) and COE (1979) both conclude in their assessment documents that mitigation largely depends upon paint manufacturers success in developing non-polluting paints in the future, and the role of marina operators in minimizing the exposure and loss of paint to water. Because the recent EPA (1985) Assessment Handbook only cited a rather dated publication by Siebarth and Conover (1965) (wherein an antifouling paint was developed by utilizing the antibiotic activity of seaweed as the control agent) as evidence of possible future approaches to developing non-polluting paints, it is clear that the marina operator and individual boaters have an important role in minimizing the effects of antifouling paints. Because the incentive to control paint use is dependent upon knowledge of potential effects, it is useful to review the recent COE (1979) assessment of copper, (a common antifouling agent), at Mariners Two Marina in Dark Head Cove, Middle River. This marina, proposed for the Dark Head Cove area, was designed to moor 330 boats. COE (1979) assumed that each boat hull would be freshly painted at the beginning of the season with I-gallon (3.79 liters) of antifouling paint (Staats, 1978) containing an average of 766 g1l of D-7 copper (Ratheon 1978). If the rate of copper loss was constant and resulted in a 50 percent loss over one season (183 days), then a total of about 2,600 g of copper would be lost per day from all boat hulls combined. Further, if all the copper was dissolved and evenly distri- buted in the 230,000 M3 volume of the cove and then subject to a flushing rat of 7 percent per tidal cycle, then the model of Ratheon (1978) allows calculation of an expected steady-state concentration of 80 ug/l of dissolved copper. Because only about 1 percent of total dissolved copper may be expected to be in the toxic cupric (Cu++) ion form (Mantoura et al.; Zirino and Yamamoto 1972; cited by COE 1979), the maximum possible ionic concentration of copper in the cove would not be expected to be higher than an average of 0.8 ug/l. The importance of the 0.8 ug/l value is evident by comparison with the finding that as little as 2 ug/l ionic copper may reduce successful hatching of spot and Atlantic silverside eggs by 50 percent (Engel and Sundra 1979, cited by COE 1979). These data suggest that some aquatic organisms may be sensitive to copper pollution. COE (1979) observed that the average concentration of ionic copper in Dark Head Cove would probably be lower than 0.8 ug/l for various reasons. Much of the copper lost would be lost as particulate and would not be dissolved, and some copper would be lost outside of the cove while boating. Winds would be expected to increase cove flushing. It is also reasonable to assume that concentrations would vary throughout the cove and would be highest near the moored boats. For the proposed yacht basin project site, the steady-state model of EPA (1985, Equation 13) was used to calculate the concentration of tofal copper that might result for a 296 boat facility. The assumptions of COE (1979) were applied as was the bathymetry of the completed (dredged) site. The resulting estimated maximum total copper concentration was 218.5 mg/l, lower than that found for Dark Head Cove because of the better flushing rate predicted for Frog Mortar Creek. The ionic copper level, then, is estimated to be a maximum of 2.2 mg/l. It should be noted that only 1-13 ug/l total copper were recorded in field studies at the site, where approximately 60 boats are presently moored. However, because these boats are presently moored at the site and several larger marinas are present downstream, there is reason to believe that the steady-state estimations for the post-construction conditions are overly conservative (high) and that 218.5 ug/l of copper would not be measured after site development. Nixon et al. (1973) recorded about 10 ug/l in a cove occupied by 300-400 boats in Rhode Island, suggesting that copper may be rapidly deposited in sediments and relatively unavailable in the ionic form. The following shows the calculation of copper steady-state concentrations following the con- struction of the proposed water-dependent facility in Frog Mortar Creek. Model (EPA 1985, Equation 13): D-8 Task: Calculation of Copper Steady-State Concentration After Construction, Using the EPA (1985) Model 24 t Tc C E (AL) + (b AR) M AH 1_1 -1 t I L Where C = Concentration (mg/1) 3 3 AL = MLW volume = 1,633,520 f 5 or 46, 261 m AR = Tidal prism = 416,256 ft 3 AH = MHW volume = 2,049,776 ft b = fractional recirculation (assumed) = 0.5 24/Tc = 24/12.4 = 1.935 M = mg pollutant discharged/day; if 330 beats 2,600 g/d, 296 boatj 2,332 g/day or 2.332 x 10 mg/d F1 = 1,000 (m 1) L = AL C E .1,633,520 ft3 + (.5 x 416,256 ft 3)1 1-935 t 2.332 x 106 3 1 - 2,049,776 ft 1,000 x 46,261 m Z f(O.89846)1- 935t (0.05041) The daily cumulative concentration of total dissolved copper and the predicted steady-state value are shown in Table 1. Based on the analysis and discussion above and the fact that copper will not be used on most boats, copper is not expected to result in any significant adverse effect on the biota. Efforts should be made, however, at Golden Ring and other marinas to reduce possible contamina- tion of the water with antifouling paints. These efforts could include the following (EPA 1985): Restrict the use of antifouling paints to boat hulls and avoid painting piers and other in-water structures. Conduct scraping and painting operations away from the water in protected areas to avoid the loss of particulate and raw paint. Avoid repainting hulls after a year during which fouling was minimal. Dry store boats not in use for extended periods. D-9 Nutrients The following calculations compare existing loading at the proposed site with background levels. The existing loadings were calculated to be as follows: BOD 495.7 lbs/year Total phosphorus 5.6 lbs/year Total nitrogen 60.7 lbs/year These were estimated from average values for stormwater loadings obtained through use of the COG (1981). The average background values were as follows: BOD 4.4 mg/1 Total phosphorus 0.01 mg/l Total nitrogen 1.2 mg/l These values are from actual onsite field data collected for high and low tide values. The steady-state model is used as above: 24 t Tc C E (AL) + (b AR) M t=l AH T'000 x VL C E 89846 1.935tx M fo- 1,000 x 46,261 for BOD, M = 495.7 lbs/year = 1.358 lbs/year = 0.616 kg/year = 616 g/daY5 = 6.16 x 10 mg/day The daily cumulative concentrations and approximate steady-state value are shown in Table 1. Because 57.7 ug/l is the BOD steady-state with existing site runoff and 4.4 mg/l or 4,400 ug/l is the existing background, then the site contributes approximately 1 percent of that value. (Note: assuming no decay of BOD) If stormwater loading is reduced to 238.7 lbs/year, expected change in the proportion of BOD loading attributable to the proposed site would be approximately 0.5 percent of the background, assuming no changes in other overall impact occurred. If the tot@l phosphorus loading from the existing site is 5.6 lbs/year (6.96 x 10 mg/day), then the steady-state portion attributable to the proposed site would be 0.199 ug/l. D-10 Because the background concentration is 0.01 mg/l = (10 ug/1), the site presently contributes 2 percent of existing background. Post- construction loadings would be not expected to change significantly. If the totil post-construction site loading of nitrogen is 75.2 lbs/day (9.34 x 10 mg/day), then the steady-state contribution from the site would be 2.67 ug/l. Because background is 1.2 mg/l = (1,200 ug/1), the finished marina site would contribute 0.22 percent of existing background. D-11 TABLE D-1 CALCULATIONS OF EXISTING STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS OF TOTAL DISSOLVED COPPER AND CONDITIONS OF TOTAL BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) IN FROG MORTAR CREEK Equation: C (pg/1) = (0.89846) 1.935(t) (F) where F = 50.41 total dissolved copper F = 13.32 total BOD Daily Incremental Cumulative Concentration Concentration (ug/1) (pg/1) C 1 = 0.813 (x F) 0.813 (x F) C 2 = 0.661 1.474 C = 0.537 2.011 C 3 0.437 2.448 C 4 0.355 2.803 C 5 0.288 3.091 C 6 0.234 3.325 C 7 0.19, 3.516 C 0.155 3.671 C 0.126 3.797 C10 0.102 3.899 C" 0.083 3.982 C 12 0.068 4.050 C 13 0.055 4.105 C 14 0.045 4.150 C 15 0.036 4.186 C 16 0.030 4.216 C 17 0.024 4.240 C 18 0.020 4.260 C 19= 0.015 4.275 C 20= 0.013 4.288 C 21 0.010 4.298 C 22 0.009 4.307 C 23 0.007 4.314 C 24 0.006 4.320 C 25 0.005 4.324 C 26 0.004 4.328 C 27 0.003 4.331 C 28 0.002 4.333 C 29 0.002 4.335 30 Therefore: Total dissolved copper = 4.335 x 50.41 = 218.5 pg/l. Total BOD = 4.335 x 13.32 = 57.7 pg/l. W W 000 RRRR DDDD W W 0 0 R R D D W W 0 0 R R D D W W W 0 0 RRRR D D ----- w w w 0 0 R R D D VW WW 0 0 R R D D W W 000 R R DDDD U U IIIII CCC DDDD 000 CCC U U I C C D D 0 0 C C D D 0 0 C U U I C D D 0 0 C UU UU I cc D D 0 0 C U U I C C D D 0 0 C C UUU IIIII CCC DDDD 000 CCC 3333 000 000 3333 666 666 000 000 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 6 6 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 00 0 00 3 6 6 0 00 0 00 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6666 6666 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 00 0 00 0 3 6 6 6 6 00 0 00 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 1 3333 000 000 3333 666 666 000 000 11111 W11SLR Version 4.1.0 Spooling device TX15: March 2, 1988 02:39 PM EA Engineering and Tech Printing document: (1) btc8la;apD copies: 1 Delete after printing: No Printer type: LN03ELITE Username: BTC81AWP APPENDIX E SIMPLE ONE DIMENSIONAL KINEMATIC MODEL RESULTS FOR THE BUSH RIVER AND ROMNEY CREEK CHESAPFA.KE- BAY INSTITUTE Th`E JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY S."PECIA:L REPORT 49 SIMPLE ONE DIMENSIONAL KINEEMATIC MODEL RESULTS FOR THE BUSH RIVER AND ROMNEY CREEK by H.H. Carter This report contains results of work carried out for the State of Maryland, Department of Natural Resources as Dart of the Pover Plant Siting Program. This report does not necessarily constitute final publication of the material presented. Reference 76-2 M. Grant Gross March 1976 Director (3 122 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A site known as Perryman located on the eastern shore of the Bush River adjacent to the Aberdeen "roving Ground has been proposed by the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company as a potential site for a generating station. Although a construction schedule has not been finalized, "he site is still in the company's 10-year plan. (as of 1 January 1976). This report describes simple one dimensional transient state transport, i.e., kinematic, models of the Bush River and of Romney Creek, both poten- tial receivers of excess heat and/or contaminants from the blowdown of any cooling towers associated with a generating station constructed at the site. In addition, the results of an independent verification of the Bush River model by means of two dye experiments (spring and fall, 1972) are presented together with a quantitative comparison of the two systems as potential re- ceivers of waste according to the two models. The Romney Creek model was also run with a hypothetical heat source and a surface cooling term to illustrate the effect of surface cooling on the distribution of excess heat. No conclusions as to site suitability are drawn in the report; analysis and interpretation of the model predictions in terms of environmental im- pact will be contained in a separate report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the cooperation of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company in permitting us to use their Bush River and Romney Creek transport models and model results, and to reprint certain figures from the reports describing these models. Mr. M.T. Miyasaki and R.C. Orth of The Applied Physics Labora- tory, The Johns Hopkins University, were major participants in both the co11ection and reduction of the dye data for both spring and fail dye experiments; their considerable contributions to verification of the Bush River model are gratefully acknowledged. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 II. A One Dimensional Transient State Model of the Bush River 8 III. A One Dimensional Transient State Model of Romney Creek 28 References 37 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Chart showing the location of the Bush River and Romney Creek. 2 2. Map of Bush River Region. 3 3. Tidal variation in salinity at mouth of Bush River 24 July 1971. 6 4. Schematic of one-dimensional segmented model indicating, segmentation and exchange parameters used to chareterize 10 flow. 5. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 1, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 15 6. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 2, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 16 7. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 3, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 17 8. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 4, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 18 9. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 5, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 19 10. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 6, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 20 !LLUSTRATIONS (continued) Figure Page 11. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 1, Bush River (Fall, 19T2); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 21 12. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 2, Bush River (Fall, 19T2); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 22 13. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 3, Eush River (Fall, -19T2); solid vertical line is t-im-- dye source was terminated. 23 14. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 4, Bush River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is timme dye source was terminated. 1L 15. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 5, Bush River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 25 16. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 6, Bush River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 26 17. Romney Creek showing location of segment boundaries and sampling stations. 29 18. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in Segment 1 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day- 1 of dry dye in Segment 1; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 32 ILLUSTRATIONS (continued) Figure Page 19. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in Segment 2 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day-1 of dry dye in Segment 2; solid vertical line is tine dye source was terminated. 32 20. Predicted dye concentrationin ppb in Segment 3 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day of dry dye in Segment 3; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 33 21. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in Segment, 4 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day-1 of dry dye in Segment 4; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 33 22. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in Segment 5 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day-1 of dry dye in Segment 5; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 34 23. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in Segment 6 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day-1 of dry dye in Segment 6; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 34 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Volume Exchange Rates (k iqj 13 2. Volume Exchange Rates (k ij) 30 3. Steady State Dye Concentrations for Bush River and Romney Creek 31 4. Excess Temperatures in Romney Creek under various Cooling Conditions 36 Introduction The Maryland Power Plant Siting Act directs the electric utilities and the Maryland Public Service Commission to engage in long range plannim-, and to develon forecasts for electric demand and supply. Each year the PSC must submit to the DeDartment of Natural Resources for environmental evaluation a formal ten-year plan, forecasting Maryland's future electric needs and [email protected] all 'proposed -ccwer plant Sites ana associated transmisslon facilities. Seven sites were mroz_-sed i4n. the f-,rst ten-year plan, two of which were selected for det-ailed site invest igat ion, namely, -randon Shcres on the PataDsco River and Perryman on the Bush River. Accordingly, the Depart=ent of Natural Resources contracted with the Ar.-Iied Physics Laboratory, the Chesapeake Bay Institute, and the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering of The Johns Hopkins University to conduct the detailed site investigations at these two locations. The purpose of this report is to characterize the physical hydrography of the Bush River estuary based on these detailed site investigations and studies performed by BG&E consultantsi. Analysis and interpretation of these data in terms of environmental impact of the proposed installations are contained in a separate report entitled Distribution of contaminants and excess heat in the Bush River and Romney Creek from the proposed Perryman Vectric Power PZant. Figure 1 is a small scale chart of Chesapeake Bay showing the general location of the study area, i.e., the Bush River and Romney Creek. Figure 2 is a larger scale chart of the study area. As may be seen from Figures 1 and 2, the Bush River is a tributary estuary of the Chesapeake Bay. It is located on the western shore of the Bay approximately 15 miles down the bay from the mouth of the Susquehanna River. 1Hydrocon, Inc., Baltimcre, MD and Shepard T. Powell Associates, Baltimore, MD. 2 @7- SUSOUEI@A@lv @4D @,41NAL CHESAPEAKE BAY 0 5 10 NAUTICAL MILES BUSH R.,,@ 'ROMNEY BALTIMORE C R. TER STUDY A REA A, 39 4 w SHINGTON -A Figure 1. Chart shoWing the location of the Bush River and Romney Creek. BUSH RIVER REGION 3 4 CLOmVERS 0 2 SlAtiTICAL MILES -SEGMENT BOUNDARIES 8R7 o STATION LOCATIONS SURFACE TRANSECTS DYE SOURCE PoINf I f BR5 39*25'@ SR4 c"P 4" C's BR3 3e BR2 -4 e- A. BR I 0 5e LEGO PT', C32 39020,- ca I 0 76- 15' 76010' Figure 2. (Reprinted with permission of BG&E) 4 The Bush River estuary is a drowned river valley estuary formed by the most recent rise in sea level. The age of the estuary is less than 5,000 years and it may be only 2 - 3,000 years. It's drainage area is small, approximately 113-29 square miles (statute), resulting in a mean annual run- off of the order of 130 ft sec (3.68 m ). Consequaently, eaters in the Bush are derived mainly from the adjacent Chesapeake Bay. The tide in the Bush River is semidiurnal with a mean range of 1.4 feet reported for Pond Point. This tidal range results in an intertidal volume of approximately 42.9 x 10 ft . This is about 20% of the volume below mean tide level (MTL) which is 20.64 x 10 ft . At the time of maximum tidal velocity at the entrance, the discharge through the mouth of the river is approximately 30 x 10 ft sec . Measured along its axis the Bush is approximately 8.5 nautical miles from mouth to head. The depth increases generally from head to mouth with the maximum depth of 32 feet near Briery Point; the mean derth is approximately 6 feet. At its widest point, the Bush is approximately 2 nautical miles wide. The salinity throughout the Bush varies little with depth. This is probably due to the combination of small local fresh water inflow, shallow mean depth, and low stratification of the adjacent Bay waters. Lateral salinity variations are small every-where except in the vicinity of Otter Point Creek. Longitudinal salinity variations can be considerable, however, with differences as large as 2 - 3% from head to mouth on occasion. Because of the proximity of the Bush River to the Susquehanna River, the salinity in the Bush does not necessarily increase or decrease monotonically along the length of the river. That is, at any given instant the longitudinal salinity 5 distribution is determined primarily by the Bay salinity and to a lesser tent by the fresh water inflow to the Bush from Otter Point Creek. As a result, a salinity maximum located in the central portion of the Bush is not an uncommon feature. There are also salinity variations with tidal periods at a fixed point with amplitudes ranging from 0.5%, near the mouth to essentially zero near the head. Figure 3 shows a typical variation of salinity over a tidal period for a location at or near the mouth. These data were collected in conjunction with a different study-2 by the Chesapeake Bay Institute durig July of 1971. Points represent salinity data averaged over a cross section between Lego Point and Abbey Point. The continual striving by the Bush to match its salinity to that of the adjacent Bay waters by gravitatioal convection is the princpal mechan- ism for exchange. The primary modes of this density driven convective exchange may be inferred from our previous remarks regarding the longitudinal salinity distribution. That is, when the salinity in the Bay waters adja- cent to the mouth of the Bush River are relatively constant or slowly rising, the local fresh water inflow at Otter Point Creek is apparently sufficient to maintain the usual estuarine type of circulation, i.e., outflow at the sur- face and inflow in the lower layers. These conditions should prevail pri- marily during late summer and early fall. In the spring, on the other hand, rapid and large salinity fluctuations occur in the Bay waters off of the Bush. This often results in a situation where the water in the Bush River is more saline and therefore heavier than that in the adjacent Bay. The typical estuarine flow is now reversed with inflow at the surface and outflow at depth. 2 The Chesapeake Day Hydraulic Model Study 4.4 T- 4.3- 4.2- 4.1 - 40- 3,9- ON 3.8- S(%o) 3.7- TIDAL VARIATION 3.6- IN SALINITY AT --- MOUTH OF BUSH R. 3.5 - 24 JULY 1971 3.4- TIME (HOURS) 3.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0515 0715 0915 1115 1315 1515 1715 Fiaure 3. (leepriiltt?d oioi oi, in addition to motions caused by density differences and astronomical tides, there are undoubtedly important wind-induced motions present from time to time. Romney Creek is a shallow tributary estuary of the Chsapeake Bay located on the-western shore of the Bay just north of the Bush River. Its origin and age are udoubtedly similar to those of the Bush River. Its drainage area, however, is considerably smaller than that of the Bush River, approximately 13 square miles (statute). Assuming a tidal range similar to that 0f the Bush River, the intertidal volume of Romney Creek is 1.8 x 16 6 3 or 72% of its volume below mean low water (2.5 x 106qm3q) . This latter figure could conceivably be larger since the quantity of tidal water in the marshland upstream from the Poverty Island Bridge is not known. The mean depth of Romney Creek is slightly under 2 feet. Vertical and lateral salinity variations are small. Longitudinal variations as high as 3 - 4 %, were observed, however, which, like the Bush River, have a similar dependence on the recent history of Bay salinity and local fresh water run-off. Figure 17 in Section III is a large scale chart of Romney Creek. 8 H. A One Dimensional Transient State Model of the Bush River This section describes a simple one-dimensional transient state model of the Bush River constructed by Hydrocon, Inc. for the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company utilizing salt as the tracer. The segmented model a-o-proach, the construction of a segmented model of "he Bush River estuary, and results of its numerical evaluation are contained in Hydraco", Inc. Research @ezor-@ entitled "A One :Amensional Segmented Transient State IModel of the Bush River Estuary," Reference 1110A, December 19T2. Because of the limited distribution of that report, selected portions of it are included herein with minor modification with the permission c-!' the 3altimare '@IaS and Electric Company. The generaL transport equation that governs the distribution of any passive waterborne contaminant is well-known. 'It. is a first order izartial differential equation involving the three spatial coordinates and time as the independent variables. Solution of the transport equation for advective and diffusive fluxes, given the spatial and temporal distribution of some tracer material, is intractable, however, without considerable simplifica- tion. To put the problem in a more tractable form, the usual procedure is to divide the volume of the region under study into a finite number of segments. The appropriate form of the transport equation is found by inte- grating the original equation over each segment volume. The resulting equa- tions relate the advective and diffusive flux of a tracer across the faces of a segment to the time rate of change of tracer material within the seg- ment. The same integration procedure is also applied to the continuity eauation. 9 The segmented model approach is then as follows: determine the temporal and spatial distribution of a tracer; average these data over the volumes of the segments; then solve the system of equations *formed by the integrated transport and continuity equations for advective and diffusive -'fluxes at he faces of each segment. Material suitable as a tracer may occur naturally, such as ocean derived salt, or it may be added artificial!-r. I.-L" salinity gradients are significant and if the magnitude and location of the sources cf -,@'resh water are kncwr, salt will be useful. Because these conditions were met in the Bush River, salt was selected as the primary tracer. The Bush River was divided longitudinally into 6 segments as shown in Figure 2. Most segments were either 1.5 or 2 nautical miles long and were selected to be at least as great as t-he local tidal excursion. Other consider- ations were system geometry and future source positions. Because lateral and vertical salinity gradients are small (see Section I), no provision was made for vertical or lateral variation in the segmentation scheme. 'Two equations were then written for each segment; the integrated transport equation and the continuity equation. Simplified versions were utilized by replacing the terms representing advective and diffusive fluxes of salt or water by simple inward and outward directed exchanges at the face of each segment, k ij, having the units of volume per unit time. Figure 4 is a schematic of the one- dimensional segmented model. It indicates segmentation and exchange parameters used to characterize the mass fluxes. R is the volume rate of fresh water inflow. our k45 k 3 4 -k23 k 12 kol G 0 0 0 k56 k65----..k54 --k43 --k32 k 21 -,klo I t CD R SCHEMATIC OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL SEGMENTED MODEL INDICATING SEGMENTATION AND EXCHANGE PARAMETERS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FLOW. Figure It. (Reprinted with pePrt,*t3.,,ion of Bamp) 7rk 01 The exchanges, k ij, were evaluated as follows. Salinity data were collected at intervals of aDDroximately one day and at sufficient locations so that a: volume averaged salinity was obtained for each segment as a --,nct'on of time. A -oolynomial was -ited to these data resulting in a .L - J. U U L. continuous function of volume averaged salinity as a function of time. -hese pciynomials and their first derivatives were evaluated at 24 hoL,-- intervals to obtain SI, the volume averaged salinity fcr the ith segment, dS. - 3. -na 'ts rate of change with time. R, the fresh water inflow, for the same period of time was obtained from U.S.G.S. records for the gauge station located on Winters Run at a i:)cint 10.5 miles upstream from its point of discharge into Otter Point Creek. _7he drainage area upstream from the gauge station on Winters Run is 35 square miles (statute); the total area drained by Winters Run and Otter Point Creek is estimated to be 113 square miles. Therefore, the recorded discharges were multiplied by a factor of 113/35 or 3.23. The transport and continuity equation sets now represent a determinate system for the k ij 's (exchanges) if the salinity of the bay water that ex- changes with the water in box 1 is known. For this purpose, the cross- sectionally averaged salinity at the mouth of the Bush River was used. The kij so determined differed from one 24 hour period to another, sometimes considerably. The value taken as representative of the sampling period was the median of all 24 hour periods. The ultimate goal was,of course, to predict concentration distributions FE resulting from hypothesized contaminant sources, qij from the transport and continuity equation sets and the k,jIs determined from the salinity data. The 12 sam-pling periods should, therefore, be representative of the periods for which rredictions are desired. Salinity data were taken and kij 's com- puted for a spring or high flow period (5 - 23 March 1972) and a fall period or low runoff condition (28 September - 4 October 1972). The kij 's for both spring and fall conditions are listed in Table 1. It is irlmor- tan-, to realize that the kij 's listed in Table I are statistically obtained values and represent the combined effects of both advection and turbi_,--ent diffusion on the contaminant source. Concentration distributions from actual sources will differ from -oredicted values as one aDDroaches the source and when hyd-rographic conditions depart markedly from the cond' tions that existed during the time the salinity' data were taken. Verification of the H@y,_Erocon model was carried out by APL/CB7 scientists during two dye tracer experiments. The first study was conducted during April of 1972 and was designed to verify the spring exchanges. A second study for verification of the fall exchanges was carried out during November 1972. The spring experiment consisted of a continuous release of 5.168 pounds of d--y Rhodanine WT dye per day in segment 43commencing at 1600 hours on 15 ADril 1972 and ending at 0800 on 30 April 1972. The fall dye re- lease was at the rate of 4.25 pounds of dr-y Rhodamine WT dye per day in segment 4 starting at 1705 on 2 November 1972 and ending at 1035 on 18 November 1972. Dye concentrations were sampled during the buildup for the spring experiment and during the die away during the fall experiment. The dye concentration data thus obtained were averaged volumetrically for com- parison with the model predictions. The proposed site of the Perryman plant is on the east bank of segment 4. A 13 TABLE I Volume Exchange Rates (k ij) (cubic I-ee-- rer second) Spring Conditions Fall Conditions ko, 5800 - R/2 2050 - R/2 kjo 58co + R/2 2050 + R/2 ki2. 1250 - R/2 2800 - R/2 A21 1250 + R/2 2800 +'R/2 k23 6co - R/2 1790 - R/2 k32 6oo + R/2 1790 + R/2 k34 268o - R/2 86o - R/2 k43 2680 + R/2 86o + R/2 k4S 510 - R/2 54o - R/2 k54 510 + R/2 54o + R/2 ks6 790 R/2 720 - R/2 k6s 790 111/2 720 + R/2 Continuity requires that k,j and kji at a segment boundary differ by R, the fresh water discharge. The exchanges are therefore listed as a median value R/2. 14 After the addition of a dye source term, q d' in segment 4, the transport and continuity equation sets were integrated in time to obtain predicted concentrations for each segment as a function of time corres- ponding to spring and fall exchanges. Required for this computation, how- ever, were concentration values for the boundary between the Bay and seg- ment 1. Since these were unknown, they were set equal to a times the con- centration in segment 1. Computations were carried out for values of a of 0.75, i.a., the incoming Bay water has a concentration 0.75 off that in segment 1 with which it exchanges, and a equal to 0. The predicted con- centrations together with "he dye concentration field data are shown in Figures 5 through 16. Steady state values were estimated by integrating in time wihtout terminating the source until the concentrations reached steady values. In order to apply our results we assume that the dye source, q d, was discharged into a hypothetical plant discharge, Q c. Its initial concentra- tion at the point of discharge is therefore C0 d/qQc We define the dilution rati04 of the ith segment as (D C0/(Cd)qi (2) where (Cd )6qi is the dye concentration in the ith segment. 4 The dilution ratio is 1 + a where a is the volume of receiving water into which a unit volume of effluent is mixed. 15 N In Cm cc LU ------------------------ 3TE1q0T-5TATE-(0.62-PP5) --- PLPHR-=0.7.5 N C; 10. 16 PF51 ALPHA =0.00 ---------- *+++ + + + + + 0 . C, XXXXXXKXXXXXXXXXXXXX it XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX r". 0 0 1 00 1@. 00 2@. 00 3b. Do 3@. 00 %1@. 00 11,0.00 TIME (OAT3) 8U5H BIVEM 3PRING 1972 BOX1 X macEL ALFMS=0.0 + MaOEL ALFMA=.75 0 FIELD OATS Figure 5. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 1, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 16 Cz Lft UI -LA ccl'@. STEADY STATE (1.24 PP5) ALPHA =0.75 0-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- cc STEADY 3TRTE (0.31 PP51 RLPHA =0.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ca U1 C;- + + + + ++KXXXXXX +* WX X + + + 4, C3 X + + XX XAXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX C', 00 5.00 1@. Do 16.00 24.00 3b. 00 1@. 00 an '46.00 TIME (ORT31 au3m RIVER SPRING 1972 813X2 X MODEL ALPHS=O.O + MODEL ALPHA=.75 0 FIELD DATA Figure 6. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 2, Bush River (Spring 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 17 3TEROT STRTE (2.02 PF8) RLPHA =0.75 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- 3TEROT-3TATE-(1.?6-PP8]---- RLPHR-=0.0.0 cc UJ ur- X X + X + + XX 4.4. 4. XX'A +++ + + + + + C; X XX XXXX XXX It X C!. C21 Cm C!* Do 6.00 1 00 Ii.00 214.00 30.00 3@. 00 ili. 00 -11a. 00 TIME (ORT31 8U5H RIVER 3PHING 19?2 BOX3 X MaDeL ALFHA=0.0 + maoft ALFMR=.75 0 FIELD DATA Figure 7. Predicted and Treasured dye concentrations in Box 3, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 18 STEROY 5TA7E (2. 15 PP61 ALPHR =0.75 - -------------- C14 3TERDY 5TATE (1-92 PPS) qLPHO =0.00 - ------------------------ La IL z MCM LU w it X X++ + Cm X + X 'C X X + X X X 4 X X XX X C4 00 Ii.00, 18100 ?4. 00 3b. Ou 3@. 00 tl@. 00 tLb. 00 TIME (DAY51 Rush RIVER 5FRING 1972 BOX4 X MeOEL QLFHAzO.U HOCEL ALPhflz.75 a FIELD OqTA Figure 8. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 4, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 19 Ln LM 6-1 zl@. 27 ------------------------ 3TCPOY-5TqTE- (1.17 - rr5j --- RLP@!R -=O 7.5 10 C3 ------------------------ STFPOY -5TATF- -C 1 .05- ppa) --- ALPHA-=0.0.0 cc UJ WS X + + X X X + + C2 X + W X + + + + CM X X X + X X WS C;- C3 0 I'A 00 6'.00 li.00' IKOO 24.00 3b. 00 @i. 00 UK Do 7a. 00 TIME (OAY3) 5U3H RIVER 5PRING 1972 OOX5 X MGDEL ALFHA=O.a + M80EL ALFHS=.75 FIELO GATR Figure 9. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 5, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 20 C3 C* U2 Ln -W2 Cm cc cc 3TESOY STATE (0.80 PP5' RLPHA =0.75 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3 T_@@T* 10. 71 PF'51 ALPHF; =Q. 00 JJATE -------------------- ---------------------------- X 4- 4- X X XXX + + 4- V XX X X Ca C' 'b oo 6'.00 [email protected] 1;.00 24'.00 1b.00 [email protected] 4,2.00 %Ia. 00 TIME (OAY31 BUSH RIVER 5PRING 1972 813X6 * MaDEL RLFHA=0.0 * MaGEL ALPHA=.75 40 FIELa DATA Figure 10. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 6, Bush River (Spring, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 21 C3 wo WS CD C* 3TEROY STSTE (1.02 PF53 RLF41R =0.75 ------------------------ ------------------------------------------- I. , Cr Ur- C, 3TEACT 5TRTE (0.36 FP5) RLPHA =0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+;+ 4- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + * + + 4- + + + + + + + + + XCXXXXXXXXX"XXX ++ X X + +XX XWXXXXXXXXS 00 6.00 12.00 [email protected] 24.00 16.00 36.00 %12.00 qu. 00 TIME (ORT5) OU3H RIVER FALL 1972 BOX1 X MEL ALPMR=O. 0 + MEL RLPHR=.75 0 FIELO OATA Figure 11. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 1, Bush River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 22 3TEROY 3TRTE (1.18 PrO) ALPHA =0.75 ------------------------------------------------------------------ cc ujws 3TEADY STATE (0.59 Pr8) ALPHA 0.00 --------------------- ------------------------------------------- Ca r. + XXXXX'C +++++ XXX X X XXX + + + + + + C;- XKX1fiXXXXXX0 C@ 'D. DO a. DO 12.00 Ii. Do 24.00 .3b. 00 1@. Do q@-00 46.00 TIME WAY31 BON RIVER FALL 1972 80X2 X MODEL ALFHA=C.O + MODEL RLPHS=.75 0 FIELD OATR Figure 12. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 2, Bush River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 23 La --------------------- --STEPOT -!TATE--( 1. 41- PF8)---- ALPHA-=0.7.5 _Ln CD CM cc ----------------------- 3 T E R 0 T -3 T R T F_ AL P H R0 0.0 ur, **K 9XXX 4.+ C;_ X ++ X ++ X Xx + ++ 4' 4, XX0 +4'4-++++ X " C; + + + XXXXX:XXXXXUft t + C, 5100 [email protected] 15.00 142.00 %Ia. 00 TIME EOAY31 8U5H RIVER FRLL 1972 8QX3 X maum ALFMA=O. 0 + MaDEL ALFMA=.75 0 FIELO aArR Figure 13. Predicted and measu--ed dye concentrations in Box 3, Bush River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 24 ------------------------ 3TESOT-3TRTE-(I.77-FP8) --- RLPHR-=0.7.5 La ------------------------ 3TE90T -3TRTE-(1.42-pp5) SLPMA-=O.Q.O ..'CM cc X + + + X + X 4- 4.+ X X + + ++ X XX X + + + + X X it X Cb XX 6,00 1-0.00 24.00 Sb. 00 00 4i. 00 116.00 TIME (DAY!I, 8U3H RIVER FALL 19?2 X macEL ALPMA=0.0 + MaGEL ALPMA=.75 FIELO ORTA Figure 14. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 4, Bush ',River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 25 'Elm 9TEROY STATE (1.00 FPS) ALPHA =0.75 ---------------------- ------------------------------------------- cc 3TEAOY STATE (0.80 PP83 RLPHA =0.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------ C@- X X + X X 00 6.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 36.00 zi. 00 %Ii. 00 00 TIME (ORT3) 8USH RIVER FALL 1972 BOX5 X MaGEL ALFHA=Q.0 + MaGEL ALFMA=.79 0 FIELO ORTA Figure 15. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 5, Bush River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 26 C* W3 IX '0 U1 3TESOT 3TSTE 10.66 PF8! ALPHP.=0.75 ------------------------ L-------- -------------------------- 3 T ES 0 Y 3 T A T E 0 . 5 3- 10 P 0 ALFHA -zO. 0.0 Ca man Q 1@. 00 10.00 24. 00 1b. 00 142.00 .00 TIME (ORY33 8U5H RIVER FALL 1972 8OX8 X MOM ALPHA=0.0 + MEL RLFHA=.75 0 FIELD DATA Figure 16. Predicted and measured dye concentrations in Box 6, Bush .L River (Fall, 1972); solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. 27 From (1) and (2) we have that (Di qd/QC(Cd 1 (3) In our case, we assign the following values to ecuation (3): q 0 (spring), and d = 5.163 pounds days 4.25 pounds days-' (fa.11). Qc = TOOO gallons min-1 we ex-oress (C d)i in parts per billion, equation (3) may be written as 61.438/(c for spring conditions, and (4a) d 50-525/(C for fall condition's. (4b) d i which are the recuired relations for scaling dye concentrations to dilution ratios. That is, on the figures a segment concentration of 1 ppb represents a dilution ratio of 1 to 61.4 at high flow and 1 to 50.5 at low flow. 'A 28 III. A One Dimensional Transient State Model of Romney Creek Although the Perryman site of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is on the Bush River, it is also in close proximity to Romney Creek. See Figures 1 and 2. Therefore, any evaluation of the Perryman site must also consider the potential of Romney Creek as a receiver of cooling water blowdown from the proposed plant. There are several features of Romney Creek that make it an attractive alternative to the Bush River as a receiver of the plant's wastes. First of all, it, is close enough to the site so that piping the blowdown to the creek is economically feasible. Secondly, it lies entirely within the boundaries of the U.S. Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground and hence is closed to the public. Furthermore, it is quite likely to remain closed in the foreseeable future since, according to the Army, its bottom is liter- ally covered with unexploded ordnance. As a result, its potential as a recreational area for the public is essentially nil. In view of the foregoing, BG&E arranged with the U.S. Army for Hydrocon personnel to collect salinity data for eight consecutive days commencing on 1-1 November 19T2 for the purpose of constructing a simple one-dimensional transient state model of Romney Creek similar to that described in Section II for the Bush River. Data were collected at the six stations marked on Figure 17 during the very early morning hours, i.e., prior to 0700, in order to avoid interference with weapons testing. Since the approach was basically identical to that utilized in the con- struction of the Bush River model, details will not be repeated here; the reader is referred to Hydrocon Report entitled "A One Dimensional Segmented Transient State Model of Romney Creek," Reference 110C, February 1973, It N 1/2 0 1 MILE t SEWAGE4 t F1 SEGMENT BOUNDARIES -- OUTFALL -N- SAMPLING STATIONS 6 POVERTY ISLAND BRI DGE RC5 C) 5 @':RC4 cul k -e- )k- C', cmb 3 AL 4 RC3 onocacy )1Z RCI RCO Taylor Is. Point 7601 76012 30' Figure 17. Romney Creek silowing :Location of segment bounaaries nnd samplitil, stations. (Reprinted with permission of BG&E) 30 was not possible to verify the model by means of a dye tracer experiment; verification consisted of integrating the transport and continuity equa- tion sets in time, to ensure that the measured salinity distribution was predictable from the initial conditions, the daily run-off, and the salinity at the mouth. The landward limit of the model was taken at the Poverty Island Bridge. The exchange here was assumed to be entirely fresh water run-off from the 13.2 square mile drainage area. The creek is not gauged, however, so that was necessary to estimate the fresh water run-off by converting mean daily discharges from Winter's Run to cfs per square mile of drainage area. This factor was then multiplied by 13.2 to provide the required estimate. An additional 3.9 cfs was assumed to enter box 6 from the Harford County Treat- ment Plant (see Figure q17). The k ij 's obtained are listed below in Table 2. TABLE 2 Volume Exchange Rates (k qiqj (cubic feet per second) koi = 3100 k1o = 3121 kiz = 320 kzj = 341 k23 = 16o k3Z = 181 k34 = 99 k43 = 120 k4q5 = 35 kq54 = 56 kS6 = 7 kqsqs = 28 In order to directly compare the two bodies of water as receivers of waste, the April 1972 dye experiment of 5.168 pounds per day of dry Rhodamine 31 WT was numerically injected into segment 6 of the Romney Creek model by integrating the transport and continuity equation sets. R was set at 21 cfs and the initial concentrations at zero. Ot, the ratio of the incoming Bay water concentration to that in box 1, was estimated to be 0.5. After 14 days and 8 hours, the dye source was terminated and the integration continued for another 35 days. Figures 18 through 23 show the resulting concentrations in the various segments as functions of time. The steady state values shown in the figures were obtained by setting the time de- rivatives in the equation sets equal to zero and solving the resulting system. As might have been expected, the predicted concentrations are generally larger in Romney Creek than in the Bush River with the steady state condi- tion being appproached much more rapidly. In Romney Creek, nearly all segments were in steady state when the dye source was terminated; in the Bush River, less than 50% of steady state values had been achieved at the time the dye source was shut off. A segment by segment comparison of the steady state dye concentrations for the two systems for a source strength of 5.168 pounds per day of tracer is shown in Table 3, below. TABLE 3 Steady State Dye Concentrations for Bush R. and Romney Cr. Concentrations in ppb SEGMENT Bush River Romney Creek 1 o.62 o.6o 2 1.24 3.4o 3 2.02 8.4 4 2.15 (source box) 15.0 5 1.17 26.6 6 0.80 41.5 (source box) 32 ------------------------ 5TEROT-5TRTE--(0.6-PP6) 4 + z + 4. + + + z + + z + + + + +++* . . . . . . . . . . . . .i1+ o o .00 12.00 18.00 214.00 31C. CC 316.00 42.00 CC TIME (ORTS@ Figure 18. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in -S e--ent 1(crosses) for P @ I .1yPothetical source of 5.!68 lbs day- of d--[ dye -in Segment 1; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. (Reprinted oi th permission of BG&E) V STEPOT 3TRTE (3.4 PPS) ----------------------------------------------------------------- + + Z: U.J + + + + + U ++ + ++ + + + + + 4- + + + + + + + 6'.00 12.00 18.00 24 - 00 30.00 36.00 42-00 43.00 TIME (ORTS) Figure 19. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in Segment 2 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day-1 of dry dye in Segment 2; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. (Reprinted with perviission of BG&E) 3 o- L.Lj STEqDT STATE (8.4 PPS) ---------------------------------------------- ------------------- 4.*+++. CD + + + ++ CD + + @ + I 'b" oo 6"00 1 @. 00 1,8.00 24.00 30.00 36.00 42.0; 418.+00 TIME (OATS) Figure 20. Predicted dye concentration in prb in Segment 3 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 libs day- of dry dye in Segment 3; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. t.Heprsnt-ed 12ith per--7ission of 3G&E) CD CD CLC=- afn CC - ------------------------ STEROT -STATE--( 15. 0- PPS) ---------------- 'Z 0 4 + + Wo + + + Cr_ (j + + + zC;_ ++ + U + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + 01+ + + + * + + + '0'.00 6.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 3b. 00 36.00 42.00 48.00 TIME (OATS) Figure 21. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in Segment 4 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day-' of dry dye in Segment 4; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. (Reprinted zoith permission of BG&E) 34 Com- -- ------------------------ STEROY _5TRTE-_(_26. 6- PP-6) ---------------- z C:, + + + + + 0 C) + rr + Z: LL; U LJ + CD + + 00 00 6.00 1 00 !8.00 24.00 '140.00 36.00 42. 00' 48. 00 TIME (ORTS) Figure 22. Predicted dye concentration in -omb in Segment 5 (crosses) for a hypothAetical source of 5.168 1@s day-' of dry dye in Segment 5; solid vertical line is ti- dye source was terminated.' (Reprinted with permission of BG&E) STEROT STRTE (41.5 PPS) ------------------ ---------------------------------------------- + + + + + Cn Z,, z U Z!@- Lj + + 1 ++++++++++,@,,__ , @ -t + 00 6.00 1 00 18.00 24-00 30.00 3@, 00 4'2. 00 48.00 TIME (ORTS) Figure 23. Predicted dye concentration in ppb in S?gment 6 (crosses) for a hypothetical source of 5.168 lbs day- of drr dye in Segment 6; solid vertical line is time dye source was terminated. (Reprinted with permission of BG&E) W. 35 The values listed for the Bush River are, of course, the spring exchanges and for an a of 0.75. The proper scaling factor for the Romney Creek results shown in Figures 18 - 23 and Table 3, above is equation 4a. That is LL dilution = (Di 61.438/(Cd)i (' a) If the contaminant in question is excess heat, then the results obtained in Sections 11 and III should be corrected for suz-face cooling. To illustrate the order of magnitude of the cooling corrections, the Romney Creek model was run with a cooling term for the following conditions: Qc = 7800 gallons per 41inute %@C;t AT = 200F Tn = 70OF = 10OF W = 0 and 10 miles per hour where AT is the excess temperature of the blowdown, Tn is the assumed ambient water temperature of a given segment under natural conditions, e is the excess temperature of a given segment or that part of the measured temperature of the segment due to the plant, and W is the wind velocity. The model is then run with a heat source, Qh, equal to Qc AT P c p together with a cooling terms, -AiYei where y is the surface cooling coeffi- cient and Ai the surface area of the ith segment. According to Pritchard s See D.W. Pritchard and H.H. Carter (1965), "On the prediction of the distribu- tion of excess temperature from a heated discharge in an estuary," CBI Tech. Rept. No. 33. Ref. 65-1. 36 (unpublished notes), the value of y under the conditions assumed is 0.0183 feet hour- I for W = 0 and 0.102 feet hour- 1 for W = 10 miles per hour. The resulting excess temperatures for the various segments of Romney Creek for the three conditions, i.e., y = 0, and y for W = 0 and W = 10 miles Der hour are listed in Table 4 below. TABLE 4 Excess Temperatures in Romney Creek under Various Cooling Conditions Excess Temperature in OF Cooling Condition SEGMENT Y = 0 Y .0183 FT HR-' Y = 0.102 FT HR- 1 0.22 0.05 0.001 2 1.24 0.27 0.008 3 3.03 0.74 0.04 4 5.42 1.64 0.15 5 9.63 4.61 1.01 6 15.00 10.70 4.95 References 37 Hydrocon, Inc. 1972. A one dimensional segmented transient state model of the Bush River estuary. Hydrocon Ref. 110A. Hydrocon, Inc. 1973. A one dimensional segmented transient state model of Romney Creek. Hydrocon Ref. 110C. :'='chard, D.W. and H.H. Carter. 1965. On the prediction of the distri- bution of excess temperature from a heated discharge in an estuary. Chesaapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, Tech. Rept. 33, Ref. 65-1. 3 6668 14103 5420 I i I I I I I